City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
SAN MARCOS
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)
STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR
MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE BUILDING
[INSERT PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBERS]
2375 & 2355 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA 92069
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):
228-370-20 & 39
ENGINEER OF WORK:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Ali Azimijirsarai, R.C.E. 48773
PREPARED FOR:
Unite Pacific, Inc.
Mr. Jamie Looney
993-C S. Santa Fe Ave. PMB #130
Vista, California 92083
(760) 201-6524
PDP SWQMP PREPARED BY:
EPS Group, Inc.
360 E. 1st Street, #4126
Tustin, California 92780
(714) 514-3255
DATE OF SWQMP:
May 06, 2022
EPS Group, Inc.
360 E. 1st Street, #4126
Tustin, California 92780
(714) 514-3255
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Page intentionally blank
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronym Sheet
PDP SWQMP Preparer's Certification Page
PDP SWQMP Project Owner's Certification Page
Submittal Record
Project Vicinity Map
FORM I-1 Applicability of Storm Water BMP Requirements
FORM I-2 Project Type Determination Checklist (Standard Project or PDP) FORM I-3B Site Information Checklist for PDPs
FORM I-4 Source Control BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM I-5 Site Design BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM I-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs
Attachment 1a: DMA Exhibit –
Attachment 1b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit
Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design
Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Plan
Attachment 3a: B Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 3b: Draft Maintenance Agreement (when applicable) Attachment 4: Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Storm Water BMPs Attachment 5: Soils report and percolation test report
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
ACRONYMS
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
BMP Best Management Practice
HMP Hydromodification Management Plan
HSG Hydrologic Soil Group
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
N/A Not Applicable
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PDP Priority Development Project
PE Professional Engineer
SC Source Control
SD Site Design
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Bo ard SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
PDP SWQMP PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE BUILDING
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]
PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water best management practices (BMPs) for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the BMPs as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Prof essions Code, and that the design is consistent wit h the PDP requirements of the [INSERT AGENCY NAME] BM P Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local [INSERT AGENCY NAME] and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.
I have read and understand that the [City Engineer] has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land deve lopment activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. 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 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 [Cit y Engineer] is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge o f design of storm water BMPs for this project, of m y responsibilities for project design.
________________________________________________________ Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date
________________________________________________________ Print Name
________________________________________________________ Company
____________________________
Date
Engineer's Seal:
Ali Azimijirsarai
R.C.E. 48773, Exp. 09/30/2022
EPS Group, Inc.
Ali Azimijirsarai
06/29/2022
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Page intentionally blank
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
PDP SWQMP PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: [Insert Project Name]
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]
PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
This PDP SWQMP has been prepared for North Coast Ch urch by EPS Group, Inc. The PDP SWQMP is intended to comply with the PDP requirements of the [INSERT AGENCY NAME] BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local [INSERT AGENCY NAME] and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.
The undersigned, while it owns the subject property , is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan. Once the undersigned trans fers its interests in the property, its successor-i n- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibili ty to implement the best management practices (BMPs) described within this plan, including ensuri ng on-going operation and maintenance of structural BMPs. A signed copy of this document shall be available on the subject property into perpetuity.
________________________________________________________ Project Owner's Signature
________________________________________________________ Print Name
________________________________________________________ Company
____________________________
Date
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Page intentionally blank
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
SUBMITTAL RECORD
Use this Table to keep a record of submittals of th is PDP SWQMP. Each time the PDP SWQMP is re- submitted, provide the date and status of the project. In column 4 summarize the changes that have been made or indicate if response to plancheck comments is included. When applicable, insert response to plancheck comments behind this page.
Submittal
Number
Date Project Status Summary of Changes
1 5/31/22 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Initial Submittal
2 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
3 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
4 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Project Name: [Insert Project Name]
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Applicability of Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMP) Requirements (Storm Water Intake Form for all Development Permit Applications) For detailed information please visit:
http://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/stormwater/development-planning Form I -1
[March 15, 2016]
Project Identification
Project Name: Montiel Road Office Building
Description: An approximately 17,720 square feet (footprint), 2 -story proposed commercial office building with at -grade parking on a 2.6-acre site. Subject property is bounded northeasterly by Montiel Road, Southwesterly by Ronald Packard Parkway (Highway 78), on the northwest and southeast by improved commercial sites.
Permit Application Number (if applicable): Date:
Project Address: 2375 & 2355 Montiel Road , San Marcos, California 92069 Determination of Requirements
This form is required as part of the City’s application process. The purpose of this form is to identify potential land deve lopment planning storm water requirements that apply to development projects.
Development projects are defined as construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment, or reconstruction of any public or private projects. In addition, the identification of a development project, as it relates to storm water regulations, would truly apply to development and redevelopment activities that have the potential to contact storm water and contribute a source of pollutants, or reduce the natural absorption and infiltration abilities of the land.
To access the BMP Design Manual, Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) templates, and other pertinent information related to this program please refer to:
http://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/stormwater/development-planning
Please answer each of the following steps below, starting with Step 1 and progressing through each step until reaching "Stop".
Step Answer Progression
Step 1: Based on the above, Is the project a
"development project" (See definition above)?
See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for
further guidance if necessary.
Yes
Go to Step 2.
No Permanent BMP requirements do not apply. No
SWQMP will be required. Provide brief discussion
below.
STOP.
Discussion / justification if the project is not a "development project" (e.g., the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building):
Step 2: Is the project a Standard Project, Priority
Development Project (PDP), or exception to PDP
definitions?
To answer this item, complete Form I-2, Project
Type Determination. See Section 1.4 of the BMP
Design Manual in its entirety for guidance.
In addition to Section 1.4, please refer to the
City’s SWQMP Submittal Requirements form.
Standard Project
Only Standard Project requirements apply,
including Standard Project SWQMP. STOP.
PDP Standard and PDP requirements apply, including
PDP SWQMP. Go to Step 3 on the following page.
Exception to PDP
definitions
Standard Project requirements apply, and any
additional requirements specific to the type of
project. Provide discussion and list any additional
requirements below. Prepare Standard Project
SWQMP. STOP.
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Discussion / justification, and additional requirements for excepti ons to PDP definitions, if applicable:
Form I -1 Page 2 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Step 3 (PDPs only) . Please answer the list of questions in this section to determine if hydromodification requirements reply to the proposed PDP. Does the project:
Step 3a. Discharge storm water
runoff directly to the Pacific Ocean?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply. No Continue to Step 3b.
Step 3b . Discharge storm water
runoff directly to an enclosed
embayment, not within protected
areas?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply. No Continue to Step 3c.
Step 3c . Discharge storm water
runoff directly to a water storage
reservoir or lake, below spillway or
normal operating level?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply. No Continue to Step 3d.
Step 3d . Discharge storm water
runoff directly to an area identified in
WMAA?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply. No Hydromodification requirements apply to the project. Go to Step
4. Discussion / justification if hydromodification control requirements do not apply:
Step 4 (PDPs subject to
hydromodification control
requirements only). Does protection
of critical coarse sediment yield areas
apply based on review of WMAA
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Area Map?
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes
Management measures required for protection of critical coarse sediment yield areas (Chapter 6.2).
Stop.
No Management measures not required for protection of critical coarse sediment yield areas.
Provide brief discussion below.
Stop.
x
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Project Type Determination Checklist Form I -2
[March 15, 2016]
Project Information
Project Name /Description : Montiel Road Office Building/ An approximately 17,720 square feet (footprint), 2-story proposed commercial office building with at-grade parking on a 2.6-acre site.
Subject property is bounded northeasterly by Montiel Road, Southwesterly by Ronald Packard Parkway (Highway 78), on the northwest and southeast by improved commercial sites.
Permit Application Number (if applicable): Date:
Pro ject Address: 2375 & 2355 Montiel Road , San Marcos, California 92069 Project Type Determination: Standard Project or Priority Development Project (PDP) The project is (select one): New Development Redevelopment The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is: 94,973.88 ft 2 (2.18 ) acres Is the project in any of the following categories, (a) through (f)? Yes
No
(a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces (collectively over the entire project site). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.
Yes
No
(b) Redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 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 surfaces). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.
Yes
No
(c) New and redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and support one or more of the following uses:
(i) Restaurants. This category is defined as 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). (ii) Hillside development projects. This category includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater.
(iii) Parking lots. This category is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce.
(iv) Streets, roads, highways, freeways, and driveways. This category is defined as any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles.
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I -2 Page 2 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Yes
No
(d) New or redevelopment projects that create and/ or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and discharging directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). “Discharging directly to” includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).
Note: ESAs are areas that 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 Board and San Diego Water Board; State Water Quality Protected Areas; water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Board and San Diego Water Board; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermittees. See BMP Design Manual Section 1.4.2 for additional guidance.
Yes
No
(e) New development projects , or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, that support one or more of the following uses:
(i) Automotive repair shops. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any one of the following SIC codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, or 7536-7539.
(ii) Retail gasoline outlets (RGOs). This category includes RGOs that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day.
Yes
No
(f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction.
Note: See BMP Design Manual Section 1.4.2 for additional guidance.
Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the Priority Development Project categories (a) through (f) listed above?
No – the project is not a Priority Development Project (Standard Project). Yes – the project is a Priority Development Project (PDP).
The following is for redevelopment PDPs only:
The area of existing (pre-project) impervious area at the project site is: ________ ft 2 (A)
The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is ________ ft 2 (B) Percent impervious surface created or replaced (B/A)*100: _______% The percent impervious surface created or replaced is (select one based on the above calculation):
less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) – only new impervious areas are considered PDP OR
greater than fifty percent (50%) – the entire project site is a PDP
x
x
x
x
12,468
94,973.8
761.7.
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Site Information Checklist
For PDPs
Form I-3B (PDPs)
[March 15, 2016]
Project Summary Information
Project Name Montiel Road Office Building
Project Address 2375 & 2355 Montiel Road , San Marcos, California 92069
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 228 -370 -20 & 39
Permit Application Number
Project Hydrologic Unit Select One:
Santa Margarita 902
San Luis Rey 903
Carlsbad 904
San Dieguito 905
Penasquitos 906
San Diego 907
Pueblo San Diego 908
Sweetwater 909
Otay 910
Tijuana 911
Project Watershed
(Complete Hydrologic Unit, Area, and Subarea
Name with Numeric Identifier)
San Marcos (904.5)
Parcel Area
(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated
with the project)
________ Acres (____________ Square Feet)
Area to be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area)
________ Acres (____________ Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
________ Acres (____________ Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
________ Acres (____________ Square Feet)
Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.
This may be less than the Parcel Area.
x
2.59 112,879.6
2.59 2.18
112,879.6
94,973.8
17,9 05.8 0.41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 2 of 10 , Form Date: March 15 , 201 6
Descrip tion of Existing Site Condition
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply):
Existing development
Previously graded but not built out
Demolition completed without new construction
Agricultural or other non-impervious use
Vacant, undeveloped/natural
Description / Additional Information:
Existing Land Cover Includes (s elect all that apply) :
Vegetative Cover
Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas
Impervious Areas
Description / Additional Information:
Existing site improvements consist of 2 single-story residential homes, several woodsheds and chicken coops. Existing land coverage consist of dirt, gravel, grass, and concrete pavement and driveways.
Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologi c Soil Group (select all that apply) :
NRCS Type A
NRCS Type B
NRCS Type C
NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW) :
GW Depth < 5 feet
5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet
10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet
GW Depth > 20 feet
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercourses
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
None
Description / Additional Information:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 3 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Description of Existing Site Drainage Patterns
The existing site is mostly unpaved with an approximate paved area of 12,470 square feet. There are two main existing structures on the site with footprint areas of 1,575 and 2,150 square feet respectively.
There are also a number of sheds and chicken coops on this site. All existing drainage sheet flows southerly to Caltrans right-of-way (Highway 78).
Runoff from the adjoining property on the northwest (APN 228-370-19) through the existing 18-in HDEP, through existing retaining wall near the most northwesterly corner of the subject property calculated based on the assumption of pipe flowing at a velocity of 10 ft/sec. is 17.7 cfs. This existing runoff, discharges to Caltrans’s right-of-way and will remain a pass-through flow to Caltrans right-of- way.
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 4 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Description of Proposed Site Development
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:
Proposed Office Buildings & Parking with associated drainage structures, sidewalks, retaining wall and landscaping.
List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):
The proposed project located at 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road, San Marcos, CA 92609, is comprised of a 2- story commercial office building with a footprint area of 16,849 square feet and an at-grade parking lot with 185 parking stalls.
List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):
The pervious features will be planted in accordance with the landscape plan and will include tree wells for stormwater mitigation.
Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? Yes
No
Description / Additional Information:
The grading to the site will closely match that of the existing conditions. All stormwater will be contained on site, while an adjacent properties discharge will be re-routed through the site to it’s existing ultimate downstream location.
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 5 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Description of Proposed Site Drainage Patterns
Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)?
Yes
No
If yes, provide details regarding the proposed project site drainage conveyance network, including storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels, and the method for conveying offsite flows through or around the proposed project site. Identify all discharge locations from the proposed project site along with a summary of the conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide a summary of pre- and post-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the runoff discharge locations. Reference the drainage study for detailed calculations.
Describe proposed site drainage patterns:
The proposed site is designed to capture all site flows into a combination bioretention and subsurface Stormtech system along the southwestern corner of the property as well as tree wells along the eastern property line. In the event the system infiltration system fails, a network of catch basins and pipes will carry stormwater off-site to avoid flooding. Stormwater runoff from a small portion of the site being comprised of a driveway ramp and stairs sheet flows to the adjoining property on the southeast. An existing discharge from an adjacent property onto our site will be captured and re-routed via a pipe network through the site and to the Caltrans ROW.
