The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCUP 2018-0023; BUENA VISTA RESERVIOR SITE; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP); 2018-12-01• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR Buena Vista Reservoir Site CT XX I PUD XX I a.JP 2018-0023 I HDP XX I HMP Drawing Number# RECORD COPY D--""'R 6 b~ l ,~ Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 ENGINEER OF WORK: 7 NickPsyhogios, PE I RCE 67697 PREPARED FOR: Schmidt Design Group, Inc. 1310 Rosecrans Street, Suite G San Diego, CA 92106 (619) 236-1462 PREPARED BY: Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering 9968 Hibert Street Second Floor San Diego, CA 92131 (858) 751-0633 DATE: DECEMBER 2018 Initial Date RECEIVED JUN 19 2019 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Certification Page • Project Vicinity Map • Form E-34 Storm Water Standard Questionnaire • Site Information • Form E-36 Standard Project Requirement Checklist • Summary of PDP Structural BMPs • Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs o Attachment la: DMA Exhibit o Attachment 1 b: Tabular Summary ofDMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations o Attachment le: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) o Attachment 1d: Categorization oflnfiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) o Attachment le: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets/ Calculations • Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures • Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions • Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit • Attachment 5: Geotechnical Report for Project Site • Attachment 6: Drainage Report for Project Site Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude Bl PLANNING & ENGINEERING APN ASBS BMP CEQA CGP DCV DMA ESA GLU GW HMP HSG HU INF LID LUP MS4 N/A NPDES NRCS PDP PE POC SC SD SDRWQCB SIC SWPPP SWQMP TMDL WMAA WPCP WQIP ACRONYMS Assessor's Parcel Number Area of Special Biological Significance Best Management Practice California Environmental Quality Act Construction General Permit Design Capture Volume Drainage Management Areas Environmentally Sensitive Area Geomorphic Landscape Unit Ground Water H ydromodification Management Plan H ydrologic Soil Group Harvest and Use Infiltration Low Impact Development Linear Underground/Overhead Projects Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Not Applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Natu.ral Resources Conservation Service Priority Development Project Professional Engineer Pollutant of Concern Source Control Site Design San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Standard Industrial Classification Stormwater Pollutant Protection Plan Storm Water Quality Management Plan Total Maximum Daily Load Watershed Management Area Analysis Water Pollution Control Program Water Quality Improvement Plan Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: B/.le11a Vista Reservoir Site Permit Application Number: 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 C.ode, and that the design is consistent with the requirements of the B11P Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No . R9-2013-0001 as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 (MS4 Permit). I have read and understand that the Gty Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the Storm Water Standards. I certify that this PDP 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 PDP 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 & Expiratio~ Date Nick Psyhogios Print Name Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering C.ompany Date ' Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 En • eer's Stam latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING PROJECT VICINITY MAP Project Name: Buena Vista Reservoir Site Permit Application Number: CUP 2018-0023 0 PROJEC SITE Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP CITY OF VISTA latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Form E-34 Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeDl PIANNING & ENGINEERING C City of Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov I INSTRUCTIONS: To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the city requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5). This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to 'STANDARD PROJECT' requirements or be subject to 'PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the city. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: Buena Vista Reservoir Site PROJECT ID: ADDRESS: Buena Vista Way between Arland Road and James Drive APN: 156-200-16 The project is (check one): l8l New Development D Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is: 126,603 ft2 ( 2.9 ) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 23,382 ft2 ( 0.5 ) 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. E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • STEP1 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 □ [8l or structure that do not alter the size (See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance)? If you answered "yes" to the above question, provide justification below then go to Step 5, mark the third box stating "my project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant information. Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): If you answered "no" to the above auestion, the project is a 'development orolect', go to Step 2 . STEP2 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following: YES NO 1. Constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: a) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non- erodible permeable areas; □ [8l b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; c) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets Quidance? 2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in □ [8l 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? □ [8l If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, provide discussion/justification below, then go to Step 5, mark the second box stating "my project is EXEMPT from PDP ... " and complete applicant information . Discussion to justify exemption ( e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Street guidance): If you answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, go to Step 3. E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 04/17 To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1 )): 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 ublic develo ment ro ·ects on ublic or rivate 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 develo ment ro ·ects on ublic or rivate 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 develo ment ro·ect includes develo ment on an natural slo e that is twent -five ercent or reater. 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 trans ortation of automobiles, trucks, motorc cles, 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 ro ·ect to the ESA i.e. not commin led with flows from ad·acent 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 er da . 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 YES NO ~ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment project, go to step 4. If your project is a new project, go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT.' Go to step 5, check the second box statin "M ro·ect is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' ... " and com lete a licant information. E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV 04/17 • • • • • • • • • STEP4 TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (PDP) ONLY Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): YES NO Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A)= 10,240 sq. ft. □ ~ Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (8) = 23 382 sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (8/A)*100 = 228 % If you answered "yes", the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... • and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BMP's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete aoolicant information. STEPS CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION ~ My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. 0 My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a • Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT stormwater requirements apply. D My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Applicant Name: Nick Ps:ihogios Applicant Title: Princi~al Applicant Signature: //4 ~z Date: c/1Y/1 ,-- .. • Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin ( 1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat Management Plan; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the City. This Box for Citv Use Onlv YES NO City Concurrence: □ □ By: Date: Project ID: E-34 Page 4 or 4 REV 04/17 • Site Information Checklist Form I-3B For PDPs Project Summarv Information Project Name Buena Vista Reservoir Site Project ID CT XX I PUD XX I CUP 2018-0023 I HDP XX I HMPXX Project Address Buena Vista Way between Arland Road and James Drive Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 156-200-16 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) ~ Carlsbad 904.21 Project Area (total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated with 3.16 Acres (137,649 Square Feet) the oroiect or total area of the ri~ht-of-wav) Existing Impervious Area 0.24 Acres (10,240 Square Feet) (Subset of Parcel Area) Area to be disturbed by the project 2.91 Acres ( 126,603 Square Feet) (Project Area) (Includes Offsite Work) Project Proposed Impervious Area 0.54 Acres (23,382 Square Feet) (subset of Project Area) Project Proposed Pervious Area 2.37 Acres (103,221 Square Feet) (subset of Project Area) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be D isturbed by the Project. "TT1is may be less than the Proiect Area. Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeDl PLANNING & ENGINEERING Descriotion of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): D Existing development ~ Previously graded but not built out D Agricultural or other non-impervious use D Vacant, undeveloped/ natural Description / Additional Information: The site has been mass graded and houses water supply infrastructure for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. No additional structures have been built on site and the lot is primarily pervious landscape with some paving for vehicle access. Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): ~ Vegetative Cover ~ Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas ~ Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: Vegetation consists primarily of scattered grass and bushes with a small number of trees. Approximately 1/3 of the site is non-vegetated dirt. Additionally, there is a paved vehicle access road in the center of the lot. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): ONRCSTypeA ~NRCSTypeB ONRCS TypeC ONRCSType D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): D GWDepth < 5 feet D 5 feet< GW Depth < 10 feet D 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet ~ GW D epth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): D Watercourses D Seeps D Springs D Wetlands ~None Description / Additional Information: Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage: Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeiJJ PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer: 1. \Vhether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; 2. Describe existing constructed storm water conveyance systems, if applicable, and 3. Is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? Description / Additional Information: Under pre-project conditions, the site is in a non-built out, mass graded state and has ground cover consisting of scattered grasses and bushes with some paved areas for vehicle access. The existing site does not have any storm drain infrastructure built up and all drainage is conveyed via non-channelized, surface sheet flow. Currently, the project site discharges runoff to the surrounding lots to the East, West, and South and Buena Vista Way to the North. After leaving the property, runoff is captured by existing storm drain facilities in the surrounding streets and conveyed northwest to Buena Vista Lagoon. Offsite flows are not conveyed over the project site . Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeD3 PIANNING & ENGINEERING Descriotion of Proposed Site Develooment and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: This project proposes to construct a public park on site as well as improvements along the property's frontage on Buena Vista Way that include parking stalls, curb ramps at street crossings, and concrete sidewalk. The park will have a concrete drainage ditch constructed at its perimeter to prevent runoff from leaving the site to adjacent parcels as it does in the existing condition. The park will consist primarily of garden and lawn areas with a pedestrian walkway for circulation to a proposed playground and picnic table/bench locations placed throughout the lot. The existing water distribution infrastructure onsite will be protected in place and fenced off from public access. Additional fencing is proposed at the perimeter of the lot to provide a barrier between the park and the adjacent private lots. List/ describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): • Concrete Sidewalk • Asphalt Paving for Parking Stalls • Picnic Tables and Benches List/ describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): • Lawn Areas • Garden Areas • Pollution Control Basins Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? ~Yes □No Description / Additional Information: The lot will be regraded to allow for the construction of the public park. Existing retaining walls onsite will be removed and proposed landscape mounding will be used as a visual barrier between the park and the surrounding properties. Buena Vista Reservoir Site D ecember 2018 latitudeB3 PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? ~Yes □No Description / Additional Information: A concrete brow ditch will be installed at the lot perimeter to prevent site runoff from flowing onto adjacent properties as it does in the existing condition. Storm water will be conveyed to a proposed biofiltration basin and then discharged North to a single outfall onto Buena Vista Way . Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude PlANNING & ENGINEERING l • ~ , • ~ ' • :: .. I • • • \ • • ' . I ' ~ • • • • • ( • 1 ' • '• Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/ or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): cgj On-site storm drain inlets D Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps D Interior parking garages D Need for future indoor & structural pest control cgj Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features D Food service cgj Refuse areas D Industrial processes D Outdoor storage of equipment or materials D Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning D Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance D Fuel Dispensing Areas D Loading Docks D Fire Sprinkler Test Water D Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water cgj Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots Description / Additional Information: Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Identification of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): The project site discharges storm water to the surrounding parcels and adjacent public street. From here, runoff surface flows to existing storm drain infrastructure in the surrounding roadways and is then conveyed Northwest before being discharged into Buena Vista Lagoon . List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identifv any TMDLs and/ or Hil!hest Priority Pollutants from the WQIP for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs/ WQIP Highest Priority Pollutant Indicator Bacteria TMDL Estimate 2008 Buena Vista Lagoon Nutrients TMDL Estimate 2019 Sedimentation/Siltation TMDL Estimate 2019 Toxicity TMDL Estimate 2027 Identification of Project Site Pollutants* Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Pollutant Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals Organic Compounds Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil & Grease Bacteria & Viruses Pesticides Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 Not Applicable to the Anticipated from the Also a Receiving Water Proiect Site Proiect Site Pollutant of Concern X X X X X X X X X X latitudeDJ PLANNING & ENGINEERING • ! ·.~.-., •• Fon11 ·I-3BPagc9of11 ' ·' 1 • .,~--•• Hydromodification Manairement Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? ~ Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. D No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. D No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank a.re concrete- lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. D No, tl1e project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the \'v'MAA for the watershed in which the project resides. Description/ Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): Storm water is discharged from the project site and tl1en conveyed via roadway surface flow before entering existing storm drain infrastructure offsite. From here it is tl1en discharged into Buena Vista Lagoon, which is a hydromodification exempt water body. Additionally, the proposed project is a public park tl1at consists primarily of pervious landscape. The site's DMAs are either De Minimis, Self-Mitigating, or Self-Retaining which are all exempt from Hydromodification requirements. Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas* *This Section onlv required if hvdromodification management requirements aoolv Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? □Yes ~ No, No Critical course sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of tl1e BMP Design Manual been performed? D 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Untits (GLUs) Onsite D 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment D Yes6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Course Sediment Yield Areas Onsite D No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical course sediment yield areas identified based on WMAAmaps If optional analyses were performed, what is the fu1al result? D No critical course sediment yield areas to be protect based on verification of GLUs onsite D Critical course sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP. D Critical course sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion / Additional Information: Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff" "'This Section only required if hvdromodification manairement reauirements aoolv 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 I-IMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's I-IMP Exhibit. Storm water will be conveyed to a proposed biofiltration basin and then discharged North to a single outfall onto Buena Vista Way. Tii.is outfall is the only POC of the project and is identified on the HMP exhibit as POC#l. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? 121 No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2 D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 D 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: Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude Bl PLANNING & ENGINEERING Other Site Reauirements 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 local codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. • A lack of existing storm drain infrastructure in the surrounding area means that the project will need to discharge to grade. This will affect the design for the proposed structural BMP, specifically the outlet structure. Ootional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. • Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeBJ PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C cityof Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project lnfonnatlon Project Name: Buena Vista Reservoir Site Project ID: DWG No. or Building Permit No.: Source Control BMPs Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 Ill Yes □No D NIA Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage Ill Yes □No D N/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Ill Yes □No D N/A Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 09/16 Source Control Reaulrement (continued) Aoolled? SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Iii Yes □No □ N/A Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Ill Yes □No □ N/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Appendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). Iii On-site storm drain inlets Iii Yes □No □ N/A □ Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps □ Yes □No □ N/A □ Interior parking garages □ Yes □No 0 NIA □ Need for future indoor & structural pest control □Yes O No O NIA Iii Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Ill Yes □ No 0 N/A □ Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features □ Yes □ No □ N/A □ Food service □ Yes □ No 0 NIA □ Refuse areas □Yes □ No 0 N/A □ Industrial processes □ Yes □No □ N/A □ Outdoor storage of equipment or materials □Yes □No □ N/A □ Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning □ Yes □No 0 N/A □ Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance □ Yes □No 0 N/A □ Fuel Dispensing Areas □ Yes O No 0 NIA □ Loading Docks □ Yes □No □ NIA □ Fire Sprinkler Test Water □ Yes □No O N/A □ Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water □ Yes □No □ NIA Iii Plazas, sidewalks, and parkinQ lots Iii Yes □No □ NIA For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" answers. All storm water runoff on site will be captured and treated in a biofiltration (BF-1) BMP prior to discharge. E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09/16 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Site Design BMPs All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following . • "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required . • "No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be provided . Site DNlgn Requirement I Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathwa_1s and Hydrologic Features I D Yes J Iii No I D NIA Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: The existing drainage pattern for the site directs runoff to adjacent parcels. To correct this, the project area will be regraded to capture and treat all runoff onsite prior to discharge at a single point of compliance onto Buena Vista Way. SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I D Yes J Iii No I D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: The existing site soil and vegetation have already been altered from their natural state by the original mass grading of the lot. The site as currently graded will be replaced with lawn and garden areas to facilitate public park use. SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I Iii Yes l D No I D NIA Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I Iii Yes l ONo I D NIA Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I Iii Yes I D No I D NIA Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 3 of4 Revised 09/16 Site Design Reaulrement (contlnued1 I ADDlled? SD-6 Runoff Collection I Ill Yes l □ No I □ NIA Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaoina with Native or Drought Tolerant Soecies I III Yes I □ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvestino and Usino Precipitation I D Yes l lil No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: Per included Harvest and Use Feasibility Form 1-7, harvest and use is deemed infeasible for the project site. E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 1.1 2 of the BMP design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpertuity, 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 orovide sumrnarv 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 or separate. Step 1: Per the included Harvest and Use feasibility form I-7, the project is considered infeasible for harvest and use. Step 2: Per the included Form 1-8 Categorization oflnfiltration Feasibility Condition the feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. Based on this condition the proposed project has selected biofiltration (BF-1) to mitigate for pollutant control requirements. Step 3: Due to the lack of existing w1derground storm drain in the area, it was determined that the outlet structure for the Biofiltration basin will need to be designed to discharge to grade. Step 4: Proposed Biofiltration is sized to account for Hydromodification. One of the DMAs on the proposed project is categorized as Self-Mitigating and therefore exempt from Hydromodification requirements. Step 5: A Storm \'<later BMP Maintenance agreement will be executed to ensure long-term maintenance of all structural BMPs. Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeDl PLANNING & ENGINEERING Structural BMP Summarv Information Structural BMP ID No. BMP#10 DWG Type of structural BMP: D Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) D Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) D Retention by bioretention (INF-2) D Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) I Sheet No. D Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) [8] Bioftltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment / forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration D BMP (provide BMP type / description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) D Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management D Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: D Pollutant control only D Hydromodification control only [8] □ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment / forebay for another structural BMP D Other (describe in discussion section below Discussion (as needed): BMP 10 will consist of a BF-1 Bioftltration Basin for pollution and flow control. This basin will consist of 12- inches of surface ponding, 18 inches of amended soil with the top 3-inches being mulch, a 6" filter course layer, and 12-inch gravel storage layer with a perforated pipe underdrain. The underdrain will be located a minimum 3-inches above the bottom of the basin. The basin will be equipped with an outlet structure that will be sized to allow for the safe conveyance of the 100-year storm event. Per the geotechnical engineer's recommendations, due to tl1e poor infiltration feasibility and expansive soils, infiltration should be avoided. To mitigate for this impact, tl1e basin will be wrapped in an impervious liner. Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. latitudeB3 PLANNING & ENGINEERING Indicate which Items are Included: 1 _. Attachment . Scqucnc~ C~ntcnts· DMA Exhibit (Required) Attachment 1a See DMA Exhibit Checklist. Tabular Summary ofDMAs Showing DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA Area, and DMA Type (Required)* Attachment lb *Provide table in this Attachment OR on DMA Exhibit in Attachment la Form I-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist (Required unless the entire project will use infiltration BMPs) Attachment le Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form I-7. Form I-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Required unless the project will use harvest and use BMPs) Attachment ld Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form I-8. Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations (Required) Attachment le Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines and site design credit calculations Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 '. Ghecklist 1:8] Included 1:8] Included on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a □ Included as Attachment 1 b, separate from D MA Exhibit 1:8] Included □ Not included because the entire project will use infiltration BMPs 1:8] Included □ Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs 1:8] Included latitude Bl PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Use th.is checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The DMA Exhibit must identify: 1:81 Underlying hydrologic soil group 1:8) Approximate depth to groundwater 1:81 Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) 1:8) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected 1:81 Existing topography and impervious areas 1:81 Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite 1:8) Proposed grading 1:8) Proposed impervious features 1:81 Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness 1:81 Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, OMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and OMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) 1:81 Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source controls (see Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Form l-3B) 1:81 Structural BMPs (identify location, type ofBMP, and size/detail) Buena Vista Reservoir Site D ecember 2018 latitude Bl PLANNING & ENGINEERING EX1S I ING t:>11 E INFORMA 11ON HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP: B GROUNDWA TER: GROUNDWA TER DEPTH IS GREATER THAN 7 FEET PER GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BY GEOCON INC., DA TED FEBRUARY 9, 2018, PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01. EXISTING NATURAL HYDROLOG/C FEATURES: NO NATURAL HYDROLOGIC FEATURES EXIST ONSITE. CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT l1ELD AREAS: NO CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT l1ELD AREAS (CCSYAS) EXIST ONSITE. NO PROTECTION OF CCSYAS REQUIRED. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND IMPERVIOUS AREA: EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN HEREON. SEE AREA SUMMARY TABLE FOR EXISTING IMPER VIOUS AREA. EXISTING DRAINA GE: THE EXISTING DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE IS SURFACE FLO W OVER PREVIOUSLY GRADED TERRAIN. IT OVERFLOWS TO THE ADJACENT PARCELS TO THE Kf'ST, EAST, AND SOUTH AND TO BUENA VISTA WAY TO THE NORTH. FROM THESE POINTS OF DISCHARGE IT IS THEN CONVEYED TO THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM IN THE NEARBY ROADWAYS. PROPOSED SI IE INFORMATION PROPOSED DRAINAGE· THE PROPOSED PUBUC PARK ltlLL CONSIST PRIMARILY OF LANDSCAPED LAWN AND GARDEN ARE:AS ltlTH SMALL AMOUNTS OF IMPE:RVIOUS SURFACES FOR PEDE:STRIAN WALKWA Y.S AND PLAZA AREAS THROUGHOUT THE SITE. ADD/TIGNALL Y, PUBUC IMPRO'IFMENTS INCLUDING PARKING STALLS AND A CONCRETE SIDEWALK AR[ PROPOSED ALONG THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF BUENA VISTA WAY. STORM WA TER RUNOFF ltlLL PRIMARILY BE CONVEYED 111A SURFACE: SHE:ET FLOW TOWARDS A PROPOSED 8/0RLTRATION FACIUTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. IMPERl/10/JS AREAS ONSITE ltlLL BE: DIRECTED TOWARDS PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ACTING AS DISPERSION PRIOR TO REACHING THE BMP. RUNOFF NEAR THE Kf"ST. EAST, AND SOUTH PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY ltlLL FLOW INTO A PROPOSED CONCRETE BROW DITCH 111-/ERE IT '/ALL THEN BE CONVEYED TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE. FROM HERE IT '/ALL BE DISPERSED TO LANDSCAPING BEFORE SURFACE FLOll1NG INTO THE PROPOSED 8/0RLTRATION BASIN. THE BASIN ULTIMATELY DISCHARGES NORTH TO SURFACE GRADE ON BUENA VISTA WAY. PROPOSITI GRADING: SHOWN HEREON. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS FEATURES: SHOWN HEREON. PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES: SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHOWN HEREON. SEE FORM l-58 FOR EXPLANA TION. DRAINAGE MANA GEMENT AREAS: SHOWN HEREON. SEE OMA SUMMARY TABLE. POTENnAl POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS AND SOURCE CONTROL: SHOWN HEREON. SEE FORMS 1-38 AND 1-4 FOR EXPLANATION. STRUCTURA L BMPS: ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS DRAIN TO A STRUCTURAL BMP (SHOWN HEREON AS 8MP#70). BMP/10 IS A BIOF/L TRA TION BASIN (BF-1). NAME AREA (SF) OMA 1.1-1 1,812 AREADMAt1 SOIL TYPE 8 POST PROJECT SURFACE IMPERVIOUS AC PAVEMENT OMA RUNOFF OMA AREA X FACTOR RUNOFF 0.9 1,631 ~~ OMA 1.1-2 6,580 B SEMI-PERVIOUS DC 0.3 1,974 .. -~, .... .... ··-" ~ .. -., •·. ·::--, •. ....... , .•.. .-•· ::. .... • ' _';<., .... ••• .• ! : •. :"":,/:.-:~. _~._· .... :~•'". :-.,• .. :":·~--~., ···'··•··,: •·· ....... . ... 1' ., ,..., .... ~.-...-_ ... •. •' ' -., ".',, •,•,• C ... 17,370 OMA 1.1-4 68,845 TOTAL AREA 94,607 NAME AREA (SF) OMA 1.2-1 1,090 OMA 1.2-2 7,050 TOTAL AREA 8,140 B B IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREADMA12 SOIL TYPE POST PROJECT SURFACE IMPERVIOUS B CONCRETE ACTING AS BROW DITCH PERVIOUS B LANDSCAPE 0.9 15,633 0.1 6,817 OMA RUNOFF OMA AREA X FACTOR RUNOFF 0.9 981 0.1 705 AREA OMA 2 -SELF MITIGATlNQ NAME AREA (SF) OMA 2-1 370' OMA 2-2 20,621 OMA 2-3 55 OMA 2-4 1,685 TOTAL AREA 22.731 • 1.6% OF TOTAL AREA < 5% NAME AREA (SF) OMA 3-1 975 OMA 3-2 70 SOIL TYPE B B 8 B POST PROJECT SURFACE IMPER VIOUS CONCRETE PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE SEMI-PERVIOUS DG IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE ACTING AS BROW DITCH AREADMA~ SOIL TYPE B B POST PROJECT SURFACE IMPERVIOUS AC PAVEMENT PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE OMA RUNOFF FACTOR 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.9 OMA AREA X RUNOFF 333 2130 17 1517 OMA RUNOFF OMA AREA X FACTOR RUNOFF 0.9 878 0.1 7 ; }//. OMA 3-3 ... 80 B IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE 0.9 72 TOTAL AREA 1,125 e OMA IS INFEASIBLE TO BE TREATED. HOtlf'VER, WILL BE INCLUDED FOR BIORL Tl?A TION SIZING TO ACCOUNT FOR STORM WA TER OUAUTY AND HMP REQUIREMENTS H:\1500\1"7.IXI -Sdvnldt o.191 OrOUI) -Car1flbod l"Gn.~g\R,lp«b\Waw Qudlty\Attochrn«1t 1 -PoHutont Contrd Bc,dq)\A~ 1a a: 1b -~~ctw,g BUENA VISTA RESERVOIR SITE DMA EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 1A + 1B POC/1 SD-7 LANDSCAPING WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES (TYP). SD-5 IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSION. .....----:"-,. ./ ' I \ I o I \ j \ .-I /2 '\. \) • BMP/10 "-,\V - BIOFIL TRA TION BASIN (BF-1 ). /,; PROPOSED ROCK UNED SWALE. SD-6 RUNOFF COLLECTION. / , POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREA: SIDEWALK (TYP). 3 Q ' ' \ \ ,. .-.. ----·----!:---~-BUENA VISTA WAY . .- -..... ,.-:. . ·' .. - --=--Ill.'!:.." 'X,C:;:,-...c_ -c·--(ti 11 OTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE ''.,,AREA: SIDEWALK (TYP). \1 \ ~ -POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE -AREA: PLAZA (TYP ). \•-- POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREA: LANDSCAPING (TYP ). SD-7 LANDSCAPING WITH NATI VE OR __ DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES (TYP). SD-5 IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSION. POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREA: LANDSCAPING (TYP). 1.2 PROPOSED CONCRETE BRO W DITCH . SD-6 RUNOFF COLLECTION. POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREA: ONSITE STORM DRAIN INLET. \ IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA TOTAL AREA SD-7 LANDSCAPING 111 lH NA Tl VE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES (TYP). SD-5 IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSION. AREA SUMMARY TABI E EXISTING CONDITION POST-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION 10,240 SF (0.24 AC} -8. 