The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCUP 2023-0001; OMNI LA COSTA DRIVING RANGE EXPANSION; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP); 2023-07-25PREPARED FOR: LC Investment 2010, LLC Omni La Costa Resort and Spa 4001 Maple Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75219 PREPARED BY: Chang Civil Engineering ◦ Hydrology ◦ Hydraulics ◦ Sedimentation P.O. Box 9496 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 (858) 692-0760 DATE: July 25, 2023 CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR OMNI LA COSTA DRIVING RANGE EXPANSION SUP 2023-0001 CUP 2023-0001 DWG 539-4C GR No. 2023-0018 ENGINEER OF WORK: Wayne W. Chang, MS, PE 46548, Expires 6/30/2025 (B(I)~[lli][rn 1 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: Infiltration Feasibility Analysis (when applicable) Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Attachment 1f: Trash Capture BMP Requirements 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 2 CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: Omni La Costa Driving Range Expansion Project ID: SUP 2023-0001, CUP 2023-0001 I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the current Order. I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and site design BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date Wayne W. Chang, MS, PE 46548, Expires 6/30/2025 Print Name Chang Consultants Company July 25, 2023 Date 3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP CITY OF OCEANSIDE PACIFIC OCEAN CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF VISTA CITY OF SAN MARCOS 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 02/22 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 442-339-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 INSTRUCTIONS: C cityof Carlsbad □ □ □ □ E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 02/22 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. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV 02/22 * 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.. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV 02/22 STEP 4 TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (PDP) ONLY Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): YES NO Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A) = sq. ft. Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)*100 = % If you answered “yes”, the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 6, check the first box stating, “My project is a PDP …” and complete applicant information. If you answered “no,” the structural BMP’s required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 6, check the first box stating, “My project is a PDP …” and complete applicant information. STEP 5 TO BE COMPLETED FOR STANDARD PROJECTS 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), PI (Planned Industrial), CF (Community Facilities), GC (General Commercial), L (Local Shopping Center), R (Regional Commercial), V-B (Village-Barrio), VC (Visitor Commercial), O (Office), VC/OS (Visitor Commercial/Open Space), PI/O (Planned Industrial/Office), or Public Transportation 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 complete applicant information. STEP 6 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) per E-35 template for submittal at time of application. My project is a ‘STANDARD PROJECT’ OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with ‘STANDARD PROJECT’ stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a “Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36” and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. 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. My project is NOT a ‘development project’ and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Applicant Name: Applicant Title: Applicant Signature: Date: □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ cz).Q__ 8 SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Summary Information Project Name Omni La Costa Driving Range Expansion Project ID SUP 2023-0001, CUP 2023-0001 Project Address 2100 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 216-590-02, -03; 216-591-02, -04, -08; 216-610-08, -09 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904.00 Parcel Area 43.8 Acres (1,907,928 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) 2.90 Acres (126,395 Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) 13.91 Acres (605,970 Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) 2.53 Acres (110,062 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset of Project Area) 11.38 Acres (495,908 Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. ProJect ry Information 9 Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): X Existing development X Previously graded but not built out X Agricultural or other non-impervious use Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description / Additional Information: The existing Omni La Costa Resort & Spa golf course will be renovated with an enlarged driving range to accommodate additional golfers. Portions of an existing asphalt parking lot and concrete tennis courts near the existing driving range will be removed and replaced with the additional driving range turf. A new asphalt parking area is being added northeast of El Camino Real and Costa Del Mar Road. An existing asphalt parking area southeast of Estrella De Mar Road and Arenal Road is being expanded to the east. Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): X Vegetative Cover X Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas X Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: The existing use is an 18-hole golf course with a driving range as well as tennis courts, an asphalt parking lot, and barren land. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): NRCS Type A NRCS Type B X NRCS Type C X NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): GW Depth < 5 feet 5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet X GW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): X Watercourses Seeps Springs Wetlands None Description / Additional Information: Storm runoff from the project footprint is conveyed in a southerly direction by drainage facilities to San Marcos Creek. San Marcos Creek flows west to Batiquitos Lagoon. The pre-project drainage patterns towards San Marcos Creek will generally remain the same. Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns 10 Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage The existing driving range has a gently-rolling grass-lined surface and is mostly within the San Marcos Creek 100-year floodplain. Private storm drains within the driving range convey storm runoff towards the creek. San Marcos Creek flows in an easterly to westerly direction along the southerly end of the project and ultimately enters Batiquitos Creek just west of the project (west of El Camino Real). The two proposed parking areas currently support barren, gently-sloping surfaces. Drainage facilities convey storm runoff from the two areas towards San Marcos Creek. 11 Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The project proposes expansion and renovation of the existing driving range. Portions of an existing asphalt parking lot and concrete tennis courts will be removed and replaced with the expanded driving range. An asphalt parking lot is being added northeast of the intersection of El Camino Real and Costa Del Mar Road. An existing asphalt parking lot southeast of Estrella De Mar Road and Arenal Road is being expanded to the east. The overall drainage patterns towards San Marcos Creek from the project areas will generally remain. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): The proposed impervious features are the two new paved parking areas. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): The existing pervious driving range will be retained and expanded with the removal of a portion of the adjacent existing impervious parking and tennis areas. Biofiltration basins will treat storm runoff from the two parking areas and landscaping will be installed at the two parking areas. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? X Yes No Description / Additional Information: Grading and topography changes will result from removal of existing parking and tennis courts for the expanded driving range. In addition, grading will be required for the two proposed parking areas. Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? X Yes No Description / Additional Information: Small drainage pipes and catch basins will be added to address ponding in low points of the expanded driving range. These will connect to the existing drainage system, which discharges to San Marcos Creek. Overall drainage patterns will remain the same and flows will be reduced due to the added pervious areas. Storm runoff from the two proposed parking areas will be directed to an individual biofiltration basin serving each parking area for treatment, then conveyed to existing drainage facilities that drain towards San Marcos Creek. Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns 12 Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): X On-site storm drain inlets Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Interior parking garages Need for future indoor & structural pest control X 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 X Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water X Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots 13 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): Water exits the site on the south side, draining directly into San Marcos Creek, which conveys the water to the west, through Batiquitos Lagoon and into the Pacific Ocean. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake, or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs San Marcos Creek Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Selenium, Toxicity TMDL required, but not yet completed. Batiquitos Lagoon Toxicity TMDL required, but not yet completed. Identification of Project Site Pollutants Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see Table B.6-1 below): Pollutant Not Applicable to the Project Site Anticipated from the Project Site Also a Receiving Water Pollutant of Concern Sediment X Nutrients X X Heavy Metals X Organic Compounds X Trash & Debris X Oxygen Demanding Substances X Oil & Grease X Bacteria & Viruses X Pesticides X Identification of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern 1cat1on of ProJect Site Poll 14 1. Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type General Pollutant Categories Priority Project Categories Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals Organic Compounds Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil & Grease Bacteria & Viruses Pesticides Detached Residential Development X X X X X X X Attached Residential Development X X X P(1) P(2) P X Commercial Development >one acre P(1) P(1) X P(2) X P(5) X P(3) P(5) Heavy Industry X X X X X X Automotive Repair Shops X X(4)(5) X X Restaurants X X X X P(1) Hillside Development >5,000 ft2 X X X X X X Parking Lots P(1) P(1) X X P(1) X P(1) Retail Gasoline Outlets X X X X X Streets, Highways & Freeways X P(1) X X(4) X P(5) X X P(1) X = anticipated P = potential (1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists onsite. (2) A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas. (3) A potential pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products. (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons. (5) Including solvents. 15 Trash Capture BMP Requirements The project must meet the following Trash Capture BMP Requirements (see Section 4.4 of the BMP Design Manual): 1) The trash capture BMP is sized for a one-year, one-hour storm event or equivalent storm drain system, and 2) the trash capture BMP captures trash equal or greater to 5mm. Description / Discussion of Trash Capture BMPs: A project within a Priority Land Use (PLU) per the City’s Land Use Map is subject to trash capture BMPs. The proposed asphalt parking areas are within the General Plan Land Use of Visitor Commercial (VC), while the golf course is within Open Space (OS). VC is a PLU, but OS is not. Although OS is not a PLU, the project will still install inlet filters within all proposed on-site storm drain inlets in the driving range. The proposed asphalt parking areas will each drain to a biofiltration basin, i.e., a biofiltration basin will serve each parking area, so two biofiltration basins are proposed. A trash capture device will be placed on the outlet of each biofiltration basin in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices or approved equivalent. The Trash Capture BMPs selected for this project will be Bio Clean Catch Basin Inlet Filters (see Attachment 1f) or equivalent. Hydromodification Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? X 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 project includes the two proposed asphalt parking lots and the driving range expansion. A biofiltration basin (2 total) will provide hydromodification management for each of the asphalt parking lots. The only proposed impervious areas associated with the driving range are new concrete cart paths along portions of its north and east perimeters. These meet the BMP Design Manual’s (Section 5.2.1) self-mitigating requirements, so are exempt from hydromodification management. The exemption is discussed in detail in Attachment 2d. Trash Capture BMP Requirements Hydromod1ficat1on Management Requirements 16 Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas * This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? Yes X No, no critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Appendix H of the manual been performed? H.6.1 Site-Specific GLU Analysis H.7 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment H.7.3 Coarse Sediment Source Area Verification No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical course 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 H.2, H.3, and H.4 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion / Additional Information: Both the Carlsbad WMAA’s Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas exhibit and the Google Earth kmz overlay do not map CCSYA’s at the site (see Attachment 2b). Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas * 1is Section onlv reauired 1f hvdromod1fication manaaement reauirements aoolv 17 Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff * This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit. As described in the Hydromodification Management Requirements above, the driving range expansion is a self-mitigating area not subject to hydromodification. The POCs for the self- mitigating driving range area are collectively referred to as POC A. A biofiltration basin within each asphalt parking area will provide flow (and pollutant) control for the parking area improvements. The storm drain outlet from each biofiltration basin is a POC. The outlet for the westerly parking area biofiltration basin is POC B and for the easterly parking area biofiltration basin is POC C. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? X 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) Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff * 1is Section onlv reauired 1f hvdromodification manaaement reauirements aoolv - 18 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. N/A 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. N/A Other Site Requirements and Constraints E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 02/22 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 442-339-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Information Project Name: Project ID: DWG No. or Building Permit No.: Baseline BMPs for Existing and Proposed Site Features Complete the Table 1 - Site Design Requirement to document existing and proposed site features and the BMPs to be implemented for them. All BMPs must be implemented where applicable and feasible. Applicability is generally assumed if a feature exists or is proposed. BMPs must be implemented for site design features where feasible. Leaving the box for a BMP unchecked means it will not be implemented (either partially or fully) either because it is inapplicable or infeasible. Explanations must be provided in the area below. The table provides specific instructions on when explanations are required. Table 1 - Site Design Requirement A. Existing Natural Site Features (see Fact Sheet BL-1) 1. Check the boxes below for each existing feature on the site. 1. Select the BMPs to be implemented for each identified feature. Explain why any BMP not selected is infeasible in the area below. SD-G Conserve natural features SD-H Provide buffers around waterbodies Natural waterbodies Natural storage reservoirs & drainage corridors -- Natural areas, soils, & vegetation (incl. trees) -- B. BMPs for Common Impervious Outdoor Site Features (see Fact Sheet BL-2) 1. Check the boxes below for each proposed feature. 2. Select the BMPs to be implemented for each proposed feature. If neither BMP SD-B nor SD-I is selected for a feature, explain why both BMPs are infeasible in the area below. SD-B Direct runoff to pervious areas SD-I Construct surfaces from permeable materials Minimize size of impervious areas Streets and roads Check this box to confirm that all impervious areas on the site will be minimized where feasible. If this box is not checked, identify the surfaces that cannot be minimized in area below, and explain why it is Sidewalks & walkways Parking areas & lots Driveways Patios, decks, & courtyards Hardcourt recreation areas Omni La Costa Driving Range Expansion SUP 2023-0001, CUP 2023-0001 539-4C x x x x x x x x x x x □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ {'city of Carlsbad □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 02/22 Other: _______________ infeasible to do so. C. BMPs for Rooftop Areas: Check this box if rooftop areas are proposed and select at least one BMP below. If no BMPs are selected, explain why they are infeasible in the area below. (see Fact Sheet BL-3) SD-B Direct runoff to pervious areas SD-C Install green roofs SD-E Install rain barrels D. BMPs for Landscaped Areas: Check this box if landscaping is proposed and select the BMP below SD-K Sustainable Landscaping If SD-K is not selected, explain why it is infeasible in the area below. (see Fact Sheet BL-4) Provide discussion/justification for site design BMPs that will not be implemented (either partially or fully): Baseline BMPs for Pollutant-generating Sources All development projects must complete Table 2 - Source Control Requirement to identify applicable requirements for documenting pollutant-generating sources/ features and source control BMPs. BMPs must be implemented for source control features where feasible. Leaving the box for a BMP unchecked means it will not be implemented (either partially or fully) either because it is inapplicable or infeasible. Explanations must be provided in the area below. The table provides specific instructions on when explanations are required. Table 2 - Source Control Requirement A. Management of Storm Water Discharges 1. Identify all proposed outdoor work areas below Check here if none are proposed 2. Which BMPs will be used to prevent materials from contacting rainfall or runoff? (See Fact Sheet BL-5) Select all feasible BMPs for each work area 3. Where will runoff from the work area be routed? (See Fact Sheet BL-6) Select one or more option for each work area SC-A Overhead covering SC-B Separation flows from adjacent areas SC-C Wind protection SC-D Sanitary sewer SC-E Containment system Other Trash & Refuse Storage Materials & Equipment Storage □ □ □ D □ □ □ D D □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 02/22 Loading & Unloading Fueling Maintenance & Repair Vehicle & Equipment Cleaning Other: _________________ B. Management of Storm Water Discharges (see Fact Sheet BL-7) Select one option for each feature below: • Storm drain inlets and catch basins … are not proposed will be labeled with stenciling or signage to discourage dumping (SC-F) • Interior work surfaces, floor drains & sumps … are not proposed will not discharge directly or indirectly to the MS4 or receiving waters • Drain lines (e.g. air conditioning, boiler, etc.) … are not proposed will not discharge directly or indirectly to the MS4 or receiving waters • Fire sprinkler test water … are not proposed will not discharge directly or indirectly to the MS4 or receiving waters Provide discussion/justification for source control BMPs that will not be implemented (either partially or fully): □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 02/22 Form Certification This E-36 Form is intended to comply with applicable requirements of the city’s BMP Design Manual. I certify that it has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the review of this form by City staff is confined to a review and does not relieve me as the person in charge of overseeing the selection and design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. Preparer Signature: Date: Print preparer name: A -·y:; I {/ 23 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS PDP Structural BMPs All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual). Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP). Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated together or separate. Geocon’s August 2, 2022 letter, Infiltration Testing & Pervious Paving Recommendations, indicates that impermeable liners should be included in the water quality basins serving the two proposed asphalt parking areas. Therefore, both proposed asphalt parking areas will drain to individual lined biofiltration basins for pollutant and flow control prior to entering an existing storm drain system and being conveyed away from each site. A proposed impervious driveway provides access to the westerly asphalt parking area from Costa Del Mar Road. The driveway will be steep at 12 percent because the parking area is several feet higher (over 7 feet) than the road and the driveway is relatively short (about 65 feet long). A Modular Wetlands Linear (MWL) was initially considered as the pollutant control BMP for the driveway. This would be used in conjunction with a vault for flow control. The MWL cannot be placed in Costa Del Mar because there is a large amount of flow tributary to Costa Del Mar that would commingle with the driveway runoff and also need treatment. The MWL could be placed at the bottom of the driveway and outside Costa Del Mar. In this case, the driveway would be tilted to drain to the MWL. However, with such a steep driveway, the MWL would only be able to capture runoff from a portion of the driveway and the remainder will bypass the MWL. Based on this, an MWL and vault are not effective structural BMPs for the proposed driveway runoff. The preferred alternative is to treat an equivalent area to the proposed driveway. The equivalent area is currently untreated. The driveway covers 1,698 square feet. There is an existing asphalt concrete parking lot just beyond the northwest corner of the proposed asphalt parking area. 7,233 square feet of the existing parking lot will be allowed to flow into the biofiltration basin. The biofiltration basin will then provide pollutant and flow control for an area equivalent to the proposed driveway. The remainder of the existing parking lot runoff will be directed around the proposed parking area to prevent commingling with project runoff. PDP Structural BMPs 24 [Continued from previous page – This page is reserved for continuation of description of general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site.] 25 Structural BMP Summary Information Structural BMP ID No. Biofiltration Basin 1 (West) DWG: 539-4C Sheet No.’s 3 and 8 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) Dry Wells (INF-4) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) X Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) 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 X Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Storm runoff from the proposed westerly asphalt parking area will sheet flow into a biofiltration basin at the south corner of the area for pollutant and hydromodification (flow) control. The biofiltration basin will also capture and treat 1,700 square feet of storm runoff from an existing asphalt concrete parking lot just beyond the northwest corner of the proposed gravel parking area. This will provide in lieu pollutant and flow control for the proposed impervious driveway (1,698 sf) serving the parking lot. The biofiltration basin area (1,865 sf) has been checked using Worksheets B.1 to B.3 for pollutant control as well as the BMP Sizing Spreadsheet for flow control. The area meets both criteria. 