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 6 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply):
On-site storm drain inlets
Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest control
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
Description / Additional Information:
x
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 7 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water and Pollutants of Concern Describe flow path of storm water from the project site discharge location(s), through urban storm conveyance systems as applicable, to receiving creeks, rivers, and lagoons as applicable, and ultimate discharge to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable):
San Marcos watershed is the receiving water. As designed the BMP stormwater system is designed to infiltrate all on-site stormwater runoff to prevent site stormwater runoff to adjoining sites, including Caltrans right-of-way and to recharge groundwater table within the San Marcos watershed. An overflow system is incorporated in the SWQMP design to discharge site stormwater runoff to an existing concrete drainage channel along the northeasterly side of HWY 78, within in Caltrans right-of-way, in the event of an overflow due to system failure (i.e. clogging).
List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs and/or Highest Priority Pollutants from the WQIP for the impaired water bodies:
303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s)
TMDLs / WQIP Highest Priority
Pollutant
Identification of Project Site Pollutants*
*Identification of project site pollutants is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs (note the project must also participate in an alternative compliance program unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated)
Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):
Pollutant
Not Applicable to the
Project Site
Expected from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving Water
Pollutant of Concern
Sediment x
Nutrients x
Heavy Metals x
Organic Compounds x
Trash & Debris x
Oxygen Demanding
Substances x
Oil & Grease x
Bacteria & Viruses x
Pesticides x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 8 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Hydromodification Management Requirements
Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean.
No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides.
Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above):
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries?
Yes
No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps
If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed?
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps
If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2.b of the SWQMP. Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.
Discussion / Additional Information:
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 9 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Flow Control for Post -Project Runoff*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit.
The drainage design proposes to capture and infiltrate all runoff created from the site internally. Since no flow is proposed off-site, post project runoff calculations are not applicable.
Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer:
Discussion / Additional Information: (optional)
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I-3B Page 10 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Other Site Requirements and Constraints
When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or local codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements.
Not Applicable.
Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As N eeded This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed.
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Source Control BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I -4
[March 15, 2016]
Project Identification
Project Name MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE BUILDING
Permit Application Number
Source Control BMPs
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC -1 through SC -6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual 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 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.
• "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas).
Discussion / justification may be provided.
Source Control Requirement Applied?
SC -1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SC -1 not implemented:
SC -2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SC -2 not implemented:
SC -3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run -On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SC -3 not implemented:
No outdoor Material Storage Areas are proposed.
SC -4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SC -4 not implemented:
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I -4 Page 2 of 2 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Source Control Requirement Applied?
SC -5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run -On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SC -5 not implemented:
SC -6 Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants (must answer for each source listed below)
On-site storm drain inlets “No Dumping Drains to Waterway” Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest control
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Discussion / justification if SC -6 not implemented. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discussed. Justification must be provided for all "No" answers shown above.
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Site Design BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I -5
[March 15, 2016]
Project Identification
Project Name MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE BUILDING
Permit Application Number
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 of the Model BMP Design Manual 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 BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E 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.
• "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 site has no existing natural areas to conserve).
Discussion / justification may be provided.
Site Design Requirement Applied?
SD -1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SD -1 not implemented:
SD -2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SD -2 not implemented:
See SD-1
SD -3 Minimize Impervious Area Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD -3 not implemented:
Landscape areas, tree wells are part of the design to reduce Impervious areas.
SD -4 Minimize Soil Compaction Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD -4 not implemented:
85% compaction within the infiltration is proposed.
SD -5 Impervious Area Dispersion Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD -5 not implemented:
Roof drainage is conveyed via Down spouts to the landscape areas and ultimately the infiltration basin.
x
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I -5 Page 2 of 2 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Site Design Requirement Applied?
SD -6 Runoff Collection Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD -6 not implemented:
The project proposes curb openings into landscape areas which will convey to infiltration systems.
SD -7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SD -7 not implemented:
See Landscape Plans.
SD -8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SD -8 not implemented:
The project proposes to recharge all stormwater into the groundwater.
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Form I-6 (PDPs)
[March 15, 2016]
Project Identification
Project Name MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE BUILDING
Permit Application Number
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 local jurisdiction at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative and engineer of record to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the local jurisdiction 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 (page 3 of this form) for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP).
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
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.
As delineated on the Tributary Plan (sheet 9) the site is separated and graded into 3 distinct watersheds, DMA-1,DMA2, DMA3. DMA3 drains to 4 tree wells and utilizes the maximum credit reduction of
0.25DCV. The remaining two watersheds are designed to be conveyed towards an infiltration basin and a subsurface Stormtech infiltration system. These systems have been designed to handle the remaining
0.75DCV. Percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate of 1 in /hr can be achieved with a FOS of
1.5. In accordance with the BMP section 5.1: 1.) Evaluate at DMA scale- Completed see Tributary plan (sheet 9) 1A: , “No, the DMA is not self mitigating or deminimis). 1B) Adjust runoff factor to account for site design BMP’s (see worksheet). Step 2: is Harvest and Use feasible: Given the intention is to recharge all stormwater produced from the site to groundwater: Step 3: Percolation test were performed and full infiltration condition is selected. Step 3A&B: Simple method was selected to compute sizing requirements. Step 4 and 4A, the BMP was designed for the remaining DCV. Design Bioretention to handle Treatment and Volume Reduction. Since no flow is proposed off-site, calculations for flow control are not applicable and the system is designed to handle all on-site runoff via infiltration systems.
The DCV has been calculated and the systems sized accordingly.
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I -6 Page 3 of 5 Form Date: March 15, 2016
Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. INF-2
Construction Plan Sheet No. SHT-3
Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify const ruction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
North C oast Church
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner/Pr operty Manager
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner/Pr operty Manager
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance?
Maintenance funded by owner through r ental
proceeds.
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I -6 Page 4 of 5 Form Date: March 15, 2016
Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. ST-1
Construction Plan Sheet No. SHT-3
Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certif y construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
North C oast Church
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner/Pr operty Manager
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner/Pr operty Manager
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance?
Maintenance funded by owner through r ental
proceeds.
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Form I -6 Page 5 of 5 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Date: March 15, 2016 Structural BMP ID No. ST-1
Construction Plan Sheet No. SHT-3
Discussion (as needed):
Additional infiltration capacity has been added via an underground infiltration system consisting of Stormtech infiltrator units beneath the pavement. The system is connected to the bioretention system via a pipe network equalizer system to allow the remaining DCV additional surface area and volume to drain in less than 36 hours. Additional calculations for the system are provided herein showing the system can handle the remaining DCV.
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1.
Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 1a DMA Exhibit ( Required )
See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.
Included
Tributary Area Plan – See attached.
Attachment 1b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing
DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA
Area, and DMA Type (Required)*
*Provide table in this Attachment OR on
DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a
Included on DMA Exhibit in
Attachment 1a
Included as Attachment 1b, separate
from DMA Exhibit
Update Table in Tributary area drawing
Attachment 1c Form I -7, Harvest and Use Feasibility
Screening Checklist (Required unless the
entire project will use infiltration BMPs)
Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-7.
Included
Not included because the entire
project will use infiltration BMPs
Attachment 1d Form I -8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Required unless
the project will use harvest and use
BMPs)
Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-8.
Included
Not included because the entire
project will use harvest and use
BMPs
Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design
Worksheets / Calculations (Required)
Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP
Design Manual for structural pollutant
control BMP design guidelines
Included
Calculations showing the Infiltration
BMP –“ simple method” And percent
capture method are included.
x
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit:
The DMA Exhibit must identify:
Underlying hydrologic soil group
Approximate depth to groundwater
Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
Existing topography and impervious areas
Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite Proposed demolition
Proposed grading
Proposed impervious features
Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source controls (see Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Form I-3B)
Structural BMPs (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
!"^$
!"_$
Aù
%&s(
!"a$!"^$
!"^$
A©
%&s(
?z
Aª
A¨
Aª
Aª
AÀ
A¨
A¨
A©
A©
!"a$
!"_$
!"_$
!"_$
A©
AÀ
%&s(?j
?jA×AÀ
?h ?h
AÀ
AÀ
AÛ
!"_$
?z
!"_$?z
!"a$
A¨
!"a$
!"^$
VISTA
POWAY
SANTEE
LA MESA
DEL MAR
CORONADO
EL CAJON
CARLSBAD
OCEANSIDE
ENCINITAS
SAN DIEGO
ESCONDIDOSAN MARCOS
CHULA VISTA
LEMON GROVE
SOLANA BEACH
NATIONAL CITY
IMPERIAL BEACH
116°15'0"W
116°15'0"W
116°30'0"W
116°30'0"W
116°45'0"W
116°45'0"W
117°0'0"W
117°0'0"W
117°15'0"W
117°15'0"W
117°30'0"W
117°30'0"W
33°30'0"N
33°30'0"N
33°15'0"N
33°15'0"N
33°0'0"N
33°0'0"N
32°45'0"N
32°45'0"N
County of San Diego
Hydrology Manual
Soil Hydrologic Group
Legend
Major Roads
Incorporated City Bdy
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
Hydrologic Group Undefined
Hydrologic Group A
Hydrologic Group B
Hydrologic Group C
Hydrologic Group D
No Soil Data
THIS MAP IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright SanGIS. All Rights Reserved.
This product may contain information from the SANDAG Regional Information System which cannot be reproduced without the written permission of SANDAG.
This product may contain information which has been reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Brothers Maps.
Note: Soil Data Source
USDA/NRCS
SSURGO Soils 2007
± 3 0 31.5 Miles
Riverside County
Pacific Ocean
Im
perial County
Mexico
Orange
County
Hydraulic Calculations for Montiel Rd.
ITEM
TRIBUTARY
AREA
Ai [SQFT]
TRIBUTARY
AREA
A [ACRES]
Ai *2.29E-5
RUNOFF
FACTOR** C
[Unitless]
FLOW*
Q [CFS]
C*I*A
SIZE
(FT)
OPENING
PERIMETER
P [FT]
QTY
(EA)
PONDING
DEPTH
d [FT]
GRATE
INFLOW
CAPACIT
Y
QG [CFS]
3Pd 1.5
CAPACITY
CHECK
50%Q G>Q
TOTAL
INFLOW
QI
PIPE
SIZE
D [IN]
PIPE
QUANTIT
Y
K
ROUGHN
ESS
COEFICI
ENT n
PERIMET
ER
PP [FT]
AREA
AP
[SQFT]
HYDRAU
LIC
RADIUS
R [FT] =
A
P/P P
SLOPE
S [%]
CAPACIT
Y
QP
(1.485/n)
R2/3 *A P(S 1
/2 )K
CAPACIT
Y CHECK
QP>Q I
A-1 42,113 0.967 0.791
A-2 37,237 0.855 0.761
A-1 & A-2 79,350 1.822 0.776 9.8 3.0 12.0 4 0.27 20.2 OK 9.8 18 1 0.011 4.71 1.77 0.375 1.0% 12.41 OK A-3 32,045 0.736 0.763 3.90 3.0 12.0 2 0.25 9.0 OK 3.90 12 1 0.011 3.14 0.79 0.250 1.2% 4.57 OK ST pipe*** 2.33 1.5 6.0 1 0.50 6.4 OK 2.33 12 1 0.011 3.14 0.79 0.250 1.0% 4.21 OK Notes:
*Calculations based on San Diego County Hydrology Manual (June 2003) for the 100-yr design storm event. Intensity Calculations were based off interporlated data from Isopluvials at the project location (see attached). See intensity calculations below. ** Runoff factor based on City of San Marcos BMP de sign guid runoff factors *** The inlet to the Stormtech system (Manhole) supports a maximum 2.33 CFS and therefore the pipes and Grate sizes were designed to this flow rate.
Intensity Calculations
P
6 = 3.3 (from figure)
P24 = 6.1 (From Figure)
P6/P 24 = 0.54 % Range=45%-65%
Duration/Tc = Intensity = 6.96 in/hr `
INFLOW CALCULATION GRATE SIZE CAPACITY CHECK DOWNSTREAM PIPE SIZE CAPACITY CHECK
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.
Mark this box if this attachment is empty because the project is exempt from PDP hydromodification management requirements.
Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management Exhibit
(Required)
Included
See Hydromodification Management
Exhibit Checklist on the back of this
Attachment cover sheet.
Attachment 2 b Management of Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit is required,
additional analyses are optional)
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual.
Exhibit showing project drainage
boundaries marked on WMAA
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area
Map (Required)
Optional analyses for Critical Coarse
Sediment Yield Area Determination
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic
Landscape Units Onsite
6.2.2 Downstream Systems
Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment
6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Areas Onsite
Attachment 2 c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving
Channels (Optional)
See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design
Manual.
Not performed
Included
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document
Attachment 2 d Flow Control Facility Design , including Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations
and Overflow Design Summary
(Required)
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the
BMP Design Manual
Included*
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document
*All stormwater to be recharged on-
site and therefore this is not
applicable.
Attachment 2e Vector Control Plan (Required when
structural BMPs will not drain in 96
hours)
Included
Not required because BMPs will
drain in less than 96 hours
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit:
The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify:
Underlying hydrologic soil group-Include map from previous reports in this template Approximate depth to groundwater
Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
Existing topography
Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite Proposed grading
Proposed impervious features
Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management - Applicable? Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) – Applicable? Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
ATTACHMENT 3
Structural BMP Maintenance Information
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 3.
Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 3a Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds
and Actions (Required)
Included
See Structural BMP Maintenance
Information Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.
Attachment 3b Draft Maintenance Agreement (when
applicable)
Included
Not Applicable
x
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment:
Preliminary Design / Planning / CEQA level submittal:
Attachment 3a must identify:
Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual
Attachment 3b is not required for preliminary design / planning / CEQA level submittal.