1% 23,382 SF (0.54 AC) -18.5% 116,363 (2.67 AC) -91.9% 103,221 (2.37 AC) -81.5% 126,603 SF (2.91 AC) 126,603 SF (2.91 AC) DIFFERENCE +13,1 42 SF -13,142 SF --- SCALE: NOTED DATE : 3/11/19 JOB NO: 1587.00 SHEET: 1 OF 2 LEGEND D ~ . ----- 0 DRAWN BY: JG CHECKED BY: ss IMPER VIOUS-ASPHALT IMPER VIOUS-CONCRETE PAVEMENT PERVIOUS-LANDSCAPING DECOMPOSED GRANITE IMPERVIOUS-BROW DITCH OMA BOUNDARY PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OMA IDENTIFIER 25 50 70 0 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft 750 latitude mJ PLAN NING & ENGINEERING 9966 Hibert Street 2""' Floor. San Diego, CA 92131 Tel 858.751.0633 Iii LEVEL BENCH IF ADJACENT TO FILL SLOPING TOP DF RISER 6" CLEAN-OUT --. . PORT , ' \ ;;;\ 6" SUB-DRAIN, (DRAIN BOTTOM \':'./ BASIN TO UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEM) I . <,·.ii.~:~·· .. ·.···~·· L h"~ lA 1 }II;;:'. t· A,:,J: I J2 c9)11 J -....;. '{ y ' II ~ I ' ..., SECTION A-A ,, ,. ' ..... '. ' ~ CATCH BASIN SIZE PER PLAN LEVEL BENCH IF ADJACENT TO FILL SLOPING BUENA VISTA RESERVOIR SITE BMP DETAILS IMPERMEABLE LINER 0 THREADED PVC CAP WI 77-1 DRILLED 0.9" LOW Fl.OW ORIFICE f BIORETENTION NOTES 0 77-IE 18' SOIL LA YER (PLANTING LA YER) SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A MIXTURE OF WASHED SAND (70-85%) AND COMPOST OR ALTERNATIVE ORGANIC AMENDMENT (15-30%) AND SHALL MEET ASTM C33 STANDARDS. lo\ 77-IE 12' STORAGE LAYER SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 3/4" GRAVEL.GRAVEL STORAGE \=.I LAYER SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATION PER APPENDIX F.5 OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO STORM WATER STANDARDS MANUAL AND SHALL CONSIST OF 6" FILTER COURSE OVER 12" OF CLEAN WASHED ASTM #57 OPEN GRADED STONE. FILTER COURSE SHALL CONSIST OF 3" LA YER OF CLEAN WASHED ASTM =-B 1;...;;;;0 ..;;...F.;,.;.;.;I L;.._T _RA_T_I O_N_B_AS..;;...I_N ...... (_B F_-___.1 ).__--i0 1 NTS JJ FINE AGGREGATE SAND OVERLYING A J" LA YER OF ASTM NO 8 STONE. 0 PLANTING TO BE A MIX OF NATIVE GRASS SPECIES, SPACED 18" 0. C. tt\1:500\1587.00 -Sdlmldt ~ GrOl4) -CGIW)od P<d.\En~~\w.rt« Q:Jallty\A.ttoohm«1t 1 -Polll.rt«lt Cootrd ~\,\ttoi.tvn«rt 1a a; lb-~ 0 LINE WITH IMPERMEABLE HOPE OR PVC MEMBRANE PER GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION. @ FINISH GRADE or 77-IE FACILITY IS TO BE FLA r. ;;;\ BOTTOM OF BASIN SHALL GRAIN TOWARD SUB-DRAIN PIPE AND HA VE A MAXIMUM \':'./ 2% SLOPE. SCALE: NOTED latitude~ DATE: 2/19/19 DRA WN BY: DRP JOB NO: 1399.00 CHECKED BY: ss PLANNING & ENGINEERING SHEET: 2 OF 2 9968 Hibert Street 2"d Floor, San Diego, CA 92131 Tel 858.751.0633 II I rir • • • • • • • • • • • • ATTACHMENT 1C ;., • • ' , \ , .·,· _; ,' I I , , '• , -, '\ • "... .. ' •' • ' ••, J ,-I ! Harvest and Use Feasibility' Checklist Workstieet B.3~1 :·F9rm,.I.-;7?. ·, { ~ '--• _ I _ i , _ • 1 • , ). 1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? 0Toilet and urinal flushing Per coordination with the landscaping design team, there will be no irrigation □ Landscape irrigation or_ grey water demand for this project site within 36 hours of a rain event. Given that the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual requires a 36 hour draw down [{]Other:._____ time for harvest and use, this type of BMP is not feasible for this project. 2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. [Provide a summary of calculations here] 3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. DCV = ______ (cubic feet) [Provide a summary of calculations here] 3a. Is the 36-hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV? □Ye,{J. / □No c:::> Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm that DCV can be used at an adequate rate to meet drawdown criteria. 3b. Is the 36-hour demand greater than o.25DCV but less than the full DCV? DYes 1D No ~ .0. 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 drainine: in lone:er than 16 hours. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? D Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. 0 No select alternate BMPs. The City of San Diego I Storm Water Standards Worksheet B.3-1 : Form 1-7 I January 2018 Edition 3c. Is the 36- hour demand less than o.25DCV? D Yes ~ Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. SD~ Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Fonn 1-8 Condition Part 1 -Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes No X 4 Aardvark Permeameter tests were performed within the northwest corner and western side of the site within the Old Paralic Deposits. The following presents the results of those field infiltration tests: Northwest comer of site: P-1 within Qop: 0.049 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-2 within Qop: 0.043 inches/hour with a FOS=2. Western side of site: P-3 at 4.3 feet deep within Qop: 0.468 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-4 at 5.7 feet deep within Qop: 0.295 inches/hour with a FOS=2. The northwest corner of the site has an average infiltration rate of 0.046 inches/hour with a factor of safety of 2 and the western side of the site has an average infiltration rate of 0.382 inches/hour with a factor of safety of 2, which is less than the required 0.5 inches/hour rate. Therefore, full infiltration in either area should be considered infeasible. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 2 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: X Slopes to the neighboring properties below exist at the eastern and western property lines. Infiltrating in this area could cause buildup of hydrostatic pressures, which could destabilize the existing slopes or walls. Seepage could occur from the slope that flows into the adjacent properties. Mitigation measures could include deepening the bottom of the BMP facility and lining the sides down to an elevation at least 1 foot below the toe of the adjacent slopes or retaining walls. However, if we were to extend the basin deeper, we expect the infiltration rates would be reduced to about the rates we obtained from the northwestern portion of the property due to similar elevations. Therefore, the infiltration would be considered infeasible. If the devices are setback at least 50 feet from the top of slopes, the elevations would be too high to practically install infiltration devices. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 1-3 February 2016 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteri a 3 Form 1-8 Page 2 of 4 Screening Question Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Yes X Appendix C Section C.3.2 of the BMP Design Manual states that the depth to seasonably high groundwater tables beneath the base of any infiltration BMP must be greater than 10 feet for any infiltration BMP to be allowed. We expect that groundwater exists at depths of greater than 100 feet below the site. Therefore, we do not expect that infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour would increase the risk of groundwater contamination . No 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 Appendi.x C.3. Provide basis: X We expect that groundwater exists at depths of greater than 100 feet below the site. Therefore, we do not expect that infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour would cause water balance issues . Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. Part 1 Result * I If all answers to rows 1 -4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 *To be completed using gathered site 1.nformat1on and best professional judgment cons1der1ng the definition of MEP 1n the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-4 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists • .. , Form 1-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No lnfihration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria 5 Screening Question Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes No X We performed 4 Aardvark Permeameter tests within the northwest corner and western side of the site within the Old Paralic Deposits. The following presents the results of our field infiltration tests: Northwest corner of site: P-1 within Qop: 0.049 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-2 within Qop: 0.043 inches/hour with a FOS=2. Western side of site: P-3 at 4.3 feet deep within Qop: 0.468 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-4 at 5.7 feet deep within Qop: 0.295 inches/hour with a FOS=2. The northwest comer of the site has an average infiltration rate of 0.046 inches/hour with a factor of safety of 2 and the western side of the site has an average infiltration rate of 0.382 inches/hour with a factor of safety of 2, which is less than the required 0.5 inches/hour rate. Therefore, based solely on infiltration rate, partial infiltration in the western side of the site could be feasible. Infiltration in the northeast corner of the site should be considered infeasible. 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 Appendi..'C C.2. Provide basis: Slopes to the neighboring properties below exist at the eastern and western property lines. Infiltrating in this area could cause buildup of hydrostatic pressures, which could destabilize the existing slopes or walls. Seepage could occur from the slope that flows into the adjacent properties. Mitigation measures could include deepening the bottom of the BMP facility and lining the sides down to an elevation at least 1 foot below the toe of the adjacent slopes or retaining walls. However, if we were to extend the basin deeper, we expect the infiltration rates would be reduced to about the rates we obtained from the northwestern portion of the property due to similar elevations. Therefore, the infiltration would be considered infeasible. If the devices are setback at least 50 feet from the top of slopes, the elevations would be too high to practically install infiltration devices. X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 1-5 February 2016 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria 7 Form 1-8 Page 4 of 4 Screening Question Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Yes No X We expect that groundwater exists at depths of greater than 100 feet below the site. Therefore, we do not expect that infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour would cause water balance issues. Summarize findings of srudies; provide re ference to srudies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: We understand this is not a common issue within the County of San Diego and we are unaware of downstream water rights . X Summarize findings of srudies; 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 Infiltration *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-6 February 2016 • Automated Worksheet B.3-1: Proiect-Scale BMP Feasibili "D• Category Category # II Capture & l'sc _ .. Inputs 2 Infiltration Inputs Result 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Worksheet B.3-1 General Notes: Description Design Capture Volume for Entire Project Site Proposed Development Type Number of Residents or Employees at Proposed Development Total Planted Area within Development Water Use Category for Proposed Planted Areas ls Average Site Design Infiltration Rate S0.500 Inches per Hour? Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate SO.Q10 Inches per Hour? ls Infiltration of the Full DCV Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts? Is Infiltration of Any Volume Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts? 36-Hour Toilet Use Per Resident or Employee Subtotal: Anticipated 36 Hour Toilet Use Anticipated 1 Acre Landscape Use Over 36 Hours Subtotal: Anticipated Landscape Use Over 36 Hours Total Anticipated Use Over 36 Hours Total Anticipated Use / Design Capture Volume Are Full Capture and Use Techniques Feasible for this Project? Is Full Retention Feasible for this Project? Is Partial Retention Feasible for this Project? Feasibility Category Value Units Residential uoitless 0 # 98,750 sq-ft Low unitless Yes yes/no No yes/no Yes yes/no Yes yes/no 1.86 cubic-feet 0 cubic-feet 52.14 cubic-feet 118 cubic-feet 118 cubic-feet 0.92 cubic-feet No unitless No yes/no No yes/no 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 A. Applicants may use this worksheet to determine the types of structural BMPs that are acceptable for implementation at their project site (as required in Section 5 of the BMPDM). User input should be provided for yellow shaded ceUs, values for aU other cells will be automaticaUy generated. Projects demonstrating feasibility or potential feasibility via this worksheet are encouraged to incorporate capture and use features in their project. 8. Negative impacts associated with retention may include geotechnical, groundwater, water balance, or other issues identified by a geotcchn.ical engineer and substantiated through completion of Form 1-8. C. Feasibility Category 1: Applicant must implement capture & use, retention, and/or infiltration elements for the entire DCV. D. Feasibility Category 2: Applicant must implement capture & use elements for the entire DCV. E. Feasibility Category 3: Applicant must implement retention and/or infiltration clements for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates greater than 0.50 in/hr. F. Feasibility Category 4: Applicant must implement standard J.IIlllll£d biofiltration BMPs siz~-d at ;,,3o;. of the effective impervious tributary area for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates of0.011 to 0.50 in/hr. Applicants may be permitted to implement lined BMPs, reduced size BMPs, and/ or specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria identified in "Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Bio filtration BMPs" arc satisfied. G. Feasibility Category 5: Applicant must implement standard lilli;d biofiltration BMPs sized at ;,,3o;. of the effective impervious tributary area for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates of0.010 in/hr or less. Applicants may also be permitted to implement reduced size and/or specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria identified in "Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Biofiltration BMPs" arc satisfied. I I. PDPs participating in an offsite alternative compliance program are not held to the feasibility categories presented herein. SOURCE: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUTOMATED STORMWATER POLLUTANT CONTROL WORKSHEETS (VERSION 1.3) Category Standard Drainage Basin Inputs # - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Autom ated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Desi Description i ii ll/ Drainage Basin ID or Namel I DMA-1 & DMA-3 I Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Bio filtration 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.63 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.000 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Disnersion Area (C-0.90) 21,327 - Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) 6,580 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) 2,450 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14) 73,515 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23) Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) Dispersion Area, Tree Well & Rain Barrel Inputs (Optional) 14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) Treatment Train Inputs & Calculations Initial Runoff Factor Calculation Dispersion Area Adjustments Tree & Barrel Adjustments Results 15 16 17 18 19 0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 3 I W2rki1hi;i;t B.1-1 Geni;ral Noti;:i: Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14) Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23) Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A ,-\verage Mature Tree Canopy Diameter Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E Average Rain Barrel Size Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in Downstream Drainage? Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area (Ci=0.90) Upstream Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) Total Tributary Area Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas Initial Weighted Runoff Factor Initial Design Capture Volume Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface Total Pervious Dispersion Area Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques Total Tree Well Volume Reduction Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction Final Adjusted Runoff Factor Final Effective Tributary Area Initial Desi= Capture Volume Retained by Site Desi= Elements Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP No No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 103,872 0 0 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 1,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 n/a n/a 1,691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.00 0.00 32,200 0 0 0 0 0 1,691 0 0 i:!D iv /I vi /Jll JJiii l,'\" ).: Units unitless inches in/hr sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft No No No No No No No yes/no sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft sq-ft sq-fr sq-ft # ft # gal No No No No No No No unitless unitless percent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet A. Applicants may use this worksheet to calculate design capture volumes for up to 10 drainage areas User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for all other cells will be automatically generated, errors/notifications will be highlighted in red and summarized below. Upon completion of this worksheet, proceed to the appropriate BMP Sizing worksheet(s). SOURCE: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUTOMATED STORMWATER POLLUTANT CONTROL WORKSHEETS (VERSION 1.3) Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (Vl.3) Draina_g_e Basin ID or Name Design lnfilm1_tion Rate ReccHnmended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.000 2 Effective Tributary Area 32,200 sq-ft 3 Minimum Biofiltration Footprint_ Sizing Factor 0.030 ratio --- 4 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,691 cubic-feet 5 Is Biofiltration Basin Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined unitless --- 6 Provided Biofiltration BMP Surface Area 2,450 sq-ft 7 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 12 inches 8 Provided Soil Media Thickness 18 inches --9 Provided De_p_th of Gravel Above Underdrain Invert 9 inches 10 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Sm#es~ 0.90 inches 11 Provided De_p_th of Gravel Below the Underdrain 3 inches 1 J olume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 13 Soil Media Pore S.e_ace Available for Retentio: 0.05 .05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless 14 Gravel Pore S.e_ace Available for Retentio: 0.00 .uo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 15 Effective Retention De_p_th 0.90 .uo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 16 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown (Including 6 Hr Storm) 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 17 Volume Retained b_y BMP 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 18 Fraction of DCV Retained 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 19 Portion of Retention Performance Standard Satisfied 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 20 Fraction of DCV Retained (normalized to 36-hr drawdown) 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 2 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 1,590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 22 Max Hydromod Flow Rate throu_g_h Underdrain 0.0381 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a CFS 3 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 0.67 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a in/hr :4 Soil Media Filtration Rate per S_p_ecifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 25 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizin_g_ 0.67 .00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 26 De_p_th Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Ston 4.03 30.01 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 27 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 .... o 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless 28 Effective Depth of Bio filtration Storage 19.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 29 Drawdown Time for Surtace Po: 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 30 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration De: 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 31 Total Depth Biofiltered :3.23 30.0, 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 32 Option 1 -Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Tar_g_et Volume 2,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 33 O_p_tion 1 -Provided Biofiltration Volume 2,385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 34 Option 2 -Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 1,193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 35 Option 2 -Provided Storage Volume 1,193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 36 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 37 Do Site Design Elements and B?liPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? Yes yes/no 38 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 39 This BMP Overflows to the Following Drainage Basin unitless 40 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stonnwater 0 n/a n/a I n/a I n/a -,-n/a I n/a I n/a I n/a n/a cubic-feet Worksheet B.5-1 General Notes: A. Applicants may use this worksheet to size Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (BF-1, PR-1) for up to 10 basins. User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets, values for all other cells \vill be automatically generated, errors/notifications will be highlighted in red/orange and summarized below. Bi\1[Ps fully satisfying the pollutant control performance standards will have a deficit treated volume of zero and be highlighted in green. SOURCE: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUTOMATED STORMWATER POLLUTANT CONTROL WORKSHEETS (VERSION 1.3) 0 .. . ;; : ro 00 -: - G : - _ - - __ ,. , -, - '•, / ,9 · 0 - .. . ., , .. C :. . , ~ 9~0 - -- / 1 . . . . . . . ' 0 ·> I ~ - / ' ~ / . . ' "" .. : . .- : - i e -:; - - (D (J ) (J ) -- I z ~o (D - CX > (D (J 1 -~ "O (D - -~- (D 0 1i i . - ~\ ) s' i " cj \ i C: ~ c.: IJ ', • i ,' co 0 $ ~ C :: , Cl "O OJ g: i C :: , c, _ 0) ,< ' (/ ) -ro (D - :: u - 0 0) c, _ CX > (J 1 -~ -u (D cl (D :: , ,. . . , (D :: 0 0) :: , · ol ' s· :: , 0 ~ (D "' ;j _u~ K .. !; ' -..< 1 ~ -- __ -- _- ; " • " - ,_ _ j ', ~_ _ _ _ . ~ - (' t ) rJ ) 'l /" " -- - ~ ~ -~ _ - " - ·" ' ~ ,. _ , , . , . , ' - - ' ? C, .- ' -~ , LL S RD i " .<: , 'v 0 :. . , YI\ . Q L J I AS S RO PE G L G l ' I D ~ 0 • 'l , .- ,- - - - - / -/ ? __ _ , "' ? __ _ , "' ? "' I ·" ' "" I ' ' ( ' . " T • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2 . 181 Mark this box if this attachment is empty because the project is exempt from PDP hydromodification management requirements . Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeBl PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • Indicate which Items are Included: Attachment Contents Sequence Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2a (Required) Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit is required, Attachment 2b additional analyses are optional) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual. Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels (Optional) Attachment 2c See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Flow Control Facility Design and Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) Attachment 2d Overflow Design Summary for each structural BMP See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP DesiQ11 Manual Vector Control Plan (Required when Attachment 2e structural BMPs will not drain in 96 hours) Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 Checklist cg] Included See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist cg] Exhibit showing project drainage boundaries marked on WMAA Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Map (Required) Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Determination □ 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite □ 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment □ 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite cg] Not Performed □ Included □ Submitted as separate stand-alone document cg] Included □ Submitted as separate stand-alone document □ Included 0 Not required because BMPs will drain in less than 96 hours latitudeD3 PLANNING & ENGINEERING Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: The Hydromoclification Management Exhibit must identify: [8J Underlying hydrologic soil group [8J Approximate depth to groundwater [8J Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) [8J Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected [8J Existing topography [8J Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite [8J Proposed grading [8J Proposed impervious features [8J Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness [8J Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for H ydromoclification Management [8J Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) [8J Structural BMPs for hydromoclification management (identify location, type ofBMP, and size/detail) Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitudeBl PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • E.X1S I ING ~I IE INFORMA 110N HYDROLOGIC SOil GROUP: B Gl?OUNDWA TER: GROUNDWATER DEPTH IS GREATER THA N 7 FEET PER GEOTECHNICAL INVEST/GA TION BY GEOCON INC .. DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2018, PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01. EXISTING NA7URAL HYOROLDGIC FEATIJRES: NO NATURAL HYDROLOG/C FEATURES EXIST ONSITE. CRITTCAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS: NO CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS (CCSYAS) EXIST ONSITE. NO PROTECTION OF CCSYAS REQUIRED. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND IMP£R \10US AREA: EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN HEREON. SEE AREA SUMMARY TABLE FOR EXISTTNG IMPERVIOUS AREA. EXISTING DRAINAGE: THE EXISTING DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE IS SURFA CE FLOW OVER PREVIOUSLY GRADED TERRAIN. IT O\!ERFLO~ TO THE ADJACENT PARCELS TO THE WEST. EAST, ANO SOUTH AND TO BUENA VISTA WAY TO THE NORTH. FROM THESE POINTS OF DISCHARGE IT IS THEN CON\!EYED TO THE: EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM IN THE NEARBY ROADWAYS. PROPOSED SITE INFORMATION PRQPOSED DRAINAGE: TH[ PROPOSED PUBLIC PARK fl!LL CONSIST PRIMARILY OF LANDSCAPED LAIWI ANO GARDEN AR[AS mTH SMALL AMOUNTS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES FOR PEO£STRIAN WALKWA Y5 AND PLAZA AREAS THROUGHOUT THE SITE ADDITTONALL Y, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING PARKING STALLS ANO A CONCRETE SIO[WALK AR[ PROPOSfD ALONG TH[ SOUTH[RN EDG[ OF BU[NA VISTA WA)'. STORM WA TER RUNOFF" fl!LL PR/MARIL Y 8[ CONVEY£0 VIA SURFACE SHEET Fl.OW TOWARDS A PROPOSED BIOF/L TRA TTON FACILITY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNE:R OF 7HE PROPERTY IMPfRVIOUS ARfAS ONSITE fl!LL BE: DIRECTED TOWARDS PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ACTTNG AS DISPERSION PRIOR TO REACHING TH[ BMP. RUNOFF" NEAR TH[ WEST, [AST, AND SOUTH P[RIM[TER OF TH[ PROPERTY fl!LL Fl.OW INTO A PROPOSED CONCR£7E BROW DITCH 111/ER[ IT l\!LL THEN Bf CONVEY[O TO TH[ NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH[ SIT£. FROM H[R[ IT l\!LL BE OISPERS£D TO LANDSCAPING BEFORE SURFACE FLOfl!NG INTO TH[ PROPOSED BIORLTRATTON BASIN. TH[ BASIN ULT1MA7ELY DISCHARGfS NORTH TO SURFACE: GRAD[ ON BUENA VISTA WA)'. PROPOSED GRADING. SHOWN HEREON. PRQPOS£D IMPER\10US FEATUR£S: SHOWN HEREON. PROPOS£D D[$1GN FEATIJRES: SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SHOWN HEREON. SEE FORM 1-58 FOR [XPLANA T/ON. DRAINAGE MANA GEMENT AR£AS: SHOWN HEREON. S[[ OMA SUMMARY TABLE POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS AND SOURCE CONTROL: SHOWN HEREON. SEE FORMS 1-38 AND 1-4 FOR EXPLANATION. STRUC1URAL BMPS: AU PROPOSED IMPROVEME:NTS DRAIN TO A STRUCTURAL BMP (SHOWN HEREON AS BMPlf10}. BMP/10 IS A BIOFIL TRATION BASIN (BF-1). AREA OMA 1.1 NAME AREA (SF) SOIL TYPE: POST PROJECT OMA RUNOFF SURFACE FACTOR OMA 1.1-1 1,812 8 IMPERVIOUS 0.9 AC PA\!EMENT ~~ OMA 1.1-2 6,580 8 SEMI-PER VIOUS 0.3 0\\>,\ DG . . --· .. -· IMPERVIOUS I\fr-r-: OMA 1.1-3 17,370 B 0.9 CONCRETE ~-.,_-.:~:--;;_-~' PERVIOUS ... ·•, .. . • 68,845 8 0.1 OMA 1.1-4 LANDSCAPE . ·.,·. .. , . ' .. . TOTAL AREA 94,607 AREAOMA1.2 NAME AREA (SF) SOIL TYPE: POST PROJECT DMA RUNOFF SURFACE FACTOR IMPER VIOUS ~ OMA 1.2-1 1,090 8 CONCRETE ACTING 0.9 AS BROW DITCH .·., ·.:~-.. ;.. .. ' ,.. .. ·\_.;. :: .:· OMA 1.2-2 7,050 8 PER WOUS 0.1 ... -,.•·• LANDSCAPE ,,'.' ·--~ .... , .-.... TOTAL AREA 8,140 AREA OMA 2 -SELF MITIQATINQ NAM[ AREA (SF) SOIL TYPE POST PROJECT OMA RUNOFF SURFACE FACTOR .": .. :.-:'/-:i IMPER VIOUS r .<·,_.:: -~·,<. DMA 2-1 370• 8 CONCRETE 0.9 -· ...... ··' ♦ ··-:+_ ., .......... -... • :>:' ·• . . .' •. , . ' . : : ·, ·. .' :(~~<('il,::\ K\\'.::'.<cc ~ ~ . ,'., •, ·--·•· .... , ,..:.., __ ~--·.·.":.:'. OMA 2-2 20,621 OMA 2-3 55 OMA 2-4 1,685 TOTAL ARE:A 22,731 • 1.6% OF TOTAL AREA < 5% NAME AREA (SF} OMA 3-1 975 OMA 3-2 70 80 TOTAL AR[A 1,125 PERVIOUS 8 LANDSCAPE 8 SEMI-PER VIOUS DG IMPERVIOUS 8 CONCR[TE ACTING AS BROW DITCH AREAOMA3e SOIL TYPE: 8 8 8 POST PROJECT SURFACE IMPER VIOUS AC PAVE:MENT PER VIOUS LANDSCAPE IMPER VIOUS CONCRETE 0.1 0.3 0.9 OMA RUNOFF FACTOR 0.9 0.1 0.9 •oMA IS INFEASIBLE TO BE TREATED. HOWE\!ER, WILL BE INCLUDED FOR BIOF/L TRA T/ON SIZING TO ACCOUNT FOR STORM WA TER QUALITY AND HMP REQUIREMENTS tt\1500\1~.oo -Sctmldt ~ ~P -CaNl>od Pan,;~,;i~\w.rt« Qu<llty\,'tto::hnent 1 -Pdlutait Control ~V.tt.xnnent 1a &: 1b -~,a, DMA AREA X RUNOFF 1,631 1,974 15,633 6,817 DMA AREA X RUNOFF 981 705 OMA AREA X RUNOFF 333 2130 17 1517 DMA AREA X RUNOFF 878 7 72 POC#1 BMP#10 BUENA VISTA RESERVOIR SITE DMA EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 1A + 1B SD-7 LANDSCAPING WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES (TYP}. SD-5 IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSION. --------;, -----,---- , 3 • I ~~ --· _L~~ BUENA VISTA WAY -- . . : I . ----- ' .. •, __. ~ ' -. -, ., . -.. . . ' ' _,....._ .,.. 8/0RL TRA TION BASIN (BF-1 ). ✓ -PROPOSED ROCK LINED SWALE. SD-6 RUNOFF COLLECTION. ·-/" POTENTIAL POUUTANT SOURCE AREA: SIDEWALK (TYP). SD-5 IMPER VIOUS AREA DISPERSION. PROPOSED ROCK LINED SWALE.--~~_::_-'~~~~ SD-6 RUNOFF COLLECTION. . . ,y ) PROPOSED CONCR[TE BROW DITCH. / ¢ SD-6 RUNOFF COLLECTION. /,;',/ _, /.· 1/1/ ~ .. \ \ IMPER VIGUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA TOTAL AREA POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREA: PLAZA (TYP ). POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREA: LANDSCAPING (TYP ). SD-7 LANDSCAPING WITH NA TTVE: OR --DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES (TYP). SD-5 IMPE:RVIOUS AREA DISPERSION. POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE ' --AREA: LANDSCAPING (TYP). 1.2 POTENTIAL POUUTANT SOURCE AREA: ONSITE STORM DRAIN INLET. SD-7 LANDSCAPING WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES (TYP) . SD-5 IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSION. AREA SUMMARY TABI E EXISTING CONDITION POST-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION 10,240 SF (0.24 AC) -8.1% 23,382 SF (0.54 AC) -18.5% 116,363 (2.67 AC) -91.9% 103,221 (2.37 AC) -81.5% 126,603 SF (2.91 AC) 126,603 SF (2.9 1 AC} DIFFER[NCE +13,142 SF -13,142 SF --- SCALE: NOTED DATE: 6110119 JOB NO: 1587.00 SHEET: 1 OF 2 LEGEND D ~ ~ ----- 0 DRAWN BY: JG CHECKED BY: ss 25 IMPERVIOUS-ASPHALT IMPER VIOUS-CONCRETE PA VEME:NT PERVIOUS-LANDSCAPING DE:COMPOSED GRANITE IMPER VIOUS-BROW DITCH DMA BOUNDARY PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OMA ID[NTIRER 50 100 ( IN FEET ) I inch = 50 ft. 150 latitude~ PLANNING & ENGIN EERING 9968 Hibert Street Z"" Floor, San Diego, CA 92131 Tel 858.751.0633 ,,r LEV[L BENCH IF ADJACENT TO FILL SLOPING TOP OF RISER CATCH BASIN GRA V[L MOUND ~ SIZE PER PLAN L[V[L BENCH IF ADJACENT TO FILL SLOPING BUENA VISTA RESERVOIR SITE BMP DETAILS '\ 2' MIN. 7 .i.· AROUND PIPE BASIN fZ\.. '\ 2' MIN. 7 _,.,.---~---~ ~• rTV-r½--~ -FRE[BOARD ,,, •i,,•__.,.-f--~------.._ "._ . ,,' [ [LEVA TION~ I 6" MIN. \_ '' ---~------.----,----';t::'. 12" MIN. •J.1 ~u. ~~ p.,'/:' ,· I!!# ~-<" "U' .,·· ____ IMPERMEABLE© LINER 4 12" GRIV[L STORAGE LAYER. 0 ·'· .. I A ~OUTLET PIPE PER PLAN BIORETENTION NOTES 'A M M:::l M';;; P· './Jl% I )'?: !l.b~J -'l l ., \[ -)I Ye.A- Bj TO STORM DRAIN ' C, ..., §§ IMP[RM[ABL[ LINER 0 0 THE 78" SOIL LA YER (PLANTING LAYER) SHALL 8£ COMPRISED OF A MIXTURE OF WASHED SAND (70-85%) AND COMPOST OR AL TERNA T/V[ ORGANIC AMENDMENT (75-30%) AND SHAU MEET ASTM CJJ STANDARDS. -/ j '--6" SUB-DRAIN© ' ..., SECTION A-A ,: a g THREADED PVC CAP WITH DRILLED 0.9" LOW FLOW ORIFICE _B_IO_F_IL_T_RA_T_IO_N_B_A_SI_N__.,(_BF_-___.1) _____ 01 NTS H:\1500\1'87.00 sctmldt o.vi Gfllup--~ Pl:rt\En~~\tkrla' Qucffly\.'ttoehrn-,t 1 -Pdlutont COntrol ~\Attactwn«rt 1111 a: ,~ _..,.._.,,~ .... "9 r,:;\ THE 72" STORAGE LAYER SHA LL 8£ COMPRISED OF 3/4" GRAV[L.GRAV[L STORAGE ~ LA YER SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SPECIF/CATION PER APPENDIX F.5 OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO STORM WATER STANDARDS MANUAL AND SHALL CONSIST OF 6" FILTER COURSE OV[R 12" OF CLEAN WASHED ASTM 1/57 OPEN GRADED STONE. FILTER COURSE SHAU CONSIST OF J" LA YER OF CLEAN WASHED ASTM 33 FINE AGGREGATE SAND OV[RL 'r1NG A 3" LA YER OF ASTM NO 8 STONE. (j) PLANTING TO 8£ A MIX OF NATIV[ GRASS SPECIES, SPACED 78" OC. 0 LINE WITH IMPERMEABLE HOPE OR PVC MEMBRANE PER GEO TECHNICAL R[COMM[NDA TION. 0 FINISH GRADE OF THE FACILITY IS TO 8£ FLA r © BOTTOM OF BASIN SHALL DRAIN TOWARD SUB-DRAIN PIP[ AND HA V[ A MAXIMUM 2% SLOPE. I I I SCALE: NOTED latitude[D DATE: 6/10/19 DRAWN BY: DRP JOB NO: 1399.00 CHECKED BY: ss PLANNING & ENGINEERING SHEET: 2 OF 2 9968 Hibert Street 2M Floor , San D109O, CA92131 Tel 858.751 .0633 ~~, -,-J l~~:,~-:l+,I . '. ' .. • -~~"-""i 'ff.; -·· .. ' ' ....,_, ~ sl 19::J#f • ·A-z..___2j= ~·~~~ latitude ~--J PLANNING & ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street -r,d Floor, San Diego, CA 92131 Tel 858. 751.0633 CCSY A EXHIBIT ATTACHMENT 2B ~~~H~- ~~· .... ,~ i\.?.ii~.-:...:~... ' ..• ;~~~ ~---h., r. ~-. ..... .... 