Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MS 16-01; PACIFIC WIND; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR PACIFIC WIND CARLSBAD, CA; 2021-12-20
CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR Pacific Wind GR 2021-0028, ROW 2021-0591 532-9A, 9ENGINEER OF WORK: MICHAEL D. SCHWEITZER, P.E. 59658 PREPARED FOR: Harding Street Neighbors, LP 14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92780 714-228-7600 PREPARED BY: SWS Engineering, Inc. 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200 San Marcos, California 92078 P 760.744.0011 DATE: 10/12/2021 Updated: 12/20/21 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certification Page Project Vicinity Map FORM E-34 Storm Water Standard Questionnaire Site Information FORM E-36 Standard Project Requirement Checklist Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment 1a: DMA Exhibit Attachment 1b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: Pacific Wind Project ID: MS16-01 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. 59658 Ex . 12-31-21 ignature, PE Number & Expiration Date Michael D. Schweitzer Print Name SWS Engineering. Inc. Company 12/20/2021 Date PROJECT VICINITY MAP VICINITY CITY or OCEANSIDE PACIFIC OCEAN MAP CITY or ENCINITAS NOTTO SCALE CITY or VISTA or N MARCOS [Insert City’s Storm Water Standard Questionnaire (Form E-34) here] 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, ‘STANDARD PROJECT’ with TRASH CAPTURE 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: APN: ADDRESS: 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. This Box for City Use Only City Concurrence: YES NO Date: Project ID: By: E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 09/21 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Pacific Wind 204-291-14, 204-291-19 thru 27,204-292-02, 204-292-10 thru 14and 204-292-16 thru 22Harding Street and Carol Place Carlsbad, CA X 199.610 4.58 3.34145,801 C cityof Carlsbad □ □ II E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 09/21 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 6, mark the 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 6, 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 09/21 * 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. 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 6, 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, complete the trash capture questions.. X X X X X X X X X X X □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 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) = 124,631 sq. ft. 1K] Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area(B) = ___ 1_4_5_,8_0_1 ______ sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)*100 = 117 % □ 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 6, check the first box stating, "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BM P's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 6, check the first box stating, "M ro·ect is a PDP ... " and com lete a plicant information. Complete the question below regarding your Standard Project (SDRWQCB Order No. 2017-0077): YES NO Is the Standard Project within any of the following Priority Land Use (PLU) categories? R-23 (15-23 du/ac), R-30 (23-30 du/ac), Pl (Planned Industrial), CF (Community Facilities), GC (General D D Commercial), L (Local Shopping Center), R (Regional Commercial), V-8 (Village-Barrio), VC (Visitor Commercial), 0 (Office), VC/OS (Visitor Commercial/Open Space), Pl/O (Planned Industrial/Office), or Public Trans ortation Station If you answered "yes", the 'STANDARD PROJECT' is subject to TRASH CAPTURE REQUIREMENTS. Go to step 6, check the third box stating, "My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' subject to TRASH CAPTURE REQUIREMENTS ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no", your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT'. Go to step 6, check the second box stating, "My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' ... " and com lete a licant information. STEP6 CMECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFOR~ TION 129 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) per E-35 template for submittal at time of application. 0 My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. 0 My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' subject to TRASH CAPTURE REQUIREMENTS and must comply with TRASH CAPTURE REQUIREMENTS of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a TRASH CAPTURE Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) per E-35A template for submittal at time of application. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply. D My project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Applicant Name: ~:; ~hweitzer Applicant Title: CEO/President Applicant Signatur:~ _ Date: /Z k, /4ili/ ------------I l E-34 Page4 of 4 REV 09/21 SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Summary Information Project Name Pacific Wind Project ID 532-9A, 9 Project Address Harding Street and Carol Place Carlsbad, CA Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) (204-291-14, -19 thru -27), (204-292-02, -10 thru -14,-16 to -22) Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904 Parcel Area __4.8___ Acres (_ 207,781___ Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) __2.9___Acres (__124,631_ Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) __4.58__ Acres (199,505____ Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) _3.34* _Acres (145,696____ Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset of Project Area) ___1.24__ Acres (53,809_ _ Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. *Includes Street Improvement Impervious and replaced impervious 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: the existing project site is developed multiple and single family homes Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): Vegetative Cover Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: existing landscape, buildings, streets and sidewalk, driveways, patios Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): NRCS Type A NRCS Type B NRCS Type C NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): GW Depth < 5 feet 5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet GW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): Watercourses Seeps Springs Wetlands None Description / Additional Information: I I I 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 northern portion of the site currently surface flows toward Harding Street and then travels northerly via Harding St curb and gutter to Magnolia Ave. Then all the runoff travels via cross gutter that slopes westerly across Harding and continues along the south curb and gutter of Magnolia Ave and ultimately will discharge into the existing public storm drain system. The southern portion of the site surface flow in towards Harding St. in southwesterly directions via Harding St curb and gutter towards Jefferson. The runoff then travels northerly in Jefferson St. towards Magnolia Ave and ultimately gets captured via the curb and gutter into storm drain system located along side of coastal Rail Trail prior to discharging into the Ocean. A small portion of the eastern slope drains towards the Cul De sac at Magnolia St. The topography of the site is essentially a flat plain with a slight slope to the west. There is no storm drain system on the site. The site ultimately discharges into Los Monos HSA within the Carlsbad Watershed Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The proposed project is a redevelopment of an existing developed multiple and single family homes located on west of Harding St., east of Jefferson St. and north of Carol Place within the city of Carlsbad, CA. The redevelopment of the site will consist of constructing 87 homes, Parking lots, driveways, associated utilities, open space, treatment basins. Project located on R- 30 per General plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation is RD-M. The total site development area is ±4.5 ac. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): The site impervious feature will be buildings, driveways, parking lots, List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): The site pervious features will be landscape and biofiltration basins Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? Yes No Description / Additional Information: The proposed site will be entirely graded Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? Yes No Description / Additional Information: The site will be entirely graded and storm drain system constructed to discharge the onsite runoff from treatment basins into streets as it does in existing condition. I Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): On-site storm drain inlets Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Interior parking garages Need for future indoor & structural pest control Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service Refuse areas Industrial processes Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Fuel Dispensing Areas Loading Docks Fire Sprinkler Test Water Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots I I 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): List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Los Monos HSA, Carlsbad Stage Beach Trash Identification of Project Site Pollutants Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Pollutant Not Applicable to the Project Site Anticipated from the Project Site Also a Receiving Water Pollutant of Concern Sediment (X) Nutrients (X) Heavy Metals Organic Compounds Trash & Debris (X) Oxygen Demanding Substances (P) Oil & Grease (P) Bacteria & Viruses (P) Pesticides (X) X = Anticipated P = Potential I I Hydromodification Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides. Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): The DMA-1 runoff will drain after the treatment into an existing inlet located on Magnolia Ave via proposed storm drain system and DMA-5 will drain in northerly direction into an inlet located on Magnolia Ave. DMA 3-6 runoff will drain after the treatment onto Carol Place and Jefferson St toward Magnolia Ave which then all the site runoff will discharge into the Ocean via hard surface and storm drain system. Exempt per “Hydromodification Exemption analysis for selected Carlsbad watershed” dated 9/17/15 by Wayne Chang Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas* N\A *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? Yes No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed? 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP. Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion / Additional Information: N/A I Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff* N/A *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Discussion / Additional Information: (optional) Other Site Requirements and Constraints When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or City codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. [Insert City’s Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36 (here)] SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 09/16 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Information Project Name: Project ID: DWG No. or Building Permit No.: Source Control BMPs All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards)for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. x "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. x "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. x "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: Pacific Wind GR 2021-0028, ROW 2021-0591 532-9A, 9 There is no Outdoor Materials Storage Areas C cityof Carlsbad Iii Iii □ □ □ □ □ □ Iii E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09/16 Source Control Requirement (continued) Applied? SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Appendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). On-site storm drain inlets Yes No N/A Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Yes No N/A Interior parking garages Yes No N/A Need for future indoor & structural pest control Yes No N/A Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Yes No N/A Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Yes No N/A Food service Yes No N/A Refuse areas Yes No N/A Industrial processes Yes No N/A Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Yes No N/A Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Yes No N/A Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Yes No N/A Fuel Dispensing Areas Yes No N/A Loading Docks Yes No N/A Fire Sprinkler Test Water Yes No N/A Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Yes No N/A Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots Yes No N/A For “Yes” answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for “No” answers. There is no material stored in outdoor. Inlets: SWPPP, inlets marked with "No Dumping! Flows to Bay" or similar, regular maintenance Pest control: Building design that discourages pest entry, 1PM plan Pesticide use: Landscaping designed/plant selection to minimize need for fertilizers/pesticides Refuse areas: Grading to minimize runoff, provide adequate# of receptacles, regular inspection/repair/trash pick-up Fire sprinkler test water: Drain to sanitary sewer Hardscape/parking lots: Regular sweeping, debris collection to prevent entry into the storm drain system, cleaning agents discharged into sanitary sewer □ □ Iii Iii □ □ Iii Iii □ □ □ □ □ Iii □ □ □ Iii Iii Iii □ □ Iii Iii □ □ □ □ □ Iii □ □ □ Iii Iii Iii □ □ □ □ □ Iii □ □ □ Iii □ □ □ Iii □ □ □ Iii □ □ □ Iii □ □ □ Iii Iii Iii □ □ □ □ □ Iii Iii Iii □ □ E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design BMPs All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. x "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. x "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. x "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be provided. Site Design Requirement Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: The project entire site will be rough grading I I Iii ID ID lo lo I Iii I Iii lo lo I Iii ID ID I Iii ID ID E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design Requirement (continued) Applied? SD-6 Runoff Collection Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: The project site is not feasible for Harvesting and Using precipitation. See Form I-7 in Attachment 1C I I Iii lo lo I Iii ID ID ID ID I Iii PDP Structural BMPs All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual). Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP). Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated together or separate. The entire site will be graded and infiltration basins will be used for site treatment. The street improvement will be treated by Tree Wells: The following are the steps taken to do the calculations: 1. DCV calcs for each DMA using the SD County Worksheet B.1 2. Retention req’d calcs for each DMA using Worksheet B.2 3. Calculation of WQ depth, drawdown time for basin surface, using Nomograph if drawdown time is over 36 hrs, calcs of WQ Average Area assuming there would be also infiltration on the side slope (see the calculation on Attachment 1b. DMA-1 (INF-1: Infiltration) DMA-2 (INF-1: Infiltration) DMA-3 (INF-1: Infiltration) DMA-4a (INF-1: Infiltration) DMA-4b (INF-1: Infiltration) DMA-: One (1) Tree Wells DMA-7: One (1) Tree Wells (SWAP) DMA 5 and 8 are will not be treated and in exchange the DMA-7 will be treated (SWAP option) DMA 9 is De minimis are since the area is less than 250 sf that will not be captured to be treated. [Continue on next page as necessary.] [Continued from previous page – This page is reserved for continuation of description of general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site.] Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. IMP-1 DWG 532-9A , 9_________ Sheet No. _4, 5, 8 & 9_________ Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Two Tree Wells will be implemented as site design (SD-1) for the treatment of streets improvement. Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. IMP-2 DWG 532-9A , 9_________ Sheet No. _4,5,8 & 9_________ Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): IMP#2 will drain into IMP#3 via proposed pipe and spillway which comingle with the Qs from IMP#3 prior to discharging on the Jefferson street via two (2) curb outlet. Two Tree Wells will be implemented as site design (SD-1) for the treatment of streets improvement. I Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. IMP-3 DWG 532-9A , 9_________ Sheet No. _4, 5, 8 & 9_________ Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): IMP#2 will drain into IMP#3 via proposed pipe and spillway which comingle with the Qs from IMP#3 prior to discharging on the Jefferson street via two (2) curb outlet. Two Tree Wells will be implemented as site design (SD-1) for the treatment of streets improvement. I Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. IMP-4 (a) DWG 532-9A , 9_________ Sheet No. _4, 5, 8 & 9_________ Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Two Tree Wells will be implemented as site design (SD-1) for the treatment of streets improvement. I Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. IMP-4 (b) DWG 532-9A , 9_________ Sheet No. _4, 5, 8 & 9_________ Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Two Tree Wells will be implemented as site design (SD-1) for the treatment of streets improvement. I ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Sequence Contents Checklist Attachment 1a DMA Exhibit (Required) See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24”x36” Exhibit typically required) Included Attachment 1b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA Area, and DMA Type (Required)* *Provide table in this Attachment OR on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a Included on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a Included as Attachment 1b, separate from DMA Exhibit Attachment 1c Form I-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist (Required unless the entire project will use infiltration BMPs) Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form I-7. Included Not included because the entire project will use infiltration BMPs Attachment 1d Form I-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Required unless the project will use harvest and use BMPs) Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form I-8. Included Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines Included Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The DMA Exhibit must identify: Underlying hydrologic soil group Approximate depth to groundwater Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) Existing topography and impervious areas Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite Proposed grading Proposed impervious features Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP) I I I I DATE: Dec 20, 21 5:18pm by:massy.fatini FILE:Z:\Projects\2021\21-119\PROD\Reports\SWQMP\21-119_DMA Map-DMA.dwg DMA MAP PACIFIC WIND APARTMENTS FOR LEGEND SANTA FEBLVDLA COSTA AVE RANCHOREA L CANNON PALOMAR CARLSBADAVIARA PK W Y . AIRPO R T INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 78 RD. EL CA M I N O ROA D ROAD ALGA ROAD SCALE NOT TOCOLLEGEBL.COLLEGEBLVD.CITf H./" ID I II f -1 I I If IIIF , .. , L ,-,j l!f k 1II,L 11 [l/[R~=1.Ic, UX:i I\ L'.J I I A-<EA ('.~:,F·: . ?-,53 74D 11/i II; /I 11 i i i II: A, 11/A 1111 Lll'L IU I AU I 1 'I : 2·1" ,j .//. /j / /; 1,1 /; I; A 11 1 A I\ F L T=c UU L I ·1 - I,f P H ( c,F; -IJ )L 1lr'E 1llli ·10 j'i II/A ~ 1,J,iA. 11/:1 11;: II/: 111 ," II;" -... ' ,, ~-I,' L [[:::;T :111 [, ,5111 TCP I J P I f- 1I1 ' Hi!IICli H i1TIJI 1,0, '.I ;s, .-JVFF'F CJ\// c; I :uc IU'L I ·- - L; [\JI I ) -;j_ :o r:co.,, 1 \,. ,__,, i' i" -. I 'i ,,, '._'' .' ·J'.)/1 '' 1 91 1,4'F /j / i ,1;: ;, I: ·"· I : c 1;:1 1.1\/E 1-: -r:c11 c:--1 PC, I IJ:V('.I. 1121 -------------.. _ ,:UTIFT F' =T L' ~; I 1.1~; "_;1.';_!U I_; lif rR:: ;l-!ED :: :~ r :: ,, I ; j:i ii// [L[i;A ICIII FTi ILF/TIOII i.C LI c,p Gr :'CRli f 1/A I I J.j (FT) 1-i 1 J ·~''.J l "l?CJ:IC ~ Hff H(:L-f'IJ 11111 ' i I, I I 1: - I· , ~ (,:,;,J CULT Pl' 1 -l 4A.+4B 6 f-'. _I ='E1'-7 /~;,61 ~-~ L,\4.')C: 41 :, \1_)r-!\' :, MT L, (Sr) . -:_1--/l-'.rUJ\/J c1 FV .'U Ti j Lill IIJF' b ·;1. i:1 C,J.S1 C,'J. IJ n u ICC ICC ICC ICC E c L [ F [) Ii/ [ CJlj Iii [ 1\.F I T F)E I_ c•• i -·· I : 1 1\ 1 : I-1 ,-, \ \ / ,., I I I 111 r;RAI '-jli_ 1/_Llc I I UI\/I NclCHED R,J. nrr :)JLI I 1: _: I ( C i:i / C.tJ / C:,(; / =,4:11 1.4'! / 22,1 I !',ii Vi I 111 1 '.-" _I 1_/ PE/TIVE · 1,Y',-EH 1.-ILI-IAI IJI; 1."11 PATCII Ii "IL PA.T Cil. I "II PA.T,-11; o ~r 1<-µ._ --· C ' I 'I '..1./,''.,/ ),, P Tr'[[ W[LL TREE WELL 11 -Jf f'-h -IJ- [;[ 11; 11I1·:IIS - I :, IET 1)FiC>TECTE=1 I.[ II\I T - p CITY OF OCEAl<SIDE p 'II IC J= c_c I (RECOMMENDED) FOLD LINER 6" AT BACK OF SIDEWALK R/W ·-,f·. ' .'fl .· ROOT CONTR BARRIER P[R SDRSD L-06 #4x8" SMOOTH DOWELS @ 18~ 0. C, GREASED ON ON[ END. TYP. ALL SIDES fXISTIN(> SIDEWALK L CITY OF VISTA '~ I J I OF M.ARCOS CITY OF E~.ICINIT.l',S REPLACED smEWAU< ROOT CONTROL BARR!ER PER SDRSD L-06 18" WID(:; CURB CUT SECTION B-8 PER GS-5.01 PLAN VIEW ~EXISTING SURFACE 30 MIL PLASTIC LINER LIMllS Of ROOTING SOIL PER DESIGN PLANS REPLACE SIDEWALK AS NECESSARY FOR EXPANDED STRUCTURAL SOIL VOLUME 30 MIL PLASTIC LINER EXPANSION JOINT, PER L-OJ -,yp. ALL SIDES #4 @ 18" O.C. BOTH WAYS EXISTING SIDEWALK NOTES: _1 OO FOR ALL DETAILS NOT ShOWN HERE. 1. REFER TO GS ~E PER DESIGN PLANS. 2 TREE SIZE & T , "."fr.Km BY:~ SAN DIEGO COUN TY DESIGN )RJ.\'W 8Yc, N\'11) Ln STANDARD ORIGINAL 10-()l-2079 li1:C(MllNOC!l Bi' CHAR'.~-~~LOCK. P.E. APPR0\1:D BY CCUNTY E~GINEER ~[:3115/21 "I.I' llAlol p MIJl!~Ml. c.l. Ki:.E. Nil 49452, O:P S/Yl/,02' REVl~ED I 03-0B-2~Z1 SMALL TREE WELL DRA\\1NG GS-1.01 NUMBER I·.J T '· SWS ENGINEERIN?, !u::S: • LAND PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEER.ING ' 0 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, SU1te 20 San Marcos, CA 92018 P: 760-144,0011 F: 760-144-0046 Category #Description i ii iii iv v vi Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA-1 DMA-2 DMA-3 DMA-4 DMA-6 DMA-7 unitless 2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 inches 3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 20,911 52,933 31,817 19,891 sq-ft 4 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft 5 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft 6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft 7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14) 8,962 22,686 13,636 8,525 sq-ft 8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23)sq-ft 9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft 10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No Yes Yes yes/no 11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) 5,058 3,609 sq-ft 12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft 13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft 14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft 15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft 16 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft 17 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft 18 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A 1 1 # 19 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter 25 25 ft 20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E # 21 Average Rain Barrel Size gal 22 Total Tributary Area 29,873 75,619 45,453 28,415 5,058 3,609 sq-ft 23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 unitless 24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 unitless 25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.90 0.90 unitless 26 Initial Design Capture Volume 984 2,491 1,497 936 224 160 cubic-feet 27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 00005,058 3,609 sq-ft 28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 000000sq-ft 29 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio 30 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio 31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.90 0.90 unitless 32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 984 2,491 1,497 936 224 160 cubic-feet 33 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0000290290cubic-feet 34 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 000000cubic-feet 35 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 unitless 36 Final Effective Tributary Area 20,015 50,665 30,454 19,038 0 0 sq-ft 37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0000290290cubic-feet 38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 984 2,491 1,497 936 0 0 cubic-feet False False Automated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0) Dispersion Area, Tree Well & Rain Barrel Inputs (Optional) Standard Drainage Basin Inputs Results Tree & Barrel Adjustments Initial Runoff Factor Calculation Dispersion Area Adjustments No Warning Messages Category #Description i ii iii iv v vi Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA-1 DMA-2 DMA-3 DMA-4 DMA-6 DMA-7 unitless 2 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 inches 3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP Location BBBBBBunitless 4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted unitless 5 Nature of Restriction n/a n/a n/a n/a Soil Type Soil Type unitless 6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no 7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stories Proposed? No No No No No No yes/no 8 Has Geotechnical Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no 9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.850 0.350 0.350 0.350 0.850 0.850 in/hr 10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.850 0.350 0.350 0.350 0.850 0.850 in/hr 11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 80.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 80.0% 80.0% percentage 12 Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.99 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.99 0.99 ratio 13 Required Retention Volume 974 797 479 300 0 0 cubic-feet False False Automated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0) Advanced Analysis Basic Analysis Result No Warning Messages Drawdown Time and Req'd WQ area Cacls (With Nomograph factor) Basin ID Basin Bottom Area (sf) WQ Depth (IN) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Drawdown T (hrs)* DCV (cf) Nomograph % Frachtion ** WQ Req'd Ave Area (sf) *** Provided Ave Area (sf) IMP‐1 317 27.8 0.85 32.71 984 1 424 609 IMP‐2 1,388 18.0 0.35 51.43 2491 1.2 1993 3157 IMP‐3 740 31.2 0.35 89.14 1497 1.6 921 1377 IMP‐4a 176 18.0 0.35 51.43 272 * IMP‐4b 520 24.0 0.35 68.57 587 * WQ area for basin 4 used the nomograph calculated for 4a (18" depth) to be more conservative * Drawdown time = WQ Depth/ Infiltration rate ** See Following pages *** WQ Req Ave Area = (DCV x Fraction) / WQ Depth 936 7491.2 Trash Capture Design: C I (in) A (ac) Q = CIA (cfs) BMP ID Treatment flow (cfs) Bypass Flow (cfs) IMP1 0.67 0.2 0.69 0.092 BC‐CG‐4 1.53 ‐ IMP2 0.67 0.2 1.74 0.233 BIO‐GRATE‐FULL‐12‐12‐12 0.97 1.55 IMP3 0.67 0.2 1.24 0.166 BIO‐GRATE‐FULL‐12‐12‐12 0.97 1.55 IMP4 0.67 0.2 0.45 0.060 BIO‐GRATE‐FULL‐12‐12‐12 0.97 1.55I I I I I I Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B-33 The City of San Diego | Storm Water Standards | October 2018 Edition Part 1: BMP Design Manual Figure B.4-1: Percent Capture Nomograph DMA - 2 100% ~ j ~ L...---------r 90% ~ ,r I.,,,,,,,----~ i----l I ~ 1-----J"'li /"' v-~,,,. • ~ ~ ---i----_-,A / _.... ~ -- 80% cu lo, :, ..., 70% a.. ,a u ..., C 60% cu u lo, cu Q. 50% ,a :, C C 40% ct: cu bO ,a 30% lo, 1 20% , ~ " /,,,. ,,,. ,,, .,h"" L.,..--1 r------J L...---" / ~v V / l/ ,,,., ~ ~ I""'"" .J IY , / / / ,,,.,,,.,,,,,,. ~ _..,, ' ,.J ..J' ~ I )• / ',,) ~ ......... T ..J' ,,,.,,,,,,., I I )' V ../ /r-,,,. ,,,., Drawdown ~ , / J~ V / Time J ' I I I I V / V ~6Hour I I I/ / / ~ L.,.. ~12Hour I ) •1 ) '/ V ~24Hour ◄! I I ,'/J (/4 I-' / ' , I r/2-36 Hour .{I'/~ V ~48Hour lf-~72Hour -6-96 Hour 10% ~ 120 Hour ',I I 0% I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Fraction of Design Capture Volume SD~ Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B-33 The City of San Diego | Storm Water Standards | October 2018 Edition Part 1: BMP Design Manual Figure B.4-1: Percent Capture Nomograph DMA - 3 100% ~ j ~ I L...---------r 90% ~ ,r I.,,,,,,,----~ i----l I ~ 1-----J"'li /"' v-~...-• ~ ~ ---i----_-,A / _.... ~ -- 80% cu lo, :, ..., 70% a.. ,a u ..., C 60% cu u lo, cu Q. 50% ,a :, C C 40% ct: cu bO ,a 30% lo, 1 20% , ~ " ,.,,,,...-,,,. ,,, .,h"" ----" r------J ~ ~ / ~v V /l_/ ~ ~ ~ I""'"" .J IY , / / ~ ,,,.,,,.,,,...-~ _..,, ' ,.J ..J' ~ I )• / ',,) ~ ......... T ..J' ,,,.,,,,,,., I I )' V ../ /r-,,,. ,,, I rawdown ~ Time , / J~ V / J ' I I I I V / V ~6Hour I I I/ / / ~ L.,.. l-.12 Hour I ) •1 ) '/ V !-il-24 Hour ◄! I I ,'/J (/4 I-' / ' , I r/2-36 Hour .{I'/~ V -~48Hour lf-, <:r72 Hour , -6-96 Hour 10% ~ 120 Hour ',I I 0% I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Fraction of Design Capture Volume SD~ Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B-33 The City of San Diego | Storm Water Standards | October 2018 Edition Part 1: BMP Design Manual Figure B.4-1: Percent Capture Nomograph DMA - 4 100% ~ j ~ L...---------r 90% ~ ,r I.,,,,,,,----~ i----l I ~ 1-----J"'li /"' v-~,,,. • ~ ~ ---i----_-,A / _.... ~ -- 80% cu lo, :, ..., 70% a.. ,a u ..., C 60% cu u lo, cu Q. 50% ,a :, C C 40% ct: cu bO ,a 30% lo, 1 20% , ~ " /,,,. ,,,. ,,, .,h"" L.,..--1 r------J L...---" / ~v V / l/ ,,,., ~ ~ I""'"" .J IY , / / / ,,,.,,,.,,,,,,. ~ _..,, ' ,.J ..J' ~ I )• / ',,) ~ ......... T ..J' ,,,.,,,,,,., I I )' V ../ /r-,,,. ,,,., Drawdown ~ , / J~ V / Time J ' I I I I V / V ~6Hour I I I/ / / ~ L.,.. ~12Hour I ) •1 ) '/ V ~24Hour ◄! I I ,'/J (/4 I-' / ' , I r/2-36 Hour .{I'/~ V ~48Hour lf-~72Hour -6-96 Hour 10% ~ 120 Hour ',I I 0% I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Fraction of Design Capture Volume SD~ 1.Is there a demand for harvested water ( check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present duringthe wet season?D Toilet and urinal flushingD Landscape irrigationD 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 providedin Section B.3.2.3.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 c:::> Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm that DCV can be used at an adequate rate to meet drawdown criteria. 36.Is the 36 hour demand greater than0.25DCV but less than the full DCV?□Yes / □No c:::> Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to determine feasibility. Harvest and use may only be able to be used for a portion of the site, or ( optionally) the storage may need to be upsized to meet long term capture targets while draining in longer than 36 hours. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? D Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. □No, select alternate BMPs.1-26 3c. Is the 36 hour demand less than 0.25DCV? □Yes,().Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. February 2016 Form I-7 Harvesting and Use is considered to be Infeasible 5,908 DCV (DMA) = 5,908 cf (DMA 1) 5,908 cf >151 cf 0 . 2 5 DCV= 1,477 cf > 894 cf 87 Units x 4.0 Residents/Units = 348 Residents 348 Residents x 9.3 gal./day (Table B3.1) = 3,236 gal/day = 433 cf/day x 1.5 days = 650 cf Moderate Plant Water Use = 1,470 gal / acre / 36 hrs Proposed Planted Area = 1.24 acres 1,470 gal / acre x 1.24 acres / 7.48 gal / cf = 244 cf Attachment 1.C Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist Attachment 1.d Appendix I: Forms and Checklists r:--~•""., ,,,,.,�.,, "'1i:•"'"1.. .,.� -�".'W".'Y?':;;:"''"' '" ,,�/': (' 1•"'.,;�-••. , .. ., � ,.,,,�,,,"',, • .. .;:-� '1,'i-� •7 � t'f'49' -,·Jll\�""it'�:> t , · ,Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility p_;� 1-8 ' ~ Condition , Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Yes [Z] Provide basis: Measured Infiltration Rates: 0.7 in/hr (basins 2-4) and 1.7 in/hr (basin 1) (clear water) Factored Infiltration Rates: 0.35 in/hr, 0.85 in/hr (FS=2.0) see Geotechnical Reports by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. Dated July 31, 2014 and June 23, 2015 No 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. [Z] Provide basis: Provided the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Reports by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. dated July 31, 2014 and November 11, 2021 are adhered to during construction. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 1-3 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteri a 3 Screening Question Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Yes No X Provide basis: Fine soils are present. Infiltration rates of 0.35 in/hr and 0.85 in/hr won't increase the risk of groundwater contamination or cause any water balance issues. Ground water depth is at 21 feet (>10 feet from bottom of basin profile).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. X Provide basis: Fine soils are present. Infiltration rates of 0.35 in/hr and 0.85 in/hr won't increase the risk of groundwater contamination or cause any water balance issues. Project site drainage ultimately flows to storm drain not to ephemeral stream. Suitable for preventing ground water contamination.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 inthe MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.1-4 February 2016 Full infiltration is feasible Fine soils are present. Infiltration rates of 0.35 in/hr and 0.85 in/hr won't increase the risk of groundwater contamination or cause water balance issues. Project site drainage ultimately flows to storm drain not to ephemeral stream. Ground water depth is at 21 feet (>10 feet from bottom of basin profile) which is suitable for preventing ground water contamination. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists -,, / YI(,� ... � "" f1"' '\. � -'fe,' < )<( ... i! 'f's'.''.�?f�'PM'� ' :t4.V }f ;/(" v "' )l 'l � ? f ~ •• • W ( "(; ;J' it�. ,,r f > .,• , .. ,,-!1!'! Form 1:s Page 3 of 4 " ', . .. l Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria 5 Screening Question Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Yes [Z] Provide basis: Measured Infiltration Rates: 0.7 in/hr (basins 2-4) and 1.7 in/hr (basin 1) (clear water) Factored Infiltration Rates: 0.35 in/hr, 0.85 in/hr (FS=2.0) see Geotechnical Reports by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. Dated July 31, 2014 and June 23, 2015 No 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. [Z] Provide basis: Provided the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Reports by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. dated July 31, 2014 and November 11, 2021 are adhered to during construction. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 1-5 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria 7 Screening Question Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, 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: Fine soils are present. Infiltration rates of 0.35 in/hr and 0.85 in/hr won't increase the risk of groundwater contamination or cause any water balance issues. Yes No X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Part2 Result* If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP inthe MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.1-6 February 2016 XProvide 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. Fine soils are present. Infiltration rates of 0.35 in/hr and 0.85 in/hr won't increase the risk of groundwater contamination or cause any water balance issues \\ P. lf'u. o'<' ~ ' "::, NO. 20 30 November 11, 2021 Harding Street Neighbors Project No. 33090.19 14211 Yorba Street Tustin, California 92780 Attention: Mr. Todd Cottle Subject: Response to City Review BMP Comments, Pacific Wind Apartments, Carlsbad, California. As requested by Mr. Matt Spencer with SWS Engineering, Inc., (2021b), we have prepared this letter to address the review comments prepared by the City of Carlsbad regarding the proposed BMP’s. A comment was generated regarding infiltration in areas containing current improvements due to the potential presence of compacted fill underneath these existing improvements. Depths of the proposed BMP’s range from approximately 24 to 37-inches (SWS, 2021a). Based on our previous investigation, existing fill depths range from 1 to 2 feet (LOR, 2014). The proposed BMP’s are anticipated to expose native materials at their proposed depths. However, should fill materials be present at the desired depths, the fill should be removed until native soils are encountered. This will require that we observe the bottom areas proposed for infiltration to confirm that natural soils are present in these areas. Should the resultant grade be undesirable, any materials placed should consist of granular materials which, after placement, have an infiltration rate equal to or greater than that of the native soils previously tested (LOR, 2014 and 2015). A second comment was generated regarding the location of the previous testing with respect to the proposed infiltration areas. Previous infiltration testing consisted of a total of 5 infiltration tests throughout the property (LOR, 2014 and 2015). The currently proposed BMP’s IMP-1 and 4A are located within approximately 100 feet of previous testing while the remaining BMP’s are located very near or within previous testing. It is our opinion that the previous testing is representative for the currently proposed BMP’s. In addition, as recommended above, this firm should observe the bottom areas proposed for infiltration to confirm that natural soils represented by our previous testing are present. 6121 Quail Valley Court • Riverside, CA92507 • (951) 653-1760 • (951) 653-1741 (Fax)• www.lorgeo.com Harding Street Neighbors, LP Project No. 33090.19 November 11, 2021 We trust this information is as requested. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. John P. Leuer, GE 2030 President AAT:JPL:ss Distribution: Addressee via email todd@c-cdev.com Matt Spencer via email matt@sws-engr.com Michael VanBuskirk via email mike@vbkconsult.com 2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. REFERENCES Hetherington Engineering, Inc., 2021, Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First), Pacific Wind, Carol and Harding Neighborhood Redevelopment, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 9486.1, Log No. 21632, dated October 7, 2021. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project, Carlsbad Apartments, APN’s 204-292-01, -02, -10 through -14, -16 through -22, 204-291-14, -16, -17, and -19 through -27, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 33090.1, dated July 31, 2014. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2015, Infiltration Feasibility Investigation, Magnolia Avenue Apartments, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 33090.12, dated June 23, 2015. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2021, Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Pacific Wind Multi-Family Residential Development, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 33090.15, dated June 17, 2021 SWS Engineering, Inc., 2021a, DMA Map for Pacific Wind Apartments, dated October 13, 2021. SWS Engineering, Inc., 2021b, email, dated November 9, 2021. 3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. ( ( ( ( ( ( ( LAKE HENSHAW SUTHERLAND RESERVOIR EL CAPITAN RESERVOIRSAN VICENTE RESERVOIR CUYAMACA RESERVOIR LOVELAND RESERVOIR MORENA RESERVOIR SWEETWATER RESERVOIR BARRETT LAKE LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR LAKE HODGES 1.5 1 1. 2 5 1 1.5 1. 2 5 1 0. 5 0.751.2 5 1 1 0.7 5 0.5 0.5 1 0.75 0.5 0. 7 5 0. 5 10.751 1 11.25 1.5 11. 5 1.5 1.251. 2 5 0 . 7 5 0.5 11 10.75 1 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.751.2 51 0. 7 5 0.75 1.55 1.45 1.4 1.35 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.45 1.35 1.3 1.2 1.15 1.05 0.95 0.85 1. 4 5 1. 3 5 1 . 1 5 1 . 0 5 1. 1 5 0. 8 5 0. 7 0. 6 0. 4 5 1.31.21.050.950.80.651.3 5 1.1 0.85 0.9 1.05 1.15 1.3 1.45 1.4 1. 3 1. 1 5 1. 0 5 0. 9 0.80.70.60.550.8 5 0.65 0.6 0.45 0.4 0. 3 5 0.8 0.6 5 0.6 0.55 0.45 0.4 0.35 1.15 1.1 1.05 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.4 5 0.5 5 0.6 0. 6 5 0.8 0.85 1.150. 7 0. 6 5 0. 6 0. 5 5 0 . 4 5 0.40.950.850.70.650.90. 8 0. 7 1.1 1.05 0.9 5 1.2 1.0 5 0.4 0.650 . 80.85 0 . 70.90.950.650.61.41.31.21.10.90.95 1.1 1.4 1.050.90.650.60.9 0.651.35 1 . 2 1. 3 1.2 1.35 1.15 1.1 1. 0 5 0.90.850.950.85 0.6 0.55 0.8 0.70.5 5 0.8 0.7 0.95 0.8 5 0.8 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.550.450.4 1.050.95 0.850.651.10.90. 9 5 0.8 0.70.850.9 0.951. 1 5 1. 0 5 0.950.950.9 0.8 5 0.7 0. 7 0.65 0.6 0.60.55 1.3 5 1. 1 0.95 0.9 0.9 0.90.85 0.80.551.11.2 0.40.61.15 1.1 1.05 1.05 0.80.81 . 1 51. 2 0.950.950.850.850. 