Final Design level submittal:
Attachment 3a must identify:
Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) (Yes, on Stormtech) No on Bioretention ( Need 0 and M Notes)
How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable
Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP)
Recommended equipment to perform maintenance
When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management
Attachment 3b: For private entity operation and maintenance, Attachment 3b shall include a draft maintenance agreement in the local jurisdiction's s tandard format (PDP applicant to contact the [City Engineer] to obtain the current maintenance agreement forms).
x
x
Operation and Maintenance
Project: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Rd. San Marcos, CA
Type of Maintenance: Landscape Management
Maintenance shall be consistent with City of San Marcos requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with City of San Marcos Guidelines. Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drains inlets.
Responsible Party(s): Owner/Property Management
Minimum Frequency of Activities: Weekly
Type of Maintenance: Bioretention Infiltration Basin
Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this SWQMP. Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the Owner and shall be available for review upon request. Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, without damage to vegetation. If vegetation growth is poor, Re-seed, Re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans. If standing water in bio retention areas for longer than 96 hours following a storm event contact engineer for remedial action consisting of removing obstructions/invasive vegetation or repairing/replacing clogged or compacted soils. All inlet structures should be maintained so no obstructions impede flow as designed. Repair or replace as applicable.
Responsible Party(s): Owner/Property Management
Minimum Frequency of Activities:
Prior to, during and following the rainy season.
Type of Maintenance: Stormtech Retention/Infiltration Chamber System Inspect every 6 months during the first year of operation. Adjust the inspection interval based on previous observations of sediment accumulation and high-water elevations. Conduct jetting and vactoring annually or when inspection shows that maintenance is necessary.
Responsible Party(s): Owner/Property Management
Minimum Frequency of Activities: Every 6 months
Isolator® Row
O&M Manual
2 Looking down the Isolator Row
from the manhole opening, woven
geotextile Fabric is shown between
the chamber and stone base.
StormTech Isolator Row with
Overflow Spillway (not to scale)
The Isolator® Row
Introduction
An important component of any Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is inspection and maintenance. The StormTech Isolator Row is a technique to inexpensively enhance Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) removal with easy access for inspection and maintenance.
The Isolator Row
The Isolator Row is a row of StormTech chambers, either SC-160, SC- 310, SC-310-3, SC-740, DC-780, MC-3500 or MC-7200 models, that is surrounded with filter fabric and connected to a closely located manhole for easy access. The fabric-wrapped chambers provide for sediment settling and filtration as stormwater rises in the Isolator Row and passes through the filter fabric. The open bottom chambers and perforated sidewalls (SC-310, SC- 310-3 and SC-740 models) allow stormwater to flow both vertically and horizontally out of the chambers.
Sediments are captured in the Isolator Row protecting the adjacent stone and chambers storage areas from sediment accumulation.
ADS geotextile fabric is placed between the stone and the Isolator Row chambers. The woven geotextile provides a media for stormwater filtration, a durable surface for maintenance, prevents scour of the underlying stone and remains intact during high pressure jetting. A non-woven fabric is placed over the chambers to provide a filter media for flows passing through the chamber’s sidewall. The non-woven fabric is not required over the SC-160, DC-780, MC-3500 or MC-7200 models as these chambers do not have perforated side walls.
The Isolator Row is designed to capture the “first flush” runoff and offers the versatility to be sized on a volume basis or a flow-rate basis.
An upstream manhole provides access to the Isolator Row and includes a high/low concept such that stormwater flow rates or volumes that exceed the capacity of the Isolator Row bypass through a manifold to the other chambers. This is achieved with an elevated bypass manifold or a high-flow weir. This creates a differential between the Isolator Row row of chambers and the manifold to the rest of the system, thus allowing for settlement time in the Isolator Row. After Stormwater flows through the Isolator Row and into the rest of the chamber system it is either exfiltrated into the soils below or passed at a controlled rate through an outlet manifold and outlet control structure.
The Isolator Row may be part of a treatment train system. The treatment train design and pretreatment device selection by the design engineer is often driven by regulatory requirements. Whether pretreatment is used or not, StormTech recommend using the Isolator Row to minimize maintenance requirements and maintenance costs.
Note: See the StormTech Design Manual for detailed information on designing inlets for a StormTech system, including the Isolator Row.
ECCENTRIC
HEADER
MANHOLE
WITH
OVERFLOW
WEIR
STORMTECH
ISOLATOR ROW
OPTIONAL
PRE-TREATMENT
OPTIONAL
ACCESS STORMTECH CHAMBERS
3 Inspection
The frequency of inspection and maintenance varies
by location. A routine inspection schedule needs to
be established for each individual location based
upon site specific variables. The type of land use
(i.e. industrial, commercial, residential), anticipated pollutant load, percent imperviousness, climate,
etc. all play a critical role in determining the actual frequency of inspection and maintenance
practices.
At a minimum, StormTech recommends annual
inspections. Initially, the Isolator Row should be
inspected every 6 months for the first year of
operation. For subsequent years, the inspection
should be adjusted based upon previous
observation of sediment deposition.
The Isolator Row incorporates a combination of
standard manhole(s) and strategically located
inspection ports (as needed). The inspection ports
allow for easy access to the system from the surface,
eliminating the need to perform a confined space
entry for inspection purposes.
If upon visual inspection it is found that sediment
has accumulated, a stadia rod should be inserted to
determine the depth of sediment. When the average
depth of sediment exceeds 3 inches throughout
the length of the Isolator Row, clean-out should be
performed.
Maintenance
The Isolator Row was designed to reduce the cost
of periodic maintenance. By “isolating” sediments
to just one row, costs are dramatically reduced
by eliminating the need to clean out each row of
the entire storage bed. If inspection indicates the
potential need for maintenance, access is provided
via a manhole(s) located on the end(s) of the row
for cleanout. If entry into the manhole is required,
please follow local and OSHA rules for a confined
space entries.
Maintenance is accomplished with the JetVac
process. The JetVac process utilizes a high pressure
water nozzle to propel itself down the Isolator
Row while scouring and suspending sediments.
As the nozzle is retrieved, the captured pollutants
are flushed back into the manhole for vacuuming.
Most sewer and pipe maintenance companies have
vacuum/JetVac combination vehicles. Selection of an
appropriate JetVac nozzle will improve maintenance
efficiency. Fixed nozzles designed for culverts or
large diameter pipe cleaning are preferable. Rear
facing jets with an effective spread of at least 45”
are best. JetVac reels can vary in length. For ease
of maintenance, ADS recommends Isolator Row
lengths up to 200" (61 m). The JetVac process shall
only be performed on StormTech Isolator Rows
that have AASHTO class 1 woven geotextile (as
specified by StormTech) over their angular base
stone.
Isolator Row Inspection/Maintenance
StormTech Isolator Row (not to scale)
Note: Non-woven fabric is only required over the inlet pipe connection into the end cap for SC-160LP, DC-780, MC- 3500 and MC-7200 chamber models and is not required over the entire Isolator Row.
Isolator Row Step By Step Maintenance Procedures
Step 1
Inspect Isolator Row for sediment.
A) Inspection ports (if present)
i. Remove lid from floor box frame
ii. Remove cap from inspection riser
iii. Using a flashlight and stadia rod,measure depth of sediment and record results on maintenance log. iv. If sediment is at or above 3 inch depth, proceed to Step 2. If not, proceed to Step 3.
B) All Isolator Row
i. Remove cover from manhole at upstream end of Isolator Row ii. Using a flashlight, inspect down Isolator Row through outlet pipe
1. Mirrors on poles or cameras may be used to avoid a confined space entry
2. Follow OSHA regulations for confined space entry if entering manhole iii. If sediment is at or above the lower row of sidewall holes (approximately 3 inches), proceed to Step
2. If not, proceed to Step 3.
Step 2
Clean out Isolator Row using the JetVac process.
A) A fixed floor cleaning nozzle with rear facing nozzle spread of 45 inches or more is preferable B) Apply multiple passes of JetVac until backflush water is clean C) Vacuum manhole sump as required
Step 3
Replace all caps, lids and covers, record observations and actions.
Step 4
Inspect & clean catch basins and manholes upstream of the StormTech system.
ADS “Terms and Conditions of Sale” are available on the ADS website, www.ads-pipe.com The ADS logo and the Green Stripe are registered trademarks of Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
Stormtech ® and the Isolator ® Row are registered trademarks of StormTech, Inc. © 2022 Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. #11011 2/22 CS
) (
Sample Maintenance Log
Date
Stadia Rod Readings Sedi-
ment
Depth
(1)–(2)
Observations/Actions InspectorFixed point
to chamber
bottom (1)
Fixed point
to top of
sediment
(2)
3/15/11 6.3 ft none New installation. Fixed
point is CI frame at grade
DJM
9/24/11 6.2 0.1 ft Some grit felt SM
6/20/13 5.8 0.5 ft Mucky feel, debris visible
in manhole and in Isolator
Row, maintenance due
NV
7/7/13 6.3 ft 0 System jetted and
vacuumed
DJM
adspipe.com
800-821-6710
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: May 06, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Storm Water BMPs
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 4.
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the plans:
The plans must identify:
Structural BMP(s) with ID numbers matching Form I-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs The grading and drainage design shown on the plans must be consistent with the delineation of DMAs shown on the DMA exhibit
Details and specifications for construction of structural BMP(s) Signage indicating the location and boundary of structural BMP(s) as required by the [City Engineer] How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP)
Recommended equipment to perform maintenance. N/A
When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management N/A Include landscaping plan sheets showing vegetation requirements for vegetated structural BMP(s) All BMPs must be fully dimensioned on the plans
When proprietary BMPs are used, site-specific cross section with outflow, inflow, and model number shall be provided. Photocopies of general brochures are not acceptable.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3 10