0 250 500 1000 1500 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 500 f t. • I ATTACHMENT 2D SDHM3.1 PROJECT REPORT General Model Information Project Name: Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date: Gage: Data Start: Data End: Timestep: Precip Scale: Version Date: 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 OCEANSID 10/01/1959 09/30/2004 Hourly 1.000 2019/01/02 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1 : High Flow Threshold for POC1 : 1587 sdhm 10 Percent of the 2 Year 10 Year 2/20/20194:59:11 PM Page 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Landuse Basin Data • Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use acre B,NatVeg,Moderate 2.91 Pervious Total 2.91 • Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 • Basin Total 2.91 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater • • 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59: 11 PM Page 3 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1&3 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre B,NatVeg,Moderate 1.89 Pervious Total 1.89 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-MOD 0.49 Impervious Total 0.49 Basin Total 2.38 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Surface Biofilter 1 Surface Biofilter 1 1587 sdhm Groundwater 2/20/20194:59:11 PM Page4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Basin 2 Bypass: Yes • GroundWater: No • Pervious Land Use acre B,NatVeg,Moderate 0.47 Pervious Total 0.47 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-MOD 0.05 Impervious Total 0.05 Basin Total 0.52 • Element Flows To: • Surface lnterflow Groundwater • • 1587 sdhm 2/20/20194:59:11 PM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeve/oped Routing 1587 sdhm 2/20/20194:59:11 PM Page6 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Mitigated Routing Biofilter 1 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Material thickness of first layer: Material type for first layer: Material thickness of second layer: Material type for second layer: Material thickness of third layer: Material type for third layer: Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet): Orifice Diameter (in .): Offset (in.): Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): Total Outflow (ac-ft.): Percent Through Underdrain: Discharge Structure Riser Height: 1 ft . Riser Diameter: 12 in . Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter Hydraulic Table 50.00 ft. 49.00 ft. 1.5 ESM 0.5 ESM 1 GRAVEL 1 0.9 3 20.11 23.44 85.8 Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0562 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0495 0.0562 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0989 0.0562 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.1484 0.0562 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 0.1978 0.0562 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000 0.2473 0.0562 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 0.2967 0.0562 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0562 0.0058 0.0000 0.0000 0.3956 0.0562 0.0067 0.0000 0.0000 0.4451 0.0562 0.0075 0.0000 0.0000 0.4945 0.0562 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.5440 0.0562 0.0092 0.0000 0.0000 0.5934 0.0562 0.0100 0.0000 0.0000 0.6429 0.0562 0.0108 0.0000 0.0000 0.6923 0.0562 0.0117 0.0000 0.0000 0.7418 0.0562 0.0125 0.0000 0.0000 0.7912 0.0562 0.0134 0.0000 0.0000 0.8407 0.0562 0.0142 0.0000 0.0000 0.8901 0.0562 0.0150 0.0000 0.0000 0.9396 0.0562 0.0159 0.0000 0.0000 0.9890 0.0562 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 1.0385 0.0562 0.0175 0.0000 0.0000 1.0879 0.0562 0.0184 0.0000 0.0000 1.1374 0.0562 0.0192 0.0000 0.0000 1.1868 0.0562 0.0200 0.0000 0.0000 1.2363 0.0562 0.0209 0.0000 0.0000 1.2857 0.0562 0.0217 0.0000 0.0000 1.3352 0.0562 0.0225 0.0000 0.0000 1.3846 0.0562 0.0234 0.0011 0.0000 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:11 PM Page 7 1.4341 0.0562 0.0242 0.0017 0.0000 1.4835 0.0562 0.0250 0.0029 0.0000 1.5330 0.0562 0.0259 0.0035 0.0000 1.5824 0.0562 0.0267 0.0045 0.0000 1.6319 0.0562 0.0275 0.0049 0.0000 1.6813 0.0562 0.0284 0.0057 0.0000 1.7308 0.0562 0.0292 0.0061 0.0000 1.7802 0.0562 0.0300 0.0067 0.0000 1.8297 0.0562 0.0309 0.0070 0.0000 1.8791 0.0562 0.0317 0.0076 0.0000 1.9286 0.0562 0.0325 0.0078 0.0000 1.9780 0.0562 0.0334 0.0083 0.0000 2.0275 0.0562 0.0345 0.0086 0.0000 2.0769 0.0562 0.0357 0.0090 0.0000 2.1264 0.0562 0.0368 0.0093 0.0000 2.1758 0.0562 0.0380 0.0097 0.0000 2.2253 0.0562 0.0391 0.0099 0.0000 2.2747 0.0562 0.0403 0.0103 0.0000 2.3242 0.0562 0.0415 0.0105 0.0000 2.3736 0.0562 0.0426 0.0109 0.0000 2.4231 0.0562 0.0438 0.0110 0.0000 2.4725 0.0562 0.0449 0.0114 0.0000 2.5220 0.0562 0.0461 0.0116 0.0000 2.5714 0.0562 0.0472 0.0117 0.0000 2.6209 0.0562 0.0484 0.0123 0.0000 2.6703 0.0562 0.0495 0.0130 0.0000 2.7198 0.0562 0.0507 0.0138 0.0000 2.7692 0.0562 0.0518 0.0146 0.0000 2.8187 0.0562 0.0530 0.0154 0.0000 2.8681 0.0562 0.0542 0.0161 0.0000 2.9176 0.0562 0.0553 0.0169 0.0000 2.9670 0.0562 0.0565 0.0176 0.0000 3.0000 0.0562 0.0572 0.0365 0.0000 Biofilter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)lnfilt(cfs) 3.0000 0.0562 0.0572 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.0495 0.0569 0.0600 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.0989 0.0576 0.0629 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3 .1484 0.0583 0.0657 0.0000 0.0365 0 .0000 3.1978 0.0590 0.0686 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.2473 0.0597 0.0716 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.2967 0.0604 0.0745 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.3462 0.0611 0.0775 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.3956 0.0618 0.0806 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.4451 0.0625 0.0836 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.4945 0.0632 0.0867 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.5440 0.0639 0.0899 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.5934 0.0646 0.0931 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.6429 0.0654 0.0963 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.6923 0.0661 0.0995 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.7418 0.0668 0.1028 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.7912 0.0676 0.1061 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.8407 0.0683 0.1095 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.8901 0.0690 0.1129 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.9396 0.0698 0.1163 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 3.9890 0.0705 0.1198 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 4.0385 0.071 3 0.1233 0.0800 0.0365 0.0000 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:11 PM Page 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 .0879 0.0721 0.1268 0.2754 0.0365 0.0000 4 .1374 0.0728 0.1304 0.5323 0.0365 0.0000 4 .1868 0.0736 0.1340 0.8261 0.0365 0.0000 4.2363 0.0744 0.1377 1.1332 0.0365 0.0000 • 4 .2857 0.0751 0.1414 1.4294 0.0365 0.0000 4.3352 0.0759 0.1451 1.6924 0.0365 0.0000 4.3846 0.0767 0.1489 1.9054 0.0365 0.0000 4.4341 0.0775 0.1527 2.0620 0.0365 0.0000 4.4835 0.0783 0.1566 2.1721 0.0365 0.0000 4.5000 0.0786 0.1579 2.2994 0.0365 0.0000 1587 sdhm 2/20/20194:59:11 PM Page 9 Surface Biofilter 1 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter 1 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59: 11 PM Page 10 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Analysis Results POC 1 1.38,------------• ~ 1.05 ~ 0.71 1----Q j u. 0.38 ,-•,..o •not "rim• ex.o••ctlng 0001+---------------+•001 01 1 1 I ID 20 JO to 1'0 10 t0 N • ti IU I + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 2.91 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 2.36 Total Impervious Area: 0.54 Flow Frequency Method: Weibull Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped . POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.467884 5 year 1.036833 10 year 1.382257 25 year 1 . 735835 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated . POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.216921 5 year 0.863613 10 year 1.254045 25 year 1.69503 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4: 59: 11 PM Page 11 • Duration Flows • The Facility PASSED • • Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail • 0.0468 439 382 87 .Pass • 0.0603 370 267 72 Pass 0.0738 315 217 68 Pass • 0.0873 271 189 69 Pass • 0.1007 212 165 77 Pass 0.1142 171 141 82 Pass • 0.1277 155 126 81 Pass 0.1412 142 113 79 Pass • 0.1547 138 104 75 Pass • 0.1682 133 92 69 Pass 0.1817 129 86 66 Pass • 0 .1952 126 83 65 Pass • 0.2087 118 74 62 Pass 0.2222 111 71 63 Pass • 0.2356 106 68 64 Pass • 0.2491 101 64 63 Pass 0.2626 97 62 63 Pass • 0.2761 93 59 63 Pass 0.2896 87 57 65 Pass • 0.3031 85 55 64 Pass • 0.3166 78 54 69 Pass 0.3301 74 52 70 Pass • 0.3436 71 49 69 Pass 0.3570 67 41 61 Pass 0.3705 64 40 62 Pass 0.3840 61 39 63 Pass • 0.3975 59 38 64 Pass 0.4110 57 38 66 Pass 0.4245 52 37 71 Pass • 0.4380 51 33 64 Pass 0.4515 46 32 69 Pass • 0.4650 44 31 70 Pass 0.4785 41 30 73 Pass • 0.4919 37 30 81 Pass • 0.5054 37 29 78 Pass 0.5189 35 28 80 Pass • 0.5324 32 28 87 Pass • 0.5459 30 26 86 Pass 0.5594 30 25 83 Pass • 0.5729 29 23 79 Pass • 0.5864 27 22 81 Pass 0.5999 27 22 81 Pass • 0.6134 26 21 80 Pass 0.6268 25 20 80 Pass • 0.6403 23 20 86 Pass • 0.6538 22 19 86 Pass 0.6673 21 17 80 Pass • 0.6808 20 17 85 Pass • 0.6943 19 16 84 Pass 0.7078 18 15 83 Pass • 0.7213 18 15 83 Pass • 0.7348 18 15 83 Pass 0.7482 18 15 83 Pass • 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:20 PM Page 12 • • • • • • • • • 0.7617 0.7752 0.7887 0.8022 0.8157 0.8292 0.8427 0.8562 0.8697 0.8831 0.8966 0.9101 0.9236 0.9371 0.9506 0.9641 0.9776 0.9911 1.0045 1.0180 1.0315 1.0450 1.0585 1.0720 1.0855 1.0990 1.1125 1.1260 1.1394 1.1529 1.1664 1.1799 1.1934 1.2069 1.2204 1.2339 1.2474 1.2609 1.2743 1.2878 1.3013 1.3148 1.3283 1.3418 1.3553 1.3688 1.3823 1587 sdhm 18 15 15 15 14 13 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 8 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 13 72 Pass 13 86 Pass 12 80 Pass 11 73 Pass 10 71 Pass 10 76 Pass 9 75 Pass 9 75 Pass 9 75 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 80 Pass 8 88 Pass 7 77 Pass 7 77 Pass 7 77 Pass 6 75 Pass 6 100 Pass 6 100 Pass 6 100 Pass 5 100 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 80 Pass 4 100 Pass 4 100 Pass 4 100 Pass 4 100 Pass 4 100 Pass 4 100 Pass 4 100 Pass 4 100 Pass 2/20/2019 4:59:20 PM Page 13 Water Quality Drawdown Time Results Pond: Biofilter 1 Days 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Stage: 1587 sdhm Stage(feet) 2.368 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Percent of Total Run Time 1.5658 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.000 Drawdown Time: 01 09:24:40 2/20/2019 4:5920 PM Page 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • POC2 POC #2 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run . 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4: 59:20 PM Page 15 Model Default Modifications Total of O changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:20 PM Page 16 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix Predeve/oped Schematic 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:20 PM Page 17 Mitigated Schematic 1587 sdhm 0asin 13 . 38ac 2/20/2019 4:59:31 PM Page 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Predeveloped UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 START model simulation 1959 10 01 OUTPUT LEVEL RUN INTERP RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES END 2004 09 30 3 0 UNIT SYSTEM 1 <File> <Un#> <-----------Fi le Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> WDM MESSU *** END FILES 26 25 27 28 30 OPN SEQUENCE INGRP PERLND COPY DISPLY END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFOl 1587 sdhm.wdm Pre1587 sdhm.MES Pre1587 sdhm.L61 Pre1587 sdhm.L62 POC1587 sdhml .dat 11 501 1 I NDELT 00 :60 # -#<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIGl FILl PYR DI G2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-I NFOl END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # -# NPT 1 1 501 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE NMN 1 1 # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM *** # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN -INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS # -# 11 B,NatVeg,Moderate 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY Unit-systems User t -series in out 1 1 1 Printer Engl Metr 27 0 *** *** *** <PLS # - 11 >*************Active Sections ***************************** # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS # - 11 >*****************Print-flags ***************************** # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PRINT-INFO 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM *** PIVL PYR ********* 1 9 Page 19 PWAT-PARMl <PLS > PWATER variable monthly # -# CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ 11 0 1 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARMl PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: parameter valu e flags *** VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 0 0 0 1 1 0 Part 2 *** # -# ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY 11 0 3 .7 0.055 80 0 .1 2.5 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP 11 0 0 2 2 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 # -# CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW 11 0 0 .6 0 .04 1 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 11 0.4 0 .4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0 .6 0.6 END MON-LZETPARM MON-INTERCEP <PLS > PWATER input i nfo : Part 3 *** # -# JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 11 0.1 0 .1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0 .06 0 .06 0.06 0 .06 END MON -INTERCEP PWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** # -# *** 11 Initial ran from CEPS 0 END PWAT-STATEl END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO conditions at start 1990 to end of 1992 SURS UZS 0 0. 01 of simulation (pat 1-11-95) IFWS 0 <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer # -# User t-series Engl Metr in out END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY 0 0 .05 IRC LZETP 0.3 0 OCT NOV DEC 0 .4 0.4 0 .4 OCT NOV DEC 0.1 0.1 0.1 RUN 21 LZS *** 0.4 *** *** *** AGWS 0 .01 <PLS >*************Active Sections ***************************** # -# ATMP SNOW I WAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS >********Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # -# ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARMl <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # -# CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARMl IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > I WATER input info: Part 2 *** # -# *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT -PARM2 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM AGWRC 0.915 AGWETP *** *** *** *** 0 .05 GWVS 0 Page 20 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > !WATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEl <PLS >***Initial conditions at start of simulation # -# *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATEl END I MPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # Basin l *** PERLND 11 PERLND 11 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <--Ar ea--> <-factor-> 2 .91 2 .91 <-Target-> MBLK <Name> # Tbl# COPY 501 12 COPY 501 13 *** *** <-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 # -#<------------------><---> User T-series in out END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES *** ACTIVITY Printer Engl Metr LKFG <PLS >*************Active Sections ***************************** # -# HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVI TY PRINT-INFO *** *** *** <PLS >*****************Print-flags ******************* PIVL # -# HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SEO GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL END PRINT-INFO PYR PYR ********* HYDR-PARMl RCHRES Flags # -# VC Al FG FG * * END HYDR-PARMl HYDR-PARM2 for each HYDR Section A2 A3 ODFVFG for each FG FG possible exit * * * * * * * # -# FTABNO LEN DELTH *** *** ODGTFG for each possible exit * * * * * STCOR KS *** FUNCT for each possible exit *** DB50 <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR -INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section # -# *** VOL I nitial value of COLIND *** ac-ft for each possible exit *** Initial value of OUTDGT for each possible exit <------><--------> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 21 SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> <Name> # <Name> # WDM 2 PREC WDM 2 PREC WDM 1 EVAP WDM 1 EVAP END EXT SOURCES SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran tern strg<-factor->strg ENGL 1 ENGL 1 ENGL 1 ENGL 1 <-Target vols> <Name> # # PERLND 1 999 IMPLND 1 999 PERLND 1 999 IMPLND 1 999 <-Grp> EXTNL EXTNL EXTNL EXTNL <-Member-> <Name> # # PREC PREC PETINP PETINP *** *** EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <Name> # <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name># #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tern strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT END EXT TARGETS MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL MASS-LINK <Volume> <Name> MASS -LINK <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Name># #<-factor-> 12 PERLND PWATER END MASS -LINK SURO 12 MASS -LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO END MASS -LINK 13 END MASS-LINK END RUN 1587 sdhm 0.083333 0.083333 <Target> <Name> COPY COPY 2/20/201 9 4:59:40 PM <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name>##*** INPUT MEAN INPUT MEAN Page 22 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Mitigated UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 START model simulation 1959 10 01 OUTPUT LEVEL RUN INTERP RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES END 2004 09 30 3 0 UNIT SYSTEM 1 <File> <Un#> <-ID-> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** WDM 26 MESSU 25 END FILES 27 28 30 OPN SEQUENCE INGRP PERLND IMPLND RCHRES RCHRES COPY COPY COPY DISPLY END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFOl 1587 sdhm.wdm Mit1587 sdhm.MES Mit1587 sdhm.L61 Mit1587 sdhm.L62 POC1587 sdhml.dat 11 2 1 2 1 501 601 1 INDELT 00 :60 *** # -#<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIGl FILl PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Surface Biofilter 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFOl END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # -# NPT 1 1 501 1 601 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE NMN 1 1 1 # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM *** # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS # -# Unit-systems Printer User t -series Engl Metr *** *** *** 11 B,NatVeg,Moderate END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS >*************Active # -# ATMP SNOW PWAT SED 11 0 0 1 0 END ACTIVITY 1587 sdhm in out 1 1 1 1 27 0 Sections***************************** PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM *** Page 23 PRINT-INFO <PLS >*****************Print-flags ***************************** # -# ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARMl <PLS > PWATER variable monthly # -# CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ parameter value f l ags *** VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 11 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARMl PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # -# ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR 11 0 3.7 0 .055 80 0 .1 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR 11 0 0 2 2 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 # -# CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW 11 0 0 .6 0 .04 1 END PWAT -PARM4 MON-LZETPARM <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 11 0 .4 0 .4 0 .4 0.4 0.6 0.6 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 11 0 .1 0 .1 0.1 0 .1 0 .06 0 .06 0 .06 0 .06 0.06 END MON-I NTERCEP PWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation r an from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1 -11-95) # -# *** CEPS 11 0 END PWAT-STATEl END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO SURS 0 <PLS ><-------Name-------> # -# 2 IMPERVIOUS-MOD END GEN-INFO *** Section !WATER*** ACTIVITY uzs 0.01 Unit-systems User t-series in out 1 1 1 IFWS 0 Printer Engl Metr 27 0 0 IRC 0.3 OCT 0 .4 OCT 0.1 RUN LZS 0 .4 *** *** *** K.VARY 2 .5 BASETP 0 .05 LZETP 0 NOV DEC 0.4 0 .4 NOV DEC 0 .1 0.1 21 *** AGWS 0 .01 <PLS # - >*************Active # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD Sect ions ***************************** IWG IQAL *** 2 0 0 1 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags # -# ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD 2 0 END PRINT-INFO I WAT-PARMl 1587 sdhm 0 4 0 0 0 ******** PIVL PYR IWG IQAL ********* 0 0 1 9 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM PIVL PYR ********* 1 9 AGWRC 0 . 915 AGWETP 0.05 *** *** *** *** GWVS 0 Page 24 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • <PLS > !WATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # -# CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTL! *** 2 0 0 0 0 1 END IWAT-PARMl IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > !WATER input info: Part 2 *** # -# *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 2 100 0.1 0.0ll 0 .08 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > !WATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# ***PETMAX PETMIN 2 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** # -# *** 2 Initial conditions at start of simulation RETS SURS END IWAT-STATEl END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # Basin 1&3*** PERLND ll PERLND ll IMPLND 2 Basin 2*** PERLND ll PERLND 11 PERLND ll PERLND ll IMPLND 2 IMPLND 2 ******Routing****** PERLND ll IMPLND 2 PERLND ll RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 1 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK 0 0 <--Area--> <-factor-> 1. 89 1. 89 0.49 0 .47 0.47 0 .47 0.47 0.05 0.05 1. 89 0.49 1. 89 1 1 1 <-Target-> MBLK <Name> # Tbl# RCHRES 1 2 RCHRES 1 3 RCHRES 1 5 COPY 501 12 COPY 601 12 COPY 501 13 COPY 601 13 COPY 501 15 COPY 601 15 COPY 1 12 COPY 1 15 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 2 8 COPY 501 16 COPY 501 17 *** *** <-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 # -#<------------------><---> 1 Surface Biofilte-006 2 Biofilter 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES *** 1587 sdhm 3 1 Unit Systems Printer *** User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 1 1 28 0 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 25 ACTIVITY <PLS # - >*************Active Sections # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS >*****************Print-flags # -# HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARMl RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section ***************************** OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ******************* OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ODGTFG for each PIVL PIVL 1 1 PYR PYR 9 9 FUNCT ********* *** for each # -# VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each*** FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 END HYDR-PARMl HYDR-PARM2 # -# FTABNO * * * * * 4 5 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 LEN DELTH * * 0 0 0 0 STCOR * * * *** 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 KS DESO *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0 .01 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 2. 2 0. 01 0 . 0 0. 0 0.5 0 .0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** Initial value of OUTDGT for each possible ex it # -# *** VOL Initial value of COLIND *** ac-ft for each possible exit <------><--------> 1 0 2 0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 2 62 4 Depth Area (ft) (acres) 0.000000 0.056244 0 .049451 0.056244 0.098901 0.056244 0 .148352 0 .056244 0 .197802 0 .056244 0.247253 0 .056244 0.296703 0.056244 0.346154 0.056244 0 .395604 0.056244 0 .445055 0.056244 0.494505 0 .056244 0.543956 0 .056244 0.593407 0.056244 0.642857 0.056244 0 .692308 0.056244 0.741758 0.056244 0.791209 0.056244 0 .840659 0.056244 0.890110 0.056244 0.939560 0.056244 0.989011 0 .056244 1.038462 0.056244 1 .087912 0.056244 1.137363 0.056244 <---><---><---><---><---> 4.0 5.0 6 .0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume Outflowl Veloc ity (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) 0.000000 0 .000000 0 .000834 0 .000000 0.001669 0.000000 0.002503 0.000000 0.003338 0.000000 0.004172 0.000000 0.005006 0.000000 0 .005841 0.000000 0 .006675 0 .000000 0 .007510 0.000000 0.008344 0 .000000 0.009178 0.000000 0.010013 0 .000000 0.010847 0 .000000 0 . 011682 0 .000000 0 .012516 0 .000000 0.013350 0 .000000 0.014185 0 .000000 0.015019 0.000000 0.015853 0 .000000 0 .016688 0.000000 0.017522 0.000000 0 .018357 0.000000 0 . 019191 0.000000 *** <---><---><---><---><---> 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time*** (Minutes)*** 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 26 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1.186813 0.056244 0.020025 0 .000000 1.236264 0.056244 0.020860 0 .000000 1 .285714 0.056244 0.021694 0.000000 1.335165 0.056244 0.022529 0.000000 1 .384615 0 .056244 0.023363 0 . 001113 1.434066 0.056244 0 .024197 0 .001670 1. 483516 0 .056244 0 .025032 0 .002904 1 .532967 0 .056244 0 .025866 0.003521 1.582418 0 .056244 0 .026701 0.004465 1.631868 0.05624 4 0 .027535 0.004938 1 .681319 0.056244 0.028369 0 .005686 1 .730769 0.056244 0.029204 0 .006060 1 .780220 0.056244 0.030038 0 .006689 1.829670 0.056244 0 .030873 0 .007003 • 1.879121 0 .056244 0.031707 0 .007553 • 1 .928571 0.056244 0 .032541 0.007828 1 .978022 0 .056244 0.033376 0.008324 • 2 .027473 0.056244 0.034530 0 .008572 2.076923 0.056244 0.035684 0.009026 • 2.126374 0.056244 0.036838 0 .009254 2.175824 0.056244 0 .037993 0 .009677 • 2.225275 0 .056244 0.039147 0.009888 2.274725 0 .056244 0.04 0301 0 .010286 • 2 .324176 0 .056244 0.041455 0.010484 2.373626 0 .056244 0.042610 0 .010860 2.423077 0.056244 0.043764 0.011047 2 .472527 0.056244 0. 044918 0. 011405 2.521978 0.056244 0.046072 0. 011583 2.571429 0.056244 0.047227 0.011729 2 .620879 0.056244 0 .048381 0 .012266 2 .670330 0 .056244 0 .049535 0 .012991 2.719780 0.056244 0.050689 0 .013782 2 .769231 0.056244 0.051844 0.014583 2.818681 0.056244 0.052998 0.015369 2. 868132 0.056244 0.054152 0.016131 2 .917582 0.056244 0.055306 0.016868 2.967033 0.056244 0.056461 0 .017586 3.000000 0.056244 0 .060243 0.036451 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 1 32 6 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 outflow 3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) • (Minutes)*** 0 .000000 0 .056244 0.000000 0 .000000 0 .000000 0 .000000 0.049451 0.056921 0 .002798 0 .000000 0 .036451 0.000000 0.098901 0.057601 0.005630 0 .000000 0 .036451 0 .000000 0 .148352 0.058285 0.008495 0.000000 0.036451 0.000000 0.197802 0.058974 0.011394 0.000000 0.036451 0 .000000 0 .247253 0.059666 0.014328 0.000000 0.036451 0.000000 0.296703 0.060363 0.017295 0.000000 0.036451 0.000000 0 .346154 0.061064 0.020298 0.000000 0.036451 0.000000 0.395604 0.061768 0.023335 0.000000 0.036451 0.000000 0.445055 0.062477 0.026407 0.000000 0.036451 0 .000000 0.494505 0.063190 0.029514 0 .000000 0.036451 0.000000 0 .543956 0.063906 0.032656 0 .000000 0.036451 0.000000 0.593407 0.064627 0.035834 0.000000 0 .036451 0 .000000 0.642857 0.065352 0.039048 0.000000 0 .036451 0 .000000 0.692308 0 .066081 0.042298 0.000000 0 .036451 0.000000 • 0 .741758 0 .066814 0 .045584 0 .000000 0 .036451 0.000000 0 .791209 0 .067551 0.048906 0 .000000 0 .036451 0.000000 0.840659 0.068292 0.052265 0 .000000 0.036451 0.000000 0 . 890110 0.069037 0.055660 0.000000 0 .036451 0 .000000 • 0.939560 0.069786 0.059093 0 .000000 0.036451 0 .000000 0 . 989011 0 .070539 0.062562 0 .000000 0 .036451 0.000000 • 1. 038462 0.071296 0 .066069 0 .079976 0.036451 0.000000 1 .087912 0. 072058 0 .069614 0.275387 0.036451 0 .000000 • 1 .137363 0.072823 0 .073196 0.532289 0.036451 0 .000000 1.186813 0.073592 0.076816 0 .826090 0.036451 0 .000000 • 1587 sdhm • 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 27 • • • 1.236264 0.074366 0.080474 1.133165 0.036451 0.000000 1 .285714 0.075143 0.084171 1.429395 0 .036451 0.000000 • 1 .335165 0.075924 0.087906 1.692395 0.036451 0 .000000 1 .384615 0.076710 0.091680 1.905359 0.036451 0.000000 • 1.434066 0.077499 0.095493 2.061968 0 .036451 0.000000 • 1 .483516 0 .078293 0.099345 2.172110 0 .036451 0 .000000 1. 500000 0.078558 0 .100638 2.299375 0 .036451 0 .000000 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES • EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tern 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 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> tern 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 0 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 • COPY 601 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 901 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 !VOL END MASS-LINK 3 • MASS -LINK 5 • IMPLND !WATER SURO 0 .083333 RCHRES INFLOW !VOL END MASS -LINK 5 • MASS -LINK 8 • RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW !VOL • 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 I MPLND !WATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 • 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 28 • • • • • • • • • • • MASS-LINK RCHRES OF LOW END MASS-LINK END MASS-LINK END RUN 1587 sdhm 17 OVOL 17 1 COPY 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM INPUT MEAN Page 29 Predevelcped HSPF Message File 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 30 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Mitigated HSPF Message File 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 31 Disclaimer • • Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The e 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 e 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 e 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. 2005-2019; All • Rights Reserved. e 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 1587 sdhm 2/20/2019 4:59:40 PM Page 32 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 This is the cover sheet for Attachment 3. latitude PLANNING & ENGINEERING Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Preliminacy Design / Planning: / CEOA level submittal: • Attachment 3a must identify: IZ! Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed strucrural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual Final Design level submittal: Attachment 3a must identify: IZI 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 strucrural BMP(s) IZ! How to access the strucrural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance IZ! Fearures 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 strucrural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) IZ! Manufacrurer and part number for proprietary parts of strucmral BMP(s) when applicable IZI Maintenance thresholds for BMP(s) 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 requires, posts or other marking shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.) IZI Recommended equipment to perform maintenance IZ! When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 latitude il3 PLANNING & ENGINEERING • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 7: Long Term Operation and Maintenance TABLE 7-3. Maintenance Indicators and Actions for Vegetated BMPs Typical Maintenance Indicator(s) Maintenance Actions for Vegetated BMPs Accumulation of sediment, litter, or Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, without debris damage to the vegetation . Poor vegetation establishment Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans . Overgrown vegetation Mow or trim as appropriate, but not less than the design height of the vegetation per original plans when applicable (e.g. a vegetated swale may require a minimum vegetation height). Erosion due to concentrated irrigation Repair/ re-seed/ re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation flow system. Erosion due to concentrated storm Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate water runoff flow corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, The County must be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Standing water in vegetated swales Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, loosening or replacing top soil to allow for better infiltration, or minor re-grading for proper drainage. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, County staff in the Watershed Protection Program must be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Standing water tn bioretention, Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation biofiltration with partial retention, or system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, biofiltration areas, or flow-through clearing underdrains (where applicable), or repairing/replacing planter boxes for longer than 96 hours clogged or compacted soils. following a storm event* Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear obstructions. Damage to structural components such Repair or replace as applicable. as weirs, inlet or outlet structures *These BMPs typically include a surface ponding layer as part of tl1eir function which may take 96 hours to drain following a storm event. 7-14 Effective February 26, 2016 BMP MAINTENANCE FACT SHEET FOR STRUCTURAL BMP BF-1 BIOFILTRATION BF-1 Biofiltration Biofiltration facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via underdrain or overflow to the downstream conveyance system. Biofiltration facilities have limited or no infiltration. They are typically designed to provide enough hydraulic head to move flows through the underdrain connection to the storm drain system. Typical biofiltration components include: • Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g., perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) • Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap) • Shallow surface ponding for captured flows • Side slope and basin bottom vegetation selected based on climate and ponding depth • Non-floating mulch layer • Media layer (planting mix or engineered media) capable of supporting vegetation growth • Filter course layer consisting of aggregate to prevent the migration of fines into uncompacted native soils or the aggregate storage layer • Aggregate storage layer with underdrain(s) • Impermeable liner or uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility • Overflow structure Normal Expected M aintenance Biofiltration requires routine maintenance to: remove accumulated materials such as sediment, trash or debris; maintain vegetation health; maintain infiltration capacity of the media layer; replenish mulch; and maintain integrity of side slopes, inlets, energy dissipators, and outlets. A summary table of standard inspection and maintenance indicators is provided within this Fact Sheet. Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure If any of the following scenarios are observed, the BMP is not performing as intended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or erosion. Corrective maintenance, increased inspection and maintenance, BMP replacement, or a different BMP type will be required. • The BMP is not drained between storm events. Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging of the media layer, filter course, aggregate storage layer, underdrain, or outlet structure. The specific cause of the drainage issue must be determined and corrected. • Sediment, trash, or debris accumulation greater than 25% of the surface ponding volume within one month. This means the load from the tributary drainage area is too high, reducing BMP function or clogging the BMP. This would require pretreatment measures within the tributary area draining to the BMP to intercept the materials. Pretreatment components, especially for sediment, will extend the life of components that are more expensive to replace such as media, filter course, and aggregate layers. • Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow that is not readily corrected by adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. BF-1 Page 1 of 11 January 12, 2017 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Other Special Considerations BF-1 Biofiltration Biofiltration is a vegetated structural BMP. Vegetated structural BMPs that are constructed in the vicinity of, or connected to, an existing jurisdictional water or wetland could inadvertently result in creation of expanded waters or wetlands. As such, vegetated structural BMPs have the potential to come under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, SDRWQCB, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This could result in the need for specific resource agency permits and costly mitigation to perform maintenance of the structural BMP. Along with proper placement of a structural BMP, routine maintenance is key to preventing this scenario. BF-1 Page 2 of 11 January 12, 2017 BF-1 Biofiltration SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR BF-1 BIOFILTRATION The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection, operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless responsibility has been formally transferred to an agency, community facilities district, homeowners association, property owners association, or other special district. Maintenance frequencies listed in this table are average/typical frequencies. Actual maintenance needs are site-specific, and maintenance may be required more frequently. Maintenance must be performed whenever needed, based on maintenance indicators presented in this table. The BMP owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections to see when maintenance is needed based on the maintenance indicators. During the first year of operation of a structural BMP, inspection is recommended at least once prior to August 31 and then monthly from September through May. Inspection during a storm event is also recommended. After the initial period of frequent inspections, the minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based on the results of the first year inspections. Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, • Inspect monthly. If the BMP is 25% full* or more in without damage to the vegetation or compaction of the one month, increase inspection frequency to monthly media layer. plus after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Remove any accumulated materials found at each inspection. Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear blockage. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. • Remove any accumulated materials found at each inspection. Damage to structural components such as weirs, inlet or Repair or replace as applicable • Inspect annually. outlet structures • Maintenance when needed. Poor vegetation establishment Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original • Inspect monthly. plans. • Maintenance when needed. Dead or diseased vegetation Remove dead or diseased vegetation, re-seed, re-plant, • Inspect monthly. or re-establish vegetation per original plans. • Maintenance when needed. Overgrown vegetation Mow or trim as appropriate. • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. 2/3 of mulch has decomposed, or mulch has been Remove decomposed fraction and top off with fresh • Inspect monthly. removed mulch to a total depth of 3 inches. • Replenish mulch annually, or more frequently when needed based on inspection. *"25% full" is defined as¼ of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure (e.g., if the height to the outflow opening is 12 inches from the bottom elevation, then the materials must be removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation -this should be marked on the outflow structure). •••••• • • •••• • BF-1 Page 3 of 11 January 12, 2017 •• ••o ••••••a• •• BF-1 Biofiltration SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR BF-1 BIOFILTRATION (Continued from previous page) Threshold/Indicator Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flow Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow Standing water in BMP for longer than 24 hours following a storm event Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation hea Ith Presence of mosquitos/larvae For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult mosquitos, see htt12:LLwww.mosguito.orgLbiolog~ Underdrain clogged Maintenance Action Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation system. Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer) shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, clearing underdrains, or repairing/replacing clogged or compacted soils. If mosquitos/larvae are observed: first, immediately remove any standing water by dispersing to nearby landscaping; second, make corrective measures as applicable to restore BMP drainage to prevent standing water. If mosquitos persist following corrective measures to remove standing water, or if the BMP design does not meet the 96-hour drawdown criteria due to release rates controlled by an orifice installed on the underdrain, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted to determine a solution. A different BMP type, or a Vector Management Plan prepared with concurrence from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, may be required. Clear blockage. BF-1 Page 4 of 11 January 12, 2017 Typical Maintenance Frequency • Inspect monthly. • Maintenance when needed. • Inspect after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If erosion due to storm water flow has been observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If standing water is observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed. • Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event. If mosquitos are observed, increase inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event. • Maintenance when needed. • Inspect if standing water is observed for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event. • Maintenance when needed. • References American Mosquito Control Association. http://www.mosquito.org/ California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA). 2003. Municipal BMP Handbook. https://www.casga.org/resources/bmp-handbooks/municipal-bmp-handbook County of San Diego. 2014. Low Impact Development Handbook. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/watersheds/susmp/lid.html San Diego County Copermittees. 2016. Model BMP Design Manual, Appendix E, Fact Sheet BF-1. http://www. p rojectcl ea nwater. org/i ndex.ph p ?optio n=com con tent& view=a rticle&id =250& ltemj<:!3220 •••••• •• • •• BF-1 Page 5 of 11 January 12, 2017 •e BF-1 Biofiltration •••e• •••••• Date: Permit No.: Property/ Development Name: Property Address of BMP: Threshold/Indicator Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris Maintenance Needed? 0 YES O NO 0 N/A Poor vegetation establishment Maintenance Needed? 0 YES O NO □ N/A I Inspector: I BMP ID No.: I APN(s): Responsible Party Name and Phone Number: Responsible Party Address: INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BIOFILTRATION PAGE 1 of S BF-1 Biofiltration Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted 0 Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, without damage to the vegetation 0 If sediment, litter, or debris accumulation exceeds 25% of the surface ponding volume within one month (25% full•), add a forebay or other pre-treatment measures within the tributary area draining to the BMP to intercept the materials. 0 Other/ Comments: 0 Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans 0 Other/ Comments: •"25% full" is defined as X of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure (e.g., if the height to the outflow opening is 12 inches from the bottom elevation, then the materials must be removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation -this should be marked on the outflow structure). BF-1 Page 7 of 11 January 12, 2017 Date: Inspector: Permit No.: APN(s): BMP ID No.: BF-1 Biofiltration INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BIOFILTRATION PAGE 2 of S Threshold/Indicator Dead or diseased vegetation Maintenance Needed? 0 YES □NO 0 N/A Overgrown vegetation Maintenance Needed? □YES □NO 0 N/A 2/3 of mulch has decomposed, or mulch has been removed Maintenance Needed? □ YES □NO 0 N/A ........... • Maintenance Recommendation D Remove dead or diseased vegetation, re- seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans 0 Other/ Comments: D Mow or trim as appropriate D Other/ Comments: D Remove decomposed fraction and top off with fresh mulch to a total depth of 3 inches D Other/ Comments: ••••e BF-1 Page 8 of 11 January 12, 2017 • Date Description of Maintenance Conducted • •••••••• •••••••• Date: Inspector: Permit No.: APN(s): BMP ID No.: BF-1 Biofiltration INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BIOFILTRATION PAGE 3 of 5 Threshold/Indicator Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flow Maintenance Needed? □YES O NO 0 N/A Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow Maintenance Needed? 0 YES O NO 0 N/A Maintenance Recommendation D Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation system D Other/ Comments: D Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan D If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the [City Engineer) shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction D Other/ Comments: BF-1 Page 9 of 11 January 12, 2017 Date Description of Maintenance Conducted •• Date: Inspector: Permit No.: APN(s): BMP ID No.: BF-1 Biofiltration INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BIOFILTRATION PAGE 4 of S Threshold/Indicator Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Maintenance Needed? □ YES □NO 0 N/A Underdrain clogged (inspect underdrain if standing water is observed for longer than 24-96 hours following a storm event) Maintenance Needed? 0 YES O NO 0 N/A Damage to structural components such as weirs, inlet or outlet structures Maintenance Needed? 0 YES O NO 0 N/A M aintenance Recommendation D Clear blockage D Other/ Comments: 0 Clear blockage 0 Other/ Comments: 0 Repair or replace as applicable 0 Other/ Comments: BF-1 Page 10 of 11 January 12, 2017 • • ••• •••••• • Date Description of Maintenance Conducted ••••• • •••••••••• Date: Inspector: Permit No.: APN(s): BMP ID No.: BF-1 Biofiltration INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR BF-1 BIOFILTRATION PAGES of S Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted Standing water in BMP for longer than 24-96 D Make appropriate corrective measures hours following a storm event• such as adjusting irrigation system, Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 removing obstructions of debris or hours following a storm event may be invasive vegetation, clearing detrimental to vegetation health underdrains, or repairing/replacing clogged or compacted soils Maintenance Needed? D Other/ Comments: □YES O NO O N/A Presence of mosquitos/larvae D Apply corrective measures to remove standing water in BMP when standing For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult water occurs for longer than 24-96 mosquitos, see hours following a storm event ... http://www.mosguito.org/biology D Other/ Comments: Maintenance Needed? 0 YES O NO 0 N/A *Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging of the media layer, filter course, aggregate storage layer, underdrain, or outlet structure. The specific cause of the drainage issue must be determined and corrected. **If mosquitos persist following corrective measures to remove standing water, or if the BMP design does not meet the 96-hour drawdown criteria due to release rates controlled by an orifice installed on the underdrain, the [City Engineer] shall be contacted to determine a solution. A different BMP type, or a Vector Management Plan prepared with concurrence from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, may be required. BF-1 Page 11 of 11 January 12, 2017 • • • • ATTACHMENT4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 This is the cover sheet for Attachment 4 . latitudeD3 PLANNING & ENGINEERING \ \ _/ / \ ) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \. ~\\I~ V / ...... ~ .......... \ ~ \ / J ( I I I \ \ \ I \ SWMP NO. _____ _ PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE= NAM[ ________ _ ADDR£SS _______ _ CONTACT _____ _ PHONE NO. ______ _ PLAN PREPARED BY= NAME SEAN SCARAMELLA COMPANY LA77TVDE 3J ADDRESS 9968 HIBERT 51/?EET 2ND FLOOR SAN DIEGO CA 92131 PHONE NO 858 875 1714 51GNAIURE BMPNOTES: C£RTIFICA TION ____ _ 1. THESE BMPS ARE MANDA TORY TO BE /NSTALl£D PER MANUFACTURER'S R[COMMENOA TIONS OR THESE PLANS. 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOS[D BMPS ON THIS SHEET W1THOUT PRIOR APPRO VAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MA TERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES W1THOUT PRIOR APPROVAL Ff?OM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY KILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6 S[E PROJ£CT SWQMP FOR ADDtnONAL INFORMA TION. BMP BMP ID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASOA NO. QUANTITY TREATMENT CONTROL @ BIORETENTION ~ TC-32 , 4~Q SF. AREA LOW IM PACT DESIGN (L .I.D.) @ VEGETATIVE ~ TC-30 ~SF. SWALE * CHOOSE FROM THE LIST BELOW FOR COMPLETING THE FIELDS IN THE INSPECTIONS & MAINTENANCE FRENQUENCY COLUMNS: ANNUAL SEMI-ANNUALLY QUARTERLY BIMONTHLY MONTH LY AS NEEDED NONE WEEKLY 1 TIME PER YEAR 2 TIMES PER YEAR 3 TIMES PER YEAR 4 TIMES PER YEAR TABLE DRAWING NO. SH EET NO.(S) INSPECTION * MAINTENANCE * FREQUENCY FREQUENCY xx C-1.0 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY xx C-1.0 ANNUALLY MONTHLY ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD 1-----1--------+----------------t----f--+--t--7 L2__j ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1------+--+----------------f---+--t---t--, SINGLE SHEET BMP SITE PLAN BUENA VI STA RESERVOIR SITE RECORD COPY PROJECT NO. DA1E INITIAL DA 1E INITIAL DA 1E INITIAL DRAWING NO. ENGIN EER OF WORK REVISION DESCR IPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL INITIAL DAlE • ATTACHMENT 5 Project Geotechnical Report Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 This is the cover sheet for Attachment 5. latitude PlANNING & ENGINEERING I I I I I I I I I LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR SCHMIDT DESIGN GROUP, INC. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 9, 2018 PROJECT NO. 02225-52-01 GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICA Project No. 02225-52-0 I February 9, 20 18 I ■ ENVIRONMENTAi ■ MATERIAlSe Schmidt Design Group, Inc 1111 Sixth A venue, Suite 500 San Diego, California 92 10 I Attention: Subject: Mr. JT Barr LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Barr: In accordance with authorization of our Proposal No. LG-17239 dated September 21, 20 17, we herein submit the results of our limited geotechnical investigation for the subject site. We performed our investigation to evaluate the underlying soil and geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards and to assist in the design of the proposed park improvements. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The site is considered suitable for development of a park provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Should you have questions regarding this report, or ifwe may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCONINCORPORATED "i<,,111 .. a. ,~es RCE 79438 KAJ:SFW:JH:ejc (4) Addressee (e-mail) Latitude 33 Planning and Engineeri ng Attention: Mr. Sean Scaramella 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121 -2974 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. I 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPT.ION ........................................................................................... I 3. GEOLOGIC SETTfNG .................................................................................................................... 2 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2 4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudt) .................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) .................................................................................................... 3 5. GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................................... 3 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 3 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity ......................................................................................................... 3 6.2 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Seiches and Tsunamis ............................................................................................................ 6 6.4 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement ................................................................. 6 6.5 Landslides .............................................................................................................................. 6 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 7 7.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 7 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics ...................................................................................... 8 7.3 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 9 7.4 Preliminary Grading Recommendations .............................................................................. IO 7.5 Excavation Slopes ................................................................................................................ 11 7 .6 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................................... 12 7.7 Drilled Piers ......................................................................................................................... 13 7 .8 Basketball Courts and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ................................................................ 14 7.9 Concrete Flatwork ............................................................................................................... 15 7.10 RetainingWalls ................................................................................................................... 16 7.11 Lateral Loading .................................................................................................................... 18 7.12 Preliminary Flexible and Rigid Pavement Recommendations ............................................ 19 7.13 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................................................................ 21 7.14 Grading and Foundation Plan Review ................................................................................. 22 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure I, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map Figure 3, Geologic Cross-Sections Figure 4, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail Figure 5, Retaining Wall Loading Diagram Figure 6, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail APPENDIX A FIELD fNVESTIGA TION Figures A-I -A-14, Logs of Exploratory Trenches and Infiltration Test Pits TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table B-11, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results Table B-111, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results Table 8-V, Summary of Laboratory R-Value Test Results Figure 8-1, Gradation Curves APPENDIX C STORM WATER INVESTIGATION APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation related to the proposed public park to be located in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure I). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions and general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that may affect development of the property. In addition, the purpose of this report is to provide foundation design criteria, preli minary pavement recommendations, 2016 seismic design criteria, concrete tlatwork design criteria, retaining wall and lateral loading, and excavation considerations. The scope of this geotechnical investigation also included a review of readi ly available published and unpublished geologic literature (see Lisi of References). A site and grading plan was not available at the time of this report. To aid in preparing this report we have reviewed Survey Exhibit, prepared by Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering, dated November 29, 20 17 (Job No. 1587.00). We performed a field investigation that included excavating 10 exploratory trenches to depths ranging from 4 to 7 feet below existing grade. We also performed 4 test pits to perform infiltration testing ranging from 3 to 4 feet below grade. The Geologic Map, Figure 2, presents the approximate location of the trenches and infiltration tests/test pits. Appendix A shows the trench logs and other details of the field investigation. We tested selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation to evaluate pertinent physical and chemical soil properties for engineering analyses and to assist in providing recommendations for site grading and development. Details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix Band on the trench logs in Appendix A. The Geologic Map, Figure 2, depicts the existing soil and geologic conditions. The plan depicts the mapped geologic contacts based on our site reconnaissance and field excavations. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on analyses of the data reviewed as part of this study and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located on the south side of Buena Vista Way, east of Highland Drive, west of Valley Street and north of Newland Court in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure I). Access to the site is from a paved driveway along Buena Vista Way. The property contains an existing, out-of-commission, Buena Creek water storage reservoir. The sides and bottom of the reservoir are below grade, and the reservoir is uncovered. The concrete sides and bottom remain in place. Several stockpiles of rock/asphalt/concrete materials exist on the bottom of the reservoir. The existing grades on the site slope from the edges of the reservoir at approximate elevation 188 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) down and away toward the edges of the property. The lowest portion of the property is at the northwest corner at approximate elevation 164 feet MSL. The bottom of the reservoir is at about elevation 177 feet MSL. From the eastern property line, the grades slope down at Project No. 02225-52-0 I . I . February 9, 2018 approximately 2.4 to I (horizontal to vertical) to the top of retaining walls in the backyards of the residences to the east. Some of the residences along the western side of the property have retaining walls up to 6 feet tall in their backyards along the property line. An asphalt-lined swale exists several feet inside the western property line on the northern half of the site. We understand, based on preliminary information provided by you, that the preliminary concept for the project includes constructing a new passive park. The proposed park will include a children's play area, picnic area, gardens, shade structures, paved parking areas, hardscape and other associated improvements. We understand that stormwater management devices are being proposed for the northwest portion of the property and may consist of a swale and basin. 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The region is characterized by northwest-trending structural blocks and intervening fault zones. The rock types in the Peninsular Ranges include igneous intrusive rocks associated with the Cretaceous-age Southern California Batholith, intruded into older metavolcanic and/or metasedimentary units in western and central San Diego County. In the western part of the county and along the coastal areas, the basement rocks are overlain by a thick sequence of Cretaceous to Tertiary-age marine sedimentary formations, which are the result of transgress ive and regressive cycles of the sea. These deposits in turn are partially covered by several Quaternary-age terrace deposits that young to the west. The site is located on the western portion of the geologic coastal plane. The geologic unit nearest existing grade is an Old Paralic Deposit designated as Units 2 -4 with an approximate age varying from 220,000 to 413,000 years old. This unit is estimated to be 30 to 40 feet thick and likely underlain by Tertiary age sedimentary geologic units. 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS We encountered one surficial material (consisting of undocumented fill) and one geologic unit (consisting of Old Paralic Deposits) during our field investigation. The surficial soi l and geologic units are discussed herein in order of increasing age. The occurrence and distribution of the units encountered, including descriptions of the units, are shown on the exploratory trench logs in Appendix A. The approximate lateral extent and subsurface relationships of the geologic conditions is presented on the Geologic Map and Geologic Cross-Sections. Figures 2 and 3. We prepared the geologic cross- sections using interpolation between exploratory trenches; therefore, actual geologic conditions between the trenches may vary from those illustrated and should be considered approximate. 4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) The majority of the site is covered with weeds, crushed rock, and gravel with some patches of asphalt at the surface. The undocumented fill was likely not tested or observed during placement and should Project No. G2225-52-0 I • 2 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • be considered to be highly variable on the property and within adjacent properties and right-of-ways. The undocumented fi ll encountered in our exploratory trenches ranged from ½ to 3 feet thick. We expect there may be up to 5 to 6 feet of undocumented fi ll located at the top of slopes around the outer edges of the existing reservoir. The undocumented fi ll consists primarily of loose to medium dense, moist, brown to dark reddish brown, silty, fine-to medium-grained sand and silt. The fill soil possesses a "very low" expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less). Undocumented fi ll should also be considered to possess relatively high hydroconsoli dation characteristics. The undocumented fill within planned areas of development is not considered suitable for structural support or additional fill placement and will req uire remedial grading. Water that is allowed to migrate within the undocumented fill soil cannot be controlled, would destabilize support for the existing improvements, and would shrink and swell. Therefore, infiltration associated with storm water management devices should not be al lowed within the undocumented fill. 4.2 Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) We encountered Quaternary-age terrace deposits mapped by Kennedy and Tan (2007) as Old Paralic Deposits (Units 2-4) below the undocumented fill in our exploratory trenches to the maximum depth explored. The unit consists of dense to very dense, damp to moist, light reddish brown to brown, silty, fine-to medium-grained sandstone. The Old Paralic Depos its are considered suitable for support of properly compacted fill and structural loading. We performed infiltration tests within the Old Paralic Deposits. Some areas of the Old Paralic Deposits are considered adequate for storm water infiltration if designed as discussed herein. 5. GROUNDWATER We did not encounter groundwater or seepage during our field investigation. We do not expect groundwater to adversely impact proposed project development. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use among other factors and, vary as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project. 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity Based on a review of geologic literature and experience with the soil and geologic conditions in the general area, it is our opinion that known active, potentially active, or inactive faults are not located at the site. In addition to our background review, the site is not mapped in the vicinity of geologic hazards such as landslides, liquefaction areas, or faulting and is not located within the State of Project No. G2225-52-0I -3 -february 9, 2018 Cal ifornia Earthquake Fault Zone. An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for activity withjn the last 11,000 years. According to the computer program EZ-FRJSK (Version 7.65), ten known active faults are located within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. We used the 2008 USGS fault database that provides several models and combinations of fault data to evaluate the fault information. Based on this database, the nearest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood Fault system, located approximately 5 miles from the site and is the dominant source of potential ground motion. Earthquakes that might occur on this fault system or other faults within the southern California and northern Baja Ca lifornia area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. The estimated deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acce leration for the Newport-Inglewood Fault are 7.5 and 0.38g, respectively. Table 6.1.1 lists the estimated maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for these and other faults in relationship to the site location. We used acceleration attenuation relationships developed by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 acceleration-attenuation relationships in our analysis. Table 6.1.1 lists the estimated maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the Newport-Inglewood and Rose Canyon Faults and other faults in rel ationship to the site location. TABLE 6.1.1 DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS Maximum Peak Ground Acceleration Approximate Earthquake Fault Name Distance from Magnitude Boore-Campbell-Chiou- Site (miles) Atkinson Bozorgnia Youngs · (Mw) 2008 (g) 2008 (g) 2007 (g) Newport-Inglewood 5 7.5 0.3 1 0.30 0.38 Rose Canyon 6 6.9 0.25 0.27 0.29 Coronado Bank 22 7.4 0.15 0.11 0.1 2 Palos Verdes 22 7.7 0.17 0.12 0.15 Elsinore 23 7.9 0.17 0.12 0.16 Palos Verdes 34 7.3 0.10 0.07 0.07 San Joaquin Hills 35 7.1 0.09 0.09 0.08 Earthquake Valley 44 6.8 0.06 0.05 0.04 San Jacinto 46 7.9 0.10 0.07 0.09 Chino 46 6.8 0.06 0.05 0.04 We used the computer program EZ-FRJSK to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The computer program EZ-FRJSK operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes Project No. G2225-52-01 • 4 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • on each mappable Quaternary fault is proportional to the faults slip rate. The program accounts for fault rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude, and site acceleration estimates are made using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (I) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating the expected accelerations from considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value. We utilized acceleration-attenuation relationships suggested by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS 2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS 2008 in our analysis in the analysis. Table 6.1.2 presents the probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedance . TABLE 6.1.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD PARAMETERS Peak Ground Acceleration Probability of Exceedence Boore-Atkinson Campbell-Bozorgnia Chiou-Youngs 2008 (g) 2008 (g) 2007 (g) 2% in a 50 Year Period 0.42 0.38 0.42 5% in a 50 Year Period 0.30 0.26 0.28 10% in a 50 Year Period 0.22 0.18 0.19 While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of the structures should be evaluated in accordance with the 20 16 California Building Code (CBC) or other applicable guidelines . It is our opinion the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of an earthquake along any of the faults listed on Table 6.1.1 or other faults in the southern California/ northern Baja California region. We do not consider the site to possess a greater risk than that of the surrounding developments. 6.2 Ground Rupture Ground surface rupture occurs when movement along a fault is sufficient to cause a gap or rupture where the upper edge of the fault zone intersects that earth surface. The potential for ground rupture is considered to be very low due to the absence of active or potentially active faults at the subject site . Project No. 02225-52-0 I -5 -February 9. 2018 6.3 Seiches and Tsunamis A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault-or landslide-induced ground displacement. The site is not located in the vicinity of or downstream from such bodies of water. Therefore, the risk of seiches affecting the site is negligible. A tsunami is a series of long-period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcani c eruptions, or offshore slope failures. The property is located at an elevation of at least 160 feet above MSL and is about 1.2 miles from the Pacific Ocean; therefore, the risk of tsunamis affecting the site is negligible. 6.4 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, on-site soils are cohesionless/silt or clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. Due to the absence of a near surface groundwater elevation and the dense to very dense nature of the existing fill and formational materials, the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement occurring at the property is considered negligible. 6.5 Landslides Examination of aerial photographs 10 our files, review of published geologic maps for the site vicinity, and the relatively level topography, it is our opinion landslides are not present at the subject property. Project No. G2225-52-0I • 6 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 We did not encounter soil or geologic conditions during the investigation that, in our opinion, would preclude the development of the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations of this report are followed . 7.1.2 7.1.3 Our field investigation and review of the referenced documents indicate the site is generally underlain by approximately ½ to 3 feet of undocumented fill overlying Old Paralic Deposits. We expect there may be up to 5 to 6 feet of undocumented fill located at the top of slopes around the outer edges of the existing reservoir. The undocumented fill is not suitable for support of improvements or structures and will require remedial grading . We did not observe groundwater or seepage in the exploratory trenches to the total depths explored and we do not expect it to be encountered during construction of the proposed park site development. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed due to the permeability characteristics of the geologic units on site. During the rainy season, seepage conditions may develop that would require special consideration. 7.1.4 Excavations of the existing fill should generally be possible with moderate effort using conventional, heavy-duty equipment during grading and trenching operations. Excavations into the Old Paralic Deposits could require very heavy effort. 7.1.5 Site or grading plans have not been provided for our review. Geocon Incorporated should review the plans prior to the submittal to regulatory agencies for approval. Additional analyses may be required once the plans have been provided. 7.1.6 Subsurface conditions observed may be extrapolated to reflect general soil and geologic conditions; however, variations in subsurface conditions between exploratory trenches should be expected. 7.1.7 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative to the performance of the development. Site drainage should be maintained to direct surface runoff into controlled drainage devices . Positive site drainage should be maintained away from structures, improvements and tops of slopes and directed to storm drain facilities . 7.1.8 We do not expect site development will not impact adjacent sites and will not create settlement to public improvements . Project No. G2225-52-0 I -7 -February 9, 2018 7.1.9 This report is considered limited because we were not able to extend exploratory excavations in the area of the existing reservoir. Also, we should update this report when development plans have been prepared for the property. 7 .2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 7.2.1 Excavation of the in-situ fill soil should be possible with moderate effort using conventional heavy-duty equipment. Excavations within the Old Paralic Deposits could require special excavation equipment and very heavy effort, where very dense or cemented materials are encountered. 7.2.2 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be "non-expansive" (expansion index [El] of 20 or less) as defined by 20 I 6 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. However, we expect some of the soil may be considered "expansive" (El greater than 20). Table 7.2 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. We expect a majority of the soil encountered possess a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (expansion index of 50 or less) in accordance with ASTM D 4829. 7.2.3 TABLE 7.2 EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index (El) ASTM D 4829 Expansion 2016 CBC Classification Expansion Classification 0 -20 Very Low Non-Expansive 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91 -130 High Expansive Greater Than 130 Very High We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess "SO" sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2016 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 3 I 8-14 Chapter I 9. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. Project No. 02225-52-0 I -8 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.2.4 7.3 Geocon does not practice in the fi eld of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements susceptible to corrosion are planned . Seismic Design Criteria 7.3.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. 7.3.2 Table 7 .3 .1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2016 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2015 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7- 10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. The site is classified as a Site Class C in accordance with the 2016 CBC Section 1613. The values presented in Table 7.3.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). TABLE 7.3.1 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2016 CBC Reference Site Class C Section 1613.3.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response 1.13 lg Figure 1613.3.1(1) Acceleration -Class B (short), Ss MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response 0.434g Figure 1613.3.1 (2) Acceleration -Class B ( I sec), S 1 Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 16 13.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, F v 1.366 Table 161 3.3.3(2) Site Class Modified MCER 1.1 31g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMs Site Class Modified MCER 0.593g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) Spectral Response Acceleration ( I sec), SM , 5% Damped Design 0.754g Section 161 3.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), Sos 5% Damped Design 0.395g Section 16 13 .3 .4 (Eqn 16-40) Spectral Response Acceleration ( I sec), S 01 Table 7.3.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEa) . Project No. 02225-52-0 I . 9. February 9, 2018 7.3.3 7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3 7.4.4 7.4.5 TABLE 7.3.2 2016 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value ASCE 7-1 0 Reference Mapped MCE0 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.444 Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FroA 1.000 Table I I .8-1 Site Class Modified MCEo 0.444 Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.3 .1 and 7.3.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Preliminary Grading Recommendations Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications in Appendix D. Where the recommendations of this report conflict with Appendix D, the recommendations of this section shall take precedence. Earthwork shou ld be observed and compacted fi ll tested by representatives of Geocon Incorporated. A pre-construction conference with the city inspector, landscape architect, contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time. Site preparation should begin with removal of deleterious material and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site and not used as fill unless approved by Geocon Incorporated. The abandoned reservoir concrete walls and bottom and buried utilities (if encountered) should be removed and the resultant depressions and/or trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material as part of the remed ial grading. Concrete that is supported on Old Paralic Deposits, is deeper than 3 feet from proposed elevation and is below the planned utilities may be left in place, if desired. In addition, the concrete slab of the Project No. G2225-52-0 I -IO -February 9, 20 I 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.4.6 7.4.7 7.4.8 reservoir can be left in place if 4-inch diameter cores are installed at least IO feet on center in both directions . The existing undocumented fill is not considered suitable for the support of additional fill or structural loads in the present condition and will require remedial grading. The existing surficial soils should be removed to expose the underlying O ld Paralic Deposits and replaced with properly compacted fill. The undocumented fi ll can be reused as new compacted fills. In addition, the upper 3 feet of soil should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill below planned structures. The removals should extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structures, where possible. Geocon Incorporated should evaluate the removal limits during the grading operations . Prior to the placement of compacted fill, the exposed bottom should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and properly compacted. Excavated soil generally free of deleterious debris can be placed as fill and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. Fill and backfill soil should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 1557. 7.4.9 Import fill , if necessary, should consist of granular materials with a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (El of 50 or less) free of deleterious material or stones larger than 3 inches and should be compacted as recommended herein. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as ti II material. 7.5 Excavation Slopes 7.5.1 The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe excavation during the construction of the proposed project. 7.5.2 Temporary excavations should be made in conformance with OSHA requirements. The undocumented fill should be considered a Type C soil, properly compacted fill can be considered a Type B Soil (Type C soil if seepage or groundwater is encountered), and the Old Paralic Deposits can be considered a Type A soil (Type B soil if seepage or groundwater is encountered) in accordance with OSHA requirements. In general, special Project No. G2225-52-0 I -I I -February 9, 2018 7.6 7.6.1 shoring requirements may not be necessary if temporary excavations wi ll be less than 4 feet in height. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in height, however, should be sloped back at an appropriate inclination. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations. Table 7.5 presents the allowable slope inclination for different soil types based on the information presented by OSHA assuming seepage is not encountered. Soil or Rock Type Type A TypeB TypeC TABLE 7.5 ALLOWABLE SLOPE INCLINATIONS FOR EXCAVATIONS LESS THAN 20 FEET FOR UNDERGROUND CONTRACTORS Maximum Maximum On-Site Geologic Unit Inclination Slope Angle from Horizontal (horizontal:vertical) (degrees) Old Paralic Deposits ¾:I 53 Properly Compacted Fill 1:1 45 Undocumented Fill l½:1 34 Shallow Foundations The proposed structures (i.e. shade structures, gazebos) can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded in newly compacted fill or Old Paralic Deposits. Foundations for the structure should consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of2 feet and should also extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. A wall/column footing dimension detail is presented in Figure 4. In addition, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. 7.6.2 The recommendations presented herein are based on soil characteristics only (EI of 50 or less) and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations. Project No. G2225-52-0 I -12 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.6.3 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions described herein is 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) for foundations bearing in properly compacted fill and 4,000 pounds per square foot (pst) for foundations bearing in the Old Paralic Deposits. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by an additional 500 psf for each additional foot of depth and width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf and 6,000 psf for foundations bearing in compacted fill and Old Paralic Deposits, respectively. The values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.6.4 We estimate the total and differential settlements under the imposed allowable loads to be about ½ inch based on a 6-foot square footing. 7.6.5 Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer (a representative of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the exposed soi l conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 7.7 Drilled Piers 7.7.1 A deep foundation system consisting of drilled piers may be used to support proposed shade or light structures. The drilled piers can be founded in the properly compacted structural fill or in the Old Paralic Deposits. 7.7.2 Drilled piers for the shade structures should be a minimum of 18 inches in diameter and should be embedded a minimum of 5 feet below the ground surface. In addition, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of slopes. 7.7.3 Piers should have a minimum center-to-center spacing of at least three pile diameters. Drilled piers can be designed to develop support by end bearing and skin friction within the existing materials. Axial compression capacity may be designed using an allowable skin friction res istance of 200 psf and 300 psf can be used for that portion of the drilled pier embedded in fill soil and the Old Paralic Deposits, respectively. Uplift capacity may be assumed to be 75 percent of the axial capacity in compression. The allowable downward capacity and allowable uplift capacity may be increased by one-third when considering transient wind or seismic loads. Where not protected by pavement, the upper 12 inches of soil should be ignored when calculating axial capacity. Project No. 02225-52-0 I -13 -February 9, 2018 7.7.4 7.7.5 7.7.6 Piles bearing in compacted fill material may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. Piles bearing in Old Paralic Deposits may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. We expect the maximum expected total and differential settlement for shade structures supported on piers deriving support in the compacted fill is about ½ inch. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Because a significant portion of the pier capacity will be developed by end bearing, the bottom of the borehole should be cleaned of all loose cuttings prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Experience indicates that backspinning the auger does not remove loose material and a flat cleanout plate or hand cleaning is necessary. Concrete should be placed within the pier excavation as soon as possible after the auger/cleanout plate is withdrawn to reduce the potential for discontinuities or caving. Pier sidewall instability may randomly occur ifcohesionless soils are encountered. We do not expect seepage will be encountered during the drilling operations. However, casing may be required to maintain the integrity of the pier excavation, particularly if seepage or sidewall instability is encountered. The till and the formational materials contain gravel, cobble and some boulders. The formational materials may possess very dense and cemented zones, and difficult drilling conditions during excavations for the piers should be anticipated. 7.8 Basketball Courts and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade 7.8.1 Concrete slabs should possess a thickness of at least 5 inches and reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 steel reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions. The structural engineer should design the steel required for the planned loading conditions. The reinforcing steel should be placed in the upper third of the slab with a minimum of 2 inches of cover. Proper positioning of the reinforcement is critical to future performance of the slab. The contractor should take extra measures to provide proper steel placement. The concrete should have a compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. 7.8.2 If possible, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab to control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks. Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a maximum spacing of 12.5 feet for the 5-inch-thick slabs and should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be determined by the referenced ACI report discussed in the pavement section herein. Cuts at least ¼ inch wide are required for sealed joints, and a ¾ inch wide cut is commonly recommended. Coverings on the concrete slab should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Project No. G2225-52-0I • 14 • February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.8.3 The slab should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of compacted Class 2 Base or Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB). The slab should be constructed with a thickened edge that extends at least 12 inches below finish grade and is at least 12 inches wide. 7.8.4 Prior to the placement of base, the upper 12 inches of soil subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned near to slightly above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM 1557. The base material should also be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. 7.8.5 If the slab will receive a moisture-sensitive covering, a vapor retarder should be placed on the subgrade below the base as indicated on the attached detail. The vapor retarder should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete lnstitute's (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). Ln addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture. The project architect should specify the type of vapor retarder used based on the type of covering that will be installed. A Stego 15-mil product is typically used for vapor retarders. 7.8.6 The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans. 7.8.7 7.9 7.9.1 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement . Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete tlatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein. Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and, when in excess of 8 feet square, should be reinforced with 6 x 6 -W2.9/W2.9 (6 x 6 -6/6) welded wire mesh or No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, concrete tlatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking . Project No. 02225-52-01 • 15 • February 9, 2018 7.9.2 7.9.3 7.9.4 7.10 7.10.1 Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing concrete. Even with the incorporation of the recommendations within this report, the exterior concrete tlatwork has a likelihood of experiencing some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade; therefore, the reinforcing steel should overlap continuously in tlatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within tlatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the tlatwork. Where exterior tlatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the tlatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations and slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (AC!) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. Retaining Walls Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill wi ll be inclined at 2: I (horizontal to vertical), we recommend an active soil pressure of 50 pcf. Soil with an expansion index (El) of greater than 50 should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. Project No. G2225-52-0 I -I 6 -February 9, 20 I 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.10.2 7.10.3 7.10.4 7.10.5 7.10.6 7.10.7 Retaining walls should be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, excessive foundation pressure and water uplift. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with the intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to consider active pressure on the keyway. Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete. In the event that other types of walls (such as crib-type walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section 1613.3.5 of the 2016 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic load of 14H should be used for design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGA M, of 0.444g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11 .8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.3. Figure 5 presents a retaining wall loading diagram. The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural engineer. Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall loading may be adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active earth pressure combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also considered in the design of the retaining walls. Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (EI of 50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. Figure 6 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than Project No. 02225-52-0 I -17 -February 9, 20 I 8 those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.10.8 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of I foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by an additional 300 psf for each additional foot of depth and width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside 'edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. 7.10.9 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 7.10.10 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used. 7.11 Lateral Loading 7. I I. I To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pct) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. 7.11.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of0.35 should be used for design. The friction coefficient may be reduced Project No. G2225-52-0 I -I 8 -February 9,2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.11.3 7.12 7.12.1 7.12.2 depending on the vapor barrier or waterproofing material used for construction in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. Preliminary Flexible and Rigid Pavement Recommendations We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Ca/trans Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0 for parking stalls, driveways, medium truck traffic areas, and heavy truck traffic areas, respectively. The project civil engineer and owner should review the pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for pavement thickness. The final pavement sections should be based on the R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. We have assumed an R-Value of 20 and 53 for the subgrade soil, based on the results of our laboratory tests, and 78 for the base materials, for the purposes of this preliminary analysis. Table 7.12.1 presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections. TABLE 7.12.1 PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION Assumed Assumed Asphalt Class 2 Location Traffic Subgrade Concrete Aggregate Index R-Value (inches) Base (inches) Parking stalls for automobiles 53 3 4 5.0 and light-duty vehicles 20 3 7 Driveways for automobiles 53 3 4 5.5 and light-duty vehicles 20 3 9 Medium truck traffic areas 6.0 53 3.5 4 20 3.5 10 53 4 4 Driveways for heavy truck traffic 7.0 20 4 12 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above Project No. 02225-52-0 I -19 -February 9, 2018 optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726. 7 .12.3 Base materials should conform to Section 26-1.028 of the Standard Specifications for The State of California Department of Transportation (Ca/trans) with a ¾-inch maximum size aggregate. The asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). 7.12.4 The base thickness can be reduced if a reinforcement geogrid is used during the installation of the pavement. Geocon should be contact for additional recommendations, if required. 7.12.5 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway entrance aprons and trash bin loading/storage areas. The concrete pad for trash truck areas should be large enough such that the truck wheels will be positioned on the concrete during loading. We calcul ated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters presented in Table 7.1 2.2. TABLE 7.12.2 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Design Value Modulus ofsubgrade reaction, k 100 pci Modulus ofrupture for concrete, MR 500 psi Traffic Category, TC A andC Average daily truck traffic, ADTI 10 and 100 7.12.6 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 7.12.3. TABLE 7.12.3 RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches) Automobile Parking Areas (TC=A) 6 Heavy Truck and Fire Lane Areas (TC=C) 7 Project No. G2225-52-0 I -20 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.12.7 7.12.8 7.12.9 The PCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch). Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements. A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 7-inch-thick slab would have a 9-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel wi ll not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as di scussed herein. To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab. Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a maximum spacing of 15 feet for the 6-and 7-inch-thick slabs and should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be determined by the referenced ACI report. 7.12.10 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a butt-type construction joint should be constructed. The butt-type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent at the edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab. As an alternative to the butt-type construction joint, dowelling can be used between construction joints for pavements of 7 inches or thicker. As discussed in the referenced AC! guide, dowels should consist of smooth, I-inch-diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum of 6 inches into the slab on either side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12 inches on center and lubricated to allow joint movement while still transferring loads. In addition, tie bars should be installed at the as recommended in Section 3.8.3 of the referenced AC! guide. The structural engineer should provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer. 7.13 7.1 3.1 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings and improvements. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2013 CBC 1804.3 or Project No. 02225-52-0 I -21 -February 9, 2018 7.13.2 7.13.3 7.14 7.14.1 other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. We recommend that area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inc hes below the bottom of the base materials. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Geocon Incorporated should review the grading plans and foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal to evaluate whether additional analyses and/or recommendations are required. Project No. G2225-52-0 I -22 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1 . The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon 1 ncorporated. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years . 4. 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. Project No. 02225-52-0 I February 9, 2018 THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH, SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENTS USE OR RELIANCE AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT. CLIENT SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULT OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT. VICINITY MAP t N NO SCALE GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159 BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA KJ/CW I I DSK/GTYPD DATE 02 -09 -2018 I PROJECT NO. G2225-52 -01 I FIG. 1 Plottad:02/09/2018 7:00AM I By:RUBEN AGUILAR I FIie Locadon:Y:\PROJECTSIG222S-52--01 Buena Vista Ruervolr\DETAILS\G222S-S2--01_111einl1y Map.dwg • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :IJ J> 0 :IJ J> r o ► z 0 8 \ o· 30' 60' 90' 120' SCALE 1,, 30' {On 36x24) GEOCON LEGEND Qudf ....... uNDocuMENTED FILL Qop ........ OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buned) PIT P-4@ ....... APPROX. LOCATION OF INFILTRATION TEST AND TEST T-1 □-....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH (]] ........ APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATION BELOW EXISTING GRADE (In Feet) 8 B' APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS -SECTION I I · ······· r-,...../., ...... APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT GEOLOGIC MAP BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORN IA SCALE 1"=30' DATEQ2 -Q9 -2Q18 GEOCON ~ PROJECTNO. G2225 -52 -01 FIGURE J N C OR p O RAT B D MATERIALS f---------=-=:---_ I 2 GEOTECHNICAl ■ ENV=Mb_~~~IA92121·2974 OF 1 6960FLANDERSDRIVE·SAN ' SHEET 1 PHONE 858 558-6900. FAX 858 558-6159 "'-·--Vim.I R-.r,,:,lr\SHEETS\G222S-52--01 GocMAP.c!IY,I \F'ROJECTS\Gms-52-01 """''" w --,, g·46,l,,M I By:RUBEN AGUILAR I FIio l.a;:o~on:Y; P:ot'.od:02/~•"" . -- -....I en ::!!:: -z 0 ~ w ....I w B 240- 210- 180- 150- -....I Cl) ::!!:: -z 0 f-::; w ....I w ' A A' ~N83"W 240-,------,----.-----------,-------,-----:--r------"'1"-L...!:=~--r------,----,-------,-------,----,------,-----.--------, -240 : ' ' 210- Qudf 180-D I f-+------;f;,--------+-~T~ P-1 : I ? ' ' 150-I Qop T-5 ' ' T-2 (Offset 1 O' N) /"EXIS" NG GRADE Qop ' ' ' •.Qudf . ' • • ' . ;s.;s• ' -210 . '' ' T-1 ll. l I : .. ' I -1ao . --1--1::---.. - ~ Qop -150 1201--'-f------+----+------+-----+-----f------+----+------+-----+-----f------+----+------+-"-120 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 DISTANCE (FEET) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' SCALE: 1" = 30' (Vert.= Horiz.) --_..,, N9°E ' ' .. ' ' BB' -....I en ::!!:: -z 0 ~ w ....I w r-----+----+-----t-----+-t----t--~--+-:--,, --EXISTING RESERV)IR--,----t-----+------,f---,,,.---,..,f-----+-----t---1 Qudj ' • ' J EXISTING f--·Qudf ll. STOCKPILE i, 1· I T-1 ' ' I ' ?, . '---"~ I • Q~df Qop /EX SJ:ING GRADE I , ( T~ I!. ___. I ,,, --....,.._ I ' ' ~---:-,, . I •• ·-7-?- ' . Qop ' Qop B' -240 -210 -180 -150 120,~i------t------;------+-----+-----i------t------;------+----+----i------t------;------+-----+---+~120 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 435 DISTANCE (FEET) GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B' SCALE: 1" = 30' (Vert.= Holiz.) -....I en ::!!:: -z 0 ~ w ....I w - GEOCON LEGEND Qudf ... : .... uNoocuMeireo FILL Qop ........ OLD PARALJC DEPOSITS P-41 ....... APPROX. LOCATION OF INFILTRATION "TEST AND TEST PrT T-101 ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH ,,--?J ....... .APPROX LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT (Queried Where Uncertain) GEOLOGIC CROSS -SECTION BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOCON lNCORPORATED SCALE 1" = 30' !°ATE 02 -09 -2018 PROJECT NO. G2225 -52 -01 FIGURE GEOTECHNICAI ■ ENVlRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS 6960FLANCERSDRIVE-SANDIEGO,OJJFORNIA92121·'074 r----------, PHONE 858 558-6900-FAX858 558-6159 SHEET 1 OF 1 3 PloUDcl:02/09t.20189:5&o'M I Sy;RUBBII AGUILAR. I Fk Loc:etlon:Y:\PROJECTS\G2225-52-01 81191111 Vlli:a "'-ervah\Sl-£ET$\G2??5-5?-'11 ~ • SAND AND VAPOR RETARDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI CONCRETE SLAB CONCRETE SLAB f-------FOOTING WIDTH'-------' * .... SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ■ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE· SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • 297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 • FAX 858 558-6159 KJ /CW I I DSK/GTYPD BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 02 • 09 • 2018 I PROJECT NO. G2225 • 52 • 01 l FIG. 4 Plotted:02/09/2018 7:01AM I By.RUBEN AGUILAR I FIie Locatlon:Y:\PROJECTS\G2225-52-01 Buena V11ta RH01Volr\DETAILS\Wal-Column Footing Dimension Dalal (COLFOOT2).dwg IF PRESENT RETAINING WALL SLAB ... •,., •. ~;. M;:,~' ' -:-(il-;::::-\ . H (Feet) FOOTING ACTIVE PRESSURE SEISMIC (IF REQUIRED) ACTIVE PRESSURE, A (psf) EXPANSION LEVEL 2:1 SLOPING INDEX, El BACKFILL BACKFILL Els50 35 50 EI S90 40 55 1..... A SURCHARGE OF 2 FEET OF SOIL (250 PSF VERTICAL LOAD) SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE DESIGN OF THE WALL WHERE TRAFFIC LOADS ARE WITHIN A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE EQUAL TO½ THE WALL HEIGHT. OTHER SURCHARGES SHOULD BE APPLIED, AS APPLICABLE. 2..... EXPANSION INDEX GREATER THAN 50/90 SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR WALL BACKFILL PER REPORT. 3..... RETAINING WALLS SHOULD BE PROPERLY DRAINED AND WATER PROOFED. 4..... THE PROJECT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHOULD EVALUATE THE WALLS LOADING COMBINATIONS. AT-REST/ RESTRAINED (IF REQUIRED) r HS8' 7H 13H psi .._ __ ---l H>8' i.-------1 i~ RETAINING WALL LOADING DIAGRAM GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 • FAX 858 558-6159 KJ/CW I I DSK/GTYPD BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 02 -09 -2018 I PROJECT NO. G2225 • 52-01 I FIG. 5 Plottod:02/0912018 7:03AM I By:RUBEN AGUILAR I FIie Loca11on:Y:\PROJECTSIG2225-52-01 Buena Vista RNarvolr\OETAILSIRWLD-NoGroundwater.dwg • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PROPOSED GRADE NOTE : GROUND SURFACE RETAINING WALL 2/3 H 213H GROUND SURFACE DRAINAGE PANEL (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING GROUND SURFACE TEMPORARYBACKCUT PER OSHA MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC (OR EQUIVALENT) OPEN GRADED 1" MAX. AGGREGATE 4" DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET PROPOSED GRADE RETAINING WALL 2/3 H GROUND SURFACE DRAINAGE PANEL (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) 4' DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE OR TOTAL DRAIN EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET NO SCALE TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL GEOCON IN CORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL ■ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • 297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 • FAX 858 558-6159 KJ/CW I I DSK/GTYPD BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 02 -09 -2018 I PROJECT NO. G2225 -52 -01 l FIG. 6 Pkltted:02/09/2018 7:04AM I By:RUBEN AGUILAR I FIie Loc:aUon:Y:IPROJECTS\G222~2-01 Buena Vista Reaervoll\DETAILS\Typlcal Retaining Wall Drainage Datal (RWDD7A).dwg APPENDIX APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION We performed the fieldwork for our investigations on January 17, 2018. The exploratory excavations consisted of the observation and logging of ten exploratory trenches and 4 infiltration test pits excavated using a 41 OC backhoe and performing soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory trenches and test pits are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. Trench logs and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented on Figures A-1 through A-14. We visually examined the soil conditions encountered within the borings, classified, and logged in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification of Soi ls (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). Project No. G2225-52-0 I February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 0:: TRENCH T 1 Zw ~ ~ w~ >-~ DEPTH (.!) ~ SOIL Qui;: u;--,. o::~ 0 t-z _ :, I-SAMPLE ~~~ zu. IN _, ~<..i 1-Z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 183' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 en w NO. ::c z tiJ!!?o -I-FEET I-:, (USCS) z en_, >-~ Oz ::; 0 wwm 0:: ::;;o 0:: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY:K.HAASE o..0::~ 0 (.) (.!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~ 0 ·-r·r--y SM UNDOCUl\fENTED FILL (Qudf) JJ:t Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; some roots Tl-I 10.2 --f-- -:·-k-r:t .. t"-·l -Becomes dark reddish brown, fine \r::J.\: -2 -f--:·-k-rt .... ,._...:-]: ·r·r SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) Tl-2 \l\ Dense, damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE 6.7 ... -\1\ - ::t-:J::t: .• ·r·. ·-f:i:-+ 4 . . . - TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-1, G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Trench T 1, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I) .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST i;j ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ,Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 0:: >-w C) ~ DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL IN SAMPLE ..J 0 0 CLASS NO. z FEET ::i:: ~ :::, (USCS) ::::; 0 0:: C) -0 .9-1_.,_ SM :r-1"1 T2-1 . ·? . i . --.l ·l 'j;_1 ·1 . { f ·J •. -2 -:-d-l ••f•1•r SM \l\ \1\ --\l\ \1\ \l\ . · 1· . ..... 