26 Structural BMP Summary Information Structural BMP ID No. Biofiltration Basin 2 (East) DWG: 539-4C Sheet No.’s 3 and 8 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) Dry Wells (INF-4) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) X Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) 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 X Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Storm runoff from the proposed easterly asphalt parking area will sheet flow into a biofiltration basin at the westerly portion of the area for pollutant and hydromodification (flow) control. The biofiltration basin area (2,636 sf) has been checked using Worksheets B.1 to B.3 for pollutant control as well as the San Diego Hydrology Model for flow control. The area meets both criteria. ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR POLLUTION CONTROL BMP’S 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) X 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 X Included on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a X Included as Attachment 1b, separate from DMA Exhibit Attachment 1c Form K-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist (Required unless the entire project will use infiltration BMPs) Refer to Appendix B of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form K-7. X Included Not included because the entire project will use infiltration BMPs Attachment 1d Infiltration Feasibility Analysis (Required unless the project will use harvest and use BMPs) Refer to Appendix D of the BMP Design Manual. X 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, E, and I of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control and significant site design BMP design guidelines X Included Attachment 1f Trash Capture BMP Design Calculations (Required unless the entire project will use permanent storm water quality basins) Refer to Appendices J of the BMP Design Manual for Trash capture BMP design guidelines X Included Not included because the entire project will use permanent storm water quality basins (i.e., infiltration, biofiltration BMPs) Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The DMA Exhibit must identify: X Underlying hydrologic soil group X Approximate depth to groundwater X Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) X Existing topography and impervious areas X Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite X Proposed grading X Proposed impervious features X Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness X 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) X Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP) X Tabular DMA Summary 1a: DMA Exhibit ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ POC B POC C POC A (ALONG CREEK) DMA 1 DMA 3 DMA 2 GRAPHIC SCALE 200 0 -11111 -- I I I I 1 INCH 100 200 l~I -200 FEET 400 I OMA I. 2. &-3 -OVERALL SITE SCALE: 1' = 200' DMA TABLE DMA# AREA UNITS SOILS GROUP % IMPERVIOUS TREATMENT/ BMP 1 1.61 ACRES D 92.7 BIOFILTRATION BASIN FOR WESTERLY PARKING AREA 2 0.64 ACRES D 81.2 BIOFILTRATION BASIN FOR EASTERLY PARKING AREA 3 11.67 ACRES C,D 4.4 SELF-MITIGATING AREA-DRIVING RANGE BMP TABLE BMPID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * FREQUENCY ENHANCED SITE DESIGN BMPs STRUCTURAL BMPs 0 BIOFILTRATION c-) BASIN TC-32 2,636 SF TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY 0 BIOFILTRATION c-) BASIN TC-32 1,865 SF TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY SOURCE CONTROL BMPs (INLET FILTER TRASH CAPTURE BMPs) 0 BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 30 EA TBD 5 QUARTERLY -FULL-12-12-12 0 BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 1 EA TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY -FULL-36-36-24 ® BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 1 EA TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY -FULL-36-36-24 I I ~- I \ .l I I I I I I I -1 I I I : 0 I ' I \ I 0 ..... __ ,,, MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY SEMI-ANNUALLY SEMI-ANNUALLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY * OR AFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTS / I I D EXISTING Gl?A PROPOSED LANDSCAPING VARIES - I I I I I I =>R□P□SED -yp[ •'T'' rn 1-I -1(,'.""i II LL Ll I <c' /6 I I I I I I I t \ ' I nJr·s-J ,Ir RA" AT JJ _l I LJ-J-Dl I LH 71\-/~, nRAT\ I \ t -. I ( =('' ,() FL -::.1 1:<TS-, J(," - RU" s:. _ --'f _----1,+---"" 1--"''"41'~ PROPOSED CART PATH 12' 36' MIN. OMA I TURF OR PLANTING PER LS. PLAN - PROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLET (PVT) T'IPICAL DRIVING RANGE DISPERSION NOT TO SCALE 20· -8JIP 1 12· -8"P 2 P•/JPJS:D D_ IC- . ~ P,-P-SE: TYF" ••c• -T'~ FT -=~5 /() --_:='? 40 --... ...._"',. .... ··-....._, PRLP JSl.L ::r (\:._: ,...,,--J\/::::R 12'' t.3 tiQK;_ THE PROPOSED SOfJTHERL Y DRl~WA Y (SOfJTH RED HA TCHINC) CO'.ERS 1,698 SF. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS TREATMENT REOIJIREAIENTS FOR THIS AREA, EXISTlNC PA VEAIENT IN THE LARGER NORTH RED HATCH/NC CO~RINC 1,23.J SF WLL BE TREATED BY THE PROPOSED 8/0F/L TRA TlON BASIN. r,' l LJ- -:r::::1'ns1r "U'' JI-=H o"-- o GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 •r::.-.::-..:-11111:....l~I 1 INCH -50 FEET Item OMA 1 Basin Floor Area, sf 2,636 Riser Size (square) 3' x 3' Riser Rim Elevation, ft 20.67 WQ Ponding Depth, in 20 HMP Ponding Dept h, in 20 100-Year Elev., ft 21.02 Orifice Diameter, in 1.00 100 I DMA2 1,865 3' X 3' 70.50 12 12 70.60 0.81 8/0FILTRATION BASIN SUMMARY ., L...---,-----' /1){,~ \ --I--,. 0 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS • I WESTERLY PARKING AREA OMA 2 -EASTERLY PARKING AREA SCALE: 1' = 50' J6x36• INLET. TG El.EVA TION (INLET) PER PLAN fffTH 8/0CLEAN Fl/ll CAPTURE Rl1ER PER Gl?AOING PLAN SHEET 2 r,::=:;:::;::::::;::;:,,.-Pi-t:' END CAP (SCREW-ON) L-, =-OUTTAl.l PIPE "' -------. LEGEND PROPERTY UNE DMA 1 (rESTERL Y PARK/NC AREA) DMA 2 (EASTERLY PARKING AREA) DMA J (ORIVINC RANCE EXPANSION AREA) SCALE: 1' = 50' n ~ ,t.' HIGH FENCE, 3' l£',£/. I~ PER LS. Pl.AN [ ElEVATION PER PLAN 4' HIGH FENCE, PER LS. PLAN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 12· MIN. I ~llo'a4RD O I.ANOSCAPING 5• MIN. (ffEral'ARO O PAVEIIENT, 81C1'lt. TRA TION AID! WOTH VA/it'ES' PER PLAN WATER SURFACE CiEANOiJT FG REV. PER Pl PCC00#1/ DRAIN 5• PERFORA TEO PIPE 12• AASHTO NO 57 COARSE AGGREGATE JO MIL WPERIIEABlE UNER, PER GEOlECHNICAl REPORT Oi/TlET PER PLAN ORIFICE PLATE. SE£ DETAIL AT RIGHT T'IPICAL BIORL TRA TION BASIN NOT TO SCALE PARKING LOT DRAINAGE FLANGE CONN£C7lON TO CONCRETE SHALL 8£ RT!ED GRAl1C MTH JO OUROMETER PLAN NEOPRENE RING N.T.S. CATCH BA.SN SPECIFIED SOIL t,,11){ GRAVEL GR/11' PVC END CAP (SCREW-ON) OUTF'ALL PIPE DRILL OR/RC£ HOLE AT 6~ PVC PERFORATED PIPE SECTION FlDJH.INE (SEE TAB/£ FDR N.t.s. SIZE) ORIRCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE DMA AND HYDROMODIFICA TION EXHIBIT PROPOSE!} CONCRETE COLF CART PATH PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEAIENT PROPOSE!} 8/0F/L TRA TlON BASIN PROPOSED CRADINC • HYDROLOC/C SOIL CROfJPS ARE C AND D (DRIVINC RANCE) AS ~LL AS D (PARK/NC AREAS). • APPROX/MA TE DEPTH TO CROfJNDWA TER IS 5 TO 10 FEET. • /}/.(A J CONSISTS OF THE SELF-M/TlCA TlNC /JRIVINC RANCE EXPANSION AREA. • POC A REPRESENTS THE VAR/OfJS POC's FOR THE SELF-M/TlCA TlNC AREAS WTHIN DMA 1 • POC BAND CARE AT THE BIOFILTRATlON BASIN OfJTI..ETS. • NUTRIENT SENS/Tl~ MEDIA SHALL BE USED IN EACH 8/0F/LTRATION BASIN. • THE PROJECT WLL NOT [}/'.£RT FLOWS FROM EXISTlNC DRAINAGE FAC/lllES THAT RECEI~ THE PROJECT RUNOFF. 1b: Tabular DMA Summary Worksheet B-1: Tabular Summary of DMAs 1:§ IF.1 iTT1 F.Ti'~ II II 111 r.t •' UJl'ifTl..-li I v. 'fiTil !1:..-l lTi:T:n : ' .... Impervious Area DCV DMA Unique Area Weighted Treated By (BMP Pollutant Control Drains to Identifier (acres) Area %Imp HSG Runoff (cubic ID) Type (POC CD) (acres) Coefficient feet) 1,;11 111111r;1~ U i'Jf!\.: m r n1111r.1 l rtll j(■,'n11,,,-•1r. I fil•ll 11 II :::111 ..-;; ........ ;.,) 1m1'\F.Tif.lL.•u,1ItJl'II :.i,~·r.1H'il ;;.,,.i'1 -.. ------ Total DMA Total Area Total DCV No. of DMAs Area Impervious %Imp Weighted {cubic Total Area No.of Area Runoff Treated (acres) POCs (acres) (acres) Coefficient feet) Where: DMA: D inage Management Area; Imp : lmpeNiousness; HSG: Hydrologic Soil Group; DCV: Design Capture Volume· BMP: Best Management Practice; POC : Point of Compliance; ID : identifier; o. : umber Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/7/2022 Page 1 of 5 36 6 0 4 0 0 36 6 0 9 0 0 36 6 1 4 0 0 36 6 1 9 0 0 36 6 2 4 0 0 36 6 2 9 0 0 36 6 3 4 0 0 36 6 3 9 0 0 36 6 4 4 0 0 36 6 0 4 0 0 36 6 0 9 0 0 36 6 1 4 0 0 36 6 1 9 0 0 36 6 2 4 0 0 36 6 2 9 0 0 36 6 3 4 0 0 36 6 3 9 0 0 36 6 4 4 0 0 474400 474900 475400 475900 476400 476900 477400 474400 474900 475400 475900 476400 476900 477400 33° 7' 11'' N 11 7 ° 1 6 ' 3 4 ' ' W 33° 7' 11'' N 11 7 ° 1 4 ' 2 6 ' ' W 33° 4' 49'' N 11 7 ° 1 6 ' 3 4 ' ' W 33° 4' 49'' N 11 7 ° 1 4 ' 2 6 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 1000 2000 4000 6000Feet 0 300 600 1200 1800Meters Map Scale: 1:21,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. 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. 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 16, Sep 13, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 23, 2020—Feb 13, 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 6/7/2022 Page 2 of 5USDA = □ D D D D D D D D ,,..,,,. ,,..,,,. □ ■ ■ □ □ ,,..._., t-+-t ~ tllWI ,..,,. ~ • Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AtC Altamont clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes D 42.3 1.8% AtD Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 20 C 83.5 3.6% AtD2 Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded D 27.4 1.2% AtE Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 20 C 61.9 2.6% AtE2 Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded D 136.3 5.8% AtF Altamont clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 20 C 7.8 0.3% CsB Corralitos loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes A 104.4 4.4% CsC Corralitos loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes A 3.1 0.1% ExE Exchequer rocky silt loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes D 310.0 13.2% ExG Exchequer rocky silt loam, 30 to 70 percent slopes D 18.7 0.8% GaE Gaviota fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes D 18.5 0.8% GaF Gaviota fine sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes D 4.7 0.2% HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes D 84.8 3.6% HrC2 Huerhuero loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded D 62.7 2.7% HrD2 Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded D 34.6 1.5% HrE2 Huerhuero loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded D 219.7 9.4% Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/7/2022 Page 3 of 5USDA = Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI HuC Huerhuero-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes D 53.2 2.3% HuE Huerhuero-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes D 90.9 3.9% LeC Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes D 68.4 2.9% LeD2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded D 26.1 1.1% LvF3 Loamy alluvial land- Huerhuero complex, 9 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded B 163.5 7.0% OhE Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes D 11.1 0.5% PfC Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent slo pes D 31.7 1.4% Rm Riverwash D 146.3 6.2% SbC Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes C 175.7 7.5% ScA Salinas clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes C 101.3 4.3% SmE San Miguel rocky silt loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes D 31.1 1.3% SnG San Miguel-Exchequer rocky silt loams, 9 to 70 percent slopes D 89.7 3.8% TeF Terrace escarpments 44.7 1.9% Tf Tidal flats D 78.5 3.3% VaB Visalia sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes A 14.7 0.6% Totals for Area of Interest 2,347.4 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/7/2022 Page 4 of 5USDA = 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 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 6/7/2022 Page 5 of 5~ 1c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Appendix K: Forms and Checklists K-2 Sept. 2021 Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist Form K-7 1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? Toilet and urinal flushing Landscape irrigation Other:______________ 2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. 3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. DCV = __________ (cubic feet) 3a. Is the 36 hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV?  Yes /  No 3b. Is the 36 hour demand greater than 0.25DCV but less than the full DCV?  Yes /  No 3c. Is the 36 hour demand less than 0.25DCV?  Yes Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm that DCV can be used at an adequate rate to meet drawdown criteria. Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to determine feasibility. Harvest and use may only be able to be used for a portion of the site, or (optionally) the storage may need to be upsized to meet long term capture targets while draining in longer than 36 hours. Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation?  Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs.  No, select alternate BMPs. Note: 36-hour demand calculations are for feasibility analysis only. Once feasibility analysis is complete the applicant may be allowed to use a different drawdown time provided they meet the 80% annual capture standard (refer to B.4.2) and 96-hour vector control drawdown requirement. 1t 1t ~ ¢::l ¢:I □ □ □ 1d: Infiltration Feasibility Analysis ---- No No No No No NoNo No No Yes No YesNo No No No Geotechnical answers are based on our review of project plans prepared by O’Day Consultants and The City of San Diego Storm Water Standards dated 1/3/2018. x Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 Date: June 8, 2023 Entry Basin Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis Appendix D Geotechnical Engineer Analysis 1 Anal sis o lnfiltra ion Restrictions This section is only applicable if the analysis of infiltration restrictions is performed by a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering. The SWQMP Preparer and Geotechnical Engineer must work collaboratively to identify any infiltration restrictions identified in Table D.1-1 below. Upon completion of this section, the Geotechnical Engineer must characterize each DMA as Restricted or Unrestricted for infiltration and provide adequate support/ discussion in the geotechnical report. A DMA is considered restricted when one or more restrictions exist which cannot be reasonably resolved through site design changes. Table D.1-1: Considerations for Geotechnical Analysis of Infiltration Restrictions Mandatory Considerations Optional Considerations Result Restriction Element BMP is within 100' of Contaminated Soils BMP is within 100' of Industrial Activities Lacking Source Control BMP is within 100' of Well/Groundwater Basin BMP is within 50' of Septic Tanks/Leach Fields BMP is within 10' of Structures/Tanks/Walls BMP is within 10' of Sewer Utilities BMP is within 1 O' of Groundwater Table BMP is within Hydric Soils BMP is within Highly Liquefiable Soils and has Connectivity to Structures BMP is within 1.5 Times the Height of Adjacent Steep Slopes (2:25%) County Staff has Assigned "Restricted" Infiltration Category BMP is within Predominantly Type D Soil BMP is within 1 O' of Property Line BMP is within Fill Depths of 2:5' (Existing or Proposed) BMP is within 10' of Underground Utilities BMP is within 250' of Ephemeral Stream Other (Provide detailed geotechnical support) Based on examination of the best available information, Is Element Applicable? (Yes/No) □ I have not identified any restrictions above. Unrestricted Based on examination of the best available information, D I have identified one or more restrictions above. Restricted Table D.1-1 1s divided into Mandatory Considerations and Optional Considerations. Mandatory D-1 Jan.2023 These rates are calculated infiltration rates per Porchet equation. 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.4 3.5 .29 .69 Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis Considerations include elements that may pose a significant risk to human health and safety and must always be evaluated. Optional Considerations include elements that are not necessarily associated with human health and safety, so analysis is not mandated through this guidance document. All elements presented in this table are subject to the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer if adequate supporting information is provided. Applicants must evaluate infiltration restrictions through use of the best available data. A list of resources available for evaluation is provided in Section B.2 D.2 Determination of Design Infiltration Rates This section is only applicable if the determination of design infiltration rates is performed by a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering. The guidance in this section identifies methods for identifying observed infiltration rates, corrected infiltration rates, safety factors, and design infiltration rates for use in structural BMP design. Upon completion of this section, the Geotechnical Engineer must recommend a design infiltration rate for each DMA and provide adequate support/ discussion in the geotechnical report. Table D.2-1: Elements for Determination of Design Infiltration Rates Initial Infiltration Rate Identify per Section D.2.1 Corrected Infiltration Rate Identify per Section D.2.2 Safety Factor Identify per Section D.2.3 Design Infiltration Rate Corrected Infiltration Rate --;-Safety Factor D-2 in/hr in/hr unitless in/hr Jan.2023 No No No No No YesNo No No No No YesNo No Yes No Geotechnical answers are based on our review of project plans prepared by O’Day Consultants and The City of San Diego Storm Water Standards dated 1/3/2018. x Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 Date: June 8, 2023 Basin South of Arenal Road Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis Appendix D Geotechnical Engineer Analysis 1 Anal sis o lnfiltra ion Restrictions This section is only applicable if the analysis of infiltration restrictions is performed by a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering. The SWQMP Preparer and Geotechnical Engineer must work collaboratively to identify any infiltration restrictions identified in Table D.1-1 below. Upon completion of this section, the Geotechnical Engineer must characterize each DMA as Restricted or Unrestricted for infiltration and provide adequate support/ discussion in the geotechnical report. A DMA is considered restricted when one or more restrictions exist which cannot be reasonably resolved through site design changes. Table D.1-1: Considerations for Geotechnical Analysis of Infiltration Restrictions Mandatory Considerations Optional Considerations Result Restriction Element BMP is within 100' of Contaminated Soils BMP is within 100' of Industrial Activities Lacking Source Control BMP is within 100' of Well/Groundwater Basin BMP is within 50' of Septic Tanks/Leach Fields BMP is within 10' of Structures/Tanks/Walls BMP is within 10' of Sewer Utilities BMP is within 1 O' of Groundwater Table BMP is within Hydric Soils BMP is within Highly Liquefiable Soils and has Connectivity to Structures BMP is within 1.5 Times the Height of Adjacent Steep Slopes (2:25%) County Staff has Assigned "Restricted" Infiltration Category BMP is within Predominantly Type D Soil BMP is within 1 O' of Property Line BMP is within Fill Depths of 2:5' (Existing or Proposed) BMP is within 10' of Underground Utilities BMP is within 250' of Ephemeral Stream Other (Provide detailed geotechnical support) Based on examination of the best available information, Is Element Applicable? (Yes/No) □ I have not identified any restrictions above. Unrestricted Based on examination of the best available information, D I have identified one or more restrictions above. Restricted Table D.1-1 1s divided into Mandatory Considerations and Optional Considerations. Mandatory D-1 Jan.2023 These rates are calculated infiltration rates per Porchet equation. 0.019 0.075 0.019 0.075 3.5 .005 .021 Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis Considerations include elements that may pose a significant risk to human health and safety and must always be evaluated. Optional Considerations include elements that are not necessarily associated with human health and safety, so analysis is not mandated through this guidance document. All elements presented in this table are subject to the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer if adequate supporting information is provided. Applicants must evaluate infiltration restrictions through use of the best available data. A list of resources available for evaluation is provided in Section B.2 D.2 Determination of Design Infiltration Rates This section is only applicable if the determination of design infiltration rates is performed by a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering. The guidance in this section identifies methods for identifying observed infiltration rates, corrected infiltration rates, safety factors, and design infiltration rates for use in structural BMP design. Upon completion of this section, the Geotechnical Engineer must recommend a design infiltration rate for each DMA and provide adequate support/ discussion in the geotechnical report. Table D.2-1: Elements for Determination of Design Infiltration Rates Initial Infiltration Rate Identify per Section D.2.1 Corrected Infiltration Rate Identify per Section D.2.2 Safety Factor Identify per Section D.2.3 Design Infiltration Rate Corrected Infiltration Rate -;-Safety Factor D-2 in/hr in/hr unitless in/hr Jan.2023 Appendix K: Forms and Checklists --""' t ,:ii; :..._~':.o.. Jhffl1.