11 1436
11 6
13 13
13 12
4 16
15 10.00'
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION “”” ”” ”
ITEMSYMBOLSTD DWGQTY
ALSING DRWALSING DRLEORA LN
ST PAUL RDKAYLYN WAY
HILLSBORODEODAR RDSUZANNE LN
MONTIEL RDHWY 78
W. MISSION RD
PROJECT SITEWAYNORTH
0SCALE: 300200100501001" = 100'NORTHSHEET LAYOUT PLAN
C-6C-4C-5C-7C-8C-11
CONSTRUCTION NOTES#ITEMSTD PLAN1SAWCUT EXISTING PAVEMENT2CONCRETE CURBSDRSD G-013CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERSDRSD G-024ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT5PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT6CONCRETE SIDEWALKSDRSD G-077CONCRETE DRIVEWAYSDRSD G-14E8CONCRETE TIRE STOP9LANDSCAPE10INFILTRATION AREA - INF-211DETECTIBLE WARNING SURFACE12THERMOPLASTIC WHITE PARKING STALL13THERMOPLASTIC ADA PARKING SYMBOL14THERMOPLASTIC BLUE CROSS HATCH15THERMOPLASTIC WHITE CROSS HATCH166" ROUND CONCRETE FILLED STEEL BOLLARDSDRSD W-1617CONCRETE GUTTER18ACCESS RAMP19RIP RAP ENERGY DISSIPATORSDRSD D-402048" DIA MANHOLESDRSD D-10216" DIAMETER POP-UP EMITTER. SEE DETAIL ONSHEET 102236"X36" CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE INLET23TREE WELL24BIORETENTION AREA - INF-225MIN. 6" DIA. PERFORATED PIPE26ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PAD27FIRE HYDRANTSDRSD WF-0128MASONRY RETAINING WALL, TYPE 3SDRSD C-0329MASONRY BLOCK WALL PER SEPARATE PLAN ANDPERMIT30STORMTECH RETENTION/INFILTRATION CHAMBERSYSTEM - BMP ID: ST-13124" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FOR EMERGENCYOVERFLOW3212" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FLOW-THROUGHPIPE AND FLOW INLET TO STORMTECH CHAMBER.3318"X18" CATCH BASIN - INLET TO STORMTECH3424"X24" JUNCTION BOX WITH STEEL PARKWAY COVER3518" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FOR FLOW-THROUGH FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY3624"X24" OPEN BOTTOM CATCH BASIN WITH GRATEINLET USED AS BUBBLER FOR OVERFLOW RUNOFFFROM TREE WELLS. 06/29/2022
N C Y Land LLC228-370-19-00
MENTOILETWOMENTOILET
E.M.R.JANITORELEV
LEASESPACE
SPIRITCAFE1,958 USF
FIRERISER
ELECTRICALROOM
OUTDOOR SEATINGOUTDOOR SEATING
LEASESPACE
LEASESPACE
LOBBY
STAIR #2
CORRIDOR
15,719 SF
310
11 14
36 11
6 13
13 13
12 416
15 SPIRITCAFE1,958 USF
OUTDOOR SEATINGOUTDOOR SEATING
LEASESPACELEASESPACE
STAIR #2
LOBBY CORRIDOR
JANITORELEV15,755 SF
10.00'
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0SCALE: 60402010201" = 20'NORTH 1234567
2"
10'-0" ON CENTER
6'-0" MIN TALL
2-1/4", 11-1/2 GAUGE CHAINLINK FENCE WITH "GREEN"SCREEN AND (2) GRAVELBAG HIGH BASESECURE CHAIN LINKFENCE TO POST WITHWIRE96" LONG, 1-5/8" DIASTEEL PIPE DRIVEN 24"BELOW GRADEGRAVEL BAGSEXISTING GRADEEGTEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE 10' MINLATH & FLAGGING,TYP ALL SIDESSANDBAG, TYP
10 MIL PLASTICLINING
10 MIL PLASTIC LINING3'BERM
SANDBAG
BASE OFBERM
CONCRETE WASHOUTPLAN VIEW
SECTION
1 2
123
4 3" MIN (6" MAX) WASHEDCRUSHED ROCK12" MINIMPERMEABLEGEOMEMBRANELINER ON GRADE
PERSPECTIVE
SECTION A-A
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT
50'-0"MIN16'-0"MIN
FLOWFLOW
FLOWSEDIMENTTRAPPING SUMP
MATCH EXISTING GRADE ATENTRANCE
WASH TOP 3"-6" OFCRUSHED ROCKAA BB3" MIN (6" MAX) WASHEDCRUSHED ROCKIMPERMEABLEGEOMEMBRANELINER ON GRADESECTION B-B12" MINCORRUGATED STEELPANELS
CORRUGATED STEELPANELS
24'-0"
GENERAL NOTES FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND SHALL PREVENT THETRESPASS OF IMPOUND WATER ON PUBLIC AREAS OR THE CREATION OFHAZARDOUS CONDITIONS.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT HIS OPERATIONS SO THAT RUNOFF ISCONTAINED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA OR CHANNELED INTO THE STORM DRAINSYSTEM WHICH SERVES THE RUNOFF AREA. STORM RUNOFF FROM ONE AREASHALL NOT BE DIVERTED TO ANOTHER RUNOFF AREA.3.NO CHANGES TO EXISTING OR NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL BEPERMITTED DURING THE RAINY SEASON UNLESS THE APPROVED DRAINAGEFACILITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.4.CLEARING AND GRUBBING SHALL BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT WILL RECEIVEIMMEDIATE GRADING. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REQUIRED ANDMAY INCLUDE; GRADED DITCHES, BRUSH BARRIERS AND SILT FENCING. CARESHALL BE EXERCISED TO PRESERVE VEGETATION BEYOND THE LIMITS OFGRADING.5.DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS INDIVIDUAL ROUGH GRADINGAREAS ARE COMPLETED.6.GRADED AREAS AROUND THE TRACT PERIMETER SHALL DRAIN AWAY FROM THETOE OF SLOPES AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH WORKING DAY.7.TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTION SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR MANUFACTUREDSLOPES PRIOR TO PERMANENT PLANTING.8.FILL AREAS, DURING PERIODS OF COMPLETION PRIOR TO FINAL GRADE, SHALL BEPROTECTED TO LIMIT EROSION AND THE SILTATION OF DOWNSTREAM PROPERTY.PROTECTION MEASURES MAY INCLUDE TEMPORARY DOWNDRAINS USING PIPESOR PAVED DITCHES WITH PROTECTED OUTFALL AREAS, DESILTING PONDS,CHECK DAMS, SAND BAG PROTECTION AROUND INLETS NOT YET BROUGHT TOGRADE AND APPROPRIATE CHANNEL GRADING TO DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROMAREAS WHERE EARTHWORK IS NOT UNDERWAY.9.PROJECT AREAS, AS WELL AS NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AREAS, SHALL HAVEMAINTAINED FIRE ACCESS AT ALL TIMES.10.EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL FOR EMERGENCY WORK SHALL BE AVAILABLE ATALL TIMES DURING THE RAINY SEASON. NECESSARY MATERIALS SHALL BESTOCKPILED AT CONVENIENT LOCATIONS TO FACILITATE RAPID DEPLOYMENT.11.REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACHWORKING DAY WHEN THE 5-DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS 40PERCENT.12.DEVICES SHALL NOT BE MOVED OR MODIFIED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THECITY ENGINEER OR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR.13.AFTER A RAINSTORM, SILT AND DEBRIS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROMCHECK BERMS, SILT FENCES AND OTHER IMPACTED AREAS. 12 12
12 12
12 121212
12 12
12 350.00'
4 56
7 VEHICULAR ACCESSDOUBLE SWINGGATE
CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊ PROP. GROUTED RIP RAP PROP. GROUTED RIP RAP PROP. GROUTED RIP RAP06/29/2022
MENTOILET
WOMENTOILET
E.M.R.JANITORELEV
LEASESPACE
SPIRITCAFE1,958 USF
FIRERISER
ELECTRICALROOM
OUTDOOR SEATINGOUTDOOR SEATING
LEASESPACE
LEASESPACE
LOBBY
STAIR #2
CORRIDOR
15,719 SF
3 10
11 14
36 11
6 13
13 13
12 4 16
15 SPIRITCAFE1,958 USF
OUTDOOR SEATINGOUTDOOR SEATING
LEASESPACE LEASESPACE
STAIR #2
LOBBYCORRIDOR
JANITORELEV15,755 SF
10.00'
Template Version 2.01 180514
0SCALE: 6040201020 1" = 20'
NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3 1
1 1
111
2 2
2 22
2 222
2 2 222 2222 22 222
2 2
222
2 2
2 22
2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 22 2 22222222
22 2 2 2 2
LIGHT POST, SEEARCHITECTUAL PLANS (TYP)LIGHT POST, SEEARCHITECTUAL PLANS (TYP)
LIGHT POST, SEEARCHITECTUAL PLANS (TYP)
LIGHT POST, SEEARCHITECTUALPLANS (TYP)
LIGHT POST, SEEARCHITECTUALPLANS (TYP)
TRASH ENCLOSURE PERARCHITECTURAL PLANS
2 1
3 3
3 444
4 4
4 44
44 4
4 44
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 6
6 6
6 18
1818186666
6 6
6 6 6 6
6 6
6 6 6
66 6
6 6
7 7
8888
8888
9 9
9 9
999
9 9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9999
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9 99
9 10
23 23
10 10
10 23
23 23
9 9
1111
11 11
11 12(TYP)12(TYP)12(TYP)
12(TYP)
12(TYP)
12(TYP) 12(TYP) 12(TYP)
12(TYP)
12(TYP)
12(TYP)12(TYP)
12(TYP)
12(TYP)
12(TYP)
12(TYP)
13131313
1313131314
14 14
14 15
15 16
17 17
1717
17 26.00'18.00'5.83'5.00'5.83'
8.04'18.00'24.00'18.00'
18.00'24.00'18.00'
18.00'24.00'18.00'
18.00'24.00'18.00'18.00'23.97'18.01'17.97'24.04'10.83'
24.00'18.00'14.67'5.33'8.40'9.81'14.80'
PL PL PL PL
PL
PLPL
⅊PL PL PL PL PL PL
ROW
ROW
ROW
ROW
C-10A
C-10B
C-10CC-10C
C-10D
C-10D
C-10D
C-10E
C-10E
C-10E
C-10E
C-10F
C-10F
C-10G
C-10G
EX. RETAINING WALLPROTECT IN PLACE
EX. RETAINING WALLPROTECT IN PLACE
PROPOSED WALL PERARCHITECTUAL PLANS (TYP)
WALL PER ARCHITECTUALPLANS (TYP)WALL PER ARCHITECTUALPLANS (TYP)WALL PER ARCHITECTUALPLANS (TYP) 679.08 FF678.2 PAD C-11A
C-10H
18 18
CONSTRUCTION NOTES# ITEMSTD PLAN1SAWCUT EXISTING PAVEMENT2CONCRETE CURBSDRSD G-013CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERSDRSD G-024ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT5PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT6CONCRETE SIDEWALKSDRSD G-077CONCRETE DRIVEWAYSDRSD G-14E8CONCRETE TIRE STOP9LANDSCAPE10INFILTRATION AREA - INF-211DETECTIBLE WARNING SURFACE12THERMOPLASTIC WHITE PARKING STALL13THERMOPLASTIC ADA PARKING SYMBOL14THERMOPLASTIC BLUE CROSS HATCH15THERMOPLASTIC WHITE CROSS HATCH166" ROUND CONCRETE FILLED STEEL BOLLARDSDRSD W-1617CONCRETE GUTTER18ACCESS RAMP19RIP RAP ENERGY DISSIPATORSDRSD D-402048" DIA MANHOLESDRSD D-10216" DIAMETER POP-UP EMITTER. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 102236"X36" OPEN BOTTOM CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE INLET23TREE WELL24BIORETENTION AREA - INF-225MIN. 6" DIA. PERFORATED PIPE26ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PAD27FIRE HYDRANTSDRSD WF-0128MASONRY RETAINING WALL, TYPE 3SDRSD C-0329MASONRY BLOCK WALL PER SEPARATE PLANS ANDPERMIT30STORMTECH RETENTION/INFILTRATION CHAMBERSYSTEM - BMP ID: ST-13124" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FOR EMERGENCYOVERFLOW3212" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FLOW-THROUGH PIPEAND FLOW INLET TO STORMTECH CHAMBER.3318"X18" CATCH BASIN - INLET TO STORMTECH3424"X24" JUNCTION BOX WITH STEEL PARKWAY COVER3518" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FOR FLOW-THROUGH FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY3624"X24" OPEN BOTTOM CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE INLETUSED AS BUBBLER FOR OVERFLOW RUNOFF FROMTREE WELLS. 66 23
15 6
19 19
19 6
20 19(TYP)
19(TYP)
19(TYP)
19(TYP)19(TYP)
2523
3322
22 22
23 23
23 22
25 25
25 25
25 25
31 31
31 19(TYP)
24 24
24 24
22926
27 27
EX. RETAINING WALLPROTECT IN PLACEPROPOSED WALL PERARCHITECTUAL PLANS (TYP) 115.65'186.00'
66LOADING/UNLOADINGZONE
11 TRASHENCLOSURE
NOPARKINGNOPARKING
NOPARKING
99 6
NOPARKING
NOPARKING
06/29/2022
5.50'
5.50'
2929
28 28 28 28
CALTRANS R/W
CALTRANS R/W
CALTRANS R/W
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
⅊
PROP. GROUTED RIP RAP
PROP. GROUTED RIP RAP
EX. P.C.C. OPEN DRAINAGE CHANNEL
30 32
21 33
22 3232
32 32
353532
3534
34 36
678.79 FS678.84 FS310
13 16
(691.53) FS691.73 FG691.70 FG691.70 FG691.70 FG691.50 FS691.46 FS691.32 FS691.60 FG690.69 FS 690.17 FS690.86 FS690.74 FS690.77 FS690.67 FS
691.27 FS691.32 FS691.40 FS
JOIN EX (691.00±) FLJOIN EX (691.46±) TCJOIN EX (691.07±) FS 691.40 TC691.40 TC
691.60 FS691.41 TC691.20 FG683.63 FS683.39 FS683.31 FS684.14 FS 682.49 FS682.20 FG683.38 FS682.20 FG 678.70 FS
678.86 FS
678.89 FS678.89 FS678.84 FS678.22 FS678.53 FS
677.77 FS678.30 FG677.48 FG
683.65 FS 679.43 FS679.14 FS678.65 FS678.57 FS678.34 FS 678.36 FS
678.61 FS679.41 FS678.68 FS680.04 FS680.34 FS680.26 FS
681.05 FS679.94 FL684.92 FS
684.49 FS684.46 FS684.49 FS684.82 FS
684.57 FS 680.32 FS678.45 FS678.40 FS677.65 FS677.67 FL677.71 FL 677.79 FL
678.68 FS679.36 FS
678.68 FS
679.94 FS680.13 FS680.14 FS679.73 FL
679.85 FL
678.40 FS
677.96 FL678.01 FL
683.49 FS683.93 FS
682.84 FS682.91 FS683.07 FS683.17 FS
686.64 FS686.58 FS686.82 FS686.87 FS
686.96 FS687.02 FS
687.54 FS
690.75 FS690.67 FS690.65 FS686.84 FS690.52 FS690.72 FS
690.38 FS690.61 FS690.47 BW
12.0%
11.3%0.3%
4.2%
4.9% 2.7%4.1% 2.2%
2.3%
5.4%
5.7%
4.7%0.2%
0.7%4.1%0.5%
3.5%0.9%
3.6%1.0%
0.5%3.8%1.6%
4.0%1.7%
3.5%1.8%
2.0%1.9%40.8%
1.8%1.8%
12.8%12.8%
14.9% 4.1% 4.1% 0.7%
4.4%4.9%4.9%4.9%
4.4%
31.9%1.0%4.8%
0.4%
3.1%
1.3%
2.2%
1.7%
1.0%
1.2%