4 -:f.d· Figure A-2, TRENCH T 2 ELEV. (MSL.) 179' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE MATERIAL DESCR IPTION UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Loose, moist, brown, Silty, fine SAND; some gravel, concrete and asphalt chunks OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) Very dense, damp, reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE TRENCH TERMTNA TED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered Zw~ Q ot;: i~-~ ~(/) w-o z Cll_, wWaJ a..0::- - .... ~ en --o-Z LL w · 0(..) >-~ 0:: 0 UJ #-o::-:::,~ ~z C/lw -~ o z ::!:O (.) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • G2225-52-01.GPJ • Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of 1 • SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I) ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ii;! ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DA TE INDICATED. IT • IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON • • • PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 0:: TRENCHT 3 Zw ~ ~ wl >-w f--Q ot;: DEPTH (!) ~ SOIL en ....,. 0:: f--0 f--Z -SAMPLE ~~~ zu. =>z IN _, ~0 f--w 0 a CLASS FEET NO. :r z ELEV. (MSL.) 174' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 ti:i~o >-e:. ~ f-- f--::, (USCS) z Cl)_, O z ::::; 0 wWa:i 0:: :E O 0:: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE c..O::~ a l) (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~ 0 .9-'·l SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) ·1A ·1 Loose, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; asphalt chunks ·t1·r SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Very dense, moist, reddish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE ,_ -\1\ .... :fl\ T3-l \1\ 2 -\l\ .... \1\ :fl\ --\1\ \l\ - \1\ \l\ .... 4 -\1\ -\l\ \1:f ::·!: J:.=,: ,_ ... TRENCH TERMlNA TED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-3, G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL !llj ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST liiiiJ .. CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ,Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 a:: >-LJ.J (9 I-DEPTH ~ 0 IN SAMPLE ..J 0 a NO. z FEET :i: I-::i ::; 0 a:: (9 -0 _9. '-l :i--1·1 T4-1 :f f f --.l ·l -i;.1 ·1 . { f ·J .. -2 -:-1-~-l ··f ·,·r \l\ \1\ --\l\ T4-2 : :f: 1: :t-: • ·1· >[' -:f: \1\ >--4 -\l\ \1\ \l\ --\1\ ;:t•:J::f: •. :1>.· Figure A-4, TRENCH T 4 SOIL CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 171' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 (USCS) EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY:K.HAASE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Loose, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; trace roots and gravel SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) Dense, moist, light reddish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; trace roots TRENCH TERMINATED AT AT 5.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Zw~ Qui-: I-ZIL. ~<- I-~~ w-o zen_, LJ.J LJ.J Ill a. a::- - ~ L- ~ ~ ii;....,. ZIL. ~(.i >-~ a:: a UJ "$. a::-::i I-I-z en UJ -I-oz ::i:O (.) 9.9 3.2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • G2225-52.01.GPJ • Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1 • SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) • y_ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT • IS NOT WARRAJ\fTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON e • • PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 0:: TRENCHT 5 Z w-~ >-UJ UJ ~ (.!) I-Qut;:: DEPTH ~ SOIL en....,. o::~ 0 1--z_ ::::> I-SAMPLE ~~~ zu.. IN _, ~~ 1--Z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 174' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 Cl) UJ FEET NO. :c z ti:i~o >-e:.. -1--I-::::> (USCS) zcn_, Oz ::::; 0 UJ UJ ID 0:: ::!:O 0:: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE Cl.a::~ 0 (.) (.!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ..... 0 .9-1·l SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) :r-1°' Loose, moist, brown, Silty, fme SAND; little gravel and asphalt pieces : ff I--.l ·l -·t.1 -, . { f ·J •. 2 -(fl - _j {_ 1- ·r ·r SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Dense, moist, reddish brown, Silty fme SANDSTONE --\1\ ..... \l\ \1\ -4 -\l\ ..... \1\ :fl\ I--\1\ -\l\ \1\ ::t:J::[: ..... 6 •: :1:-. TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A--5, G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I) ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ljw ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 a: >-UJ (!) I-DEPTH ~ SOIL 0 IN SAMPLE ....J 0 □ CLASS NO. z FEET J: I-:::, (USCS) :::; 0 a: (!) -0 .. -r·t-r SM ffit --... (f:·r \ft-:( ··f·1·r SM \l\ -2 -\1\ \l\ \1\ .... -\l\ \1\ \l\ .... 4 -\1\ \l\ \1\ \l\ .... -\1\ ::t•:J::f: . · ..... Figure A-6, TRENCH T 6 ELEV. (MSL.) 171' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND; trace gravel OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) Dense, moist, reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; trace roots TRENCH TERMlNATED AT 5.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Zw~ Qo~ i-zu. c2 <t -1-tii~ w-o z en _, UJ UJ CD a. a::~ - - .... .... - ~ UJ ~ cii -,. a:~ :::, I-zu. UJ(j I-z en UJ □· -I->-e:. Oz a:: :;;o □ (.) G2225-52-01.GPJ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ,Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DA TE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. • • GEOCON e • • PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 a:: TRENCHT 7 Zw ~ ~ >-UJ UJ * I-Qc..>t;: DEPTH (!) ~ SOIL cij..-, a::~ 0 1-z_ => I-SAMPLE ~~~ zu. I-z IN ...J ~0 0 Cl CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 174' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 en UJ FEET NO. ::c z lu~o >-e:. -I-I-=> (USCS) z en_, O z :::::; 0 UJ UJ CD a:: :eo a:: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE a.a::~ Cl (.) (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ,_ 0 ---r·r-r T7-l SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) 6.6 11-t Medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine SAND; trace roots .. : [••,),, --.. , ..... • ·f. ,. ·t. SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) :fl\ Very dense, damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE \1\ ,_ 2 -\l\ ,_ \1\ :fl\ \1\ ,_ -\l\ -T7-2 5.9 \1\ \l\ -4 -\1\ ,_ \l\ \1\ ::t•:J::f: ~ .• ·•··. TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-7, G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I) ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST liiiJ .. CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DA TE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 0:: TRENCHT 8 Z w ~ ~ >-w Qu...,: UJ ~ I-DEPTH (!) i SOIL 1-Z LL. en ....,. o::~ 0 ~~~ z u. ::, I- IN SAMPLE ..J ~t.i I-z 0 Cl CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 181' C/lW FEET NO. J: z DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 ti:i~o >-~ -I- I-::, (USCS) ZC/l ..J oz ::J 0 wWa:i 0:: ::EO 0:: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE a.a::~ □ () (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION L-0 .. t·t•l SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) fff'j Loose, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; little roots .... -:,(t:-r L- ff Lt • ... 1· .... I :·-1:--2 -·:. • .. ,·. •. • f·1 r SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Very dense, moist, reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; trace \1\ roots --\l\ I-\1\ -Becomes dense, damp, brown, finer grained \l\ \1:f I-4 -\l\ L- \1\ \l\ --\1\ I-\l\ \1\ \l\ -6 -\1\ L- \l\ \1\ •,:.J.:,· -TRENCH TERMJNA TED AT 7 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-8, G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST liiiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ,Y. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • GEOCON • • • PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 a: TRENCHT 9 Z w~ ~ w i >-~ Ou . DEPTH c., i SOIL i= z t;: cii -:-a:- SAMPLE 0 g~~ zu. :::, I- IN ..J ~~ I-z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 174' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 CIJW NO. J: z -I-FEET :::, (USCS) w-o >-e:, oz I-ZCIJ__, ::J 0 wWa:i a: ::i;o a: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE a.a:-0 u c., MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 .. -i-·t-r SM u DOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) fl! Loose, moist, brown, Silty, fine SAND -Becomes medium dense, reddish brown, fine to medium grained I--:J::}t - ::_Lr\f ·:,(:f \:l-i -2 -:--.:-r :--_:_):::r~l · .. r . .-r ::.-1: .. ff.:: • .. ··r· .. •. \· .• -~----··f·'·T SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Very dense, damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE \1\ -4 -\l\ - \1\ \l\ \1\ --\l\ - ·;,· 1· . . . . . -:~. TRENCH TERMJNA TED AT 5.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-9, G2225-52-01 GPJ Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I) STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ii ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ .. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE· THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPEOFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES GEOCON PROJECT NO G2225-52-01 a:: TRENCH T 10 Z UJ-~ u.J~ UJ >-I-Qui-: DEPTH (.!) ~ t-zu.. u;--=-a::~ 0 SOIL g~~ zu.. ::> I- IN SAMPLE ...J ~0 I-z 0 □ CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 173' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 en UJ NO. z -I- FEET :r w-o >-e:. o z I-::::> (USCS} z en ..., a:: ::;o ::::; 0 UJ UJ CD a:: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K. HAASE o..a::~ □ (.) (.!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 :,r·r-r SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) :in Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine SAND TIO-I -Becomes medium dense, reddish brown, fine to medium grained 7.0 --... (f :·r - :::-i::::r-:r • ·f • ,· 't. SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Very dense, damp, reddish brown, SIity, fine SANDSTONE -2 -\1\ - \l\ \1\ --t 1·f - TI0-2 \1\ 6.3 \l\ -4 -\1\ -\l\ \1\ \l\ ~ -\1\ ~ \l\ \1\ ::r·. j. ·.,: -6 ... TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-10, Log of Trench T 10, Page 1 of 1 G2225-5M1.GPJ ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL (] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ,1'. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DA TE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 a: TEST PITP 1 Zw~ ~ >-~ UJ * DEPTH (.!) ~ SOIL Qut;: ci5 ...,. a:~ 0 i-z_ :::> I-SAMPLE ~~~ ZLL IN ...J ~~ I-z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 166' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 en w FEET NO. J: z ti:i~o >-~ -I-I-:::> (USCS) z en-' Oz :::; 0 UJ UJ al a: ~o a: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE a..11:~ 0 (.) (.!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I-0 ·-r-r-r SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) ::---.··.f: :: Loose, moist, dark reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND :·-1.:--r:-+ ---1 ··-t ~ -;!}i - ---1·.-·1-i··: ,__ 2 -·:. ·-.r·. •. ··f·1·r SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Dense, moist, reddish brown, Silly, fine to medium SANDSTONE \1\ ~ . ·•. J •. r . TRENCH TERMlNA TED AT 3 FEET lnfiltration test performed at 16 inches below bottom oftest pit Figure A-11 , G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Test Pit P 1, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ll ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Ii.] ... CHUNK SAMPLE _y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GEOCON PROJ ECT NO. G2225-52-01 ct:'. TEST PIT P 2 Z w ~ ~ w ~ >-w Ou • <.'.) I-i=z ti:: cij --,. ct:'.-DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL ~~ci5 Z LL ::::, I- IN SAMPLE ...J ~c.;i I-z 0 a CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 165' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 I-Cl)~ C/lw NO. z -I- FEET I w-O >-e:. oz I-::::, (USCS) z Cl) ...J ct:'. :i:O ::; 0 wwcc ct:'. EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE Cl.ct:'.-a u <.'.) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 :-r·t--y SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) lit Loose, moist, reddish brown, Silty, fine SAND; trace roots L--:_(f:'{ L- tttt .. _1· .. ·l--l:.- I-2 -·.-. ·._, .. •. ··f·1·l SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Dense, damp, reddish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE \◄\ •• j :,· ., .. -TRENCH TERMlNA TED AT 3 FEET No groundwater encountered Infiltration test performed at 20 inches below bottom oftest pit Figure A-12, G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Test Pit P 2, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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, GEOCON • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0::: TESTPITP 3 ZUJ-~ >-UJ w ~ I-Qc.,t: DEPTH (!) ~ SOIL cii-:-a:::-0 1-z_ zu.. :::i I-IN SAMPLE ..J ~~~ ~(.i I-z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 170.5' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 Cl) UJ FEET NO, J: z ti:i~o >-~ -I-I-:::i (USCS) z (I)_, oz ::::; 0 UJ UJ co 0::: ::;o 0::: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE Cl. a:::-0 (.) (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~ 0 :,j: ·r-r SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) :--..··r:-Loose, moist, brown, Silty, fine SAND .:.t-:~:+ ·:r • .-r -Becomes medium dense, dark reddish brown, fine to medium grained ~ -\:l-{ ~ tf'! :·•1•,:J-,t·: 2 -·:. ·.y.·. ··f·1·r SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Dense, damp, reddish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE \~\ -• ., • j •. r . TRENCH TERMINATED AT 3 FEET No groundwater encountered Infiltration test perfonned at 16 inches below bottom oftest pit Figure A-13, G2225-52-01.GPJ Log of Test Pit P 3, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I) , .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST liiiJ , .. CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ,Y, ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 a: TEST PIT P 4 Zw~ ~ >-~ O u . w '#- DEPTH (!) ~ SOIL i=zt:: cii ,.., a: - 0 g~~ z u. :::> I- IN SAMPLE _J LJ.Jcj I-z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 170' DATE COMPLETED 01-17-2018 cn W NO. z O · -I-FEET :r w-o >-~ I-:::> (USCS) z cn_, o z ::; 0 wWai a: ::!:O a: EQUIPMENT DEERE 410C BACKHOE W/ 2' BUCKET BY: K HAASE c.. a:-0 u (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 ---r-t-r SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudl) flt Loose, moist, dark reddish brown, Silty, fine SAND --... (r:·r - if}'! :_.,(f:\-- -2 - ;:::r:::rt - ··f·1·r SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) \l\ Dense, damp, reddish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE f--\1\ - \l\ • • 1· • :-t • Et: -4 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered Infiltration test performed at 20 inches below bottom of test pit Figure A-14, G2225-52--01.GPJ Log of Test Pit P 4, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ■ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I) ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) Y, ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • GEOCON e • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING We performed laboratory tests in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. We tested selected samples for their in-place moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, shear strength, expansion index, water-soluble sulfate characteristics, R-value, and gradation. The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Tables B-1 through B-V and Figure B-l. In addition, the in-place moisture content test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Sample Description (Geologic Unit) Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture No. Density (pct) Content (% dry wt.) T2-I T3-I Sample No. T2-1t T3-Jt TI0-2 Brown, Silty, fine SAND; some gravel (Qudf) 132.1 Reddish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE (Qop) 135.4 TABLE B-11 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 Average Average Moisture Peak Geologic Dry Density Content(%) I Ultimate* I Unit (pct) Cohesion (psf) Initial Final Qudf 11 9.0 9.0 13.3 700 [575] Qop 122.0 7.6 12.1 700 (535) Qop 110.5 6.9 15.8 575 (565) *Ultimate defined as the end-of-test strength after about 0.2 inches of deflection. 9.3 7.9 Peak (Ultimate*! Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 26 [26] 25 (24) 26 (25) tsample was remolded to a dry density of about 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Sample No. T l-I TABLE B-111 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D4829 Expansion ASTM Expansion Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Index Classification 0.5-1.5 Qudf 0 Very Low Project No. G2225-52-0 I -B-1 - 2016 CBC Expansion Classification Non-Expansive February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TABLE B-IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Water-Soluble ACI 318 Sulfate Sulfate(%) Severity Tl-I 0.5-1.5 Qudf 0.0005 so TABLE B-V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844 Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit R-Value Tl-I 0.5-1.5 Qudf 53 Project No. G2225-52-0 I -B-2 -February 9, 2018 APPENDIX C STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION FOR BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. G2225-52-01 • • • • • • • • • • • • , . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX C STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION We understand storm water management devices will be used in accordance with the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (February, 2016). If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table C-T presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. lfa soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, BID, 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 C-1 HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These A consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of B 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 . Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils C 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. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These D 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 . Project No. G2225-52-0 I -C-1 -February 9, 2018 The property is underlain by a thin layer of surficial undocumented fill and formational Old Paralic Deposits. Table C-11 presents the information from the USDA website for the subject property. The Hydrologic Soil Group Map, provided at the end of this appendix, presents output from the USDA website showing the limits of the soil units. TABLE C-11 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY -HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Approximate k sAT of Most Map Unit Name Unit Percentage Hydro logic Limiting Symbol of Property Soil Group Layer (Inches/ Hour) Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent MIC 5 1.5 B 0.57 to 1.98 slopes Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent MIE 48.5 B 0.57 to 1.98 slopes In-Situ Testing The infiltration rate, percolation rates and saturated hydraulic conductivity are different and have different meanings. Percolation rates tend to overestimate infiltration rates and saturated hydraulic conductivities by a factor of IO or more. Table C-111 describes the differences in the definitions. TABLE C-111 SOIL PERMEABILITY DEFINITIONS Term Definition The observation of the flow of water through a material into the ground Infiltration Rate downward into a given soil structure under long term conditions. This is a function of layering of soil, density, pore space, discontinuities and initial moisture content. The observation of the fl ow of water through a material into the ground Percolation Rate downward and laterally into a given soil structure under long term conditions. This is a function of layering of soil , density, pore space, discontinuities and initial moisture content. The volume of water that will move in a porous medium under a Saturated Hydraulic hydraulic gradient through a unit area. This is a function of density, Conductivity (ksAT, Permeability) structure, stratification, fines content and discontinuities. It is also a function of the properties of the liquid as well as of the porous medium. The degree of soil compaction or in-situ density has a significant impact on soil permeability and infiltration. Based on our experience and other studies we performed, an increase in compaction results in a decrease in soil permeability. Project No. G2225-52-0 I -C-2 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,. • • • • • • • • • • • • We performed 4 Aardvark Permeameter tests at the infiltration test locations mapped on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. We excavated the borings for the permeameter tests using a 4-inch diameter hand auger starting at the bottom of test pits dug to depths of 3 to 4 feet below existing grade. The results of the tests provide parameters regarding the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of on-site soil and geologic units. Table C-IV presents the results of the estimated field saturated hydraulic conductivity and estimated infiltration rates obtained from the Aardvark Permeameter tests. The field sheets are also attached herein. We used a factor of safety applied to the test results on the worksheet values. The designer of storm water devices should apply an appropriate factor of safety. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the heterogeneous characteristics inherent to most soil. Based on a discussion in the County of Riverside Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, the infiltration rate should be considered equal to the saturated hydraulic conductivity rate. TABLE C-IV FIELD PERMEAMETER INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Field-C.4-J Test Test Depth Test Geologic Saturated Worksheet Test Number (feet, below Elevation Infiltration Infiltration Location grade) (feet, MSL) Unit Rate, k,., Rate1, k,., (inch/hour) (inch/hour) P-1 4.3 161.7 Qop 0.098 0.049 Northwest Comer of P-2 4.7 160.3 Qop 0.087 0.043 Site Average: 0.093 0.046 P-3 4.3 166.2 Qop 0.935 0.468 Western Side P-4 5.7 164.3 Qop 0.589 0.295 of Site Average: 0.767 0.382 1 Using a factor of safety of 2. Based on the current BMP Design Manual used by the City of Carlsbad, the infiltration categories include full infiltration, partial infiltration and no infiltration. Table C-V presents the definitions of the potential infiltration categories. Infiltration Category Full Infiltration Partial Infiltration No Infiltration (Infeasible) Project No. G2225-52-01 TABLE C-V INFILTRATION CATEGORIES Field Infiltration Rate, I (inches/hour) I > 1.0 0.10 <I < 1.0 I < 0.10 -C-3 - Factored Infiltration Rate, I (inches/hour) I> 0.5 0.05 <I < 0.5 I <0.05 February 9, 2018 Groundwater We did not encounter groundwater or seepage during our field investigation. We expect groundwater is located greater than I 00 feet below the site; therefore, we do not expect infiltration would increase the risk of groundwater contamination or cause water balance issues. New or Existing Utilities Utilities will be constructed within the site boundaries and existing utilities that will be left in place are located on the site. Full or partial infiltration should not be allowed in the areas of the utilities to help prevent potential damage/distress to improvements. Mitigation measures to prevent water from infiltrating the utilities consist of setbacks, installing cutoff walls around the utilities and installing subdrains and/or installing liners. Storm water management devices should be setback at least IO feet from the existing and proposed utilities. Existing and Planned Structures An existing roadway is adjacent to the northern edge of the site. Water should not be allowed to infiltrate in areas where it could affect the existing adjacent roadway. Existing residential structures border the site to the east, south, and west. Mitigation for existing structures consists of not allowing water infiltration within a I: I plane from foundations and extending the infiltration areas at least I 0 feet below the existing foundations. Also, the planned storm water management devices should be set back at least 50 feet from the existing adjacent descending slope. Slopes and Other Geologic Hazards At the western property line, existing descending slopes as steep at l.5: I (horizontal:vertical) and retaining walls as tall as tall as 6 feet lie between that property line and the existing residences below to the west. At the eastern property line, existing slopes as steep as 2.4: I (horizontal:vertical) descend from the eastern property line down to the top of retaining walls in the backyards of the existing residences to the east. Infiltrating in this area could cause buildup of hydrostatic pressures, which could destabilize the existing slopes or walls. Seepage could occur from the slope that flows into the adjacent properties. Storm water management devices should be setback at least 50 feet from the existing slopes. Storm Water Evaluation Narrative We evaluated the infiltration rates within the Old Paralic Deposits by performing infiltration tests at locations where basins would be practical based on the topography of the site and discussions with Project No. 02225-52-0 I -C-4 -February 9, 20 I 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • the project civi l engineer and landscape architect. Infiltration should be considered infeasible within the undocumented fill materials . We performed infiltration tests in two areas at the northwest comer and western side of the site, because this is the lowest elevation for the property. At the northwest corner of the site, our in-place infiltration tests ind icate an average of less than 0.05 inches/hour. At the western side of the site, our in-place infiltration tests indicate average of between 0.05 and 0.50 inches/hour. Therefore, based on infiltration rates, the northwestern corner of the site is categorized as infeasible for infiltration, and the western side of the site is categorized as feasible for partial infiltration. Infiltrating near the slopes at the property lines could cause buildup of hydrostatic pressures, which could destabilize the existing slopes or walls. Seepage could occur from the slope that flows into the adjacent properties. Mitigation measures could include deepening the bottom of the BMP facility and lining the sides down to an elevation at least I foot below the toe of the adjacent slopes or retaining walls. If we were to extend the basin deeper, we expect the infiltration rates would be reduced to about the rates we obtained from the northwestern portion of the property due to similar elevations. Therefore, the infiltration would be considered infeasible. If the devices are setback at least 50 feet from the top of slopes, the elevations would be too high to practically install infiltration devices. Conclusions As discussed herein, the property consists of existing undocumented fi ll (Qudt) overlying Old Paralic Deposits (Qop). Water should not be allowed to infiltrate into the undocumented fill within basins as it will allow for lateral migration to adjacent residences and descending slopes. An attempt to mitigate this could include deepening the BMP facility and lining the sides down to an elevation at least I foot below the toe of the adjacent slopes or retaining walls or to approximately elevation 162 feet MSL; however, the infiltration test results from our 4 tests on the site show that the infiltration rates generally decrease as the test elevation decreases, so infiltration below the toe of slopes or near elevation 162 feet MSL is likely infeasible, and there is still a risk that hydrostatic pressures could build up behind the slopes and walls, or seepage from the toe of slopes onto the neighboring properties could occur. If the devices are setback at least 50 feet from the top of slopes, the elevations would be too high to practically install infiltration devices. Therefore, the property should be considered infeasible for storm water infiltration. Storm Water Management Devices Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm water devices. The liners should be installed along the sidewalls and base of the proposed infiltration locations. The liners should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HOPE, 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 Project No. G2225-52-0I -C-5 -February 9, 2018 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 City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual 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. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1) that helps the project civi l engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table C-VI describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. TABLE C-Vl SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Medium Low Concern -3 Points Concern -2 Points Concern -I Point Use of soil survey maps or Use of well permeameter or borehole methods with simple texture analysis to accompanying Direct measurement with estimate short-term continuous boring log. localized (i.e. small- infi ltration rates. Use of Direct measurement of scale) infiltration testing Assessment Methods well permeameter or infiltration area with methods at relatively high borehole methods without localized infiltration resolution or use of accompanying continuous measurement methods extensive test pit boring log. Relatively ( e.g., lnfiltrometer). infiltration measurement sparse testing with direct Moderate spatial methods. infiltration methods resolution Predominant Soil Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly Texture with significant fines loamy soils Highly variable soils Soil boring/test pits Soil boring/test pits indicated from site Site Soil Variability assessment or unknown indicate moderately indicate relatively variability homogenous soils homogenous soils Depth to Groundwater/ <5 feet below 5-15 feet below > 15 feet below Impervious Layer facility bottom facility bottom facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table C-VII presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability Project No. G2225-52-0 I -C-6 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 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 C-VII FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES-PART A1 Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Factor Product Weight (w) Value (v) (p =w xv) Assessment Methods 0.25 2 0.50 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 2 0.50 Site Soil Variability 0.25 I 0.25 Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 I 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = rp 1.50 1 The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 using the data on this table. Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety. Project No. G2225-52-0I -C-7 -February 9, 2018 '• 'I, ~ • j I , Categorization of Infiltration Fe~sibility Condition . Worksheet C.4-1 ' . . . ' . ' Pan l -Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes No X We performed 4 Aardvark Permeameter tests within the northwest corner and western side of the site within the Old Paralic Deposits. The following presents the results ofour field infiltration tests: Northwest corner of site: P-1 within Qop: 0.049 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-2 within Qop: 0.043 inches/hour with a FOS=2. Western side of site: P-3 at 4.3 feet deep within Qop: 0.468 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-4 at 5.7 feet deep within Qop: 0.295 inches/hour with a FOS=2. The northwest corner of the site has an average infiltration rate of 0.046 inches/hour with a factor of safety of2 and the western side of the site has an average infiltration rate of0.382 inches/hour with a factor of safety of 2, which is less than the required 0.5 inches/hour rate. Therefore, full infiltration in either area should be considered infeasible. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of studv / data source applicability. 2 Provide basis: Cao infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per how 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 Slopes to the neighboring properties below exist at the eastern and western property lines. Infiltrating in this area coulc cause buildup of hydrostatic pressures, which could destabilize the existing slopes or walls. Seepage could occur from he slope that flows into the adjacent properties. Mitigation measures could include deepening the bottom of the BMF Wacility and lining the sides down to an elevation at least 1 foot below the toe of the adjacent slopes or retaining walls. However, if we were to extend the basin deeper, we expect the infiltration rates would be reduced to about the rates we pbtained from the northwestern portion of the property due to similar elevations. Therefore, the infiltration would be ~onsidered infeasible. If the devices are setback at least 50 feet from the top of slopes, the elevations would be too high 1,o practically install infiltration devices. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of srudy/data source applicability. Project No. 02225-52-01 -C-8 -February 9, 20 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Criteria 3 Provide basis: Worksheet C.4-1 Page 2 of 4 Screening Question Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Yes No X Appendix C Section C.3.2 of the BMP Design Manual states that the depth to seasonably high groundwater tables beneath the base of any infiltration BMP must be greater than IO feet for any infiltration BMP to be allowed. We expect that groundwater exists at depths of greater than I 00 feet below the site. Therefore, we do not expect that infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour would increase the risk of groundwater contamination. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 4 Provide basis: Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per how 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 We expect that groundwater exists at depths of greater than I 00 feet below the site. Therefore, we do not expect that infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour would cause water balance issues. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of srudy/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 Not Full Infiltration *To be completed using gathered stte 1nformanon and best professional Judgment cons1denng the definition of MEP 1.n the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. Project No. G2225-52-0 I -C-9 -February 9, 2018 ~ < • ! l _ Wor~she~t C.4-1 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 Partial Ipfilttation vs, No Infiltration feasibility Scm::oing Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria 5 Provide basis: Screening Question Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the facto.rs presented in Appendix C.2 and J\ppendix D. Yes X No We performed 4 Aardvark Permeameter tests within the northwest corner and western side of the site within the Old Paralic Deposits. The following presents the results of our field infiltration tests: Northwest corner of site: P-1 within Qop: 0.049 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-2 within Qop: 0.043 inches/hour with a FOS=2. Western side of site: P-3 at 4.3 feet deep within Qop: 0.468 inches per hour with a FOS=2. P-4 at 5.7 feet deep within Qop: 0.295 inches/hour with a FOS=2. The northwest corner of the site has an average infiltration rate of 0.046 inches/hour with a factor of safety of 2 and the western side of the site has an average infiltration rate of 0.382 inches/hour with a factor of safety of 2, which is less than the required 0.5 inches/hour rate. Therefore, based solely on infiltration rate, partial infiltration in the western side of the site could be feasible. Infiltration in the northeast corner of the site should be considered infeasible. 6 Provide basis: 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 Slopes to the neighboring properties below exist at the eastern and western property lines. Infiltrating in this area could !Cause buildup of hydrostatic pressures, which could destabilize the existing slopes or walls. Seepage could occur from he slope that flows into the adjacent properties. Mitigation measures could include deepening the bottom of the BMF !facility and lining the sides down to an elevation at least I foot below the toe of the adjacent slopes or retaining walls. However, if we were to extend the basin deeper, we expect the infiltration rates would be reduced to about the rates we bbtained from the northwestern portion of the property due to similar elevations. Therefore, the infiltration would be !Considered infeasible. ff the devices are setback at least 50 feet from the top of slopes, the elevations would be too hig~ ~o practically install infiltration devices. 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. Project No. G2225-52-0 I -C-10 -February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Criteria 7 Provide basis: Worksheet C.4-1 Page 4 of 4 Screening Question Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Yes No X We expect that groundwater exists at depths of greater than I 00 feet below the site. Therefore, we do not expect that infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour would increase the risk of groundwater contamination. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrntive discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Provide basis: 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 We understand this is not a common issue within the County of San Diego and we are unaware of 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. Part2 Result"' If all answers from row 1-4 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 Jnfi ltration *To be completed usmg gathered site 1nformat1on and best professional Judgment considering the definition of MEP 1n the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. Project No. G2225-52-0 I -C-11 -February 9, 2018 ~GEOCON Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: ____ B_u_e_n_a_V_is_t_a_W_a_y:..,_Pa_r_k __ _ Project Number: _____ G_2_2_2_s_-s_2_-_0_1 ____ _ Test Number: P-1 Date: _......;;:1/...;;;1..;.:7 /...;;;2..:..01::..:8:.-_ By: __ __;J.;..M.;..L~-- -------.... ---_ -_ -_-_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_-_ -_ -_, Borehole Diameter, d (in.):i--___ 4_.o_o __ _ Borehole Depth, H (in): 16.00 Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (in.):1----3-0-.0-0-----1 Existing Grade EL (feet, MSL): __ .;:;1.;;.66::.;·..::.0 __ Ref. EL (feet, MSL): __ .;:;l.;;..63;;..; . .;;..0 __ Bottom EL (feet, MSL): __ .;:;l.;;.61::.;·.;_7 __ Estimated Depth to Water Table, S (feet): 100.00 Height APM Raised from Bottom (in.):1-----1-.0-0-----1 Pressure Reducer Used:....._ __ ...;N..;.o;;.... __ _, Distance Between Resevoir and APM Float, D (in.): 37.75 Head Height Calculated, h (in.): 4.63 Head Height Measured, h (in.): 5.00 Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.): 1189.00 Time Elapsed Water Weight Water Volume Q (in3/min) Reading (min) Consummed (lbs) Consummed (ln3) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 0.245 6.78 1.357 3 5.00 0.195 5.40 1.080 4 5.00 0.145 4.02 0.803 5 5.00 0.145 4.02 0.803 6 5.00 0.135 3.74 0.748 7 5.00 0.130 3.60 0.720 8 5.00 0.125 3.46 0.692 9 5.00 0.100 2.77 0.554 Steady Flow Rate, Q (in3 /min): 0.720 1.5 c .E 1.0 ;;;-- ~ 0.5 a 0.0 □~1 I I I I JI 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (min) Soil Matric Flux Potential, <I> rn Cl> m= 0.01599 !;n2 /min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Ratel K sot= .__ __ 1._6_3E_-_o3 _ _.lin/min ._ __ o_.o_9_8 __ ..... lin/hr • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~GEOCON Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: Buena Vista Way Park Project Number: -----G:=-2::'.2::'.2:-:5:-_:=-52::'.--=0-:-1----- Test Number: P-2 Date: -~1/_1 __ 7 /_2_01_8 __ By: ___ J_M_L __ _ ole Diameter, d (in.): Boreh Bo Distance Between Reservoir & T Estimated Depth to W Height APM Raise Pre 4.00 Existing Grade EL (feet, MSL): 165.0 rehole Depth, H (in): 20.00 Ref. EL (feet, MSL): ---:-16-:-2:-_-:-o-- op of Borehole (in.): 27.50 Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 160.3 -------"----ater Table, S (feet): d from Bottom (in.): ssure Reducer Used: Time Elapsed Reading (min) 1 0.00 2 5.00 3 5.00 4 5.00 5 5.00 6 5.00 7 5.00 8 5.00 100.00 1.00 No Distance Between Resevoir and APM Float, D (in.) Head Height Calculated, h (in.) Head Height Measured, h (in.) Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.) Water Weight Water Volume Q(in3/min) Consummed (lbs) Consummed (in3) 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.510 14.12 2.825 0.360 9.97 1.994 0.365 10.11 2.022 0.320 8.86 1.772 0.340 9.42 1.883 0.330 9.14 1.828 0.325 9.00 1.800 Steady Flow Rate, Q (in3/min): 1.828 : 39.25 : 4.63 : 4.25 : 1184.25 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 E+I I I I I I I 0 5 10 15 20 Time (min) 25 30 35 Soil Matric Flux Potential. CJ>0 CJ>m= 0.0574 !in2/min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Ratel K sat = I l.46E-03 I in/min I 0.087 <e GEOCON Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: ____ B_u_e_n_a_V_is_ta_w_a,.:y_P_a_r_k __ _ Project Number: _____ G_2_2_2_5_-5_2_-_0_1 ____ _ Date: __ 1....:./_17....:./_20_1_8 __ By: ___ J_M_L __ _ Test Number: P-3 Boreh Bo Distance Between Reservoir & T Estimated Depth to W ole Diameter, d (in.): rehole Depth, H (in): op of Borehole (in.): 4.00 16.00 28.00 Existing Grade EL (feet, MSL): __ ;;.17;..;0::.;·;;.5 __ Ref. EL (feet, MSL): --~16.;..7_..;•.;..5 __ Bottom EL (feet, MSL): __ ;;.16;;.;6::.;·;;.2 __ ater Table, s (feet): d from Bottom (in.): Height APM Raise Pre ssure Reducer Used: Time Elapsed Reading (min) 1 0.00 2 5.00 3 5.00 4 5.00 5 5.00 6 5.00 7 5.00 8 5.00 9 5.00 100.00 1.00 No Distance Between Resevoir and APM Float, D (in.): 35.75 Head Height Calculated, h (in.): 4.62 Head Height Measured, h (in.): 4.50 Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.): 1188.50 Water Weight Water Volume Q (in3/min) Consummed (lbs) Consummed (in3) 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.355 9.83 1.966 1.495 41.40 8.280 1.420 39.32 7.865 1.360 37.66 7.532 1.350 37.38 7.477 1.290 35.72 7.145 1.175 32.54 6.508 1.135 31.43 6.286 Steady Flow Rate, Q (in3/min): 6.397 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 l I I I I I I I 0 5 10 15 20 Time(min) 25 30 35 Soil Matric Flux Potential. Cl>,. Cl>m= 0.1528 !in2/min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Ratel K,ar = .._ __ 1._5_6E_-_02 _ __,j in/min .__ __ o_.9_3_5 __ ....,!in/hr • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~GEOCON Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: Buena Vista Way Park Project Number: -----G-=-2""2""2""5,.._""52""-""o;...1 ____ _ Test Number: P-4 Date: 1/17/2018 ---'---'----By: ___ J _M_L __ _ Boreh Bo Distance Between Reservoir & T Estimated Depth to W Height APM Raise Pre ole Diameter, d (in.}: rehole Depth, H (in}: 4.00 20.00 Existing Gr::;:~:::::: ~~~::--..;a~"-~~;;.;:.;;.~-- Bottom EL (feet, MSL}: ---1-64"".-::-3--op of Borehole (in.}: 29.50 ater Table, s (feet): 100.00 d from Bottom (in.}: 1.00 ssure Reducer Used: No Distance Between Resevoir and APM Float, D (in.}: 41.25 Head Height Calculated, h (in.}: 4.64 Head Height Measured, h (in.}: 4.00 Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.}: 1184.00 Time Elapsed Water Weight Water Volume Q(in3/min) Reading (min) Consummed (lbs) Consummed (in3) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 0.860 23.82 4.763 3 5.00 0.835 23.12 4.625 4 5.00 0.760 21.05 4.209 5 5.00 0.720 19.94 3.988 6 5.00 0.675 18.69 3.738 7 5.00 0.740 20.49 4.098 8 5.00 0.605 16.75 3.351 Steady Flow Rate, Q (in3 /min): 3.729 6.0 c ·e 4.0 ;:;-. :§. 2.0 a 0.0 I I I I I I J I 0 5 10 15 20 Time (min) 25 30 35 Soil Matric Flux Potential, <Pm <Pm= l 0.0963 lin2/min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity {Infiltration Ratel K sat = I 9.82E-03 !in/min I 0.589 lJt lUS"N l3" lOZ'N Soil Ma?--San Diego County Area, California N A o~--,"'•=="""30-----~oo'====~=oo"""" ---===------~====='-0 50 100 200 Mal)l>')jedi:)o:--OlmeraxxdNtes:- Natural Resources Conservation Service 300 Edge lies: U™ Zoo, l lN - Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey • ~ R ~ 3J" l(JS"N • ~ R ~ 2/212018 Page 1 of 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX • • APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Project No. G2225-52-0 I FOR BUENA VISTA WAY PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 02226-52-01 -C-1 2 -February 9, 20 I 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. GI rev. 07/2015 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.3 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable fo r use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3. I. I Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size. 3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fi ll around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fi lls containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fi ll quantity. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fill s. Materials used for fi ll , either imported or on-s ite, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Di vision 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • and IO; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock ti ll slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fi ll materials approved by the Consultant. Rock ti ll may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: I (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be uti lized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for till should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the sign ificance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1 Areas to be excavated and fi lled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding I½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fi ll materials. 4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. GI rev. 07/20 I 5 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5: I (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the fo llowing illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Remove All Unsuitable Material Original Ground / Finish Slope Surface As Recommended By Consultant Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur Varies See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (I) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fi ll, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the foll owing recommendations: 6.1 .1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other sati sfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fil I. GI rev. 07/2015 6.2 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fi ll slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6. 1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fi ll height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. Soil-rock fi ll, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the foll owing recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fi ll, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage faci lities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fi ll shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill , no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fi ll having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection GI rev. 07/2015 7.1 variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fi II placement. 6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant. 7. SUBDRAINS The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL NAl\JIW. OIICUND NOTES: 1 ..•... 8-INa-i DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 80 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILIB l'I EXCESS OF 101M'EET IN DEPTH OR A PIPE LENGTH OF LONGER "THAN 500 FEET. 2 ...... &-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FUS LESS "THAN 100-FEET .. lll:P™ ORA PIPE LENGTH SHORTERlHAN 500 FEET. BEDROCK NOTI!: l'NAI. 111 OP -AT 0111\ET 81W.i.lE~TED. t Cl.91C fl!!T / l'001' o, 0P!!N GMDED OIIAVEI. SURAOUNOED BY MIRAA 1~ (OIi EQUIYAlENT) FILTER FABRIC NO SCALE 7.2 Slope drai ns within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes. GI rev. 07/20 15 TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL DETAIL FORMATIONAL ~TERW. t ..... l!XCAVA1'! IIACICCUT AT 1:1 INCUNATION (\JNl.l!II OTH!IWlm NOffll). 2 ... .JIAIIE OF STABILITY Fill TO BE 3 FEET INTO FO-TIONAL IMTERW._ lll.Cll'ING A -IMUM ~ INTO Ill.OPE. 3. .••. STABlJlY FU. TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPEN.YCOIIPACTED GIW«AARSOIL. 4 ... ~ DIIAftS TO BE APPROVED PREF~TED atMNEY DRHN PNELS (MIIWlMIN G:ICXII OR EQUIVALENT) SPACED APPAODAA1ELY 20 FEET CENTER TO CENTI:R ANO 4 F&TWIDE. Q.OIER FACING W.Y IE AEQIJIAED F SEEPAGE IS ENCOUHTERED. 5 .... FI..TI:RMATERIAI. TO IE S/4-Nai, ~ CRIJltiBlROCK EHCLOIED IN loPf'flDvfD FI.TI:R F~ (MIW'l 1-40NC). 8 .... .cou.ECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH 1111,_.UM IMMETER, PERFORATEO, ~Al.LB) P'IIC IICtEDIAE «I OR l!OUIVALENT, N#J S.OPl!D TO DRAIN AT 1 Pl!N:!NT MIIIMJM TO~ OUTlET. NO SCALE 7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans. 7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric. Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe. TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL FRONT VIEW ' ' • •• ,i, Ii~:"·:~: ·; .• ..... ~-... e. CUT=-->, ~ ..... °"":~~,: '.;:);\):•i,(:iTI~~2~-- SIDE VIEW C0HCRETE CUT-OPP WAU. 80UI)--- / rMIN. rMIN.(TYPl rMIN.(TYPl NO SCALE / NO SCALE 7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure. GI rev. 07/201 5 TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL 7.7 FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW C0NCRElE HEAOWAU. r-24•--j NOlE: HEADWALi. SHOULD OUTI.ET AT TOE OF Fill SLOPE OR NTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAJNAGE NO SCALE 1:1" NO SCALE The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grad ing operations. Subdrains that wi ll be extended on adjacent proj ects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field dens ity test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 8.3 During placement of rock fill , the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. 8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the foll owing Standards as appropriate: 8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. GI rev. 07/2015 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In -Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using JO-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test. 9. PROTECTION OF WORK During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or fi lling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. 10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LIST OF REFERENCES I. 2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on the 2012 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission, dated 2016. 2. AC! 318-11, Building Code Requirements f or Structural Concrete and Commentary, prepared by the American Concrete Institute, dated August, 201 1. 3. AC! 330-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots, prepared by the American Concrete Institute, dated June 2008. 4. Anderson, J. G., T. K. Rockwell, and D. C. Agnew, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, 1989, v.5, no. 2, p.299-333. 5. ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Second Printing, April 6, 2011. 6. Boore, D. M., and G. M Atkinson (2008), Ground-Motion Prediction for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 51Yo-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 and 10.0 S, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue I, pp. 99-138, February 2008. 7. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment f or the State of California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996. 8. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, University of Southern California (2009). Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of San Diego, Del Mar Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000, dated June I. 9. California Geologic Survey (2008), Special Publication 117, Guidelines For Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Revised and Re-adopted September 11. I 0. Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Preprint of version submitted for publication in the NGA Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue I, pages 139-171 , February 2008. 11. Chiou, Brian S. J., and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Mode/for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA Special Ed ition for Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008. 12. City of Carlsbad (2016). City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Volume 5, Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (Post Construction Treatment BMPs), dated February 16. 13. County of San Diego, San Diego County Multi Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego, California -Final Draft, July 20 I 0. Project No. G2225-52-0 I February 9, 2018 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Jennings, C. W., 1994, California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 6. Kennedy, M. P., and S.S. Tan, 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30 'x60' Quadrangle, California, USGS Regional Map Series Map No. 2, Scale I: I 00,000. Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK, version 7.65, 2016. United States Geological Survey, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application, https://earthguake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php? United States Geological Survey, Unified Hazard Tool Web Application, https://earthguake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Unpublished Geotechnical Reports and Information, Geocon Incorporated. Project No. G2225-52-0 I February 9, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Buena Vista Reservoir Site December 2018 ATTACHMENT 6 Project Drainage Report This is the cover sheet for Attachment 6. latitude Bl PLANNING & ENGINEERING EXISTING ASPHALT DRAINAGE DITCH ft\t~\15157.00 -Sctarr\ktl: ~ GRlup -CG1lbod Pft~\R,IJ,ocu\Dnmo1"\15e7,00 Eidlith;i COndltlon-.dW9 12/'12/2018 9:0C;J7 AM BUENA VISTA RESERVOIR SITE PRE-PROJECT HYDROLOGY MAP SCALE: DATE: JOB NO: SHEET: LEGEND MAJOR BASIN DIVIDE/PROJECT UM/TS DRAINAGE PATTERNS FLOWLINE FOR TIME OF CONCENTRATION EXISTING CHANNEL FLOWLINE BASIN DATA --- BASIN NUMBER 0700/050 VELOCITY BASIN AREA 0 75 30 60 90 ( IN FEET ) I inch = 30 ft. NOTED latitude !~ 12/6/2018 DRAWN BY: JG 1587.00 CHECKED BY: ss PLANNING & ENGINEERING 1 OF 1 9968 Hibert Street 2"ci Floor, San Diego, CA 92131 Tel 858-75'1.0633 \ H:\1~\1587.00 -SdTnldt .,,,.,. Gnlq) -Ccmbod Pllllt\En~,g\Rllpcrb\Drahag,l\151D'.OC Pr..-i c.andltlan.Ldwg Z/ISl/'20111 7:5a:2tl Alf BUENA VISTA RESERVOIR SITE POST-PROJECT HYDROLOGY MAP I / I! I I n,/ \ I / / SCALE: DATE: JOB NO: SHEET: LEGEND MAJOR BASIN DIVIDE/PROJECT UM/TS DRAINAGE PATTERNS FLOWUNE BASIN DATA NOTED 12/6/2018 DRAWN BY: 1587.00 CHECKED BY: 1 OF 1 ------// ------ 0 JG ss 25 50 r+ BASIN NUMBER Q/00/050 VfL OC!TY BASIN AREA 10 0 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch -50 ft. 150 latitude mJ PLANNING & ENGINEERING 9968 Hibert Street 2"d Floor. San Diego, CA 92131 Tel 858.751 .0633 -----, .. ' " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • ' . ~ PREPAR~D ~QR: SCHMID! DESIGN GROUP., INC. s ~ .. JOB NUMBER: 1587.00 • . ~ ;~&~& ,. """ '" ,. ~· DRAINAGE STUDY FOR: BUENA VISTA RESERVOIR SITE APN 156-200-16 BUENA VISTA WAY BETWEEN HIGHLAND ORNE AND JAMES DRIVE Nick Psyhogios RCE 67697 Prepared For: SCHMIDT DESIGN GROUP, INC. 13 10 ROSECRANS STREET, SUITE G SAN DIEGO, CA 92106 (619) 236-1462 Prepared By: LATITUDE 33 PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 9968 HIBERT STREET 2ND FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CA 92131 (858) 75 1 -0633 Date Prepared by: Expires: 06/202 1 Reviewed by: JG NP Executive Summary Purpose Project Description Vicinity Map Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Water Quality TABLE OF CONTENTS Discussion and Conclusions Methodology & Model Development County of San Diego and City of Carlsbad Drainage Design Criteria Rational Method Hydrologic Analysis Appendix Existing Hydrology Map Proposed Hydrology Map Hydrology Calculations Maps and References lsopluvial Maps Excerpts from County of San Diego Hydrology Manual l l Pagc Page# 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 8 9 17 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Executive Summary PURPOSE The purpose of this drainage study is to evaluate the existing and proposed drainage conditions and anticipated runoff flows associated with the Buena Vista Reservoir Site project proposed at the intersection of Buena Vista Way and Arland Road. This report will document the hydrologic and hydraulic impacts due to this development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site is located within the City of Carlsbad on Buena Vista Way near the intersection with Arland Road. The site is approximately 3.16 acres and is described as Tract 121 of Parcel Map No. 1661. _,___,r'-..l~ 2 1Page NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP CITY OF VISTA EXISTING CONDITION Under pre-project conditions, the site is in a mass graded state, but has not been built out. Ground coverage consists primarily of scattered grasses and bushes, exposed soil, and some impervious pavement serving as a vehicle access road. The existing drainage pattern for the site directs runoff as surface flow to the adjacent parcels to the East, South, and West and to Buena Vista Way to the North. From here, storm water continues to surface flow until reaching existing offsite storm drain infrastructure where it is then conveyed and discharged into Buena Vista Lagoon. The existing impervious portion of the project is under a sump condition and can hold up to 300,000 cubic feet of water before overflowing into the existing stand pipe. This basin shown as E40 on the Existing Hydrology Map is considered self-retaining since does not contribute to the overall outfall of the project site. PROPOSED CONDITION This project proposes to construct a public park consisting primarily of landscaping and garden areas with some impervious concrete walkways and plazas for pedestrian circulation. A brow ditch will be constructed along the West, East, and South edges of the property to prevent runoff from leaving the site and flowing into the adjacent parcels. Additionally, public improvements consisting of on-street parking stalls, concrete sidewalk, curb ramps, and crosswalk striping are proposed along the Northern edge of the lot where it meets the Southern edge of Buena Vista Way. The majority of onsite storm water will fall on or be dispersed to pervious landscaping areas before being directed to a proposed biofiltration (BF-1) BMP at the Northwest corner of the project site. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROMODIFICATION The post-construction phase of this project will require permanent BMPs designed to minimize discharge of pollutants generated on-site throughout the life of the project. The proposed water quality BMP for the project will include landscape and irrigated areas, and a biofiltration basin. Priority development projects are also required to implement hydromodification mitigation measures so that post-project runoff flow rates and durations do not exceed the pre-project where such increases would result in a potential for increase erosion or significant impacts to beneficial uses. The proposed biofiltration basin will also provide the required hydromodification mitigation. For more details regarding the onsite BMP see the Storm Water Quality Management Plan for the project. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The onsite drainage areas for this project encompass approximately 3.16-acres and is the limit of the drainage analysis for this report. 3 1P ag.c • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Our technical approach in developing our basin flows was based on Land use and C coefficients directly from the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual (Table 3-1). These are also listed in the Methodology section of the report. Each basin was made up of individual subareas that were based on Low Density Residential and a "Rural" C coefficient factor of 0.32 was implemented. This accurately accounts for the landscape and small portions of impervious areas. Therefore, each basin was calcu lated based on these individual subareas and their associate C values to develop Qs and Vs. The project area is Hydrologic Soil Group B per the geotechnical report. The Rational Method for the 100-year and SO-year peak storm flow rate were used in the design of the proposed drainage systems. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of these systems were evaluated using the Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis (SSA) software. The resu lts of the analysis are listed below. Dnlnqe Dnlnaae Runoff Intensity Intensity Peale Flow Rate Peale Flow Rate Basin Area Coefficient 1100 (In/hr) 150 Q100(CFS) QSO(CFS) AC) (In/hr) El0 1.00 0.32 3.910 3.46 1.25 1.11 E20 0.46 0.32 5.882 5.20 0.85 0.75 E30 0.51 0.32 6.849 6.06 1.12 0.99 6.06 5.24 4.64 E40 (not included) 0.85 0.9 6.849 (not included) Total 2.82 3.22 2.85 Pl0 2.38 0.32 2.90 2.57 2.21 1.96 P20 0.52 0.32 2.35 2.08 0.39 0.35 Total Mitigated 2.90 0.89 0.36 As illustrated above, the proposed drainage conditions for the site result in a 2.33 cfs and 2.49 cfs decrease overall throughout the project for the 100-year storm and SO-year storm respectively. Runoff on the Northwest corner of the project will decrease by 0.36 cfs and 0. 75 cfs for the 100-year storm and SO-year storm respectively. This great reduction is due to detention of all runoff from drainage basin PlO on the proposed Biofiltration Basin. For the 100-year storm, the biofiltration basin is capable of detaining most of the runoff and releases approximately 0.63 cfs at the overflow structure. However, the Biofiltration basin is capable of detaining all of the runoff for Pl0 on a SO-year storm. This explain why the total mitigated QS0 is similar to the QS0 of drainage basin P20. 4 1P age • • 7 1Page Methodology & Model Development County of San Diego and City of Carlsbad Drainage Design Criteria Rational Method Hydrologic Analysis METHODOLOGY & MODEL DEVELOPMENT The proposed development was analyzed in conformance with the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual, dated June 2003 and the City of Carlsbad Drainage Standards. The total area of all basins analyzed are less than one square mile. Therefore, the Rational Method was utilized to calculate peak storm runoff. The design is based upon the following: 1) Within floodplain and floodplain fringe areas as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), runoff calculations shall be based upon a 100-year frequency storm. 2) For all drainage channels and storm drain systems which will convey drainage from a tributary area greater than or equal to one square mile, runoff calculations shall be based upon a 100-year frequency storm. 3) 4) 5) 8 1P agc For tributary areas under 1 square mile: a. The storm drain system shall be designed to carry 10-year, 6-hour underground and 100-year, 6-hour storm within top of curbs so that the combination of storm drain system capacity and overflow both inside and outside the right of way will be able to carry the 100-year frequency storm without damaging adjacent existing buildings or potential building sites. All culverts must be designed with 1 ft of freeboard at inlets and headwalls for the 100-year, 6-hour storm. b. The storm drain system shall be designed so that the combination of storm drain system capacity and allowable street overflow will be able to carry the 100-year frequency storm without damaging adjacent property. c. Where a storm drain is required under headings 1 or 2 above, then as a minimum, the drain shall be designed to carry the 10-year frequency storm. Sump areas are to be designed for a sump capacity or outfall of a 100-year frequency storm. Type B soil shall be used for all areas. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rational Method Hydrologic Analysis Design Storm -100-year/50-year return interval Land Use -Residential/ Multifamily Soil Type -Based on geotechnical borings Hydro logic soil group B covers 99% of the project area, therefore soil group B was assured for all areas . Runoff Coefficient -In accordance with the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual, runoff coefficients are as followed: • Undisturbed Natural Terrain uses a coefficient of 0.25 . • Low Density Residential (LOR) uses a coefficient of 0.32-0.41. • Medium Density Residential uses a coefficient of 0.45-0.58 . • High Density Residential uses a coefficient of 0.0.67-0.77 . • Commercial/Industrial uses a coefficient of 0.77-0.87. When a watershed encompasses solely pavement conditions, a runoff coefficient of 0.95 was selected. Method of Analysis -The Rational Method is the most widely used hydrologic model for estimating peak runoff rates. Applied to small urban and semi-urban areas with drainage areas less than 0.5 square miles, the Rational Method relates storm rainfall intensity, a runoff coefficient, and drainage area to peak runoff rate. This relationship is expressed by the equation: Q =CIA, where: Q = The peak runoff rate in cubic feet per second at the point of analysis. C = A runoff coefficient representing the area -averaged ratio of runoff to rainfall intensity. I = The time-averaged rainfall intensity in inches per hour corresponding to the time of concentration. A= The drainage basin area in acres. Computer Software -Autodesk• Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2018 • This software uses the San Diego County Hydrology Manual standards to calculate time of concentration. The intensity-duration-frequency curves used in the analysis are from the County of San Diego. Design Storm -100-year/50-year return interval 9j Page • • • • • • • • • • lO I P age Appendix Existing Hydrology Map Proposed Hydrology Map Hydrology Calculations • • • • • • • • • • 50 YEAR EXISTING CONDITIONS Autodesk® Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2016 -Version 12.0.42 (Build 0) . ................. . Project Description ................... File Name ................. EX conditions.SPF ................ Analysis Options ·············••* Flow Units ................ cfs Subbasin Hydrograph Method. Rational Time of Concentration ...... FAA Return Period .............. 50 years Storage Node Exfiltration .. Constant rate, free surface area Starting Date ............. DEC-12-2018 00:00:00 Ending Date ............... DEC-12-2018 07:00:00 Report Time Step .......... 00:00:10 Element Count ************* Number of subbasins 4 Number of nodes ........... 4 Number of links ........... O ................ Subbasin Summary ................ Subbasin ID ElO E20 E30 E40 . .......... . Node Summary .................. Node ID POCOl POC02 POC03 POC04 Total Area acres 1.00 0.45 0.51 0.85 Element Type OUTFALL OUTFALL OUTFALL OUTFALL .......................... Runoff Quantity Continuity .......................... Total Precipitation ..... . Continuity Error (\) Flow Routing Continuity .......................... Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis Flow Length ft 268.00 91. 00 91.00 298.00 Average Slope \ 7.2000 9.5000 19.6700 3 .2000 Invert Elevation ft Maximum Elev. ft 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume Depth acre-ft inches --------- 0.135 0.575 0.530 Volume Volume acre-ft Mgallons ------------------ Ponded Area ft' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 External Inflow External Inflow ......... . External Outflow ........ . Initial Stored Volume ... . Final Stored Volume ..... . Continuity Error (\) 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 ...................................... Runoff Coefficient Computations Report ...................................... Subbasin El0 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted Runo ff Coeff. Subbasin E20 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. Subbasin E30 Soil /Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. Subbasin E40 Soil/Surface Description Concrete Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. 0 .000 0.021 0.000 0 .000 Area (acres) 1. 23 1. 23 Area (acres) 0.45 0.45 Area (acres) 0.51 0.51 Area (acres) 0.85 0.85 *********************************************************************** FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) Time of Concentration Computations Rep ort ....................................................................... Where: Tc• Time of Concentration (min) C Runoff Coeffici ent L Flow Length (ft) S • Slope (\) Subbasin El0 Runoff Coefficient : Flow Length (ft): Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 0.32 268.00 Soil Group B Soil Group B Soil Group B Soil Group B Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. 0.90 0.90 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Slope (%): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin E20 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin E30 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (%): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin E40 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope(%): Computed TOC (minutes): *********************** Subbasin Runoff Summary *********************** Subbasin Accumulated Rainfall ID Precip Intensity in in/hr 7.20 11. 91 0 .32 91. 