-.,."1t1■L t , . ·••11ciWJ .... i,,: •• ~ .... , • . ... -mn .ri ~ "!:·•·'"·---.. ~ Factor Category Factor Description Assigned Factor Product (p) Weight (w) Value (v) p=wxv Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.50 -- Predominant soil texture 0.25 2 0.50 Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.50 A Assessment Depth to groundwater I impervious 0.25 1 0.25 layer Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = 1:p 1.75 Level of pretreatment/ expected 0.5 sediment loads B Design Redundancy/ resiliency 0.25 Compaction during construction 0.25 Design Safety Factor, SB = 1:p Combined Safety Factor, Sco,a1= SA x SB Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobserved ( corrected for test-specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Kciesign = Kobserved / Sco,al Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: K-3 Sept. 2021 41571 Corning Place, Suite 101 ■ Murrieta, California 92562 ■ Telephone 951.304.2300 ■ www.geoconinc.com Project No. T2754-22-06 June 20, 2022 REVISED: August 2, 2022 LC Investments 2010, LLC d/b/a Omni La Costa Resort & Spa 4001 Maple Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas Texas 75219 Attention: Mr. Clint Gulick Subject: INFILTRATION TESTING & PERVIOUS PAVING RECOMMENDATIONS OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Gulick: In accordance with your authorization of our proposal IE-3013 dated May 13, 2022, Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon) herein submits the results of our infiltration testing for the design of a proposed stormwater basin northeast of the intersection of El Camino Real and Costa Del Mar Road near the resort entrance, and for the design of pervious paving along the southern side of the golf course parking immediately north of San Marcos Creek and east of El Camino Real, in the City of Carlsbad, California (Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The primary geologic units at the site are old alluvium and young alluvium (Kennedy et. al., 2007). Old alluvium deposits were encountered in each boring at the location of the proposed stormwater basin to the maximum depth explored of 20½ feet. The old alluvium consists of silty sand that can be characterized as medium dense to dense, slightly moist to moist, and strong brown, reddish to yellowish brown, gray, or a mottling of these colors. Young alluvium was encountered in each boring at the location of the proposed pervious pavers. The young alluvium consists of silty sand that can be characterized as loose, moist to saturated, and dark brown, grayish brown, or black. GEOCON W E S T, I N C. GEOTECHNI CA L ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATE RI ALSO Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 2 - REVISED August 2, 2022 PERVIOUS PAVER AREA INVESTIGATION Infiltration Test Results Aardvark Permeameter testing in the location of the proposed pervious paver section was completed and the test locations are shown on Figure 2, Test Location Map. A deep geotechnical boring was excavated to 13 feet below existing ground surface (B-1) and neither static groundwater nor impenetrable bedrock were encountered within 10 feet of the proposed infiltration area bottoms. A log of the geotechnical boring is presented on Figure 3. Logs of the infiltration tests are presented on Figures 5 and 6. Infiltration test result data are presented on Figures 9 and 10. We performed two Aardvark Permeameter tests within Borings P-1 and P-2 at the locations shown on the Test Location Map. The test borings were 8 inches in diameter and approximately 3 feet deep. Table 1 presents the results of the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of on-site soil. The designer of storm water devices should apply an appropriate factor of safety, where necessary. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the heterogeneous characteristics inherent to most soil. TABLE 1 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Parameter P-1 P-2 Test Depth (feet) 3 3 Test Hole Radius: r (in) 8 8 Field-Saturated Infiltration Rate (inch/hour) 0.001 0.001 Factored Infiltration Rate (inch/hour)* 0.000 0.000 Average Factored Infiltration Rate (inch/hour) 0.000 *Using a Factor of Safety of 2. The results of the infiltration tests indicate an average infiltration rate of 0.001 inches per hour or 0.000 inches per hour with a factor of safety of two. Based on the results of the field infiltration tests, infiltration would be considered infeasible. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 3 - REVISED August 2, 2022 Pervious Paver Recommendations We assume the planned paver area will consist of an 80 millimeter paver section, overlying a leveling sand section, overlying a crushed aggregate base section, supported on compacted subgrade. The aggregate base and soil subgrade should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. Laboratory testing indicates site soils have an R-value of 10. Paver roadway sections should be constructed in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines. Recommended paver roadway sections are presented in Table 2 below. We utilized a Gravel Factor (Gf) of 1.0 in our calculations for the aggregate base section. TABLE 2 PAVER DESIGN SECTION Location Assumed Traffic Index (TI) Laboratory R-value Leveling Sand (inches) Prefabricated Concrete Paver (inches) Crushed Aggregate Base (inches) Golf Course Parking Lot 5.0 10 2 ~3⅛ 9½ Where different pavement sections are to be constructed adjacent to each other, it is recommended that consideration be given to the use of deepened base sections to maintain a uniform base thickness and avoid stepped cuts for placement of base material. If planters or landscaping are planned adjacent to roadways, it is recommended that the perimeter curb or impermeable geosynthetic material be extended at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base course to minimize the introduction of water beneath the paving. STORM WATER BASIN AND MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the 2021 City of Carlsbad Best Management Plan (BMP) Design Manual. If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 4 - REVISED August 2, 2022 Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table 3 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. TABLE 3 HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition A Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. B Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. C Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. The location of the proposed storm water basin is underlain by old alluvium and should be classified as Soil Group A. The information from the USDA website can be used for the Soil Group Classification for a potential storm water management device. Table 4 below presents the information from the USDA website for the subject property. TABLE 4 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY – HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Unit Name Map Unit Symbol Approximate Percentage of Property Hydrologic Soil Group Huerhuero land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes HuC 100.0 D Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 5 - REVISED August 2, 2022 Percolation Testing We excavated 2 percolation tests borings (P-3 and P-4) to 11 feet and one deep geotechnical boring to 20.5 feet below existing ground surface at the locations shown on Figure 2, Test Location Map. Neither static groundwater nor impenetrable bedrock were encountered within 10 feet of the proposed infiltration area bottoms. A log of the geotechnical boring is presented on Figure 4. Logs of the infiltration tests are presented on Figures 7 and 8. Infiltration test result data are presented in Table 5 below and on Figures 11 and 12. We performed two Aardvark Permeameter tests within Borings P-3 and P-4 at the locations shown on the Test Location Map. The test borings were 8 inches in diameter and approximately 11 feet deep. Table 5 presents the results of the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of on-site soil. TABLE 5 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Test No. Test Type Test Depth (inches) Change in Head Over Time (inches) Average Head (inches) Time Interval (minutes) Radius of Test Hole (inches) Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) P-3 Sandy 108 0.7 1.6 10 4 2.4 P-4 Sandy 108 0.3 1.8 10 4 1.0 The results of the percolation tests indicate an average infiltration rate of 1.7 inches per hour or 0.57 inches per hour with a factor of safety of three. Based on the results of the field infiltration tests, infiltration would be considered partial. Infiltration testing results are placed into categories that include full infiltration, partial infiltration, and no infiltration. Table 6 below presents the commonly accepted definitions of the potential infiltration categories based on the infiltration rates. The Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition, Form I-8 is included as Figure 15. TABLE 6 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Infiltration Category Field Infiltration Rate, I (inches/hour) Factored Infiltration Rate*, I (inches/hour) Full Infiltration I > 1.0 I > 0.5 Partial Infiltration 0.10 < I < 1.0 0.05 < I < 0.5 No Infiltration (Infeasible) I < 0.10 I < 0.05 *Using a Factor of Safety of 2. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 6 - REVISED August 2, 2022 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND CONSIDERATIONS Groundwater Elevations We did not encounter groundwater during the excavation operations on the property. The site is at an elevation of about 27 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). We expect groundwater within 50 feet from the existing grades. Therefore, infiltration could be considered feasible based on groundwater elevations. Soil or Groundwater Contamination We are unaware of contaminated soil or groundwater contamination on the property. Therefore, full and partial infiltration associated with this risk is considered feasible. Slope Hazards Slopes with a height of up to 15 feet borders the west, south, and east perimeters proposed BMP site. Based on the planned location of the basin, slopes could be impacted by infiltration. Infiltration devices should not be installed adjacent to the top of slopes unless they are lined, possess a minimum setback distance of 50 feet or 1.5 times the slope height, or extend below the height of the slope. . Hydrocollapse Hydrocollapse is the tendency of unsaturated soil structure to collapse upon saturation resulting in the overall settlement of the effected soil and overlying foundations or improvements supported thereon. Potentially compressible surficial soil underlying the proposed improvements is typically removed and recompacted during remedial site grading. Based on our laboratory testing, we do not expect soils susceptible to hydrocollapse exist; therefore, infiltration is considered feasible. Existing Utilities No known utilities cross the site. Infiltration due to utility concerns would be feasible. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 7 - REVISED August 2, 2022 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Storm Water Infiltration Conclusion The infiltration test results from the area of the proposed basins and storm water management devices indicate permeability between 0.10 and 1.0 inches per hour (with a Factor of Safety of 3) resulting in a “Partial Infiltration” condition. However, the proposed location is within 50 feet of the adjacent slopes. Therefore, infiltration would be considered infeasible and should be lined. We have provided recommendations for liners and subdrains herein. Storm Water Infiltration Recommendations Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm water devices. The liners should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent water migration. The subdrains should be perforated within the liner area, installed at the base and above the liner, be at least 3 inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The subdrains outside of the liner should consist of solid pipe. The penetration of the liners at the subdrains should be properly waterproofed. The subdrains should be connected to a proper outlet. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Storm Water Standard Worksheets The SWS requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Worksheet C.4-1) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. The attached Worksheet C.4-1 presents the completed information for the submittal process on Figure 15. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1) that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table 7 describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 8 - REVISED August 2, 2022 TABLE 7 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Concern – 3 Points Medium Concern – 2 Points Low Concern – 1 Point Assessment Methods Use of soil survey maps or simple texture analysis to estimate short-term infiltration rates. Use of well permeameter or borehole methods without accompanying continuous boring log. Relatively sparse testing with direct infiltration methods Use of well permeameter or borehole methods with accompanying continuous boring log. Direct measurement of infiltration area with localized infiltration measurement methods (e.g., Infiltrometer). Moderate spatial resolution Direct measurement with localized (i.e. small-scale) infiltration testing methods at relatively high resolution or use of extensive test pit infiltration measurement methods. Predominant Soil Texture Silty and clayey soils with significant fines Loamy soils Granular to slightly loamy soils Site Soil Variability Highly variable soils indicated from site assessment or unknown variability Soil boring/test pits indicate moderately homogenous soils Soil boring/test pits indicate relatively homogenous soils Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer <5 feet below facility bottom 5-15 feet below facility bottom >15 feet below facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table 8 presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety for the proposed basin. These tables only present the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate. TABLE 8 FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p = w x v) Assessment Methods 0.25 3 0.75 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 2 0.50 Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50 Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 2 0.50 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = ∑p 2.25 Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 9 - REVISED August 2, 2022 Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON WEST, INC. Luke C. Weidman Staff Geologist, GIT 891 Lisa A. Battiato CEG 2316 LCW:LAB:hd Attachments: LIMITATIONS REFERENCES Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Test Location Map Figure 3 and 4, Logs of Geotechnical Borings Figures 5 through 8, Logs of Percolation Borings Figures 9 through 12, Percolation Test Report Data Figures 13 and 14, Grain Size Distribution Test Results Figure15, Storm Water Standard Worksheet Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 REVISED August 2, 2022 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or their representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 REVISED August 2, 2022 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/ ; accessed June 2022. 2. The City of San Diego, 2018, Storm Water Standards, dated October 1. 3. Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Bovard, K.R., Alvarez, R.M., Watson, M.J., and Gutierrez, C.I., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30x60-minute quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, 1:100,000. SOURCE: Google Earth, 2022 VICINITY MAP OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JUNE 2022 PROJECT NO. T2754-22-06 FIG. 1LCW PROPOSED BMP LOCATION SCALE: 1” = 2000’ 0’ 2000’ 4000’ PERVIOUS PAVER LOCATION GEOCON W E S T, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 41571 CORNING PLACE# 101 , MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562 PHONE 951-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 I I PROJECT NO. T2754-22-06 FIG. 2 OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TEST LOCATION MAP LCW Source: Google Earth, 2022. GEOCON LEGEND Locations are approximate B-2 ……. BORING LOCATION JUNE 2022 ……. PERCOLATION TEST LOCATIONP-4 ……. PROJECT EXTENTS B-2 P-3 P-4 B-1 P-2 P-1 SCALE: 1” = 2000’ 0’ 100’ 200’GEOCO W • S T I C. D EB D GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 4157 1 CORNING PLACE #101, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562 PHONE 95 1-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 N B-1@0-5 B-1@5 B-1@10 CL-ML YOUNG ALLUVIUM (Qya) Silty CLAY with sand, loose, moist, dark olive brown; fine to coarse sand; slightly porous - Becomes wet, gray - Becomes black - Becomes saturated - No standing water Total Depth = 13' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 5/23/2022 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 3, Log of Boring B-1, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 12 CME 55 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 5/23/22 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING B-1 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 -fil --xz --ifil -- --:<~ --:<~ --fil -- --~ --fil -- I~ -- --·µ .. - I] ii ■ _y - - - - - - - - - - - - B-3@0-5 B-3@5 B-3@10 B-3@15 B-3@20 SM OLD ALLUVIUM (Qya) Silty SAND, dense, slightly moist, strong brown; fine to coarse sand; few gravel; slightly oxidized - Becomes moist, reddish to yellowish brown - Becomes mottled gray and yellowish brown; fine to medium sand; trace coarse sand; no gravel; oxidation seams; 1"-2" lenses of fine to medium, pale yellow SP - Becomes medium dense, wet - Becomes dense; intebedded SP/SM Total Depth = 20.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 5/23/2022 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 4, Log of Boring B-2, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 27 CME 55 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 5/23/22 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING B-2 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 -:-1. '-l --x lj ·1 --X · i . X: l ( l --X .-1. -l --:< ll ·1 --:< :·l f-t· .-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· --.-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· --I <Jr: --:·l f-t· --.-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· --I <Jr: -- :·l f-t· -- .-1. -l --11l 1 --_"j :-1· I] ii ■ _y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P-1@3' CL-ML TOPSOIL 3" thick, grass @ surface YOUNG ALLUVIUM (Qya) Silty CLAY with sand, loose, moist, dark olive brown; fine to coarse sand Total Depth = 3' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 5/25/2022 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 5, Log of Boring P-1, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 11 CME 55 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 5/23/22 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING P-1 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 ---:-1. '-l --rt·1_ -~: l fl I] ii ■ _y I - - P-2@3' CL-ML TOPSOIL 3" thick, grass @ surface YOUNG ALLUVIUM (Qya) Silty CLAY with sand, loose, moist, dark olive brown; fine to coarse sand Total Depth = 3' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 5/25/2022 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 6, Log of Boring P-2, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 12 CME 55 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 5/23/22 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING P-2 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 ---:-1. '-l --rt·1_ -~: l fl I] ii ■ _y I - - P-3@5' SM OLD ALLUVIUM (Qya) Silty SAND, medium dense, slightly moist, strong brown; fine to coarse sand; few gravel - Becomes dense - Becomes reddish to yellowish brown, moist Total Depth = 11' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 5/25/2022 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 7, Log of Boring P-3, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 27 CME 55 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 5/23/22 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING P-3 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 -:-1. '-l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· --.-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· .-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· --.-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· -~ -1. -l I] ii ■ _y - - - - - - - - - - P-3@5' SM OLD ALLUVIUM (Qya) Silty SAND, medium dense, slightly moist, strong brown; fine to coarse sand - Becomes dense, reddish to yellowish brown; few gravel - Becomes dark brown; fine to medium sand; no gravel - Becomes gray Total Depth = 11' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 5/25/2022 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 8, Log of Boring P-4, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 27 CME 55 ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 5/23/22 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING P-4 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 -:-1. '-l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· --.-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· .-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· --.-1. -l --ll ·1 --:·l f-t· -~ -1. -l I] ii ■ _y - - - - - - - - - - TEST NO.:P-1 GEOLOGIC UNIT:Qya EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT):27 Reading Time Elapsed (min) Water Weight Consumed (lbs) Water Volume Consumed (in3)Q (in3/min) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 0.245 6.78 1.357 3 5.00 0.150 4.15 0.831 4 5.00 0.020 0.55 0.111 5 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 6 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 7 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 8 5.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 9 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 10 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 11 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 12 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 13 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 14 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 TEST RESULTS FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): 0.001 0.000 STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN):0.028 TEST DATA AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS OMNI LA COSTA PROJECT NO.:T2754-22-06 TEST INFORMATION BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN):8 3.0 24 FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.0 BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT): TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT): MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): 19.0 5.6 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Q (i n 3/m i n ) Time (min) -r---._ GEOCO s C . , NVIRONMENTAL, MATERIALS 41571 CORNING PLACE II IOI. MURRIE-T~ CM.IFORNIA 92.5fi'2 PHON 951-304-?300 FAX 9.!I I ..1C14-2392 TEST NO.:P-2 GEOLOGIC UNIT:Qya EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT):27 Reading Time Elapsed (min) Water Weight Consumed (lbs) Water Volume Consumed (in3)Q (in3/min) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 0.150 4.15 0.831 3 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 4 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 5 5.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 6 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 7 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 8 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 9 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 10 5.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 11 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 12 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 13 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 14 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.0 BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT): TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT): MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): 20.0 5.6 TEST INFORMATION BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN):8 3.0 24 TEST RESULTS FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): 0.001 0.000 STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN):0.018 TEST DATA AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS OMNI LA COSTA PROJECT NO.:T2754-22-06 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Q (i n 3/m i n ) Time (min) ----- GEOCO W E S T . I C. GEOTI:CHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, MATERIALS 41571 CORNING PLAC E 1101. Ml.RRIETA. CALIFORNIA '2S62 PHON 951-304-2300 F-AX PS I-304-23'2 Project Name:Omni La Costa Project No.:T2754-22-06 Test Hole No.:P-3 Date Excavated:5/23/2022 Length of Test Pipe:132.0 inches Soil Classification:SM Height of Pipe above Ground:0.0 inches Presoak Date:5/25/2022 Depth of Test Hole:132.0 inches Perc Test Date:5/25/2022 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by:Weidman Percolation Tested by:Weidman Trial No. Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water  in Water Percolation Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (in) (min/inch) 7:30 AM 7:55 AM 7:55 AM 8:20 AM Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water  in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Head Head Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (in) (min/inch) 8:30 AM 8:40 AM 8:40 AM 8:50 AM 8:50 AM 9:00 AM 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 9:10 AM 9:20 AM 9:20 AM 9:30 AM Infiltration Rate (in/hr):4.8 Radius of test hole (in):4 Figure - 11 Average Head (in):19.7 PERCOLATION TEST REPORT Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole Sandy Soil Criteria Test 1 25 25 24.0 0.0 24.0 1.0 2 25 50 24.0 0.2 23.8 1 10 10 24.0 6.6 17.4 20 24.0 11.0 13.0 1.1 Soil Criteria: Sandy 0.6 0.8 Percolation Test 3 10 30 24.0 13.7 10.3 1.0 210 9.2 1.1 4 10 40 24.0 14.6 9.4 60 24.0 15.4 8.6 1.1 5 10 50 24.0 14.8 1.2610 Project Name:Omni La Costa Project No.:T2754-22-06 Test Hole No.:P-4 Date Excavated:5/23/2022 Length of Test Pipe:132.0 inches Soil Classification:SM Height of Pipe above Ground:0.0 inches Presoak Date:5/25/2022 Depth of Test Hole:132.0 inches Perc Test Date:5/25/2022 Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by:Weidman Percolation Tested by:Weidman Trial No. Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water  in Water Percolation Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (in) (min/inch) 7:31 AM 7:56 AM 7:56 AM 8:21 AM Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water  in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Head Head Level Rate (min) Time (min) (in) (in) (in) (min/inch) 8:31 AM 8:41 AM 8:41 AM 8:51 AM 8:51 AM 9:01 AM 9:01 AM 9:11 AM 9:11 AM 9:21 AM 9:21 AM 9:31 AM Infiltration Rate (in/hr):1.8 Radius of test hole (in):4 Figure - 12 Average Head (in):22.1 610 5 10 50 24.0 19.7 2.7 3.7 60 24.0 20.3 3.7 2.7 1.7 210 4.3 2.3 4 10 40 24.0 20.3 3 10 30 24.0 18.2 5.8 20 24.0 18.7 5.3 2.1 Soil Criteria: Sandy 1.8 1.9 Percolation Test 1 10 10 24.0 18.5 5.5 2 25 50 24.0 12.0 12.0 PERCOLATION TEST REPORT Water level measured from BOTTOM of hole Sandy Soil Criteria Test 1 25 25 24.0 0.0 24.0 1.0 Project No.: T2754-22-06 D60 D30 D10 0.11 0.073 0.073 SAMPLE P-1@2 CLASSIFICATION Silty CLAY with Sand (CL-ML)s, dark olive brown Checked by: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Omni La Costa Resort & Spa 2100 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CaliforniaASTM D 6913 Jun 22 Figure 13 3" 1½" ¾"⅜" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110100 PE R C E N T PA S S S I N G BY WE I G H T GRAIN DIAMETER, mm U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES GRAVEL COARSE FINE SAND COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY - -- -~ ~ ~ ' \ \, GEOCON Project No.: T2754-22-06 D60 D30 D10 0.17 0.095 0.073 SAMPLE P-3@11 CLASSIFICATION Silty SAND (SM), gray Checked by: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Omni La Costa Resort & Spa 2100 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CaliforniaASTM D 6913 Jun 22 Figure 14 3" 1½" ¾"⅜" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110100 PE R C E N T PA S S S I N G BY WE I G H T GRAIN DIAMETER, mm U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES GRAVEL COARSE FINE SAND COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY - --""\. ---- I GEOCON Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-27 February 2016 Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form I-8 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No 1 Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. X Provide basis: Based on our test results, and utilizing a factor of safety (FOS) of 3.0 for feasibility determination, full infiltration is feasible as the infiltration rates are lower than 0.5 in/hr. • P-3: 4.8 in/hr (1.60 in/hr using FOS of 3.0 feasibility determination) • P-4: 1.8 in/hr (0.60 in/hr using FOS of 3.0 feasibility determination) 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. X Provide basis: The proposed bmp site is less than 50 feet from slopes that border the area’s northern, western, and southern limits. Infiltration could impact these slopes. It is our opinion that infiltration cannot be incorporated without increasing the risk of geotechnical hazards including uncontrolled water lateral migration, settlement, shrinking and swelling, and impacts to nearby utilities. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-28 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 2 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No 3 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: We did not encounter groundwater during our investigation. We expect the groundwater elevation to be less than 50 feet below existing site elevations. The risk of storm water infiltration adversely impacting groundwater should be considered. 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: It is our opinion that infiltration should not cause water balance issues or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Part 1 Result * If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are “Yes” a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is “No”, infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a “full infiltration” design. Proceed to Part 2 No *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-29 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No 5 Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. X Provide basis: Based on our test results, and utilizing a factor of safety (FOS) of 3.0 for feasibility determination, full infiltration is feasible as the infiltration rates are lower than 0.5 in/hr. • P-3: 4.8 in/hr (1.60 in/hr using FOS of 3.0 feasibility determination) • P-4: 1.8 in/hr (0.60 in/hr using FOS of 3.0 feasibility determination) 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. X Provide basis: The proposed bmp site is less than 50 feet from slopes that border the area’s northern, western, and southern limits. Infiltration could impact these slopes. It is our opinion that infiltration cannot be incorporated without increasing the risk of geotechnical hazards including uncontrolled water lateral migration, settlement, shrinking and swelling, and impacts to nearby utilities. 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. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-30 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 4 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No 7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: We did not encounter groundwater during our investigation. We expect the groundwater elevation to be less than 50 feet below existing site elevations. The risk of storm water infiltration adversely impacting groundwater should be considered. 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. X Provide basis: Researching downstream water rights and evaluating water balance issues to stream flows is beyond the scope of the geotechnical engineer. However, it is our opinion that infiltration should not impact downstream water rights. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Part 2 Result* If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. No *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings 41571 Corning Place, Suite 101 ■ Murrieta, California 92562 ■ Telephone 951.304.2300 ■ www.geoconinc.com Project No. T2754-22-06 February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 LC Investments 2010, LLC d/b/a Omni La Costa Resort & Spa 4001 Maple Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas Texas 75219 Attention: Mr. Clint Gulick Subject: INFILTRATION TEST REPORT OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Gulick: In accordance with your authorization, Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon) herein submits the results of additional infiltration testing required by the City of Carlsbad for the design of a proposed stormwater infiltration structure southeast of Arenal Road and Estrella De Mar Road in the City of Carlsbad, California (Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The site of the proposed infiltration structure was explored on January 31, 2023, by excavating two hand auger borings. The primary geologic units at the site are undocumented fill which overlies old alluvial flood plain deposits. The units were encountered in each boring at the location of the proposed stormwater structure, see Figure 2, to the maximum depth explored of 4 feet. The units consist primarily of silty sand. The fill can be characterized as medium dense, wet, and dark brown. The old alluvial flood plain deposits can be characterized as medium dense, wet, reddish brown with gray, and slightly oxidized. Aardvark Permeameter testing was completed, and the test locations are shown on Figure 2, Test Location Map. Logs of the percolation borings are presented on Figures 3 and 4. Percolation test report data are presented on Figures 5 and 6. STORM WATER BASIN AND MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the 2021 City of Carlsbad Best Management Plan (BMP) Design Manual. If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. GEOCON W E S T, I N C . S RON MENTAL ■ MATERIAL GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVI Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 2 - February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table 1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. TABLE 1 HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition A Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. B Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. C Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. The location of the proposed storm water basin is underlain by old alluvial flood plain deposits and should be classified as Soil Group C. The information from the USDA website can be used for the Soil Group Classification for a potential storm water management device. Table 2 below presents the information from the USDA website for the subject property. TABLE 2 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY – HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Unit Name Map Unit Symbol Approximate Percentage of Property Hydrologic Soil Group Huerhuero land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes HuE 100.0 D Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 3 - February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 Aardvark Permeameter Testing We performed two Aardvark Permeameter tests within Borings P-7 and P-8 at the locations shown on the Test Location Map. Boring logs are presented on Figures 3 and 4. The test borings were 6 inches in diameter and approximately 4 feet deep. Table 3 presents the results of the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of on-site soil. The designer of storm water devices should apply an appropriate factor of safety, where necessary. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the heterogeneous characteristics inherent to most soil. TABLE 3 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Parameter P-7 P-8 Test Depth (feet) 4 4 Test Hole Radius: r (in) 3 3 Field-Saturated Infiltration Rate (inch/hour) 0.019 0.075 Factored Infiltration Rate (inch/hour)* 0.010 0.037 Average Factored Infiltration Rate (inch/hour) 0.024 *Using a Factor of Safety of 2. The results of the infiltration tests indicate an average infiltration rate of 0.047 inches per hour or 0.024 inches per hour with a factor of safety of 2 applied. Based on the results of the field infiltration tests, infiltration would be considered infeasible. Infiltration testing results are placed into categories that include full infiltration, partial infiltration, and no infiltration. Table 4 below presents the commonly accepted definitions of the potential infiltration categories based on the infiltration rates. The Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition, Form I-8 is included as Figure 7. TABLE 4 INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Infiltration Category Field Infiltration Rate, I (inches/hour) Factored Infiltration Rate*, I (inches/hour) Full Infiltration I > 1.0 I > 0.5 Partial Infiltration 0.10 < I < 1.0 0.05 < I < 0.5 No Infiltration (Infeasible) I < 0.10 I < 0.05 *Using a Factor of Safety of 2. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 4 - February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND CONSIDERATIONS Groundwater Elevations We did not encounter groundwater during the excavation operations on the property. The site is at an elevation of about 73 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). We expect groundwater within 100 feet from the existing grades. Therefore, infiltration could be considered feasible based on groundwater elevations. Soil or Groundwater Contamination We are unaware of contaminated soil or groundwater contamination on the property. Therefore, full and partial infiltration associated with this risk is considered feasible. Slope Hazards Slopes with a total height of up to 50 feet are east of the proposed BMP site. Infiltration devices should not be installed adjacent to the top of slopes unless they are lined, possess a minimum setback distance of 50 feet or 1.5 times the slope height, or extend below the height of the slope. Based on the planned location of the infiltration structure, the slopes are 75 feet from the basin, infiltration would be feasible. Existing Utilities No known utilities cross the site. Infiltration due to utility concerns would be feasible. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 5 - February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Storm Water Infiltration Conclusion The infiltration test results from the area of the proposed basins and storm water management devices indicate infiltration rates between 0.010 and 0.037 inches per hour (with a Factor of Safety of 2) resulting in a “Partial Infiltration” condition. Storm Water Infiltration Recommendations Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm water devices. The liners should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent water migration. The subdrains should be perforated within the liner area, installed at the base and above the liner, be at least 3 inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The subdrains outside of the liner should consist of solid pipe. The penetration of the liners at the subdrains should be properly waterproofed. The subdrains should be connected to a proper outlet. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Storm Water Standard Worksheets The SWS requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Worksheet C.4-1) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. The attached Worksheet C.4-1 presents the completed information for the submittal process on Figure 9. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1) that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table 6 describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 6 - February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 TABLE 6 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Concern – 3 Points Medium Concern – 2 Points Low Concern – 1 Point Assessment Methods Use of soil survey maps or simple texture analysis to estimate short-term infiltration rates. Use of well permeameter or borehole methods without accompanying continuous boring log. Relatively sparse testing with direct infiltration methods Use of well permeameter or borehole methods with accompanying continuous boring log. Direct measurement of infiltration area with localized infiltration measurement methods (e.g., Infiltrometer). Moderate spatial resolution Direct measurement with localized (i.e. small-scale) infiltration testing methods at relatively high resolution or use of extensive test pit infiltration measurement methods. Predominant Soil Texture Silty and clayey soils with significant fines Loamy soils Granular to slightly loamy soils Site Soil Variability Highly variable soils indicated from site assessment or unknown variability Soil boring/test pits indicate moderately homogenous soils Soil boring/test pits indicate relatively homogenous soils Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer <5 feet below facility bottom 5-15 feet below facility bottom >15 feet below facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table 7 presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety for the proposed basin. These tables only present the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate. TABLE 7 FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p = w x v) Assessment Methods 0.25 2 0.50 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 2 0.50 Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50 Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 2 0.50 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = ∑p 2.00 Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 - 7 - February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON WEST, INC. Luke C. Weidman Staff Geologist, GIT 891 Lisa A. Battiato CEG 2316 LCW:LAB:JJV:hd Attachments: LIMITATIONS REFERENCES Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Test Location Map Figure 3 and 4, Logs of Percolation Borings Figures 5 and 6, Percolation Test Report Data Figure 7, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition, Form I-8 Distribution: Addressee (Email) Keith Hanson, O’Day Consultants Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or their representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Geocon Project No. T2754-22-06 February 2, 2023 REVISED March 21, 2023 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/ ; accessed February 2023. 2. The City of San Diego, 2018, Storm Water Standards, dated October 1. 3. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2021, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction “Greenbook,” Published by BNi Building News. SOURCE: Google Earth, 2023 VICINITY MAP OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MARCH 2023 PROJECT NO. T2754-22-06 FIG. 1LCW PROPOSED BMP LOCATION SCALE: 1” = 2000’ 0’ 2000’ 4000’ GEOCON W E S T, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 41571 CORNING PLACE# 101 , MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562 PHONE 951-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 I I PROJECT NO. T2754-22-06 FIG. 2 OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TEST LOCATION MAP LCWSource: O’Day Consultants, Parking Plan, dated December 2022. GEOCON LEGEND Locations are approximate MARCH 2023 ……. PERCOLATION TEST LOCATIONP-8 ……. PROJECT LIMITS P-7 P-8 SCALE: 1” = 60’ 0’ 60’ 120’ Es t r e l l a D e M a r R o a d Villa Pool & Hotel JI I I D GEOCO W • S T I C. GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 4157 1 CORNING PLACE #101, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562 PHONE 95 1-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 N SM SM UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL Silty SAND, medium dense, wet, dark brown; fine to medium sand; little coarse sand; gravel at surface - Becomes fine to coarse sand OLD ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS Silty SAND, medium dense, wet, reddish brown with gray; fine to coarse sand; slightly oxidized Total Depth = 4' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 1/31/2023 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 3, Log of Boring P-7, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 75 HAND AUGER ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 1/31/2023 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING P-7 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 \ I I] liiiiJ SM SM UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL Silty SAND, medium dense, wet, dark brown; fine to medium sand; little coarse sand; gravel at surface - Becomes fine to coarse sand - Becomes fine to medium sand OLD ALLUVIAL FAN DEPOSITS Silty SAND, medium dense, wet, reddish brown with gray; fine to coarse sand; slightly oxidized Total Depth = 4' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 1/31/2023 CO N T E N T ( % ) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE SOIL CLASS (USCS) GR O U N D W A T E R Figure 4, Log of Boring P-8, Page 1 of 1 GEOCON (P . C . F . ) DATE COMPLETED SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLE NO. (B L O W S / F T . ) BORING LOGS.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI T H O L O G Y ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 75 HAND AUGER ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) PE N E T R A T I O N MO I S T U R E BY:Weidman 1/31/2023 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 RE S I S T A N C E DR Y D E N S I T Y ELEV. (MSL.) EQUIPMENT BORING P-8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. T2754-22-06 I] liiiiJ TEST NO.:P-7 GEOLOGIC UNIT:afu EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT):73 Reading Time Elapsed (min) Water Weight Consumed (lbs) Water Volume Consumed (in3)Q (in3/min) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 3.975 110.08 22.015 3 5.00 0.065 1.80 0.360 4 5.00 0.095 2.63 0.526 5 5.00 0.045 1.25 0.249 6 5.00 0.060 1.66 0.332 7 5.00 0.050 1.38 0.277 8 5.00 0.030 0.83 0.166 9 5.00 0.030 0.83 0.166 10 5.00 0.040 1.11 0.222 11 5.00 0.035 0.97 0.194 12 5.00 0.030 0.83 0.166 13 5.00 0.025 0.69 0.13814 5.00 0.020 0.55 0.111 15 5.00 0.015 0.42 0.083 16 5.00 0.015 0.42 0.08317 5.00 0.015 0.42 0.083 18 5.00 0.015 0.42 0.083 19 5.00 0.015 0.42 0.083 FIG. 5 FACTOR OF SAFETY:2.0 BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT): TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT): MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): 5.0 6.3 TEST INFORMATION BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN):4 4.0 69 TEST RESULTS FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): 0.019 0.010 STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN):0.083 TEST DATA AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS OMNI LA COSTA PROJECT NO.:T2754-22-06 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 102030405060708090 Q ( i n 3/m i n ) Time (min) GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, MATERIALS 41571 CORNING PLACE #101, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562 PHONE 951-304-2300 www.geoconinc.com GEOCON W E S T , I N C . TEST NO.:P-8 GEOLOGIC UNIT:afu EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT):73 Reading Time Elapsed (min) Water Weight Consumed (lbs) Water Volume Consumed (in3)Q (in3/min) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 3.935 108.97 21.794 3 5.00 2.765 76.57 15.314 4 5.00 1.560 43.20 8.640 5 5.00 1.355 37.52 7.505 6 5.00 1.145 31.71 6.342 7 5.00 0.805 22.29 4.458 8 5.00 0.500 13.85 2.769 9 5.00 0.275 7.62 1.523 10 5.00 0.265 7.34 1.468 11 5.00 0.210 5.82 1.163 12 5.00 0.150 4.15 0.831 13 5.00 0.115 3.18 0.63714 5.00 0.095 2.63 0.526 15 5.00 0.085 2.35 0.471 16 5.00 0.075 2.08 0.41517 5.00 0.070 1.94 0.388 18 5.00 0.060 1.66 0.332 19 5.00 0.060 1.66 0.332 20 5.00 0.060 1.66 0.332 FIG. 6 FACTOR OF SAFETY:2.0 BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT): TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT): MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): 6.0 6.3 TEST INFORMATION BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN):4 4.0 69 TEST RESULTS FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): 0.075 0.037 STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN):0.378 TEST DATA AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS OMNI LA COSTA PROJECT NO.:T2754-22-06 0.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.018.020.0 0 102030405060708090 Q ( i n 3/m i n ) Time (min) GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, MATERIALS 41571 CORNING PLACE #101, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562PHONE 951-304-2300 www.geoconinc.com '-'- ' '-'- ---L GEOCON W E S T , I N C . Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-27 February 2016 Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form I-8 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No 1 Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. X Provide basis: Based on our test results, and utilizing a factor of safety (FOS) of 2.0 for feasibility determination, full infiltration is not feasible as the infiltration rates are lower than 0.5 in/hr. • P-7: 0.010 in/hr using FOS of 2.0 feasibility determination • P-8: 0.037 in/hr using FOS of 2.0 feasibility determination 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. X Provide basis: The proposed bmp site is 75 feet from slopes that border the area’s eastern limits. It is our opinion that infiltration can be incorporated without increasing the risk of geotechnical hazards including uncontrolled water lateral migration, settlement, shrinking and swelling, and impacts to nearby utilities. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-28 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 2 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No 3 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: We did not encounter groundwater during our investigation. We expect the groundwater elevation to be less than 100 feet below existing site elevations. 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: It is our opinion that infiltration should not cause water balance issues or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Part 1 Result * If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are “Yes” a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is “No”, infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a “full infiltration” design. Proceed to Part 2 No *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-29 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No 5 Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. X Provide basis: Based on our test results, and utilizing a factor of safety (FOS) of 2.0 for feasibility determination, full infiltration is not feasible as the infiltration rates are lower than 0.5 in/hr. • P-7: 0.010 in/hr using FOS of 2.0 feasibility determination • P-8: 0.037 in/hr using FOS of 2.0 feasibility determination 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. X Provide basis: The proposed bmp site is 75 feet from slopes that border the area’s eastern limits. It is our opinion that infiltration cannot be incorporated without increasing the risk of geotechnical hazards including uncontrolled water lateral migration, settlement, shrinking and swelling, and impacts to nearby utilities. 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. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-30 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 4 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No 7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: We did not encounter groundwater during our investigation. We expect the groundwater elevation to be less than 100 feet below existing site elevations. 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. X Provide basis: Researching downstream water rights and evaluating water balance issues to stream flows is beyond the scope of the geotechnical engineer. However, it is our opinion that infiltration should not impact downstream water rights. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Part 2 Result* If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. No *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name Biofltrtn Bsn 1Biofltrtn Bsn 2 unitless 2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.59 0.59 inches 3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 64,814 22,544 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) 5,101 5,208 sq-ft 6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft 7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft 8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23)sq-ft 9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft 10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No yes/no 11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft 12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft 13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft 14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft 15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft 16 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft 17 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft 18 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A # 19 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter ft 20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E # 21 Average Rain Barrel Size gal 22 Total Tributary Area 69,915 27,752 00000000sq-ft 23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.84 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.84 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 26 Initial Design Capture Volume 2,887 1,023 00000000cubic-feet 27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0000000000sq-ft 28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0000000000sq-ft 29 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio 30 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio 31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.84 0.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless 32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 2,887 1,023 00000000cubic-feet 33 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0000000000cubic-feet 34 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0000000000cubic-feet 35 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.84 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 36 Final Effective Tributary Area 58,729 20,814 00000000sq-ft 37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0000000000cubic-feet 38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 2,887 1,023 00000000cubic-feet False False Automated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0) Dispersion Area, Tree Well & Rain Barrel Inputs (Optional) Standard Drainage Basin Inputs Results Tree & Barrel Adjustments Initial Runoff Factor Calculation Dispersion Area Adjustments No Warning Messages Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name Biofltrtn Bsn 1Biofltrtn Bsn 2 --------unitless 2 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.59 0.59 --------inches 3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP Location D D unitless 4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Restricted Restricted unitless 5 Nature of Restriction Slopes Slopes unitless 6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes yes/no 7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stories Proposed? No No yes/no 8 Has Geotechnical Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? Yes Yes yes/no 9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.000 0.000 in/hr 10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.000 0.000 --------in/hr 11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 4.5% 4.5%--------percentage 12 Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.02 0.02 --------ratio 13 Required Retention Volume 58 20 --------cubic-feet False False Automated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0) Advanced Analysis Basic Analysis Result No Warning Messages Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name Biofltrtn Bsn 1 Biofltrtn Bsn 2 --------sq-ft 2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 0.000 --------in/hr 3 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 2,887 1,023 --------cubic-feet 4 Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated? Vegetated Vegetated unitless 5 Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined Lined unitless 6 Does BMP Have an Underdrain? Underdrain Underdrain unitless 7 Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media? Standard Standard unitless 8 Provided Surface Area 2,636 1,865 sq-ft 9 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 20 12 inches 10 Provided Soil Media Thickness 18 18 inches 11 Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness) 12 12 inches 12 Underdrain Offset 3 3 inches 13 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 1.00 0.81 inches 14 Specialized Soil Media Filtration Rate in/hr 15 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retention unitless 16 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltration unitless 17 Specialized Gravel Media Pore Space unitless 18 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0000000000cubic-feet 19 Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitless 20 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless 21 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain) 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 22 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Below Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 23 Effective Retention Depth 2.10 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 24 Fraction of DCV Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time) 0.16 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 25 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Time 120 120 00000000hours 26 Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.18 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 27 Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time) 522 331 00000000cubic-feet 28 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 2,365 692 00000000cubic-feet 29 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.0517 0.0309 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cfs 30 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 0.85 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 31 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 32 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 0.85 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 33 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 5.08 4.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 34 Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 35 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless 36 Gravel Pore Space Available for Biofiltration (Above Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 37 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 27.20 19.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 38 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 24 17 00000000hours 39 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 32 27 00000000hours 40 Total Depth Biofiltered 32.28 23.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 41 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 3,547 1,038 00000000cubic-feet 42 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 3,547 1,038 00000000cubic-feet 43 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 1,773 519 00000000cubic-feet 44 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 1,773 519 00000000cubic-feet 45 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? Yes Yes --------yes/no 47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 48 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 00n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Biofiltration Calculations False False False False Result False False No Warning Messages Retention Calculations Automated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0) False False BMP Inputs 1f: Trash Capture BMP Requirements Summary The biofiltration basin outlet structures will be a 36” x 36” grated inlet in each biofiltration basin. Each grated inlet will contain a BIO-GRATE-FULL-36-36-24 catch basin inlet filter for trash treatment. The attached data sheet shows that this filter can treat 17.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) and bypass 7.6 cfs. The 100-year flow rates tributary to the west and east biofiltration basins from the drainage study are 7.4 and 2.9 cfs, respectively. Therefore, the selected catch basin inlet filters have capacity. The private drains in the driving range will be 12” x 12” grated inlets with a BIO-GRATE-FULL- 12-12-12 catch basin inlet filter for trash treatment. The attached data sheet shows that this filter can treat 1.0 cfs and bypass 1.6 cfs. The driving range covers 11.67 acres and will contain 30 inlets. so each inlet will serve 0.39 acres on average. From the drainage study, the 100-year rainfall intensity based on the minimum time of concentration of 5 minutes is 7.0 inches per hour. The runoff coefficient for Type C soil and natural terrain is 0.30. The rational method 100-year flow rate to each inlet based on these values is Q=CIA=0.30×7.0×0.39=0.8 cfs, which is within the capacity of the selected catch basin inlet filters. 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 ' ' " .... ' "r-.. ' ' .... i, .... .... ' . ' .... , ........ .... I'-,. 'r-. r-,, ' ... ... 'r-.. ' ' ..... .... , .... ,. ... . ' ' ' .... "r-,. ' ' ' ... ' .... , ' ' . ' 'r.... ... ..... ' .... ,. ' ' .... , ' , .. ' 5 6 7 8 9 10 ·, .... • r-.., ·, ... , ·, .... , r-.r-. .. r-' ' ~ .. .. I" I'-"-""" , .. .. ~ ~ r-.r-, "'i-. '~ ~ .. .. .. , ... , .. 'i-. ~ ~ r-.,. '~ .. .. r-. I", .. .. "r-~ ....... .. ,. 'r-.. ... .. ~ .. 1'-i-,. ,, "", .. 15 20 30 Minutes .. .. '"" .... .. .... .. ~r-.. .. ~ ~ .. .. .. .. ~ .. ~ ~ ~ '"" ~ .. .. .. ""~ 40 50 Duration I = I = p6 = D = EQUATION 7.44 P6 D-0.645 Intensity (in/hr) 6-Hour Precipitation (in) Duration (min) 'i', ... ' ... , .... i', ,i-.. ' ~ i', .... 'i-.. 1, 'i-.. 'r-- I', ... , , ... 'i-.. ' I'-, 'i' '-i-.. 2 ', ', .. ' .... ', ' .. .. ""· ', ', ' ~ "" ', . .... , . .... , .. , ' I" .. ', '"" I" I" 3 Hours .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ ~ .. .. .. 4 5 6 O> i 0 ~ 7J ro 0 6.0 R 5.5 ~ 5.0 g 4.5 5' 0 4.0 ~ 3.5 ~ 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Intensity-Duration Design Chart -Template Directions for Application: (1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr and 24 hr amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are included in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50, and 100 yr maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). (2) Adjust 6 hr precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (not applicaple to Desert). (3) Plot 6 hr precipitation on the right side of the chart . (4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. (5) This line is the intensity-duration curve for the location being analyzed . Application Form: (a) Selected frequency ___ year p (b) p6 = ---in., P24 = ---'P 6 = %(2J 24 (c) Adjusted p 6<2l = ___ in. (d) tx = __ min . (e) I = __ in./hr . Note: This chart replaces the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 1965. I P6 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 Duration I I I I I I I I I I I 5 2.63 3.95 5.27 6.59 7.90 9.22 10.54 11.86 13.17 14.49 15.81 7 2.12 3.18 4.24 5.30 6.36 7.42 8.48 9.54 10.60 11.66 12.72 10 1.68 2.53 3.37 4.21 5.05 5.90 6.74 7.58 8.42 9.27 10.11 15 1.30 1.95 2.59 3.24 3.89 4.54 5.19 5.84 6.49 7.13 7.78 20 1.08 1.62 2.15 2.69 3.23 3.77 4.31 4.85 5.39 5.93 6.46 -25 0.93 1.40 1.87 2.33 2.80 3.27 3.73 4.20 4.67 5.13 5.60 30 0.83 1.24 1.66 2.07 2.49 2.90 3.32 3.73 4.15 4.56 4.98 ~ 0.69 1.03 1.38 1.72 2.0~ 2.41 2.76_ 3.10 3.45 3.79 c---4.13 50 0.60 0.90 1.19 1.49 1.79 2.09 2.39 2.69 2.98 3.28 3.58 60 0.53 0.80 ,_~ 1.33 1.59 1.86 2.12 2.39 2.65 2.92 3.18 90 0.41 0.61 0.82 1.02 TI3 1.43 1.63 1.84 2.04 2.25 2 .45 120 0.34 0.51 0.613_ 0.85 ~ 1.19 1.36 1.53 1.70 1.87 2.04 --f--150 0.29 0.44 0.59 0.73 0.88 1.03 1.18 1.32 1.47 1.62 1.76 180 0.26 0.39 0.52 0.65 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.18 1.31 1.44 1.57 240 0.22 0.33 0.43 0.54 0.65 0.76 0.87 0.98 1.08 1.19 1.30 300 0.19 0.28 0.38 0.47 0.56 0.66 0.75 0.85 0.94 1.03 1.13 360 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.75 0.84 0.92 1.00 FIGURE ~ I I H---t--t-+--1--J-t-t--++--t--t-+--1-r t-t--++--t--t-+--1-+-t-t--+++-l·-+--l-+-t-t--++--t--t-+--1-+-t-t--l-+--t--t-+--1-+-H-++-+++-+-1-+--1-+-+-++++-+-+--1-+-+-+++-+rrrrl--++++-+---J----jH-H--+++-+-+--1-+-t-+++71 I I I I I I I I I I • DPW *GIS O.parrr..-~P;Jbiic~ G<,,]!r,Jphi,;lm!Jm.,1nQl1S:,rw;~r s1fGIS We Have S:.in Dir.:gn Covered! I I I I I I I I I I t-t-t-t-1--+->-H----l--l_LJ_l_ '++++___j_J I . • San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3 Date: June 2003 Page: 6 of 26 Table 3-1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS Land Use Runoff Coefficient “C” Soil Type NRCS Elements County Elements % IMPER. A B C D Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural) Permanent Open Space 0* 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 1.0 DU/A or less 10 0.27 0.32 0.36 0.41 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.0 DU/A or less 20 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.9 DU/A or less 25 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.49 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 4.3 DU/A or less 30 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.52 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 7.3 DU/A or less 40 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 10.9 DU/A or less 45 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.60 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 14.5 DU/A or less 50 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.63 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 24.0 DU/A or less 65 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.71 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 43.0 DU/A or less 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercial/Industrial (N. Com) Neighborhood Commercial 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercial/Industrial (G. Com) General Commercial 85 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Com) Office Professional/Commercial 90 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 Commercial/Industrial (Limited I.) Limited Industrial 90 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 Commercial/Industrial (General I.) General Industrial 95 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 *The values associated with 0% impervious may be used for direct calculation of the runoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for areas that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. Justification must be given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g., the area is located in Cleveland National Forest). DU/A = dwelling units per acre NRCS = National Resources Conservation Service 3-6 Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/23/2022 Page 1 of 4 36 6 0 9 0 0 36 6 1 0 0 0 36 6 1 1 0 0 36 6 1 2 0 0 36 6 1 3 0 0 36 6 1 4 0 0 36 6 1 5 0 0 36 6 1 6 0 0 36 6 1 7 0 0 36 6 1 8 0 0 36 6 1 9 0 0 36 6 2 0 0 0 36 6 0 9 0 0 36 6 1 0 0 0 36 6 1 1 0 0 36 6 1 2 0 0 36 6 1 3 0 0 36 6 1 4 0 0 36 6 1 5 0 0 36 6 1 6 0 0 36 6 1 7 0 0 36 6 1 8 0 0 36 6 1 9 0 0 36 6 2 0 0 0 474800 474900 475000 475100 475200 475300 475400 475500 475600 474700 474800 474900 475000 475100 475200 475300 475400 475500 33° 5' 47'' N 11 7 ° 1 6 ' 1 5 ' ' W 33° 5' 47'' N 11 7 ° 1 5 ' 4 1 ' ' W 33° 5' 9'' N 11 7 ° 1 6 ' 1 5 ' ' W 33° 5' 9'' N 11 7 ° 1 5 ' 4 1 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 250 500 1000 1500Feet 0 50 100 200 300Meters Map Scale: 1:5,790 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 18, Sep 14, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 14, 2022—Mar 17, 2022 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 12/23/2022 Page 2 of 4USDA = □ D D D D D D D D ,,..,,,. ,,..,,,. □ ■ ■ □ □ ,,..._., t-+-t ~ tllWI ,..,,. ~ • Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AtE2 Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded D 6.1 3.6% CsB Corralitos loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes A 9.0 5.4% HrE2 Huerhuero loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded D 3.9 2.3% HuC Huerhuero-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes D 47.9 28.8% HuE Huerhuero-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes D 19.9 11.9% PfC Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent slo pes D 5.5 3.3% SbC Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes C 53.9 32.4% TeF Terrace escarpments 0.0 0.0% Tf Tidal flats D 20.5 12.3% Totals for Area of Interest 166.7 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/23/2022 Page 3 of 4USDA = State Water Resources Control Board CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES (Updated September 2021) Trash Provisions In accordance with the Trash Provisions,1 all trash treatment control devices (Devices) installed after December 2, 2015 shall meet the Full Capture System definition2 and be certified by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Executive Director, or designee, prior to installation. The Devices included on this list are either: 1) new Device applications certified by the State Water Board after adoption of the Trash Provisions, or 2) grandfathered device fact sheets listed by the San Francisco Regional Water Board prior to the adoption of the Trash Provisions. The Trash Provisions require that only Certified Full Capture Devices may be installed, and that the Devices be designed according to the following criteria: 1. Appropriately sized to treat not less than the peak flowrate resulting from a one--year, one-hour storm event (design storm) or at least the same peak flows from the corresponding storm drain; 2. Do not bypass trash below the design storm under maximum operational loading conditions; and 3. Trap all particles that are 5 mm or greater up to the design flow3 or at least the same peak flows from the corresponding storm drain; and do not have a 1 Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, And Estuaries of California adopted by the State Water Board. 2 A Full Capture System is a treatment control, or series of treatment controls, including but not limited to, a multi-benefit project or a low-impact development control that traps all particles that are 5 mm or greater, and has a design treatment capacity that is either: of not less than the peak flow rate, Q, resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the subdrainage area, or b) appropriately sized to, and designed to carry at least the same flows as, the corresponding storm drain. 3 The region specific one-year, one-hour storm (or design flow) may be obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Precipitation Estimates (https://www.weather.gov/media/owp/oh/hdsc/docs/Atlas14_Volume6.pdf) Water Boards E. JOAQUIN ESQUIVEL, CHAIR I EILEEN SOBECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GAVIN N EWSOM GOVERNOR J ARED B LUMENFELD SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 I Mailing Address: P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 I www.waterboards.ca.gov CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 2 diversion structure present upstream such that a portion of the peak flow is not treated to trap all particles 5-millimeter or greater. Vector Control Accessibility According to the California Health and Safety Code4, California landowners are legally responsible to abate (eliminate the source of) a public nuisance arising from their property, including mosquitoes. Mosquito vector control districts have substantial authority to access public and private property, inspect known or suspected sources of mosquitoes, abate mosquito sources, and charge the landowner for work performed and/or charge fees if a landowner is unwilling or unable to address a mosquito source arising from their property. Depending on its design, certain Devices may impede the mosquito vector control district’s ability to (1) visually inspect the Device and/or storm vault for mosquito breeding, and (2) apply the appropriate chemical treatment. Moreover, some devices may create a habitat for mosquitoes. Prior to installation of any certified Device, the local mosquito vector control district should be contacted to ensure the installation conforms to the district’s visual inspection, treatment, and vector breeding minimizing guidelines. The Mosquito Vector Control Association of California may also be contacted via email at Trashtreatment@mvcac.org. New Device Application Certification or Fact Sheet Update To apply for certification of a new Device, or to update a grandfathered Device fact sheet, the Device owner shall submit an application/fact sheet in accordance with the Trash Treatment Control Device Certification and Fact Sheet Update Requirements. Upon determining that a Device application is complete and meets the definition of a trash full capture system and is approved by the Mosquito Vector Control Association of California, the Executive Director will place the Device on the State Water Board’s Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices. The Trash Treatment Control Device Certification and Fact Sheet Update Requirements is found on the Trash Implementation Program webpage (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_impleme ntation.html). Certification of any Device does not constitute an endorsement by the State Water Board. The Executive Director reserves the right to de-certify and remove any Device from this list that does not satisfy the requirements of the Trash Provisions, such as but not limited to when a Device is discontinued, found to not trap trash in accordance with the Trash Provisions, or no longer has Mosquito Vector Control Association of California approval. 