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.4%6.0%
0.5%
0.5%
1.3%0.9%
6.8%
1.0%
1.0%
3.1%1.7%
1.9%
2.0%
9.5%
9.5%
1.2%0.7%
691.42 FS691.42 TC1.6%
14.6%
13.5%
4.4%
3.0%
1.0%
5.0%1.0%
0.5%
2.0%
3.4%2.0%0.0%
4.6%
6.2%
5.1%
3.8%0.5%0.5%1.0%1.0%
690.63 BW
1.9%690.61 FG
TRASHENCLOSURE
2.7%
678.36 FS
676.98 COTG672.98 INV677.33 FS0.5%
12.2%
687.43 FS1.3%1.2%3.2%3.1%
1.1%
0.0%
0.8%
7 - 12" STEPS8 - 5 14" RISERS
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-7
0SCALE: 302010510 = 10'NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-5
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF 6" CF
8" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF 0" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF0" CF6" CF0" CF
6" CF
JOIN
0" CF
PCC
NOTES:1.SEE SHEET C-12 FOR PUBLICROW IMPROVEMENTS
06/29/2022
682.75 FS682.51 FS682.37 FS682.35 FS
682.20 FS682.14 FS682.01 FS681.94 FS
679.55 FL
679.43 FL
679.25 FL
679.97 FS679.78 FS679.27 FS678.68 FS
679.22 FS679.68 FS679.84 FS678.68 FS
678.14 FL678.19 FL
678.68 FS
679.34 FS679.58 FS678.39 FL
678.51 FL678.41 FS678.43 FS678.88 FS679.45 FS
JOIN EX (675.99±) FS
679.13 FL
681.45 FS681.78 FS681.58 FS681.47 FS
681.07 FS
682.51 FS682.36 FS682.52 FS682.58 FS
687.94 FS688.08 FS
687.70 FS
687.11 FL687.16 FL
JOIN EX (686.99±) FL
682.91 FS
687.64 FS681.84 FS
JOIN EX (687.68±) FS
681.31 FS
JOIN EX (687.58±) TCJOIN EX (691.12±) FS
3.1%1.4%3.0%1.9%3.1%1.6%
3.3%0.7%
2.8%0.8%
3.1%0.7%
2.2%0.5%
2.7%1.0%
2.3%1.7%20.0%1.8%15.0%1.7%
1.4%16.7%
37.2%2.0%
1.9%
2.0%
1.9%51.4%
1.8%
2.2%1.8%9.2%8.8%1.4%
6.5%1.4%
1.2%0.4%18.3%3.4%25.0%
0.5% 0.5%0.5%7.5%
0.5%
4.2%
11.6%0.4%
4.0%
2.3%0.5%
1.2%
0.8%
19.1%
1.1%19.2%
2.6%1.6%
2.8%1.6%
3.3%
1.6%
9.6%
1.7%9.6%
1.3%
1.9% 1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
6.5%
0.5%
0.1%
11 13
13 12
10.00'
4.6%5.1%676.30 FS
JOIN EX (675.82±) FS
676.27 FS
3.9%679.23 EG1.0%
11.6%
10.8%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.5%
4.5%4.5%
3.2%
687.86 FS687.11 FS20.0%5.0%15.0%4.0%688.46 FS688.41 BW
688.08 FS687.58 FS687.70 BW688.56 FG1.9%1.5%
1.6%2.0%
678.50 TG678.50 TG674.76 INV674.78 INV678.50 FG678.50 FG678.60 FG 678.61 FG680.50 FG680.50 FG1.3% 1.0%1.4% 678.63 FG678.80 FG680.19 FG680.85 FG 679.75 FS
0.5%
0.5%
680.43 TG676.43 INV 679.38 COTG675.60 INV678.51 COTG674.79 INV 142.75'
689.44 FS689.39 FS689.27 FS689.44 FS
689.21 FS
3.2%1.0%2.3%
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-8
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-4
0SCALE: 302010510 = 10'NORTH
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
0" CF6" CF0" CF 6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
HP
HP
6" CF6" CF6" CF0" CF0" CF0" CF
6" CF6" CF
230'± TO DWY
5.50'EX. P.C.C. WALK
5.50'PROP. P.C.C. WALK
06/29/2022
11 676.04 FS676.28 FS676.28 FS676.29 FS676.46 FS676.01 FS675.94 FS675.28 FS675.31 FS676.05 FS 676.01 FS
675.49 FS
675.30 TG
674.80 FS674.90 FG
674.80 FG
674.90 FG674.80 FS
674.80 FS
674.80 FG
1.2%1.0% 3.3%
2.1%0.1%
1.0%1.1%2.9%0.5%
1.1%
672.93-674.63675.30 FG
674.80 FG674.80 FG674.80 FG674.80 FG674.80 FG675.70 FG
674.80 FG674.80 TG
(672.74) FG
674.80 TG672.74 INV674.80 TG672.85 INV
(673.3) INV673.10 INV675.50 FS
674.90 FG675.30 FG
674.90 FG674.80 FG675.10 FG674.91 FG0.5%
674.80 COTG670.52 INV
675.36 COTG671.08 INV
675.80 TG671.55 INV
669.1 INV
675.80 TG670.89 INV
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-7
0SCALE: 302010510 = 10'NORTH
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W
⅊
⅊ CALTRANS R/W EX. P.C.C. OPEN DRAINAGE CHANNEL6.2' 14.0' PROP. GROUTED RIP RAP5.8'
15.0'
SUBSURFACEINFILTRATIONCHAMBER SYSTEM
06/29/2022
MENTOILET
JANITOR
LEASESPACE
LEASESPACE
STAIR #2
14 36
4 15
LEASESPACELEASESPACE
STAIR #2JANITOR
675.37 FS
675.47 FS
675.54 FS675.48 FS
675.72 FS675.61 FS
675.79 FS
675.74 FS
675.66 FS
676.04 FS676.28 FS
676.65 FS677.29 FS677.12 FS
676.46 FS676.60 FS676.74 FS677.06 FS677.30 FS677.42 FS 675.97 FG676.00 FG 677.02 FS
677.38 FS678.86 FS
678.69 FS
678.86 FS677.92 FS677.97 FS678.01 FS678.05 FS678.33 FS
678.29 FS678.14 FS
678.61 FS678.33 FS678.31 FS678.32 FS
6" CF674.80 FG674.80 FG
678.26 FS678.26 FS678.26 FS677.96 FS677.99 FS
679.03 FS679.00 FS679.01 FS679.03 FG679.01 FS679.01 FS679.08 FS679.08 FS679.01 FS678.91 FS679.00 FG678.40 FG678.37 FS678.30 FS678.37 FS678.40 FG 678.57 FG678.56 FS678.59 FS678.60 FG
678.75 FG678.74 FS
679.06 FS679.08 FS678.85 FS 679.07 FS678.98 FS
679.01 FG679.05 FG
5.0% 4.7%
2.5%
5.1%
2.1%
5.8%
3.0%2.5%
3.4%
1.0%
1.0%
12.0%
16.3%
12.7%
21.1%
4219.4%
1.7%
1.6%
0.9%
0.8%0.8% 0.8% 0.8%0.7%0.7%0.7%
1.1%
0.3%0.5%0.3%0.5%0.3%0.3%0.7%807.9%
3.7%
1.7%
3.6%
4.0%4.1%
3.0%
2.5%
1.4%1.1%
0.6%0.6%
1.1%
1.7%
0.6%
1.9%
0.5%
1.0%1.7%
1.7%
1.3%1.4%
1.7%
1.9%1.7%
2.5%3.4%1.7%
676.30 FS676.46 FS
2.8%
4.8%
677.41 FS677.54 FS678.34 FS678.58 FS675.80 TG
675.85 FS
669.56 INV
675.30 TG670.61 INV
675.59 FS
674.80 FG674.80 FG675.45 FG675.74 FG
675.04 FG0.5%
1.6%
676.50 FG676.00 FG
677.00 FG
676.70 FG676.70 FG1.0%
678.90 FS
679.08 FF678.2 PAD
676.82 FG0.01 FG676.88 FS 676.00 FG
678.13 FS678.34 FS
678.34 FS
676.65 COTG672.54 INV676.31 COTG672.10 INV 676.00 COTG671.63 INV676.50 TG671.63 INV0.01 FG676.00 FG 678.03 FS678.13 FS
677.27 FS
1.9%1.8%1.9%
1.9%
0.4%0.6%
2.7%1.9%677.04 FS
3.8%678.16 FS678.25 FS1.9%
677.50 FS
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
675.30 TG669.10 INV675.61 FG669.00 INV
675.80 TG670.23 INV
2.9%
7.7%5.4%4.0%
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-4
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-6
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-8
0SCALE: 302010510 = 10'NORTH
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
8" CF8" CF8" CF4" CF
0" CF
6" CF
0" CF0" CF0" CF0" CF
0" CF0" CF
0" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
0" CF0" CF0" CF0" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF
0" CF
G.B.
6" CF
G.B.
0" CF
EX. P.C.C. OPEN DRAINAGE CHANNEL
CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W17.0'
5.8' 16.8'6.1'
15.6'
5.9'
SUBSURFACEINFILTRATIONCHAMBER SYSTEMEQUALIZER PIPE
06/29/2022
B G Consolidated LLC & North Coast228-290-62-01 & 02B G Consolidated LLC & North Coast228-290-62-01 & 02 679.03 FS679.08 FS679.08 FS679.03 FS679.07 FS678.98 FS678.34 FS 679.01 FG679.05 FG
679.05 FG679.05 FG
679.05 FG679.03 FS679.05 FS678.85 FS
678.34 FS677.54 FS677.46 FS677.55 FS676.83 FS676.73 FS676.65 FS676.11 FS 676.05 FS
675.92 FS675.87 FS
678.98 FS
678.98 FS
679.05 FS679.02 FS679.01 FS679.08 FS679.08 FS679.01 FS678.95 FS679.02 FS679.10 FS679.08 FS679.08 FS 678.94 FS
679.09 FS
679.13 FS681.18 FS682.03 FS678.84 FS
679.08 FS679.08 FS
679.03 FS
678.94 FS678.38 FS678.41 FS678.71 FS678.35 FS
678.86 FS678.70 FS678.58 FS
JOIN EX(675.86±) FS675.61 FS675.48 FS675.71 FS675.71 FS 678.80 FS678.92 FS678.88 FS
3.2%
3.1%
5.0% 4.1%
1.7%
1.7%0.2%1.1%
0.2%16.5%6.0%17.9%
1.5%
674.81 FS674.76 FS674.86 FS674.68 FS675.86 FS676.02 FS676.12 FS676.07 FS677.20 FS677.25 FS677.30 FS677.43 FS677.36 FS678.94 FS678.86 FS678.94 FS678.89 FS1.2%1.5%
1.9%1.5%
3.2%0.8% 4.8%4.5%4.1%
1.1%1.0%
1.4%
1.0%
1.5%3.3%1.7%
1.7%
1.8%
1.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2% 0.2% 1.7%
1.8%
1.5%
TOILETWOMENTOILET
E.M.R.JANITORELEV
LEASESPACE
SPIRITCAFE1,958 USF
FIRERISER
ELECTRICALROOM
OUTDOOR SEATINGOUTDOOR SEATINGLOBBY CORRIDOR
15,719 SF
6 SPIRITCAFE1,958 USF
OUTDOOR SEATINGOUTDOOR SEATING
LOBBY CORRIDOR
JANITORELEV15,755 SF
678.95 FS1.8%
679.08 FF678.2 PAD
0" CF0" CF
0" CF0" CF
0" CF0" CF0" CF
675.98 FS
676.11 FS675.99 FS0.4%0.5% 0.5%(668.84)FG
675.90 FG675.81 FG676.10 FG676.70 FG
676.20 FG
674.80 FG
(671.94)FG
678.34 FS
678.34 FS
678.34 FS
678.13 FS
678.13 FS
676.02 FS
675.60RIM668.90 INV
675.62 FG
676.69 TG672.50 INV. IN1.1%676.19 FG0.9%0.8%0.8%
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-7
0SCALE: 302010510 = 10'NORTH
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET C-5
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF6" CF
6" CF 6" CF
6" CF6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF
6" CF6" CF6" CF
EX. P.C.C. OPEN DRAINAGE CHANNEL
PROPOSEGROUTEDRIPRAP
17.1'
5.7'6.0'
16.2' CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W CALTRANS R/W
06/29/2022
310
11 14
36 11
6 13
13 13
12 416
15 10.00'
Template Version 2.01 180514
0SCALE: 60402010201" = 20'NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TA-BMP
TA-BMPTA-BMP
ONON
OEOE
TRIBUTARY AREA TOINFILTRATION BMP (TA-BMP)111,345 SQFT17,665 SQFT (LS) OFFSITE EAST545 SQFT155 SQFT LS
OFFSITE NORTH990 SQFT892 SQFT LS
SITE AREASTRIBUTARY AREASQFTLANDSCAPE [SQFT]TRIBUTARY AREA TOINFILTRATION BMP111,34517,665 OFFSITE NORTH990892 OFFSITE EAST545155 TOTAL112,88018,712 110'
20'20' 10'2
2 EASEMENT NOTES1
33 30'
2 3 TA1
TREE WELL (TYP)
TREE WELL (TYP)
TREE WELL (TYP)TREE WELL (TYP)
SECTION A-ANOTES:
SECTION B-B
C-9B
C-9AC-9A
TREE WELLS FOR RUNOFFDMABOTANICALNAMECOMMONNAMEMATURECANOPYDIAMETER(FT)MATUREHEIGHT(FT)CREDITVOLUMEPER TREE(FT3)REQUIREDSOIL VOLUMEPER TREE(FT3)PROVIDEDSOIL VOLUMEPER TREE(FT3)NUMBERREQUIREDNUMBERPROVIDEDREMAININGDCV (FT3) 3ChilopsisLinearisDesertWillow30304001,32510'X30'X5'(W x L x D)= 1,50034140
TREE WELL (TYP)TREE WELL (TYP)
CALTRANS R/W
PROP. GROUTED RIPRAP CALTRANS R/W PROP. GROUTED RIPRAP PROP. GROUTED RIPRAP CALTRANS R/W
STORMTECH SUBSURFACEINFILTRATION CHAMBERS
EQUALIZER PIPE
TA-BMP TA-BMP
TA-BMP
TA-BMPTA-BMPTA-BMPTA-BMPTA-BMPTA-BMPTA-BMP
TA-BMP TA-BMP
06/29/2022
ON
ROOTBALL
48" MINSOIL MEDIAMULCHLAYER(3" MIN)18" MIN
ADJACENTPROPERTYSAND FILTER LAYERAS REQUIRED (SEE NOTE 2)
10.5'
UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE
BENCH
6"
0SCALE: 642 121" = 2'
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6.31'2.91'1.59'
4.00'3.88'
VARIESPER PLAN
VARIESPER PLAN
WIDTH PER PLAN4.00' MINEXISTINGBUILDING EGRESS ±1/4"Δ MAX SCALE:C-3 BUILDING EGRESS SECTION1" = 2'-0"E SCALE:C-3 IN-LINE CURB RAMP LANDING SECTION1" = 2'-0"F WIDTH PER PLAN4.00' MIN
2 6
VARIESPER PLAN
SCALE:C-3 BUILDING SIDEWALK SECTION1" = 2'-0"D
WIDTH PER PLAN4.00' MIN24
SCALE:C-3 WEST DRIVEWAY SECTION1" = 2'-0"A
SCALE:C-3 EAST DRIVEWAY SECTION1" = 2'-0"B
SCALE:C-3 TREE WELL SECTIONNONEC
SAWCUT & JOINEXISTING FSFL
FL
EXISTING PAVEMENT,PROTECT IN PLACE
4%
1.9% MAX
1.9% MAX 1.9% MAX
9.67% MAX9.67% MAX
PL
PL
1.9% MAX
1.9% MAX
33%MAXBIOFILTER
PROPOSED WALL, PERSEPARATE PLAN AND PERMIT
SCALE:C-3 BIORETENTION S. SECTIONNTSG
PL
PL
4.65'3.02'33% MAX PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PERSEPARATE PLAN AND PERMIT CONSTRUCTION NOTES#ITEM1SAWCUT EXISTING PAVEMENT2CONCRETE CURB3CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER4ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT. NEW ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS TOMATCH EXISTING STREET SECTION + 1”.6CONCRETE SIDEWALK7CONCRETE DRIVEWAY9LANDSCAPE10INFILTRATION AREA - INF-22236"X36" OPEN BOTTOM CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE INLET28MASONRY RETAINING WALL, SDRSD C-03, TYPE 330STORMTECH RETENTION/INFILTRATION CHAMBER SYSTEM - BMP ID: ST-13124" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FOR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW3212" DIA. HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE - FLOW-THROUGH PIPE AND FLOW INLET TOSTORMTECH CHAMBER.3318"X18" CATCH BASIN - INLET TO STORMTECH3624"X24" OPEN BOTTOM CATCH BASIN WITH GRATE INLET USED AS BUBBLER FOROVERFLOW RUNOFF FROM TREE WELLS. 2 3
3 4
4 4
4 44
4 6
6 6
6 7
7 9
99 4
10 SAWCUT & JOINEXISTING FS1 EXISTING PAVEMENT,PROTECT IN PLACE
5.17'5.50'9.50'15.50'5.83'9.50'4.55' 4.50'
LANDSCAPE
3.4%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
SCALE:C-3 LOT SECTION NW TO SE1" = 2'-0"H
EXISTING GRADEEXISTING GRADE
10.00'5.00'52.915.00'
10%4
12.2%4
12%4 46.8%
5.00'5.00'23.00'5.00'
4 4 4
4%
15%
20%
5%
2.2%
NOTES:1.UTILITIES (ESPECIALLY WITHINBIORETENTION BMPS) NOT SHOWN ANDWILL BE PROVIDED AT A FUTURE DESIGNSTAGE.