7 0.7 0.65 0.650.6 IN GRAHAM STIMPERIAL AV L S T BROADWAY S EA WOR L D DRP O W A Y R D B A LBOA AV PRIVATE RD PIC A DO R BLLINDA VISTA RDCONVOY STMAI N S T COLL EGE BLC OLLEGE AVPASEO DELICIASCOLLEGE BLHOME AVE ST54 TH STSANTA FE DR M ISSION AVSWEETWATER RDO T AY LAK E S R D C A R L S B A D B L W S A N M A R C O S B L TR O Y STDEER SPR I NGS RDGUM TREE L NJAM A CHA RD54TH STCAM DEL REY CANON ST LA G RANADA CHAMPAGNE B L ORANGE AVTORREY P I NE S RDEL CAJON BL JAMACH A BLHIGHLAND AVN 02ND STCLAIREMONT MESA BL PINE HILLS RDG OPHE R CANYO N RD S K YLIN E DR25TH STJAPATUL RDLILAC RDVALLEY CENTER RD MARKET ST LA CR EST A R D MIRAMAR RD NO R TH HARBOR DR BEAR VALLEY PYE L ST PACIFIC H Y UNIVE R S IT Y AV SUNRISE HY NATIONAL C ITY B L F R IA R S R D OLDE H IG H WAY 8 0 JA C KS O N DR UNIVERSITY AV HIGHLAND V A LLE Y RDFAIRMOUNT AVW MISSION RD R E C H E R D E H ST AVOCADO BLPARAD ISE VA L LEY RD W M AIN ST N SANTA FE AV I-8 BUSIN E S SOL D CASTLE R D CA TALINA BLMONTE VISTA D R N TWIN OAKS VALLEY RDPACIFIC HYEL CAJON BLOLD HI GHWAY 80B A N D Y C A NYON RDENCINITAS BL GENESEE A VN COAST HI GHWA Y 1 0 1 E MISSION RD HARB O R DRBUEN A CREEK RD COLE GRADE RDDEHESA RD HAR B O R D R SUNRISE HY TWIN PEA KS RD S C O A S T H I G H W A Y S GRAD E RDL A COS TA AV S W E E N Y P A S S RD BROA D WAYESPOLA RD N O R T H R IVER R D E ORA N G E A V SAN F ELIPE RD M O UNTAIN V IEW RD EA S T G R A DE RDPOWAY R D PEG LEG RDSCRIPPS POWAY PY TELEGRAPH CANY O N RDMISSION RD G R E A T S TH R N O V R L N D SBO RR EG O SALTON SEAWA S O L D HIGHWAY 395GILMAN DR47TH STMASSACHUSETTS AVNIMI TZ BL KEARNY VILLA RDV I A DE LA V A LL E L A J O L L A BL SAN VIC E NTE RD OLD HIGHWAY 8 0CAM DEL MARN CE N T R E CITY PY S RANCHO SANTA FE RDHILLTOP DRJACKSON D R P O M E R A DO RDPOMERADO RDBONITA RDBUCKMAN SPRINGS RDGREEN CANYON RDYAQUI PASS RDNO R TH TORREY PINES RDCANF IEL D R DS STAGE COACH LNBANCROFT DREUCLID AVW ILLOW GLEN D RN EL CAM REALE VIS TA WYE VI STA WYMONTEZUMA VALLEY R DGIRD RDHARBISON C ANYON RDCAM DEL REY DEL DIOS HYSUNRISE HY S UNRISE HYOTAY ME SA R DDEL DIOS HYOLD HIGHWAY 395P OMER A DO RDBOR R E G O S P R I N G S R D RANCHO SANTA FE RDTED W I LLI AMS PY F RIAR S R DCARLSBAD VILLA G E D R H ST MAIN (SB) ST F STPALOMAR A I RPORT RD IMP E RIAL AV WOODSIDE AVLINEA DEL CIE L O MO N TEZUMA RD PALM (SB) AV N MAGNOL I A A V EL CAJON BL CUYAMACA STS GR ADE R D ADAMS AV P LAZA BLE MISSION RD E MAIN STDOUGLAS DRB E Y E R BL S SANTA F E AV LOS COCHES R D M IS SION GORGE RDPALM CANYON DR G ENE S E E AVS MI SS I ON RDKEARNY VILLA RD04TH AVPARK BLN CEN T R E CITY PY04TH AV OCEAN SID E B L E EL N OR TE P YEL CAM REAL G R A N D AV C AM DEL NORTEW VALLEY PYBROADWAYM A S T BL F L E T CHE R PY NAVAJ O R DE VA LLE Y PYDE L M A R H E IG HTS RD N 01ST STUNIVERSITY AV MERC Y RDCARMEL COUNTRY RD SEVERIN DRJUA N S T GARNET AV STATE ST AERO DR LYTT O N S T SAN ELIJO R D BETSWORTH R D FOOTHILL BL CARMEL VALL EY RDPAS EO DEL N O RTERICHMOND STWI LT RD FRAZ EE RD W FELICITA AV OAK HILL D R DYE RD E G RAN D AVJEFFERSON STP R O SPECT AV W BR A D L EY AVCOUNTRY CLUB LN B A S I L O NE RD LINCOLN AV MADISON AV E WASHINGTON AVMITSCHER WYE B A RHAM DR E WASHINGTON AVBLACK MTN RDW 02N D A VMURRAY RIDGE RDMIDWAY DR S YCAMORE AVMESA RDMISSION BL GOVER N OR DRS A N DIEGO AV N MOLLISON AVCHASE AVJUTLAND DRCHANNEL RDCATALINA BLBACON STFANITA DRMISSI ON VIL L AGE DRBOUNDARY ST O SB ORNE ST AS HFORD STW G R AND AVSORRE N T O VAL L E Y BL W LEWIS ST C ALLE CRISTOB ALW 09T H AV E BRADLEY AV W 13TH AVFALLBROOK RDOAK CREEK DR MEADE AV E CHASE AV PERSHING DR19TH ST VOLTAIRE ST SANDROC K R D S J U NIP E R STMORAG A AVNAUTILU S S T UPAS STCASS STHA RM O N Y GROVE R D LAMONT ST C H A TSWORTH BLVISTA WY MEADE AV 30TH STMAR V IS TA DR ALPINE BLNORDAHL RDMEADE AV UNIVERSITY AVVIA MONSERATE WOODS VALLEY RD GRAVES AVP A LA MISSION RD CARDENO DRLAMONT STLAS PU L G AS RDGARDEN RD MOR E N A BLHARBOR DRPA LA M ESA DR RAINBOW VALLEY BLS DA T E S T W IL L O W S RDN A SH STJUNIP E R S T OL IV E D R LA C O S TA A VZION AV SOR RENTO VALLEY RD W CHASE AV BOR DEN R D M E S A DRE MADISON A V HILLSDALE RD CITR ACADO PY 03 R D S T W ATER ST MAI N S T LIMERICK AV P O R T O B ELO D R08TH ST O L D J U LIAN HYVIA C APRI RIN C O N AVOLIVE AV RAMONA OAKS RD 01ST AVRIV I ERA DR HIG H L A N D D R DALLAS S TAUBURNDALE STBIRM IN GHAM DR C A R L T O N O A K S D R SUNSET DR E ALVARADO ST WARNOCK DRE LINCOLN AVHILLSIDE D REAGLE PEA K R D EL N O R T E P Y QUINCE ST E PILE ST METAT E LN SAN PASQU A L R D VISTA GRANDE RDJULIAN AV W LIL AC RDS CRIPPS RANCH BLMONTECITO RD VIA RANCHO PY VINEYARD A V LAMONT STLA NORIASOLEDA D MTN R D M A N Z A N ITA R DBAS IL O N E R D CIRCLE R DR PASEO LUCIDOT AYLOR ST MADRA AVLEUCADIA BL07 T H S T LAKE BL HANSON LN ASHLEY RDMTN V ISTA DRALICANTE R D SUNSET BLCOLLEGE BLLAKE W OHLFORD RD LA HONDA DREMERALD DRS A N E LIJ O A V M ARRON R D M I R A M ESA B LREGEN TS R D P O I N S E T TIA LN WARING RDSANDIA CREEK D R W V IS TA WY SR-67CARMEL MTN RDQ UESTH A VEN RDBLACK MTN RD RANGO WY COUSER CAN Y O N R D 01ST AVB U SIN ESS P ARK DRCRISTIANITOS RDPINE CREEK RDFLORIDA DRG O V ERNO R DRSAN DIE G U ITO RDMAGNOLIA AVHIGHLA ND VALLEY RDMESA DRCARMEL MTN RDPEPPER DRFARADAY AV A L G A R D CA RMEL VALLEY R D HAVERFORD R DTIERRASANTA BL WELD BLE OL D JULIAN HY V IEJAS BLRAMONA STEL M O N T E R D HENDERSON CANYON RD ELFIN FOREST RD VALE TERRA C E DR N T WI N OAKS VALLEY RDRICE CANYON R D PARK VILLAGE RD FRISIUS DRPRIVATE RD MA NCHESTER AVCANN O N R D FANITA PYSUMAC RDH IG H L A ND VALLEY RDCOLLEGE BLCANNON RDJAPATUL VALLEY RDRIVE RSI DE DRWYN OLA RDPRIVATE RDOLD MILKY WY B IG H O RN RD SANTO RD1 7 T H AVMU SS EY GRADE R D NOBEL DRRI CE CANYON RD FOOT HILL D RE L CAM R EALOLD PACIFIC HWY VANDEG RIFT BL BORREGO SPRINGS RDMISSION BLLAKE MURRAY BLN MARSHALL AVN OLD HIGHWAY 395TAVERN RDGOLF CRES T DRSU N SET DRCOMMUNITY RDCAM DEL SURFELICITA RDVALLE VI S T A R D COWLES MTN BLCLAIREMON T DRFAY AVTA M AR A C K AV SPRING CANYON RD TEXAS STVANDERG IF T BL PAR K RIDGE BLSOLEDAD RDB E RNA RDO CENTE R D RN MAGNOLIA AVCAM RUIZARC HI E MOORE RDSAN MATEO DR REG E N TS RDB LOSSOM VALLEY RDA VI ARA PY BORREGO VALLEY RDE VICTORIA DRG U NN STAGE RDS CITRUS AVM T ACADIA BLULRIC ST E A S T G A T E ML N LAKE WOHLFORD RDVICTOR IA DRDOUGLAS DRHENDE RSON CANYON RD EL CAM DEL N ORTE 06TH AVREGENTS RDM T N MEADOW RDWEST BERNARDO DRVANDEGRIF T BL SAN PASQU A L RDDE LUZ RDSTU A R T M ES A RD BLACK CANYON RDEL FUERTE STCAM RUIZASHWOOD STME L R O S E DR QUAIL CA NY O N RD R UFFIN RDSAN DIE G UITO RDELM STWILDCAT CANYO N RDOLD RIV ER R DDE LUZ RD SAGE RD M IR A MA R W YSHAD O W RIDGE DRNOBEL DR V IS T A WY S A N D I E GO BAYMISSION BAY LOS PENASQUITOS LAGOON SAN DIEGUITO LAGOON SAN ELIJO LAGOON BATIQUITOS LAGOON BUENA VISTA LAGOON AQUA HEDIONDA LAGOON 0.75 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.50.750.750.751111 0.75 1 0.75 1 San Diego County85th Percentile Isopluvials THIS MAP/DATA IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESSFOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Note: This product may contain information from the SANDAGRegional Information System which cannot be reproduced without the written permission of SANDAG. Thisproduct may contain information reproduced with permission granted by RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY® to SanGIS. This map is copyrighted by RAND MCNALLY & COMPANY®. It is unlawful to copy or reproduceall or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without the prior, written permission ofRAND MCNALLY & COMPANY®. Copyright 2011 Eagle Aerial Imaging, all rights reserved. Copyright SanGIS 2011 - All Rights Reserved. Full text of this legal notice can be found at: http://www.sangis.org/Legal_Notice.htm Projection: State Plane, Zone VI, Datum NAD 83. Units Feet.O:\FLOOD_CONTROL\85th_Percentile_Iso\85th_Percentile_Isopluvials_36x48.mxdCounty of San Diego, LUEG GIS, 11/30/11 Note:The 85th percentile is a 24-hour rainfall total.It represents a value such that 85% of the observed 24-hour rainfall totals will be less than that value. 0 2 413 Miles Z 85th Percentile Rainfall in Inches Freeway Highway Major Road Street Municipal Boundary Water Body 0.59 IN Attachment 1.e /V /V WEG ~GIS Land Use & Environment Groep Geogrophic lnformcrtion Service ' ' L _ ____.-_,, 1. -L -------; r::"=:'~-,,.('.--( ___ ,~-- '', I' -___ ----2...,_ _ __________,,,,, ~ . "'-·'"~--=-;-_,, ui!I,, J Li: ' i I '<'. (/ I -, ,,-' \ ,; i+-' ---Y '0''1 ' ' L ' ' ' I ~, 'Ji',,_, __ ,,_i__L -,--,, --~'~---, ,,, r :;\---c.~: C ' ' : / \ "·•.Ji-\.,., ,/ l., \ ) '-'"~ ,j j \ \ ' ..____, _,-1 i /SC---=--~- "---'-----~ ~ Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/14/2021 Page 1 of 4366811036681603668210366826036683103668360366841036684603668510366811036681603668210366826036683103668360366841036684603668510468290468340468390468440468490468540468590 468290 468340 468390 468440 468490 468540 468590 33° 9' 18'' N 117° 20' 24'' W33° 9' 18'' N117° 20' 11'' W33° 9' 3'' N 117° 20' 24'' W33° 9' 3'' N 117° 20' 11'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600Feet 0 30 60 120 180Meters Map Scale: 1:2,200 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. USDA - MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 15, May 27, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 24, 2020—Feb 12, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/14/2021 Page 2 of 4 □ ■ ■ D □ D D ,,...., D +++ D --D ~ D .;;;::,:::; D ~ -• -----~ " ■ ■ ■ ■ USDA Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MlC Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes B 12.0 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 12.0 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/14/2021 Page 3 of 4USDA - Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/14/2021 Page 4 of 4USDA - June 17, 2021 Harding Street Neighbors, LP Project No. 33090.15 14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Attention: Mr. Todd Cottle Subject: Geotechnical Report Update, Proposed Pacific Wind Multi-Family Residential Development, Carlsbad, California. At your request we are providing this letter to update our previous geotechnical investigation (LOR, 2014) with respect to the currently proposed development as shown on the plans provided (Bassenian Lagoni, 2018) and current building code requirements (2019 CBC). On June 15, 2021, our project engineer went to the site to review the existing site conditions. The site remains in essentially the same condition as previously reported (LOR, 2014). The currently proposed development is similar to that previously reported (LOR, 2014). However, a slightly smaller project area is currently proposed. Four parcels within the northern portion of the original project are no longer included within the project. It is the opinion of this firm that our previous geotechnical investigation conducted for the property in addition to the information provided below, is considered appropriate for the design and construction of the currently proposed project. Design requirements for structures can be found within Chapter 16 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) based on building type, use and/or occupancy. The classification of use and occupancy of all proposed structures at the site, and thus the design requirements, shall be the responsibility of the structural engineer and the building official. For structures at the site to be designed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16, the subject site specific criteria is provided below: 6121 Quail Valley Court • Riverside, CA92507 • (951) 653-1760 • (951) 653-1741 (Fax)• www.lorgeo.com Harding Street Neighbors, LP June 17, 2021 Project No. 33090.15 Chapter 20 of the ASCE 7-16 defines six possible site classes for earth materials that underlie any given site. Bedrock is assigned one of three of these six site classes and these are: A, B, or C. Soil is assigned as C, D, E, or F. Per ASCE 7-16, Site Class A and Site Class B shall be measured on-site or estimated by a geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist or seismologist for competent rock with moderate fracturing and weathering. Site Class A and Site Class B shall not be used if more than 10 feet of soil is between the rock surface and bottom of the spread footing or mat foundation. Site Class C can be used for very dense soil and soft rock with N values greater than 50 blows per foot. Site Class D can be used for stiff soil with N values ranging from 15 to 50 blows per foot. Site Class E is for soft clay soils with N values less than 15 blows per foot. Our previous investigation, mapping by others, and our experience in the site region indicates that the materials beneath the site are considered Site Class D stiff soils. CBC Earthquake Design Summary As determined in the previous section, earthquake design criteria have been formulated for the site. However, these values should be reviewed and the final design should be performed by a qualified structural engineer familiar with the region. Our design values are attached. We trust this information is as requested. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We look forward to providing additional geotechnical services for you on this very important project. Respectfully submitted, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. P. Leuer, GE 2030 ent MT:JPL/ss Attachment: Seismic Design Spectra Distribution: Addressee (2) and via email todd@c-cdev.com 2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-16. Bassenian Lagoni, 2018, Information Site Plan, Pacific Wind Apartments, Carlsbad, California, dated July 27, 2018. California Building Standards Commission and International Conference of Building Officials, 2019, California Building Code, 2019 Edition. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project, Carlsbad Apartments, APN’s 204-292-01, -02, -10 through -14, -16 through -22, 204-291-14, -16, -17 and -19 through -27, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 33090.1, dated July 31, 2014. 3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Project:Pacific Wind Apartments Project Number:33090.14 Client:Harding Street Neighbors, LP Site Lat/Long:33.1535 / -117.3384 Controlling Seismic Source: REFERENCE NOTATION VALUE REFERENCE NOTATION VALUE Site Class C, D, D default, or E Fv (Table 11.4-2)[Used for General Spectrum]Fv 1.9 Site Class D - Table 11.4-1 Fa 1.1 Design Maps Ss 1.069 Site Class D - 21.3(ii)Fv 2.5 Design Maps S1 0.387 0.2*(SD1/SDS)T0 0.129 Equation 11.4-1 - FA*SS SMS 1.1464* SD1/SDS TS 0.646 Equation 11.4-3 - 2/3*SMS SDS 0.764* Fundamental Period (12.8.2)T Period Design Maps PGA 0.471 Seismic Design Maps or Fig 22-14 TL 8 Table 11.8-1 FPGA 1.1 Equation 11.4-4 - 2/3*SM1 SD1 0.4936*Equation 11.8-1 - FPGA*PGA PGAM 0.532* Equation 11.4-2 - FV*S1 SM1 0.7403*Section 21.5.3 80% of PGAM 0.425 Design Maps CRS 0.894 Design Maps CR1 0.905 Cr - At Perods <=0.2, Cr=CRS CRS 0.894 Cr - At Periods between 0.2 and 1.0 Period Cr use trendline formula to complete 0.200 0.894 Cr - At Periods >=1.0, Cr=CR1 CR1 0.905 0.300 0.895 0.400 0.897 0.500 0.898 0.600 0.900 0.680 0.901 1.000 0.905 * Code based design value. See accompanying data for Site Specific Design values.Mapped values from RISK COEFFICIENT D measured https://seismicmaps.org/ Newport Inglewood-Rose Canyon LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Project No:33090.14 0.010 0.547 0.511 1.19 0.608 0.100 0.948 0.896 1.19 1.066 0.200 1.281 1.216 1.20 1.459 0.300 1.412 1.314 1.22 1.603 0.500 1.312 1.211 1.23 1.490 0.750 1.043 0.956 1.24 1.185 1.000 0.843 0.771 1.24 0.956 1 Data Sources: 2.000 0.440 0.399 1.24 0.495 3.000 0.281 0.255 1.25 0.319 4.000 0.197 0.178 1.25 0.223 5.000 0.147 0.133 1.26 0.168 2 Shahi-Baker RotD100/RotD50 Factors (2014) 0.547 NO PROBABILISTIC SPECTRA1 2% in 50 year Exceedence Probabilistic PGA: Is Probabilistic Sa(max)<1.2Fa? Period UGHM RTHM Max Directional Scale Factor2 Probabilistic MCE https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/rtgm/ 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000Acceleration (g)Period (seconds) PROBABILISTIC MCER SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS UGHM RTHM Probabilistic MCER LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. _I l l ⇒Tr + T l~ I "\ -~~ -I -n I\D ~~ 1 ~ r ~+--~ t~ r ,-+--I-f-~ r I i,.._ I I I~, I ~ I I I I -+ +-+ + -~d++ ++tL -I +--n T t-T is::: --.: - + + I t !-H -t--I I -I -- ' ' IL + t I I I I : t I I I I t I I I I I ..... ------ Controlling Source: Newport Inglewood-Rose Canyon NO Project No:33090.14 0.010 0.849 1.19 1.010 1.010 0.020 0.855 1.19 1.017 1.017 0.030 0.868 1.19 1.033 1.033 0.050 0.917 1.19 1.091 1.091 0.075 1.086 1.19 1.293 1.293 NO 0.100 1.282 1.19 1.525 1.525 N/A 0.150 1.558 1.20 1.870 1.870 Deterministic PGA:0.849 0.200 1.745 1.20 2.094 2.094 YES 0.250 1.895 1.21 2.293 2.293 0.300 1.978 1.22 2.414 2.414 0.400 2.013 1.23 2.476 2.476 0.500 1.951 1.23 2.400 2.400 0.750 1.605 1.24 1.990 1.990 1.000 1.349 1.24 1.673 1.673 1.500 0.944 1.24 1.171 1.171 2.000 0.702 1.24 0.870 0.870 3.000 0.458 1.25 0.573 0.573 4.000 0.303 1.25 0.378 0.378 5.000 0.215 1.26 0.271 0.271 DETERMINISTIC SPECTRUM Largest Amplitudes of Ground Motions Considering All Sources Calculated using Weighted Mean of Attenuation Equations1 Is Probabilistic Sa(max)<1.2Fa? Section 21.2.2 Scaling Factor Applied Is Determinstic Sa(max)<1.5*Fa? Section 21.2.2 Scaling Factor: Is Deterministic PGA >=FPGA*0.5? 2 Shahi-Baker RotD100/RotD50 Factors (2014) 1 NGAWest 2 GMPE worksheet and Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) - Time Dependent Model Period Deterministic PSa Median + 1.σ for 5% Damping Max Directional Scale Factor2 Deterministic MCE 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000Acceleration (g)Period (seconds) DETERMINISTIC MCER SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS Deterministic MCER LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. H ++ti+ -H + + + t-H + + -H + + + l--+ + + HI++ +It I + + + I t= I + + =H I + +-+ 1-: I + +-+ I H + H +-+ +-+ --I I I I I I ~ I I I >--/ >--Q ~ + I + I \ I I I l"\l I I I >-t ~ '\.1 + +--'\. + I f--I\. I\. I I I f-I I I I +-~ f;;:_ + I + -1---+ 1 1 , I I I"-I I I I I I "'-. I I I ·==~~~-p + I T + I I I ,____ r I I I I I I I _:::: --I I I I H I + + + I =H I + + + I =H I + + =H ~E 1-t~ , ;H + +-+ I t ; t + C 11 + ~ -n + -n -n H t 0.010 0.608 1.010 0.608 0.405 0.005 0.323 0.259 0.100 1.066 1.525 1.066 0.711 0.010 0.341 0.273 0.200 1.459 2.094 1.459 0.973 0.020 0.377 0.301 0.300 1.603 2.414 1.603 1.069 0.030 0.412 0.330 0.500 1.490 2.400 1.490 0.993 0.050 0.483 0.387 0.750 1.185 1.990 1.185 0.790 0.060 0.519 0.415 1.000 0.956 1.673 0.956 0.637 0.075 0.572 0.458 2.000 0.495 0.870 0.495 0.330 0.090 0.625 0.500 3.000 0.319 0.573 0.319 0.213 0.100 0.661 0.529 4.000 0.223 0.378 0.223 0.148 0.110 0.696 0.557 5.000 0.168 0.271 0.168 0.112 0.120 0.732 0.585 0.136 0.764 0.611 0.150 0.764 0.611 0.160 0.764 0.611 0.170 0.764 0.611 0.180 0.764 0.611 0.200 0.764 0.611 Calculated Design 0.250 0.764 0.611 Value Value 0.300 0.764 0.611 SDS:0.962 0.962 0.400 0.764 0.611 SD1:0.660 0.660 0.500 0.764 0.611 SMS:1.443 1.443 0.600 0.764 0.611 SM1:0.990 0.990 0.640 0.764 0.611 Site Specific PGAm:0.547 0.547 0.750 0.658 0.526 Site Class:0.850 0.581 0.465 0.900 0.548 0.439 Seismic Design Category - Short*D 0.950 0.520 0.416 Seismic Design Category - 1s*D 1.000 0.494 0.395 * Risk Categories I, II, or III 1.500 0.329 0.263 2.000 0.247 0.197 3.000 0.165 0.132 4.000 0.123 0.099 5.000 0.099 0.079 Project No:33090.14 SITE SPECIFIC SPECTRA Period Probabilistic MCE Deterministic MCE Site-Specific MCE Period ASCE 7-16: Section 21.4 Design Response Spectrum (Sa) ASCE 7 SECTION 11.4.6 General Spectrum 80% General Response Spectrum D measured Site Specific LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 33090.14Project No: 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000Acceleration (g)Period (seconds) SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATIONS Probabilistic MCE Deterministic MCE Site-Specific MCE Design Response Spectrum ASCE 7 Section 11.4.6 General Spectrum 80% General Response Spectrum LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. .. .. .. .. -f-.. .. .. __ .. .. .. +-+---.. f-+ + ~-f-~ + ·--+ ~ + +--I f.-+ + I-->--~ + + ~ + + rr I I r I f-ll r: ~ ~L Lf-ll ... -_l ll ... L-... f-+ 1--f.-~ + --+ ~ + +--I I f-+ ' ' n I I '-L ... l ., ll _l ll f-... >--f-... -... >---... f-+ + ~ >--f.-~ + --+ ~ + +--I ~ f-+ l -f-1 ■ 11 I/ ~' \ I 11 ·, ... \~ _l ll f->--f-... -... >---... 1/ + +\ I--f.---+ ~ + +-- + + ~-t->--~ +-~\ .. I 11' I A'-'-~ I ~ ll l N 11 ~ ll ~ l ll L ;\f---.. _ ... ~ ... >---... " ~~~- f.-" ,J '-~ + +--... .... ', ., --+ ....... ..... +--' r--. ~p "' -........ - I l..., .... ~ r Ill ~~ ~ 'i-l. ........ ~ ..... ['I '-I ' 1......... . -......... -l L -I ~ 1" -..... I ~ ........... J:h L t-..,... ii....l + + f-r---r__~ ,~ r1 I I I--+ + + f-~ t --- .. tti-.. tt+ -H .... .. .. -.. .. .. r 1 ~ f f I .. .. -f-.. .. + ~-f-+ + I-->--+ I I l Lf-... l + 1--f.-+ I ' I l >--f-... l + 1--f.-+ I ' I l >--f-... l + 1--f.-+ I ' I l >--f-... l + 1--f.-+ + >-->--+ r >-->--...... ...,.._ --~~ .... _ -.1... f-~ + -T -.. +-+-----f -~ I I . I .. + + I l + I l + I l + I l + + r I I r L I L I L I L I r t I --i, I l!!' -----~ ........ LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Soil Engineering • Geology .A. Environmental INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION MAGNOLIA AVENUE APARTMENTS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 33090.12 JUNE 23, 2015 Prepared For: Harding Street Neighbors 14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Attention:Mr. Todd Cottle 6121 Quail Valley Court .._ Riverside, CA 92507 .._ (951) 653-1760 .._ (951) 653-1741 (Fax) .._ www.lorgeo.com 19-438 Ruppert Street .._ P.O. Box 580799 .._ N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 .._ (760) 329-2727 .._ (760) 329-2626 (Fax) LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Soil Engineering • Geology A Environmental Harding Street Neighbors 14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92780 Attention: Mr. Todd Cottle June 23, 2015 Project No. 33090. 1 2 Subject: Infiltration Feasibility Investigation, Magnolia Avenue Apartments, Carlsbad, California. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. is pleased to present this report summarizing the results of our constant head infiltration testing recently conducted within the proposed infiltration areas for the proposed multi-family residential project, Magnolia Avenue Apartments, located at the southeast corner of Magnolia A venue and Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad. INTRODUCTION Information provided by Mr. John Dykes of So Cal Civil Solutions, Inc. indicates that infiltration basin facilities and vegetated swales will be used for the infiltration of onsite runoff waters for the proposed multi-family residential project. The location and elevations of the proposed facility were indicated to us via email by Mr. Dykes and illustrated on a Conceptual Drainage and Improvement Plan, Sheet C-2 prepared by So Cal Civil Solutions, Inc. (2014). This firm previously conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the project in 2014 (LOR, 2014). During that investigation, 4 exploratory borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 51 feet at the site. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 21 feet beneath the ground surface. In addition, 2 constant head infiltration tests were conducted. These tests found infiltration rates of 0. 7 to 12. 7 inches per hour at depths of approximately 3 feet. Our previous borings placed within the currently prop_osed infiltration areas noted the presence of relatively granular materials beginning at depths of approximately 10 and extending to depths of approximately 15 feet. The purpose of this current investigation was to determine the infiltration characteristics of the granular soils previously noted at a depth of approximately 1 0 feet. 6121 Quail Valley Court • Riverside, CA 92507 • (951) 653-1760 • (951) 653-1741 (Fax) • www.lorgeo.com 19-438 Ruppert Street • P.O. Box 580799 • N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 • (760) 329-2727 • (760) 329-2626 (Fax) Harding Street Neighbors June 23, 2015 INFILTRATION TESTING AND TEST RESULTS Project No. 33090.12 A total of 3 constant head infiltration tests were conducted at the proposed infiltration locations approximately illustrated on the enclosed Infiltration Test Location Map, Enclosure 1. The constant head infiltration testing was conducted to minimize disturbance to existing improved areas of the site due to the proposed depth for infiltration, 10 feet. Testing consisted of a test hole which was excavated using a hollow stem auger drill rig to a depth of approximately 1 0 feet below the existing ground surface. The holes were 8-inches in diameter. Two inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of the holes and perforated plastic liner was placed into the hole. A 2-inch diameter PVC pipe with a preset water level of 0.5 feet was inserted into the liner. A 5-gallon, glass bottle was then inverted over the pipe with a vacuum seal in order to maintain a constant 0.5 feet of water within the hole. The volume of water used in a given time period was recorded at various time intervals to establish the percolation rate. This rate was then converted to an infiltration rate. Our clear water infiltration test results are summarized in the following table: Test No. Depth (ft.)* Percolation Rate Infiltration Rate (gal/sf/day) in/hr P-3 10 25.3 1.7 P-4 10 11.1 0.7 P-5 10 10.8 0.7 * depth measured below existing ground surface The results of our percolation testing are attached as Enclosures 2 through 7. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION As previously mentioned, this firm conducted 4 exploratory borings at the site in 2014. These borings were advanced to depths of approximately 19.5 to 51 feet below the existing ground surface in the general location of the proposed infiltration. The approximate location of these previous borings is illustrated on Enclosure 1. As noted within these borings, the surface of the site contained a relatively thin layer of fill materials. These materials were noted to generally consist of silty sand with 2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors June 23, 2015 Project No. 33090.12 gravel which was dark brown in color, damp, and in a relatively dense state. This unit was noted to range from approximately 2 to 5 feet in thickness. Underlying the surticial fill materials, natural units of alluvium were encountered. These materials generally consisted of well graded sand with gravel, and cobbles and minor units of silty sand, sandy silt, and clayey sand. In general, the alluvial materials were red- brown in color. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 21 feet beneath the ground surface. No bedrock was encountered within our exploratory borings as advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet. Copies of the logs of our previous borings are present as Enclosures 8 through 11 . In order to estimate the approximate depth to both current and historic groundwater in this area, a search was conducted for water wells on both the California Department of Water Resources and U.S.G.S. National Water Information System online databases. No wells were indicated in the nearby site region tor either database. We contacted the Vallecitos Water District, the water supplier for the site and surrounding area, for groundwater information in the region surrounding the site. They indicated that they do not keep well records. CONCLUSIONS Based upon our current test data reported herein, clear water infiltration rates in the general areas currently proposed for infiltration range from 0. 7 to 1 . 7 inches per hour. The rates obtained during this investigation are clear water rates. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the rate for storm water. A typical factor of safety for such is 2.0 to 3.0. The system should be designed and constructed as outlined within the recommendations contained within this report and any other jurisdictional agency requirements. Separation between the bottom of the system and groundwater should be evaluated by the project engineer in accordance with current jurisdictional agency requirements. Systems should be set back a distance from improvements as to not have an adverse affect in those improvements. If utilized, geotextile tilter fabric utilized should consist of such that it prevents soil 3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors June 23, 2015 piping but has greater permeability than the existing soil. Project No. 33090.12 During site development, care should be taken as not to disturb the area{s) proposed for infiltration as changes in the soil structure could occur resulting in a change of the soil infiltration characteristics. To ensure continued infiltration capability of the infiltration area, a program to maintain the facility should be considered. This program should include periodic removal of accumulated materials, which can slow the infiltration and decrease the water quality. Materials to be removed from the infiltration areas typically consist of litter, dead plant . matter, and soil fines {silts and clays). Proper maintenance of the system is critical. A maintenance program should be prepared and properly executed in accordance with jurisdictional agency requirements. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. AAT:JPL/ejt Enclosures: Distribution: Enclosure 1: Infiltration Test Location Map Enclosure 2 through 7: Constant Head lnfiltrometer Test Data Enclosures 8 through 11 : Boring Logs Addressee (2) and via email todd@c-cdev.com So Cal Civil Solutions via emaii john@socaiciviisoiutions.com 4 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library, http://www. water .ca. gov /w aterdatalibrary I LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., 2014, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project, Carlsbad Apartments, APN's 204-292-01, -02, -10 through -14, -16 through -22, 204-291-14, -16, 17, and -19 through -27 ., Carlsbad, California, Project No. 33090.1, dated July 31, 2014. So Cal Civil Solutions, Inc., 2014, Conceptual Drainage and Improvement Plan, C-2, dated December 5, 2014. USGS, National Water Information System, Web Interface, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/gw. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION MAPENCLOSURE:DATE:SCALE:1JUNE 2015PROJECT:CLIENT:LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.PROJECT NO:§ MAGNOLIA AVENUE APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CA.33090.12HARDING STREET NEIGHBORHOODS, LLC.P-1 P-3 B-2 B-1 B-3 B-4 P-5 P-2 Legend (Locations Approximate) Map Symbols B-4 - Exploratory Boring Location (LOR, 2014) P-2 - Infiltration Test Location (LOR, 2014) P-5 - Infiltration Test Location (This Investigation) P-4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NOTES: CD CONSTRUCT SEWER LINE II CONSTANT HEAD INFILTROMETER TEST DATA II Project: Magnolia Avenue Apartments Test Date: June 16, 2015 Project No.: 33090.12 Test Hole No.: P-3 Soil Classification: (SP) Poorly Graded Sand Test Hole Size: 6" X 8" Depth of Test Hole: 10 ft. Date Excavated: June 16, 2015 Tested By: Josh TEST PERIOD TIME TOTAL WATER WATER INFILTRATION INFILTRATION TRIAL NO. TIME INTERVAL ELASPED TIME USED USED RATE REMARKS (minutes) (minutes) (lbs.) Caal) (gal/sf./day) RATE (in/hr) s 8:35 Refilled 1 36 36 23.82 2.86 66.1 4.4 E 9:11 s 9:56 Refilled 2 90 126 24.21 2.91 26.9 1.8 E 11 :26 s 11 :50 3 31 157 4.63 0.56 14.9 1.0 E 12:21 s 12:21 4 29 186 7.79 0.94 26.8 1.8 E 12:50 Enclosure 2 TEST PERIOD TIME TOTAL WATER WATER INFILTRATION INFILTRATION TRIAL NO. TIME INTERVAL ELASPED TIME USED USED RATE RATE (in/hr) REMARKS (minutes) (minutes) (lbs.) (gal) (aal/sf./day) s 12:50 5 36 222 9.51 1.14 26.4 1.8 Refilled E 1:26 s 2:05 6 60 282 15.23 1.83 25.3 1.7 E 3:05 Enclosure 2 continued Infiltration Rate Versus Time P-3 20 "i:" 18 :::s 0 16 .c: ._ ti) 14 i Q) .c: 0 12 C: ·-.._.. Q) 10 ..... co 0::: 8 C: 0 6 ·-..... co s... 4 ..... -·-'I- C: 2 - 0 0 36 126 157 186 222 282 I Elasped Time (min.) I Enclosure 3 II CONSTANT HEAD INFILTROMETER TEST DATA I\ Project: Magnolia Avenue Apartments Test Date: June 16, 2015 Project No.: 33090.12 Test Hole No.: P-4 Soil Classification: (SP) Poorly Graded Sand Test Hole Size: 6" X 8" Depth of Test Hole: 10 ft. Date Excavated: June 16, 2015 Tested By: Josh/ MT TEST PERIOD TIME TOTAL WATER WATER INFILTRATION INFILTRATION TRIAL NO. TIME INTERVAL ELASPED TIME USED USED RATE RATE (in/hr) REMARKS (minutes) (minutes) (lbs.) (gal) (gal/sf./day) s 9:11 1 64 64 24.91 2.99 38.9 2.6 Refilled E 11 :15 s 12:11 2 84 148 9.67 1.16 11.5 0.8 Refilled E 1:35 s 2:21 3 90 238 10.02 1.20 11.1 0.7 E 3:51 Enclosure 4 20 "i:" 18 :::s 0 16 .c ........ 1/) 14 Q) .c: (.) 12 C: ·--Q) 10 ...., ca ct: 8 C: 0 6 ·-...., ca "-4 ...., ·-'+-C: 2-- 0 Infiltration Rate Versus Time P-4 0 64 148 Elasped Time (min.) I 238 I I Enclosure 5 II CONSTANT HEAD INFILTROMETER TEST DATA II Project: Magnolia Avenue Apartments Test Date: June 16, 2015 Project No.: 33090.12 Test Hole No.: P-5 Soil Classification: (SP) Poorly Graded Sand Test Hole Size: 6" X 8" Depth of Test Hole: 10 ft. Date Excavated: June 16, 2015 Tested By: AAT TEST PERIOD TIME TOTAL WATER WATER INFILTRATION INFILTRATION TRIAL NO. TIME INTERVAL ELASPED TIME USED USED RATE REMARKS (minutes) (minutes) (lbs.) Caal} (aal/sf./dav) RATE (in/hr) s 9:46 1 50 50 1.99 0.24 3.9 0.3 E 10:36 s 10:36 2 52 102 5.13 0.66 9.9 0.7 E 11 :28 s 11 :28 3 36 138 8.84 1.58 23.5 1.6 Refilled E 12:04 s 12:51 4 55 193 6.38 0.78 11.6 0.8 E 1:46 Enclosure 6 TEST PERIOD TIME TOTAL WATER WATER INFILTRATION INFILTRATION TRIAL NO. TIME INTERVAL ELASPED TIME USED USED RATE RATE (in/hr) REMARKS (minutes) (minutes) (lbs.) (gal) (gal/sf./dav) s 1:46 5 45 238 4.98 0.74 11.1 0.7 Refilled E 2:31 s 3:22 6 30 268 3.25 0.39 10.8 0.7 E 3:52 Enclosure 6 continued Infiltration Rate Versus Time P-5 20 "C' 18 - ::::J 0 16 -.c ....... "' 14 -Q) .c (.) 12 -C: ·--Q) 10 -...., ca 0::: 8 - C: 0 6 -...., ca s... 4-...., -·-.... C: 2 -- 0 0 50 102 138 193 238 268 Elasped Time (min.) Enclsoure 7 ~ "' TEST DATA VJ f-f-z f-VJ VJ [.LJ [.LJ f-[.LJ f->-[.LJ >-[.LJ z f-z t:: c... >-v LOG OF BORING B-1 Ii.. ::i >-0 z G.:' f-0 VJ 3 f-0 ~ u~ [.LJ ....J 0 c... u 0 [.LJ~ [.LJ \.) ....J 0 ::r: V) :3: f-~~ Cl~ c... ::r: Cl"! f--< :J >-~ t:: :J c... 0 ~ f-~ -< LU ....J 0 VJ Cl ....J Cl i::o i::o 6 VJ -< ....J ::E DESCRIPTION 0 ~ SM @0' FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel to 1/2", I ~ _.,.. 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% II 2.9 109.8 ~ SM l fine !!rained sand 20% siltv fines li!!:ht brown. drv. loose. I 5 @ 2' ALLUVIUM: SIL TY SAND, approximately 10% coarse II 3.9 l07.2 I ,'--,-":-SP grained sand, 30% meidum grained sand, 40% fine grained sand. 20% siltv fines brown damn. 32 13.9 119.9 I SC @ 5' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 30% medium grained sand, 65% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, light red 10 24 13.2 118.5 I brown damn. @ 7' CLAYEY SAND, approximately 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 30% clayey fines of low plasticity, red brown, moist. 15 @ 10' becomes gray. 25 for 3" 21.4 l04.1 ■ @ 15' becomes wet, slightly coarser grained. 20 128 for 3" 23.4 98.3 ~ @20' alternating layers of CLAYEY SAND and POORLY GRADED SAND, 2 to 5" thick. @21' groundwater. 25 "" "" 63 for 3" 15.l CL @25' LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 15% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 25% clayey fines of low plasticity, gray, damp. 30 67 for 3" 19.7 ~ ~ SM @30' SIL TY SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 25% sitly fines with trace clay, gray, wet. 35 67 for 5" 12.3 lO Xl 40 "'= 67 for 3" 21.4 ',' SP @40' POORLY GRADED SAND with SILTY, approximately SM 10% coarse grained sand, 40% medium grained sand, 40% ,' fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, gray white, wet. ' ' 45 67 for 3" 15.6 "' "" 50 "' = 67 for 3' 12.6 END OF BORING Fill 0-2' 55 Groundwater@ 21' No Bedrock Boring backfilled with bentonite 60 PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA.: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-1 Ir.. Enclosure 8 ... r TEST DATA f/l f-f-z f-f/l f/l UJ LJJ f-UJ f->-UJ >-LJJ z f-z t: c.. >-Q LOG OF BORING B-2 u... ::i >-0 ;2 ~ f-0 f/l ~ f-0 c::: U,--:-UJ ....l ~ c.. u 0 UJ a:. wv ....l 0 :r: f/l ;$ f-c::: ~ Cl e:_ c.. ::c: ~ f-<l'. ::) >-2 t: ::) c.. 0 c::: f-c::: <l'. LJJ ....l 0 (/) Cl ..J Cl O'.l O'.l 0 f/l <l'. ..J 2 DESCRIPTION 0 SM @ 0' FILL: SIL TY SAND, approximately 35% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% sitly fines, brown, dry, loose. ~~· 15 5.9 114.5 I ~ SM @2' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 40% medium ~ grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, red brown, dry. 5 9 6.3 105.4 I @ 5' SIL TY SAND, approximately 35% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, red brown, dry, micaceous. 16 6.8 103.8 I 17' SP @ 7' POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, approximately ,,, •' SM 40% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 10% silty , ,• fines, red brown, damp. , , , ,• 10 36 6.9 106.9 I ~~:, SP @ 10' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 15% medium ,,, ,• grained sand, 80% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled ,, black-brown, damp. , , ,• , , .. ··:. ·.:-:.·. 15 ,-~~ 34 17.0 114.8 I SM @ 15' SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, red brown, wet. @ 16' becomes gray white, trace clay. 20 128 for 3" 12.6 103.8 I END OF BORING Fill 0-2' No groundwater No bedrock Boring backfilled with bentonite 25 PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA.: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-2 \.. . Enclosure 9 ~ r TEST DATA (/J f-f-z f-(/J (/J Ul Ul f-Ul f->-Ul >-f-f-0.. Ul z z (/) ?-CJ LOG OF BORING B-3 u. ::i >-0 ui f-0 O:'. u~ zG::' :-0 ~ z LU ..J 0.. u 0 LU -;ft_ LU u 0 :r: (/J :3: f-c,::-a~ ..J (/J -< 0.. :r: f-::i >-~ f-::J 0.. 0 O:'. f-O:'. -< :i Ul ..J 0 (/J Cl a Ill Ill 6 (/J -< ...J ~ DESCRIPTION 0 ~~ PT L1m 0' SOD e'---'-SM @0' TOPSOIL SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse SM grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained I 14 4.5 110.7 I I sand 25"/o siltv fines. strom! brown. moist. @ I' ALLUVIUM: SIL TY SAND, approximately 30% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, brown, damp. 5 17 6.4 109.2 I @ 5' becomes light red brown, trace clay. 20 9.2 111.0 I @7' SILTY SAND, approximately 20% medium grained sand, 60% fine grained sand, 20% sitly fines, light yellow brown, dry. 10 -~7 22 5.2 98.6 I SP @ 10' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 5% medium •.· grained sand, 90% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled black tan, damp. :> ·.· 15 25 for 5" 14.4 112.5 I •.· ML @ 15' SANDY SILT/SILTY SAND, approximately 20¾ medium SM grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 50% silty fines, gray ·.• white, damp . . . • ·.· .. 20 128 for 5" 15.8 99.0 I ML @20' SANDY SILT, approximately 20% coarse grained sand, 80% siltv fines with trace clav. 11:rav white. damn. END OF BORING Fill 0-1' No groundwater No bedrock Boring backfilled with bentonite 25 PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DA TE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-3 ... .... Enclosure 10 r' .... TEST DATA [/) f--f--z f--[/) [/) lJ..l LI..l f--LI..l f-->-LI..l LI..l z f--z t:: "->->-0 LOG OF BORING B-4 w.. :J >-0 ~G::' f--0 [/) z f--0 c:: u~ LI..l -l u "-u 0 Ll.J ~ LI..l i__J -l 0 :c: [/) ~ f--c,::~ Cl ~ "-:c: "'. f--<( :J >-2 f--:J "-0 c:: f--c:: <( J LI..l -l 0 [/) Cl 0 ro ro 6 [/) <( -l 2 DESCRIPTION 0 ~ rec~ ~ PT (jj)0' SOD ~ --'----SM @0.5' TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse ~ SM grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained I I ~ I sand 25% siltv fines. brown moist. 16 7.0 115.8 ~ @ 1' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 30% medium ~ grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines with trace clay, red brown, moist. 5 13 7.7 109.3 I @ 5' clay no longer present. 16 8.7 107.5 I @7' SILTY SAND, approximately 20% medium grained sand, 65% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, red brown, dry. 10 .'--;'-;-23 6.7 98.5 I ·.· SP @ 10' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 10% medium grained sand, 85% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled black brown, dry, some pyrite flakes. ·.· ·.· ·.· ·.· ·.· 15 ~-;: 26 13.7 108.8 I :....: -= SW @ 15' WELL GRADED SAND, approximately 20% coarse ·=•~: ~.::.:.. grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 45% silty fines, CL I tan. drv. I @ 16' LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 5% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 60% clayey fines of low plasticity, gray white, damp. 20 28 for 5" 21.1 106.6 I ML @ 20' SANDY SIL TY, approximately 5% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 60% silty fines with trace clay, gray I white damn. I END OF BORING Fill 0-1' No groundwater No bedrock 25 Boring backfilled with bentonite PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-4 ... ~ Enclosure 11 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Soi! Engineering • Geology • Environmental PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CARLSBAD APARTMENTS APN's 204-292-01, -02, -10 THROUGH -14, -16 THROUGH -22, 204-291-14, -16, -17, AND -19 THROUGH -27 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 33090.1 JULY 31, 2014 Prepared For: Harding Street Neighbors 14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Orange, California 92780 Attention: Mr. Todd Cottle 6121 Quail Valley Court .._ Riverside, CA 92507 .._ (951) 653-1760 .._ (951) 653-1741 (Fax) .._ www.lorgeo.com 19-438 Ruppert Street .._ P.O. Box 580799 .._ N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 .._ (760) 329-2727 .._ (760) 329-2626 (Fax) LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Soil Engineering ..A Geology ..A Environmental Harding Street Neighbors, LP 14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200 Orange, California 92780 Attention: Mr. Todd Cottle July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project, Carlsbad Apartments, APN's 204-292-01, -02, -10 through -14, -16 through -22, 204-291 14, -16, 17, and -19 through-27, Carlsbad, California. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., is pleased to present this report summarizing our geotechnical investigation for the subject project. In summary, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are incorporated into design and construction. The project site is underlain by surficial loose to medium dense alluvial materials with minor amounts of fill soils present locally. It is our opinion that existing fill materials and upper loose to medium dense alluvial soils will not provide uniform and/or adequate support for the proposed development. Thus, we recommend a compacted fill mat be constructed beneath footings and slabs. The fill mat should be a minimum of 24 inches thick below the bottom of the footings. The construction of this compacted fill m_at will allow for the removal of the existing, uncontrolled fills and upper loose alluvium. Removals on the order of 3 to 5 feet are anticipated to be required within proposed structural areas of the site. Very low to low expansion potential, moderate R-value quality, poor to good infiltration, and negligible soluble sulfate content generally characterize the onsite soils. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. 6121 Quail Valley Court _.. Riverside, CA 92507 _.. (951) 653-1760 _.. (951) 653-1741 (Fax) _.. www.lorgeo.com 19-438 Ruppert Street _.. P.O. Box 580799 _.. N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 _.. (760) 329-2727 _.. (760) 329-2626 (Fax) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS .................................... 1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .................................... 2 SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................. 2 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ................................ 3 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ....................................... 3 Regional Geologic Setting .................................. 3 Site Geologic Conditions ................................... 4 Surficial Deposits ........................................ 4 Fill .............................................. 4 Alluvium .......................................... 4 Groundwater Hydrology .................................... 4 Mass Movement ......................................... 5 Faulting ............................................... 5 Historical Seismicity ...................................... 6 Secondary Seismic Hazards ................................. 7 Liquet action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Seiches/Tsunamis ................................... 8 Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure) .................... 8 Seismically-Induced Landsliding .......................... 8 Rockfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Seismically-Induced Settlement .......................... 8 SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code 2013) ...... 8 CBC Earthquake Design Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 PERCOLATION TESTING PROGRAM ............................... 9 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Soil Expansiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Geologic Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Seismicity ............................................ 11 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 General Site Grading ..................................... 12 Initial Site Preparation .................................... 13 Preparation of Fill Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Preparation of Building Pad Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Engineered Compacted Fill ................................. 14 Short-Term Excavations ................................... 15 Slope Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Slope Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Building Pad Slab-On-Grade Design ........................... 17 Exterior Flatwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Wall Pressures ......................................... 18 Preliminary Pavement Design ............................... 20 Sulfate Protection ....................................... 21 Infiltration ............................................ 21 Construction Monitoring .................................. 22 LIMITATIONS .............................................. 22 TIME LIMITATIONS 23 CLOSURE ................................................. 24 REFERENCES ............................................... 25 APPENDICES Appendix A -Index Map, Conceptual Site Plan, Site Plan, Regional Geologic Map, Partial Description of Geologic Units and Historical Seismicity Maps Appendix B -Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs Appendix C -Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results Appendix D -Liquefaction Analysis Appendix E -Infiltration Test Results LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 INTRODUCTION Project No. 33090.1 During July of 2013, a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was performed by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., for the proposed multi-family residential development of APN' s 204-292-01, -02, -10 through -14, -16 through -22, 204-291-14, -16, -17, and -19 through -27 generally located along Harding Street between Magnolia Avenue and Carol Place in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this investigation was to provide a technical evaluation of the geologic setting of the site and to provide geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed development. The scope of our services included: • Review of available geotechnical literature, reports, maps, and agency information pertinent to the study area; • Geologic field reconnaissance mapping to verify the areal distribution of earth units and significance of surficial features as compiled from documents, literature, and reports reviewed; • A subsurface field investigation to determine the physical soil conditions pertinent to the proposed development; • Infiltration feasibility testing; • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation; • Development of geotechnical recommendations for site grading and foundation design; and • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, and providing conclusions and recommendations for site development. The approximate location of the site is shown on the attached Index Map, Enclosure A-1 within Appendix A. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS To orient our investigation at the site, a conceptual site plan was furnished for our use. The proposed building configurations and associated driveway, parking, and landscape areas are indicated on this plan. To orient our field investigation, an aerial LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 Project No. 33090.1 photograph image of the site was used. The site plan and aerial photograph area presented as Enclosures A-2 and A-3, respectively, within Appendix A. As noted on the conceptual site plan, the subject site is proposed to be developed with several two story multi-family residential structures with the remainder used for driveways, parking, and landscape areas. The buildings are anticipated to be of wood frame and stucco, masonry, or similar type construction. Moderate foundation loads are anticipated with the proposed structures. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our investigation, the site consisted of numerous parcels of land each containing duplex residences and a paved residential roadway, Harding Street which trends southerly through the approximate central portion of the site to the southern boundary of the site where it turns westerly, becoming Carol Place and exiting the site in the southwest corner. One notable exception was APN 204-292-16 which consisted of a vacant lot within the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to Interstate 5. The topography of the site is essentially a flat plain with a very slight slope to the west. The site is bounded by both multi-family and single-family residential properties and an elementary school on the west, commercial properties on the south, both multi- family and single-family residential developments on the north, and Interstate 5 freeway on the east. SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION Our subsurface field exploration program was conducted on July 8, 2014. The work consisted of advancing a total of four exploratory borings using a truck mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are presented on Enclosure A-3, within Appendix A. The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were logged by a geologist from this firm. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 51 feet below the existing ground surface. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained at a maximum depth interval of 5 feet and returned to our geotechnical laboratory in sealed containers for further testing and evaluation. 2 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 Project No. 33090.1 A detailed description of the subsurface field exploration program and the boring logs is presented in Appendix B. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation were subjected to geotechnical laboratory testing to evaluate their physical and engineering properties. Laboratory testing included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R-Value, expansion index, and soluble sulfate content. A detailed description of the geotechnical laboratory testing program and the test results are presented in Appendix C. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Regional Geologic Setting The subject site is located within the Peninsular Ranges geologic province of southern California. The province is composed of a series of small northwest trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys lying along the coast of southern California from south of the Los Angeles basin into Baja California. These ranges are composed of crystalline igneous rocks and marine sedimentary rocks with some metamorphic pendant units. Major faults within the Peninsular Ranges geologic province include, from east to west, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, and the Rose Canyon fault. The San Jacinto fault lies near the eastern portion of the province, with the Elsinore fault lying near the center, and the Rose Canyon fault running along the western portion. All of these faults trend roughly parallel to the trend of the ranges, or to the northwest. The nearest known active earthquake fault is the Rose Canyon fault which lies approximately 3.6 kilometers (2.2 miles) to the west-southwest. Other active earthquake faults in the region include the Elsinore fault located approximately 39 kilometers (24 miles) to the northeast, and the San Jacinto fault located approximately 75 kilometers (4 7 miles) to the northeast. The geologic conditions of the site and immediate surrounding region as mapped by Kennedy and Tan (2005) are shown on the Regional Geologic Map, Enclosure A-4, within Appendix A. A partial description of the geologic units shown is shown on 3 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 Project No. 33090.1 Enclosure A-5. As shown on this map, the site is underlain by old marine and continental deposits. Site Geologic Conditions As observed during this investigation, the subject site contains minor amounts of uncontrolled fill overlying native alluvial materials. These units are described in further detail in the following sections: Surficial Deposits Fill: Minor amounts of surficial fill soil materials were noted to be present at the site primarily associated with current development of those areas of the site. These soils consist of silty sand which was brown in color, dry to moist, and in a loose state. These soils were noted to be on the order of approximately 1 to 2 feet in thickness. However, based on current site usage, deeper fills locally may be present primarily associated with the current structures, roadways, and underground utilities. Alluvium: Beneath the thin surficial fill materials discussed above, natural alluvial deposits were encountered. These materials generally consist of silty sand, clayey sand, some poorly graded sand, and minor sandy silt, well graded sand, and lean clay with sand. In general, the alluvial materials were reddish-brown to yellowish-brown in color within the upper portions becoming lighter, gray to white, with depth. These materials were found to be dry to moist within the upper approximately 20 feet becoming moist to saturated beneath. Based on our in-place density testing and equivalent SPT blow counts, the alluvium is in a medium dense state becoming dense to very dense quickly with depth. Refusal was not experienced during our drilling. A detailed description of the subsurface soil conditions as encountered within our exploratory borings is presented on the Boring Logs within Appendix B. Groundwater Hydrology Groundwater was encountered within our deeper boring (B-1) at a depth of approximately 21 feet below the existing ground surface. In order to estimate the approximate depth to groundwater in this area, a search was conducted for water wells on both the California Department of Water Resources and U.S.G.S. National 4 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 Project No. 33090.1 Water Information System online databases. No wells were indicated in the nearby site region for either database. We contacted the Vallecitos Water District, the water supplier for the site and surrounding area, for groundwater information in the region surrounding the site. They indicated that they do not keep well records. Mass Movement The site lies on a relatively flat surface. The occurrence of mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows within such areas is generally not considered common and no evidence of mass movement was observed on the site. Faulting There are no known active faults at or projecting into the site. The subject site does not lie within a current State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). The closest known active earthquake fault is the Rose Canyon fault which lies approximately 3.6 kilometers (2.2 miles) to the west-southwest. Other active earthquake faults in the region include the Elsinore fault located approximately 39 kilometers (24 miles) to the northeast, and the San Jacinto fault located approximately 75 kilometers (47 miles) to the northeast. The Rose Canyon fault is right lateral strike slip fault. While estimates vary, the Rose Canyon fault is generally thought to have an average slip rate on the order of 1.5mm/yr and capable of generating large magnitude events on the order of 7.2. The Elsinore fault zone is one of the largest in southern California. At its northern end it splays into two segments and at its southerY1 end it is cut by the Yuba Wells fault. The primary sense of slip along the Elsinore fault is right lateral strike-slip. It is believed that the Elsinore fault zone is capable of producing an earthquake magnitude on the order of 6.5 to 7 .5. The San Jacinto fault zone is a sub-parallel branch of the San Andreas fault zone, extending from the northwestern San Bernardino area, southward into the El Centro region. This fault has been active in recent times with several large magnitude events. 5 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 Project No. 33090.1 It is believed that the San Jacinto fault is capable of producing an earthquake magnitude on the order of 6.5 or larger. Current standards of practice have included a discussion of all potential earthquake sources within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius. However, while there are other large earthquake faults within a 100 kilometer {62-mile) radius of the site, none of these are considered as relevant to the site as the faults described above due to their greater distance and/or smaller anticipated magnitudes. Historical Seismicity In order to obtain a general perspective of the historical seismicity of the site and surrounding region, a search was conducted for seismic events at and around the area within various radii. This search was conducted utilizing the historical seismic search program by EPI Software, Inc. (Reeder, 2000). This program conducts a search of a user selected cataloged seismic events database, within a specified radius and selected magnitudes, and then plots the events onto an overlay map of known faults. For this investigation the database of seismic events utilized by the EPI program was obtained from the Southern California Seismic Network {SCSN) available from the Southern California Earthquake Center. At the time of our search the data base contained data from January 1, 1932 through December 31, 2010. In our first search, the general seismicity of the region was analyzed by selecting an epicenter map listing all events of magnitude 4.0 and greater, recorded since 1932, within a 100 kilometer (62 mile)radius of the site, in accordance with guidelines of the California Division of Mines and Geology. This map illustrates the regional seismic history of moderate to large events. As depicted on Enclosure A-6, within Appendix A, the site lies within a relatively quiet region. The closest was a magnitude 4.0 located approximately 43 kilometers (27 miles) south of the site. In the second search, the micro seismicity of the area lying within a 10 kilometer (9.2 miles) radius of the site was examined by selecting an epicenter map listing events on the order o·f 1.0 and greater since 1978. In addition, only the "A" events, or most accurate events were selected. Caltech indicates the accuracy of the "A" events to be approximately 1 kilometer. The results of this search is a map that presents the seismic history around the area of the site with much greater detail, not permitted on the larger map. The reason for limiting the events to the last 35 ± years on the detail 6 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 map is to enhance the accuracy of the map. Events recorded prior the mid 1970's are generally considered to be less accurate due to advancements in technology. As depicted on this map, Enclosure A-7, numerous events are scattered in the general area, primarily to the southeast. In summary, the historical seismicity of the site entails numerous small to medium magnitude earthquake events occurring in the region around the subject site. Any future developments at the subject site should anticipate that moderate to large seismic events could occur very near the site. Secondary Seismic Hazards Other secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include liquefaction, seismic-induced settlement, seiches and tsunamis, earthquake induced flooding, landsliding, and rockfalls. Liquefaction: The potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground shaking within granular loose sediments where the groundwater is usually less than 50 feet. As noted during our field investigation, the site is underlain by alluvial materials which are in a medium dense to dense in-place condition. In addition, groundwater was recorded at the site at a depth of 21 feet. Given that there is a potential for a strong ground motion seismic event to occur during the lifetime of the proposed development and given the conditions, the susceptibility of the site soils to liquefaction was assessed by means of the computer program LIOUEFY2 (Blake, 1998). This assessment was conducted using our deepest SPT boring log for the site, field blow counts, and laboratory soil data. The evaluation was performed in general accordance with the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117 A (California Geological Survey, 2008). The liquefaction calculations were performed using an earthquake ground motion at the site of 0.318g caused by a 7 .2 magnitude seismic event and a groundwater level of 21 feet below the existing ground surface. The analysis found that subsoils below a depth of 21 feet at the site are dense enough to prevent liquefaction. Therefore, the risk for soil liquefaction at the project is considered nil to very low. The results of the computer program analysis utilizing Liquefy2 are presented in Appendix D. 7 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 Seiches/Tsunamis: The site lies within two to three thousand feet of the Agua Hadionda Lagoon and Pacific Ocean, respectively. The elevation of the site is approximately 65 feet above mean sea level as noted on Enclosure A-1. According to the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Purposes, the site does not lie within a Tsunami inundation area (CGS, 2009). Based on the site elevation and previous mapping by the CGS, the potential for the site to be affected by a seiche or tsunami (earthquake generated wave) is considered nil. Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure): There are no large water storage facilities located on or near the site which could possibly rupture during in earthquake and affect the site by flooding. Seismically-Induced Landsliding: Due to the low relief of the site and surrounding region, the potential for landslides to occur at the site is considered nil. Rockfalls: No large, exposed, loose or unrooted boulders are present above the site that could affect the integrity of the site. Seismically-Induced Settlement: Settlement generally occurs within areas of loose, granular soils with relatively low density. Since the site is underlain by medium dense to very dense alluvial soils, the potential for settlement is considered very low. In addition, the recommended earthwork operations to be conducted during the development of the site should mitigate any near surface loose soil conditions. SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code 2013} Section 1613 of Chapter 16 of the 2013 California Building Code {CBC) contains the procedures and definitions for the calculations of the earthquake loads on structures and non structural components that are permanently attached to structures and their supports and attachments. It should be noted that the classification of use and occupancy of all proposed structures at the site, and thus design requirements, shall be the responsibility of the structural engineer and the building official. 8 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 Project No. 33090.1 CBC Earthquake Design Summary The following earthquake design criteria have been formulated for the site utilizing the source referenced above. However, these values should be reviewed by the building official (Risk Category) and structural engineer and the final design should be performed by a qualified structural engineer familiar with the region. CBC 2013 SEISMIC DESIGN SUMMARY Site Locati9n (USGS WGS84) 34.0202, -117.0487, Risk Category ll Site Class Definition (Table 1613.3.1 ( 1 )) D s. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, (Figure 1613.3.1 (2)) 1.144 S1 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, (Figure 1613.3.3( 11 )) 0.439 Fa Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, (Table 1613.3.3(11)) 1.042 Fv Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period,(Table 1613.3.3(2)) 1.561 SMs Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, (eq . 16-37) 1.192 SM1Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, (eq . 16-38) 1.685 S08 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period,(eq .16-.39) 0.795 S01 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, ( eq . 16-40) 0.457 Seismic Design Category-Short Period (Table 1613.3.5(1)) D Seismic Design Category Long Period (Table 1613.3.5(2)) D PERCOLATION TESTING PROGRAM Percolation testing was conducted in the general locations of proposed infiltration areas. For our testing, test holes were excavated to an approximate depth of 3 feet and were 6-inches in diameter. Two inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of each hole and perforated plastic liners were inserted. Additional gravel was placed on the outside and top of the liner prevent caving. A five gallon bottle of water was inverted over each test hole with a vacuum seal to provide a 6-inch constant head and the change in the volume of water was monitored over time. Measurements of the time for the water level to drop a given amount were taken. 9 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 Infiltration test results are summarized in the following table. For the detailed field data, see the enclosed test data sheets within Appendix E. TABLE OF INFILTRATION TEST RES UL TS* Test No. Clear Water Percolation Rate Infiltration Rate Gal/Sf/Day In/Hr P-1 190 12. 7 P-2 10.7 0.7 * average of final two readings The clear water percolation rates obtained in our test locations ranged from 0. 7 to 12. 7 inches per hour. The actual test results are provided on the attached data sheets, within Appendix D. The borings placed during this evaluation indicate that the subsurface soils at the site generally consist of silty sand with occasional clay within the upper 5 to 10 feet. Our percolation test data indicates poor to good absorption characteristics of the subsurface soils with a clear water absorption rate ranging from 0. 7 to over 12 inches per hour. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the rate for storm water. A typical factor of safety for such is 2.0 to 3.0. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of our field investigation and testing program, it is the opinion of LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. that the proposed development is feasible from a soil engineering standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction. Based upon the field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the upper portions of the alluvial soils, including the minor existing surficial fill materials, will not, in their present conditions, provide uniform and/or adequate support for the proposed structures. Our in-place density results indicated variable conditions of the upper portions of the alluvial materials ranging from loose to medium dense states. Left as is, this condition could cause unacceptable differential and/or overall settlements upon application of the anticipated foundation loads. 10 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31 , 2014 Project No. 33090.1 To provide adequate support for the proposed structures, we recommend a compacted fill mat be constructed beneath footings and slabs. This compacted fill mat will provide a dense, high-strength soil layer to uniformly distribute the anticipated foundation loads over the underlying soils. In addition, the construction of this compacted fill mat will allow for the removal of the existing fills and the loose alluvial soil within the building pad areas. Soil Expansiveness As noted by our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, the site surficial soils primarily consist of silty sand with a very low expansion potential. Therefore, specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil activity are not anticipated at this time However, some clayey materials with anticipated low expansion were noted at depth. Should such materials become more prevalent under proposed foundations and slabs, measures will be necessary to mitigate the effects of expansive soils. These measures are described in the Foundation Design, Building Area Slab-on-Grade, and Exterior Flatwork sections of this report. Careful evaluation of on-site soils and any import fill for their expansion potential should be conducted during the grading operation. Geologic Mitigations No special geologic mitigation methods are deemed necessary at this time, other than the geotechnical recommendations provided in the following sections. Seismicity Seismic ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre-existing active faults. Since no faults are known to exist at, or project into the site, the probability of ground surface rupture occurring at the site is considered nil. ·· Due to the site's close proximity to the faults described above, it is reasonable to expect a very strong ground motion seismic event to occur during the lifetime' of the proposed development on the site. Large earthquakes could occur on other faults in the general area, but because of their lesser anticipated magnitude and/or greater distance, they are considered less significant than the fault zones discuss within from a ground motion standpoint. 11 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31 , 2014 Project No. 33090.1 The effects of ground shaking anticipated at the subject site, should be mitigated by the seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. However, it should be noted that the current building code requires the minimum design to allow a structure to remain standing after a seismic event, in order to allow for safe evacuation. A structure built to code may still sustain damage which might ultimately result in the demolishing of the structure {Larson and Slosson, 1992). RECOMMENDATIONS General Site Grading It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer. An on-site, pre-job meeting with the developer, the contractor, the jurisdictional agency, and the geotechnical engineer should occur prior to all grading related operations. Operations undertaken at the site without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusion of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project. Grading of the subject site should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations as well as applicable portions of the California Building Code, and/or applicable local ordinances. All areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials. Such materials may not be used as engineered fill. All uncontrolled fill&. encountered during site preparation should be completely removed, cleaned of significant deleterious materials, and may then be reused as compacted fill. Minor amounts of uncontrolled fills were identified at the site during this study and other areas of fill, including fills associated with the existing structures and underground utilities at the site, are anticipated. It is our recommendation that all existing uncontrolled and/or undocumented fills, buried obstructions, foundations, etc., under any proposed flatwork and paved areas should be removed and replaced with engineered compacted fill. If this is not done, premature structural distress {settlement) of the flatwork and pavement may occur. 12 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 Cavities created by removal of subsurface obstructions should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soil, organic matter and other deleterious materials, shaped to provide access for construction equipment, and backfilled as recommended in the following Engineered Compacted Fill section of this report. Initial Site Preparation All existing uncontrolled fills and loose alluvial materials should be removed from structural areas and areas to receive structural fills. The data developed during this investigation indicates that removals on the order of 3 to 5 feet will be required to encounter competent alluvium across the majority of the site. Localized areas requiring deeper removals may be encountered locally. Competent alluvium is defined as damp, relatively dense materials with a minimum relative compaction of 85 percent (ASTM D 1557). The actual depths of removal should be verified during the grading operation by observation and in-place density testing. Preparation of Fill Areas After conducting the removals discussed above and prior to placing till, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches. The scarified soil should be brought to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). Preparation of Building Pad Areas All footings should rest upon a minimum of 24 inches of properly compacted fill material placed over competent alluvium. In areas where the required fill thickness is not accomplished by the removal of the existing fill and loose alluvial materials and site rough grading, the footing areas should be further subexcavated to a depth of at least 24 inches below the proposed footing base grade, with the subexcavation e·xtending at least 5 feet beyond the footing lines. Where deeper removals in excess of 5 feet are required, these removals should extend laterally at a 1: 1 ratio. The bottom of this excavation should then be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent 13 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) prior to refilling the excavation to grade as properly compacted fill. The minimum fill thickness under any one structure should be at least one-third of the maximum fill thickness. To provide adequate support, concrete slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of 12 inches of compacted soil. During rough grading, the remedial removals recommended above will most likely provide the recommended 1 2 inches of compacted soil for adequate support of concrete slabs-on-grade. The final pad surfaces should be rolled to provide smooth, dense surfaces upon which to place the concrete. Engineered Compacted Fill The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill material, provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Unless approved by the geotechnical engineer, rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6-inches should not be buried or placed in fills. Import fill, if utilized, should be inorganic, non-expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use. Fill should be spread in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, each lift brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Based upon the relative compaction of the near surface soils determined during this investigation and the relative compaction anticipated for compacted fill soil, we estimate a compaction shrinkage factor of approximately 10 to 15 percent. In addition, we would anticipate subsidence of approximately 0.15 feet. These values are for estimating purposes only, and are exclusive of losses due to stripping or the removal of subsurface obstructions. These values may vary due to differing conditions within the project boundaries and the limitations of this investigation. Shrinkage should be monitored during construction. If percentages vary, provisions should be made to revise final grades or adjust quantities of borrow or export. 14 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 As noted before, some of the on-site soils beneath a depth of approximately 7 feet may have a potential for expansion. Therefore, a careful evaluation of on-site and imported soils for their expansion potential should be conducted during the grading operation. Short-Term Excavations Following the California Occupational and Safety Health Act (CAL-OSHA) requirements, excavations 5-feet deep and greater should be sloped or shored. All excavations and shoring should conform to CAL-OSHA requirements. Short-term excavations of 5-feet deep and greater shall conform to Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504 and 1539 through 1547. Based on our exploratory borings, it appears that Type C soil is the predominant type of soil on the project and all short-term excavations should be based on this type of soil. Deviation from the standard short-term slopes are permitted using Option 4, Design by a Registered Professional Engineer (Section 1541.1 ). Short-term slope construction and maintenance are the responsibility of the contractor, and should be a consideration of his methods of operation and the actual soil conditions encountered. Slope Construction Preliminary data indicates that cut and fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. Fill slopes should be overfilled during construction and then cut back to expose fully compacted soil. A suitable alternative would be to compact the slopes during construction, then roll the final slopes to provide dense, erosion-resistant surfaces. Slope Protection Since the native materials are susceptible to erosion by running water, measures should be provided to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces. Slopes at the project should be planted with a deep rooted ground cover as soon as possible after completion. The use of succulent ground covers such as iceplant or sedum is not recommended. If watering is necessary to sustain plant growth on slopes, then the 15 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 watering operation should be monitored to assure proper operation of the irrigation system and to prevent over watering. Foundation Design If the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed buildings may be safely founded on conventional foundation systems, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of engineered compacted fill. Footings for one-and two-story buildings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings for three-story buildings should have a minimum width of 15 inches. Foundations on low expansive soils should be established a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For the minimum width of 12 inches and depth of 18 inches, footings may be designed using a maximum soil bearing pressure of 1,800 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by 1 00 psf for each additional foot of width and by 400 psf for each additional foot of depth, to a maximum of 4,000 psf. For example, a footing 3 feet wide and embedded 2 feet will have an allowable bearing pressure of 2,400 psf. The above values are net pressures; therefore, the weight of the foundations and the backfill over the foundations may be neglected when computing dead loads. The values apply to the maximum edge pressure for foundations subjected to eccentric loads or overturning.· The recommended pressures apply for the total of dead plus frequently applied live loads, and incorporate a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for temporary wind or seismic loading. The resultant of the combined vertical and lateral seismic loads should act within the middle one-third of the footing width. The maximum calculated edge pressure under the toe of foundations subjected to eccentric loads or overturning should not exceed the increased allowable pressure. Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings bearing against compacted fill, passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Base friction may be computed at 0.30 times the normal load. Base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction. 16 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 Footings on low expansive soils should be reinforced with a minimum of two # 4 rebars, one near the top and one near the bottom of the footings. The preceding recommendations to counteract low expansive soil activity should be considered minimum and should be revised upon the completion of the site grading. More stringent parameters for design of foundations on expansive soils can be specified by a structural engineer experienced in these matters. Settlement Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the width of the foundation and the actual load supported. Maximum settlement of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are estimated to be on the order of 0.5 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings should be about one-half of the total settlement. Settlement of all foundations is expected to occur rapidly, primarily as a result of elastic compression of supporting soils as the loads are applied, and should be essentially completed shortly after initial application of the loads. Building Pad Slab-On-Grade Design Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor barrier. This barrier may consist of an impermeable membrane. Two inches of sand over the membrane will reduce punctures and aid in obtaining a satisfactory concrete cure. The sand should be moistened just prior to placing of concrete. The slabs should be protected from rapid and excessive moisture loss which could result in slab curling. Careful attention should be given to slab curing procedures, as the site area is subject to large temperature extremes, humidity, and strong winds. Should low expansive soils be encountered or found to exist under slab areas, these areas should be properly pre-soaked prior to pouring concrete. For this condition, slab areas should be pre-soaked to approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches. Unless more stringent parameters are given by the structural engineer experienced on expansive soil design, the slab thickness should be a minimum of 4 inches. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 rebars placed at a maximum spacing of 18 inches on center, each way. 17 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31 , 2014 Project No. 33090.1 The preceding recommendations to counteract low expansive soil activity should be considered minimum and are subject to the review and approval of the project structural engineer. These recommendations should be also revised upon the completion of the site grading. Exterior Flatwork To provide adequate support, exterior flatwork improvements should rest on a minimum of 12 inches of soil compacted to at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). If low expansive soils are present under flatwork areas, these areas should be pre- soaked prior to pouring concrete to a minimum depth of 18 inches and to approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content. All sidewalks, patio slabs, and driveways with a minimum dimension greater than 5 feet, should be reinforced with #3 re bars placed at a maximum spacing of 18 inches on center, each way. Reinforcement for curbing should be one continuous #4 rebar at top and bottom. In addition, it is recommended that sidewalks, patio slabs, curbs, etc., have a thickness of at least 4 inches, with saw cuts every 10 feet or less. Driveways should be at least 6 inches thick, with saw cuts every 15 feet or less. Flatwork surface should be sloped a minimum of 1 percent away from buildings and slopes, to approved drainage structures. Again, the recommendations given to counteract low expansive soil activity should be considered minimum and should be revised upon the completion of the site grading. Wall Pressures The design of footings for retaining structures should be performed in accordance with the recommendations described earlier under Preparation of Building Pad Areas and Foundation Design. For design of retaining wall footings, the resultant of the applied loads should act in the middle one-third of the footing, and the. maximum edge pressure should not exceed the basic allowable value without increase. For design of retaining walls unrestrained against movement at the top, we recommend an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used. This assumes level backfill consisting of recompacted, non-expansive, native soils placed 18 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 against the structures and within the back cut slope extending upward from the base of the stem at 35 degrees from the vertical or flatter. Retaining structures subject to uniform surcharge loads within a horizontal distance behind the structures equal to the structural height should be designed to resist additional lateral loads equal to 0.30 times the surcharge load. Any isolated or line loads from adjacent foundations or vehicular loading will impose additional wall loads and should be considered individually. As noted before, some clayey, expansive soils are present at the site. Since these materials have a very low permeability, very uncertain behavior, and exert much higher lateral earth pressures on retaining structures, they should not be used as wall backfills. Therefore selective grading should be conducted to place very low expansive, sandy soils within wall backfill areas. Alternatively import materials may be used provided that these are inorganic, non-expansive granular soils. Sources for import fill should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use. To avoid over stressing or excessive tilting during placement of backfill behind walls, heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed within the zone delineated by a 45 degree line extending from the base of the wall to the fill surface. he backfill directly behind the walls should be compacted using light equipment such as hand operated vibrating plates and rollers. No material larger than 3 inches in diameter should be placed in direct contact with the wall. Wall pressures should be verified prior to construction, when the actual backfill materials and conditions have been determined. Recommended pressures are applicable only to level, non-expansive, properly drained backfill with no additional surcharge loadings. If inclined backfills are proposed, this firm should be contacted to develop appropriate active earth pressure parameters. 19 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Preliminary Pavement Design Project No. 33090.1 Testing and design for preliminary on-site pavement was conducted in accordance with the California Highway Design Manual. Based upon our preliminary sampling and testing, and upon an assumed Traffic Index generally used for similar projects, it appears that the structural sections tabulated below should provide satisfactory pavements for the subject pavement improvements: AREA T.I. DESIGN PRELIMINARY SECTION A-VALUE On site vehicular parking 6.0 35 0.25' AC/0.60' AB with occasional truck traffic AC -Asphalt Concrete AB Class 2 Aaareaate Base The above structural sections are predicated upon 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of all utility trench backfills and 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) of the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils and of any aggregate base utilized. In addition, the aggregate base should meet Caltrans specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base. In areas of the pavement which will receive high abrasion loads due to start-ups and stops, or where trucks will move on a tight turning radius, consideration should be given to installing concrete pads. Such pads should be a minimum of 0.5-foot thick concrete, with a 0.35-foot thick aggregate base. Concrete pads are also recommended in areas adjacent to trash storage areas where heavier loads will occur due to operation of trucks lifting trash dumpsters. It should be noted that all of the above pavement design was based upon the results of preliminary sampling and testing, and should be verified by additional sampling and testing during construction when the actual subgrade soils are exposed. 20 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July31,2014 Sulfate Protection Project No. 33090.1 The results of the sulfate tests conducted on selected subgrade soils expected to be encountered at foundation levels are presented in Appendix C. Based on the test results it appears that there is a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete elements in contact with on site soils. The 2010 CBC, therefore, does not recommend special design criteria for concrete elements in conduct with such materials. Infiltration The separation between the bottom of the proposed system and the groundwater level should be designed to meet the County and State requirements. The system should be designed and constructed as outlined within the recommendations contained within this report and any other jurisdictional agency requirements. Systems should be set back a distance from improvements as to not have an adverse affect in those improvements. Any geotextile filter fabric utilized should consist of material that prevents soil piping but has greater permeability than the existing soil. During site development, care should be taken as not to disturb the area(s) proposed for infiltration as changes in the soil structure could occur resulting in a change of the soil infiltration characteristics. This may not be feasible in areas of existing fill that are proposed for improvements. Proper maintenance of the system is critical. A maintenance program should be prepared and properly executed. At a minimum, the program should be as outlined by the jurisdictional agency. 21 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the clear water rate obtained during this investigation and used in the design in accordance with jurisdictional agency requirements. Construction Monitoring Post investigative services are an important and necessary continuation of this investigation. Project plans and specifications should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant prior to construction to confirm that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the design. Additional R-value, expansion index, and soluble sulfate content testing may be required after/during site rough grading. During construction, sufficient and timely geotechnical observation and testing should be provided to correlate the findings of this investigation with the actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. Items requiring observation and testing include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Site preparation-stripping and removals. 2. Excavations, including approval of the bottom of excavations prior to the processing and preparation of the bottom areas for fill placement. 3. Scarifying and recompacting prior to fill placement. 4. Subgrade preparation tor pavements and slabs-on-grade. 5. Placement of engineered compacted till and backfill, including approval of fill materials and the performance of sufficient density tests to evaluate the degree of compaction being achieved. LIMITATIONS This report contains geotechnical conclusions and recommendations developed solely tor use by Harding Street Neighbors, LP, and their design consultants, tor the purposes described earlier. It may not contain sufficient information tor other uses or the 22 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 Project No. 33090.1 purposes of other parties. The contents should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other facilities without consulting LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. The recommendations are based on interpretations of the subsurface conditions concluded from information gained from subsurface explorations and a surficial site reconnaissance. The interpretations may differ from actual subsurface conditions, which can vary horizontally and vertically across the site. If conditions are encountered during the construction of the project, which differ significantly from those presented in this report, this firm should be notified immediately so we may assess the impact to the recommendations provided. Due to possible subsurface variations, all aspects of field construction addressed in this report should be observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant. If parties other than LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. provide construction monitoring services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project being completed by concurring with the recommendations provided in this report or by providing alternative recommendations. The report was prepared using generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices under the direction of a state licensed geotechnical engineer. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent investigations as deemed necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on this project. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Governmental Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a significant amount of time without a review by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. 23 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Harding Street Neighbors, LP July 31, 2014 CLOSURE Project No. 33090.1 It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. We look forward to being of further assistance to you as construction begins. Should conditions be encountered during construction that appear to be different than indicated by this report, please contact this office immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. ~ Andrew A. Tardie Staff Geologist . Leuer, GE 2030 AAT:RMM:JPL/ejt Robert M. Markoff, CE Engineering Geologist No. 2073 CERTIFIED GINEERI Distribution: Addressee (4) and PDF via email todd@c-cdev.com 24 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. REFERENCES Blake, Thomas, F. 1998, Liquefy2, Version 1.50. California Building Standards Commission and International Conference of Building Officials, 2013, California Building Code, 2013 edition. California Geological Survey, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Purposes, Sate of California, San Diego County, Oceanside Quadrangle/San Luis Rey Quadrangle. Hart, E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Dept. of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S., 2005, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California. Larson, R., and Slosson, J., 1992, The Role of Seismic Hazard Evaluation in Engineering Reports, in Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, AEG Special Publication Number 4, pp 191-194. Reeder, W., 2000, Earthquake Plotting Program, EPI Software. Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999. State of California Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Special Publication 117 A Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, September 11, 2008. LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. APPENDIX A Index Map, Conceptual Site Plan, Regional Geologic Map, Partial Description of Geologic Units and Historical Seismicity Maps LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. INDEX MAP PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 33090.1 CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-1 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014 SCALE: 1" = 2,000' PROJECT: CLIENT: PROJECT DATA SITE AREA 7.1 ACRES UNIT MIX PARKING 2 BED 100 3BED +4 TOTAL 144 -3 STORY UNITS (20/ACRE) 302 (2.1 / UNIT) CARLSBAD APARTMENTS SITE PLAN 9ep110.2012 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN JEFFERSON CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: 33090.1 A-2 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014 SCALE: NOT JO SCALE (Locations Approximate) ♦ 8-4 · EXPLORATORY BORING ♦ P-2 • PERCOLATION TEST SITE PLAN PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO: 33090.1 CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-3 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014 SCALE: 1" == 70' REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP (Kennedy and Tan, 2005) PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 33090.1 CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-4 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014 SCALE: 1:100,000 EJ Old paralic deposits undivided (late to middle Pleistocene )-Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These deposits rest on the now emergent wave cut abrasion platforms preserved by regional uplift. Where more than one number is shown ( e.g., Qop2-4) those deposits are undivided (Fig. 3 ). Includes: Old paralic deposits, Unit 7 (late to middle Pleistocene)-Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 9-11 m Bird Rock terrace (Fig. 3) Old paralic deposits, Unit 6 (late to middle Pleistocene)-Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 22-23 m Nestor terrace (Fig. 3) PARTIAL DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS (Kennedy and Tan, 2005) PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 33090.1 CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-5 LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE + M4 + + N EPI Software 2000 -+-+ + ---l+ + -+ --f-~~ + --~f-+ ++ ~--------------~----------~ Seismicity 1932-2010 (Magnitude 4.0+) 100 kilometer radius + + SITE LOCATION: 33.1535 LAT. -117.3384 LONG. MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C TOTAL# OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 1264 0 50 KILOMETERS TOTAL# OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 223 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS: 4.0-4.9 : 209 5.0-5.9: 13 6.0-6.9: 1 7.0-7.9: 0 8.0-8.9: 0 CLOSEST EVENT: 4.0 ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 04, 2007 LOCATED APPROX. 43 KILOMETERS SOUTH OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS: 6.4 ON SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1933 LOCATED APPROX. 81 KILOMETERS NORTHWEST OF THE SITE 5.8 ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1951 LOCATED APPROX. 94 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE 5.5 ON SUNDAY, JULY 13, 1986 LOCATED APPROX. 53 KILOMETERS SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE 5.5 ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1980 LOCATED APPROX. 85 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE 5.5 ON MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1969 LOCATED APPROX. 91 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE MS M6 + 100 Enclosure A-6 + M1 + M2 + M3 12 Oceanside + M4 •,' MS 'l SITE tJ + q Carlsbad \1 \ \ \ . \ \ \ • + EPI Software 2000 Seismicity 1978-2010 (Magnitude 0.0+) 15 kilometer radius SITE LOCATION: 33.1535 LAT. ·117.3384 LONG. MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: A TOTAL# OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 951 TOT AL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 283 MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS: 0.0-.9: 31 1.0-1.9: 179 2.0-2.9: 72 3.0-3.9: 1 4.0-4.9: 0 5.0· 5.9: 0 6.0-6.9: 0 7.0-7.9: 0 8.0-8.9: 0 0 7 KILOMETERS CLOSEST EVENT: 1.2 ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 03, 1981 LOCATED APPROX. 1.2 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE LARGEST 5 EVENTS: 3.3 ON FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1985 LOCATED APPROX. 12 KILOMETERS SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE 2.9 ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 12 KILOMETERS SOUTH OF THE SITE 2.8 ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 7 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE 2.7 ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 8 KILOMETERS SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE 2.7 ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 02, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 14 KILOMETERS SOUTH OF THE SITE 15 Enclosure A-7 APPENDIX B Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. Subsurface Exploration APPENDIX B FIELD INVESTIGATION Our subsurface exploration of the site consisted of drilling 4 exploratory borings to depths ranging from approximately 19.5 to 51 feet below the existing ground surface using a CME 75 drill rig on July 8, 2014. Two additional shallow borings were hand excavated for the purposes of conducting percolation testing within the underlying native soils. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Enclosure A-3 within Appendix A. The drilling exploration was conducted using a CME 75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. The soils were continuously logged by a geologist from this firm who inspected the site, created detailed logs of the borings, obtained undisturbed, as well as disturbed, soil samples for evaluation and testing, and classified the soils by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils were obtained at a maximum interval of 5 feet. Within our deepest boring B-1, samples were recovered by using a California split barrel sampler of 2.50-inch inside diameter and 3.25-inch outside diameter from the ground surface to 10 feet deep and a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler from 25 to 50 feet deep. For all remaining borings, samples were recovered by using a California spit barrel sampler. The samplers were driven by a 140-pound automatic trip hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler into the ground the final 1 2 inches were recorded and further converted to an equivalent SPT N-values which are included in the boring logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-4. The undisturbed soil samples were retained in brass sample rings of 2.42 inches in diameter and 1.00 inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers. Disturbed soil samples were obtained at selected levels within the borings and placed in sealed containers for transport to our geotechnical laboratory. All samples obtained were taken to our geotechnical laboratory for storage and testing. Detailed logs of the borings are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-4. A Boring Log Legend is presented on Enclosure B-i. A Soil Classification Chart is presented as Enclosure B-ii. r ~ TEST DATA (/) f-f-z f-(/) (/) UJ w f-UJ f->-Ul f-f-a. >-I.!.) z: z U)""' >-0 LOG OF BORING B-1 w.. :) >-0 f-0 (/) z f-0 oc: U,:::-Z4. ...J 0 Q., u 0 UJ ci' Ul(J UJ 0 :r: (/) ;:l: f-oc: ~ Cl~ ...J c/2 < a. :r: f-:) >-2 f-:) Q., 0 oc: f-0,: < ::i I.!.) ...J 0 (/) Cl Cl a:i a:i 6 (/) < ...J 2 DESCRIPTION 0 ~ SM @0' FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel to 1/2", 20% 11 2.9 109.8 I I r-r--r-:-SM coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine I I erained sand 20% siltv fines lieht brown. drv. loose. @2' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse 5 .. '-:"'"7" grained sand, 30% meidum grained sand, 40% fine grained I II 3.9 107.2 I SP sand 20% siltv fines. brown damo. 32 13.9. 119.9 I SC @ 5' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 30% medium I grained sand, 65% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, light red 10 brown damn. 24 13.2 118.5 I @ 7' CLAYEY SAND, approximately 20% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 30% clayey fines of low plasticity, red brown, moist. @ 10' becomes gray. IS 25 for 3" 21.4 104.1 ■ @ 15' becomes wet, slightly coarser grained. 20 28 for 3" 23.4 98.3 ':!! @20' alternating layers of CLAYEY SAND and POORLY GRADED SAND, 2 to 5" thick. @ 21' groundwater. 25 63 for 3" IS.I "'"" CL @ 25' LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 15% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 25% clayey fines of low plasticity, gray, damp. 30 o7 for 311 19.7 ll:1 21 SM @30' SILTY SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 25% sitly fines with trace clay, gray, wet. 35 KJ7 for S" 12.3 lt! lt! 40 'f,7 for 3" 21.4 "' "' .. SP @ 40' POORLY GRADED SAND with SIL TY, approximately SM 10% coarse grained sand, 40% medium grained sand, 40% fine . ,• grained sand, 10% silty fines, gray white, wet. 45 67 for 3" 15.6 "'"" . ,• so "'"' 67 for 3" 12.6 END OF BORING Fill 0-2' 55 Groundwater@ 21' No Bedrock Boring backfilled with bentonite 60 PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA.: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-1 Ii.. ~ , TEST DATA f-Ul Ul f- ill z Cl.. ;:) ~ I;: 8 ::C: Ul ;s'. ti: 0 Ul ...l 0 CO Ul f-f-z Ul Ul Ul f-f-z >-0 0:: U-0 Ul;,,: ~ cc--- CG ;:) 0 ti; U.I a. >-f- U.I ....l a. z < Cl) >-0 0 ....l 0 :r: f- :J Cl) u ~ ;:) LOG OF BORING B-2 ~ 0 Of------+--...l--+--~-+------+----------1e----+-.-........+--+--=--~-----=D::...:E=-:S:::..:C::..::RI=-PT::...:I:..::O:...:..N-'------,--,--------1 SM @0' FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 35% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% sitly fines, brown, dry, loose. 15 5.9 114.5 51----+---+---+---+-------l 9 U 1~4 16 6.8 103.8 l01---3-6---1f-----+-6-.9-f-----+-I-0-6.-9---1 151-----1------I~---+-------+------< 34 17.0 114.8 I I I I 20128 for 3' 12.6 103.8 I 251-----1------1----+-------+------< 1.-_.· L···· ::~--~ SM @2' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 40% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, red brown, dry. @5' SIL TY SAND, approximately 35% medium grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, red brown, dry, micaceous. SP @ 7' POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, approximately 40% SM medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines, red brown, damp. SP @ 10' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 15% medium grained sand, 80% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled black-brown, damp. SM @ 15' SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, red brown, wet. @ 16' becomes gray white, trace clay. END OF BORING Fill 0-2' No groundwater No bedrock Boring backfilled with bentonite PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA.: s" I ENCLOSURE: B-2 II,. f-{/J UJ f- UJ z u.. :::, Z f-0 0... u ~ {/J ;$ 0... 0 UJ ,_J 0 O:l {/J f-{/J UJ f- ~ 0 f-< ~ 0 O:l j TEST DATA f-;z: UJ f-~ u"" UJ ~ ~ __, :::, f-{/J 0 :E Ul 0... >-f- UJ ,_J 0... :E < {/J >-0 3 0 E ,_J {/J cj (/} ::i LOG OF BORING B-3 DESCRIPTION 0 i-----t---t----t----t----1------t-~-c~-cf.-rPT=--:~@:-'.,'""o~·-;:;;s=-::::o=-'-;;::Dc--c-=-=-~-~-=-~-=-~-~-~-=-~---_-_-_-~-~-----~-~-~-~-~-----~~--~------~ '"'-.:_ SM @0' TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse 14 4.5 I I0.7 51---1-7 --+---+--6.-4--+---+--1-0-9.-2--1 20 9.2 111.0 I01---2-2--+---+--5-.2--+l----+-98-.6--l 15 !25 for 5" 14.4 112.5 I I I I I ZO 28 for 5" 15.8 99.o I 25f----+---+---+---+------< SM grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained \ sand 25 fines strom1 brown moist. @ I' ALL :. SIL TY SAND, approximately 30% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, brown, damp. @ 5' becomes light red brown, trace clay. @7' SILTY SAND, approximately 20% medium grained sand, 60% fine grained sand, 20% sitly fines, light yellow brown, dry. SP @ IO' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 5% medium grained sand, 90% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled black tan, damp. ML @ 15' SANDY SILT/SIL TY SAND, approximately 20% medium SM grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 50% silty fines, gray white, damp. ML @20' SANDY SILT, approximately 20% coarse grained sand, 80% siltv fines with trace clav. Hav white damo. END OF BORING Fill 0-1' No groundwater No bedrock Boring backfilled with bentonite PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA: 811 j ENCLOSURE: B-3 I , TEST DATA (/) f-f-z f-(/) (/) u..J u..J f-LI.l f->-u..J >-f-t: CL. u..J z z >-Q LOG OF BORING B-4 1-L ::i >-0 ::2 G::' f-0 [/) z f-0 c::: u~ LI.l ....J l! CL. u 0 [J_J ~ u..J (._) ....J 0 :r: [/) ;3: f-c:::~ Cl !2::., [/) <I'. CL. :r: f-::i >-2 f-::i CL. 0 c::: f-c::: <I'. :J u..J ....J 0 [/) Cl Cl co co 0 (/) <I'. ....J 2 DESCRIPTION 0 ~ "'~~ PT @0'SOD ~ >-'-I-SM @0.5' TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse ~ SM\ grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained I ~ sand 25% siltv fines. brown. moist. 16 7.0 115.8 I ~ @ I' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 30% medium ~ grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines with trace clay, red brown, moist. 5 13 7.7 109.3 I @5' clay no longer present. 16 8.7 107.5 1· @ 7' SIL TY SAND, approximately 20% medium grained sand, 65% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, red brown, dry. 10 ....,.........,':- 23 6.7 98.5 I ·-· SP @ 10' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 10% medium .. grained sand, 85% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled black brown, dry, some pyrite flakes. •,• .. •,' -·:-:.:: 15 ~:; 26 13.7 108.8 I SW @ 15' WELL GRADED SAND, approximately 20% coarse = ~-. :..._ grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 45% silty fines, tan, CL I drv. r @ 16' LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 5% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 60% clayey fines of low plasticity, gray white, damp. 20 128 for 5" 21.1 106.6 I ML @ 20' SANDY SIL TY, approximately 5% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 60% silty fines with trace clay, gray ! I white damn. END OF BORING Fill 0-1' No groundwater No bedrock Boring backfilled with bentonite 25 PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1 CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75 HOLE DIA.: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-4 ... ... APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. General APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Selected soil samples obtained from the borings were tested in our geotechnical laboratory to evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting foundation design and construction procedures. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction, direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R-value, expansion index, and soluble sulfate content. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following paragraphs: Moisture Density Tests The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this site. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected undisturbed samples, in accordance with ASTM D 2921 and ASTM D 2216, respectively, and the results are shown on the boring logs, Enclosures B-1 through B- 4, for convenient correlation with the soil profile. Laboratory Compaction Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine compaction characteristics using the ASTM D 1557 compaction test method. The results are presented in the following table: LABORATORY COMPACTION Sample Maximum Optimum Boring Depth Soil Description Dry Density Moisture Number (feet) U.S.C.S. (pcf) Content (percent) B-1 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 130.0 8.5 B-2 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 132.0 9.0 Direct Shear Tests Shear tests are performed in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 with a direct shear machine at a constant rate-of-strain (0.04 inches/minute). The machine is designed to test a sample partially extruded from a sample ring in single shear. Samples are tested at varying normal loads in order to evaluate the shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples ~He tested in remolded condition (90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557) and soaked, to represent the worse case conditions expected in the field .. The results of the shear tests are presented in the following table: DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Sample Apparent Angle of Boring Depth Soil Description Cohesion Internal Number (U.S.C.S.) Friction (feet) (psf) (degrees) 8-1 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 400 31 Sieve Analysis A quantitative determination of the grain size distribution was performed for selected samples in accordance with the ASTM D 422 laboratory test procedure. The determination is performed by passing the soil through a series of sieves, and recording the weights of retained particles on each screen. The results of the sieve analyses are presented graphically on Enclosure C-1. Sand Equivalent The sand equivalent of selected soils were evaluated using the California Sand Equivalent Test Method, Caltrans Number 217. The results of the sand equivalent tests are presented on Enclosure C-1. R-Value Test Soil samples were obtained at probable pavement subgrade level and sand equivalent tests were conducted. Based on these indicator tests, a selected soil sample was tested to determine its R-value using the California R-Value Test Method, Caltrans Number 301 . The results of the R-value test is presented on Enclosure C-1 . Expansion Index Tests Remolded samples are tested to determine their expansion potential in accordance with the Expansion Index {El) test. The test is performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 18-2. The test results are presented in the following table: EXPANSION INDEX TESTS Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Expansion Expansion Number (feet) (U.S.C.S.) Index (El) Potential 8-1 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 4 Very Low Expansion Index: 0-20 21-50 51-90 91 130 Very low Low Medium High Soluble Sulfate Content Tests The soluble sulfate content of selected subgrade soils were evaluated. The concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils was determined by measuring the optical density of a barium sulfate precipitate. The precipitate results from a reaction of barium chloride with water extractions from the soil samples. The measured optical density is correlated with readings on precipitates of known sulfate concentrations. The test results are presented on the following table: SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTS Sulfate Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Content Number (feet) (U.S.C.S.) (percent by weight) 8-1 0-3 (SM) Siltv Sand 0.01 8-4 0-3 (SM) Siltv Sand 0.01 , -, U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 I '4 l/2 3/8 J 6 gl0 1416 20 30 40 50 ?0100140 200 " 100 I I II I ""-I I I I I I'-I I I I -\ •i--\ 90 I\ \ -: 80 ~ \ : \ p : \ ~ E R70 C E I N T60 F I N E50 ~ R B \~ y40 w \\ E '\ ~ I i G30 H T 20 IO 0 100 IO 1 0.1 0.01 0.00] GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES I GRAVEL SAND I SILT OR CLAY I coarse fine coarse medium I fine I Specimen Identification Soil Classification SE RV Cc Cu le B-1 @ 0-3' (SM) Silty Sand 23 37 III B-4 @ 0-3' (SM) Silty Sand 13 -- .. Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay • B-1 @ 0-3' 19.00 0.26 3.8 64.6 31.6 III B-4 @ 0-3' 4.75 0.23 0.0 65.6 34.4 PROJECT Proe_osed Multi-Family__ Residential Project -PROJECT NO. 33090.1 Carlsbad, California DATE 7/29/14 GRADATION CURVES LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. ENCLOSURE C-1 \.. ~ APPENDIX D Liquefaction Analysis LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. 33090B1. OUT ***************************** * * LIQUEFY2 Version 1.50 * * **********************~****~* EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF l:ARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: 33090,1 JOB NAME: Boring B-1 SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 33090bl.LDW BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 21.00 ft CALCULATION GROUNDWATER. DEPTH; 21.00 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.20 Mw SITE Pf:AK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.318 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER. CORRECTION FACTOR= 1.00 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: . rdri ss (1997, in press) Magnitude scaling Factor: 1.110 rd-CORRECTION METHOD: NCEER (1997) DATE: 07-26-2014 FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE NOT CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE ORIVE RODS. Rod Stick-up Above Ground: 5.0 ft CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6 33090B1. OUT --------------------------~---------------------NCEER (1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1 ------------------------------------------------ File Name: 33090b1.0UT -----------------------------------~------------------------------------------I CALC. I TOTAL! EFF. I FIELD I FC I I CORR. I LIQUE. I I INDUC. I LI QUE. SOIL! DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N fDELTAJ C !(Nl)60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFElY NO.I (ft) I (tsf)I (tsf)l(B/ft)INL60I N l(B/ft)I RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------1 0.251 0.0151 0.015 11 ~ I * I * I * I * I * I ** 1 0.751 0.0451 0.045 11 ,., I * I "' * I * I * I ** 1 1.251 0.0751 0.075 11 ~ I .,, I * 'l\-I * I * I ** 1 1.751 0.1051 0,105 11 * I * * I * I .,, I cft<2 l 2.251 0.1351 0.13s 11 I ..., .,, I 1r * I * I * I ** 1 2.751 0.1651 0.1651 11 I * I * * I * I * I -lt<2 1 3.251 0.19S1 0.1951 11 ,i-I * * I * I * ** 1 3.75I o.2251 0.2251 11 * I * * I * I * *"' 1 4.251 0.2551 0.2551 11 * I * 'fr I * I * ** 1 4.751 0.2851 0.2851 11 ~ * I * * I * I * *"' 2 5.251 o.315I o.315 11 I ~ * I * * * I * 'f,'/t 2 5.75 0.34S1 0.3451 11 I .... I * I * * * I * ** 2 6.25 0.3751 0.3751 11 I ~ I * I * I * * I * ,i,,i- 2 6.75 0.405 0.4051 11 I -I * I * I * * I * ** 3 7.25 0.435 0.4351 32 I ~ I * * I ¼ * I * ** 3 7.7S 0.465 0.4651 32 I ~ I * * I * * I * 'A''ft 3 8.25 0.495 0.4951 32 I ~ I * * * * I * ** 3 8.75 o. 525 0.5251 32 I ~ I * * * * I .,, ** 3 9.25 0.555 0.555 32 I -I * * * * I * ** 3 9.75 0.585 0.585 32 I I * * * * * I ,t(1r 4 10.25 0.615 0.615 24 I ~ I * * I .,, I * * *"' 4 I 10.75 0.645 0.645 24 I ~ I * * I * I * * ** 4 I 11.251 0.675 0.6751 24 I ~ I * * * I * * ** 4 I 11.751 0.7051 0.7051 24 I ~ I * 1t: * I * I * ** 4 I 12.251 0.7351 0.7351 24 I ~ I * * * I * I * ** 4 12.751 0.7651 0.7651 24 I -I * * * I * I * ** 4 I 13.2SI 0.79S 0.79S1 24 I -I * I * I * * I * I ** 4 I 13.75 0,825 0.8251 24 I ~ I * I * I * * 'I< I ,J,-k 4 I 14.25 0.855 0.8551 24 I -I * I * I * * I * I ** 4 I 14.75 0.885 0.8851 24 I -I * I * I * .,, I * I ** 5 ! 15.25 0.915 0.9151 so ~ I * I * * I * I * I ** 5 I 15.75 0.945 0.9451 50 .... I fr I * * I 'l\' I * I cf,-t, s I 16,251 0.975 0.975I 50 ~ I * l * * I * * I ** 5 I 16. 751 1.0051 1.005 50 ~ I * I * * I * * I ** 5 I 17.251 1.0351 1.035 50 ~ I * I * I * I * * ** 5 I 17.751 1.0651 1.065 50 I ~ I * I * I * l * * ** 5 I 18.251 1.0951 1.095 50 I -I * I * I * I * I 'It </,'f, 5 I 18.751 1.1251 1.125 so I ~ I * I * I * I * I * ** 5 I 19.251 l.1551 l.155 50 I ~ I * I * I * I * I 'it I ** s I 19.751 1.185 l.185 50 l I * * I * l * I * I </,<2 6 I 20.251 1.215 1.2151 so I ~ I * * I -1, I * I * I 'f:¼ 6 I 20.751 l.245 1.2451 50 I ~ I * * I * l of< I ,i, I ** 6 I 21.2s I 1.275 1.2671 so I ~ I -~ I .., I -I -I 33090B1.0UT NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 File Name: 33090bl.OUT --------------------------------~---------------------------------------------I CALC.I TOTAL! EFF. !FIELD I FC I I CORR. I LIQUE, I I INDUC. I LIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C l(Nl)60IRESISTJ r ISTRESSISAFETY NO.I (ft) I (tsf)I (tsf)l(B/ft)IN1-60I N l(B/ft)I RATIO! d I RATI0IFAO0R ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------6 I 21.75 1. 305 I 1.282 50 I ~ I -I ~ I ,.. I ~ I 6 I 22.25 1.3351 1.296 50 -I ~ I ~ I ~ .., 6 I 22.75 l.3651 1.310 so ~ I ~ ..., I ~ 6 I 23.25 1.395 I 1.325 50 ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ 6 I 23.7S l. 4251 1. 339 so ~ I ~ I -I ~ 6 24.251 1.4551 1.3S41 so I ~ I ~ I ,.., I ~ l 6 24.751 1.4851 1.3681 50 I -I ~ I ~ I .., 7 25.25! 1.5151 1.3821 63 I ~ I ~ I -I 7 25.751 1.5451 1.3971 63 I ~ I ~ I ~ I 7 26.251 1.5751 1.4111 63 I ~ I ~ l ~ I ~ I 7 26.751 1.6051 1.4261 63 I ..., ~ I ~ I ~ I 7 I 27.2511.6351 1.4401 63 ,.., I ~I ~ I ~- 7 I 27.75 1.665 1.4541 63 -I ~ I ~ I 7 I 28.25 1.695 1.469I 63 -I ~I .... I 7 I 28.75 1.725 1.4831 63 ~ I ~ .... I ~ I -l 7 I 29.25 1.7S5 1.498 63 ~ I ~ ~ I ,., I -~ I ,.,,., 7 I 29.75 1.785 1.512 63 -I ~ .., ~ .., ~ I ~ 8 I 30.25 1.815 1.526 67 (10.6510.825 65.9 Infin 0.928 0.228 NonLiq 8 I 30.75( 1.8451 1,541 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.924 0.229 Nonliq 8 I 31.251 1.875 1.5S5 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.920 0.229 NonLiq 8 I 31. 751 l. 905 1.570 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.916 0.230 NonLiq 8 I 32.25 1.935 1.584 67 110,65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.9121 0.230 NonLiq 8 I 32.75 1.965 1. 598 I 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 10-9071 0.23l!NonLiq 8 I 33.2S 1,995 1.6131 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 10,9031 0.2311NonLiq 8 I 33.75 2.025 1. 6271 67 110.65 0.825 6S.9 Infin 10.8991 0.2311NonLiq 8 I 34.25 2.055 1.642 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin I0.8951 0.232[NonLiq 8 I 34.751 2.085 1.656 67 (10.65 0.825 65.9 Infin [0.8911 0.232INonLiq 9 I 35.251 2.115 l.670 67 I 10. 37 0.789 63.2 Infin 10.8871 0.2321NonLiq 9 I 35.75 2.145 1.685 67 110.37 0.7891 63.2 rnfin 0.8831 0.232 NonLiq 9 36.25 2.175 1.699 67 ll0.3710.7891 63.2 IInfin 0.8791 0.233 NOnLiq 9 36.75 2.205 1.714 67 110.3710.7891 63.2 IInfin 0.8751 0.233 NonLiq 9 37.25 2.235 1.728 67 110.3710.7891 63.2 I Infin 0.871 0.233 NonLiq 9 37.751 2.2651 1.742 67 110.37 0.7891 63.2 IInfin 0.867 0.233 NonLiq 9 38.25 2.2951 1.7571 67 I 10.37 0.7891 63.2 lnfin 0.863 0.233 NonLiq 9 38.75 2.3251 1.7711 67 110.37 0.7891 63.2 :rnfin 0.859 0.233 NonLiq 9 39.25 2.3551 1.7861 67 110.37 0,789! 63.2 Infin 0.855 0.233 NOnLiq 9 39.75 2.385 1.8001 67 110.37 0.789 63.2 Infin 0.851 0.233 NonLiq 10 40.25 2.415 1.814I 67 I 1.97 0.757 52.7 Infin 10.8461 0.2331NOnliq 10 40.75 2.44S 1.829I 67 1.97 0.757 52.7 Infin !0-842I 0.233INonLiq 10 41. 25 2.475 1.8431 67 l.97 0.757 52.7 IInfin 10.8381 0.2331NonLiq 10 41.75 2.505 1.8S8I 67 1.97 0.757 52.7 IInfin 10.8341 0.2331NonLiq 10 42.25 2.535I l.872( 67 1.97 0.757 52.7 llnfin 10.8301 0.2321NonLiq 10 I 42.751 2.565! 1.8861 67 1.97 0.7571 52.7 I Infin (0.8261 0.232I NonLiq 10 I 43.251 2.5951 1.9011 67 1.97 0.7571 52.7 IInfin 10.s221 0.2321NonLiq 3309081,0UT NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 3 File Name! 33090bl.OUT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------I CALC,I TOTALI ~FF. !FIELD I FC I I CORR,ILIQUE.I IINDUC.ILIQUE. SO.IL I DEPTH I STR.ESS I STRESS j N I DEL TA I C I (Nl) 60 I RESIST I r I STRESS I SAFETY NO.I (ft) I (tsf)j (tsf)l(B/ft)!Nl._601 N l(B/ft)I RATIO! d RATIOIFACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------10 I 43.751 2.6251 1.9151 67 I 1.97 0.7571 52.7 Infin 10.8181 0.2321NonLiq 10 I 44.251 2.6551 1.9301 67 I 1.97 0.7571 52.7 Infin 10.8141 0.231 Nonliq 10 I 44.751 2.6851 1.9441 67 I 1.97 0.7571 52.7 Infin 10.810 0.231 NonLiQ 11 I 45.251 2.715 1,9581 67 I 1.93 0.729/ 50.8 Infin 0.806 0,231 NonLiq 11 I 45.751 2.745 1.9731 67 I 1.93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.802 0.231 NonLiq 11 I 46.251 2.775 1.9871" 67 I 1,93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.798 0,230 NonLiq 11 46.751 2,805 2.002 67 I 1.93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.7941 0.230 NonLiq 11 47.251 2.835 2,016 67 I 1.93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.7891 0.229 NonLiq 11 47.751 2.8651 2.030 67 I 1.9310.7291 50.8 linfin 10,7851 0.229 NonLiq 11 48.251 2.8951 2.045 67 I 1.9310.7291 50.8 IInfin I0.7811 0.229 NonLiq 11 48.751 2.9251 2.059 67 1.9310.7291 50.8 IInfin 10,777I 0.2281NonLiq 11 49.251 2.9551 2.074 67 l.93 0.7291 50.8 !Infin J0.773I 0.228INonLiq 11 49.751 2.9851 2.0881 67 1.93 0.7291 50.8 Jinfin 10.7691 0.2271NonLiq 12 50.251 3.0151 2.1021 67 1,890.7031 49,0 IInfin I0.7651 0.2271NonLiq 12 50.751 3,0451 2.1171 67 1.89 0.7031 49.0 IInfin 10,7611 0.2261NonLiq APPENDIX E Infiltration Test Results LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. MODIFIED BOTTLE INFIL TROMETER TEST DAT A Project: Carlsbad Apartments Test Date: July 9, 2014 Project No: 33090, 1 Test Hole No.: P-1 Soil Classification: SM Test Hole Size: 6" X 6" Depth of Test Hole: 2.9 feet Date Excavated: July 9,2014 Tested By: DW TEST PERIOD TRIAL NO. TIME TIME INTERVAL TOT AL ELAPSED WATER USED (lbs.) WATER USED (gal) INFILTRATION RA TE INFILTRATION (minutes) TIME (minutes) (gal/sf ./day) RATE (in/hr) s 8:08 1 35 35 3.67 0.44 18.5 1.2 E 8:43 s 8:43 2 40 75 3.47 0.42 15.3 1.0 E 9:23 s 9:23 3 80 155 6.05 0.73 13.3 0.9 E 10:43 s 10:43 4 70 225 4.69 0.56 11.8 0.8 E 11 :53 s 11 :53 5 71 296 4.51 0.54 11 .2 0,7 E 1 :04 Enclosure E-1 TEST PERIOD TRIAL NO. TIME TIME INTERVAL TOT AL ELAPSED WATER USED (lbs.) WATER USED (gal) INFILTRATION RATE INFILTRATION (minutes) TIME (minutes) (gal/sf./day) RA TE (in/hr) s 1 :04 6 65 361 3,99 0.48 10.8 0.7 E 2:09 s 2:09 7 14 375 0.85 0.10 10.7 0.7 E 2:33 Enclosure E-1 continued MODIFIED BOTTLE INFIL TROMETER TEST DAT A Project: Carlsbad Apartments Test Date: July 9, 2014 Project No: 33090.1 Test Hole No.: P-2 Soil Classification: SM Test Hole Size: 6" X 6" Depth of Test Hole: 3 feet Date Excavated: July 9, 2014 Tested By: ow TEST PERIOD TIME TOT AL ELAPSED WATER USED WATER USED INFILTRATION RATE INFILTRATION TRIAL NO. TIME INTERVAL TIME (minutes) (lbs.) (gall (gal/sf ./day) RA TE (in/hr) REMARKS (minutes) s 8:26 1 5 5 20.09 2.41 707.5 47.3 Refilled E 8:31 s 8:36 2 14 19 28.59 3.43 359.6 24.0 Refilled E 8:50 s 8:59 3 5 24 8.99 1.08 316.6 21.2 E 9:04 s 9:04 4 5 29 8.73 1.05 307.4 20.6 E 9:09 s 9:09 5 5 34 8.81 1.06 310.3 20.7 E 9:14 Enclosure E-2 s 9:14 6 3 37 5.25 0.63 309.1 20.6 Refilled E 9:17 s 9:35 7 5 42 8.51 1.02 299.7 20.0 E 9:40 s 9:40 8 5 47 7.67 0.92 270.1 18.1 E 9:45 s 9:45 9 5 52 7.72 0.93 271.9 18.2 E 9:50 s 9:50 10 3 55 4.46 0.54 261.8 17.5 Refilled E 9:53 s 10:04 11 5 60 5.99 0.72 210.9 14.1 E 10:09 s 10:09 12 5 65 6.38 0.77 224.7 15.0 E 10: 14 s 10:14 13 5 70 5.41 0.65 190.5 12.7 E 10: 19 s 10: 19 14 5 75 5.39 0.65 189.8 12. 