00 9.50 6.33 0.32 91.00 19.67 4 .97 0.90 298.00 3.20 4.22 Total Runoff in Peak Runoff cfs Weighted Time of Runoff Concentration Coeff days hh:mm:ss ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------El0 0 .68 3 .46 E2 0 0.55 5.20 E30 0 .50 6.06 E4 0 0.50 6.06 Analysis began on: Tue Feb 19 12:05:00 2019 Analysis ended on: Tue Feb 19 12:05:00 2019 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 0.22 1.11 0 .320 0 00:11:54 0 .18 0.75 0.320 0 00:06:19 0.16 0.99 0.320 0 00:05 :00 0.45 4.64 0.900 0 00:05:00 100 YEAR EXISTING CONDITIONS Autodesk~ Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2016 -Version 12.0 .42 (Build 0) Project Description ................... File Name ................. EX conditions.SPF Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ................ cfs Subbasin Hydrograph Method. Rational Time of Concentration ...... FAA Return Period .............. 100 years Storage Node Exfiltration .. Constant rate, free surface area Starting Date ............. DEC-12-2018 00:00:00 Ending Date ............... DEC-12-2018 07:00:00 Report Time Step .......... 00:00:10 Element Count .............. Number of subbasins 4 Number of nodes ........... 4 Number of links ........... 0 Subbasin Summary **************** Subbasin ID El0 E20 E30 E40 ************ Node Summary ............ Node ID POC0l POC02 POC03 POC04 Total Area acres 1.00 0.45 0.51 0.85 Element Type OUTFALL OUTFALL OUTFALL OUTFALL .......................... Runof f Quantity Continuity .......................... Total Precipitation ..... . Continuity Error (%) Flow Routing Continuity .......................... Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis Flow Length ft 268.00 91. 00 91. 00 298.00 Average Slope % 7.2000 9 .5000 19.6700 3.2000 Invert Elevation ft Maximum Elev. ft 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 Volume Depth acr e-ft inches --------- 0.152 0.650 0.530 Volume Volume acre-ft Mgallons ------------------ Ponded Area ft' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 External Inflow • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • External Inflow ......... . External Outflow ........ . Initial Stored Volume ... . Final Stored Volume ..... . Continuity Error (%) .... . 0.000 0.072 0.000 0 .000 0.000 . .................................... . Runoff Coefficient Computations Report ...................................... Subbasin El0 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. Subbasin E20 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. Subbasin E30 Soil/Surface Description Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. Subbasin E40 Soil/Surface Description Concrete Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 Area (acres) 1. 23 1. 23 Area (acres) 0 .45 0.45 Area (acres) 0.51 0.51 Area (acres) 0.85 0.85 . ..................................................................... . FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) Time of Concentration Computations Report ....................................................................... Where: Tc -Time of Concentration (min) C Runoff Coefficient L Flow Length (ft) S Slope (%) Subbasin El0 Runoff Coef ficient: Flow Length (ft): Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 0.32 268.00 Soil Group B Soil Group B Soil Group B Soil Group B Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. 0.90 0.90 Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin E20 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin E30 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin E40 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes): *********************** Subbasin Runoff Summary *********************** Subbasin Accumulated Rainfall ID Precip Intensity in in/hr 7.20 ll. 91 0.32 91. 00 9.50 6.33 0.32 91. 00 19.67 4.97 0.90 298.00 3.20 4.22 Total Runoff in Peak Runoff cfs Weighted Time of Runoff Concentration Coeff days hh:mm:ss ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------El0 0.77 3.91 E20 0.62 5.88 E30 0.57 6.85 E40 0.57 6.85 Analysis began on: Wed Dec 12 09:07:21 2018 Analysis ended on: Wed Dec 12 09:07:22 2018 Total elapsed time: 00:00:01 Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 0.25 1. 25 0.320 0 00:ll:54 0. 20 0.85 0.320 0 00:06:19 0.18 1.12 0.320 0 00:05:00 0.51 5.24 0.900 0 00:05:00 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 50 YEAR PROPOSED CONDITIONS Autodesk® Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2016 -Version 12.0.42 (Build 0) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************* Project Description ******************* File Name ................. PR Conditions .SPF **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ................ cfs Subbasin Hydrograph Method. Rational Time of Concent ration ...... FAA Return Period .............. 50 years Link Routing Method ....... Steady Flow Storage Node Exfiltration .. Constant rate, free surface area Starting Date ............. DEC-04 -2018 00:00:00 Ending Date ............... DEC-04-2018 06:00:00 Report Time Step .......... 00:00:10 ************* Element Count ************* Number of subbasins 2 Number of nodes ........... 6 Number of l inks ........... 4 **************** Subbasin Summary **************** Subbasin ID Sl0 S20 ************ Node Summary ************ Node ID Total Area acres 2.38 0 .52 Element Type Flow Length ft 386.00 729. 00 Average Slope \ 3.1000 3 .0000 Invert Elevat ion ft Maximum Elev. ft Ponded Area ft' External Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jl Pl0 SO-1 SO-20 SUBSURFACE SURFACE ************ Link Summary ************ Link ID JUNCTION OUTFALL OUTFALL OUTFALL STORAGE STORAGE From Node To Node 166.10 164.00 0.00 0.00 165.85 168.85 169.85 164.83 0.00 0.00 168.85 170.10 Element Type 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length ft Yes Yes Slope \ Manning's Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Link-01 LOWFLOW OVERFLOW Jl SUBSURFACE SURFACE Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis Pl0 Jl Jl CONDUIT ORIFICE ORIFICE 46 .0 4 .5652 0.0110 I NF_5IN/HR SURFACE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Link Design ID Flow Capacity cfs Shape SUBSURFACE OUTLET Depth/ Width Diameter ft ft No. of Barrels Cross Sectional Area ft' Full Flow Hydraulic Radius f t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link-01 5.53 CIRCULAR ************************** Runo ff Quantity Con tinuity ************************** Total Precipitat ion ..... . Continuity Error (%) ************************** Flow Routing Continuity ************************** External Inflow ......... . External Outfl ow ........ . Initial Stored Volume ... . Final Stored Volume ..... . Continuity Error (%) 0.83 Volume acre-ft 0.201 0.683 Volume acre-ft 0.173 0.101 0 .000 0 .135 0.000 ...................................... Runoff Coefficient Computations Report ************************************** Subba s in Sl0 Soil/Surface Description 0.83 Depth inches 0.831 Volume Mgallons 0.056 0.033 0.000 0.044 Area (acres) 1 0.55 Soil Group 0.21 Runoff Coeff. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residential l DU/AC or sess Composite Area & We ighted Runoff Coeff. Subbasin S20 Soil/Surface Description 2 .38 2.38 Area (acres) B Soil Group 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residential l DU/AC or sess Composite Area & Weight ed Run off Coeff . 0.50 0.50 *********************************************************************** FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) Time of Concentration Computations Report ....................................................................... Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis B 0.32 0.32 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Wher e: Tc= Time of Concentration (min} C Runoff Coefficient L Fl ow Length (ft) s Slope (\) Subbasin SlO Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes): Subb asin S20 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (f t ): Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes ): . ..................... . Subbasin Runoff Summary *********************** 0.32 386.00 3.10 18.93 0.32 729. 00 3.00 26.29 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subbasin ID Accumulated Precip in Rainfall Intensity in/hr Total Runoff i n Peak Runoff cfs Weighted Runoff Coe££ Time of Concentration days hh:mm:ss ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SlO S20 0.81 0.91 2.57 2.08 0.26 0.29 1. 96 0.35 0.320 0.320 0 00:18:55 0 00:26:17 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Total Total Retention ID Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Flooded Time Time Attained Attained Attained Volume Flooded ft ft ft days hh:mm acre-in minutes hh:mm: ss -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jl 0.02 0.09 166.19 0 04:27 0 0 0:00:00 PlO 0.02 0.09 164.09 0 04:27 0 0 0:00:00 S0-1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0:00:00 S0-20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0:00:00 SUBSURFACE 0.66 1. 67 167.52 0 06:00 0 0 0:00:00 SURFACE 0.34 1.04 169.89 0 04:27 0 0 0:00:00 ***************** Node Flow Summary ***************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Node ID Element Type Maximum Lateral Inflow cfs Peak Inflow cfs Time of Peak Inflow Occurrence days hh:mm Maximum Flooding Overflow cfs Time of Peak Flooding Occurrence days hh:mm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis Jl PlO S0-1 S0-20 SUBSURFACE SURFACE ******************** Storage Node Summary ******************** JUNCTION OUTFALL OUTFALL OUTFALL STORAGE STORAGE 0 .00 0.35 1. 96 0 .35 0 .00 1. 96 0.13 0 .36 1. 96 0.35 0.28 1.96 0 04:27 0 04:12 0 00:19 0 00:26 0 03:24 0 04:09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Storage Node ID Maximum Maximum Time of Max Average Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max. Total Ponded Ponded Ponded Ponded Ponded Storage Node Exfiltration Exfiltration Exfiltrated Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Outfl ow Rate Rate Volume 1000 ft' (%) days hh:mm 1000 ft' (%) cfs cfm hh:mm:ss 1000 ft' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSURFACE 0.00 0 :00:00 SURFACE 0.00 0 :00:00 4.079 0.000 2.543 0.000 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** Outfall Node ID PlO S0-1 S0-20 System ***************** Link Flow Summary ***************** Flow Frequency (%) 99.48 10.55 14. 59 41 .54 Average Flow cfs 0.08 0.98 0.17 1. 23 56 83 Peak Inflow cfs 0.36 1. 96 0.35 2.21 0 06:00 0 04:27 1.599 0.835 22 27 0.03 0.39 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID El ement Time of Maximum Lengt h Peak Flow Design Ratio of Ratio of Total Reported Type Peak Flow Velocity Factor during Flow Maximum Maximum Time Condition Occurrence Attained Analysis Capacity /Design Flow Surcharged days hh:mm ft/sec c fs cfs Fl ow Depth minutes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link-01 CONDUIT 0 04:27 3.95 1.00 0.13 5.53 0.02 Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0.11 LOWFLOW 0.00 OVERFLOW INF_SIN/HR O Calculated ORIFICE ORIFICE OUTLET ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable . 0 06:00 0 04:27 0 03:24 0.03 0.11 0.28 WARNING 107 elevation. Initial water surface elevation defined for Junction Jl is below junction invert Assumed initial water surface elevation equal to invert elevation . WARNING 108 Surcharge elevation defined for Junction Jl is below junction maximum elevation. Assumed surcharge elevation equal to maximum elevation . WARNING 110 : Initial water surface elevation defined for Storage Node SUBSURFACE is below storage node invert elevation. Assumed initial water surface elevation equal to invert elevation. WARNING 110 : Initial water surface elevation defined for Storage Node SURFACE is below storage node invert elevation. Assumed initial water surface elevation equal to invert elevation. Analysis began on: Tue Feb 19 11:47:01 2019 Analysis ended on: Tue Feb 19 11:47:02 2019 Total elapsed time: 00:00:01 Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis Time Series General Time series ID: Description: Time seiies data Data type TS-01 BASIN 1 O! Usei defined 6-HOUR HYDROGRAPHS 2.0 1.8 C Standa<d rainfall Rainfall ~es1Q11ei. l 16 Date (MM/OD/YYYY) Time series curves ID/ TS-02 Tme (H:MM) 0:00 0:22 0:41 1:00 1:18 1:37 1:56 Numberc:I Pons 15 Value 0.000 0.11 0 0.114 0.124 0.130 0.144 0.152 ., ::, 1.4 1.2 ~ 10 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Time Series Plot 2 3 4 5 6 Elapsed rrne (hours) ~ ---:, , ... Time Series . ' . -------------~------------· ' General Time series ID: TS-02 Description: BASIN 2 Time seiies data Data type ~ User defined , Standafd rainfall Rainfall Designer .. Date Tme Value (MM/DDIYYYY) (H:MM) l,jl,l-l,;,lli;il,,i,l,11,,'·• 0:00 0.000 Time series curves 0:47 0.025 1:12 0.027 1:38 0.031 2:04 0.033 2:30 2:55 Number of Pons 20 0.041 0.047 Description Time Series Plot 0.35 0 30 1 0.25 0.20 ., ::, ~ 015 -J 0.10 0.05 0 0 2 3 5 6 Elapsed rone (hours) ~ Add Delete Load .. Save ... Close Add Delete Load .. Save ... Dose Help • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 100 YEAR PROPOSED CONDITIONS Autodesk~ Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2016 -Version 12.0.42 (Build 0) ******************* Project Description ................... File Name ................. PR Conditions.SPF ................ Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ................ cfs Subbasin Hydrograph Method. Rational Time of Concentration ...... FAA Return Period .............. 100 years Link Routing Method ....... Steady Flow Storage Node Exfiltration .. Constant rate, free surface area Starting Date ............. DEC-04-2018 00:00:00 Ending Date ............... DEC-04-2018 06:00:00 Report Time Step .......... 00:00:10 ************* Element Count ************* Number of subbasins 2 Number of nodes ........... 6 Number of links ........... 4 Subbasin Summary **************** Subbasin ID Sl0 S20 ............ Node Summary ............ Node ID Jl Pl0 SO-1 SO-20 SUBSURFACE SURFACE ............ Link Summary ............ Link ID Link-01 LOWFLOW OVERFLOW Total Area acres 2.38 0.52 Element Type JUNCTION OUTFALL OUTFALL OUTFALL STORAGE STORAGE From Node Jl SUBSURFACE SURFACE Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis Flow Length ft 386.00 729.00 Average Slope \- 3.1000 3.0000 Invert Elevation ft Maximum Elev. ft To Node Pl0 Jl Jl 166.10 164.00 0.00 0.00 165.85 168.85 169.85 164.83 0.00 0.00 168.85 170 .10 Element Type CONDUIT ORIFICE ORIFICE Ponded Area ft' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length ft 46.0 External Inflow Yes Yes Slope \- 4.5652 Manning's Roughness 0.0110 INF -SIN/HR SURFACE ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Link Design ID Flow Capacity cfs Link-01 5 .53 Shape CIRCULAR Runoff Quantity Continuity .......................... Total Precipitation ..... . Continuity Error (\) Flow Routing Continuity ************************** External Inflow ......... . External Outflow ........ . Initial Stored Volume ... . Final Stored Vol ume ..... . Continuity Error (\) SUBSURFACE Depth/ Diameter ft 0.83 Volume a cre-ft 0.227 0.683 Volume acre-ft 0.196 0.125 0.000 0 .142 0.000 ************************************** Runoff Coeffi cient Computations Report ...................................... Subbasin Sl0 Soil/Surface Description Residential lDU/AC or sess Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. Subbasin S20 Soil/Surface Description Residential lDU/AC or sess Composite Area & Weighted Runoff Coeff. OUTLET Width ft 0.83 Depth inches 0.939 Volume Mgallons 0.064 0 .041 0.000 0 .046 No. o f Barrels Area (acr es) 2.38 2.38 Area (acres) 0.50 0.50 1 *********************************************************************** FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) Time of Concentration Computations Report ....................................................................... Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis Cross Sectional Area Soil Group B Soil Group B ft' 0.55 Full Flow Hydraulic Radius Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 Runoff Coeff. 0.32 0.32 ft 0 .21 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Where: Tc Time of Concentration (min) C = Runoff Coefficient L = Flow Length (ft) s Slope (\) Subbasin Sl0 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin S20 Runoff Coefficient: Flow Length (ft): Slope (\): Computed TOC (minutes): Subbasin Runoff Summary ....................... Subbasin ID Sl0 S20 Accumulated Precip in 0.92 1. 03 .................. Node Depth Summary .................. Rainfall Intensity in/hr 2 .90 2.35 0.32 386.00 3.10 18.93 0.32 729.00 3.00 26.29 Total Runoff in 0.29 0.33 Peak Runoff cfs 2 .21 0.39 Weighted Runoff Coeff 0.320 0.320 Time of Concentration days hh:mm:ss 0 00:18:55 0 00:26:17 Node Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Total Total Retention ID Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Flooded Time Time Attained Attained Attained Volume Flooded ft ft ft days hh:mm acre-in minutes hh:mm:ss -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jl Pl0 SO-1 SO-20 SUBSURFACE SURFACE ................. Node Flow Summary ................. Node ID 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.37 Element Type Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 0.19 166.29 0.19 164.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1. 75 167.60 1.13 169.98 Maximum Lateral Inflow cfs Peak Inflow cfs 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:22 04:22 00:00 00:00 06:00 04: 22 Time of Peak Inflow Occurrence days hh:mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum Flooding Overflow cfs 0 0:00:00 0 0:00:00 0 0:00:00 0 0:00:00 0 0:00:00 0 0:00:00 Time of Peak Flooding Occurrence days hh:mm Jl JUNCTION 0.00 0.63 0 04:22 0.00 Pl0 OUTFALL 0.39 0.89 0 04:21 0.00 SO-1 OUTFALL 2.21 2.21 0 00:19 0.00 SO-20 OUTFALL 0.39 0.39 0 00:26 0.00 SUBSURFACE STORAGE 0.00 0.28 0 03:15 0.00 SURFACE STORAGE 2.21 2.21 0 04:09 0.00 ******************** Storage Node Summary .................... ------------------------------------Storage Node ID Maximum Maximum Time of Max Average Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max. Total Ponded Ponded Ponded Ponded Ponded Storage Node Exfiltration Exfiltration Exfiltrated Volume Volume Volume Rate Rate Volume 1000 ft' (%) days cfm hh:mm:ss 1000 ft' ------------------------------------ SUBSURFACE 4.270 58 0 0.00 0 :00:00 0.000 SURFACE 2.754 0.00 0 :00:00 0.000 Outfall Loading Summary ....................... Outfall Node ID Pl0 SO-1 SO-20 System ................. Link Flow Summary ................. Flow Frequency (%) 99.55 10.55 14.59 41. 56 -------------------------------Link ID Element Ratio of Total Reported Type Maximum Time Condition Flow Surcharged Depth minutes Link-01 CONDUIT Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis 90 0 Average Flow cfs Peak Inflow 0.11 1.11 0.20 1. 41 Time of Peak Flow Occurrence days hh:mm 0 04:22 cfs 0.89 2.21 0.39 2.50 Maximum Velocity Attained ft/sec 6. 72 hh:mm 06:00 04:22 Length Factor 1.00 Volume Volume 1000 ft' (%) 1. 728 24 0.897 29 Peak Flow Design during Flow Analysis Capacity cfs cfs 0.63 5.53 Outflow cfs 0.03 0.89 Ratio of Maximum /Design Flow 0 .11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0.23 LOWFLOW 0.00 OVERFLOW INF_SIN/HR 0 Calculated ORI FICE ORIFICE OUTLET ................................ Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stabl e. 0 06:00 0 04 :22 0 03:15 0.03 0.61 0.28 WARNING 107 elevation. Initial water surface elevation defined for Junction Jl is below junction invert Assumed initial water surface elevation equal to invert elevation. WARNING 108 Surcharge el evation defined for Junction Jl is be l ow junction maximum elevation. Assumed surcharge elevation equal to max imum elevation. WARNING 110 : Initial water s urface elevation defined for Storage Node SUBSURFACE is below storage node invert el evation. Assumed initi al water surface elevation equal to invert elevation . WARNING 110 : Initial water surface elevation def ined for Storage Node SURFACE is below storage node invert elevation. Assumed ini tial water surf ace elevation equal to invert elevation. Analysis began on: Tue Feb 19 11:25:36 2019 Analysi s ended on: Tue Feb 19 11:25:36 2019 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec Autodesk Storm and Sanitary Analysis • • 6-HOUR HYDROGRAPHS • Time Series ~ • General 7 1 • Time series ID: TS-01 Time Series Plot Add Description: I Delete • BASIN 1 2.2 I Load ... I S11ve ... • Time series data 2.0 • Data type !i\ User defined • 1.8 r Standard rainfall Rainfall Designer .. 1.6 • Date Trme Value (MM/00/YYYY) (H:MM) • 1.4 0:00 0.000 • 0:22 0.124 0:41 0.129 ~ 1.2 • 1:00 0.140 ~ 1:18 0.146 1.0 1:37 0.162 1:56 0.172 0.8 Time series curves 0.6 • Nunberof • Ports 0.4 • 2 TS-02 15 0.2 • • 2 3 4 5 6 Elapsed Tnne (hours) Close • Help • • Time Series ~ • General Time series ID: TS-02 ~ Time Series Plot Add • Description: Delete • BASIN 2 Load .. Save ... • Time series data Data type 0.35 • !, User defined '~l Standard rainfall Ra,nlaU Designer ... 0.30 • Date Trne Value • (MM/0D/YYYY) (H:MM) • 0.25 0:00 0.000 0:47 0.029 ., 1:12 0.030 :, 1:38 0.035 ~ 0.20 2:04 0.038 2:30 0.046 0.15 2:55 0.053 Time series curves 0.10 JD / Nurrberal Desell)tion Ports TS-01 20 0.05 • 2 l • 2 3 4 5 6 • Elapsed Time (hours) l 1 Close • I ----Help • • • • ll jPage Maps and References lsopluvial Maps Excerpts from County of San Diego Hydrology Manual 0 (\') 0 r--.... .... in .... 0 r--.... .... 0 0 0 r--.... .... in v (0 .... .... 0 (\') (0 .... .... in .... 0 <O .... .... I -I I I --~· ·~~ += ,.. . ·. t. I 33°30' r,~1 mtv I ~ : ·._ .. ,,,::;::~ .. ~ 33°30' 33°15' Site P=4 .2 ' , , ,' ' I •" ,',' :: /. .... __ 1·c;,c '. ,'/,' ,•: ' .. , , , . ' . • ... :::;::·:::,:·· ./ •• ,• CP c;:, .. ·····-····· ... ·.-.;.'{,,. ... .r·· ,'· ' J'j\. Riverside County ,• •!7• • ·••' ,~ .... ....... .... .. .. , .. --. :5~ -;;-,. · .... ; ........ ••, I • , • •••• .. ••• .. • .. ••• .. ,. ~~ •,.... " .. , •..... • .. , .. . \>,.. •••••••· ·::::=::::::·.:.. ·.. ' •••• ......... >,. • .. \ . . ... .. ,. V. • •• ••.... ·l9. . .. ) "'•~. "'· ', --· ........... .,,."'3.......... ~ .. •·. \ ... ', ,,,.. j • • • t "• "• "V"' " •>!'\ I t 11 I • 1, . .. .. ~ .. .. ~ ' .. . -.. .. "~ "\, .... .. ..... '\, \...0 • .... " .. '\ \,, O •. ~ •••• , . • ""'O • . , r·· ..... ,t ' ... .. .. ... .. • • ' "' ... , I\ ,t ,' ',, •, : ', .. \ I • , I .. # • ~ I #•"• I I I '1 ' t : .... ,4 ♦l,\ I f •• I 1 .: \ . : : ···.'·':'·. \ :, o· \ \ f. • • • I • I I 11, • 1 'ii 1, • I \ ' \\ ..... .. \ '. \ \ ' ·.. ·-. . ' . ,,/ ..-~ ...... •.. \_ \, ~ . ....... , . \ ............... ✓ 1.,· ...... ·' .... •· ,. . .. ....... .. .. . .. ", ,' •, ,, . .. .... . : \ ... . .. ·-.... ·. · ... , ......... ' .... · .... _ ,,' . '~• I \ •-..,••••,. . ' . ' '. ' . . ·. .. .......... ""':-. •· ... , . . . . : .. , .. -....... . . /' .... _ ...... -.... 0 .. \ ..... • ..... 1. .. ,,, ...... ,: .. .. --....... ' •' I .. ' -; --.. . ' . . . . •, ·. .. ·~·:1·· . . •.. 4.c. .. ,v ·[: ~ \, \. r • • . . . ' .... "', .... , .... ·. ' •, •. . .... -_, __ .. , .. . . . ' . ' . . ,, ........... . -_.. --... -.. ---· ·3: ----................ ____ _ '• __ , ........... -.... ". -· -• .. " .... -----tV --0 .,.x:;,;~ ···45··• ...... ...-.:::·:.:::· ::.::--~~····· •.. . ... -.. .... . .. ()) ....... • , . . .. .. -------.. r, t't> ·•~\,' '' • > ' • I I " • \ \ I "'. 5' () M!-C"-"'"' .. ,., • ...... ., "'• .. , "'•, ",, . . ' ' . .. ~ --,._,.;,..... , .. ~... .. ..... ____ ......... ' j • ..· 33°00' ,.... •• / ·>···. .... ,: :' ,..., ·. ,'· ,• ~ . : • \,, • ,' : ,.,_. ... / f S 0. C6U!IITY ', • • • • •••••• •• • , •, ' 33°00' 32°45' 32°30' 0 (\') 0 r--.... 0 () ~ ()) -:, in .... 0 r--.... .... ,':\ f .• • , r ••• ·:o···· ...... ~· \ , , . ,• ,' _,, .. - I ••• ' • I f,, t I \ \ <: ·•. ···' ,. . \ .. ··. . ,., .:: : • •• : :: :~ •• / I• ~ • .... ., __ ,,,. I "• .... • .......... •"' \ • ·t;> : • ..... ~ • \ .... ...... "1§' •, ~ ,-, .. ' ~ o".,., " •Q I I I / ~ . ~ •,.... •..... \ \ : ... l?i9 •.. •. •. ·, ', ••. \ \ .. , '\ ', \, \, .. .. ' \ \ •, ·\, \ I t \ I I,. I I \ l I \ ' ..... ·3·.8 ••••• •• • • ' ' . .. _ .... -" I I I \ \ "' ::\\.._· ... r· ..... \ . ' .. ' .. .. •• '\ 't ', : .. \ <.)'\ \ • \ : .. 3 "'O CD -, ru· 0 0 C ::::J -'< ' -~ -:-ct:> \ l •·• •. ~ ~2°45' .. ,t .> •. ~ •••••••· .. ' ,'.. .. .. -.... --...... ,, ,' /,•' , .. --.. -...... . ,, . , .. . , I 1, I I I . .... SD ( .•• -: •. ~ ·),ro· IMPERIAL BEAtH.. • • I : : : ':-! : -~~ ' : :: ... ,.:_ y ,' ,· , ' - \ r-"~ ~--..J;..+--:--yj: : ~/ .. • LL--•• ~•. M e x , c 0 0 0 r--.... .... in v 0 <O .... .... 0 (\') 0 <O .... .... in .... (0 .... .... . . '.. ... '\ .... '-·.. .. .... .. ···t 32°30' County of San Diego Hydrology Manual __,.. --~--. ,,.-.,,.--,"'11_ ......... , ;.~1· ,, ,, :-i\ -~-'2 Rainfall Jsopluvials 50 Year Rainfall Event -24 Hours lsopluvial (inches) DPW ~GIS S,gGIS 0._0ll'W'.-,.r ol Ptibk V.tvxa ·S<;ory-,1pty,; fo!Vff <11}:,,, &,v;t::c:s We H.i.vc San Diego CC>\cr~J! N *E s 3 0 3 ~ THIS MAP IS PROVOED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF AJ-4Y KINO, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ~CUJOING, BUT NOT UMfTEO TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABIUTY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Cow1ght SanGIS. AJ RlghtS -ed. lhla produc:ta may contain Information frcm the SANOAG Regional Information System whk:tl cannot be reproduced without the written permission of SANOAG. Thia product may contain Information which t'l8s been reproctuood wtth po,mlaalc,ogromedbyThanasBro4htnMapo. Miles b io b (") ..,.. 0 0 to-0 r--r--..,.. ..,.. ..,.. + ..,.. ..,.. ..,.. io 'Sf" 0 (0 ..,.. ..,.. b (") <O ..,.. ..,.. io ..,.. <O ..,.. Orange I . .<s~ ~ I 3a•30• c~ • '-,-~ . . ~ .... •• . .. 1•[ ,.,.. • {• • L_ ,,' ,,•· ,;-... ..... ,•' , .. ,• 33•30• Riverside County '• • •...• •• ..... / .. --···· .... ·• (j.~ .• . .. .,_. ~ •v................ ,, , r, V"\ ••• ~ .•I .•· n•. ..-. ,,,.• ,,•v ,, ,, ,' . ,' ....... 3-_o~-·· :,,' .:· ~ .. ...... 7 .. ....... .. .... ...... .. .. . . ....... .......... r·::.-:::···· ··-<:.::· I\ .i... : ·-.r-•• •.. ~ \ v(} '.·• -.-.. • ·· .. ~--··... ··• •... ~~·· ... ••• .... ·.... ....... •· ... ··.. '\ .. .... . . \ • \ .. \ \, 0 "· : '\ ..... ·o . . . .. .. . ~ . \ .... , .. --...... \ ,' ·.. •, . . . . ~...... ,: . . . . . . \ \ \ . \ \ . .. : ,,,' .. • c.,:> •.... \ '\ \ 33"15 ·,r ... .-····: ~ \ I•• I ·· · . .... : r \ 9 \ -,. I • • '• 'iS' ; : \ • ,•··, : , •••• ;;-:, . . ·. . . .. . . .• • : •• / • • i •• • • • •••• •• '·-.. ... i '. ·········'· •••• 33115' • ... t~ ·.... • .......... ·,-.. .. .. .... .. . . ' .... ~ ...... , · .. .... ,' • . .... --.. . ' ·. ~ ·. ·-'25· -··· + ·. ~-: • -.. ......... ' ~ ............... . •••I ~ ~ \ .,-------'· . . ·•. ·•. .......... ···... ••••• •.... . . I I ' . -0 • ••••• •• ;.-:o_...;.J-r~---;-1 ~-----.• ()) '-~~Tjt:::~t tf~~--17~=--::1. .~ ex ~OUNrv ••• () ~ : . .· .. ._ .... -· : : . . . -. ·-: .. ' ~~----:--:-:::-::-;;;~i,a~2~ ... t-----,i · ~ · ~· :'\· · ·· · -· ••. . . :, · ~ ·--.: ··0 ·-._---... •· i I -----,---() •, •, ', • •--:'.•'. •••• ' 33'00 • ·. : ·-· .. ·---.. ·" 0 () ~ ~ -:, ' • • • l.t •• • V" ·, ·, .. • •• ·· .. ~ .. ·•. ·. ·~ \ '. ••• -···. ·· ... ·· .. ·.. .. '-":' \ '•·-•.. :--··-. \ ····-.:\\. \ . . . ---- ,.·· .... •·'1::l"'=r· 33°00' 3 "'O CD :::!. ru () 32°45' 32°30' io .... b 0 r-- (") 0 r--..,.. ..,.. .... g 0 r--.... ..,.. -·. • ...... , . . . io v 0 (0 .... ..,.. -········r o : ••• ': ': ......... I t I 11 C ::I -~ .-+ .,S· '< • I -.. ... ;-• " ····• . ~---', •• SI ..•• -·· .. ···;•~···; i M e X C g <O .... ..,.. .... _ --... · ' . . : ... \ • ·. \ -.. :···~ ... ~ ~ ~· ~ •• •. --~cb \ io ..,.. 0 (0 ..,.. ..,.. . 32°30' County of San Diego Hydrology Manual ~~---, ,(•◄~II ~~-, ~,,.,:'<,. s:::1.~~-·,,._, :, ·.~~ ~/, Rainfall Isopluvials 100 Year Rainfall Event-6 Hours lsopluvial (inches) DPW ~GIS S~GIS D~a/PiJb;ic~~ Gco,p-<1,totrlr-Jurt,.JtyJ,,~-=(1$ W<.: H.1,~ San Di.:go Covered! N + s 3 0 3 ~ THIS MAP IS PROV10EO WITHOUT WAR.RANN OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING. BUT NOT UMrTEO TO, Tl-IE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY ANO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE Copyrigrt SenGIS. All Rlghll Reserved. This produC1S may contain Information from the SANDAG Regional Information System 'M'lleh c:amo( be reproduced w4th0Ut the wrttten permission rA SAN DAG. This prodUCt may contain Information which hes been reproduced 'Mth pennlsslon g-ed by Thomas Brotheto Maps. Miles b (") 0 ,-.. ..... ..... io ..... 0 ,-.. ..... ..... b 0 0 ,-.. ..... ..... io ~ 0 (0 0 (") 0 (0 ..... ..... io ..... 0 (0 ..... ..... '""' a, ,Qv I . ,·jp I 33°30' • •" N r.n1 1 nh, I :... • ... ,..., ~ ~ ~ I + ~ I I I 33°30' 33°15' Site P=4.7 ,,• : ,•,,:: :' : ,,· . .•• c:f::t~.· l t' , '> • ._,.. • ,, .. .,., • ~' .. ~ . ~ :,,:,v .. · / ·Q __ .. , ,•,•: : ·i:!J .... ' , , , . , , , , 0.::::::::::::::-·· ...... ... 6:tt···· , ' ••••• • ➔ 2i Riverside County .. . . • ... ·-.: .. -.. .._ ·... if.: • • • • •• •••• ·•.. ••• •• ·-.:. ••••... ·'6!·... \ .. ·• ... ····•. •• ·•. ·0 ·•. •••• ••• •. ••. •. ••. : ·~ ·•. ·'O .. •• .. . •• •••• ··•... ·lSl ••• ••• 7n ··• •.. '•. -. •. •. ~:6 ·•. ·· ... ,,., •. •, : '8•A ••• •••• • • '-C'_ • • (S' • • •• ••••• •• • v . • • ' •V••• •• :::•••• • • \ •~. \ \ '0 ', • •••• : •••• •••• •••.•••• : ~ / ••• •• •• ••,'>, • • J, • • I • • • • •• • : ••••• •••• ··7n ··• ,....n •• • ~ '. • ' •, ,. ·• • •• • ·•··• ' ... '"' -.. VV") ..... ~ • • ·'Q , ',. . .. , .... \ I ~ \ ,•·•.... ·v., \ •; • \ : • \ •. ~-\ : ••. •• •, : .. : ·1-.':l •, •• • ... t:J:I ·-•• -~ •. .. '. • ·. .. : .. \ . ' • ~•f't~ •••• • o • ,:.-, •• • • I • • ••• • • , • \ \ ·•. ·v~. \ • • : •• •• '-"'. • .··•• •, : •, ,: : : : ". \ ... ... ~oej;!--,,-.~ •• ·, ·•. ••• ·\ .. : : .. • ,a .... : .. : : : • : : .. •• .. • •• . ..... -.... ' ... ,,. . ~ • ~ • ••• ' ', ': • • ·O· •. ', '.?. ' • • ' ". • • ' ' c.. . , · ·· ., l ~-•••• • •• !,,' -• -,,r;•. ··.\:::~ .,.~J •• ,······· J. •• •••."19' •••• • \ : ~ ~ \ ···•• • n .. ••·····•·33115' ,.. .. .. L I ! I ♦ • • • ••. .. .• .•I ... ··< . •. ,--------------------- -...... ,---........ If# ...... •• •• •••• .. "Y:s ·• •••• -~ • •• ·-...... ·· . ...-.-· .... ·->· .. ···... \ / '"1./ \ .. . ... . . . ··.. ··.. \ \ ·. '• •• / .• -··· •• •• •• •. •• ••• •• ············-) \ ! ·, ~ .. •··· ' •A\ I ,,," ,,,"_. I ...., I I # '\ \ ~:":" t , , I I 1 '. '\ ', ·. ' \ I .. , ', I -. . ---·-.... ,. ..... _ •••••• •••······ . ,• : . ••• ,•,• I ~~··.·.. :, .. / . • -·(.\::::-::· .,.__ '-'••'-' ,:: ....... ,.. ..• ~ • : _-::,;;,~~ ,• -~"'•"'----' ........ .. ~ .\t,t~-;~>l/ • • S,u , v·' () n -:i-·r ,s.~ • .• . • • • . ~-• ~-•·;,,._,-• • ' •. '--.. .. ~e -.. t )\·· -..:-.... • .···. --" v v• • •• •• ,u.* ... . • . .. . , ~-iS· ... • •, ... •••. ,.. . ·•, . ·• .. , .... ··•.... : 33 °00• ---I '.'>······:• _.-' \ ·· ....... · ...... ",? } .... ·· .. ··... \ \ \ ·. 0 () (Q • / : : :·: . ,, ...... ------.. • • IP • •• • . .. .. .. . ()r' C .-' •• •, •I,;> •• • • ; ••,; ;• .. • ••. ; • .. • • • . . . '· .. . . . .. • : 1:0 • \ • •• . ··. .. .. ·. \ '!(' .:~:: •• : • ·-, --.,-. .., ..,. \ ....... ·., l ···-.. ~ -:, • : : " ·.. ·. . .. . .,,3•00· 3 "'C CD ::!. !l) () 0 C ::J 32°45' 32°30' b (") 0 ,-.. ..... io b 0 ..... 0 0 ,-.. ,-.. ..... ..... ..... ...... -.. -, ,•· ' . /l • ., .... ~-. ," Q:S· ' # ,. # # .. : : ," ,,," . . . ,_ io ~ (0 M ' . . </ )~ .. ~~:---~·-.•. ·.~·-~- ~-.......... -· "'.~:·· ··, {'. • e X C b (") 0 (0 ..... ..... ,-+ '< :::-., \\ .. t • .. . . . .. ' .... :: : \ \ .. \.: • ••., •• I I 1-1'\ ' . -,, .. : ~ '•, .. .. ••• •... :·· •. 1,. : ·0. 't ~• \ ••·· ... . . ' io ..... 0 (0 ..... 32°30' County of San Diego Hydrology Manual --.:::---.... ,. (~ ·~·~ >" ~'?, ' f A~ -~~~ Rainfall lsopluvials 100 Year Rainfall Event -24 Hours lsopluvial (inches) DPW ~GIS s1fGIS Oepam:-i&f1! ,:,f P..blic ~bm: G<;o;r~ ,.,<fom~'liK,-~(.'t \Ve Ha,c S,m Diego Coveted! N 4E s 3 0 3 ~ THIS~ IS PRCMOED WITHOVT WARAAHTY OF A~ KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INQ.UOING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABIUTY ANO FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. eo,,,,tght SanGIS. All Rights-· 1hh, products may contain lnfonnotlon m,m ... SANDAG Regk,nal lnformatlon System v.Nch cannot be reproduced v.tthout the wrltten permission of SANDAG. This produC1 may o:imaln information which has been reproduced llfith permission g'""1ed by Thomas Brotheo> Mapo. Miles • • I-w w u.. z -w (.) z <{ I-Cl) i5 w Cl) ~ ::> 0 (.) ~ w I-~ ••• • • ••••••••• •• ••• • ••••••• 0 ~ ✓ I A :A l 3o (/) w I-::> z 20 ~ ~ 0 EXAMPLE: Given: Watercourse Distance (D) = 70 Feet Slope (s) = 1.3% Runoff Coefficient (C) = 0.41 Overland Flow Time (T) = 9.5 Minutes T = 1.8 (1 .1 -C) VD 3\fs z -w ~ ~ ~ 0 ...J u.. 0 z <{ ...J ~ w > 0 SOURCE: Airport Drainage, Federal Aviation Administration, 1965 F I GU R E Rational Formula -Overland Time of Flow Nomograph 3-3 I .,.... 9.0 10.0~ ,, ....... 8.0 70 N ' Ir--..._ 6.01 5.01 1 ... , 4.01 I r--.... 3.01 I 2.01 I .:-::, 0 .s:: cii G) .s:: -~ 1.0 :;o.9 -~0.8 ~ £0.7 ,, I I 0.6 0.5 ' I 0.4 ' 0.31 I ' 0.2 1', I "' ... "' " "' ... to- ·i-.. "' ' ,' """"" 1'-i,.._ r-..' to-. • "' """" ....... i"' ~ ... "'~ .. ·, ..... . ~ "'to-. "" ... I'."' "' I'. I = 3.2 in/hr I'.. , ... .... ... "' " ~ ... r-,. ,....,.._ . "' .... ,.... ... ", .. ... "' I""' H-~ ~ 0.1 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 ~ ... """"~~~ ~"'r- r-,. ~ "' ~p "'r-~ I" "' 1",- ~p "'r-~ ~ ,.,. "" ~ le= 20 min I I II 111 I 1 111 11111 I 20 30 Minutes J I I ••• ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 40 50 1 Duration EQUATION I = 7.44 P5 D-0.645 I = Intensity (in/hr) P5 = 6-Hour Precipitation (in) D = Duration (min) I I t'-i... "i... ~"' ~"' "'"' "'I" 1, "' .. "' ~ "' ~ .... I',. 'to-I• ~ ~ 1, t-...t-.. "'"' ~,.. p"' ~ "i... : ti I ~"' to-"' ... ... to-. "" I I " ~ .... "to-I" p ' ~ r--r-l'oi. I 1, to-.... I•"' "~ I "to- ,.,. I I I I 2 3 4 Hours I I I I I I 5 6 0) ::c ~ i 6.0 ~ 5.5 ~ 5.0 g 4.5 '§' 0 4.0; 3.5 ~ 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Directions for Application: (1) From precipitation maps detennine 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. Appllcatlon Form: (a) Selected frequency ~ year (b) P6 = ~ in., p24 = ~ .:6 = 55 %(2) 24 (c) Adjusted p6<2> = ~ in. (d) lx = _5 __ min. (e) I = ~ in./hr. Note: This chart replaces the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since 1965. PS 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 I. 7 2.124 3.18 4.24 5.3016.36 7.4218.48 9.54 10.60 11.66 12.72 .. 10 1.~2.53 3.37 4.21 5.05 5.90~74 7.~8.42~7 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.TT I 4.31 4.85 -5.39 5.93 6.46 I . 25 o.93 uot 1.ei 12.33 2.eo"'"3.27 3.73 i 4.201 4.671 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 • 40 0.69 1.03 1.38 1.72 2.07 2.41 2.76 3.10 345 3.79 4.13 • 50 o.60 •o.90 1.19 1.49 1.79 2.09 2.39 2.s9 2.98 3.28 3.58 -60 0.53 0.80 1.06 1.33 1.59 1.86 2.12 2.39' 2.65 2.92 3.18 !IO 0.41 0.61 0.82 1.02 1.23 1.43 1.63 1.84 2.04 2.25 2.45 120 0.34 0.51 0.68 0.85 1.02 1.19 1.36 1.53 1.70 1.87 2.04 150 o.~---io.« o.59 o.73 o.ss 1.03 1.18 1.32 1.41 1.52 1.16 180 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__J).28t0.38 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 Intensity-Duration Design Chart -Example ~ ~ •• •