EX RETAINING WALL,PROTECT IN PLACEEX GRADE42102679.08 FF79.08 FF69 PROPOSED WALL, PER SEPARATEPLAN AND PERMIT8" MINSUBDRAIN MIN 5' HIGH TUBULAR STEEL FENCEPER ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPL CURB CUTSEE GS-2.6A,2.6B, 2.7, AND 2.8IMPERMEABLE LINERROOT BARRIERPER RSD L-6 (SEE NOTE 4)MIN 18" MEDIA WITH MIN 5IN/HR FILTRATION RATEMIN 44"SATURATEDSTORAGE 3" SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH
3" FILTERCOURSE
BIOFILTER SECTION PER SECTION"C", SHEET C-10 (THIS SHEET) 12" MINMIN. 6” DIA. SLOTTED, CORRUGATED,HDPE PIPE CONFORMING TO AASHTO252M OR EQUIVALENT 3" MINMIN. 6” DIA. SLOTTED, CORRUGATED, HDPE PIPECONFORMING TO AASHTO 252M OR EQUIVALENT SPLASH PADSEE NOTE 5
COMPACTEDSUBGRADE23
(671.5)FG
674.8 FG675.2 FG675.51 FS
674.8 FG
668.5 TOP OF FOOTING
678.8 TW2
28 MIN 5' HIGH TUBULAR STEEL FENCEPER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS8" 4"
16.4' 5.8'EX. P.C. DRAINAGE CHANNEL
2.4'
CONNECTION PIPETO INFILTRATIONCHAMBERS
OVERFLOWCATCH BASIN
OVERFLOW PIPE
30 CONNECTION PIPETO INFILTRATIONCHAMBERSOVERFLOW PIPE
33675.80676.00675.3022
32 31
6" NDS EZ-DRAIN POP UP EMITTERVARIES PER PLAN
NDS POLYOLEFIN 6" POP-UPDRAINAGE EMITTER WITH UVINHIBITOR, OR EQUIVALENT 1/4" ELBOWPVC DRAINAGEPIPE, PER PLAN1/4"LEACHHOLE
3"CRUSHED STONEDRY WELLCOMPACTEDSUBGRADE
FG
12" HDPE OUTLET PIPETO STORMTECHRETENTION/INFILTRATIONCHAMBER 18" CATCH BASIN DETAILCOMPACTEDSUBGRADE1 3/4"VARIES
28"18"
INVERT
21 33
28"20 1/8"18"HEEL PROOF GRATE
28"20 1/8"18"BROOKS PRODUCTS1818CB OR EQUIVALENT
NO DUMPING"NO DUMPING" STENCIL
36" OPEN BOTTON CATCH BASIN DETAIL
INLET PIPE SIZE ANDSLOPE PER PLAN
COMPACTEDSUBGRADE
t
OUTLET PIPE SIZEAND SLOPE PER PLAN
a
INVERT OUT
c
VARIES
abc
HEEL PROOF GRATEBROOKS PRODUCTS3636CB OR EQUIVALENTad
NO DUMPING
36 32
COURSEAGGREGATE
22 abcdt 22BROOKS PRODUCTS 3636 CBOR EQUIVALENT44"40 1/4"36"35 7/8"3 1/4" 36BROOKS PRODUCTS 2424CBOR EQUIVALENT34"26"24"24"2 1/4" 06/29/2022
0SCALE: 642 121" = 2'
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE:C-3 LOT SECTION SW TO NE1" = 15'-0"A
HIGHWAY 78MONTIEL ROAD
PL
EXISTINGGRADE
LANDSCAPECONCRETE CURBEXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED RETAININGWALL, PER SEPARATEPLAN AND PERMITOVERFLOW DISCHARGE PIPE
10.85'14.52'24.00'18.00'16.54'96.90'5.36'18.24'14.00'14.00'10.81'32.25'84.75'10.81'42.00'14.17'5.83'8.40'9.74'
ASPHALT PAVEMENTCONCRETE CURBSIDEWALKPROPOSEDSTRUCTURE
PROPOSED FOUNDATION
FOR COMPLETE BUILDING DIMENSIONS ANDDETAILS SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 679.08FFCONCRETESIDEWALKCONC CURBAC PAVEMENTSIDEWALKLANDSCAPE24" WIDE CONCRETEVALLEY GUTTER
AC PAVEMENT
24" WIDE CONCRETEVALLEY GUTTER
AC PAVEMENTAC PAVEMENT
LANDSCAPESIDEWALKLANDSCAPE
SIDEWALKAC PAVEMENTCONCRETE CURBAND GUTTER EXISTING GRADEEXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
PL5.9%
33%
4.3%
3.8%
1%
20%2.6%1.5%5%
1.4%
5.0%
3.1%
5.50'
PROPOSED GROUTEDRIPRAPS.D. JUNCTION M.H.EX. P.C.DRAINAGECHANNEL2.4'17.2'5.8'MIN 5' HIGH TUBULAR STEEL FENCEPER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS CALTRANS R/W 06/29/2022
JOIN EX (690.61±) FSJOIN EX (691.12±) FSJOIN EX (691.07±) FSJOIN EX (691.00±) FSJOIN EX (691.46±) TC689.88 FL687.88 FLJOIN EX (688.51±) FSJOIN EX (687.71±) FS 688.33 TC 690.38 TC(686.99) FL(687.57) TC
3.6%1.7%
1.7%
3.8%
5.7%
7.6%
9.8% 1.7%1.7%
1.7%1.7%
1.1%687.70 BW(687.68) BW
1.7%9.6%4.0% 688.41 BW688.15 BW688.46 BW688.08 FS 691.41 FS0" CF0" CF687.64 BW0" CF
1.4%0.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.7%
9.5%1.8%
1.0%0" CF690.47 BW691.60 BW1.5%690.74 FS0" CF
JOIN EX.
690.63 BW688.08 FS
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0SCALE: 302010510 = 10'NORTH
REMOVE EXISTINGAC BERM REMOVE EXISTING AC BERM
CONSTRUCT NEW ASPHALTCONCRETE PAVEMENTCONSTRUCT NEW ASPHALTCONCRETE PAVEMENTPROTECT EXISTING UTILITYFEATURES IN PLACE, TYP, UNOPROTECT EXISTING UTILITYFEATURES IN PLACE, TYP, UNOPROTECT EXISTINGUTILITY FEATURES INPLACE, TYP, UNOCONSTRUCT NEWCURB AND GUTTERCONSTRUCTNEW CURB ANDGUTTER
ROWROW ROW ROW
CONSTRUCTION NOTES#ITEMSTD PLAN1SAWCUT EXISTING PAVEMENT2CONCRETE CURBSDRSD G-013CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERSDRSD G-024ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT. NEW ASPHALTCONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS TO MATCH EXISTINGSTREET SECTION + 1”.5PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT6CONCRETE SIDEWALKSDRSD G-077CONCRETE DRIVEWAYSDRSD G-14F8CONCRETE TIRE STOP 1 1
1 3
3 4
4 4
6 6
6 6
7 7
NOTES:1.ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES TO BE MOVEDUNDERGROUND.2.PAVEMENT THICKNESS SHALL BE THE THICKER OF THEGEOTECHNICAL RECOMENDATIONS OR 1" GREATERTHAN THE EXISTING PAVEMENT THICKNESS3.SIDEWALK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BECONSTRUCTED PER THE SDRSD G-07
5.5'
5.50'
5.50'
EX. P.C.C. SIDEWALK
06/29/2022
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH
84.80'
21.50'79.49'
19.50'BACDE
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLANBUILDING AND PLANNING COMMISSIONAPPROVAL ONLYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH
PLANTING LEGEND
10 11
14 36
11 6
13 13
13 12
4 16
15 MONTIEL ROAD
HCHCHCHC
HCHCHCHC
2 4 4 2 s e c o n d a v e n u es a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r eEDOAHCISSOATAWRSr l a 2 6 8 1 Administration BuildingLandscape Concept PlanNorth60'Scale 1" = 20'20'10'0 L-11" = 20'-0" Landscape Notes:IRRIGATION METHODSThe following irrigation equipment and methods will be utilized onthe site:(1)Automatic controllers utilizing evapotranspiration or moisturesensing data, with manual and auto shut off.(2)Reduced pressure backflow preventer with stainless steelcover.(3)Subsurface drip irrigation system designed to prevent runoff,low head drainage and overspray.(4)Plants will be grouped into hydrozones. Different hydrozoneswill be irrigated separately.(5)No spray irrigation will be used within 24" of anon-permeable surfaceINVASIVE SPECIES(1) No non-native invasive plant species shall be used, perAppendix N of the MSCP Subarea Plan, California ExoticPest Plant Council List A-1 and California Invasive PlantCouncil (Cal-IPC).LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE(1) All landscaped areas shall be maintained by the owner.PLANT MATERIALS(1) The project has been designed with water conserving plantand turf species, disease and pest-resistant plants, Treeshave been utilized wherever possible to provide shading.(2) All street trees shall have root barriers.(3) All 24" box trees shall have a minimum trunk caliper of1-1/2" and a minimum height of 6'. All 15 gal. trees shallhave a minimum trunk caliper of 1" and a minimum heightof 5'(4) Landscape construction drawings shall be prepared to meetthe requirements of CSM Water Ordinance.(5)There is no existing onsite plant material to remain. Seesheet L-3 for inventory of trees to be removed.(6)All trees shall have a minimum of 25' sq. ft. perviousplanting area.EROSION CONTROL(1)Best Management Practice devices and procedures shall beutilized as specified by the Project Civil Engineer.MISCELLANEOUS(1)On-site pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be clearlydistinguished to ensure these routes are visile to drivers andrequire vehicles to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists.2375 and 2355 MONTIEL ROADSAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
CONCEPTUALPLANNING SUBMITTAL
23 SEPT. 2019
MONTIEL OFFICEBUILDING18116FOR
Tan Slump Block Wall w/ Tubular Steel Fence
10 11
14 36
11 6
13 13
13 12
416
15 MONTIEL ROADWater Conservation Plan Legend
HYDROZONE MAP
2 4 4 2 s e c o n d a v e n u es a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r eEDOAHCISSOATAWRSr l a 2 6 8 1 North60'Scale 1" = 20'20'10'0L-21" = 20'-0"
2375 and 2355 MONTIEL ROADSAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
CONCEPTUALPLANNING SUBMITTAL
23 SEPT. 2019
MONTIEL OFFICEBUILDING18116FOR
Administration BuildingWater ConservationPlan and SchematicIrrigation Plan 2 4 4 2 s e c o n d a v e n u es a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r eEDOAHCISSOATAWRSr l a 2 6 8 1 North
10 11
14 36
11 6
13 13
13 12
416
15 MONTIEL ROAD31293837363534333226282723222120191817162475 13141589 1210111342
6 25
30 EXISTING TREE SURVEY LEGEND
2 4 4 2 s e c o n d a v e n u es a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r eEDOAHCISSOATAWRSr l a 2 6 8 1 North60'Scale 1" = 20'20'10'0L-31" = 20'-0"
2375 and 2355 MONTIEL ROADSAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
CONCEPTUALPLANNING SUBMITTAL
23 SEPT. 2019
MONTIEL OFFICEBUILDING18116FOR
Administration BuildingTree Survey
2 4 4 2 s e c o n d a v e n u es a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r eEDOAHCISSOATAWRSr l a 2 6 8 1 North
TREE MITIGATION TABLE
ATTACHMENT 5
Soils and Percolation Tests Reports
Engineers who understand your business
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Montiel Road
2375 and 2355 Montiel Road
San Marcos, California 92069
October 8, 2018
Partner Project Number: 18-223618.1
Prepared for:
UNITE Pacific, Inc.
550 Laguna Drive, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
800-419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
October 8, 2018 M.
Jamie Looney
UNITE Pacific, Inc.