7 E 10:24 s 10:24 15 3 78 3.25 0.39 190.8 12.8 E 10.27 s 10:27 16 2 80 2. 15 0.26 189.3 12. 7 E 10:29 Enclosure E-2 continued ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES [This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.] N/A (HMP Exempt) ATTACHMENT 3 Structural BMP Maintenance Information Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Preliminary Design/Planning/CEQA level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual Final Design level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable Maintenance thresholds for BMPs subject to siltation or heavy trash(e.g., silt level posts or other markings shall be included in all BMP components that will trap and store sediment, trash, and/or debris, so that the inspector may determine how full the BMP is, and the maintenance personnel may determine where the bottom of the BMP is . If required, posts or other markings shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.) Recommended equipment to perform maintenance When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-54 Sept. 2021 INF-1 Infiltration Basin Photo Credit: http://www.stormwaterpartners.com/facilities/basin.html Description An infiltration basin typically consists of an earthen basin with a flat bottom constructed in naturally pervious soils. An infiltration basin retains storm water and allows it to evaporate and/or percolate into the underlying soils. The bottom of an infiltration basin is typically vegetated with native grasses or turf grass; however other types of vegetation can be used if they can survive periodic inundation and long inter-event dry periods. Treatment is achieved primarily through infiltration, filtration, sedimentation, biochemical processes and plant uptake. Infiltration basins can be constructed as linear trenches or as underground infiltration galleries. Typical infiltration basin components include: • Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g., perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) • Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap) • Forebay to provide pretreatment surface ponding for captured flows, other pretreatment mechanisms may be used if they meet the requirements included in Appendix B.6. • Vegetation selected based on basin use, climate, and ponding depth • Uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility • Overflow structure MS4 Permit Category Retention Manual Category Infiltration Applicable Performance Standard Pollutant Control Flow Control Primary Benefits Volume Reduction Peak Flow Attenuation E.8 INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-55 Sept. 2021 Typical plan and section view of an Infiltration BMP Design Adaptations for Project Goals Full infiltration BMP for storm water pollutant control. Infiltration basins can be used as a pollutant control BMP, designed to infiltrate runoff from direct rainfall as well as runoff from adjacent areas that are tributary to the BMP. Infiltration basins must be designed with an infiltration storage volume (a function of the surface ponding volume) equal to the full DCV and able to meet drawdown time limitations. Integrated storm water flow control and pollutant control configuration. Infiltration basins can MIN. 6” FREEBOARD 3:1 MAX. SIDE SLOPES ., ., ., ., .. .. .. .. .. .. ., ., ., ., ., ., RIPRAP FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION MAINTENANCE ACCESS PLAN NOTTO SCALE MAINTENANCE ACCESS OVERFLOW STRUCTURE ., ., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. VEGETATED SIDE SLOPES AND BOTTOM ., .. .. OVERALL BASIN: L:W RATIO ~ 2:1 MIN. 2%0F TRIBUTARY AREA BERM \_ EXISTING UNCOMPACTED PERVIOUS SOILS SECTION A-A' NOTTO SCALE OVERFLOW STRUCTURE SURFACE PONDING INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-56 Sept. 2021 also be designed for flow rate and duration control by providing additional infiltration storage through increasing the surface ponding volume. Recommended Siting Criteria Siting Criteria Intent/Rationale □ Placement observes geotechnical recommendations regarding potential hazards (e.g., slope stability, landslides, liquefaction zones) and setbacks (e.g., slopes, foundations, utilities). Must not negatively impact existing site geotechnical concerns. □ Selection and design of basin is based on infiltration feasibility criteria and appropriate design infiltration rate (See Appendix C and D). Must operate as a full infiltration design and must be supported by drainage area and in-situ infiltration rate feasibility findings. Recommended BMP Component Dimensions BMP Component Dimension Intent/Rationale Freeboard ≥ 6 inches Freeboard minimizes risk of uncontrolled surface discharge. Ponding Area Side Slopes 3H:1V or shallower Gentler side slopes are safer, less prone to erosion, able to establish vegetation more quickly and easier to maintain. Settling Forebay Volume ≥ 25% of facility volume A forebay to trap sediment can decrease frequency of required maintenance. Design Criteria and Considerations Infiltration basins must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: Design Criteria Intent/Rationale □ Finish grade of the facility is ≤ 2% (0% recommended). Flatter surfaces reduce erosion and channelization with the facility. INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-57 Sept. 2021 Design Criteria Intent/Rationale □ Infiltration of surface ponding is limited to a 36-hour drawdown time. Prolonged surface ponding reduce volume available to capture subsequent storms. The applicant has an option to use a different drawdown time up to 96 hours if the volume of the facility is adjusted using the percent capture method in Appendix B.4.1. Inflow and Overflow Structures □ Inflow and outflow structures are accessible by required equipment (e.g., vactor truck) for inspection and maintenance. Maintenance will prevent clogging and ensure proper operation of the flow control structures. □ Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or use energy dissipation methods (e.g., riprap, level spreader) for concentrated inflows. High inflow velocities can cause erosion, scour and/or channeling. □ Overflow is safely conveyed to a downstream storm drain system or discharge point. Size overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow for on-line basins and water quality peak flow for off-line basins. Planning for overflow lessens the risk of property damage due to flooding. Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Storm Water Pollutant Control To design infiltration basins for storm water pollutant control only (no flow control required), the following steps should be taken: 1. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement and basin area requirements, forebay volume (not included in infiltration footprint for sizing), and maximum slopes for basin sides and bottom. 2. Calculate the DCV per Appendix B based on expected site design runoff for tributary areas. 3. Use the sizing worksheet (Appendix B.4) to determine if full infiltration of the DCV is achievable based on the infiltration storage volume calculated from the surface ponding area and depth for a maximum 36-hour drawdown time. The drawdown time can be estimated by dividing the average depth of the basin by the design infiltration rate. Appendix D provides guidance on evaluating a site’s infiltration rate. INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-58 Sept. 2021 Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Storm Water Pollutant Treatment and Flow Control Control of flow rates and/or durations will typically require significant surface ponding volume, and therefore the following steps should be taken prior to determination of storm water pollutant control design. Pre-development and allowable post-project flow rates and durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual. 1. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement and basin area requirements, forebay volume (not included in infiltration footprint for sizing), and maximum slopes for basin sides and bottom. 2. Iteratively determine the surface ponding required to provide infiltration storage to reduce flow rates and durations to allowable limits while adhering to the maximum 36-hour drawdown time. Flow rates and durations can be controlled using flow splitters that route the appropriate inflow amounts to the infiltration basin and bypass excess flows to the downstream storm drain system or discharge point. 3. If an infiltration basin cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control required by this manual, an upstream or downstream structure with appropriate storage volume such as an underground vault can be used to provide additional control. 4. After the infiltration basin has been designed to meet flow control requirements, calculations must be completed to verify if storm water pollutant control requirements to treat the DCV have been met. Maintenance Overview Normal Expected Maintenance. Infiltration basins require routine maintenance to: remove accumulated materials such as sediment, trash or debris from the forebay and the basin; maintain vegetation health if the BMP includes vegetation; and maintain integrity of side slopes, inlets, energy dissipators, and outlets. A summary table of standard inspection and maintenance indicators is provided within this Fact Sheet. Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure. If any of the following scenarios are observed, the BMP is not performing as intended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or erosion. Corrective maintenance, increased inspection and maintenance, BMP replacement, or a different BMP type will be required. • The BMP is not drained between storm events. Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface or subsurface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging of the underlying native soils, or clogging of covers applied at the basin surface such as topsoil, mulch, or rock layer. The specific cause of the drainage issue must be determined and corrected. For surface-level basins (i.e., not underground infiltration galleries), surface cover materials can be removed and INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-59 Sept. 2021 replaced, and/or native soils can be scarified or tilled to help reestablish infiltration. If it is determined that the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, or if the infiltration surface area is not accessible (e.g., an underground infiltration gallery) the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. • Sediment, trash, or debris accumulation has filled the forebay or other pretreatment device within one month, or if no forebay or other pretreatment device is present, has filled greater than 25% of the surface ponding volume within one maintenance cycle. This means the load from the tributary drainage area is too high, reducing BMP function or clogging the BMP. This would require adding a forebay or other pretreatment measures within the tributary area draining to the BMP to intercept the materials if no pretreatment component is present, or increased maintenance frequency for an existing forebay or other pretreatment device. Pretreatment components, especially for sediment, will extend the life of the infiltration basin. • Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow that is not readily corrected by adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Other Special Considerations. If the infiltration basin is vegetated: Vegetated structural BMPs that are constructed in the vicinity of, or connected to, an existing jurisdictional water or wetland could inadvertently result in creation of expanded waters or wetlands. As such, vegetated structural BMPs have the potential to come under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, SDRWQCB, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This could result in the need for specific resource agency permits and costly mitigation to perform maintenance of the structural BMP. Along with proper placement of a structural BMP, routine maintenance is key to preventing this scenario. INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-60 Sept. 2021 Summary of Standard Inspection and Maintenance The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection, operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless responsibility has been formally transferred to an agency, community facilities district, homeowners association, property owners association, or other special district. Maintenance frequencies listed in this table are average/typical frequencies. Actual maintenance needs are site-specific, and maintenance may be required more frequently. Maintenance must be performed whenever needed, based on maintenance indicators presented in this table. The BMP owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections to see when maintenance is needed based on the maintenance indicators. During the first year of operation of a structural BMP, inspection is recommended at least once prior to August 31 and then monthly from September through May. Inspection during a storm event is also recommended. After the initial period of frequent inspections, the minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based on the results of the first year inspections. Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris in forebay and/or basin Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, (without damage to vegetation when applicable). • Inspect monthly. If the forebay is 25% full* or more in one month, increase inspection frequency to monthly plus after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Remove any accumulated materials found within the infiltration area at each inspection. • When the BMP includes a forebay, materials must be removed from the forebay when the forebay is 25% full*, or if accumulation within the forebay blocks flow to the infiltration area. Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear blockage. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. • Remove any accumulated materials found at each inspection. INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-61 Sept. 2021 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Poor vegetation establishment (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans. • Inspect monthly. • Maintain when needed. Dead or diseased vegetation (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Remove dead or diseased vegetation, re- seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans. • Inspect monthly. • Maintain when needed. Overgrown vegetation (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Mow or trim as appropriate. • Inspect monthly. • Maintain when needed. Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flow Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation system. • Inspect monthly. • Maintain when needed. Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re- grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. • Inspect after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If erosion due to storm water flow has been observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintain when needed. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-62 Sept. 2021 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Standing water in infiltration basin without subsurface infiltration gallery for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, or removing/replacing clogged or compacted surface treatments and/or scarifying or tilling native soils. Always remove deposited sediments before scarification, and use a hand-guided rotary tiller. If it is determined that the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If standing water is observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintain when needed. Standing water in subsurface infiltration gallery for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event This condition requires investigation of why infiltration is not occurring. If feasible, corrective action shall be taken to restore infiltration (e.g., flush fine sediment or remove and replace clogged soils). BMP may require retrofit if infiltration cannot be restored. The City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any repairs or reconstruction. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If standing water is observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintain when needed. INF-1 Infiltration Basin E-63 Sept. 2021 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Presence of mosquitos/larvae For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult mosquitos, see http://www.mosquito.org/biology If mosquitos/larvae are observed: first, immediately remove any standing water by dispersing to nearby landscaping; second, make corrective measures as applicable to restore BMP drainage to prevent standing water. For subsurface infiltration galleries, ensure access covers are tight fitting, with gaps or holes no greater than 1/16 inch, and/or install barriers such as inserts or screens that prevent mosquito access to the subsurface storage. If mosquitos persist following corrective measures to remove standing water, or if the BMP design does not meet the 96-hour drawdown criteria because the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, the City Engineer shall be contacted to determine a solution. A different BMP type, or a Vector Management Plan prepared with concurrence from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, may be required. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If mosquitos are observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintain when needed Damage to structural components such as weirs, inlet or outlet structures Repair or replace as applicable. • Inspect annually. • Maintain when needed. “25% full” is defined as ¼ of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure (e.g., if the height to the outflow opening is 12 inches from the bottom elevation, then the materials must be removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation – this should be marked on the outflow structure). SD-A Tree Well E-3 Sept. 2021 SD-A Tree Well (Source: County of San Diego LID Manual – EOA, Inc.) Description Trees planted to intercept rainfall and runoff as described in this fact sheet may be used as storm water management measures to provide runoff reduction of the DCV per Appendix B.1.4. Additional benefits associated with tree wells, include energy conservation, air quality improvement, and aesthetic enhancement. Tree wells located in the City’s Right-of-Way are subject to the discretion of City Engineer and Parks and Recreation Director. Typical storm water management benefits associated with trees include: • Treatment of storm water – Storm water from impervious area should be directed to the tree wells. Trees provide treatment through uptake of nutrients and other storm water pollutants (phytoremediation) and support of other biological processes that break down pollutants • Interception of rainfall – tree surfaces (roots, foliage, bark, and branches) intercept, evaporate, store, or convey precipitation to the soil before it reaches surrounding impervious surfaces • Reduced erosion – trees protect denuded area by intercepting or reducing the velocity of rain drops as they fall through the tree canopy • Increased infiltration – soil conditions created by roots and fallen leaves promote infiltration MS4 Permit Category Site Design Retention Manual Category Site Design Infiltration Applicable Performance Standard Site Design Pollutant Control Flow Control Primary Benefits Volume Reduction E.1 SD-A Tree Well E-4 Sept. 2021 Typical tree well system components include: • Directing runoff from impervious areas through a drainage opening into a tree well planting area. • Trees of the appropriate species for site conditions and constraints. Refer to the Plant List fact sheet (Appendix E.21). • Available soil media reservoir volume based on mature tree size, soil type, water availability, surrounding land uses, and project goals • Optional suspended pavement design to provide structural support for adjacent pavement without requiring compaction of underlying layers • Optional root barrier devices as needed; a root barrier is a device installed in the ground, between a tree and the sidewalk or other structures, intended to guide roots down and away from the sidewalk or structures in order to prevent damage from tree roots. • Optional tree grates; to be considered to maximize available space for pedestrian circulation and to protect tree roots from compaction related to pedestrian circulation; tree grates are typically made up of porous material that will allow the runoff to soak through. • Optional shallow surface depression for ponding of excess runoff • Optional planter box underdrain Design Adaptations for Project Goals Site design BMP to provide incidental treatment. Tree wells primarily functions as site design BMPs for incidental treatment. Storm water pollutant control BMP to provide treatment. Project proponents are allowed to design tree wells to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff that requires treatment, (the Design Capture Volume [DCV]), or completely fulfill the pollutant control BMP requirements by retaining the entire DCV. Benefits from tree wells are accounted for by using the volume reduction values in Table B.1-3 presented in Appendix B. This credit can apply to other trees that are used for landscaping purposes that meet the same criteria. Project proponents are required to provide calculations supporting the amount of credit claimed from implementing trees within the project footprint. Tree wells designed to completely fulfill the pollutant control BMP requirements by retaining the entire Schematic of Tree Well RUNOFF ~ PAVEMENT SECTION SURFACE 0 0 0 '¥ .. V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . NATIVE SOIL ,r '¥ '¥ V -., ... '+' 'I' .. 'V 'V ... '¥ '¥ '( ,.. ... 'I' 'II • • , OPTIONAL V ,., V BARRIER '¥ ,., V 000000000000000 00000000000000 000000000000000 0 ooo 0000000 0000 00000 o o o o o o o o TREE WELL SOIL o o o o o o o o o o 0 00000 000000000000000 o o o o o o o o o o OPTIONAL o o o O o O o O o O o o o 0 o o o o o o o o 0UNDERDRAIN o o 0000000000 000 0 00000 0 O O O O 0 SD-A Tree Well E-5 Sept. 2021 DCV are designated as SSD-BMPs and located in Appendix I. Flow Control BMP to meet hydromodification requirements. Project proponents are also allowed to design tree wells as a flow control BMP. Benefits from tree wells are accounted for by using the DCV multipliers listed in Appendix I. Project proponents are required to provide calculations showing that the entire DCV including the DCV multiplier is retained. Design Criteria and Considerations Tree Wells, whether designed as Site Design BMPs, as Stormwater Pollutant Control BMP, or as a Flow Control BMP must meet the following design criteria and considerations, and if placed in the right-of-way must be consistent with the County of San Diego Green Streets Standard Drawings. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: Siting and Design Intent/Rationale □ Tree species is appropriately chosen for the development (private or public). For public rights-of-ways, city planning guidelines and zoning provisions for the permissible species and placement of trees are consulted. A list of trees appropriate for site design are provided in Appendix E.21 Proper tree placement and species selection minimizes problems such as pavement damage by surface roots and poor growth. □ Tree well placement: ensure area is graded; and the well is located so that full amount of DCV reduction drains to well. Minimizes short-circuiting of run off and assures DCV reductions are retained onsite. □ Location of trees planted along public streets follows city requirements and guidelines. Vehicle and pedestrian line of sight are considered in tree selection and placement. Location of trees planted within private development follows city landscape guidelines. Building setbacks, utility alignments, vehicle and pedestrian line of sight are considered in tree selection and placement. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer the following minimum tree separation distance is followed Roadway safety for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic is a key consideration for placement along public streets. SD-A Tree Well E-6 Sept. 2021 Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Improvement Minimum distance to Tree Well Traffic Signal, Stop sign 20 feet Underground Utility lines (except sewer) 5 feet Sewer Lines 10 feet Above ground utility structures (Transformers, Hydrants, Utility poles, etc.) 10 feet Driveways 10 feet Intersections (intersecting curb lines of two streets) 25 feet □ Underground utilities and overhead wires are considered in the design and avoided or circumvented. Underground utilities are routed around or through the planter in suspended pavement applications. All underground utilities are protected from water and root penetration. Tree growth can damage utilities and overhead wires resulting in service interruptions. Protecting utilities routed through the planter prevents damage and service interruptions. □ Suspended pavement is used for confined Tree Well soil volume. Suspended pavement design was developed where appropriate to minimize soil compaction and improve infiltration and filtration capabilities. Suspended pavement was constructed with an approved structural cell. Suspended pavement designs provide structural support without compaction of the underlying layers, thereby promoting tree growth. Recommended structural cells include poured in place concrete columns, Silva Cells manufactured by Deeproot Green Infrastructures and Stratacell and Stratavault systems manufactured by Citygreen Systems or approved equal. Suspended pavement shall not be used within the city’s right-of-way and easements. □ A minimum soil volume of 2 cubic feet per square foot of canopy projection volume is provided for each tree. Canopy projection area The minimum soil volume ensures that there is adequate storage volume to allow for unrestricted evapotranspiration and infiltration. SD-A Tree Well E-7 Sept. 2021 Siting and Design Intent/Rationale is the ground area beneath the tree, measured at the drip line. Soil volume must be within 1.5 times the mature tree canopy radius. Soil depth shall be a minimum of 30 inches deep, preferably 36 inches deep. When placing tree well next to curbs or other structures use Structural Soil as outlined in the section below titled “Confined Tree Well Soil Volume”. Use Amended Soil per Fact Sheet SD-F in all other cases. □ DCV from the tributary area draining to the tree is equal to or greater than the tree credit volume The minimum tributary area ensures that the tree receives enough runoff to fully utilize the infiltration and evapotranspiration potential provided. In cases where the minimum tributary area is not provided, the tree credit volume must be reduced proportionately to the actual tributary area. □ Inlet opening to the tree that is at least 18 inches wide. A minimum 2 inch drop in grade from the inlet to the finish grade of the tree. Grated inlets are allowed for pedestrian circulation. Grates need to be ADA compliant and have sufficient slip resistance. Design requirement to ensure that the runoff from the tributary area is not bypassed. Different inlet openings and drops in grade may be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer if calculations are shown that the diversion flow rate (Appendix B.4.4) from the tributary area can be conveyed to the tree. In cases where the inlet capacity is limiting the amount of runoff draining to the tree, the tree credit volume must be reduced proportionately. Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Site Design Determine the areas where tree wells can be used in the site design to achieve incidental treatment. Tree wells reduce runoff volumes from the site. Refer to Appendix B.1. Document the proposed tree locations in the SWQMP. For conceptual design and sizing approach for pollutant control and flow control, refer to Appendix I. SD-A Tree Well E-8 Sept. 2021 Tree Planting Design in New or Reconstructed Streetscapes 1. Maximized open soil area for tree planting is the most cost effective method of achieving the required soil volume. 2. Tree wells within sidewalks shall have a minimum open area of four feet wide by six feet long. Larger areas may be required to accommodate large root balls. 3. Tree well soil characteristics shall meet the requirements of SD-F Amended Soil. Structural Requirements for Confined Tree Well Soil Volume In order to provide adequate soil volume for tree wells, soils may be placed confined beneath adjacent paved surfaces. Acceptable soil systems capable of carrying D-50 loading include structural soils, structural slabs, and structural cells: 1. Structural soil systems include CU-StructuralSoilTM, Stalite Structural Soil, or equivalent. 2. Suspended pavements that allow uncompacted growing soil beneath the sidewalk include; structural slabs that span between structural supports, structural cells, and other commercially available structural systems. Manufacturer details and certification must be provided for commercial systems. Structural calculations and details must be provided for structural slab installations. Structural cells are commercially-available structural systems placed subsurface that support the sidewalk and are filled with amended soil (SD-F). Manufacturer details and certification must be provided for commercial systems. Suspended pavement shall not be used within the city’s right-of-way and easements. Stormwater Retention and Treatment Volume Tree wells with expanded soil volume will serve as a method of capturing and retaining the required volume of stormwater in accordance with City requirements in Appendix B of this manual. These facilities can be designed to meet the City requirements when surface ponding volume is provided, whether designed as an enclosed plant bed with covered soil volume, or a continuous open area (either mulched or with turf) with soil volume under the adjacent sidewalk. Maintenance Overview Normal Expected Maintenance. Tree health shall be maintained as part of normal landscape maintenance. Additionally, ensure that storm water runoff can be conveyed into the tree well as designed. That is, the opening that allows storm water runoff to flow into the tree well (e.g., a curb opening, tree grate, or surface depression) shall not be blocked, filled, re-graded, or otherwise changed in a manner that prevents storm water from draining into the tree well. A summary table of standard inspection and maintenance indicators is provided within this Fact Sheet. Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure. Trees wells are site design BMPs that normally do not require maintenance actions beyond routine landscape maintenance. The normal expected SD-A Tree Well E-9 Sept. 2021 maintenance described above ensures the BMP functionality. If changes have been made to the tree well entrance / opening such that runoff is prevented from draining into the tree well (e.g., a curb inlet opening is blocked by debris or a grate is clogged causing runoff to flow around instead of into the tree well, or a surface depression has been filled so runoff flows away from the tree well), the BMP is not performing as intended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or erosion. Corrective maintenance will be required to restore drainage into the tree well as designed. Surface ponding of runoff directed into tree wells is expected to infiltrate/evapotranspire within 24- 96 hours following a storm event. Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging or compaction of the soils surrounding the tree. Loosen or replace the soils to restore drainage. Other Special Considerations. Site design BMPs, such as tree wells, installed within a new development or redevelopment project are components of an overall storm water management strategy for the project. The presence of site design BMPs within a project is usually a factor in the determination of the amount of runoff to be managed with structural BMPs (i.e., the amount of runoff expected to reach downstream retention or biofiltration basins that process storm water runoff from the project as a whole). When site design BMPs are not maintained or are removed, this can lead to clogging or failure of downstream structural BMPs due to greater delivery of runoff and pollutants than intended for the structural BMP. Therefore, the City Engineer may require confirmation of maintenance of site design BMPs as part of their structural BMP maintenance documentation requirements. Site design BMPs that have been installed as part of the project should not be removed, nor should they be bypassed by re-routing roof drains or re-grading surfaces within the project. If changes are necessary, consult the City Engineer to determine requirements. SD-A Tree Well E-10 Sept. 2021 Summary of Standard Inspection and Maintenance The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection, operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless responsibility has been formally transferred to an agency, community facilities district, homeowners association, property owners association, or other special district. Maintenance frequencies listed in this table are average/typical frequencies. Actual maintenance needs are site-specific, and maintenance may be required more frequently. Maintenance must be performed whenever needed, based on maintenance indicators presented in this table. The BMP owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections to see when maintenance is needed based on the maintenance indicators. During the first year of operation of a structural BMP, inspection is recommended at least once prior to August 31 and then monthly from September through May. Inspection during a storm event is also recommended. After the initial period of frequent inspections, the minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based on the results of the first year inspections. Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Tree health Routine actions as necessary to maintain tree health. • Inspect monthly. • Maintain when needed. Dead or diseased tree Remove dead or diseased tree. Replace per original plans. • Inspect monthly. • Maintain when needed. Standing water in tree well for longer than 24 hours following a storm event Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to tree health Loosen or replace soils surrounding the tree to restore drainage. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If standing water is observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintain when needed. Presence of mosquitos/larvae For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult mosquitos, see http://www.mosquito.org/biology Disperse any standing water from the tree well to nearby landscaping. Loosen or replace soils surrounding the tree to restore drainage (and prevent standing water). • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If mosquitos are observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintain when needed SD-A Tree Well E-11 Sept. 2021 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Entrance / opening to the tree well is blocked such that storm water will not drain into the tree well (e.g., a curb inlet opening is blocked by debris or a grate is clogged causing runoff to flow around instead of into the tree well; or a surface depression is filled such that runoff drains away from the tree well) Make repairs as appropriate to restore drainage into the tree well. • Inspect monthly. • Maintain when needed. INF-1 Infiltration Basin BMP MAINTENANCE FACT SHEET FOR STRUCTURAL BMP INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN An infiltration basin typically consists of an earthen basin with a flat bottom constructed in uncompacted native soils. An infiltration basin retains storm water and allows it to evaporate and/or percolate into the underlying soils. Infiltration basins can also be constructed as linear trenches or as underground infiltration galleries. Typical infiltration basin components include: • Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g., perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) • Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap) • Forebay to provide pretreatment, or other pretreatment device (e.g., drainage inlet inserts, hydrodynamic separator installed within storm drain system) • Surface ponding for captured flows • Vegetation or other surface cover such as mulch or rocks selected based on basin use, climate, and ponding depth • Uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility • Overflow structure Normal Expected Maintenance Infiltration basins require routine maintenance to: remove accumulated materials such as sediment, trash or debris from the forebay and the basin; maintain vegetation health if the BMP includes vegetation; and maintain integrity of side slopes, inlets, energy dissipators, and outlets. A summary table of standard inspection and maintenance indicators is provided within this Fact Sheet. Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure If any of the following scenarios are observed, the BMP is not performing as intended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or erosion. Corrective maintenance, increased inspection and maintenance, BMP replacement, or a different BMP type will be required. • The BMP is not drained between storm events. Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface or subsurface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging of the underlying native soils, or clogging of covers applied at the basin surface such as topsoil, mulch, or rock layer. The specific cause of the drainage issue must be determined and corrected. For surface-level basins (i.e., not underground infiltration galleries), surface cover materials can be removed and replaced, and/or native soils can be scarified or tilled to help reestablish infiltration. If it is determined that the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, or if the infiltration surface area is not accessible (e.g., an underground infiltration gallery) the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. • Sediment, trash, or debris accumulation has filled the forebay or other pretreatment device within one month, or if no forebay or other pretreatment device is present, has filled greater than 25% of the surface ponding volume within one maintenance cycle. This means the load from the tributary drainage area is too high, reducing BMP function or clogging the BMP. This would require adding a forebay or other pretreatment measures within the tributary area draining to the BMP to intercept the materials if no pretreatment component is present, or increased maintenance frequency for an existing forebay or other pretreatment device. Pretreatment components, especially for sediment, will extend the life of the infiltration basin. INF-1 Page 1 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin • Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow that is not readily corrected by adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Other Special Considerations If the infiltration basin is vegetated: Vegetated structural BMPs that are constructed in the vicinity of, or connected to, an existing jurisdictional water or wetland could inadvertently result in creation of expanded waters or wetlands. As such, vegetated structural BMPs have the potential to come under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, SDRWQCB, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This could result in the need for specific resource agency permits and costly mitigation to perform maintenance of the structural BMP. Along with proper placement of a structural BMP, routine maintenance is key to preventing this scenario. INF-1 Page 2 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection, operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless responsibility has been formally transferred to an agency, community facilities district, homeowners association, property owners association, or other special district. Maintenance frequencies listed in this table are average/typical frequencies. Actual maintenance needs are site-specific, and maintenance may be required more frequently. Maintenance must be performed whenever needed, based on maintenance indicators presented in this table. The BMP owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections to see when maintenance is needed based on the maintenance indicators. During the first year of operation of a structural BMP, inspection is recommended at least once prior to August 31 and then monthly from September through May. Inspection during a storm event is also recommended. After the initial period of frequent inspections, the minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based on the results of the first year inspections. Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris in forebay and/or basin Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, (without damage to vegetation when applicable). • Inspect monthly. If the forebay is 25% full* or more in one month, increase inspection frequency to monthly plus after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Remove any accumulated materials found within the infiltration area at each inspection. • When the BMP includes a forebay, materials must be removed from the forebay when the forebay is 25% full*, or if accumulation within the forebay blocks flow to the infiltration area. Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear blockage. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. • Remove any accumulated materials found at each inspection. Poor vegetation establishment (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. Dead or diseased vegetation (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Remove dead or diseased vegetation, re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. Overgrown vegetation (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Mow or trim as appropriate. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. *“25% full” is defined as ¼ of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure (e.g., if the height to the outflow opening is 12 inches from the bottom elevation, then the materials must be removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation – this should be marked on the outflow structure). INF-1 Page 3 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN (Continued from previous page) Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flow Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation system. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. • Inspect after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If erosion due to storm water flow has been observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Standing water in infiltration basin without subsurface infiltration gallery for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, or removing/replacing clogged or compacted surface treatments and/or scarifying or tilling native soils. Always remove deposited sediments before scarification, and use a hand-guided rotary tiller. If it is determined that the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If standing water is observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed. Standing water in subsurface infiltration gallery for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event This condition requires investigation of why infiltration is not occurring. If feasible, corrective action shall be taken to restore infiltration (e.g., flush fine sediment or remove and replace clogged soils). BMP may require retrofit if infiltration cannot be restored. The [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any repairs or reconstruction. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If standing water is observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed. INF-1 Page 4 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN (Continued from previous page) Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Presence of mosquitos/larvae For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult mosquitos, see http://www.mosquito.org/biology If mosquitos/larvae are observed: first, immediately remove any standing water by dispersing to nearby landscaping; second, make corrective measures as applicable to restore BMP drainage to prevent standing water. For subsurface infiltration galleries, ensure access covers are tight fitting, with gaps or holes no greater than 1/16 inch, and/or install barriers such as inserts or screens that prevent mosquito access to the subsurface storage. If mosquitos persist following corrective measures to remove standing water, or if the BMP design does not meet the 96-hour drawdown criteria because the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted to determine a solution. A different BMP type, or a Vector Management Plan prepared with concurrence from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, may be required. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If mosquitos are observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed Damage to structural components such as weirs, inlet or outlet structures Repair or replace as applicable. • Inspect annually. • Maintenance when needed. References American Mosquito Control Association. http://www.mosquito.org/ California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA). 2003. Municipal BMP Handbook. https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp-handbooks/municipal-bmp-handbook County of San Diego. 2014. Low Impact Development Handbook. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/watersheds/susmp/lid.html San Diego County Copermittees. 2016. Model BMP Design Manual, Appendix E, Fact Sheet INF-1. http://www.projectcleanwater.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=250&Itemid=220 INF-1 Page 5 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin Page Intentionally Blank for Double-Sided Printing INF-1 Page 6 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.: Permit No.: APN(s): Property / Development Name: Responsible Party Name and Phone Number: Property Address of BMP: Responsible Party Address: INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN PAGE 1 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris Materials must be removed from the forebay when the forebay is 25% full*. In any case, materials must be removed if accumulation blocks flow to the infiltration area. Materials must be removed from the infiltration area any time accumulation is observed in the infiltration area. Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, (without damage to the vegetation when applicable) ☐ If accumulation within the forebay is greater than 25% in one month, increase the inspection and maintenance frequency** ☐ Other / Comments: *“25% full” is defined as ¼ of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure (e.g., if the height to the outflow opening is 12 inches from the bottom elevation, then the materials must be removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation – this should be marked on the outflow structure). **If no forebay is present, if sediment, litter, or debris accumulation exceeds 25% of the surface ponding volume within one month, add a forebay or other pre-treatment measures within the tributary area draining to the BMP to intercept the materials. INF-1 Page 7 of 12 January 12, 2017 I I I INF-1 Infiltration Basin Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.: Permit No.: APN(s): INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN PAGE 2 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Poor vegetation establishment (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans ☐ Other / Comments: Dead or diseased vegetation (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Remove dead or diseased vegetation, re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans ☐ Other / Comments: Overgrown vegetation (when the BMP includes vegetated surface by design) Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Mow or trim as appropriate ☐ Other / Comments: INF-1 Page 8 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.: Permit No.: APN(s): INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN PAGE 3 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flow Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation system ☐ Other / Comments: Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan ☐ If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction ☐ Other / Comments: INF-1 Page 9 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.: Permit No.: APN(s): INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN PAGE 4 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Clear blockage ☐ Other / Comments: Damage to structural components such as weirs, inlet or outlet structures Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Repair or replace as applicable ☐ Other / Comments: INF-1 Page 10 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.: Permit No.: APN(s): INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR INF-1 INFILTRATION BASIN PAGE 5 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Standing water in infiltration basin without subsurface infiltration gallery for longer than 24- 96 hours following a storm event* Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, or removing/replacing clogged or compacted surface treatments and/or scarifying or tilling native soils. ☐ Other / Comments: Standing water in subsurface infiltration gallery for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event* Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ If feasible, take corrective action to restore infiltration (e.g., flush fine sediment or remove and replace clogged soils). BMP may require retrofit if infiltration cannot be restored. The [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any repairs or reconstruction. ☐ Other / Comments: Presence of mosquitos/larvae For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult mosquitos, see http://www.mosquito.org/biology Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Apply corrective measures to remove standing water in BMP when standing water occurs for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event.** ☐ Other / Comments: INF-1 Page 11 of 12 January 12, 2017 INF-1 Infiltration Basin *Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface or subsurface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging of the underlying native soils, or clogging of covers applied at the basin surface such as topsoil, mulch, or rock layer. The specific cause of the drainage issue must be determined and corrected. If it is determined that the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, or if the infiltration surface is not accessible (e.g., an underground infiltration gallery) the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. **If mosquitos persist following corrective measures to remove standing water, or if the BMP design does not meet the 96-hour drawdown criteria because the underlying native soils have been compacted or do not have the infiltration capacity expected, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted to determine a solution. A different BMP type, or a Vector Management Plan prepared with concurrence from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, may be required. INF-1 Page 12 of 12 January 12, 2017 SD-1 Tree Wells BMP MAINTENANCE FACT SHEET FOR SITE DESIGN BMP SD-1 TREE WELLS Tree wells as site design BMPs are trees planted in configurations that allow storm water runoff to be directed into the soil immediately surrounding the tree. The tree may be contained within a planter box or structural cells. The surrounding area will be graded to direct runoff to the tree well. There may be features such as tree grates, suspended pavement design, or shallow surface depressions designed to allow runoff into the tree well. Typical tree well components include: • Trees of the appropriate species for site conditions and constraints • Available growing space based on tree species, soil type, water availability, surrounding land uses, and project goals • Entrance/opening that allows storm water runoff to flow into the tree well (e.g., a curb opening, tree grate, or surface depression) • Optional suspended pavement design to provide structural support for adjacent pavement without requiring compaction of underlying layers • Optional root barrier devices as needed; a root barrier is a device installed in the ground, between a tree and the sidewalk, intended to guide roots down and away from the sidewalk in order to prevent sidewalk lifting from tree roots • Optional tree grates; to be considered to maximize available space for pedestrian circulation and to protect tree roots from compaction related to pedestrian circulation; tree grates are typically made up of porous material that will allow the runoff to soak through • Optional shallow surface depression for ponding of excess runoff • Optional planter box drain Normal Expected Maintenance Tree health shall be maintained as part of normal landscape maintenance. Additionally, ensure that storm water runoff can be conveyed into the tree well as designed. That is, the opening that allows storm water runoff to flow into the tree well (e.g., a curb opening, tree grate, or surface depression) shall not be blocked, filled, re-graded, or otherwise changed in a manner that prevents storm water from draining into the tree well. A summary table of standard inspection and maintenance indicators is provided within this Fact Sheet. Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure Tree wells are site design BMPs that normally do not require maintenance actions beyond routine landscape maintenance. The normal expected maintenance described above ensures the BMP functionality. If changes have been made to the tree well entrance / opening such that runoff is prevented from draining into the tree well (e.g., a curb inlet opening is blocked by debris or a grate is clogged causing runoff to flow around instead of into the tree well, or a surface depression has been filled so runoff flows away from the tree well), the BMP is not performing as intended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or erosion. Corrective maintenance will be required to restore drainage into the tree well as designed. Surface ponding of runoff directed into tree wells is expected to infiltrate/evapotranspirate within 24-96 hours following a storm event. Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging or compaction of the soils surrounding the tree. Loosen or replace the soils to restore drainage. SD-1 Page 1 of 6 January 12, 2017 SD-1 Tree Wells Other Special Considerations Site design BMPs, such as tree wells, installed within a new development or redevelopment project are components of an overall storm water management strategy for the project. The presence of site design BMPs within a project is usually a factor in the determination of the amount of runoff to be managed with structural BMPs (i.e., the amount of runoff expected to reach downstream retention or biofiltration basins that process storm water runoff from the project as a whole). When site design BMPs are not maintained or are removed, this can lead to clogging or failure of downstream structural BMPs due to greater delivery of runoff and pollutants than intended for the structural BMP. Therefore, the [City Engineer] may require confirmation of maintenance of site design BMPs as part of their structural BMP maintenance documentation requirements. Site design BMPs that have been installed as part of the project should not be removed, nor should they be bypassed by re-routing roof drains or re-grading surfaces within the project. If changes are necessary, consult the [City Engineer] to determine requirements. SD-1 Page 2 of 6 January 12, 2017 SD-1 Tree Wells SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR SD-1 TREE WELLS The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection, operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless responsibility has been formally transferred to an agency, community facilities district, homeowners association, property owners association, or other special district. Maintenance frequencies listed in this table are average/typical frequencies. Actual maintenance needs are site-specific, and maintenance may be required more frequently. Maintenance must be performed whenever needed, based on maintenance indicators presented in this table. The BMP owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections to see when maintenance is needed based on the maintenance indicators. During the first year of operation of a structural BMP, inspection is recommended at least once prior to August 31 and then monthly from September through May. Inspection during a storm event is also recommended. After the initial period of frequent inspections, the minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based on the results of the first year inspections. Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Tree health Routine actions as necessary to maintain tree health. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. Dead or diseased tree Remove dead or diseased tree. Replace per original plans. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. Standing water in tree well for longer than 24 hours following a storm event Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to tree health Loosen or replace soils surrounding the tree to restore drainage. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If standing water is observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed. Presence of mosquitos/larvae For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult mosquitos, see http://www.mosquito.org/biology Disperse any standing water from the tree well to nearby landscaping. Loosen or replace soils surrounding the tree to restore drainage (and prevent standing water). • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If mosquitos are observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed Entrance / opening to the tree well is blocked such that storm water will not drain into the tree well (e.g., a curb inlet opening is blocked by debris or a grate is clogged causing runoff to flow around instead of into the tree well; or a surface depression is filled such that runoff drains away from the tree well) Make repairs as appropriate to restore drainage into the tree well. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. SD-1 Page 3 of 6 January 12, 2017 SD-1 Tree Wells References American Mosquito Control Association. http://www.mosquito.org/ County of San Diego. 2014. Low Impact Development Handbook. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/watersheds/susmp/lid.html San Diego County Copermittees. 2016. Model BMP Design Manual, Appendix E, Fact Sheet SD-1. http://www.projectcleanwater.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=250&Itemid=220 SD-1 Page 4 of 6 January 12, 2017 SD-1 Tree Wells Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.: Permit No.: APN(s): Property / Development Name: Responsible Party Name and Phone Number: Property Address of BMP: Responsible Party Address: INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR SD-1 TREE WELLS PAGE 1 of 2 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Dead or diseased tree Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Remove dead or diseased tree ☐ Replace per original plans ☐ Other / Comments: Standing water in tree well for longer than 24 hours following a storm event Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to tree health Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Loosen or replace soils surrounding the tree to restore drainage ☐ Other / Comments: SD-1 Page 5 of 6 January 12, 2017 I I I SD-1 Tree Wells Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.: Permit No.: APN(s): INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR SD-1 TREE WELLS PAGE 2 of 2 Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Presence of mosquitos/larvae For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult mosquitos, see http://www.mosquito.org/biology Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Disperse any standing water from the tree well to nearby landscaping ☐ Loosen or replace soils surrounding the tree to restore drainage (and prevent standing water) ☐ Other / Comments: Entrance / opening to the tree well is blocked such that storm water will not drain into the tree well (e.g., a curb inlet opening is blocked by debris or a grate is clogged causing runoff to flow around instead of into the tree well; or a surface depression is filled such that runoff drains away from the tree well) Maintenance Needed? ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐ N/A ☐ Make repairs as appropriate to restore drainage into the tree well ☐ Other / Comments: SD-1 Page 6 of 6 January 12, 2017 Catch Basin Inlet Filters A Stormwater Trash Capture Solution A Forterra Company Bio ~Clean OVERVIEW The Bio Clean Catch Basin Inlet Filters are insertable systems designed to capture fine to coarse sediments, floatable trash, debris, total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients, metals, and hydrocarbons conveyed in stormwater runoff. Available in two different types, the Catch Basin Inlet Filters are a dependable, cost-effective solution to help property owners, developers, and municipalities meet local, state, and federal water quality requirements and regulations. Each filter is versatile and can be built or adjusted to meet specific project needs, and screen size. Constructed of 100% high-grade stainless steel, it is built to last longer than any other filter brand, and the non-clogging screens provide higher levels of filtration and water flow. The filter is equipped with unimpeded high flow bypass to prevent backflow during the largest storm events. APPLICATIONS The Catch Basin Inlet Filters have been successfully used on numerous new construction and retrofit projects. The systems’ superior durability and customization make it ideal for a wide range of stormwater applications. Each filter fits within a shallow catch basin, giving them the ability to integrate with versatile curb inlet trough systems. • Bioswale Bypass Structures • Stormwater Pretreatment • Roadway Curb Inlets • Roadway Grate Inlets • Parking Lot Curb Inlets • Parking Lot Grate Inlets ADVANTAGES • TROUGH SYSTEM ALLOWS FOR 15-MINUTE OR LESS SERVICE TIME • STAINLESS STEEL AND FIBERGLASS CONSTRUCTION • 1-YEAR WARRANTY • WORKS IN ANY SIZE CATCH BASIN *SOME DEPTH RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY. • NO NETS OR GEOFABRICS • MEETS LEED REQUIREMENTS Full Capture Type Kraken Filter Type California Water Board Certified Advanced Pollutant Removal TESTING HIGHLIGHT: California Water Board 100% of Trash TESTING HIGHLIGHT: Third Party Testing 85% of TSS & 72% of TP CURB INLET APPLICATIONThe curb inlet application or shelf system, provides easy access for maintenance from the surface without having to enter the catch basin. Maintenance service takes about 15 minutes and requires no confined space entry.Each Catch Basin Inlet Filter is designed to be insertable and the expandable trough system is designed to convey water quality design flows through the filter basket while allowing peak flows to bypass over the trough without re-suspending captured pollutants The modular design of the trough system makes it adaptable to any size* or type of curb inlet catch basin. *Some depth restrictions may apply. Curb Opening Trough System Non-Clogging Screen Outflow Pipe Bypass Weir Bottom Screen Hydrocarbon Boom Rail Hydrocarbon Boom OPERATION COMPETITOR COMPARISON Other Curb InletsBio Clean Curb Inlet Filter EASY CLEANING DIFFICULT CLEANING Bypass Flow Path Treatment Flow Patht 100% REMOVAL OF TRASH Note: Curb inlet application treatment flow rate limited to the weir capacity - actual flow rates of the filter basket is greater than 2.85 cfs. Various depth filter baskets available. Treatment and bypass flow rates include a safety factor of two. SPECIFICATIONS BYPASS FLOW (cfs)TREATMENT FLOW (cfs)MODEL # 1.550.97BIO-GRATE-FULL-12-12-12 3.681.86BIO-GRATE-FULL-18-18-12 4.832.78BIO-GRATE-FULL-26-26-12 6.596.71BIO-GRATE-FULL-24-40-12 4.839.49BIO-GRATE-FULL-26-26-24 6.5913.53BIO-GRATE-FULL-24-40-24 7.6017.14BIO-GRATE-FULL-36-36-24 The Full Capture type inlet filter is California Full Capture approved and allows for a higher flow of water, making it more applicable for demanding applications. The screen has a specialized design that efficiently captures all trash, but also makes cleaning more efficient. FULL CAPTURE TYPE OPERATION MountingFlange High Flow Bypass Non-Clogging Screens Boom Rails BottomScreen Hydrocarbon Boom PERFORMANCE Bypass Flow Path Treatment Flow Path California Full Capture Approved The Full Capture Type Catch Basin Inlet Filter is approved by the California Water Resources Control Board as a Full Capture treatment device. CA Kraken membrane filters increase removal efficiencies and are removable and reusable after spray cleaning with a typical garden hose.KRAKEN FILTER TYPE OPERATIONPERFORMANCE 85% 72% REMOVAL OFTOTALPHOSPHORUS REMOVAL OF FINE TSS 52% 58% 81% 60% REMOVAL OF COPPER REMOVAL OF ZINC REMOVAL OF OILS & GREASE REMOVAL OF FECAL COLIFORM SPECIFICATIONS BYPASS FLOW (cfs)MEDIA TREATMENT FLOW (cfs)MODEL # 0.520.028BIO-GRATE-KMF-12-12-29 2.510.028BIO-GRATE-KMF-18-18-29 5.310.11BIO-GRATE-KMF-26-26-29 10.390.20BIO-GRATE-KMF-24-40-29 12.530.33BIO-GRATE-KMF-36-36-29 Bypass Flow PathTreatment Flow Path Kraken MembraneCartridges Cartridge HandleHigh Flow Bypass Cartridge Mount Note: Media treatment flow rate based on three 30” tall Kraken filter inserts. Various filter basket and Kraken Membrane Filter heights available.t 0819_2021 398 Via El Centro Oceanside, CA 92058 855.566.3938 stormwater@forterrabp.com biocleanenvironmental.com A Forterra Company INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE Each type of filter can be easily accessed from the surface without entering the catch basin, and even lifted out by hand for routine maintenance and inspections. Bio Clean's Curb Inlet Filters are easily installed under catch basin access for ease of maintenance. Grate Inlet Filters can be quickly installed directly under grated inlets with no special equipment. CURB INLET FILTER CURB INLET FILTER GRATE INLET FILTER GRATE INLET FILTER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. 398 Via El Centro Oceanside, CA 92058 www.BioCleanEnvironmental.com p: 760.433.7640 f: 760.433.3176 Grate Inlet Filter an A Forterra Company 1 | Page OPERATION & MAINTENANCE The Bio Clean Grate Inlet Filter is a stormwater device designed to remove high levels of trash, debris, sediments and hydrocarbons. The filter is available in several configurations including trash full capture, multi‐level screening, Kraken membrane filter and media filter variations. This manual covers maintenance procedures of the trash full capture and multi‐level screening configurations. A supplemental manual is available for the Kraken and media filter variations. This filter is made of 100% stainless steel and is available and various sizes and depths allowing it to fit in any grated catch basin inlet. The filters heavy duty construction allows for cleaning with any vacuum truck. The filet can also easily be cleaned by hand. As with all stormwater BMPs, inspection and maintenance on the Grate Inlet Filter is necessary. Stormwater regulations require BMPs be inspected and maintained to ensure they are operating as designed to allow for effective pollutant removal and provide protection to receiving water bodies. It is recommended that inspections be performed multiple times during the first year to assess site‐ specific loading conditions. This is recommended because pollutant loading can vary greatly from site to site. Variables such as nearby soil erosion or construction sites, winter sanding of roads, amount of daily traffic and land use can increase pollutant loading on the system. The first year of inspections can be used to set inspection and maintenance intervals for subsequent years. Without appropriate maintenance a BMP can exceed its storage capacity which can negatively affect its continued performance in removing and retaining captured pollutants. System Diagram: H!gh Flow Bypass Outlttt Pipe Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company Hydrocarbon Boom Mountlng1 Flange 2 | Page Inspection Equipment Following is a list of equipment to allow for simple and effective inspection of the Grate Inlet Filter: Bio Clean Environmental Inspection Form (contained within this manual). Manhole hook or appropriate tools to remove access hatches and covers. Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures. Protective clothing and eye protection. Note: entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine inspections or maintenance of the system. Inspection Steps The core to any successful stormwater BMP maintenance program is routine inspections. The inspection steps required on the Grate Inlet Filter are quick and easy. As mentioned above the first year should be seen as the maintenance interval establishment phase. During the first year more frequent inspections should occur in order to gather loading data and maintenance requirements for that specific site. This information can be used to establish a base for long‐term inspection and maintenance interval requirements. The Grate Inlet Filter can be inspected though visual observation. All necessary pre‐inspection steps must be carried out before inspection occurs, such as safety measures to protect the inspector and nearby pedestrians from any dangers associated with an open grated inlet. Once the grate has been safely removed the inspection process can proceed: Prepare the inspection form by writing in the necessary information including project name, location, date & time, unit number and other info (see inspection form). Observe the filter with the grate removed. Look for any out of the ordinary obstructions on the grate or in the filter and its bypass. Write down any observations on the inspection form. Through observation and/or digital photographs estimate the amount of trash, foliage and sediment accumulated inside the filter basket. Record this information on the inspection form. Observe the condition and color of the hydrocarbon boom. Record this information on the inspection form. Finalize inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required. Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company 3 | Page Maintenance Indicators Based upon observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may be required based on the following indicators: Missing or damaged internal components. Obstructions in the filter basket and its bypass. Excessive accumulation of trash, foliage and sediment in the filter basket. Maintenance is required when the basket is greater than half‐full. The following chart shows the 50% and 100% storage capacity of each filter height: Model Filter Basket Diameter (in) Filter Basket Height (in) 50% Storage Capacity (cu ft) 100% Storage Capacity (cu ft) BC‐GRATE‐12‐12‐12 10.00 12.00 0.27 0.55 BC‐GRATE‐18‐18‐18 16.00 18.00 1.05 2.09 BC‐GRATE‐24‐24‐24 21.00 24.00 2.41 4.81 BC‐GRATE‐30‐30‐24 27.00 24.00 3.98 7.95 BC‐GRATE‐36‐36‐24 33.00 24.00 5.94 11.88 BC‐GRATE‐48‐48‐18 44.00 18.00 7.92 15.84 Maintenance Equipment It is recommended that a vacuum truck be utilized to minimize the time required to maintain the Curb Inlet Filter, though it can easily cleaned by hand: Bio Clean Environmental Maintenance Form (contained in O&M Manual). Manhole hook or appropriate tools to remove the grate. Appropriate safety signage and procedures. Protective clothing and eye protection. Note: entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine maintenance of the system. Small or large vacuum truck (with pressure washer attachment preferred). Maintenance Procedures It is recommended that maintenance occurs at least two days after the most recent rain event to allow debris and sediments to dry out. Maintaining the system while flows are still entering it will increase the time and complexity required for maintenance. Cleaning of the Grate Inlet Filter can be performed utilizing a vacuum truck. Once all safety measures have been set up cleaning of the Grate Inlet Filter can proceed as followed: Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company 4 | Page Remove grate (traffic control and safety measures to be completed prior). Using an extension on a vacuum truck position the hose over the opened catch basin. Insert the vacuum hose down into the filter basket and suck out trash, foliage and sediment. A pressure wash is recommended and will assist in spraying of any debris stuck on the side or bottom of the filter basket. Power wash off the filter basket sides and bottom. Next remove the hydrocarbon boom that is attached to the inside of the filter basket. The hydrocarbon boom is fastened to rails on two opposite sides of the basket (vertical rails). Assess the color and condition of the boom using the following information in the next bullet point. If replacement is required install and fasten on a new hydrocarbon boom. Booms can be ordered directly from the manufacturer. Follow is a replacement indication color chart for the hydrocarbon booms: The last step is to replace the grate and remove all traffic control. All removed debris and pollutants shall be disposed of following local and state requirements. Disposal requirements for recovered pollutants may vary depending on local guidelines. In most areas the sediment, once dewatered, can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. It is not anticipated that the sediment would be classified as hazardous waste. In the case of damaged components, replacement parts can be ordered from the manufacturer. Hydrocarbon booms can also be ordered directly from the manufacturer as previously noted. Excellent Condition Good Condition Minimal Capacity Replacement Required Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company 5 | Page Maintenance Sequence Insert the vacuum hose down into the filter basket and suck out debris. Use a pressure washer to assist in vacuum removal. Pressure wash off screens. Remove grate and set up vacuum truck to clean the filter basket. Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company 6 | Page For Maintenance Services or Information Please Contact Us At: 760‐433‐7640 Or Email: info@biocleanenvironmental.com Remove the hydrocarbon boom that is attached to the inside of the filter basket. The hydrocarbon boom is fastened to rails on two opposite sides of the basket (vertical rails). Assess the color and condition of the boom using the following information in the next bullet point. If replacement is required install and fasten on a new hydrocarbon boom. Close up and replace the grate and remove all traffic control. All removed debris and pollutants shall be disposed of following local and state requirements. Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company 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 # Long: Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes GPS Coordinates of Insert Catch Basin Size Evidence of Illicit Discharge? Trash Accumulation Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Lat: Long: Lat: Long: Sediment Accumulation Office personnel to complete section to the left. Functioning Properly or Maintenance Needed? 398 Via El Centro, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Comments: Foliage Accumulation Long: Lat: Long: Lat: 3 Lat: 2 1 Long: Inspection and Maintenance Report Catch Basin Only Signs of Structural Damage? 5 4 6 Lat: Lat: Lat: Long: 7 Lat: Long: 10 8 Long: Project Name Project Address 12 Lat: 11 Lat: Long: Long: Bio .Clean A Forterra Company ----- □ □ □ □ □ OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. 398 Via El Centro Oceanside, CA 92058 www.BioCleanEnvironmental.com p: 760.433.7640 f: 760.433.3176 Grate Inlet Filter MLS Type an A Forterra Company 1 | P a g e OPERATION & MAINTENANCE The Bio Clean Grate Inlet Filter is a stormwater device designed to remove high levels of trash, debris, sediments and hydrocarbons. The filter is available in several configurations including trash full capture, multi-level screening, Kraken membrane filter and media filter variations. This manual covers maintenance procedures of the multi-level screening configuration. A supplemental manual is available for the trash full capture configuration, as well as the Kraken and media filter variations. This filter is made of 100% stainless steel and is available in various sizes and depths allowing it to fit in any grated catch basin inlet. The filter’s heavy duty construction allows for cleaning with any vacuum truck. The filter can also easily be cleaned by hand. As with all stormwater BMPs, inspection and maintenance on the Grate Inlet Filter is necessary. Stormwater regulations require BMPs be inspected and maintained to ensure they are operating as designed to allow for effective pollutant removal and provide protection to receiving water bodies. It is recommended that inspections be performed multiple times during the first year to assess site- specific loading conditions. This is recommended because pollutant loading can vary greatly from site to site. Variables such as nearby soil erosion or construction sites, winter sanding of roads, amount of daily traffic and land use can increase pollutant loading on the system. The first year of inspections can be used to set inspection and maintenance intervals for subsequent years. Without appropriate maintenance a BMP can exceed its storage capacity which can negatively affect its continued performance in removing and retaining captured pollutants. System Diagram: Bio~Clean A Forterra Company Mounting Grate Flange Hydrocarbon Boom High Flow Coarse Bypass Screen Medium Screen Outlet Pipe Fine Screen 2 | P a g e Inspection Equipment Following is a list of equipment to allow for simple and effective inspection of the Grate Inlet Filter: Bio Clean Environmental Inspection Form (contained within this manual). Manhole hook or appropriate tools to remove access hatches and covers. Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures. Protective clothing and eye protection. Note: entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine inspections or maintenance of the system. Inspection Steps The core to any successful stormwater BMP maintenance program is routine inspections. The inspection steps required on the Grate Inlet Filter are quick and easy. As mentioned above, the first year should be seen as the maintenance interval establishment phase. During the first year more frequent inspections should occur in order to gather loading data and maintenance requirements for that specific site. This information can be used to establish a base for long-term inspection and maintenance interval requirements. The Grate Inlet Filter can be inspected though visual observation. All necessary pre-inspection steps must be carried out before inspection occurs, such as safety measures to protect the inspector and nearby pedestrians from any dangers associated with an open grated inlet. Once the grate has been safely removed the inspection process can proceed: Prepare the inspection form by writing in the necessary information including project name, location, date & time, unit number and other info (see inspection form). Observe the filter with the grate removed. Look for any out of the ordinary obstructions on the grate or in the filter and its bypass. Write down any observations on the inspection form. Through observation and/or digital photographs, estimate the amount of trash, foliage and sediment accumulated inside the filter basket. Record this information on the inspection form. Observe the condition and color of the hydrocarbon boom. Record this information on the inspection form. Finalize inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required. Bio~Clean A Forterra Company 3 | P a g e Maintenance Indicators Based upon observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may be required based on the following indicators: Missing or damaged internal components. Obstructions in the filter basket and its bypass. Excessive accumulation of trash, foliage and sediment in the filter basket. Maintenance is required when the basket is greater than half-full. The following chart shows the 50% and 100% storage capacity of each filter height: Maintenance Equipment It is recommended that a vacuum truck be utilized to minimize the time required to maintain the Curb Inlet Filter, though it can be easily cleaned by hand: Bio Clean Environmental Maintenance Form (contained in O&M Manual). Manhole hook or appropriate tools to remove the grate. Appropriate safety signage and procedures. Protective clothing and eye protection. Note: entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine maintenance of the system. Small or large vacuum truck (with pressure washer attachment preferred). Maintenance Procedures It is recommended that maintenance occurs at least two days after the most recent rain event to allow debris and sediments to dry out. Maintaining the system while flows are still entering it will Bio~Clean A Forterra Company Filter Basket Filter Basket 50% Storag,e 100% St,orage Model Diameter (in) Height (in) Cap,acity (cu ft) Cap,acity (,cu ft) BC-GRATE-12-12-1-8 10.00 18.00 0.41 0.82 BC-GRATE-18-18-1.S 16.00 18.00 1.05 2.09 BC-GRA TE-24-24-24 21.00 24.00 2.40 4.81 B·C-GRATE-,S0-30-24 27.00 24.00 3.97 7.95 BC-GRA TE-2 5"'98-24 21.00 24.00 4.15 8.31 BC-GRA TE"'9 6-36-24 33.00 24.00 5.94 11.87 BC-GRA TE-48-48-1-8 44.00 18.00 7.92 15.83 4 | P a g e increase the time and complexity required for maintenance. Cleaning of the Grate Inlet Filter can be performed utilizing a vacuum truck. Once all safety measures have been set up, cleaning of the Grate Inlet Filter can proceed as followed: Remove grate (traffic control and safety measures to be completed prior). Using an extension on a vacuum truck, position the hose over the opened catch basin. Insert the vacuum hose down into the filter basket and suck out trash, foliage and sediment. A pressure wash is recommended and will assist in spraying off any debris stuck on the side or bottom of the filter basket. Power wash the sides and bottom of the filter basket off. Next, remove the hydrocarbon boom that is attached to the inside of the filter basket. The hydrocarbon boom is zip tied to the top perimeter of the filter. Assess the color and condition of the boom using the following information in the next bullet point. If replacement is required, install and fasten on a new hydrocarbon boom. Booms can be ordered directly from the manufacturer. The following is a replacement indication color chart for the hydrocarbon booms: The last step is to replace the grate and remove all traffic control. All removed debris and pollutants shall be disposed of following local and state requirements. Disposal requirements for recovered pollutants may vary depending on local guidelines. In most areas the sediment, once dewatered, can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. It is not anticipated that the sediment would be classified as hazardous waste. In the case of damaged components, replacement parts can be ordered from the manufacturer. Hydrocarbon booms can also be ordered directly from the manufacturer as previously noted. NOTE: outlet to catch basin (if it does not have a sump) should be blocked during power washing to prevent any dirty water from discharging from the catch basin. Excellent Condition Good Condition Minimal Capacity Replacement Required Bio~Clean A Forterra Company 5 | P a g e Maintenance Sequence Insert the vacuum hose down into the filter basket and suck out debris. Use a pressure washer to assist in vacuum removal. Pressure wash off screens. Remove grate and set up vacuum truck to clean the filter basket. Bio~Clean A Forterra Company 6 | P a g e For Maintenance Services or Information Please Contact Us At: 760-433-7640 Or Email: info@biocleanenvironmental.com Remove the hydrocarbon boom that is attached to the inside of the filter basket. The hydrocarbon boom is zip tied to the top perimeter of the filter. Assess the color and condition of the boom using the following information in the next bullet point. If replacement is required, install and fasten on a new hydrocarbon boom. Close up and replace the grate and remove all traffic control. All removed debris and pollutants shall be disposed of following local and state requirements. Bio~Clean A Forterra Company A Forterra Company INSTALLATION MANUAL Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. 