4 Health & Safety Code sections 2001- 4(d); 2002; 2060 (b) and Health & Safety Code sections 2060-2067, 100170, and 100175. CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 3 Device applications and fact sheets may be obtained at: https://www.casqa.org/resources/trash/certified-full-capture-system-trash-treatment- control-devices. Questions regarding certification should be directed to Leo Cosentini at (916) 341- 5524 or email address (leo.cosentini@waterboards.ca.gov). CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 4 TABLE 1 - CATCH BASIN INSERTS AND OTHER DEVICES Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified AbTech, Industries5 Ultra Urban Filter Curb Opening and Drop-In Application 25 05/01/20 04/8/20 Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.6 FLEXSTORM PURE Full Trash Capture Inserts Application 3 03/15/18 Updated 04/21/21 03/30/21 Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. FLEXSTORM Connector Pipe Screen ADS-1 Updated 06/08/21 03/30/21 Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc.7 Curb Inlet and Grate Inlet Filters Application 4 03/15/18 Updated 02/12/21 01/27/21 Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc.Modular Connector Pipe Trash Screen BC-3 Updated 04/30/20 03/10/20 BrightWater8 Connector Pipe Screen Application 29 12/28/20 11/19/20 5 AbTech Industries website: https://www.abtechindustries.com/ 6 Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. website: http://www.inletfilters.com/ 7 Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. website: http://www.biocleanenvironmental.com/products/ 8 BrightWater website: www.wearebrightwater.com/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 5 Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified BrightWater Curb Inlet Filter Application 26 06/30/20 04/17/20 Ecology Control Industries9 Debris Dam - Catch Basin Insert for Curb Inlet Design ECI-1 Updated 06/17/20 04/29/20 Enviropod International: A Stormwater 360 Group Company10 Enviropod® LittaTrap™ Full Capture Application 27 10/15/20 07/20/20 Filtrexx Sustainable Technologies11 StormExx® Clean Application 16 08/10/18 Updated 11/25/19 12/06/19 Frog Creek Partners, LLC12 Gutter Bin® Channel Filtration System & Mundus Bag® Water Filter Application 22 06/26/19 04/19/19 Frog Creek Partners, LLC Gutter Bin® Eco Drop Inlet Filter (DIF & DIF-C) & Mundus Bag® Water Filter Application 24 02/18/20 12/06/19 9 Ecology Control Industries website: http://www.ecologycontrol.com/ 10 Enviropod International: A Stormwater 360 Group Company website: https://www.enviropod.com/products/enviropod- littatrap-full-capture/ 11 Filtrexx Sustainable Technologies website: https://www.filtrexx.com/en/products/stormexx/ 12 Frog Creek Partners, LLC website: https://frogcreek.partners/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 6 Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified Frog Creek Partners, LLC Gutter Bin® Eco Curb Inlet Filter & Mundus Bag® Water Filter Application 23 02/18/20 10/11/19 G2 Construction, Inc.13 G2 CPS-Mod™ and Removable CPS-Mod™ Screen Application 18 06/26/19 03/15/19 G2 Construction, Inc.G2 Grated Inlet Trash Screen Application 19 06/26/19 04/10/19 Inventive Resources, Inc.14 Water Decontaminator Application 2 03/15/18 Updated 02/05/21 04/20/20 Oldcastle Infrastructure15 FloGard® Curb Inlet Basket OI-1 Updated 06/09/21 06/09/21 Oldcastle Infrastructure FloGard® Grate Inlet Basket OI-2 Updated 06/09/21 06/09/21 13 G2 Construction, Inc website: http://www.g2construction.com/products/ 14 Inventive Resources, Inc. website: http://www.IRIproducts.com/ 15 Oldcastle Infrastructure website: https://oldcastleinfrastructure.com/brands/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 7 Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified Oldcastle Infrastructure FloGard® Outlet Trash Screen OI-3 Updated 11/29/19 12/06/19 Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc.16 Triton™ Bioflex Inlet Trash Guard Catchbasin Polyester Fiber Mesh Trash Filter Insert REM-1 Updated 09/10/21 09/07/21 Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc.Triton™ Crescent Pipe Screen Application 12 07/10/18 03/15/19 Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc.Triton Perf-Full Trash Capture Insert Application 13 07/10/18 03/15/19 Safe Drain Stormwater Holdings Inc.17 Storm Vector Guard Application 30 02/11/21 12/17/20 Stormtek18 Stormtek ST3 & STEG Catchbasin Connector Pipe AS-1, A1S-2 Updated 08/12/21 08/04/21 16 Revel Environmental Manufacturing, Inc. website: http://www.remfilters.com/ 17 Safe Drain Stormwater Holdings, Inc. website: http://www.safedrainusa.com/ 18 Stormtek website: https://swimsclean.com/stormtek/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 8 Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified United Stormwater, Inc.19 Connector Pipe Trash Screen USW-1 Updated 08/06/21 08/05/21 19 United Stormwater, Inc. website: http://www.unitedstormwater.com/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 9 TABLE 2 - HIGH FLOW CAPACITY TRASH DEVICES Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified AquaShield, Inc.20 Aqua-Swirl® Stormwater Treatment System Application 1 08/04/17 Updated 11/06/20 12/03/20 BaySaver Technologies LLC/Advanced Drainage Systems Inc.21 Barracuda Hydrodynamic Separator Application 21 06/26/19 Updated 05/21/21 03/15/19 Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc.Debris Separating Baffle Box Application 6 03/15/18 07/28/20 Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. BioClean DeflectiveScreening Device Application 20 06/26/19 07/28/20 Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc.Modular Wetland System® Application 15 07/10/18 03/15/19 20 AquaSheild, Inc. website: http://www.aquashieldinc.com/-aqua-swirl.html 21 BaySaver Technologies LLC/Advanced Drainage Systems Inc. website: https://baysaver.com/products/barracuda/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 10 Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified Coanda Inc.Coanda Trash Screen and Debris Fence COA-1 Updated 09/10/21 09/07/21 Contech Construction Products22 Continuous Deflective Separator Hydrodynamic Separator CCP-1HF Updated 05/27/21 04/29/21 Jensen Stormwater Systems23 Jensen® Deflective Separators Application 5 03/15/18 12/06/19 Hydro International24 Downstream Defender (In- Line and Off-Line Configurations) Application 14 07/10/18 03/16/20 Hydro International First Defense® High- Capacity Full Trash Capture Device Application 28 10/30/20 08/20/20 22 Contech Construction Products website: http://www.conteches.com/products/stormwater-management/treatment/cds/ 23 Jensen Stormwater Systems website: http://www.jensenengineeredsystems.com/ 24 Hydro International website: https://www.hydro-int.com/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 11 Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified Hydro International Hydro Up-Flo Filter®Application 11 07/18/18 03/16/20 Hydro International Hydro DryScreen Application 10 07/10/18 Updated 05/05/21 04/29/21 Oldcastle Infrastructure FloGard® NetTech OI-11HF Updated 12/08/20 12/03/20 Oldcastle Infrastructure Nutrient Separating Baffle Box® Application 17 10/12/18 Updated 07/21/20 05/01/20 Roscoe Moss Company25 Storm Flo® Trash Screen – Linear Radial Gross Solids Removal Device RMC-1HF Updated 03/30/21 03/11/21 25 Roscoe Moss Company website: https://roscoemoss.com/products/stormwater-gross-solids-removal-device/ CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM LIST OF TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES 12 Owner Full Capture System Trash Device Brand Name Date Application Certified or Fact Sheet Updated Date Vector Control Accessibility Verified StormTrap Modular Concrete Stormwater Management 26 SiteSaver® Application 9 03/15/18 Updated 02/23/21 03/18/21 26 StormTrap https://stormtrap.com Certified Trash Full Capture Systems List Of Multi-Benefit Treatment Systems The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) promotes Low Impact Development (LID) designs to capture, reuse, treat, and/or infiltrate storm water runoff. The LID systems and individual treatment controls (Multi-Benefit Treatment Systems) listed below meet the Full Capture System definition and are certified for use by the State Water Board Executive Director, or designee, provided the Multi-Benefit Treatment System performs as follows: 1.Prohibits the discharge of particles 5 mm or greater to surface waters off site; 2.Contains a capacity greater than the volume collected during the region specific one-year, one- hour storm event from the applicable drainage area; or a capacity to carry at least the same flows as the corresponding storm drain; 3.Incorporates an operation and maintenance plan sufficient to ensure that the captured trash does not migrate from the site; and 4.Has stamped and signed design plans by a registered California licensed professional civil engineer (see Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6700, et seq.). The Executive Director reserves the right to remove any Multi-Benefit System from this list. System Description (click links to access information sheets) Bioretention Capture and Use Systems Detention Basin Infiltration Trench or Basin Media Filter Last Updated: 8/4/17 . . • Lit I ■ I .L Water Boards I I •111 11"■11 ii. I 11■1 El I lil.11 ■ •L Illa••· It:■ ■111111 _.ILl■a, ...... Lill 1111■■• a■a.l■I ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Bio Clean® Catch Basin Inlet Filters Your Contech Team Contech is the leader in stormwater solutions, helping engineers, contractors and owners with infrastructure and land development projects throughout North America. With our responsive team of stormwater experts, local regulatory expertise and flexible solutions, Contech is the trusted partner you can count on for stormwater management solutions. The experts you need to solve your stormwater challenges STORMWATER CONSULTANTIt’s my job to recommend the best solution to meet permitting requirements. STORMWATER DESIGN ENGINEERI work with consultants to design the best approved solution to meet your project’s needs. REGULATORY MANAGER I understand the local stormwater regulations and what solutions will be approved. SALES ENGINEERI make sure our solutions meet the needs of the contractor during construction. Contech is your partner in stormwater management solutions Your Contech Team Contech is your partner in stormwater management solutions Bio Clean® Catch Basin Inlet Filter Configurations Bio Clean® Catch Basin Inlet Filter Advantages Removing trash and sediment to protect our waterways ... Our nation has some of the world’s most beautiful beaches and waterways. Unfortunately, trash such as cigarette butts, food packaging, cans and bottles, and plastic waste makes its way into streams, creeks, rivers, and the ocean, as rain events wash them into gutters and storm drains. Bio Clean Catch Basin Filters provide the first defense against trash and other pollutants entering your stormwater steam by providing 100% trash capture at the source, preventing system clogging and improving downstream water quality. Bio Clean Catch Basin Inlet Filters offer superior durability and customization ... 1-year warranty Long-lasting, stainless-steel construction Designed for a wide range of sizes to fit most curb and grate inlets High-flows bypass prevents scouring of previously captured trash and debris Installed and maintained in minutes Testing Highlight: California Water Board100% of Trash Full Trash Capture Testing Highlight: Over 1,000 LBS of load capacity Fabric Sediment Filter Testing Highlight: Third Party Testing85% of TSS & 72% of TP Kraken® Membrane Filtration Designed for maximized flow rates while meeting trash full capture requirements by the State of California Water Board. Our filters provide 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 Bio Clean 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 resuspending 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. Bypass to prevent backflow during the largest storm events. Bio Clean® Catch Basin Inlet Filter Applications Bio Clean Catch Basin Inlet Filters have been successfully used on numerous new construction and retrofit projects. The system’s 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. Applications include: Parking Lot Curb Inlets Parking Lot Grate Inlets Roadway Curb Inlets Roadway Grate Inlets Bioswale Bypass Structures Stormwater Pretreatment Bypass Flow Path Treatment Flow Path Curb Opening Trough System Non-Clogging Screen Outflow Pipe Bypass Weir Bottom Screen Captures 100% of trash ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Full Trash Capture Full Capture Sizing Full Capture Removes 100% of Trash ... The Full Trash Capture catch basin 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 while maintaining its ability to meet demanding flow requirements. Captures 100% of trash MODEL #TREATMENT FLOW RATE (CFS) BYPASS FLOW RATE (CFS) STORAGE CAPACITY (CU FT) BIO-CURB-FULL-12 2.85 UNLIMITED 0.70 BIO-CURB-FULL-24 2.85 UNLIMITED 1.40 BIO-GRATE-FULL-12-12-12 1.04 1.24 0.15 BIO-GRATE-FULL-18-18-12 1.78 2.79 0.33 BIO-GRATE-FULL-24-24-12 2.70 4.96 0.59 BIO-GRATE-FULL-24-40-12 3.70 6.35 0.88 BIO-GRATE-FULL-24-24-24 7.31 4.96 1.22 BIO-GRATE-FULL-24-40-24 9.53 6.35 1.82 BIO-GRATE-FULL-36-36-24 11.93 7.74 2.73 Note: Flow rate includes safety factor of two for screen capacity. Storage capacity based on filter basket at 50% full. Bypass Flow Path Treatment Flow Path Mounting Flange High Flow Bypass Non-Clogging Screens Bottom Screen Flow rate includes safety factor of two for screen capacity. Storage capacity based on filter basket at 50% full. Fabric Sediment Filter The Fabric Sediment Filter offers an affordable solution to capture total suspended solids (TSS) from stormwater before it enters the conveyance system. With a stainless-steel frame, the Standard Sediment Filter provided over 1000 lbs. of load capacity based in full scale load testing. Applications include: 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Removal Over 1,000 LBS of Load Capacity Based in Full Scale Load Testing MODEL #TREATMENT FLOW RATE (CFS) BYPASS FLOW RATE (CFS) STORAGE CAPACITY (CU FT) BIO-CURB-FABRIC-12 1.50 UNLIMITED 0.88 BIO-CURB-FABRIC-24 2.85 UNLIMITED 1.77 BIO-GRATE-FABRIC-12-12-12 0.47 1.24 0.15 BIO-GRATE-FABRIC-18-18-12 0.79 2.79 0.33 BIO-GRATE-FABRIC-24-24-12 1.18 4.97 0.59 BIO-GRATE-FABRIC-24-40-12 1.61 6.35 0.88 BIO-GRATE-FABRIC-24-24-24 2.01 4.96 1.22 BIO-GRATE-FABRIC-24-40-24 2.58 6.35 1.82 BIO-GRATE-FABRIC-36-36-24 3.18 7.74 2.73 Standard Sediment Filter Sizing Built to last longer than other trash capture filters Bypass Flow Path Treatment Flow Path Mounting Flange High Flow Bypass Woven Geotextile Fabric Kraken® Membrane Filtration Kraken® Filter Type Sizing ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Advanced-Level Filtration ... The Kraken Catch Basin Insert is an advanced filtration device designed with Kraken membrane filtration cartridges for increased removal efficiencies. Kraken Filter cartridges are removable and reusable after spray cleaning with a garden hose. 100% of Trash Removal 85% Removal of TSS 72% Removal of Phosphorus 81% Removal of Oils & Grease 52% Removal of Copper 58% Removal of Zinc ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS MODEL #TREATMENT FLOW RATE (CFS) BYPASS FLOW RATE (CFS) STORAGE CAPACITY (CU FT) BIO-CURB-KMF-23 0.071 UNLIMITED 1.29 BIO-GRATE-KMF-12-12-29 0.024 0.52 0.39 BIO-GRATE-KMF-18-18-29 0.024 2.51 1.21 BIO-GRATE-KMF-24-24-29 0.094 5.31 1.77 BIO-GRATE-KMF-24-40-29 0.017 10.39 3.05 BIO-GRATE-KMF-36-36-39 0.017 12.53 4.10 Bypass Flow Path Treatment Flow Path Kraken Membrane Cartridges Cartridge Handle High Flow Bypass Cartridge Mount Note: Flow rate based on loading rate of 0.1 gpm/sq ft. Storage capacity based on filter basket at 50% full. All models are 30” tall to accommodate a full size Kraken Cartridge. Built to last longer than other trash capture filters © 2023 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company All Rights Reserved. Printed in the USA. Few companies offer the wide range of high- quality stormwater resources you can find with us — state-of-the-art products, decades of expertise, and all the maintenance support you need to operate your system cost-effectively. Get social with us: 800-338-1122 | www.ContechES.com NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS THE CONTECH WAY Contech® Engineered Solutions provides innovative, cost-effective site solutions to engineers, contractors, and developers on projects across North America. Our portfolio includes bridges, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, sanitary sewer and stormwater management products. TAKE THE NEXT STEP For more information: www.ContechES.com STORMWATER SOLUTIONS PIPE SOLUTIONS STRUCTURES SOLUTIONS Bio Clean® Catch Basin Inlet Filter Maintenance Filters can be maintained by a vac truck or by hand. ~ ~ ~ ~ l.:r\..l Ct')NTECH® rumaa ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES [This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.] Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Sequence Contents Checklist Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management Exhibit (Required) X Included See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit is required, additional analyses are optional) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual. X Exhibit showing project drainage boundaries marked on WMAA Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Map (Required) Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Determination Appendix H.6.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite Appendix H.7 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels (Optional) See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. X Not performed Included Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual X Included 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify: X Underlying hydrologic soil group X Approximate depth to groundwater X Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) X Existing topography X Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite X Proposed grading X Proposed impervious features X Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness X Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management X Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) X Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ POC B POC C POC A (ALONG CREEK) DMA 1 DMA 3 DMA 2 GRAPHIC SCALE 200 0 -11111 -- I I I I 1 INCH 100 200 l~I -200 FEET 400 I OMA I. 2. &-3 -OVERALL SITE SCALE: 1' = 200' DMA TABLE DMA# AREA UNITS SOILS GROUP % IMPERVIOUS TREATMENT/ BMP 1 1.61 ACRES D 92.7 BIOFILTRATION BASIN FOR WESTERLY PARKING AREA 2 0.64 ACRES D 81.2 BIOFILTRATION BASIN FOR EASTERLY PARKING AREA 3 11.67 ACRES C,D 4.4 SELF-MITIGATING AREA-DRIVING RANGE BMP TABLE BMPID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * FREQUENCY ENHANCED SITE DESIGN BMPs STRUCTURAL BMPs 0 BIOFILTRATION c-) BASIN TC-32 2,636 SF TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY 0 BIOFILTRATION c-) BASIN TC-32 1,865 SF TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY SOURCE CONTROL BMPs (INLET FILTER TRASH CAPTURE BMPs) 0 BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 30 EA TBD 5 QUARTERLY -FULL-12-12-12 0 BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 1 EA TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY -FULL-36-36-24 ® BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 1 EA TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY -FULL-36-36-24 I I ~- I \ .l I I I I I I I -1 I I I : 0 I ' I \ I 0 ..... __ ,,, MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY SEMI-ANNUALLY SEMI-ANNUALLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY * OR AFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTS / I I D EXISTING Gl?A PROPOSED LANDSCAPING VARIES - I I I I I I =>R□P□SED -yp[ •'T'' rn 1-I -1(,'.""i II LL Ll I <c' /6 I I I I I I I t \ ' I nJr·s-J ,Ir RA" AT JJ _l I LJ-J-Dl I LH 71\-/~, nRAT\ I \ t -. I ( =('' ,() FL -::.1 1:<TS-, J(," - RU" s:. _ --'f _----1,+---"" 1--"''"41'~ PROPOSED CART PATH 12' 36' MIN. OMA I TURF OR PLANTING PER LS. PLAN - PROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLET (PVT) T'IPICAL DRIVING RANGE DISPERSION NOT TO SCALE 20· -8JIP 1 12· -8"P 2 P•/JPJS:D D_ IC- . ~ P,-P-SE: TYF" ••c• -T'~ FT -=~5 /() --_:='? 40 --... ...._"',. .... ··-....._, PRLP JSl.L ::r (\:._: ,...,,--J\/::::R 12'' t.3 tiQK;_ THE PROPOSED SOfJTHERL Y DRl~WA Y (SOfJTH RED HA TCHINC) CO'.ERS 1,698 SF. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS TREATMENT REOIJIREAIENTS FOR THIS AREA, EXISTlNC PA VEAIENT IN THE LARGER NORTH RED HATCH/NC CO~RINC 1,23.J SF WLL BE TREATED BY THE PROPOSED 8/0F/L TRA TlON BASIN. r,' l LJ- -:r::::1'ns1r "U'' JI-=H o"-- o GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 •r::.-.::-..:-11111:....l~I 1 INCH -50 FEET Item OMA 1 Basin Floor Area, sf 2,636 Riser Size (square) 3' x 3' Riser Rim Elevation, ft 20.67 WQ Ponding Depth, in 20 HMP Ponding Dept h, in 20 100-Year Elev., ft 21.02 Orifice Diameter, in 1.00 100 I DMA2 1,865 3' X 3' 70.50 12 12 70.60 0.81 8/0FILTRATION BASIN SUMMARY ., L...---,-----' /1){,~ \ --I--,. 0 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS • I WESTERLY PARKING AREA OMA 2 -EASTERLY PARKING AREA SCALE: 1' = 50' J6x36• INLET. TG El.EVA TION (INLET) PER PLAN fffTH 8/0CLEAN Fl/ll CAPTURE Rl1ER PER Gl?AOING PLAN SHEET 2 r,::=:;:::;::::::;::;:,,.-Pi-t:' END CAP (SCREW-ON) L-, =-OUTTAl.l PIPE "' -------. LEGEND PROPERTY UNE DMA 1 (rESTERL Y PARK/NC AREA) DMA 2 (EASTERLY PARKING AREA) DMA J (ORIVINC RANCE EXPANSION AREA) SCALE: 1' = 50' n ~ ,t.' HIGH FENCE, 3' l£',£/. I~ PER LS. Pl.AN [ ElEVATION PER PLAN 4' HIGH FENCE, PER LS. PLAN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 12· MIN. I ~llo'a4RD O I.ANOSCAPING 5• MIN. (ffEral'ARO O PAVEIIENT, 81C1'lt. TRA TION AID! WOTH VA/it'ES' PER PLAN WATER SURFACE CiEANOiJT FG REV. PER Pl PCC00#1/ DRAIN 5• PERFORA TEO PIPE 12• AASHTO NO 57 COARSE AGGREGATE JO MIL WPERIIEABlE UNER, PER GEOlECHNICAl REPORT Oi/TlET PER PLAN ORIFICE PLATE. SE£ DETAIL AT RIGHT T'IPICAL BIORL TRA TION BASIN NOT TO SCALE PARKING LOT DRAINAGE FLANGE CONN£C7lON TO CONCRETE SHALL 8£ RT!ED GRAl1C MTH JO OUROMETER PLAN NEOPRENE RING N.T.S. CATCH BA.SN SPECIFIED SOIL t,,11){ GRAVEL GR/11' PVC END CAP (SCREW-ON) OUTF'ALL PIPE DRILL OR/RC£ HOLE AT 6~ PVC PERFORATED PIPE SECTION FlDJH.INE (SEE TAB/£ FDR N.t.s. SIZE) ORIRCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE DMA AND HYDROMODIFICA TION EXHIBIT PROPOSE!} CONCRETE COLF CART PATH PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEAIENT PROPOSE!} 8/0F/L TRA TlON BASIN PROPOSED CRADINC • HYDROLOC/C SOIL CROfJPS ARE C AND D (DRIVINC RANCE) AS ~LL AS D (PARK/NC AREAS). • APPROX/MA TE DEPTH TO CROfJNDWA TER IS 5 TO 10 FEET. • /}/.(A J CONSISTS OF THE SELF-M/TlCA TlNC /JRIVINC RANCE EXPANSION AREA. • POC A REPRESENTS THE VAR/OfJS POC's FOR THE SELF-M/TlCA TlNC AREAS WTHIN DMA 1 • POC BAND CARE AT THE BIOFILTRATlON BASIN OfJTI..ETS. • NUTRIENT SENS/Tl~ MEDIA SHALL BE USED IN EACH 8/0F/LTRATION BASIN. • THE PROJECT WLL NOT [}/'.