550 Laguna Drive, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Geotechnical Report
Montiel Road Civil
2375 and 2355 Montiel Road
San Marcos, California 92069
Partner Project No. 18-223618.1
Dear M. Looney:
Partner Assessment Corporation (Partner) presents the following general opinion regarding the geotechnical conditions at the subject site, based on the information contained within this geotechnical report and our general experience with construction practices and geotechnical conditions on other sites.
This statement does not constitute an engineering recommendation. • The geotechnical conditions on the site related to the planned construction are expected to be favorable with other similar sites*; given dense bearing soils.
The descriptions and findings of our geotechnical report are presented for your use in this electronic format, for your use as shown in the hyperlinked outline below. To return to this page after clicking a hyperlink, hold “alt” and press the “left arrow key” on your keyboard.
1.0 Geotechnical Executive Summary
2.0 Report Overview and Limitations
3.0 Geologic Conditions and Hazards
4.0 Geotechnical Exploration and Laboratory Results
5.0 Geotechnical Recommendations
Figures & Appendices
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of the work.
Sincerely,
Matthew Marcus, PE Francisca Chan, EIT
Technical Director – Geotechnical Engineering Project Engineer * “similar sites” refers to sites with similar planned and current use, where we have recently performed similar work, and is a general statement not based on statistical analysis.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
1. GEOTECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Geologic Zones and Site Hazards:
According to the report*: The subject property is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by several ranges and valleys that are run east to west. According to the geologic map of the Valley Center Quadrangle, site geology is older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa) over granite of Indian Springs (Cretaceous), fine grained biotite granite (Kis). The site is located to the south and west of San Marco s Hills and 10 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Based on historic topographic maps, the site was previously a hilly area that was graded and possibly used for agricultural purposes until it was developed for residential use in 1967. Although the site is currently non- agricultural, livestock was present (chicken coops) at the time of our study. In our review, the site was not located within a mapped seismically induced hazard zone. No other hazards are known or anticipated.
Excavation Conditions
According to the report*: Weathered rock was encountered in each of our borings at depths ranging from 3 to 15 feet on the site. We anticipate relatively shallow site excavations can be made using heavy -duty construction equipment in good working condition. Deeper excavations may encounter weathered rock that will require ripping or other excavation techniques. Remnants of previous construction, including utilities, topsoil, organic/agricultural waste, and concrete and steel if present may also be difficult to remove.
Groundwater was encountered at 31 feet below ground surface during drilling and is not anticipated to impact the site.
Foundation/Slab Support
According to the report*: We anticipate that shallow spread foundations will be planned for the new construction. We anticipate loads on the order of 3,000 psf or less, can be achieved by support on a layer of 2 feet of compacted engineered fill soil. This will require over-excavation, evaluation and compaction of the exposed base, and the placement of new, moisture conditioned material. In new slab on grade areas, we recommend the subgrade be cleaned, proofrolled, repaired, scarified and recompacted.
Soil Reuse
According to the report*: Site soils are generally anticipated to be suitable for re- use as fill on the site.
However, areas of organic materials, waste, construction debris, etc., may be encountered and will call for removal and proper disposal. It is rec ommended to use non -expansive structural fill that is free of deleterious materials, and is properly moisture conditioned and compacted to 95% of the modified proctor (ASTM D 1557) is recommended.
Pavement Design: According to the report*:
Roadway Type Subgrade Preparation Pavement Section Parking Area Light Duty (TI=4) Compacted Subgrade 3-in asphalt & 6-in aggregate base Parking Area Heavy Duty (TI=7) Compacted Subgrade 4-in asphalt & 6-in aggregate base This summary in no way replaces or overrides the detailed sections of the report*
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
2. REPORT OVERVIEW & LIMITATIONS
2.1 Report Overview
To develop this report, Partner accessed existing information and obtained site specific data from our exploration program. Partner also used standard industry practices and our experience on previous projects to perform engineering analysis and provide recommendations for construction along with construction considerations to guide the methods of site development . The opinions on the cover letter of this report do not constitute engineering recommendations, and are only general, based on our recent anecdotal experiences and not statistical analysis. Section 1.0, E xecutive Geotechnical Summary, compiles data from each of the report sections, while each of sections in the report presents a detailed description of our work.
The detailed descriptions in Section 5.0 and Appendix C constitute our engineering recommendations for the project, and they supersede the Executive Geotechnical Summary.
The report overview, including a description of the planned construction and a list of references, as well as an explanation of the report limitations is provided in Section 2.0. The findings of Partner’s geologic review are included in Section 3.0 Geologic Conditions and Hazards . The description s of our metho ds of exploration and testing, as well as our findings are included in S ection 4.0 Geotechnical Exploration and Laboratory Results. In addition, logs of our exploration excavations are included in Appendix A of the report, and laboratory testing is included in Appendix B of the report. Site Location and Site Plan maps are included as Figures in the report.
2.2 Assumed Construction
Partner’s understanding of the planned construction was based on information provided by the project team. The proposed site plan is included as Figure 2
to this report. Partner’s assumptions regarding the new construction are presented in the below table.
Property Data
Property Use: New Mixed Commercial Building and New Parking Lot Building footprint/height ~10,107 sf and 20, 053 sf, 2-3 Stories Land Acreage (Ac): Approx. 0.71 Ac
Number of Buildings: 2
Expected Cuts and Fills Less than 5 feet
Type of Construction: Unknown, assumed concrete slab on grade, lightweight framing Foundations Type Unknown, assumed spread foundations
Anticipated Loads 3,000 psf
Traffic Loading Parking lot
Site Information Sources: Preliminary Site Plan
2.3 References
The following references were used to generate this report:
California Dept. of Transportation, ARS Online, accessed 9/28/18 California Geological Survey, Note 36, California Geomorphic Provinces, 2002.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
California Geological Survey, Map of the Oceanside, 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, Kennedy and Tan, 2007.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Flood Map Service Center, accessed 9/28/18 Google Earth Pro (Online), accessed 9/28/18
Historic Aerials by NETR Online, accessed 9/28/18
United States Geological Survey, Lower 48 States 2014 Seismic Hazard Map, accessed online 7/21/17 United States Geological Survey Topographic Map 2015, 7.5 minute series, Valley Center Quadrangle Map, accessed via internet, accessed 9/28/18
United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program (Online), accessed 9/28/18
2.4 Limitations
The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions in this report are based up on soil samples and data obtained in widely spaced locations that were accessible at the time of exploration, and collected based on project information available at that time. Our findings are subject to field confirmation that the samples we obtained wer e representative of site conditions. If conditions on the site are different than what was encountered in our borings, the report recommendations should be reviewed by our office, and new recommendations should be provided based on the new information and possible additional exploration if needed. It should be noted that geotechnical subsurface evaluations are not capable of predicting all subsurface conditions, and that our evaluation was performed to industry standards at the time of the study, no other warranty or guarantee is made.
Likewise, our document review and geologic research study made a good- faith effort to review readily available documents that we could access and were aware of at the time, as listed in this letter. We are not able to guarantee that we have discovered, observed, and reviewed all relevant site documents and conditions. If new documents or studies are available following the completion of the report, the recommendations herein should be reviewed by our office, and new recommendations should be provided based on the new information and possible additional exploration if needed.
This report is intended for the use of the client in its entirety for the proposed project as described in the text. Information from this report is not to be used for other projects or for other sites. All of the report
must be reviewed and applied to the project or else the report recommendations may no longer apply. If pertinent changes are made in the project plans or conditions are encountered du ring construction that appear to be different than indicated by this report, please contact this office for review . Significant variations may necessitate a re-evaluation of the recommendations presented in this report. The findings in this report are valid for one year from the date of the report. This report has been completed under specific Terms and Conditions relating to scope, relying parties, limitations of liability, indemnification, dispute resolution, and other factors relevant to any reliance on this report. Any parties relying on this report do so having accepted Partner’s standard Terms and Conditions, a copy of which can be found at http: /
www.partneresi.com/terms-and-conditions.php
If parties other than Partner are engaged to provide construction geotechnical services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the findings and recommendations in this report or providing alternate recommendations.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
3. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS & HAZARDS
This section presents the results of a geologic review performed by Partner, for a proposed new construction on site. The general location of the project is shown on Figure 1.
3.1 Site Location and Project Information
The planned construction will be situated on a currently developed parcel with two residential homes (both built in 1967), several chicken coops and vacant lots in San Marcos, California. The immediately surrounding properties consist of commercial buildings and residential homes on the north and west. Figure 2 presents the project site and the locations of our site exploration. Based on our review of available documents, the site has had the following previous uses:
Historical Use Information
Period/Date Source Description/Use
1893-1915 Topographic Maps Hills
1947 -1960? Aerial Photograph Agricultural use
1960s - Present Aerial Photographs, Building Records, City Directories Residential use
3.2 Geologic Setting
The subject property is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by several ranges and valleys that are run east to west. According to the geologic map of the Valley Center Quadrangle, site geology is older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa) over granite of Indian Springs (Cretaceous), fine grained biotite granite (Kis). The site is located to the south and west of San Marcos Hills and 10 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Based on historic topographic maps, the site was previously a hilly area that was graded and possibly used for agricultural purposes until it was developed for residential use in 1967. Although currently the site is non-agricultural, we observed chicken coops at the time of our study. In our review, the site was not located within a mapped seismically induced hazard zone. No other hazards are known or anticipated.
Geologic Data
Parameter Value Source
Geomorphic Zone Peninsular Ranges CGS
Ground Elevation 690 to 670 feet above MSL USGS
Flood Elevation Zone X (Minimal Flood Hazard) FEMA
Seismic Hazard Zone Low to Moderate USGS
Geologic Hazards None CGS
Surface Cover Disturbed Alluvium Google Earth
Site Modifications Graded, previous agricultural field Google Earth Surficial Geology Alluvium USGS
Depth to Bedrock Unknown USGS
Groundwater Depth 31 feet Boring Log
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
3.3 Geologic Hazards
California is tectonically active and contains numerous large, active faults. As a result, geologic hazards with the greatest potential to affect southern California include earthquakes and related hazards such as tsunamis, landslides, and liquefaction. According to California Department of Transportation’s ARS Online Database, the three faults most relevant to the site are the Elsinore (Julian) – 15.5 miles from site, MMax 7.7, the Elsinore (Temecula) – 15.5 miles from site, MMax 7.7 and Elsinore (Glen Ivy) - 35 miles from site, MMax
7.7. The site was not mapped within a zone of seismically included hazard for liquefaction, landslide, or tsunami.
The seismic design parameters based on the USGS Design Maps Detailed Report for ASCE 7 -10 Standard Method are presented below.
Seismic Item Value Seismic Item Value
Site Classification D Seismic Design Category D
Fa 1.091 Fv 1.604
Ss 1.023g S1 0.398g
SMS 1.116g SM1 0.638g
SDS 0.744g SD1 0.426g
PGA Max (ASCE ‘10) 0.428g 67% PGA (ASCE ‘10) 0.287g
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
4. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION & LABORATORY RESULTS
Our evaluation of soils on the site included field exploration and laboratory testing . The field exploration and laboratory testing programs are briefly described below. Data reports from the field exploration and laboratory testing are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
4.1 Soil Borings
The soil boring program was conducted on September 21, 2018. Eight (8) borings were advanced by the use of a truck-mounted drill using hollow flight auger drilling techniques. The borings were made to depths of 30 feet in the buildings footprint and 5 feet in the parking areas. In addition, three (3) infiltration tests to 7 feet below ground surface were performed in the landscaping areas. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and infiltration tests are shown on Figure 2.
Logs of subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were prepared in the field by a representative of Partner Engineering. Soil samples consisting of relatively undisturbed brass ring samples and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) samples were collected at approximately 2.5 and 5 -foot depth intervals and were returned to the laboratory for testing. The SPTs were performed in ac cordance with ASTM D 1586. Typed boring logs were prepared from the field logs and are presented in Appendix A . A summary table
description is provided below:
*bgs – below ground surface
4.2 Groundwater/Soil Moisture:
Groundwater was encountered on the site during drilling at 31 feet below ground surface. However, groundwater levels fluctuate over time and may be different at the time of construction and during the project life.
4.3 Laboratory Evaluation
Selected samples collected during drilling activities were tested in the laboratory to assist in evaluating engineering properties of subsurface materials at the site. The results of laboratory analyses are presented in Appendix B.
4.4 Infiltration Test Results:
Three (3) infiltration tests were performed, as shown on Figure 2. The tests were performed at a depth of 7 feet, and indicated the site is adverse to surficial storm water infiltration. This is consistent with the presence of shallow weathered rock on the site. Data is shown in Appendix B, and is summarized below:
Surficial Geology
Strata Depth to Bottom of Layer (bgs*) Description
Native Stratum 1 5 to 10 feet Sandy Alluvium
Native Stratum 2 31 feet Weathered Rock (Granite)
Groundwater 31 feet In boring
Bedrock NA Not observed
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Parameter I-1 I-2 I-3
Location North Center Area South Area
Elevation of Tested Area 6.75 feet 6.75 feet 6.75 feet
Pre-soak Depth 1.5 feet 2 feet 2 feet
Test Start Depth 18 in 39 in 19 in
Water Drop During Test 1.4 in 0.5 in 15 in
Percolation Rate 7.4 min/in 100 min/in 15 min/in
Corrected Infiltration Rate 0.53 in/hr 0,05 in/hr 1.08 in/hr Worksheet D - Factor of Safety 2.25 2.25 2.25
Design Infiltration Rate 0.24 in/hr 0.02 in/hr 0.48 in/hr
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
5. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS & PARAMETERS
The following discussion of findings for the site is based on the assumed construction, geologic review, results of the field exploration , and laboratory testing programs. The recommendations of this report are contingent upon adherence to Appendix C of this report, General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations. For additional details on the below recommendations, please see Appendix C.