398 Via El Centro Oceanside, CA 92058 www.BioCleanEnvironmental.com p: 760.433.7640 f: 760.433.3176 Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company INSTALLATION PROCEDURES The Bio Clean Grate Filter is a stormwater catch basin filter designed to remove high levels of trash, debris, sediments and hydrocarbons. The filter is available in several configurations including trash full capture, multi-level screening, Kraken membrane filter and media filter variations. This manual covers installation procedures of all configurations. This filter is made of 100% stainless steel and is available and various sizes and depths allowing it to fit in any grated catch basin inlet. The filter is generally mounted under the grate flange but can also be mounted below the grate to the wall of the basin. This configuration is recommended in areas with "direct traffic" ratings such as roads with higher speed traffic. The flange is cut to size allowing for quick and simple installation. Delivery • Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. shall deliver the filter(s) to the site in coordination with the Contractor. Inspection • Inspection of the Grate Inlet Filter and all parts contained in or shipped shall be inspected at time of delivery by the site Engineer/Inspector and the Contractor. Any non-conformance to approved drawings or damage to any part of the system shall be documented on the Bio Clean shipping ticket. Catch Basin Preparation • The Contractor is responsible for providing adequate and complete catch basin and fall protection including gas metering and other safety equipment when installing the Grate Inlet Filter. • The Contractor shall adhere to all jurisdictional and/or OSHA safety rules during installation of the filter. • The Contractor or Owner is responsible for appropriately barricading the catch basin from traffic (in accordance with local codes). ll Page Grate Hl:gh Flow Bypass Installation (non-under mount configuration) Filter Diagram: Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company Hydrocarbon Boom Mounting Flange • Each Grate Inlet Filter shall be installed based on the locations and elevations according to the sizes shown on the approved drawings. Any modifications to the elevation or location shall be at the direction of and approved by the Engineer. • It is recommended that the catch basin is properly cleaned and inspected for any damage prior to installing the Grate Inlet Filter. If under mounts are being used for "direct traffic" installations, the under mounts connect directly to the walls of the catch basin using concrete wedge and/or drive anchors/pins. • Step one (non-under mount configuration) involves double checking measurements to ensure the filter will properly and fully fit the catch basin opening. Once the grate is removed use a tape measure to pull the dimensions (length and width) of the grate frame lip. Next check the dimensions (length and width) on the mounting flange. The mounting flange should be approximately¼" to½" shorter than the grate frame flange. If the mounting flange is larger 21 Page Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company than the grate frame dimensions trimming of the flange will be required. Various tools and methods can be used to cut the flange such as a cir.cular saw, cut-off-saw, plasma cutter or grinder. After cutting off the flange ensure that any sharp or protruding edges are removed with a grinder. Sharp edges could cause injury. Once cut, verify again that dimensions are accurate and the filter will properly fit. If a filter is delivered with a flange smaller than grate frame, meaning that the edge of the flange is too short to rest on the grate frame lip please call the manufacturer for guidance. Either a new filter can be sent out, a replacement flange piece or the filter under mounted. STEP 1 Measure the length and width of the grate frame as shown to the left. Measure the length and width of the mounting flange as shown to the right. 3I Page Bio ~Clean • Step 2 now that the filter is ready for installation, simply set the filter into place resting the mounting flange on the grate frame lip. Before setting, clean the grate frame lip of any debris. It is recommended the gloves are worn and proper lifting techniques are used. Larger filter may require two people to set in place. Do not drop the filter in place. Ensure that the filter is in proper position. Center the filter in the grate frame so any gaps are even on all four sides. A Forterra Company If trimming of the mounting flange is required use a tape measure along with a straightedge and market to draw a cutting line. Use proper tools and safety protection such as eyewear before cutting. Once cut verify measurements are correct. Installation of the filter is simple and fast. Set the filter in place on the grate frame lip and center. STEP 2 41 Page Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company • Step 3 requires using sealant to seal all seams, gaps and joints to ensure no leakage. All surfaces in which the stainless steel flange make contact with a concrete surface must be fully filled with sealant and made completely watertight. Sealant must be Sil-Fix (RTV 7500). See below for diagram highlighting all areas where sealant is required: STEP 3 Making sure the seams of the flange are watertight is important to ensure 100% of stormwater entering the catch basin is directed t hrough the filter, especially' smaller dry weather flows. • Step 4 installation is now complete. Be sure to remove all tools and seal up the catch basin by replacing the grate and take down any traffic control. S I Page STEP 4 Installation (under mount configuration) Bio~Clean A Forterra Company Not that installation of the filter is complete ensure that the grate is replaced and the install site is returned to its original condition. • Each Grate Inlet Filter shall be installed based on the locations and elevations according to the sizes shown on the approved drawings. Any modifications to the elevation or location shall be at the direction of and approved by the Engineer. • It is recommended that the catch basin is properly cleaned and inspected for any damage prior to installing the Grate Inlet Filter. If under mounts are being used for "direct traffic" installations the under mounts connect directly to the walls of the catch basin using concrete wedge and/or drive anchors/pins. • Step one (under mount configuration} involves double checking measurements to ensure the filter will properly and fully fit the catch basin opening. Once the grate is removed use a tape measure to pull the dimensions (length and width) of catch basin walls below the grate frame 6I Page Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company lip. Next check the dimensions (length and width) on the mounting flange. The mounting flange should be approximately¼" to½" shorter than the catch basin ID. If the mounting flange is larger than the catch basin ID trimming of the flange will be required. Various tools and methods can be used to cut the flange such as a circular saw, cut of saw, plasma cutter or grinder. After cutting of the flange ensure that any sharp or protruding edges are removed with a grinder. Sharp edges could cause injury. Once cut verify again that dimensions are accurate and the filter will properly fit. STEP 1 Measure the length and width of the catch basin ID as shown to the left. Measure the length and width of the mounting flange as shown to the right. 71 Page Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company If trimming of the mounting flange is required use a tape measure along with a straightedge and market to draw a cutting line. Use proper tools and safety protection such as eyewear before cutting. Once cut verify measurements are correct. • Step 2 involves mounting the under mounts which are supplied with the filter. Under mounts will be either aluminum or stainless steel L metal with holes pre-drilled for mounting. Using a tape measure along chalk or a large marker to draw a guideline 1 to 2" below the edge of the grate flange on all four sides of the basin walls. Ensure that the lines are level. This guideline shows where the top edge of the L metal under mounts will be positioned. Next check the length of each under mount. There should be two longer pieces and two shorter pieces. Double check their length and trim down if necessary to properly fit inside the basin. Next, while holding the first under mount in place use a rotary hammer with a 1/4" diameter concrete drill bit to drill holes 2 ¾" deep (minimum) at each location along the under mount that there is a pre-drilled hole. Once all holes are drilled, insert a¼" diameter by 2 ¾" long stainless steel drive pins into each hole. This will temporarily support the weight of the under mount. Next drive the wedge anchors or drive pin tight using the hammer. Repeat the process on the other 3 under mounts. STEP 2 8I Page Bio ~Clean • Step 3 now that the filter is ready for installation and the under mount installed simply set the filter into place resting the mounting flange on the under mounts. Before setting clean the under mounts of any debris. It is recommended the gloves are worn and proper lifting techniques are use. Larger filter may require two people to set in place. Do not drop the filter in place. Ensure that the filter is in proper position. Center the filter in the grate frame so any gaps are even on all four sides. A Forterra Company Under mounts should be installed with their top flange 2 to 4" below the grate flange to allow for proper clearance. Ensure the under mounts are level. Installation of the filter is simple and fast. Set the filter in place on the grate frame lip and center. STEP 3 9I Page Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company • Step 4 requires using sealant to seal all seams, gaps and joints to ensure no leakage. All surfaces in which the stainless steel flange make contact with a concrete surface must be fully filled with sealant and made completely watertight. Sealant must be Sil-Fix (RTV 7500). See below for diagram highlighting all areas where sealant is required: STEP 4 Making sure the seams of the flange are watertight is important to ensure 100% of stormwater entering the catch basin is directed through the filter, especially smaller dry weather flows. • Step 5 installation is now complete. Be sure to remove all tools and seal up t he catch basin by replacing the grate and take down any traffic control. 10 I Page STEP 5 Bio ~Clean A Forterra Company Not that installation of the filter is complete ensure that the grate is replaced and the install site is returned to its original condition. 11 I Page Curb Guard A Stormwater Trash Capture Solution A Forterra Company Bio ~Clean OVERVIEW The Bio Clean Curb Guard is the firstline of defense for inlets against debris and litter. The Curb Guard is made of 100% stainless steel. It has a unique recessed design that sets the device back into the opening a few inches for better flow. The flat mounting bracket is flush with the curb making it tire-safe and ideal for street sweeping operations. The Curb Guard can be used on streets, parking lots, culvert drains, recycling facilities, and industrial inlets. It retrofits any existing basin, is easy to remove and available in any length and various heights. SPECIFICATIONS *FLOW RATELENGTHMODEL # 1.53 cfs4’BC-CG-4 2.29 cfs6’BC-CG-6 2.68 cfs7'BC-CG-7 3.82 cfs10'BC-CG-10 4.59 cfs12’BC-CG-12 OPERATION ADVANTAGES • ALLOWS NUISANCE AND HIGH FLOWS TO PASS THROUGH • EASY TO REMOVE • TIRE AND STREET SWEEPING TRUCK SAFE DESIGN • 100% STAINLESS STEEL CONSTRUCTION • FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE FOR INLETS • STRUCTURAL BMP THAT PREVENTS DEBRIS AND LITTER FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAIN • RETROFITS ANY EXISTING BASIN High Flow Bypass Perforated Stainless Steel Tire-Safe Mounting Brackets Internal Support Bar NOTE: Available in any length and various heights. *Flow rate based on manufacturer recommended 50% clogging factor. RECESSED DESIGN HIGH EFFECTIVENESS APPLICATIONS • Recycling Facilities • Industrial • Streets • Parking Lots • Culvert DrainsPERFORMANCE STORMWATER INLETTRASH PROTECTOR 100% COVERAGE OFTHE BASIN • OPENS DURING LOW FLOWS• CAN ASSIST YOUR CITY COUNTY WITH TRASH TMDL COMPLIANCE 122018R1A 5796 Armada Drive Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 855.566.3938 stormwater@forterrabp.com biocleanenvironmental.com A Forterra Company ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit [Use the City’s standard Single Sheet BMP Plan.] SANTA FEBLVDLA COSTA AVE RANCHOREAL CANNON PALOMAR CARLSBADAVIARA PK W Y . AIRPO R T INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 78 RD. EL CA M I N O ROA D ROAD ALGA ROAD SCALE NOT TOCOLLEGEBL.COLLEGEBLVD.DWG 532-9A GRADING NOTES (IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE.) 1. THIS PLAN SUPERSEDES ALL OTHER PLANS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD REGARDING GRADING SHOWN ON THIS SET OF PLANS. 2. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN DOES NOT LESSEN OR WAIVE ANY PORTION OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, RESOLUTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, CITY STANDARDS OR OTHER ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS LISTED HEREON AS THEY MAY PERTAIN TO THIS PROJECT. THE ENGINEER IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE SHALL REVISE THESE PLANS WHEN NON-CONFORMANCE IS DISCOVERED. J. CITY APPROVAL OF PLANS DOES NOT RELIEVE THE DEVELOPER OR ENGINEER-OF- WORK FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL PLAN REVISIONS SHALL BE PROMP1L Y SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. 4. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FROM THE CITY ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE, A CERT/FICA TE OF INSURANCE AS 14£1.L AS ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT MUST BE FILED NAMING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE PERMITTEE'S POLICY IN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000,000.00 FOR EACH OCCURRENCE OF LIABILITY. THE INSURANCE COMPANY WRITING THE POLICY MUST HA VE A RA TING OF "A-• OR BETTER AND A SIZE CATEGORY OF CLASS VII OR BETTER AS ESTABLISHED BY "BESTS" KEY RATING GUIDE. 5. NO WORK SHALL BE COMMENCED UNTIL ALL PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE CITY AND OTHER APPROPRIATE AGENCIES. 6. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WORK OR GRADING TO BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND A VALID GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED. 7. NO REVISIONS WILL BE MADE TO THESE PLANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER, NOTED WITHIN THE REVISION BLOCK, ON THE APPROPRIATE SHEET OF THE PLANS AND THE T/1LE SHEET. 8. ORIGINAL DRAWINGS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY UPON BEING SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 9. THE ORIGINAL DRAWING SHALL BE REVISED TO REFLECT AS-BUILT CONDITIONS BY THE ENGINEER-OF-WORK PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK BY THE CITY. 10. ACCESS FOR FIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY VEHICLES SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 11. WHERE TRENCHES ARE WITHIN CITY EASEMENTS, A SOILS REPORT COMPRISED OF: (A) SUMMARY SHEET. (B) LABORATORY WORK SHEETS AND (C) COMPACTION CURVES, SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OF THE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA, PR/NC/PALLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF APPLIED SOILS MECHANICS. THE SOILS REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR WITHIN TWO WORKING DAYS OF THE COMPLETION OF FIELD TESTS. 12. A SOILS COMPACTION REPORT AND COMPLIANCE VER/FICA TION REGARDING ADHERENCE TO RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED IN THE SOILS REPORT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ALL CONTROLLED GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PRINCIPALLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF APPLIED SOILS MECHANICS. ALL FILL OR FUTURE FILL AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND THE " EARTHWORK SPECIF/CATIONS " ATTACHED TO THE PRELIMINARY SOILS INVEST/GA TION. DAILY FIELD COMPACTION REPORTS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PROJECT INSPECTOR. 1J. A PRECONSTRUCDON MEEDNG SHALL BE HELD AT THE SITE PRIOR TO THE BEG/NNING OF WQRK AND SHAii BE ATTENQW BY All REPR£SENTADVES RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCT/ON, INSPECTION, SUPERVISION, TESTING AND ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE WORK THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING BY CALLING THE INSPECTION LINE AT (760) 4J8-J891 AT LEAST FIVE(5) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR WILL THEN BE CONTACTED BY THE PROJECT INSPECTOR TO COORDINATE A DATE AND TIME FOR THE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. APPROVED DRAWINGS MUST BE AVAILABLE PRIOR TO SCHEDULING. A COPY OF THE GRADING PERMIT WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT INSPECTOR AT THE MEETING. 14. Al I INSPECDON REQUESTS OTHER THAN FOR PRECONS1Rl/CDON MEEDNG ltfl I BE MAQE BY CAIi ING THE ENGINEERING 24-=HQIIR INSPECDQN RFQltEST I /NE AT (7601 438-3891. INSPECTION REQUEST MUST BE RECEIVED PRIQR TO 2: 99 P,frl. ON THE DAY BEFORE THE INSPECTION IS NEEDED. INSPECTIONS WILL BE MADE THE NEXT WORK DAY UNLESS YOU REQUEST OTHERWISE. REQUESTS MADE AFTER 2:00 P.M. WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR TWO FULL WORK DAYS LATER. 15. THE OWNER AND/OR APPLICANT THROUGH THE DEVELOPER AND/OR CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLUDING SHORING, AND SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM TO LABOR CODE SECTION 6705 BY SUBMITTING A DETAIL PLAN TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND/OR CONCERNED AGENCY SHOWING THE DESIGN OF SHORING, BRACING SLOPING OR OTHER PROVISIONS TO BE MADE OF WORKER PROTECTION FROM THE HAZARD OF CAVING GROUND DURING THE EXCAVATION OF SUCH TRENCH OR TRENCHES OR DURING THE PIPE INSTALLATION THEREIN. THIS PLAN MUST BE PREPARED FOR ALL TRENCHES FIVE FEET (5') OR MORE IN DEPTH AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND/OR CONCERNED AGENCY PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. IF THE PLAN VARIES FROM THE SHORING SYSTEM STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS. TITLE 8 CAUFORNIA AQMINIS1RA TIVE CODE, THE PLAN SHAU, BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. A COPY OF THE OSHA EXCAVATION PERMIT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 17. NO BLASTING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL A VALID BLASTING PERMIT HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. SUBMIT APPLICATION FOR BLASTING PERMIT 14£1.L IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULING OF BLASTING OPERATIONS. 18. IF ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ARE DISCOVERED WITHIN ANY WORK AREA DURING CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS WILL CEASE IMMEDIATELY. AND THE PERMITTEE WILL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER. OPERATIONS WILL NOT RESTART UNTIL THE PERMITTEE HAS RECEIVED WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE CITY ENGINEER TO DO SO. 19. ALL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE SITE OR ADJACENT THERETO, INCLUDING WARMING UP, REPAIR, ARRIVAL, DEPARTURE OR OPERATION OF TRUCKS, EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND ANY OTHER ASSOC/A TED GRADING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PERIOD BETWEEN 7: 00 A.M. AND 6: 00 P.M. EACH DAY. MONDAY THRU FRIDAY AND NO EARTHMOVING OR GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS. (A LIST OF CITY HOLIDAYS IS AVAILABLE AT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COUNTER.) 20. ALL Off-SITE HAUL ROUTES SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE CQNIRACTOR TO THE CITY ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL TWO FULL WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. 21. IMPORT MATERIAL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM, AND WASTE MATERIAL SHALL BE DEPOSITED AT. A SITE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DEBRIS OR DAMAGE OCCURRING ALONG THE HAUL ROUTES OR ADJACENT STREETS AS A RESULT OF THE GRADING OPERATION. 22. BRUSH SHALL BE REMOVED ONLY WITHIN THE AREA TO BE GRADED. NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED UNLESS SPECIF/CALLY NOTED ON THE PLAN. 2J. ALL AREAS SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN. GRADING RESULTING IN THE PONDING OF WATER IS NOT PERMITTED. ALL EARTHEN SWALES AND DITCHES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM ONE PERCENT SLOPE. 24. THESE PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO A SIGNED AND APPROVED SWPPP AND/OR SET OF EROSION CONTROL PLANS. EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE AS SHOWN AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR AS DIRECTED BY THE PROJECT INSPECTOR. 25. ALL SLOPES SHALL BE TRIMMED TO A FINISH GRADE TO PRODUCE A UNIFORM SURFACE AND CROSS SECTION. THE SITE SHALL BE LEFT IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY CONDITION. ALL STONES, ROOTS OR OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF AT A SITE APPROVED OF BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 26. ALL SLOPES SHALL BE IRRIGATED, STABILIZED, PLANTED AND/OR HYDROSEEDED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE TIME WHEN EACH SLOPE IS BROUGHT TO GRADE AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED GRADING PLANS. 27. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED ON ALL SLOPES AND PADS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LANDSCAPE MANUAL, THE LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THIS PROJECT, DRAWING NO. 5J2-9L, AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR PLANNING DIRECTOR. D. \DRAWING FILES\llllE SHEElS\GRADING TITLE SHEET.DWG REVISED:02/15/17 28. THE OWNER/APPLICANT SHALL INSURE THAT ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL COORDINATE THE WORK OF THESE GRADING PLANS WITH THAT SHOWN ON BOTH THE LANDSCAPE AND /RR/GA TION PLANS AND THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS AS REQUIRED FOR THIS WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE MANUAL TIME REQUIREMENTS. 29. WHERE AN EXISTING PIPE LINE IS TO BE ABANDONED AS A RESULT OF THE GRADING OPERATION, IT SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN TWENTY FEET OF BUILDING OR STREET AREAS AND REPLACED WITH PROPERLY COMPACTED SOILS. IN OTHER AREAS THE PIPE WILL BE PLUGGED WITH CONCRETE OR REMOVED AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. JO. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING FACILITIES ( ABOVE GROUND AND UNDER GROUND ) WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE sumctEN1L y AHEAD OF GRADING TO PERMIT THE REVISION OF THE GRADING PLANS IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE ACTUAL LOCATIONS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED WORK. JI. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES (SEE BELOW) AT LEAST 2 FULL WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO STARTING GRADING NEAR THEIR FACILITIES AND SHALL COORDINATE THE WORK WITH A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE. UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (DIG ALERT) 811 SDG&E ~800)411-7J4J AT&T 619)237-2787 SPECTRUM CABLE 800)227-2600 COX COMMUNICATIONS 619)262-1122 CITY OF CARLSBAD(STREETS & STORM DRAIN) (760)434-2980 CITY OF CARLSBAD(SEWER,WATER & RECLAIMED WATER) (760)438-2722 J2. PERMIT COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: A. FOR CONTROLLED GRADING -THE APPLICANT HIRES A CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER, AND/OR GEOLOGIST TO GIVE TECHNICAL ADVICE, OBSERVE AND CONTROL THE WORK IN PROGRESS { 15. 16. 120 A. 8/ CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE. B. PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF GRADING WORK THE FOLLOWING REPORTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER VIA THE PROJECT INSPECTOR PER SECTION 15.16.120 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE: (1) FINAL REPORT BY SUPERVISING GRADING ENGINEER STATING ALL GRADING IS COMPLETE. ALL EROSION CONTROL, SLOPE PLANTING AND /RR/GA TION ARE INSTALLED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY CODE AND THE APPROVED PLANS (OBTAIN SAMPLE OF COMPLIANCE LETTER FROM CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT). (2) AS-BUILT GRADING PLAN. (J) REPORT FROM THE SOILS ENGINEER, WHICH INCLUDES RECOMMENDED SOIL BEARING CAPACITIES, A STATEMENT AS TO THE EXPANSIVE QUALITY OF THE SOIL, AND SUMMARIES OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS. THE REPORT SHALL ALSO INCLUDE A STATEMENT BY THE SOILS ENGINEER THAT THE GRADING WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED IN THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS THERETO. ( 4) REPORT WITH AS-BUILT GEOLOGIC PLAN, IF REQUIRED BY THE CITY. (5) PERMANENT STRUCTURAL BMP /NSTALLA TION CERT/FICA TE. (6) PERMITTED WALL FINAL INSPECTION REPORT. JJ. UNLESS A GRADING PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT IS ISSUED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL, THESE PLANS MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE RESUBMITTED FOR PLANCHECK. PLANCHECK FEES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY SUCH RECHECK. J4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY STORM WATER STANDARDS, ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS CONSTRUCTED BY THIS PLAN SHALL INCLUDE "STENCILS" BE ADDED TO PROHIBIT WASTEWATER DISCHARGE DOWNSTREAM. STENCILS SHALL BE ADDED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. "DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE" I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I HA VE 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 CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES NOT RELIEVE ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN. FIRM: SWS ENGINEERING, INC. ADDRESS: 1635 LAKE SAN MARCOS DRIVE, SUITE 200 CITY, STA TE: SAN MARCOS, CA TELEPHONE: (760)744-0011 ~-DATE: 12-20-2021 BY: M/0/AELD. SCH TZER R.C.E. NO.: 59658 REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 12-J1-202J SOILS ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE I, JOHN P. LEUER, A REGISTERED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PR/NC/PALLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF APPLIED SOILS MECHANICS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SAMPLING AND STUDY OF THE SOIL CONDITIONS PREVALENT WITHIN THIS SITE WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION BETWEEN THE DATES OF JULY JI, 2014 AND JUNE 2J, 2015. TWO COPIES OF THE SD/LS REPORT COMPILED FROM THIS STUDY. WITH MY RECOMMENDATIONS, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. JOHN P. LEUER G.E. NO.: 2030 DA TE: 12-20-2D21 LICENSE EXP/RATION DA TE: 9/J0/2J OWNER'S CERTIFICATE I ( WE ) HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A REGISTERED SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN OR WILL BE RETAINED TO SUPERVISE OVER-ALL GRADING ACTIVITY AND ADVISE ON THE COMPACTION AND STABILITY OF THIS SITE. IF THIS PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO A STATE-REGULATED SWPPP, I (WE) ALSO AGREE A QUALIFIED SWPPP PRACTITIONER (QSP) HAS BEEN OR WILL BE kEfAINED TO SUPERVISE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION ORDER AND MUNICIPAL PERMIT, LA TEST VERSION. HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS. L.P., A CALIFORNIA UM/TED PARTNERSHIP C&C HARDING STREET. LLC, A CALIFORNIA UM/TED LIABILITY COMPANY BY: TODD R. COT1LE, MEMBER SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY 12-20-2021 DATE TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WAS GENERA TED BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS FROM INFORMATION GATHERED ON 2/19/IJ BY SO CAL CIVIL SOLUTIONS, INC. TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN HEREON CONFORMS TO NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS. PROJECT LOCATION AND ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 204-291-14, 204-291-19 THRU 27, 204-292-02, 204-292-10 THRU 14 AND 204-292-16 THRU 22. THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE INDEX OF THIS PROJECT IS: N 2001 E 622& EROSION CONTROL NOTES (FOR REFERENCE ONLY -SEE SWPPP) 1. IN CASE EMERGENCY WORK IS REQUIRED, CONTACT TODD R. COT1LE AT (714)288-7600 2. EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS SHALL BE STOCKPILED ON SITE AT CONVENIENT LOCATIONS TO FAG/LITA TE RAPID CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY DEVICES WHEN RAIN IS EMINENT. J. FOR PROJECTS COVERED BY STATE SWPPP/WDID, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, THE QUALIFIED SWPPP PRACTITIONER (QSP) SHALL UPDATE AND MAINTAIN THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL (WPC) PLAN TO ADDRESS UPDATED SITE CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT. THE UPDATED WPC PLAN AND UPDATED SWPPP SHALL BE KEPT AT THE PROJECT SITE AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY INSPECTOR. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION BMP'S BEYOND THE ORIGINAL APPROVED SWPPP SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ADDRESS SITE CONDITIONS NOT ANTIC/PA TED. THE QSP SHALL REPORT BMP DEFICIENCIES TO THE CITY INSPECTOR. THE QSP SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE QUALIFIED SWPPP DEVELOPER AND THE CITY INSPECTOR REGARDING ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO BMP DEPLOYMENT. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING RAINFALL. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER DUE TO UNCOMPLETED GRADING OPERATIONS OR UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND SHALL TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT PUBLIC TRESPASS ONTO AREAS WHERE IMPOUNDED WATERS CREATE A HAZARDOUS CONDITION. 7. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES PROVIDED PER THE APPROVED SWPPP AND/OR EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE INCORPORATED HEREON. 8. GRADED AREAS AROUND THE PROJECT PERIMETER MUST DRAIN AWAY FROM THE FACE OF SLOPE AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH WORKING DAY. 9. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHOWN SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5) DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FIFTY PERCENT (50%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAINFALL. 10. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL BE BURLAP TYPE WITH J/4 INCH MINIMUM AGGREGATE. 11. SHOULD GERM/NATION OF HYDROSEEDED SLOPES FAIL TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE COVERAGE OF GRADED SLOPES (90% COVERAGE) PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 15, THE SLOPES SHALL BE STABILIZED BY PUNCH STRAW INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION J5.02J OF THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, STA TE OF CALIFORNIA. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PLANTING AND IRRIGATION SITE VICINITY CITY OF OCEANSIDE . - PACIFIC OCEAN MAP '.J 7 ~ ~rrv OF VISTA CITY OF SAN MARCOS Lr-....~~4 u__ - CITY OF ENCINITAS --s:--- INDEX OF SHEETS 200 100 0 200 , , ALL PERMANENT AND TEM~_iy~E~m:~&mnNG ~~ 1fflf:g) SHALL BE INSTALLED -.u~=:sH-=T 4 & _;:-._------INTERSTATE_-;-7 1-, d .... '::,,,. AND MAINTAINED AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 212 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND THE FOLLOWING: " -_ I -.:;; A. HYDROSEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED TO: " , 1-[ :_:,~ ~ '1 ~ --11SHT 5 & 7' ~ ~ L ___ I, I :;-,....., 1. ALL SLOPES THAT ARE GRADED 6:1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) OR STEEPER WHEN THEY ARE: d • ,...-1 1 11t_J--,-7~,,(JS~-~~, ,/_'--,~1 1,1~-+--_-_-_,, /' ~---_!/.-__ ,2___1''~lc.--. 1,--f:,~_i ~ ~ I a. n-lREE FEET OR MORE IN HE{GHT AND ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC WALL OR STREET. ~I •"-'--];1, r , -,~,~ __ ,1-·1 i ~ , b. ALL sLOPEs 4 FEET OR MORE 1N HEIGHT. " ~:r' c.,1 " -----rt , " ~I , 2. AREAS GRADED FLATTER THAN 6:1 WHEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST: ~m -)Ii[;)_ _ J,t,,,;___{ ,. , , \ Ml0 1r ~ .. ~ ---r~ 1--'---~1;1· ;Z T a. NOT SCHEDULED FOR IMPRO\IEMENTS(CONSTRUCTION OR GENERAL z =i: I _r~ilfti, c-"'--f!-u-~ -1,,-~;, --j i'I "'-'u ·I _ .u.. / '! LANDSCAPING) WITHIN 60 DAYS OF ROUGH GRADING. w ~i 1 ' T , b. IDENTIFIED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR AS HIGHLY ;i: 1 1 I 1= 1 " = , ; VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. :§ ,_ I • - I :ffiJ ~-.-. I ' D . ·:' c. HAVE ANY SPECIAL CONDITION IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY ENGINEER o lJ THAT WARRANTS IMMEDIATE TREATMENT. z - • - -..,_ ,11t-t1 ' 771 'll ·· ·· ' C!) _ I I ll.!: . • • : B. HYDROSEEDED AREAS SHALL BE /RR/GA TED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: ~ • " ' ' · ' 1. ALL SLOPES THAT ARE GRADED 6:1 OR STEEPER AND THAT ARE: SHT 2 3&9 .Jl a. THREE TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE /RR/GA TED BY HAND WATERING FROM ' M QUICK COUPLERS/HOSE BIBS OR A CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM OF LOW PRECIPITATION / C: i □ JEFFERSON STREET SPRINKLER HEADS PROVIDING 100% COVERAGE. / b. GREATER THAN 8 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE WATERED BY A CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM OF LOW PRECIPITATION SPRINKLER HEADS PROVIDING 100% COVERAGE. 2. AREAS SLOPED LESS THAN 6: 1 SHALL BE /RR/GA TED AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, PRIOR TO HYDROSEEDING. THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A PROPOSED SCHEME TO PROVIDE /RR/GA TION TO THE CITY ENGINEER. THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE SPECIFIC REGARDING THE NUMBERS, TYPES AND COSTS OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE THE PROPOSED SYSTEM. J. /RR/GA TION SHALL MAINTAIN THE MOISTURE LEVEL OF THE SOIL AT THE OPTIMUM LEVEL FOR THE GROWTH OF THE HYDROSEEDED GROWTH. C. HYDROSEEDING MIX SHALL CONSIST OF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. SEED MIX SHALL CONSIST OF NO LESS THAN: a. 20 lbs. PER ACRE OF ROSE CLOVER LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 1 TO 7, LOT 10, AND LOTS 24 TO JJ INCLUSIVE, AND PORllONS OF LOTS 8, 9, 11, 12 AND 1J OF PALM VISTA IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP NO. 2969, FILED IN THE: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. MARCH 16, 1953. TOGE1HER WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY HALF OF HARDING STREET ABUmNG LOTS 1 THROUGH 1J, INCLUSIVE AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY HALF OF HARDING STREET ABUmNG LOTS 26 THROUGH J6, INCLUSIVE OF SAID MAP NO. 2969, WHICH UPON VACA llON WOULD REVERT TO SAID LAND BY OPERAllON OF LAW. LEGEND -CONT. WORK TO BE DONE THE GRADING WORK SHALL CONSIST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL CUTS AND FILLS, REMEDIAL GRADING, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES, AND PLANTING OF PERMANENT LANDSCAPING AND PREPARATION OF AS-BUILT GRADING PLANS. AS-BUILT GEOLOGIC MAPS AND REPORTS, ALL AS SHOWN OR REQUIRED ON THIS SET OF PLANS AND THE CITY STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITED ON THESE PLANS. THE GRADING WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, CURRENT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 1. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE 2. CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING STANDARDS J. THIS SET OF PLANS 4. RESOLUTION NO. 72JJ DATED APRIL 19, 2017 5. THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (GREEN BOOK). 6. SOILS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC. DA TED JULY JO, 2014, INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION DATED JUNE 2J, 2015 & UPDATED LETTER DATED JUNE 17, 2021 & UPDATED LETTER DATED NOV. 11, 2021. 7. THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD ORA WINGS AND AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS. 8. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS PERMIT CDP 16-04 9. ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL DOCUMENTS DATED NIA 10. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN PREPARED SOUTH COAST EROSION CONTROL, DATED DECEMBER 9, 2021. WDID NO. 9 J7CJ95411. 11. STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARED BY SWS ENGINEERING, INC. DATED DECEMBER 20, 2021. 12. CALIFORNIA STORM WATER QUALITY ASSOCIATION BMP CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK AND CAL TRANS CONSTRUCTION SITE BMP MANUAL. LEGEND DESCRIPTION PROPERlY LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE PAVEMENT 8" STORM DRAIN PIPE 1 o• STORM DRAIN PIPE 12" STORM DRAIN PIPE 15" STORM DRAIN PIPE 6" PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE 2x2 BOX INLIT DWG.NO. SEE SHEET 3 SDRSD D-60 SDRSD D-60 SDRSD D-60 SDRSD D-60 SEE SHT. 8 3x3 BOX INLIT SEE SHT. 8 SYMBOL -P/L--- - - - - R/W □ □ SD SD SD SD - - - - 6" ROUND LANDSCAPE AREA DRAIN BASIN SEE DETAIL SHT 8 0 3" STORM DRAIN PIPE AND AREA DRAIN AREA DRAIN DAYLIGHT TO CURB DOWN SPOUT SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN SDRSD D-27 DEMOUNTABLE POST SDRSD M-16 ---·---------·--.. • 4' BLACK POLY VYNYL COATED CHAIN LINK FENCE SDRSD M-06 11 11 11 11 11 RETAINING WALL SDRSD C-01 • - - - - - -• HEADWALL RIP RAP PAD INFILTRATION BASIN EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING PED. RAMP EXISTING STREET LIGHT EXISTING WATER EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING MANHOLE EXISTING VALVE SDRSD D-32 SDRSD D-40 ~ - SEE DETAIL SHT 8 ~ ••••• • • 1 =~==~ -==-(Is -Al\ t1 --;w)-- -• FH © wv· QUANTITY 312 L.F 62 L.F 106 L.F .. 275 L.F .. 1342 L.F. 6 EA. 3 EA. 37 EA 23 EA. 2 EA. 2 EA. 84 L.F. 5 EA 6 EA. 3,962 SQ. FT. b. 20 lbs. PER ACRE OF ZORRO FESCUE c. J lbs. PER ACRE OF E SCHOOL CIA CALIFORNICA DESCRIPTION DWG.NO. d. 4 lbs. PER ACRE OF ACHILLEA MILLEFOUA SYMBOL QUANTITY EXISTING SEWER EXISTING GAS ---· --cs➔ (G)- e. J lbs. PER ACRE OF AL YSSUM {CARPET OF SNOW) f. 1/2 lb. PER ACRE OF DIMORPHOLECA g. ITEMS c,d,e, AND f OF THIS SUBSECTION MAY BE OMITTED ON LOCATIONS WHERE THE AREA BEING HYDROSEEDED IS NOT VISIBLE FROM EITHER A PUBLIC STREET OR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. h. ITEM a OF THIS SUBSECTION MUST BE INOCULATED WITH A NITROGEN FIXING BACTERIA AND APPLIED DRY EITHER BY DRILLING OR BROADCASTING BEFORE HYDROSEEDING. i. ALL SEED MATERIALS SHALL BE TRANSPORTED TO THE JOBS/TE IN UNOPENED CONTAINERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CERT/FICA TION TAG ATTACHED TO, OR PRINTED ON SAID CONTAINERS. j. NON-PHYTO-TOXIC WETTING AGENTS MAY BE ADDED TO THE HYDROSEED SLURRY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR. 2. TYPE 1 MULCH APPLIED AT THE RA TE OF NO LESS THAN 2000 lbs PER ACRE. TYPE 6 MULCH (STRAW) MAY BE SUBSTITUTED. ALL OR PART. FOR HYDRAULICALLY APPLIED FIBER MATERIAL. WHEN STRAW IS USED IT MUST BE ANCHORED TO THE SLOPE BY MECHANICALLY PUNCHING NO LESS THAN 50% OF THE STRAW INTO THE SOIL. J. FERTILIZER CONSISTING OF AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE SULFATE, 16-20-0, WITH 15% SULPHUR APPLIED AT THE RA TE OF 500 lbs. PER ACRE. D. AREAS TO BE HYDROSEEDED SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO HYDROSEEDING BY: 1. ROUGHENING THE SURFACE TO BE PLANTED BY ANY OR A COMBINATION OF: a. TRACK WALKING SLOPES STEEPER THAN 6: 1 b. HARROWING AREAS 6: 1 OR FLATTER THAT ARE SUFFICIEN1L Y FRIABLE. J" AC OVER 8" AB MIN. (PARKING STALLS) J" AC OVER 8" AB MIN. (DRIVE AND FIRE LANE) 4" PCC SIDEWALK 6" PCC OVER 6" CLASS 2 AB FLOW LINE PROPOSED CONTOURS DAYLIGHT LINE CUT/FILL LINE SDRSD G-07 & G-09 Vi --1 i,-_: -I ----c>------ ....