£RT FLOWS FROM EXISTlNC DRAINAGE FAC/lllES THAT RECEI~ THE PROJECT RUNOFF. 2b: Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Map 22 11 88 1616 101044 2525 2727 2323 2222 99 55 1212 1515 1414 33 2424 66 2626 1313 2121 2020 77 1717 1818 1919 1111 RedMountainReservoir LAKEHENSHAWTURNERLAKE LAKEWOHLFORD BUENAVISTALAGOON DIXONRESERVOIR AQUAHEDIONDALAGOON SAN MARCOSLAKE SUTHERLANDRESERVOIRBATIQUITOSLAGOON SANDIEGUITORESERVOIR RESERVOIR LAKEPOWAY SAN ELIJOLAGOON EL CAPITANRESERVOIR SAN VICENTERESERVOIR MIRAMARRESERVOIR SANTEERECREATIONALLAKES MISSIONBAY LOVELANDRESERVOIRLAKEMURRAYMOUNTHELIXLAKE SAN DIEGOBAY CHOLLASHEIGHTSRESERVOIR HANSENRESERVOIR MORENARESERVOIRSWEETWATERRESERVOIRBARRETTLAKE LOWER OTAYRESERVOIOR LOSPENASQUITOSLAGOON LAKERAMONA UPPER OTAYRESERVOIR SANDIEGUITOLAGOON LAKEHODGES SAN VICENTERESERVOIR LAKE LINDO CARLSBADCARLSBAD CHULACHULAVISTAVISTA EL CAJONEL CAJON LA MESALA MESA NATIONALNATIONALCITYCITY OCEANSIDEOCEANSIDE POWAYPOWAY S.D.S.D.COUNTYCOUNTY S.D.S.D.COUNTYCOUNTY SANSANDIEGODIEGO SANSANMARCOSMARCOS SANTEESANTEE VISTAVISTA San D i e g o R i ver Chollas Creek San Dieguit oR ive rSanMarcosCreek Rattle s n akeCre e k DulzuraCreek San M a r cos C r e ek Escondido Creek T i juanaR i ver Jamul Cr ee k S y c a m o r e Creek C ottonwoo d Creek B u ena V is ta C r e e k Poway C r ee k O tay R i v er Ca r r o l C a nyon Lusardi Cr e ek Lo sP e nasq u i t o s C ree k E n cinita s C re ek Woodglen V i staCreek A gua H e d iondaC r eek Sant a Margarita Riv er S weetwater R iver R ose C r e e k S a n L ui s R e yRive r Ot a y R i v er S ant aYs a bel C reek Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Exhibit Date: Sept. 8, 2014Regional San Diego County Watersheds Aerial Imagery Source: DigitalGlobe, 06/2012 Legend Regional WMAA Streams Watershed Boundaries Municipal Boundaries Rivers & Streams Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas NORTH 0 5 10 15Miles REACH ID NAME 1 Santa Margarita River 2 San Luis Rey River 3 Buena Vista Creek 4 Agua Hedionda Creek 5 San Marcos Creek 6 Encinitas Creek 7 Cottonwood Creek (Carlsbad WMA) 8 Escondido Creek 9 San Dieguito Creek - Reach 1 10 San Dieguito Creek - Reach 2 11 Lusardi Creek 12 Los Penasquitos / Poway Creek 13 Rattlesnake Creek 14 Carroll Canyon Creek 15 Rose Creek 16 San Diego River 17 Sycamore Creek 18 Woodglen Vista Creek 19 San Vicente Creek 20 Forester Creek 21 Chollas Creek 22 Sweetwater River - Reach 1 23 Sweetwater River - Reach 2 24 Otay River 25 Jamul / Dulzura Creek 26 Tijuana River 27 Cottonwood Creek (Tijuana WMA) ~ ) ,,.,.. ( ! ~, _)"'-.~• ~l!e JI'., , 1)1 , i~ ! ' _/" II ..: r ,----' 7 _j L Geosyntec C> RICK 0 consultants E NGJNEERJNG C OMPANY 2d: Flow Control Facility Design and Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations HYDROMODIFICATION SUMMARY The project includes two proposed paved parking areas and a driving range expansion. The two proposed parking areas will add impervious asphalt pavement, so are subject to hydromodification. An individual biofiltration basin will provide hydromodification management for each parking area. The westerly parking area storm runoff will be treated by a biofiltration basin at the south corner of the parking area. The parking area will be accessed by a proposed driveway from Costa Del Mar Road. The driveway covers 1,698 square feet (sf) and flows onto Costa Del Mar Road. In order to account for the driveway runoff, the biofiltration basin will treat an equivalent tributary area from an existing parking lot just northwest of the proposed parking area. The biofiltration basin was sized using the attached San Diego Hydrology Model software. The results indicate the basin surface area needs to cover 1,802 sf. The plans provide 2,636 sf. The easterly parking area runoff will be treated by a biofiltration basin along its westerly edge. There are small sliver areas at the northwesterly and southwesterly ends of the parking area that flow west away from the biofiltration basin due to the existing terrain. These perimeter areas are less than 250 square feet each (159 sf at the northwest and 99 sf at the southwest) and overall less than 2 percent of the total added impervious surfaces, so are de minimis. The biofiltration basin treats a smaller area than the westerly parking area, so the BMP Sizing Spreadsheet was used. The results indicate the basin surface area needs to cover 1,616 sf. The plans provide 1,865 sf. The driving range expansion will be self-mitigating so is not subject to hydromodification. The only proposed impervious areas associated with the driving range expansion are the concrete golf cart paths along the northerly and easterly perimeters. These meet the BMP Design Manual’s (Section 5.2.1 and 6.1) self-mitigating requirements, so are exempt from hydromodification management. The following outlines the self-mitigating criteria and how each criteria is met. All criteria must be met to be considered self-mitigating.  Vegetation in the natural or landscaped area is native and/or non-native/non-invasive drought tolerant species that do not require regular application of fertilizers and pesticides. Per the attached letter from David Smallwood, Director of Agronomy, the golf course renovation area will consist of non-invasive drought tolerant species. These will be non- native. The letter indicates that the vegetation does not require regular application of fertilizers and pesticides.  Soils are undisturbed native topsoil, or disturbed soils that have been amended and aerated to promote water retention characteristics equivalent to undisturbed native topsoil. Per the attached letter, “the soils are undisturbed native topsoil or disturbed soils that have been amended, and are routinely aerated to promote water retention characteristics equivalent to undisturbed native topsoil.”  The incidental impervious areas are less than 5 percent of the self-mitigating area. The proposed impervious golf cart path areas are 4.4 percent of the proposed self-mitigating area.  Impervious area within the self-mitigated area should not be hydraulically connected to other impervious areas unless it is a storm water conveyance system (such as brow ditches). The impervious areas are the concrete cart paths. Storm water sheets flows off the cart paths to adjacent landscaping and turf areas (i.e., dispersion), so the cart paths are not hydraulically connected to other impervious areas.  The self-mitigating area is hydraulically separate from DMAs that contain permanent storm water pollutant control BMPs. The only DMAs that will contain a permanent storm water BMP are the two proposed parking areas (DMA 1 and 2). These are not near the driving range, so are hydraulically separate. The self-mitigating area is exempt from hydromodification since the following conditions are met:  The self-mitigating area does not contribute runoff to a flow control POC. No flow control POCs exist or are proposed for the driving range expansion. The driving range runoff is conveyed by private storm drain system to a single POC into the adjacent San Marcos Creek. Flow control is not needed for this POC since the tributary area is primarily pervious. The imperviousness level is less than 5 percent of the self-mitigating area, and the impervious surfaces drain towards pervious surfaces upon reaching the storm drain inlets.  The self-mitigating DMA does not concentrate runoff in a new location where runoff is not concentrated in the pre-development condition. Under existing and proposed conditions, storm runoff from the project area is directed to the single POC into San Marcos Creek. The project does not alter the existing POC nor create new POCs.  The self-mitigating DMA does not increase the total area draining to the same discharge point compared to the pre-development condition. The project is maintaining the drainage area tributary to the single POC. SDHM 3.1 PROJECT REPORT LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:LaCosta Site Name:Omni La Costa GC Site Address:2100 Costa Del Mar Rd City:Carlsbad Report Date:6/6/2023 Gage:ENCINITA Data Start:10/01/1963 Data End:09/30/2004 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2021/06/28 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D,Dirt,Flat 1.61 Pervious Total 1.61 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 1.61 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D,Urban,Flat 0.12 Pervious Total 0.12 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1.49 Impervious Total 1.49 Basin Total 1.61 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Surface Biofilter 1 Surface Biofilter 1 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 6 Mitigated Routing Biofilter 1 Bottom Length: 51.34 ft. Bottom Width: 51.34 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: ESM Material thickness of second layer: 0.5 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 1 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet):0.5 Orifice Diameter (in.):1 Offset (in.):3 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.):37.54 Total Outflow (ac-ft.):38.948 Percent Through Underdrain:96.39 Discharge Structure Riser Height:1.67 ft. Riser Diameter:45.84 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.1104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0623 0.1102 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.1246 0.1090 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.1869 0.1078 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.2492 0.1067 0.0023 0.0000 0.0000 0.3115 0.1055 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 0.3738 0.1043 0.0035 0.0000 0.0000 0.4362 0.1032 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 0.4985 0.1020 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 0.5608 0.1009 0.0054 0.0000 0.0000 0.6231 0.0998 0.0061 0.0000 0.0000 0.6854 0.0986 0.0067 0.0000 0.0000 0.7477 0.0975 0.0074 0.0000 0.0000 0.8100 0.0964 0.0081 0.0000 0.0000 0.8723 0.0953 0.0088 0.0000 0.0000 0.9346 0.0942 0.0094 0.0000 0.0000 0.9969 0.0931 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 1.0592 0.0920 0.0109 0.0000 0.0000 1.1215 0.0909 0.0116 0.0000 0.0000 1.1838 0.0898 0.0123 0.0000 0.0000 1.2462 0.0888 0.0130 0.0000 0.0000 1.3085 0.0877 0.0138 0.0022 0.0000 1.3708 0.0866 0.0145 0.0032 0.0000 1.4331 0.0856 0.0153 0.0049 0.0000 1.4954 0.0845 0.0161 0.0057 0.0000 1.5577 0.0835 0.0172 0.0069 0.0000 1.6200 0.0825 0.0183 0.0075 0.0000 1.6823 0.0814 0.0194 0.0084 0.0000 1.7446 0.0804 0.0205 0.0089 0.0000 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 7 1.8069 0.0794 0.0217 0.0098 0.0000 1.8692 0.0784 0.0228 0.0102 0.0000 1.9315 0.0774 0.0240 0.0109 0.0000 1.9938 0.0764 0.0252 0.0113 0.0000 2.0562 0.0754 0.0264 0.0119 0.0000 2.1185 0.0744 0.0276 0.0119 0.0000 2.1808 0.0735 0.0288 0.0119 0.0000 2.2431 0.0725 0.0300 0.0119 0.0000 2.3054 0.0715 0.0313 0.0119 0.0000 2.3677 0.0706 0.0325 0.0119 0.0000 2.4300 0.0696 0.0338 0.0119 0.0000 2.4923 0.0687 0.0351 0.0122 0.0000 2.5546 0.0678 0.0364 0.0132 0.0000 2.6169 0.0668 0.0378 0.0144 0.0000 2.6792 0.0659 0.0391 0.0158 0.0000 2.7415 0.0650 0.0405 0.0171 0.0000 2.8038 0.0641 0.0418 0.0184 0.0000 2.8662 0.0632 0.0432 0.0196 0.0000 2.9285 0.0623 0.0446 0.0208 0.0000 2.9908 0.0614 0.0460 0.0219 0.0000 3.0000 0.0605 0.0463 0.0447 0.0000 Biofilter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 3.0000 0.1104 0.0463 0.0000 0.3051 0.0000 3.0623 0.1116 0.0532 0.0000 0.3051 0.0000 3.1246 0.1128 0.0602 0.0000 0.3304 0.0000 3.1869 0.1140 0.0672 0.0000 0.3431 0.0000 3.2492 0.1152 0.0744 0.0000 0.3558 0.0000 3.3115 0.1164 0.0816 0.0000 0.3684 0.0000 3.3738 0.1176 0.0889 0.0000 0.3811 0.0000 3.4362 0.1189 0.0962 0.0000 0.3938 0.0000 3.4985 0.1201 0.1037 0.0000 0.4064 0.0000 3.5608 0.1213 0.1112 0.0000 0.4191 0.0000 3.6231 0.1226 0.1188 0.0000 0.4318 0.0000 3.6854 0.1239 0.1265 0.0000 0.4445 0.0000 3.7477 0.1251 0.1342 0.0000 0.4571 0.0000 3.8100 0.1264 0.1421 0.0000 0.4698 0.0000 3.8723 0.1277 0.1500 0.0000 0.4825 0.0000 3.9346 0.1290 0.1580 0.0000 0.4952 0.0000 3.9969 0.1302 0.1661 0.0000 0.5078 0.0000 4.0592 0.1315 0.1742 0.0000 0.5205 0.0000 4.1215 0.1328 0.1824 0.0000 0.5332 0.0000 4.1838 0.1341 0.1908 0.0000 0.5458 0.0000 4.2462 0.1355 0.1992 0.0000 0.5585 0.0000 4.3085 0.1368 0.2076 0.0000 0.5712 0.0000 4.3708 0.1381 0.2162 0.0000 0.5839 0.0000 4.4331 0.1394 0.2249 0.0000 0.5965 0.0000 4.4954 0.1408 0.2336 0.0000 0.6092 0.0000 4.5577 0.1421 0.2424 0.0000 0.6219 0.0000 4.6200 0.1435 0.2513 0.0000 0.6345 0.0000 4.6823 0.1449 0.2603 0.0554 0.6472 0.0000 4.7446 0.1462 0.2694 0.8261 0.6599 0.0000 4.8069 0.1476 0.2785 2.0523 0.6726 0.0000 4.8692 0.1490 0.2877 3.5996 0.6852 0.0000 4.9315 0.1504 0.2971 5.4085 0.6979 0.0000 4.9938 0.1517 0.3065 7.4405 0.7106 0.0000 5.0562 0.1531 0.3160 9.6661 0.7232 0.0000 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 8 5.1185 0.1546 0.3256 12.059 0.7359 0.0000 5.1808 0.1560 0.3352 14.596 0.7486 0.0000 5.2431 0.1574 0.3450 17.252 0.7613 0.0000 5.3054 0.1588 0.3549 20.005 0.7739 0.0000 5.3677 0.1602 0.3648 22.830 0.7866 0.0000 5.4300 0.1617 0.3748 25.702 0.7993 0.0000 5.4923 0.1631 0.3849 28.597 0.8120 0.0000 5.5546 0.1646 0.3951 31.491 0.8246 0.0000 5.6169 0.1660 0.4054 34.357 0.8373 0.0000 5.6700 0.1673 0.4143 37.172 0.8481 0.0000 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 9 Surface Biofilter 1 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter 1 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:32 PM Page 10 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:1.61 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.12 Total Impervious Area:1.49 Flow Frequency Method:Cunnane Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.341551 5 year 0.503335 10 year 0.595019 25 year 0.802952 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.030148 5 year 0.324988 10 year 0.472048 25 year 0.709456 0.60 I Cumulative Probability I 'i 0.45 ... E, ~ 0.31 0 J 11 0.17 0.03 lOC-4 lOC-3 l0E-2 lOE-1 10 100 F>eroer-.t Time E.x.ceceding 0.001 +----------------------------+ 0.001 0.5 1 2 10 20 30 50 70 SO 90 " 98 9999.5 1 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:36 PM Page 11 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0342 378 185 48 Pass 0.0398 342 172 50 Pass 0.0455 314 152 48 Pass 0.0512 293 141 48 Pass 0.0568 276 132 47 Pass 0.0625 255 116 45 Pass 0.0681 238 103 43 Pass 0.0738 225 92 40 Pass 0.0795 214 80 37 Pass 0.0851 203 73 35 Pass 0.0908 193 71 36 Pass 0.0965 179 65 36 Pass 0.1021 168 62 36 Pass 0.1078 162 59 36 Pass 0.1135 154 55 35 Pass 0.1191 147 54 36 Pass 0.1248 142 52 36 Pass 0.1305 137 50 36 Pass 0.1361 132 49 37 Pass 0.1418 130 46 35 Pass 0.1475 128 44 34 Pass 0.1531 124 42 33 Pass 0.1588 119 42 35 Pass 0.1645 112 39 34 Pass 0.1701 104 39 37 Pass 0.1758 102 35 34 Pass 0.1815 100 33 33 Pass 0.1871 93 33 35 Pass 0.1928 89 32 35 Pass 0.1984 83 31 37 Pass 0.2041 80 30 37 Pass 0.2098 79 29 36 Pass 0.2154 73 29 39 Pass 0.2211 70 27 38 Pass 0.2268 70 26 37 Pass 0.2324 66 26 39 Pass 0.2381 64 25 39 Pass 0.2438 63 24 38 Pass 0.2494 60 24 40 Pass 0.2551 55 22 40 Pass 0.2608 53 21 39 Pass 0.2664 52 20 38 Pass 0.2721 50 19 38 Pass 0.2778 49 19 38 Pass 0.2834 48 18 37 Pass 0.2891 46 18 39 Pass 0.2948 43 18 41 Pass 0.3004 41 17 41 Pass 0.3061 39 17 43 Pass 0.3118 37 16 43 Pass 0.3174 37 15 40 Pass 0.3231 37 12 32 Pass 0.3288 35 11 31 Pass LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:36 PM Page 12 0.3344 35 11 31 Pass 0.3401 34 11 32 Pass 0.3457 33 9 27 Pass 0.3514 31 9 29 Pass 0.3571 30 9 30 Pass 0.3627 29 9 31 Pass 0.3684 27 9 33 Pass 0.3741 26 8 30 Pass 0.3797 26 8 30 Pass 0.3854 25 8 32 Pass 0.3911 25 8 32 Pass 0.3967 24 8 33 Pass 0.4024 23 7 30 Pass 0.4081 22 7 31 Pass 0.4137 21 7 33 Pass 0.4194 21 7 33 Pass 0.4251 21 7 33 Pass 0.4307 21 7 33 Pass 0.4364 20 6 30 Pass 0.4421 19 6 31 Pass 0.4477 19 5 26 Pass 0.4534 17 5 29 Pass 0.4591 15 5 33 Pass 0.4647 15 5 33 Pass 0.4704 14 5 35 Pass 0.4760 13 5 38 Pass 0.4817 13 5 38 Pass 0.4874 11 4 36 Pass 0.4930 11 4 36 Pass 0.4987 11 4 36 Pass 0.5044 11 4 36 Pass 0.5100 11 3 27 Pass 0.5157 11 3 27 Pass 0.5214 10 3 30 Pass 0.5270 9 3 33 Pass 0.5327 9 3 33 Pass 0.5384 8 3 37 Pass 0.5440 7 3 42 Pass 0.5497 7 3 42 Pass 0.5554 5 3 60 Pass 0.5610 5 3 60 Pass 0.5667 5 3 60 Pass 0.5724 5 3 60 Pass 0.5780 5 3 60 Pass 0.5837 4 3 75 Pass 0.5894 4 3 75 Pass 0.5950 4 3 75 Pass LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:36 PM Page 13 Water Quality LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:36 PM Page 14 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:36 PM Page 15 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 16 Mitigated Schematic ~-. ~:1 Basin 1 ~1.61ac C r,. I ' !) I, 1 Biofilter 1 _u F ~ 1AI 1 ~-.... - LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 17 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1963 10 01 END 2004 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 LaCosta.wdm MESSU 25 PreLaCosta.MES 27 PreLaCosta.L61 28 PreLaCosta.L62 30 POCLaCosta1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 31 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 31 D,Dirt,Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 31 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 31 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 18 PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 31 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 31 0 2.8 0.025 100 0.05 2.5 0.915 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 31 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.05 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 31 0 0.6 0.017 1 0.3 0 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 31 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 END MON-LZETPARM MON-INTERCEP <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 31 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 END MON-INTERCEP PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 31 0 0 0.01 0 0.4 0.01 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 19 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 31 1.61 COPY 501 12 PERLND 31 1.61 COPY 501 13 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 20 SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 END MASS-LINK END RUN LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 21 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1963 10 01 END 2004 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 LaCosta.wdm MESSU 25 MitLaCosta.MES 27 MitLaCosta.L61 28 MitLaCosta.L62 30 POCLaCosta1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 46 IMPLND 1 GENER 2 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Surface Biofilter 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** 2 24 END OPCODE PARM # # K *** 2 0. END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 46 D,Urban,Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 46 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 22 PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 46 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 46 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 46 0 3.8 0.03 50 0.05 2.5 0.915 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 46 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.05 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 46 0 0.6 0.03 1 0.3 0 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 46 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 END MON-LZETPARM MON-INTERCEP <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 46 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 END MON-INTERCEP PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 46 0 0 0.15 0 1 0.05 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 23 IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 1 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 100 0.05 0.011 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 46 0.12 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 46 0.12 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 1.49 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 46 0.12 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 1.49 COPY 1 15 PERLND 46 0.12 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 8 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 16 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 17 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 GENER 2 OUTPUT TIMSER .0002778 RCHRES 1 EXTNL OUTDGT 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Surface Biofilte-004 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 Biofilter 1 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 24 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS *** User-Defined Variable Quantity Lines *** addr *** <------> *** kwd varnam optyp opn vari s1 s2 s3 tp multiply lc ls ac as agfn *** <****> <----> <----> <-> <----><-><-><-><-><--------> <><-> <><-> <--> *** UVQUAN vol2 RCHRES 2 VOL 4 UVQUAN v2m2 GLOBAL WORKSP 1 3 UVQUAN vpo2 GLOBAL WORKSP 2 3 UVQUAN v2d2 GENER 2 K 1 3 *** User-Defined Target Variable Names *** addr or addr or *** <------> <------> *** kwd varnam ct vari s1 s2 s3 frac oper vari s1 s2 s3 frac oper <****> <----><-> <----><-><-><-> <---> <--> <----><-><-><-> <---> <--> UVNAME v2m2 1 WORKSP 1 1.0 QUAN UVNAME vpo2 1 WORKSP 2 1.0 QUAN UVNAME v2d2 1 K 1 1.0 QUAN *** opt foplop dcdts yr mo dy hr mn d t vnam s1 s2 s3 ac quantity tc ts rp <****><-><--><><-><--> <> <> <> <><><> <----><-><-><-><-><--------> <> <-><-> GENER 2 v2m2 = 2175.59 *** Compute remaining available pore space GENER 2 vpo2 = v2m2 GENER 2 vpo2 -= vol2 *** Check to see if VPORA goes negative; if so set VPORA = 0.0 IF (vpo2 < 0.0) THEN GENER 2 vpo2 = 0.0 END IF *** Infiltration volume GENER 2 v2d2 = vpo2 END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 2 50 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 25 0.000000 0.110377 0.000000 0.000000 0.062308 0.110201 0.000570 0.000000 0.124615 0.109015 0.001148 0.000000 0.186923 0.107835 0.001734 0.000000 0.249231 0.106662 0.002329 0.000000 0.311538 0.105495 0.002932 0.000000 0.373846 0.104335 0.003544 0.000000 0.436154 0.103181 0.004164 0.000000 0.498462 0.102034 0.004793 0.000000 0.560769 0.100892 0.005431 0.000000 0.623077 0.099758 0.006077 0.000000 0.685385 0.098629 0.006732 0.000000 0.747692 0.097508 0.007397 0.000000 0.810000 0.096392 0.008070 0.000000 0.872308 0.095283 0.008752 0.000000 0.934615 0.094180 0.009443 0.000000 0.996923 0.093084 0.010144 0.000000 1.059231 0.091994 0.010853 0.000000 1.121538 0.090911 0.011572 0.000000 1.183846 0.089834 0.012300 0.000000 1.246154 0.088764 0.013038 0.000000 1.308462 0.087700 0.013785 0.002161 1.370769 0.086642 0.014541 0.003242 1.433077 0.085591 0.015307 0.004862 1.495385 0.084546 0.016083 0.005672 1.557692 0.083507 0.017169 0.006877 1.620000 0.082475 0.018269 0.007480 1.682308 0.081450 0.019383 0.008447 1.744615 0.080430 0.020510 0.008930 1.806923 0.079418 0.021650 0.009754 1.869231 0.078411 0.022805 0.010166 1.931538 0.077411 0.023973 0.010896 1.993846 0.076418 0.025156 0.011261 2.056154 0.075431 0.026352 0.011924 2.118462 0.074450 0.027563 0.011924 2.180769 0.073476 0.028787 0.011924 2.243077 0.072508 0.030027 0.011924 2.305385 0.071546 0.031280 0.011924 2.367692 0.070591 0.032548 0.011924 2.430000 0.069643 0.033830 0.011924 2.492308 0.068701 0.035127 0.012164 2.554615 0.067765 0.036439 0.013159 2.616923 0.066835 0.037766 0.014435 2.679231 0.065912 0.039107 0.015782 2.741538 0.064996 0.040464 0.017110 2.803846 0.064086 0.041835 0.018386 2.866154 0.063182 0.043222 0.019603 2.928462 0.062285 0.044624 0.020764 2.990769 0.061394 0.046041 0.021895 3.000000 0.060510 0.049945 0.044682 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 1 44 5 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.060510 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.062308 0.111571 0.006915 0.000000 0.305069 0.124615 0.112771 0.013904 0.000000 0.330413 0.186923 0.113977 0.020968 0.000000 0.343085 0.249231 0.115189 0.028107 0.000000 0.355758 0.311538 0.116409 0.035322 0.000000 0.368430 0.373846 0.117634 0.042614 0.000000 0.381102 0.436154 0.118866 0.049981 0.000000 0.393774 0.498462 0.120104 0.057426 0.000000 0.406446 0.560769 0.121349 0.064948 0.000000 0.419118 0.623077 0.122600 0.072548 0.000000 