---11-----11-------11- EARTHWORK 9UANTITIES DEVELOPER NAME: CUT: 2-250 CY FILL: 2,250 CY HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ADDRESS: 29,781 SF 23,685 SF 17,502 SF 48J SF EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING SIGN PRIVATE WATER (BY SEPARATE PERMIT) PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT (BY SEPARATE PERMIT) WATER DCDA FIRE SERVICE (BY SEPARATE PERMIT) PRIVATE SEWER (BY SEPARATE PERMIT) SEWER CLEAN OUT (BY SEPARATE PERMIT) LEGEND -CONTINUED AT LEFT -PP ... ~pp t ----+ llll""'J - ---0 STRUCTURAL (POST-CONSTRUCTION) BIIP TABLE w s EXEMPT FROM HYDROMODIFICA TION? STORMWA TER REQUIREMENTS THAT APPLY: □ STANDARD STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS [Z] PRIORITY PROJECT REQUIREMENTS [Z] YES (SEE Sl™P FOR DOCUMENTATION) D NO TYPE DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP KAINTENANCE SHEET NO. MAINTENANCE c. RIPPING AREAS THAT WILL NOT BREAK UP USING ITEMS a OR b ABOVE. 2. CONDITIONING THE SOILS SO THAT IT IS SUITABLE FOR PLANTING BY: IMPORT: 0 CY 0 14211 YORBA STREET. SUITE 200 ,__ ____ _,_ _____ __,_ _____ _,__ ______ _J__ ___ _,__ __ AGREEMENT FREQUENCY a. ADJUSTING THE SURFACE SOIL MOISTURE TO PROVIDE A DAMP BUT NOT SATURATED SEED BED. b. THE ADDITION OF SOIL AMENDMENTS, PH ADJUSTMENT, LEACHING COVERING SALINE SOILS TO PROVIDED VIABLE CONDITIONS FOR GROWTH. E. HYDROSEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE A VIGOROUS GROWTH UNTIL THE PROJECT IS PERMANEN1L Y LANDSCAPED OR, FOR AREAS WHERE HYDROSEEDING IS THE PERMANENT LANDSCAPING, UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND ALL BONDS RELEASED. F. ALL SLOPES SHALL HA VE /RR/GA TION INSTALLED AND BE STABILIZED, PLANTED AND/OR HYDROSEEDED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE TIME WHEN EACH SLOPE IS BROUGHT TO GRADE AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED GRADING PLANS. AN APPROVED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT (RECP) SHALL BE INSTALLED PER EC-7 IF THIS REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE MET. JUTE, EXCELSIOR OR STRAW BLANKET IS UNACCEPTABLE. G. SHOULD GERM/NATION OF HYDROSEED FAIL TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT COVERAGE (NO LESS THAN 70%) PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, THE SLOPES SHALL BE STABILIZED BY AN APPROVED RECP. JUTE, EXCELSIOR AND STRAW BLANKET IS UNACCEPTABLE. H. LANDSCAPING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED ON ALL SLOPES AND PADS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY LANDSCAPE MANUAL, THE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR THIS PROJECT OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR CITY PLANNER. EXPORT: CY REMEDIAL GRADING: STRUCTURAL AREAS: 11.500 CY PARKING/DRIVE AISLES: 2,JOO CY LANDSCAPING AREA: 450 CY TOTAL: 14,250 CY BASIS OF BEARINGS CITY OF CARLSBAD CONTROL STATIONS CLSB-141 ANO CLSB-119 PER ROS 17271. I.E. N 66'04'J2' E BENCH MARK TUSTIN, CA 92780 PHONE NO.: (714)228-7600 REFERENCE DRAWINGS CITY OF CARLSBAD DWG 106-2, DWG 1JJ-1, DWG 1J4-J, DWG 141-1, & DWG 360-1 DESCRIPTION: CITY OF CARLSBAD CONTROL STATION CLSB-141. A 2 1/2" DISC IN SE COR. OF VAULT ADJACENT TO THE NE COR. OF THE: NORTHBOUND COAST HIGHWAY 101 BRIDGE. ELEVATION: = 26.518 DA TUM: NGVD29 INF-1 INFILTRATION HARDING STREET (TC-11) NEIGHBORS, L.P. TREE WELLS INFILTRATION HARDING STREET (TC-J2) NEIGHBORS, L.P. TOTAL LOT AREA = 4. 77 AC TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 4.58 AC (THIS AREA INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO OFF-SITE WORK INCLUDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND TEMPORARY DISTURBANCE SUCH AS VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT STAGING AREAS, CONSTRUCTION WORKER FOOT TRAfflC, SOIL/GRA \/EL PILES, UTILITY TRENCHES, BACKFILL CUTS AND SLOPE KEYWA YS) TOTAL REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 124,631 SQ FT TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA = 21,065 SQ FT YES 4,5,8 MONTHLY & AFTER STORM YES SEE DWG MONTHLY & 532-9 AFTER STORM II AS BUILT" RCE __ _ EXP. ___ _ DATE REVIE'wED BY• TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 145,696 SQ FT INSPECTOR DATE PROJECT ADDRESS HARDING STREET AND CAROL PLACE CARLSBAD, CA ~-~ ~:!,~ER~N?1~:p:~~N~, !u~S; I SHlET I cr1xIN~frNGCD~~R¼~~AD I SH9TS I 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200 l-----lt----+----------------t-----1----1----1----1 ~G=RAD=IN::::::'.G.::::P=LANS==ro=R:=· =========-===:::! SHEET INDEX T/1LE SHEET 1 DEMOLITION PLAN 2 HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND PAVEMENT PLAN J GRADING PLAN 4 GRADING PLAN 5 UTILITY PLAN (REFERENCE ONLY) 6 UTILITY PLAN (REFERENCE ONLY) 7 NOTES AND DETAILS 8 BMP SITE PLAN 9 San Marcos, CA 92018 PACIFIC WIND P: 160-144-0011 SAN DIEGO · NASHVILLE PHOENIX (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) r~':C .. :F • .:_:· '..;.'.;._j,:..J11..:.: 1 ""'''.:..; ;..'.;"l.;;I m.W.II i"=E~:::'~;'7:c~:::c IH:'.~::;::~'::R:'"·':~::'Ff' "':'.· w~' O:::R::' I K:711.!..'-'"""'l...------4-1-_-_-_-_--11-_-_-_---.1-1-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_---.1-1-_-_-_-_-~1-_-_-_-_11-_-_-_-_-_j➔_-_-_-_-__J-1 ~"'~2·~02~1 ~0~02§!!8====:::!T!:!ITI.:!:E~S!!:H!:§E§:ET:!:::::=====:::! APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT /£JG{/ MICHAEL D. SCHWEl1ZER, P.E. P.E. 59658 EXP 12-31-23 12-20-2021 DATE DAlE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DAlE REVISION DESCRIPTION DWG 532-9A IB"40'1s"f: '\ I \ ) I N WV IJ/,94• P/L .,_/ I IJ[p)!Nf ::l@'4Jc:lW:lc ~ {§ I " IP©lfl! rlfl!JJl[;r :Zl@, '/rl{JaJJ/lilJ /LJJIIII@§ llil/JJIP '---.. E- ---81 I I 1· I I. I . \ L ~ o ::lf)J;/W I \ I I DEMOLITION LEGEND AND NOTES CD .:-:;'.,;/t/:;:; REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT ::,,:·:-1·;·_,.,:;~,;, ~·· ® f. ; , . : : . ·] REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE 01::::::::{{}:}}I REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWA v '1U5 Ui/JJ!f/@I © I / ;// I REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING AND FOUNDATION PER BLDG DEMO @ · -. . REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURES • @ ---SAWCUT EXISTING 0 REMOVE EXISTING POWER POLE BY OTHERS @ REMOVE EXISTING UTILITY METERS/BOXES BY OTHERS @ REMOVE EXISTING WALL @) IE )( )( REMOVE EXISTING FENCE ---' ------'---.. ----- --87~ .. -~ ---1 ~ -64-~,~-.. -- ~ r.:_n_ @ * 0 REMOVE EXISTING TREES AND BUSHES @ PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY IN PLACE @ PROTECT IN PLACE WATER AND SEWER MAINS, NO WORK OVER WATER FACILITIES AND WITHIN WATER EASEMENTS @-----s --REMOVE EXISTING SEWER LINE @----w-REMOVE EXISTING WATER LINE - ---s -EXISTING SEWER ------<·W)-EXISTING WATER {G)-EXISTING GAS --SD -EXISTING STORM DRAIN ----l(-----l(-----l(-)(-EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN ~-~~~~ EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN PROTECT IN PLACE DI • ----✓- p /L S22'J5'52"£ 604.9J' --=:::::::: ........... ............ ........... ............ ............ -·-·-· I . I . L . . :;i I 10 N2B7J7'05"W 402. 76' F---~ I I I NOTES: r-- / ----- I I r.:--------::i l l : I I ____ INTERSTATE-s ----------------------·------63 ---- -------- ----1 --------* ----- ...... ,., .. . . .. . . . . .... . ....... ....... . . . .. . . . . ..... . ....... ...... . . . .. . . . . ..... . ....... ······· ............. ==---...... ....... ...... . E-,-,+f+---t/" - IZZ 11,,,.--r6J .... r.:------¼-.Hl;~'n" ~ 1 I I C • • L--- ii; -~ ~ ----- \ ~ 30 15 0 30 60 90 REMOVAL OF STRUCnJRES REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT FROM THE BUILDING DIVISION. ---------~ ANY WORK WITHIN THE ROW OR PUBLIC EASEMENTS WILL REQUIRE A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT. PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE DRIVEWAYS. EASEMENT NOTES: £ EASEMENT TO SAN DIEGO GAS & EI.ECTRIC CO. RECORDED JULY 22, 1953 IN BK 49JO, PAGE J46, O.R. ti:. ACCESS RIG/HS TO INTERSTATE 5 REI.JNQUISHED PER DOCUMENT NO. 64674 RECORDED MAY 9, 1967 ACCESS RIGH1S TO OR FROM STRID. HIGHWAY OR FREEWAY ABUmNG SAID LAND REI.JNQUISHED PER DOCUMENT NO. 99417 RECORDED JULY 10, 1967 ACCESS RIGH1S TO OR FROM STRID, HIGHWAY OR FREEWAY ABUmNG SAID LAND REI.JNQUISHED PER DOCUMENT NO. 127829 RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1967 RT SWS ENGINEERING, INC. DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 AT LEAST lWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • SUR VE YING 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 P: 760-744-0011 -----7 c::J SCALE IN FEET GRAPHIC SCALE II AS BUILT" RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ REVIE'wED BY• DATE INSPECTOR DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHE9ETS I 1-----+--+----------------1----+--+----+----1 ~ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT l-----+--+----------------1----+--+----+----I GRADING PLANS FOR: t-----+------1----------+--+----+-------1,---------1 PACIFIC WIND 1-----+--+----------------1----+--+----+----1 (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) 2021-0028 DEMOLITION PLAN ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DAlE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO -NASHVILLE -PHOENIX DAlE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION DWG 532-9A I r-- ~ \ \ ♦ I\ \ I [ I ----------- I iv' I I I \ -------- JEFFERSON STREET ASPH. . ~ ~ . SWS ENGINEERING, INC. • E "' ' CIV!l. ENGINEER.ING • LAND Pt.ANNING e SUR VEYlNG 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Snit, 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 P: 760-744-0011 2929 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 114 Phoenix, AZ 85016 P: 620-902-5866 U.j.l=-: Jee. ~-1. ::i_· ·1,:.:::2.1.:,c.n~ l=·\•"l/01-e11 f-Jrpe· FILE:Z:·Frc,·sr_:L:.: ,,,-,,1 I1'j\P~1J[:\\:=:<_:, .. ,:dr1_1:_I_\GP /" 'IJ :=~p 1:--:: f-Cr_/v::l ASP!f. LEGEND ........ .\· .'t' :, : ;_• ........ 'J: ,:,.: ;. .,r:,:,.w:,:,.-,._ . .., .. :-::·:·:·:·:·::·:::·::·::·::~ J" AC OVER B" AB MIN. OR PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS (PARKING STALLS) J" AC OVER B" AB MIN. OR PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. BASED ON 1HE T.I. OF S.D. ACTUAL PROFILE OF AC/AB TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD FROM R VALUE TEST. (CONDITION 40) (DRIVE AND FIRE LANE) 4" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G 07 AND G 09 " J 1 6" VERTICAL CURB PER SDRSD G 01 CURB & GUTTER PER SDRSD G 02 ITTl D[l PAINT 4" WHITE STRIPE FOR PARKING STALL ADA STRIPING AND SIGNAGE PER ARCHITECTURAi PLANS ¢." ;,-... \S;J DRIVEWAY IN PUBLIC R/W PER CITY OF . •. CARLSBAD STD DWG GS 12 • SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DIMENSIONS ON SITE AND HARDSCAPE. CONFIRM ALL DIMENSIONS WITH LANDSCAPE PLANS. I I ( ' 30 I - 15 0 --30 60 ----- SCALE IN FEET GRAPHIC SCALE 90 I ASPH. ,---------------------, II AS BUILT" RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ DATE REVIE'wED BY, INSPECTOR DATE l---l----+------------+---+---+--+------I I SH3EET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHE9ETS I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT :::;G::::;RAD:::;:IN~G..=P;:LANS;::::;:;::::::FO:::;:::;R::::::· ========:::::'....'.==::::::: PACIFIC WIND (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) HORIZONTAL CONlROL AND PAVEMENT PLAN , __ _ ~2021 0028 '" < D 1 LO. APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DAlE DAlE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION DAlE INITIAL DAlE INITIAL I RVWD BY: 11 PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.I ,_O_TH_E_R_A~P-PR_O_VAL--C-ITY-A~PP_R_O_VAL----1 ~C:'.:H~K~D~B~Y!..::-===J .__M_S __ 1_6_-_0_1__,_.___ ------'· DWG 532-9A L ♦ \ I \ I I I vi I I ' ' 70 69 If. 68 67 66 r--' " ' 65 ' \ 64 ' '- l'\ROPOSED i--------i---------'-----t--a~& L / 63 62 61 0+00 -17 ~ - •~E~IS11NG G OUND 0+40 SECTION A-A SCALE: HORIZONTAL -1 "=20' ~TICAL-1"=3' 681----,+---+------l 671-------+---t------l 661-----4+---+------l 651------wt-------::t------l ~~ 641-----111.==1=-----i PROPO tD7 63t-----11t------t~-;-7"1 62i==~-~t--=,:;:::-:-==l 511---~+---+--l-----l I EXIS11N :_! 60 1--U,fil1LllriQ.__--l 0+00 0+30 SECTION B-B SCALE: HORIZONTAL-1"=20' ~11CAL-1•-3• ------- 671---+--+---+-----ll+--1 66i----i---+---=----t-------1tt------1 ®-r----651----1----l----=-----l-------=11-l-----l 641---+--+---+-----IH--1 63 --r,,:,, r EXIS11N 62 _ _j_ :ROUN __ \ Iv I 61 t-----+\---\+---f/-+-~.+--, 60 1--+---\-\-+-,-1-+--rt--t 591---+----1+1---+--+t----i PR,·POSED- 0+00 0+47 SECTION C-C SCALE: HORIZONTAL-1"=20' ~11CAL 1•-3• \ -~ --- INTERSTATE 15 ~ - - - - - -ASPH. 604.93', CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0) 2 1 PROPOSED 6" ~11CAL CURB PER SDRSD G 01 @ PROPOSED 6" ~11CAL CURB W/ 2' CURB OPENING AS SHOWN ON PLAN AND INSTALL 810 Ct.EAN 810 GRATE FULL 12 12 12 FULL CAPTURE TRASH INSERT. @ PROPOSED 6" ~11CAL CURB 8' GUT1ER PER SDRSD G-02 © ® ® PROPOSED CURB RAMP PER SDRSD G 27 PROPOSED PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 8' G-9 PRCi'OSED 2x2 PRECAST CTN:ROE IM.ET W/ TRAFFIC RA 1ED GRA 1E, 'I UI.£ OOKNSTRE,4M' S7ENQ/.., AND 810 aEAN 810-GRATE-FULL-12-12-12 FULL CAPTURE 7RASH INSERT. SEE SHT B FOR DITAIL 0 PROPOSED 3x3 PRECAST CONCRETE INLET FOR BASIN OUTLET SEE SHT B FOR DETAIL ® ® @') PROPOSED DOWN SPOUT SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER SDRSD D-27 PROPOSED 6" ROUND LANDSCAPE AREA DRAIN BASIN, PER DETAIL C SHT B PROPOSED RIP RAP PAD (5'x10') TYPE 1, ROCK CLASS=N0.2 BACKING, 1. 1' 1HICK; Wl1H ALTER BLANKET (1/4" AGGREGA1E. 12• 1HICK) PER SDRSD D-40 @ PROPOSED INRL 7RA 110N BASIN, SEE DETAIL SHT B @ PROPOSED MOD/RED TYPE B ROLLED CURB PER DETAIL A SHEET B @ ® PROVIDE 3' SEPERA 110N CONNECT TO PUBUC TYPE A4 CLEANOUT PER SDRSD D-09, SEE OFFS/TE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR CONTINUA 110N @) PROPOSED 3' WIDE RIBBON GUT1ER SEE DETAIL 8 SHEET B PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PER SEPERA TE BU/WING PERMIT PROPOSED ADA STALLS PER SEPERA TE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS RS.1 AND D.5 PROPOSED BUILDING DOWN SPOUT W/ SPLASH GUARD CONCRETE DISS/PA 1ER ~ ~ ...... · 1 @) @ @) @) @) PROPOSED WALL, FENCE AND GA TES PER LANDSCAPING PLANS DWG. 532-9L LC-5 8' LC-7 PROPOSED 7RUNCA TED OOMES PER SDRSD G-JO 6" PVC STORM DRAIN FOR AREA DRAINS. PROPOSED SDG8iE 7RANSFORMER LOCA 110N, PER SDG&f PLANS NOT USED PROPOSED PR/VA TE UGH11NG PER SEPERA TE BU/WING PERMIT PROPOSED 3• SERVICE W/ AREA DRAIN INLET PROPOSED AREA DRAIN DA YIJGHT TO CURB PER SDRSD D-27 PROPOSED DEMOUNTABLE POST PER SDRSD M-16 PROPOSED 4' BLACK POLY VINYL COATED CHAIN UNK FENCE PER SDRSD M-06 @ @ @ @ @) @) @ @) @ @) CONCRETE CHANNEL PER DETAIL D SHEET B. SEE OFFS/TE IMPROVEMENT PLANS OWG 532-9 FOR CON11NUA 110N ® ® T.M. CURB OUTLET PER SDRSD D-25A, SEE OFFS/TE IMPROVEMENT PLANS DWG 532-9 PROPOSED WALL PER SDRSD C-01 CONCRE1E HEADWALL PER SDRSD D-32 NOTES: FOR REQUIRED REMEDIAL GRADING. A MINIMUM OF 24" PROPERLY COMPACTED ALL MA 1ERIAL TO BE PLACED 0~ COMPETENT ALLUVIUM W/1H SUBEXCA VA 110N EXTENDING MINIMUM OF 5' BEYOND FOOTPRINT OUTI./NE, OR PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDA 110NS. ADA ACCESSIBLE PA 1H OF 7RA 1.£1.., CURB RAMPS, PARKING STALLS, STRIPING, TRUNCATED DOMES 8' SIGNAGE ALONG Wl1H ELECTRIC l.£HICLE CHARGING SPACES AND CHARGING LOCATIONS, PER SEPARATE BU/WING PERMIT. REFERENCE RS.I, D.5, ES-1.1 8' ES-1.2 STORM DRAIN LINE DATA TABLE SYM LENGTH BEARING DESCRIPTION 1 61.15' s2a·oo·oo·E 1D" PVC O 1% SLOPE MIN. 2 105.62' N61 "32'36"E 12• PVC O 1% SLOPE MIN. TYPE SIZE OWNERSHIP IMP-1 INRL TRA 110N BASIN 424 SQ. FT. HARDING STRITT NEIGHBORS L.P. DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 AT LEAST lWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG IMP-2 INRL TRA 110N BASIN 1993 SQ. FT. HARDING STRITT NEIGHBORS L.P. 20 I 10 0 20 40 60 -------------1111111 I UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCALE IN FEET GRAPHIC SCALE I ~ <',,.._......_, sws ENGINEERING, INC. • E C1vu. ENGINEERING • I.AND PLANNING e SUR.VF-YING 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 P: 760-744-0011 SAN DIEGO NASHVILLE · PHOENIX II AS BUILT" RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ DATE REVIE'wED BY, 1-----+--+----------------1----+--+----+----1 (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) t-----+--+----------------t----+--+----+----1 ~2021 0028 GRADING PLAN '" •0 '""" ,.__n, APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT DWG 532-9A ~11 II 604.93' +153-1: . 522'35'52"£ H -u-~::-7--.;;;:;:--::;-64 "Q'" ,_ w--n w :r: Cl) G w w Cl) 6l 1.92 IE 63.20 TG@ ~N28'07'05"W 62 . 402.76' ·®-- XJSnN, r;ROLJND ~ " -=-=c-1 I I I I I - I I I I I :'..J ~ @ le @'1 .. I - 66 65 64 63 62 61 r---. t--, 60 59 58 ® PROPT __ 0+00 I I SECTION D-D SCALE: HORIZONTAL-1"=20' VERnCAL-1"=3' - 0+40 ~ I ~ I ] 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 0+00 -----:-, I I I I I --- 0+40 SECTION E-E SCALE: HORIZONTAL-1"=20' VERnCAL -1 "=3' r-+-. 63. 44 TGr,;;,,. 62.00 /E'el ---62 --+-- ' __ \ 59.39 IE \ 59.23 IE 59. 06 IE 6 iI r------:--- 1 i 1-+I -x--t,-1-, i I x I I I I I I I I TOT LOT 62.75 FS 59.98 l \C{;. ','.,_~ BUILDING 2 PAD 62.32 FF 63.50 \~ 9 63.21 TG. @63.11 TG ···-... r=------------=-i ,---~-'r'-:'.J ~--7~u BUILDING 1 PAD 60.32 FF 61.50 61.1 TW@ I I I I I I I I I I 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 / - 0+00 - i V ~ r PROPO \ I ,I -_1 7 ~ IL£ 1snNG G OUND SECTION F-F SCALE: HORIZONTAL-1"=20' VERnCAL-1"=3' ED ~ - 0+40 I ~!?IM::2 I I I I I I I )i( I I L----- lo. I )i( ~ I -w w :2@ I ~ I D .. . , . . . ·:."-. ·:·1 · · 1 '. ·. ·. ·. · .. '. ·: .• ·:. ·, • . I ' . . ·. . . . . . ... a •• ' • • •• ' (O' .. 57.1 1f 11 E) R/WI II __________________________________________ &:X - -~/M- TG 0 IE 7 INFIL TRA T1 0_5 TW R.'I BASIN 5 8.5 1f@, ·. 59.37 IE 63.07 FS --s -+-11--11 SEE DWG 0. 532-9 FOR STREET PROVEMENTS 62.91 FS 61.50 TWR.'I .· 58.17 1f@, --.-BJ 61. "-T"-'I=. --~~-n 58.17 1f t 61.52 FS 61.66 FS 61.40 FS <O .q- ~ ~-----t-1==;---IH( ~ Q_ ---++---+-<'> DATE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK --....__ ....__ 64-.............. ----6J ------- r • 20 10 0 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 0) 2 1 PROPOSED 6" VERnCAL CURB PER SDRSD G-01 ® PROPOSED 6" VERnCAL CURB W/ 2' CURB OPENING AS SHOWN ON PLAN ANO INSTALL BIO CLEAN BJO-GRATE-FULL-12-12-12 FULL CAPTURE TRASH INSERT. PROPOSED 6" VERnCAL CURB &-GUTTER PER SDRSD G-02 PROPOSED CURB RAMP PER SDRSD G-27 PROPOSED PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 &-G-9 PRCFOSfD 2x2 PR£CAST WJCRE7F /NI.ET W/ TRAFFIC RA TED GRA 1E; 't LJVE DO'I.NS1R£,W' STENO/., AND 810 Q.£AN BIO-GRATE-FIJU.-12-12-12 FUI.L CAPTURE: TRASH INSERT. SEE SHT 8 FCR DETML (D PROPOSED 3x3 PRECAST CONCRETE INLET FOR BASIN OUTLET SEE SHT 8 FOR DETAIL ® ® @) PROPOSED DOl+N SPOUT SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER SDRSD D-27 PROPOSED 6" ROUND LANDSCAPE AREA DRMN BASIN, PER DETAIL C SHT 8 PROPOSED RIP RAP PAD (5'x10J lr'PE 1, ROCK ct..ASS=N0.2 BACKING, 1. 1' THICK; WITH FILTER BLANKET (1/4" AGGREGATE; 12" THICK) PER SDRSD 0-40 ~ r · . · . · . · 1 PROPOSED INFILTRA nON BASIN, SEE DETAIL SHT 8 PROPOSED MODIFIED lr'PE B ROLLED CURB PER DETAIL A SHEET 8 PROVIDE J' SEPERA nON CONNECT TO PUBLJC TYPE A4 CI.EANOUT PER SDRSD 0-09, SEE OFFS/TE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR CONnNUA nON PROPOSED 3' WIDE RIBBON GUTTER SEE DETAIL B SHEET 8 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PER SEPERA TE BUILDING PERMIT PROPOSED ADA STALLS PER SEPERA TE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS RS. I AND 0.5 PROPOSED BUILDING DOWN SPOUT W/ SPLASH GUARD CONCRETE DISS/PATER PROPOSED WALL, FENCE AND GATES PER LANDSCAPING PLANS DWG. 532-9L LC-5 &-LC-7 PROPOSED TRUNCATED DOMES PER SDRSD G-30 6" PVC STORM DRAIN FOR AREA DRMNS. PROPOSED SDG&E TRANSFORMER LOCA nON, PER SDG&E PLANS NOT USED PROPOSED PR/VA TE LJGHnNG PER SEPERA TE BUILDING PERMIT PROPOSED 3" SERVICE W/ AREA DRAIN INLET PROPOSED AREA DRAIN DA YI.JGHT TO CURB PER SDRSD D-27 PROPOSED DEMOUNTABLE POST PER SDRSD M-16 PROPOSED 4' BLACK POLY VINYL COATED CHAIN LJNK FENCE PER SDRSD M-06 CONCRETE CHANNEL PER DETAIL D SHEET 8, SEE OFFS/TE IMPROVEMENT PLANS DWG 532-9 FOR CONnNUA nON CURB OUTLET PER SDRSD D-25A, SEE OFFS/TE IMPROVEMENT PLANS DIIG 532-9 PROPOSED WALL PER SDRSD C-01 CONCRETE HEADWALL PER SDRSD D-32 NQTcS; FOR REQUIRED REMEDIAL GRADING, A MINIMUM OF 24" PROPERLY COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL TO BE PLACED OVER COMPETENT ALLUVIUM WITH SUBEXCAVA nON EXTENDING MINIMUM OF 5' BEYOND F001PRINT oumNE, OR PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDA nONs. ADA ACCESSIBLE PA TH OF TRAVEL, CURB RAMPS, PARKING STALLS, STRIPING, TRUNCATED DOMES & S/GNAGE ALONG WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACES AND CHARGING LOCAnONs, PER SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT. REFERENCE RS.I, 0.5, ES-1.1 &-ES-1.2 20 STORM DRAIN DATA TABLE SYMBOL LENGTH BEARING/DELTA RADIUS DESCRIPTION 3 11 12 13 15 40 118.72' N25" 52' 45"W 15" PVC O 0.5% SLOPE MIN. 82.35' S28" 07' 31 "E 15" PVC O 0.5% SLOPE MIN. 15.57' S28" 08' 28"E 15" PVC O 1.0/f SLOPE MIN. 50.89' N61. 51' 12"E 15" PVC O 1.0/f SLOPE MIN. 6.97' S55" 27' 20"W 15" PVC O 1.0/f SLOPE MIN. 143.77' N60" 46' 01 "E 8" PVC O 1.0/f SLOPE MIN. 27.32' N16° 33' 15"E 8" PVC O 1.0/f SLOPE MIN, 20.72' N61. 33' 15"E 8" PVC O 1.0/f SLOPE MIN. 12.97' N42" 49' OO"E 8" PVC O 0.87% SLOPE MIN. 31.09' 037" 06' 22" 48.00' 8" PVC O 0.87% SLOPE MIN. 13.21' S80" 40' 09"W 8" PVC O 0.87" SLOPE MIN. 8.73' S74" 50' 53"E 8' PVC O 1.0/f SLOPE MIN. 53.59' S22" 17' 58"E 8" PVC O 1.0% SLOPE MIN. TYPE SIZE OWNERSHIP IMP-2 INFIL TRA nON BASIN 1993 SQ. FT. HARO/NG STREET NEIGHBORS L.P. IMP-3 INFIL TRA nON BASIN 921 SQ. FT. HARO/NG STREET NEIGHBORS L.P. IMP-4A INFIL TRA nON BASIN 215 SQ. FT. HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS L.P. HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS L.P. IMP-48 INFIL TRA nON BASIN 409 SQ. FT. 60 SCALE IN FEET GRAPHIC SCALE II AS BUILT" SWS ENGINEERING, INC. C1vu. ENGINEERING • I.AND PLANNING e SUR.VF-YING 1635 Lake San Mmos Drive, Suite 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 P: 760-744-0011 SAN DIEGO · NASHVILLE · PHOENIX RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ DATE REVIE'wED BY• l.)/',IL: Uec '.!', '.:I IC::C:Jcr·1 Y;'.l',cr=·.llc·p;;r FILE :: \ ::,·c_i~=\3 \'.:',J'.:'' \'.'.' -· 1 'J \PF:OC \:=c 1~tr,. =l \ ,:=;F \:::'1-11 S CF-:J"--~1.';-:=;p =v,g INSPECTOR DATE I SH9TS I (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) 2021-0028 GRADING PLAN APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DWG 532-9A V I \ I Irr==, .......... 0 NODE LOCA nON ® © ® © ® _).~-=----------------------sa::=----=,------- --------.:::::::,.... CONSTRUCTION NOTES --------------ASPH. ---- 131.94' ---P/L . ---ss--65-t ---t--~· -----r-------._/ -- STORM DRAIN (SEE GRAING PLAN SHEETS 4 & 5) (J) OUTLET CONTROL STRUC7URE, PER DETAIL, SHITT 8 (D 2x2 PRE-CAST CONCRETE INLET "MTH TRAmC RA TED GRATE PER DETAIL SHITT 8 @ FIRE P.O.C .. SEE FIRE SPRINKLER PLANS FOR CONnNUAnON @) DDCVA PER CMIID SID DWG W-22 (TYP), SEE IMPROVEMENT PLAN DWG. 532-9 FOR WORK "MTHIN ROW F 4RCEL2 , 1S 16-01 , f - ' PRIVATE-SEWER LINE LINE DATA TABLE SYM LENGTH BEARING DESCRIPTION <I> 22.59' S20"37'39"E B" SDR-35 0 2% SLOPE MIN. <g> 7.83' S61'33'24"W 6" SDR-J5 0 2% SLOPE MIN. <p 27.86' S89"13'12"W 6" SDR-J5 0 2% SLOPE MIN. UTILITY CLEARANCE CHART F.S. ELEV STORM I.E. WATER T.O.P. SEWER T.O.P. \.£RT. CLEARANCE 63.36 60.36 56.31 3.80' 63.09 60.09 54.63 5.21' 63.29 60.29 55.68 4.36' 63.35 60.35 56.44 3.88' 63.63 62.29 57.36 4.93' 6J.33 62.21 60.33 56.31 3.77' 63.63 61.85 60.63 1.22' ~45' BEND =FS 6252 TP 59.52 ' m - 20 10 0 20 40 60 ,...-------------~ ' ' SCALE IN FEET GRAPHIC SCALE --~ -54_ . . -x- \ \ ----\-------1 ~- -_/ ___,-,--__ _ 65---------------. Q) PROPOSED 6" ROUND AREA LANDSCAPE DRAIN, SEE DETAIL SHEET 8 © PROPOSED 3• SERVICE DRAIN, SEE GRADING SHEET @) CONCRETE CHANNEL TO CURB OUTLET, SEE OffS/1£ PLANS @) NOTUSED ® THRUST BLOCK PER UNDERGROUND FIRE PLAN, BY OTHERS . n1111tr;::~:::~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~p /L !!!!!!!!!!!!!!~522~~ £) ® CONNECT TO PUBUC STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT, SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS DWG 532-9 FOR CONnNUAnON (V INFIL TRA nON BASIN PER DETAIL SHEET B SEWER (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) @) 6" SEWER P.O.C., SEE PLUMBING PLANS FOR CONnNUAnON @ 6" SSCO PER CITY SID DWG S-6 59.50 IE @ ~r--.. ) I I I I '------,r'I= I '-r----~ ~ @-1 . ' I --' @-1 BUILDING 5 PAD 62.32 FF 63.50 = 90' BEN l ..._ FS 63. 6 ~ TP 60. 6 v-- 61 - - @ 6" PVC STORM DRAIN FOR AREA DRAINS. @ 6" SS LATERAL PER CITY SID DWG S-7 ® STORM DRAIN CONNECnON TO PLAYGROUND UNDERDRAIN PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. WATER (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) @) 2· DOMEsnc WA 1ER SERVICE W/ 2· 11M & 2· BFP, 3• PR/VA 1E WA 1ER BEYOND BFP, SEE IMP. PLANS D WG 532-9 PER CMIID W-4 & W-20 ® DOMESnc WATER P.O.C., SEE BUILDING PLUMBING PLANS FOR CONnNUAnON @ RED PRIVA1E FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY SID DWG W-12 WITH PR01ECnON BOLLARDS @ roe AND P/V PER DETAIL SHEET B PRIVATE-WATERLINE AND FIRE SERVICE DATA TABLE SYM LENGTH BEARING 0 22.53' S34'05'55"W 0 23.08' S58'34'37"W 0 35.92' S22'35'45"E 0 18.36' S34'05'55"W 0 37.25' S58'34'37"W © 19.29' N73"30'28"W 0 24.98' S61'39'31"W @ 9.13' N61'47'04"E @ 19. 76' N61 '48'21 "E @ 17.37' N16'47'04"E @ 32.09' N61'47'04"E @ 7.95' S28"19'26"E @ 23.80' S73"12'56"E @ 230.09' S22'35'27"E @ 15.88' S22'35'27"E ® 85.87' S67'02'51 "W @ 25.01' N66"15'11"W @ 35.60' N22'35'27"W @ 4. 72' S67'02'51 "W @ 34.09' N66"15'11"W @ 78.51' N28"26'45"W ® 17.56' N73"26'45"W ® 29.81' S61"38'37"W @ 128.03' S22"35'27"E @ 21.00' N66"15'11"W @ 19.15" N66"15'11"W @ 130.11' S67'24'33"W DESCRIPTION 3" PVC 3" PVC 3• PVC 3" PVC 3• PVC 3• PVC 3" PVC B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 6" PVC FIRE UNE CL 150, C-9DO B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 6" PVC FIRE UNE CL 150, C-9D0 B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-900 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-900 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-900 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-9D0 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-900 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-9DO 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-9DO B" PVC FIRE LINE CL 150, C-900 4" PVC FIRE UNE CL 150, C-900 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-9D0 4" PVC FIRE UNE Cl 150, C-9D0 1 ft <',.._~ ~~1~,R~N?J~N:P:~~N?, !u~,S; cl<,; 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200 E, ~ · · San Marcos, CA 92078 " 'if' ·. P: 760-744-0011 J SAN DIEGO · NASHVILLE · PHOENIX SHEET FOR REFERENCE ONLY N01E: ALL ONSJTE PR/VA TE SEWER, FIRE AND WATER SERVICES TO BE CONSTRUC1ED BY SEPERA 1E PERMIT. INFORMA nON ON THIS PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. N01E: DOMEsnc WA 1ER AND FIRE SHALL BE 36" BELOW FS UNLESS OTHER"MSE ND1ED. "MIEN CROSSING THE OOMEsnc UNE SHALL GO BELOW THE FIRE MAIN ANO HA VE: A MINIMUM \.£RnCAL CLEARANCE OF 0.5'. II AS BUILT" RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ DATE REVIE'wED BY• 1-----+--+----------------1----+--+----+---1 (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) 1-----t--+----------------1----+--+----t---1 ~~~2•~02:!:::1 ~0~02~8====~U~Tl!!:!U~TY:!::::;P~Le!AN~==:! APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT , .. 4D ,.,.. .... 1Ln, ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DAlE DAlE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION '""a-:-A~-R-A~PP_l:-~:-:-L _o_C~TY_lE_A~P~Pl:-~11-v~-L .... ~I ~~":~KD~:~~::....:: ==::JI ... I _M_S_R_o_Ji_c_6_N_o_o_1__.II DRAWING NO.I DWG 532-9A 522'35'52"[ 604.93'. ~ --D -,... ' r -. . . C . S2572's4"E 49.54' · i! Qj 59.00 IE - PRIVATE-WATERLINE AND FIRE SERVICE DATA TABLE PRIVATE-WATERLINE AND FIRE SERVICE DATA TABLE SYM LENGTH BEARING DESCRIPTION © 19.29' N73"30'28"W 3• PVC 0 24.98' S61'39'31"W 3" PVC ® 14.28' N27'53'20"W 3• PVC ® 150.53' S60'46'01''W 3• PVC @ 32.56' N28·oo·oo·w 3• PVC @ 15.24' N28'04'48"W 3• PVC @ 8.85' s52•oo·oo·w 3• PVC @ 85.50' N28'07'31"W 3" PVC @ 73.72' N61'19'53"E 3• PVC @ 16.55' s22·24•33•w 3• PVC @ 41.89' N22'35'27"W 3" PVC @ 12.72' N72'08'56"W 3• PVC @ 91.96' S28'07'47"E 3• PVC @ 42.00' N61'47'00"E 3• PVC @ 41.78' N28'09'07"W 3• PVC @ 84.97' N67'02'51"E 3" PVC @ 20.88' S67i0'19"W 3• PVC ASPH. @ 26.72' S22'24'33"W 8" PVC RRE LINE CL 150, C-900 SIJII @ 26.69' S67'02'51 "W 8" PVC RRE LINE CL 150, C-900 @ 85.19' S22'35'27"E 8" PVC RRE LINE CL 150, C-900 I\L -~- ...:::::::_ ---CONSTRUCTION NOTES STORM DRAIN (SEE GRAING PLAN SHEETS 4 & 5) Q) OU7!£T CONTROL S1RUCTURE, PER DETAIL. SHEET 8 -- \777, ' . r I . • : I. ------------:-----6J ----~ -------..... --------:::::::-.... --------' @ 2x2 PRE-CAST CONCRETE: INLET Wl1H TRAmc RATED GRATE PER DETAIL SHEET 8 @ PROPOSED 6" ROUND AREA LANDSCAPE DRAIN, SEE DETAIL SHEET 8 © ® PROPOSED 3• SERVICE DRAIN, SEE GRADING SHEET CONCRETE: CHANNEL TO CURB OU7!£T, SEE OFFS/TE PLANS © CONNECT TO PUBLJC STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT, SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS DWG 532-9 FOR CONllNUA llON 0 INRLTRAllON BASIN PER DETAIL SHEET 8 ® 6" PVC STORM DRAIN FOR AREA DRAINS. ® STORM DRAIN CONNECllON TO PLAYGROUND UNDERDRAIN PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. WATER (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) @) 2• DOMESllC WA ID? SERVICE W/ 2• WI.I & 2" BFP, 3" PR/VA TE WA TE:R BEYOND BFP, SEE IMP. PLANS DWG 532-9 PER CMI\O W-4 & W-20 DOMEsnc WA TE:R P. 0. c.. SEE BUILDING PLUMB/NG PLANS FOR CONllNUA nON RRE P. 0. C., SEE RRE SPRINKLER PLANS FOR CONllNUA llON DDCVA PER CMI\O STD DWG W-22 (TYP), SEE IMPROVEMENT PLAN DWG. 532-9 FOR WORK 1'111HIN ROW @) NOTUSED @ 1HRUST BLOCK PER UNDERGROUND RRE PLAN, BY 01HERS. SEWER (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) @ 6" SE~R P.O.C., SEE PLUMBING PLANS FOR CONllNUAllON @ 6" SSCO PER CITY STD DWG S-6 @ 6" SS LA ID?AL PER CITY STD DWG S-7 UTILITY CLEARANCE CHART NODE LOCA llON F.S. ELEV STORM I.E. WAID? T.O.P. SEll£R T.O.P. VERT. CLEARANCE ® 63.54 60.54 58.64 (J) 63.25 60.43 59.43 Q) 62.59 59.59 57.27 62.65 58.79 57.79 PRIVATE-SEWER LINE LINE DATA TABLE SYM LENGTH BEARING DESCRIPTION <£> 49. 70' N67"25'13"E 6" SDR-35 0 2% SLOPE MIN. ~ 26.20' N29"35'04"E 6" SDR-35 0 2% SLOPE MIN. <D 63.69' N67"02'51"E 8" SDR-35 0 1% SLOPE MIN. <J> 34. 79' S22'57'06"E 6" SDR-35 0 2% SLOPE MIN. <]> 262.20' S22'35'27"E 8" SDR-35 0 1% SLOPE MIN . 38.82' S67'24'33"W 6" SDR-35 0 2% SLOPE MIN . <19> 27.46' S67'24'33"W 8" SDR-35 1% SLOPE MIN. 13.62' N28"00'11 "W 6" SDR-35 0 2% SLOPE MIN. 1.57' 1.00' 1.99' 1.00· 20 SHEET FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOTE: ALL ONS/TE: PR/VA TE SEIIE/?, RRE AND WA TE:R SERVICES TO BE CONS1RUCTE:D BY SEPERA TE PERMIT. INFORMA noN ON 1HIS PLAN IS FOR REfERENCE ONLY. 1ff'0;1 \ ___ J~ 10 0 20 40 60 I -------------1111111 I 1 ft <',.._~ ~~1~,R~N?J~N:P:~~N?, !u~,S; cl<,; 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200 E, ~ · · San Marcos, CA 92078 " 'if' ·. P: 760-744-0011 J SAN DIEGO · NASHVILLE · PHOENIX SCALE IN FEET GRAPHIC SCALE II AS BUILT" RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ REVIE'wED BY• WIND DATE t-----t--+----------------t----+--+----t---t ~~~2•~02:!:::1 ~0~02~8====~U~Tl!!:!U~TY:!::::;P~Le!AN~==:! APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT , .. 4D ,.,.. .... 1Ln, ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DAlE DAlE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION DWG 532-9A 24" X 24" DRAIN INLETFOR EASE OF INSTALLATION AND EVEN LOAD DISTRIBUTION. ASSEMBLY TO BE PLACED ON A 6" BASE OF CRUSHER RUN DESIGN FOR H-20-44 BRIDGE LOADING. WEIGHT IN TRAFFIC OR PEDESTRIAN MODELS. FRAME AND GRATE ASSEMBLY AVALIABLE FOR COMPLETE DESIGN AND PRODUCT INFORMATION, CONTACT JENSEN PRECAST. MODEL NO. EXTENSION C WEIGHTMODEL NO. DROP INLET A B C CONFIGURATION: FOR SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION, ILLUSTRATION IS TYPICAL ONLY OF GENERAL SERIES CALL JENSEN PRECAST. WEIGHTMODEL NO. FRAME AND GRATE RATING D IN TRAFFIC OR PEDESTRIAN MODELS. FRAME AND SOLID COVER ASSEMBLY AVALIABLE ROUND GRATE WITH SPEE-D BASIN ROUND SPEE-D BASINS SECTION CRUSHED ROCK INVERT ELEVATION SEWER & DRAIN PIPE NDS SPEE-D BASIN 6" SEWER AND DRAIN RISER PIPE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) COMPACTED SOIL SLOPE TO DRAIN NDS ROUND POLYOLEFIN GRATE W/ U.V. INHIBITORS (ATRIUM GRATE)SLOPE TO DRAIN NOTE: INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 36" X 36" DRAIN INLET FOR EASE OF INSTALLATION AND EVEN LOAD DISTRIBUTION. ASSEMBLY TO BE PLACED ON A 6" BASE OF CRUSHER RUN DESIGN FOR H-20-44 BRIDGE LOADING. IN TRAFFIC OR PEDESTRIAN MODELS. FRAME AND GRATE ASSEMBLY AVALIABLE FOR COMPLETE DESIGN AND PRODUCT INFORMATION, CONTACT JENSEN PRECAST. EXTENSION MODEL NO.C WEIGHT DROP INLET MODEL NO.A B WEIGHT CONFIGURATION: FOR SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION, ILLUSTRATION IS TYPICAL ONLY OF GENERAL SERIES CALL JENSEN PRECAST. WEIGHTMODEL NO. FRAME AND GRATE RATING D IN TRAFFIC OR PEDESTRIAN MODELS. FRAME AND SOLID COVER ASSEMBLY AVALIABLE POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP SURFACE \ T T L J J ~ ' CITY BASIN BOTTOM BASIN REQ'D WO BMP IMP # AREA (SF) AREA (SF) ID INF-1 1 317 424 INF-1 2 1,388 1,993 INF-1 3 740 921 INF-1 4A 176 749 INF-1 48 520 SWAP 5 N/A N/A SD-A 6 N/A N/A SD-A 7 N/A N/A SWAP 8 N/A N/A JE MINIMI' 9 N/A N/A * EMERGENCY SPILLWAY/TOP OF GRATE ELEV FREEBOARD WO DEPTH V f f BO TT OM ---------<-i INFILTRATION BASIN AREA WO DEPTH BASIN AREA AT (IN) 27.8" 18" 31.2" 18" 24" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A f WO DEPTH {SF) 609 3,157 1,377 272 587 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A OVERFLOW STRUCTURE I T OUlFLOW BASIN TOTAL BOTTOM BASIN PIPE DEPTH ELEVATION (IN) (IN) (FT) 10 33.84" 58.18 15 24" 59.50 NIA 37.2" 58.00 8 24• 59.50 N/A 30" 59.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SURFACE OUTLET PIPE EXISTING GROUND ® INFIL1RA110N FAaUTY 0111H OUR.ET PIPE} 18"x31" THIN WALL KNOCKOUTS. SLEDGE OUT AS REQUIRED. (TYP. 4 PLACES) RS242406 6" 300 LBS. RS242412 12" 600 LBS. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -""' * D1242436 35• 42" 1900 LBS. D1242448 48" 54• 2500 LBS. *Box ONLY SG2424-DIP PEDESTRIA 1 1 /2" 41 LBS. SG2424-DIT TRAFFIC 3" 120 LBS. I FRAME MAY BE CAST _ DIRECTLY INTO BOX (OPTIONAL) OUTSIDE 8 HEIGHT OF BOX I OPTIONAL EXTENSION HEIGHT 'I LIVE: DOWN STREAM' STENCIL TO BE ADDED US£ BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE-FULL-12-12-12 FULL CAPTURE TRASH INSERT FOR ALL INLETS IN PARKING AREAS. ■ © JJ&~[!iJ_ ORG.DWG,Dl,T'E m'.D'il'l,111,IE D12424 11~8-0D 8.01 L OUTSIDE HEIGHTS OF BOX RS363606 6" 525 LBS. RS363612 12" 1050 LBS. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I i VOLUME {DCV) VOLUME (DCV) VOLUME OVERFLOW TOP OF BERM PROVIDED REQUIRED PROVIDED PER NOMOGRAPH PROVIDED ELEVATION ELEVATION FREE BOARD DCV(CF) DCV{CF) 984 - 2,491 2,989 1,497 2,395 936 1,124 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SURFACE \ (CF) • (FT) (FT) 1,074 60.50 61.00 3,409 61.00 61.50 2,746 60.60 61.15 302 61.00 61.50 1,108 61.00 61.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FREEBOARD WO DEPTH V I I I I F I I I T F I F I l I ~ T t J t BO TT OM ---------.-i INFILTRATION BASIN AREA {IN) 6" 6" 6.6" 6" 6" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I 1 1 I I 1 OVERFLOW ELEV SURFACE EXISTING GROUND INFJLJRA]ON EAQYJY CW/o OUJLET PIPE> C 6" ROUND LANDSCAPE DRAIN ® OPTIONAL C EXTENSION r HEIGHT ■ 000.0WO,l>\7' 11~11--0D Dl363636 36" 42" 37 48 LBS. Dl363648 48" 54" 4752 LBS. *Box ONLY SG3636-DIP PEDESTRIA 1 1 /2" 77 LBS. SG3636-DIT TRAFFIC 3" 42 LBS. FRAME CAN BE CAST DIRECTLY INTO BOX (OPTIONAL) 31" ROUND THIN WALL KNOCKOUT. SLEDGE OUT AS REQUIRED. (TYP. 4 PLACES) D13636 0 8.05 POST INDICATOR---~--.. GATE VALVE WITH TAMPER SWITCH-CONNECTED TO THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM • "' RR£ 5£R\IIC£ PER PLAN .... ""' SWIN CHECK VALVE: F.G . s· 7 l-1 D •'-~,-+---.---~~--~ • .j CONCRETE CHANNEL 560-C-3250 CONCRETE CHANNEL DETAIL @) • co "' 4"x2 1/2"X2 1/2" 90 SIAMESE FDC l>'. ~:i~ "' :::. 0 Ju ~---tl,::-:;,111--fll-l '-Ill-~ ~ TO BUILDING RR£ 5£R\IIC£ PER PLAN B A 3• A.C. OVER a• A.B. 1.5% 1 · 3.0' 0.50' THICK CONCRETE CLASS 520-A-2500 W/ CONTACT JOINTS PER S.D.R.S.D. G-10 RIBBON GUTTER DETAIL 1-1/2" w z :::J m 0:: ::, u TOP OF CURB (TC) :J I/ 3• R 1 /2"rR-'------'"'r'--~::------~--~ b - 1. NOTFS· 2.0' .1 in d in d @) 1. TRANS/710N TO TYPE G CURB AT ALL CURB RETURNS, EXCEPT WHERE SIDEWALK RAMPS AR£ PROVIDED, AND AT ALL CUL-DE-SACS WITH DRAINAGE: STRUCTURES. 2. CONCRETE SHALL BE 520-C-2500. 3. S££ STANDARD DRAWINGS G-9 AND G-10 FOR JOINT DETAILS. MODIFIED TYPE B ROLLED CURB DETAIL@ THRUST BLOC THRUST BLOCK II AS BUILT" SWING CHECK VAL II[ (FOR REFERENCE ONLY REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT) E SWS ENGINEERING, INC. C1vu. ENGINEERING • L'iND PLANNING e SUR.VF-YING 1635 Lake San Mmos Drive, Suite 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ DATE PIV AND FOG DETAIL P: 760-744-0011 SAN DIEGO · NASHVILLE -PHOENIX REVIE'wED BY• l.)/',IL: Uec '.:'', '.:I IC:Jlcrn FILE :: \=>·c_i~~ts \2,J2' \2' -· 1 .PPOIC \Cc,slcc. ct . CF\ INSPECTOR DATE ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHE9ETS I 1----+--+----------------+----+--1----+-----1 l..!!_J ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT l----+--+----------------+----+--1----+-----I GRADING PLANS FOR: t-----+-------1----------+--+----+-------t,--------t PACIFIC WIND 1----+--+----------------+----+--1----+-----1 (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) 2021-0028 NOTES AND DETAILS ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DAlE DAlE tNtllAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION DWG 532-9A ♦ \ I I \ \ -------------- WV ---71 I I I I I I I --11 --11!--- DMA-1 ·· 29,873 SF :::::::::: .. ,-----< .......... ........... . . . . . . . . . . ·::::::::::•J-------1 ........... . . . . . . . . . . ........... .......... ~-~ ........... ........... .......... -- . ............................................. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .. -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-:•:::::::::: .......... . . : :::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: ::::. ·. ·:::::::::: ::::. ·. ·:::::::::: ::::. ·. ·:::::::::: :::: .... : ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DMA-6 5,058 SF I TRE'.ijT ½ .Je-+--11--l'-11---8!!~-----8,-➔-1:;-----=~--2~,2~.~85~.;+-'T'"M-A--8-(N..,..o//~o BE TREA~ED ~7 DMA-2 I "' I \., ------------- ci ~ I ~ g; "" ·~ ci ~ V, 0 !l " ~ BMP BMP ID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY TREATMENT CONTROL --1 CD INFILTRATION . . . . I ·.:..:: . ..:..:_ 1,074 C.F. IMP (1) INFILTRATION --1 ® . . . . 3,409 C.F. IMP (2) I ·.:..:: . ..:..:_ INFILTRATION --1 @ . . . . 2,746 C.F. IMP (3) I ·.:..:: . ..:..:_ INFILTRATION --1 © . . . . IMP (4) I ·.:..:: . ..:..:_ 1,410 C.F. ©0 TREE WELL B 2EA. IMP (6&7) HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL HYDROMODIFICATION LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.I.D.) SOURCE CONTROL ®-® TRASH ENCLOSURE w SD-32 2 0-@ STENCILS NO DUMPING SD-13 3 DRAINS TO OCEAN @-@) SIGNAGE PERMANENT WATER QUALITY 5 TREATMENT FACILITY TABLE DRAWING NO. 532-9A 532-9A 532-9A 532-9A 532-9 VIA SWAP ON MAGNOLIA AV ________ J;wll9 F SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * FREQUENCY 4 MONTHLY 4,5 MONTHLY 5 MONTHLY 5 MONTHLY 4 MONTHLY 5 MONTHLY 4,5 AS NEEDED 4,5 AS NEEDED MAINTENANCE * FREQUENCY MONTHLY & AFTER STORM MONTHLY& AFTER STORM MONTHLY & AFTER STORM MONTHLY& AFTER STORM MONTHLY& AFTER STORM AS NEEDED SEMIANNUALLY AS NEEDED 75,619 SF PRETREATMENT DEVICE BC-CG-4 BIO-GRA TE-FULL-12-12-12 BIO-GRA TE-FULL-12-12-12 BIO-GRATE-FULL-12-12-12 BIO-GRATE-FULL-12-12-12 l.__ ---::, I I I I I I I PERMANENT WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FACILITY KEEPING OUR WATERWAYS CLEAN r;:------:;i I I I I I I I ::.J !PINI ::1 ic:2 'y 0 @1 I J!,[p I MAINTAIN WITH CARE -NO MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT AGENCY APPROVAL ------ BMP NOTES: 1. THESE BMPSARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS. 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ...... ------.------ ------- PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS LP ADDRESS 14211 YORBA STREET SUITE 200 TUSTIN CA 92780 PHONE NO. (714\288-7600 PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME _ ___,M"'IC"'H~AE-L~D=·=SC=H=W=E=IT~ZE-R~ COMPANY ADDRESS SWS ENGINEERING INC 1635 LAKE SAN MARCOS DR. SUITE 200 CONTACT TODD R. COTTLE SIGNATURE 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 . --53 --------SAN MARCOS CA 92078 PHONE NO. /760)744-0011 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. t,: __ _ -63--- <I JEFFERSON STREET ASPH. I> c::::::J c::::::::J 81 c::::::J t> -- CERTIFICATION PE 59658 ( '<::::'.. Q I I I I p I ~ I 30 I ---- ODD wv. DMA-5 (N BE TREATED ~ SWAP GNOLIA AV ~.& ) _ _!._ @li ~ • -1 • • ( 30 15 0 ..... 30 SCALE IN FEET GRAPHIC SCALE 60 90 SWS ENGINEERING, INC. E CIVIL ENGINEERlNG • LAND PLANNING 1635 Lake San Marcos Drive, Suite 200 San Marcos, CA 92078 P: 760-744-0011 • SAN DIEGO · NASHVILLE · PHOENIX 1)/, I l)e,. ,,., ''I l'.: .. :Purr, l"ur~·.11<.:·per Fl LE: :=: \ :oro ja~ts '-_2U2 I \21 . 1 C\PfoCC ;;co;°"cd.G0 \2 II AS BUILT" SURVEYING -------------------<J ,,,, -----7 l'Q'.t »· RCE __ _ EXP, ___ _ DATE REVIE'wED BY• INSPECTOR DATE I---+----+------------+--+---+---+----, I SH9EET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHE9ETS I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ;:;G;;RAD:::;:;IN;:;:;G,-=;PLANS;=.:;;::;:FO:;R:;:·========:::::.::::::=::::::; PACIFIC WIND (CAROL AND HARDING NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT) 2021-0028 BMP S\lE PLAN ENGINEERING MANAGER RCE 63912 EXP. 9/30/22 DATE DATE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL I RVWD BY: 11 PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.I >-OTH-ER_A_P~PR_O_VAf.-+-C-ITY-A-P-PR-O-VAf.----1 i.:C::::H:!.'.:K~D:....!:.BY.!.::-===-._ __ M_S __ 1_6_-_0_1 __ ~. ---~-