0.431790 0.685385 0.123858 0.080227 0.000000 0.444462 0.747692 0.125122 0.087983 0.000000 0.457134 0.810000 0.126392 0.095819 0.000000 0.469807 0.872308 0.127669 0.103734 0.000000 0.482479 LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 26 0.934615 0.128952 0.111729 0.000000 0.495151 0.996923 0.130242 0.119803 0.000000 0.507823 1.059231 0.131538 0.127959 0.000000 0.520495 1.121538 0.132840 0.136195 0.000000 0.533167 1.183846 0.134149 0.144513 0.000000 0.545839 1.246154 0.135465 0.152913 0.000000 0.558511 1.308462 0.136786 0.161394 0.000000 0.571183 1.370769 0.138115 0.169958 0.000000 0.583855 1.433077 0.139449 0.178606 0.000000 0.596528 1.495385 0.140790 0.187336 0.000000 0.609200 1.557692 0.142138 0.196150 0.000000 0.621872 1.620000 0.143491 0.205049 0.000000 0.634544 1.682308 0.144852 0.214032 0.055392 0.647216 1.744615 0.146218 0.223100 0.826146 0.659888 1.806923 0.147591 0.232253 2.052325 0.672560 1.869231 0.148971 0.241492 3.599585 0.685232 1.931538 0.150357 0.250817 5.408469 0.697904 1.993846 0.151749 0.260229 7.440543 0.710577 2.056154 0.153148 0.269728 9.666054 0.723249 2.118462 0.154553 0.279314 12.05917 0.735921 2.180769 0.155965 0.288988 14.59576 0.748593 2.243077 0.157383 0.298750 17.25220 0.761265 2.305385 0.158807 0.308600 20.00481 0.773937 2.367692 0.160238 0.318540 22.82956 0.786609 2.430000 0.161675 0.328569 25.70200 0.799281 2.492308 0.163119 0.338687 28.59736 0.811953 2.554615 0.164569 0.348896 31.49067 0.824625 2.616923 0.166025 0.359195 34.35706 0.837298 2.670000 0.167271 0.368040 37.17208 0.848092 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 22 IRRG ENGL 0.7 SAME PERLND 46 EXTNL SURLI WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 1 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.7 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1001 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1002 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1003 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 27 END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 8 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 8 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 MASS-LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 17 END MASS-LINK END RUN LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 28 Predeveloped HSPF Message File LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 29 Mitigated HSPF Message File LaCosta 6/6/2023 4:49:37 PM Page 30 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2023; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Project Name: Hydrologic Unit: Project Applicant: Rain Gauge: Jurisdiction: Total Project Area: Parcel (APN): Low Flow Threshold: BMP Name: BMP Type: BMP Native Soil Type:BMP Infiltration Rate (in/hr): HMP Sizing Factors Minimum BMP Size DMA Name Area (sf) Pre Project Soil Type Pre-Project Slope Post Project Surface Type Area Weighted Runoff Factor (Table G.2-1)1 Surface Area Surface Area (SF) Asphalt Pavement 22,544 D Flat Concrete 1.0 0.07 1578 Landscaping 5,208 D Flat Landscape 0.1 0.07 36 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 BMP Tributary Area 27,752 Minimum BMP Size 1615 Proposed BMP Size*1865 * Assumes standard configuration 12.00 in 18.00 in 6.00 in 12 in 3.0 in 3.5 Notes: 1. Runoff factors which are used for hydromodification management flow control (Table G.2-1) are different from the runoff factors used for pollutant control BMP sizing (Table B.1-1). Table references are taken from the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manu City of Carlsbad 75,133 BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.1 Omni La Costa Champions Course Carlsbad LC Investment 2010, LLC Oceanside Underdrain Offset 216-590-18 0.1Q2 Biofiltration Basin 2 (East)Biofiltration D 0.025 Areas Draining to BMP Surface Ponding Depth Bioretention Soil Media Depth Filter Coarse Gravel Storage Layer Depth Describe the BMP's in sufficient detail in your PDP SWQMP to demonstrate the area, volume, and other criteria can be met within the constraints of the site. BMP's must be adapted and applied to the conditions specific to the development project such as unstable slopes or the lack of available head. Designated Staff have final review and approval authority over the project design. This BMP Sizing Spreadsheet has been updated in conformance with the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual, May 2018. For questions or concerns please contact the jurisdiction in which your project is located. Project Name: Hydrologic Unit: Project Applicant: Rain Gauge: Jurisdiction: Total Project Area: Parcel (APN): Low Flow Threshold: BMP Name BMP Type: Rain Gauge Unit Runoff Ratio DMA Area (ac)Orifice Flow - %Q2 Orifice Area Soil Type Slope (cfs/ac) (cfs) (in2) Asphalt Pavement Oceanside D Flat 0.571 0.518 0.030 0.42 Landscaping Oceanside D Flat 0.571 0.120 0.007 0.10 3.75 0.036 0.52 0.81 Max Orifice Head Max Tot. Allowable Orifice Flow Max Tot. Allowable Orifice Area Max Orifice Diameter (feet) (cfs)(in2)(in) 0.034 0.036 0.52 0.810 Average outflow during surface drawdown Max Orifice Outflow Actual Orifice Area Selected Orifice Diameter (cfs) (cfs)(in2)(in) Drawdown (Hrs) 15.4 City of Carlsbad 75,133 BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.1 Omni La Costa Champions Course Carlsbad LC Investment 2010, LLC Oceanside 216-590-18 0.1Q2 Biofiltration Basin 2 (East) Biofiltration DMA Name Pre-developed Condition No Orifice Required for Infiltration Facilities Drawdown time exceeds 96 Hrs. Project must implement a vector control program. 0 5 10 Miles EXPLANATION -Precipitation Contours Lake Wohlford Basin Lindbergh Basin Oceanside Basin Brown AND Caldwell 18 ___Ju~__L.-__._.- RAINF ALL BASIN MAP SAN DIEGO HMP 0.1Q2 C Steep 6 Oceanside 0.07 0.1Q2 D Flat 3 Oceanside 0.07 0.1Q2 D Moderate 3 Oceanside 0.07 0.1Q2 D Steep 3 Oceanside 0.07 0.1Q2 A Flat 18 Lake Wohlford 0.11 0.1Q2 A Moderate 18 Lake Wohlford 0.11 0.1Q2 A Steep 18 Lake Wohlford 0.105 0.1Q2 B Flat 18 Lake Wohlford 0.09 0.1Q2 B Moderate 18 Lake Wohlford 0.085 0.1Q2 B Steep 18 Lake Wohlford 0.085 0.1Q2 C Flat 6 Lake Wohlford 0.065 0.1Q2 C Moderate 6 Lake Wohlford 0.065 0.1Q2 C Steep 6 Lake Wohlford 0.065 0.1Q2 D Flat 3 Lake Wohlford 0.06 0.1Q2 D Moderate 3 Lake Wohlford 0.06 0.1Q2 D Steep 3 Lake Wohlford 0.06 Lower Flow Threshold Soil Group Slope Rain Gauge A 0.1Q2 A Flat Lindbergh 0.32 0.1Q2 A Moderate Lindbergh 0.3 0.1Q2 A Steep Lindbergh 0.285 0.1Q2 B Flat Lindbergh 0.105 0.1Q2 B Moderate Lindbergh 0.1 0.1Q2 B Steep Lindbergh 0.095 0.1Q2 C Flat Lindbergh 0.055 0.1Q2 C Moderate Lindbergh 0.05 0.1Q2 C Steep Lindbergh 0.05 0.1Q2 D Flat Lindbergh 0.05 0.1Q2 D Moderate Lindbergh 0.05 0.1Q2 D Steep Lindbergh 0.05 0.1Q2 A Flat Oceanside 0.15 Table G.2-5: Sizing Factors for Hydromodification Flow Control Biofiltration BMPs Designed Using Sizing Factor Method 0.1Q2 A Moderate Oceanside 0.14 0.1Q2 A Steep Oceanside 0.135 0.1Q2 B Flat Oceanside 0.085 0.1Q2 B Moderate Oceanside 0.085 0.1Q2 B Steep Oceanside 0.085 0.1Q2 C Flat Oceanside 0.075 0.1Q2 C Moderate Oceanside 0.075 0.1Q2 C Steep Oceanside 0.075 0.1Q2 D Flat Oceanside 0.07 0.1Q2 D Moderate Oceanside 0.07 0.1Q2 D Steep Oceanside 0.07 0.1Q2 A Flat Lake Wohlford 0.285 0.1Q2 A Moderate Lake Wohlford 0.275 0.1Q2 A Steep Lake Wohlford 0.27 0.1Q2 B Flat Lake Wohlford 0.15 0.1Q2 B Moderate Lake Wohlford 0.145 0.1Q2 B Steep Lake Wohlford 0.145 0.1Q2 C Flat Lake Wohlford 0.07 0.1Q2 C Moderate Lake Wohlford 0.07 0.1Q2 C Steep Lake Wohlford 0.07 0.1Q2 D Flat Lake Wohlford 0.06 0.1Q2 D Moderate Lake Wohlford 0.06 0.1Q2 D Steep Lake Wohlford 0.06 Lower Flow Threshold Soil Group Slope Rain Gauge V 0.1Q2 A Flat Lindbergh 0.54 0.1Q2 A Moderate Lindbergh 0.51 0.1Q2 A Steep Lindbergh 0.49 0.1Q2 B Flat Lindbergh 0.19 0.1Q2 B Moderate Lindbergh 0.18 0.1Q2 B Steep Lindbergh 0.18 Table G.2-6: Sizing Factors for Hydromodification Flow Control Cistern Facilities Designed Using Sizing Factor Method Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing Factors G-34 Sept. 2021 Figure G.2-2: Rainfall Basin Map Table G.2-1: Runoff factors for surfaces draining to BMPs for Hydromodification Sizing Factors Method Surface Runoff Factor Roofs 1.0 Concrete 1.0 Pervious Concrete 0.10 Porous Asphalt 0.10 Grouted Unit Pavers 1.0 Solid Unit Pavers on granular base, min. 3/16 inch joint space 0.20 Crushed Aggregate 0.10 Turf block 0.10 Amended, mulched soils 0.10 Landscape 0.10 i I . i I . t .. ~ l EXP • LANATION I -Precipitlbon Contours t -Lake WoMord Basin I Lindbergh Bas11 I Oceanstde Basm , •.. I . • f • • . Chapter 5: Storm Water Pollutant Control Requirements for PDPs 5-2 Sept. 2021 Step 2. Determine Retention Requirements Appendix B.2 A. Determine if capture and use analysis is required per Appendix B.2.1 B. Evaluate infiltration restrictions per Appendix B.2.2 C. Determine design infiltration rate per Appendix B.2.3 D. Determine retention requirements per Appendix B.2.4 Step 3. Determine BMP Performance per Appendix B. A. Identify proposed BMP characteristics per Appendix B.3.1. B. Calculate retention processes per Appendix B.3.2 C. Calculate biofiltration processes per Appendix B.3.3 D. Satisfaction of pollutant control requirements per Appendix B.3.4 E. Satisfaction of minimum retention requirements per Appendix B.3.5 Prepare a SWQMP documenting site planning and opportunity assessment activities, final site layout, storm water management design and O&M requirement. See Chapters 7 and Chapter 8. Step 4. Execute Permanent Storm Water Quality BMP Maintenance Agreement (city will provide). See Chapters 7 and Chapter 8. 5.2 DMAs Excluded from DCV Calculation This manual provides project applicants the option to exclude DMAs from DCV calculations if they meet the criteria specified below. These DMAs must implement source control and site design BMPs from Chapter 4 as applicable and feasible. These exclusions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and approvals of these exclusions are at the discretion of the City Engineer. 5.2.1 Self-mitigating DMAs Self-mitigating DMAs consist of natural or landscaped areas that drain directly offsite or to the public storm drain system. Self-mitigating DMAs must meet ALL the following characteristics to be eligible for exclusion: • Vegetation in the natural or landscaped area is native and/or non-native/non-invasive drought tolerant species that do not require regular application of fertilizers and pesticides. • Soils are undisturbed native topsoil, or disturbed soils that have been amended and aerated to promote water retention characteristics equivalent to undisturbed native topsoil. • The incidental impervious areas are less than 5 percent of the self-mitigating area. • Impervious area within the self-mitigated area should not be hydraulically connected to other impervious areas unless it is a storm water conveyance system (such as brow ditches). • The self-mitigating area is hydraulically separate from DMAs that contain permanent storm water pollutant control BMPs. Figure 5.3 illustrates the concept of self-mitigating DMAs. Chapter 5: Storm Water Pollutant Control Requirements for PDPs 5-2 Sept. 2021 FIGURE 5-1. Self Mitigating Area 5.2.2 De Minimis DMAs De minimis DMAs consist of areas that are very small, and therefore are not considered to be significant contributors of pollutants, and are considered by the owner and the City Engineer not practicable to drain to a BMP. It is anticipated that only a small subset of projects will qualify for de minimis DMA exclusion. Examples include driveway aprons connecting to existing streets, portions of sidewalks, retaining walls at the external boundaries of a project, and similar features. De minimis DMAs must include ALL of the following characteristics to be eligible for exclusion: • Areas abut the perimeter of the development site. • Topography and land ownership constraints make BMP construction to reasonably capture runoff technically infeasible. • The portion of the site falling into this category is minimized through effective site design • Each DMA should be less than 250 square feet and the sum of all de minimis DMAs should represent less than 2 percent of the total added or replaced impervious surface of the project. Except for projects where 2 percent of the total added or replaced impervious surface of the project is less than 250 square feet, a de minimis DMA of 250 square feet or less is allowed. • Multiple de minimis DMAs cannot be adjacent to each other and hydraulically connected. • The SWQMP must document the reason that each de minimis area could not be addressed otherwise. 5.2.3 Self-retaining DMAs via Qualifying Site Design BMPs Self-retaining DMAs are areas that are designed with site design BMPs to retain runoff to a level determined to constitute full retention of, at a minimum, the entire DCV. Figure 5-2 illustrates the concept of self-retaining DMAs. To satisfy pollutant control requirements only, self-retaining means retention of the entire DCV. Proposed project Project Boundary 1 Street 1 I Self Mitigating Area Direction of Flow BMP Infiltration To: City of Carlsbad Eng111eering Department 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 From: Omni La Costa Resort & Spa 2100 Costa Del Mar Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 David Smallwood Director of Agronomy RE: Omni-La Costa Campions Course To whom it may concern: This letter is to certify that the vegetation in the landscaped areas, including grass areas, of the golf course are non-invasive drought tolerant species that do not require regular application of fertilizers and pesticides, and that the soils are undisturbed native topsoil or disturbed soils that have been amended, and are routinely aerated to promote water retention characteristics equivalent to undisturbed native topsoil. David Smallwood Director of Argonomy 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: X 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) X How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance X 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) X Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable X 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.) X Recommended equipment to perform maintenance When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE The project proposes two biofiltration basins as its structural pollutant control BMP for the proposed parking areas. The biofiltration basins will contain an overflow outlet with trash capture device (or other approved outlet) to convey the flow rates in excess of the water quality flows. Biofiltration basins are shallow, vegetated basins underlain by an engineered soil media and gravel. Healthy plant and biological activity in the root zone maintain and renew the macro‐pore space in the soil and maximize plant uptake of pollutants and runoff. This keeps the BMP from becoming clogged and allows more of the soil column to function as both a sponge (retaining water) and a highly effective and self‐maintaining biofilter. The landscape maintenance staff shall visually inspect each basin during routine weekly landscaping maintenance visits. Access will be from the adjacent parking areas. The vegetation shall be replanted, trimmed, pruned, and removed manually, as needed, to maintain proper coverage and growth. The irrigation system shall be maintained, as needed. The drainage overflow from the basin and interconnecting pipe as well as the Bio Clean trash capture BMPs (BIO- GRATE-FULL-36-36-24) shall be inspected monthly and after large storm events. The grates on the overflow risers shall be removed to facilitate inspections. Debris, sediment, and other obstructions shall be removed immediately from each basin, its outlet, its trash capture BMP, and the interconnecting pipe. Bio Clean indicates that the trash capture filters can accessed from the surface without entering the catch basin, and even lifted out by hand for routine maintenance and inspections. The infiltration rate shall be reviewed during storm events and the underlying soil/gravel shall be replaced as needed to maintain the required drawdown time. The removal can be performed with manual tools or a small bobcat type excavator. Trash capture BMPs will be installed in the driving range catch basins. These BMPs contain stainless steel, non-clogging screens that capture trash and debris. The landscape maintenance staff shall visually inspect each BMP monthly during landscaping maintenance visits as well as after large storm events. Access will be from the surrounding driving range. As mentioned above, Bio Clean indicates that the filters can accessed from the surface without entering the catch basin, and even lifted out by hand for routine maintenance and inspections. Any accumulated trash and debris shall be removed, then disposed of properly. Damaged devices shall be repaired or replaced, if needed. ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊◊ ◊ POC B POC C POC A (ALONG CREEK) DMA 2 DMA 1 DMA 3 I / I i I ~- I ' l ' I I I I I I =R-::insFr. A:-: • -1 I I I I • ♦ \ ' 1IHfl 0 '--- GRAPHIC SCALE 200 0 100 200 400 ~L-I l~I I 1 INCH -200 FEET r----.::: OMA 1, 2, & 3 -OVERALL SITE BMP ID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. TREATMENT CONTROL SCALE: 1' = 200' ~ ... ;;, - PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME OMNI LA COSTA RESORT & SPA ADDRESS 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CONTACT DAVID SMALLWOOD CARLSBAD, CA 92009 PHONE NO. (760) 931-7525 BMP TABLE QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL 0 BIOFILTRATION c-) TC-32 BASIN 2,636 SF TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY 0 BIOFILTRATION c-) TC-32 BASIN 1,865 SF TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY TRASH CAPTURE BMPs 0 BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 30 EA TBD 5 QUARTERLY QUARTERLY -FULL-12-12-12 0 BIO CLEAN BIO-GRATE • TC-50 1 EA TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY QUARTERLY -FULL-36-36-24 ® BIO CLEAN BI0-GRA TE • TC-50 1 EA TBD 2,5 QUARTERLY QUARTERLY -FULL-36-36-24 * OR AFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTS I I 0 I I I I I I I 1• I / 'v I \ \ '-'-' D l'l\_l'LSL_: re DI <E PE, 1 ,~Rs~ r oc,e: ~~ =R□P□SED -yp[ 'F" TN IT I -1(,'."J II LL _ll-lc' /6 I I I I I \ ' r~□r-s-J -::::rr RA' AT I I I \ JU _l I LJ-J-Dl I LH --- TI-\v'f\0 ;,,RA-\ ~ \ I t - PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME __ W~A~Y~N=E~W~·~CHA=N~Gc._ __ COMPANY CHANG CONSULTANTS ADDRESS P.O. BOX 9496 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 PHONE NO, (858) 692-0760 0 r-::::nr-:=::-1 :rn--1 --::::A BAS=\ SEE D:=::TA=-, SHT. f-::;,-JY [] '' Jh'xJ:=:" rn . IX-ST '.lC RC-' SJ, I ( ,=:=1 :: "L -cJ.~ OMA 1 CERTIFICATION PE 46548, EXP. 6/30/2023 BMP NOTES: 1. THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS, 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 3, NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION NOTES: THE EOW WILL VERIFY THAT PERMANENT BMPS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY THE EOW MUST PROVIDE: 1. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT BMPS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND AT FINAL INSTALLATION. 2. A WET STAMPED LETTER VERIFYING THAT PERMANENT BMPS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATING PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVED PLANS. 3. PHOTOGRAPHS TO VERIFY THAT PERMANENT WATER QUALITY TREATMENT SIGNAGE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF SECURITIES, THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE PERMANENT BMPS HAVE NOT BEEN REMOVED OR MODIFIED BY THE OWNER OR OTHERS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. S' I 11 JM' ----........ _ ---- - I I I ! I -I PREP=sE= 'II" LI C-, P~JPJS=-D P'::i::-'T" Tl'-JI FT Fl =?~.7[ ll,-1 FT Fl -??.4[ Ml LJ- =R1PnSFTI = --:Rl'n::;1n .. u. ::iRJ=□SED A: _:llC I' _Is' sn::;;,sr. r;-n'.:CA) JIT=H -WESTERLY PARKIM SCALE: 1' = 50' BIO CLEAN FULL CAPTURE FILTER FOR USE IN ~ 71= INLETS TrPIIWllr ~ PWl' r 7 IIOIMr II MU ---I :-v•.-.'-··''';/ I 2"FWICE , I ! I I : :\,;i. ' I ,. """"'----• ~-I ' . _.,. . .. , I' . ' , : I I . ' I : -,;:.; i6 \,; ,. • ·,J I I I I f "' .. . > I CATCH I l\·,· ·,:.:; I L a ,.,,. I , -1-1 L -"'"' ----" /NI.CT PLAN VIEW (GRATE NOT SHOWN) ELEVATION VIEW ---""""' . I -• I .. -,. ... \ '---..:_NON.;xor;r;wr; SCREEN I \\ \ ~rKJMf . fflEATUENT I I fl.OW BYPA:.S BOmJ0/"1/EEH MODEL I FLOW """""' 11(£1$ ""-CAP/URf f?AT£ {CFS) -{CFS) FLOW DIAGRAM BJ()-GRAlf-Rl/1_ '·°' 1.24 12-12-12 BJO-GRATE-FU/.1. 1.78 '·" INSTALLATION NOTES: 18-18-12 T. All HA/Wll'AR[, F/..AIIGE, FRAM[. SCR[[NS SHALl BE STA/Ml.£5S STEEL 8/0-GRl,T[-Fl)/j_ 2.70 4.95 24-24-12 2. OPTIONAL H'l[)ROCARBON 800/,J 5H)lL BE 2" DIAAl£J[R. J. SEE PERF:JRl,1/NC= REPORTS HI /JA.VUFACruRfS SPECIFICATIONS. BJO-f,RJ,7[-Fl)/j_ J.10 6.35 4. OTHER STNJDARD AND CUSif,l,f MODfl SIZES AV'Atv.Bf.[ -CONTACT 24-,;()--12 BIO CI.EA/r FOR MORf INfOR/MllON. Bl<rGRATE-FVLl 5. BASEJ) 0/i .Jl% OPfN AR£A. 7.JI 4.95 6. CONS/{)[RS A SAFETY FAC'fOR OF 2.0.. 24-2+-2-4 7. CONSJ{)[R5 A LOOIL DfPf£SS/ON PO,IJDINC DfPTI-! or 6 INCHES. B/0-Cl?Al[-FIJll 8. SrrJRAC[ CAPAc.TY BAS£!) ON THE BASKET HAl.F FUI.L 24-40---24 9.5.J 5,35 9. COUCRITE STRUCruRfS SOi.D SEPARATELY. B:O-GRA7E-Fl'll lf.93 7.14 NOT TO SCA!.£ .Jfi-.Jf/-24 i T I SOLIDS STOIIAG[ CAPAC/rt (CF) G.15 O.JJ 0.59 0.88 1.22 /.82 2.13 P.UJPfi/ITARY AND CON!X'fl/r/,1(: Bio~Clean GRATE INLET FILTER 111£ IIIRVilj(ill:llr Cl1lrulfl) IN 7'IS D«i/JJD,1 JS TM: S'.li FULL CAPTURE ~~~ ,w., m; ro.ll"A\6, l'lfi~/r. 11r!11 ,m i'Nlf /IEi!ll'; Ai!Y IiC /JS@, li'rnillDl.t:W "" IIWlflED STANDARD DETAIL .._ IN JNI' J,W.'IEJI IWl OU. 111£ llllrml lXJNSBO Do'-~ ........... FULL CAPTURE GRATE INLET FILTER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE L • ·. GRAPHIC SCALE 50 0 25 50 100 □,----:.--=-•--1~1 I 1 INCH -50 FEET PERMANENT WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FACILITY KEEP/NG OUR WATERWAYS CLEAN MAINTAIN WITH CARE-NO MODJFJCA TJONS WITHOUT AGENCY APPROVAL DRJ.\INS TO OCEJ.\N f ~ tJ$o7E:PERAIANENT WA TEI? (JIJAUTY TREA 11/ENT FACIUTY SIGNAGE TO BIOF!l TRA TION BASINS ANO NO OIJl,f PING STENCIL {P!PEUNE PROO/JCTS, SAN MARCOS, CA, 800-998-1079) AT CATCH BASINS. flAMGE CONNECTION TO CONCRETE SRALL B£ RTTFO MTH 30 DIJROMElER NEOPRENE RING 6" Pl-t' PERFORA "TED PIPE BMP SIGNAGE NOT TO SCALE SECTION N.1.S. """-OlJTl'All PII'!: PVC END CAP (SCREW-ON) OIJ1Tllll. PIPE DRILL ORtRCE Ha£ AT fW'M..INE (SEE TABl.E FOR SIZE) BIOFIL TRA TlON BASIN ORIFICE NOT TO SCALE 20• -BMP 1 12• -BMP 2 B«Fll. TRA 110N Mf"A llft)lH VA/itB' PER Pl.AN WATER S/JRFACE 18" SANO/COMPOST MEO/A MINIM/JM 5 INCH/HO/JR /NfiLTRAllON RATE TO BE /,ER/F/EO BY GEOTECHNICAl ENGINEER 6" WASHED PEA G'i'A Ill 12• MSHTO NO 57 COARSE AGGREGATE --, --1 ___ rr!h~- -, 10:: '""_.._~(~, ""'-+-+++-H-++++-H--++ l\./ I·~ t:/ I "}\~ 0 ~ ~ rr===u=,-, n ),. ' ZhP-5---1 : -., / I -,,' I ' I OMA 2 -EASTERLY PARKING AREA SCALE: 1' = 50' I \ J6xJ6" INLET, TG ELEVA 110N (INLET) PER PLAN l'lflH 8/0CLEAN Fl/LL CAPll/RE fiL TEI? PER GRADING PLAN SHEET 2 [ El.EVA 110N PER PLAN 4 • HIGH FENCE, PER LS. PLAN PCC OOIIN CI.EANO/JT DRAIN El.EV. PLA NOTE.· \...:_/ )) "lilli=GRA TE-Fl/LL J6-J6-24 TRASH CAPT/JRE DEVICE TO BE INSTALLED IN J6"XJ6" INLET. 6" PERFORA TEO PIPE J6"xJ6" RISER HEIGHT IS 20• FOR l)A(A 1 ANO 12• FOR l)A(A 2 HAS BUIL TH RCE __ _ EXP. ___ _ DATE JO MIL IMPERMEABLE UNER, 0/JllET PER ORIFICE PLATE. SEE PER GEOTECHNICAl REPORT PLAN DETAIL AT RIGHT REVIE',,/ED BY, TYPICAL BIOFIL TRA TlON BASIN NOT TO SCALE REV. 12/2022 INSPECTOR DATE l 1-----+---+--------------i-----i----;-----,------, I SHE1ET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHE1ETS I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ~S:::::IN:::::G:::::L:::::E::::,,:SH:::::E:::::E:::::T~B~M~P~SI~T~E:=P~LAN~~======--===~ OMNI LA COSTA DRIVING RANGE EXPANSION 1---f---+----------------t---i-----t---,-----i 1-AP_P_R_o_VE_D_: -----------___ _ . DA1E DA TE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL REVISION DESCRIPTION OlHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL DWN BY: ---PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO.I CHKD BY: --CUP 2023-0001 RVWD BY: ~----