5.1 Geotechnical Recommendations
• The proposed construction is generally feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided the recommendations and assumptions of this report are followed. • Geologic/General Site Considerations
The subject property is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province of California.
The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by several ranges and valleys that are run east to west.
According to the geologic map of the Valley Center Quadrangle, site geology is older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa) over granite of Indian Springs (Cretaceous), fine grained biotite granite (Kis).
The site is located to the south and west of San Marcos Hills and 10 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.
Based on historic topographic maps, the site was previously a hilly area that was graded and possibly used for agricultural purposes until it was developed for residential use in 1967. Although the site is currently non-agricultural, livestock was present (chicken coops) at the time of our study.
In our review, the site was not located within a mapped seismically induced hazard zone. No other hazards are known or anticipated.
Excavation Considerations
• Weathered rock was encountered in each of our borings at depths ranging from 3 to 15 feet on the site. We anticipate relatively shallow site excavations can be made using heavy -duty construction equipment in good working condition. Deeper excavations may encounter weathered rock that will require ripping or other excavation techniques. Remnants of previous construction, including utilities, topsoil, organic/agricultural waste, and concrete and steel if present may also be difficult to remove. Groundwater was encountered at 31 feet below ground surface during drilling and is not anticipated to impact the site . Excavations should be sloped and/or shored to protect worker safety and adjacent properties, per OSHA and local guidelines. • Previous construction coul d contain deleterious, organic and/or soft fills, buried utilities, construction debris, etc. that may be difficult to remove and other materials that may call for special handling and haul off. Following removal of deleterious soils, the base materials should be evaluated by an engineer to evaluate that a stable subgrade for replacement fill has been achieved. • In the cases where the demolition excavation is to be within a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) zone below existing foundations or property lines, special demolition procedures should be used.
Spread Foundations
• We anticipate that spread foundations are planned for the site structure. We understand that spread foundations will be proportioned for bearing capacities of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot.
Given the past site usage and existing structures and undocumented fills, the foundations and slabs
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
should be supported on a layer of compacted engineered fill that extends to competent native material. The layer of fill should extend laterally beyond the foundation limits a distance equal to the layer thickness. The thicknesses of the layer, settlement estimates, and modulus values are provided on the design tables in the next section.
On-Grade Construction Considerations
• All grass, roots and other organic materials should be removed from structural areas of the site. In new fill areas such as new pavement areas, cleaned subgrade should be proofrolled and evaluated by the engineer with a loaded water truck (4,000 gallon) or equivalent rubber tired equipment. Soft or unstable areas should be repaired per the direction of the engineer. Once approved, the subgrade soil should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted as engineered fill. The improvements should extend a distance of 2 feet or more beyond the planned area of new construction at finished grade (for fill sites, 2 feet inside the top of slope).
Soil Reuse Considerations
• In general, the native, excavated site soils should be suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided that they are stripped of vegetation, clean of construction debris and organic/deleterious materials, properly moisture conditioned, and compacted. Previous development debris may contain potentially hazardous materials will require testing prior to haul off and/or reuse on the site as would any soil materials with high organic content. Engineered fill should be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density generally near to optimum moisture content, according to the modified proctor, ASTM D1557.
Concrete Considerations
• Concrete should be corrosion resistant, using Type II/V Portland Cement, and fly ash mixtures of 25 percent cement replacement. We recommend a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less. Site soil may be corrosive to un-protected metallic elements such as pipes, poles, etc. Concrete exposed to freezing weather in cold climates should be air-entrained.
Site Storm Water Considerations
• Given the presence of shallow weathered rock, the site is generally adverse to storm water infiltration ponds. Surface drainage and landscaping design should be carefully planned to protect the new structures from erosion/undermining, and to maintain the site earthwork and structure subgrades in a relatively cons istent moisture condition. Water should not flow towards or pond near to new structures, and high water-demand plants should not be planned near to structures.
5.2 Geotechnical Parameters
Based on the findings of our field and laboratory testing, we recommen d that design and construction proceed per industry accepted practices and procedures, as described in Appendix C, General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations (Considerations).
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Subgrade Preparation Parameters – (hyperlink to Construction Considerations) Subgrade Preparation
Structure Bearing
Capacity
Embedment
Depth
Bearing Surface a Settlement d
Grade Slabs k=150 pci b NA Proofrolled and compacted subgrade <1 inch Spread Foundations 3,000 c psf 24 inches Proofrolled and compacted subgrade <1 inch a Repairs in bearing surface areas should be structural fill per the recommendation of th e Earthwork section of Appendix C that is moisture conditioned to within 3 percent below to optimum moisture content and compacted to 95 percent or more of the soil maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. Expansive material should not be located within the upper 3 feet of the soil subgrade.
b Subgrade modulus value “k”, assuming the grade slab is supported by aggregate layer roughly equal to slab thickness (minimum 4 inches)
c Can be increased by 1/3 for temporary loading such as seismic and wind d Differential settlement is expected to be half of total settlement Paving Structural Sections – (hyperlink to Construction Considerations) Pavement Sections
Roadway Type Subgrade Preparation a Pavement Section b Parking Area Light Duty (TI=4) Proofrolled Subgrade 3-in asphalt & 6-in aggregate base Parking Area Heavy Duty (TI=7) Proofrolled Subgrade 4-in asphalt & 6-in aggregate base Parking Area Heavy Duty (TI=7) Proofrolled Subgrade 6-in concrete & 4-in aggregate base a Repairs in proofrolled areas should be structural fill per the recommendation of the Earthwork (hyperlink to Construction Considerations) that is moisture conditioned to within 3 percent below to optimum moisture content and compacted to 95 percent or more of the soil maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. b 1 inch of pavement may be reduced if 6-in of lime-treated soil is used with a 500 psi 28-day compressive strength
FIGURES
• Site Location Map
• Site Exploration Map
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Figure 1
Source: USGS Topographic 7.5 Valley Center Quadrangle Map 2015.
Key:
Approximate Site Location
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Figure 2
Source: Google Earth, 2018; Montiel Road Site Plan, 2018.
Approximate Project Limits - - -
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Figure 3
Source: CGS, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, 1: 100,000 scale. Compiled by Kennedy and Tan, 2007.
Key:
Approximate Site Location
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
SURFACE COVER: General discription with thickness to the inch, ex. Topsoil, Concrete, Asphalt, etc, FILL: General description with thickness to the 0.5 feet. Ex. Roots, Debris, Processed Materials (Pea Gravel, etc.) NATIVE GEOLOGIC MATERIAL: Deposit type, 1.Color, 2.moisture, 3.density, 4.SOIL TYPE, other notes - Thickness to 0.5 feet
1. Color - Generalized
Light Brown (usually indicates dry soil, rock, caliche) Brown (usually indicates moist soil)
Dark Brown (moist to wet soil, organics, clays)
Reddish (or other bright colors) Brown (moist, indicates some soil development/or residual soil) Greyish Brown (Marine, sub groundwater - not the same as light brown above) Mottled (brown and gray, indicates groundwater fluctuations)
2. Moisture
dry - only use for wind-blown silts in the desert
damp - soil with little moisture content
moist - near optimum, has some cohesion and stickyness
wet - beyond the plastic limit for clayey soils, and feels wet to the touch for non clays saturated - Soil below the groundwater table, sampler is wet on outside
3. Density (based on blow counts or hand evaluation)
SPT Ring Granular Cohesive
0-5 0-7 very loose very soft Unsuitable Thumb penetrates through 5-10 7-14 loose soft <1,500psf Thumb penetrates part way 10-20 14-28 medium dense firm <3,000psf Thumb dents only 20-75 28-100 dense stiff >3,000psf Thumbnail dents
75+ 100+ very dense hard Hard Dig Thumbnail does not dent
4. Classification
Determine percent Gravel (bigger than 3/8")
Determine percent fines (silt and clay feel soft, with no grit) Determine percent sand (between silt and clay, feels gritty) Determine if clayey (make soil moist, if it easily roll into a snake it is clayey) Sands and gravels (more gravel starts with G, more sand starts with S) GP SP Mostly sand and gravel, with less than 5 % fines sandy GRAVEL SAND GP-GM SP-SM Mostly sand and gravel 7-12% fines, non-clayey sandy GRAVEL with silt SAND with Silt GP-GC SP-SC Mostly sand and gravel 7-12% fines, clayey sandy GRAVEL with clay SAND with clay GC SC Mostly sand and gravel >12% fines clayey clayey GRAVEL clayey SAND GM SM Mostly sand and gravel >12% fines non-clayey silty GRAVEL silty SAND Cohesive Soil (generaly forms long chunks (more than 2 inches) in sampler ML Soft, non clayey SILT with sand
MH Very rare, holds a lot of water, and is pliable with very low strength high plasticity SILT CL If sandy can be hard when dry, will be stiff/plastic when wet CLAY with sand/silt CH Hard and resiliant when dry, very strong/sticky when wet (may have sand in it) FAT CLAY H = Liquid limit over 50%, L - LL under 50%
C = Clay
M = Silt
Samplers
S = Standard split spoon (SPT)
R = Modified ring
Bulk = Excavation spoils
ST = Shelby tube
C = Rock core
BORING LOG KEY - EXPLANATION OF TERMS
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 1
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: ~31'
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 SM
1 2 R 39 SM
3 4
5 S 85/11" WR
6 7
8 9
10 S 50/6"
11 12
13 14
15 S 50/6"
16 17
18 19
20 S 50/6"
21 22
23 24
25 S 50/3"
26 27
28 29
GRANITE (Dry Density: 103.7 pcf, Moisture Content: 3.1 %) B1 Boring Log Page 1 of 2
SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906
Northwest Corner, front of house
Boring Number:
Location:
Site Address:
Project Number:
Drill Rig Type:
Sampling Equipment:
San Marcos, CA
2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
Borehole Diameter:
18-223618.1
CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
8" San Diego, CA 92121
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
Sample Description
Continues on next page
NATIVE: Light brown, damp, dense, silty SAND with clay and cobbles WEATHERED ROCK: Grey, very dense, poorly graded sand with clay and weathered Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 2
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: ~31'
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
30 S 50/3" WR
31 V
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B1 (Continued) Boring Log Page 2 of 2
Location: Northwest Corner, front of house
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
Groundwater encountered
Boring terminated at 31.5'
Backfilled with spoils upon completion
Groundwater encountered at 31'
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
Grey brown, wet, very dense, poorly graded SAND and GRANITE Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
A - 3
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 1
2 S 34 SM
3 4
5 R 44
6 7
8 9
10 S 29
11 12
13 14
15 S 50/5" WR
16 17
18 19
20 S 50/4"
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B2 Boring Log Page 1 of 1
Location: Northwest Corner, back of house
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
NATIVE: Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND with weathered rock possible fill layer ~2.5'
with some with clay and gravel
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
WEATHERED ROCK: Brown and gray, moist, very dense, SAND and GRANITE with weathered cemented granite
*small recovery
Boring terminated at 21' due to refusal
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled wih soil upon completion
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 4
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 1
2 R 27 SM
3 4
5 S 81
6 7
8 9
10 S 79/11" WR
11 12
13 14
15 S 85/11"
16 17
18 19
20 S 50/4"
21 22
23 24
25 S 50/2"
26 27
28 29
Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B3 Boring Log Page 1 of 2
Location: Center
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
NATIVE: Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND
very dense (Dry Density: 111.4 pcf, Moisture Content: 7.4%, Fines: 35%) Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
WEATHERED ROCK: Brown, damp, very dense, poorly graded SAND and weathered
GRANITE
Continues on next page
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 5
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
30 S 50/3" WR
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B3 (Continued) Boring Log Page 2 of 2
Location: Center
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
Boring terminated at 31.5'
Backfilled with spoils upon completion
Groundwater not encountered
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
WEATHERED ROCK: Gray, damp, very dense, GRANITE
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
A - 6
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 1
2 R 37 SM
3 4
5 S 74/9" WR
6 7
8 9
10 S 50/6"
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B4 Boring Log Page 1 of 1
Location: Southeast Corner
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
NATIVE: Brown, damp, dense, silty SAND with clay
WEATHERED ROCK: Gray, damp, dense, SAND, weathered GRANITE (Dry Density: 120.5 pcf, Moisture Content: 6.9 %)
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
Boring terminated at 14' due to refusal, no recovery
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled wih soil upon completion
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 7
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 1
2 3
4 5 S 81/10" WR
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B5 Boring Log Page 1 of 1
Location: Northeast Corner
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
NATIVE: Brown, damp, silty SAND
WEATHERED ROCK: Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND and GRANITE Boring terminated at 6.5'
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled wih soil upon completion
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 8
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 1
2 3
4 5 S 81/11" WR
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B6 Boring Log Page 1 of 1
Location: Northeast Corner by house
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
NATIVE: Brown, damp, sandy SILT
WEATHERED ROCK: Brown, damp, very dense, silty SAND
Boring terminated at 6.5'
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled wih soil upon completion
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 9
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 1
2 B ML
3 4
5 S 81/9" WR
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B7 Boring Log Page 1 of 1
Location: center of field
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
NATIVE: Brown, damp, sandy SILT with clay
WEATHERED ROCK: Grey, damp, very dense, SAND and weathered GRANITE Boring terminated at 6.5'
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled wih soil upon completion
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 10
Date Started: 9/21/2018
Date Completed: 9/21/2018
Depth to Groundwater: N/A
Field Technician: J.E.
Depth N-Value USCS
0 1
2 3
4 5 S 81/9" WR
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
Project Number: 18-223618.1
Drill Rig Type: CME-75 Partner Engineering and Science
Sampling Equipment: SPT & Rings 11839 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 906 Boring Number: B8 Boring Log Page 1 of 1
Location: northwest
Site Address: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road
San Marcos, CA
NATIVE: Brown, damp, silty SAND
WEATHERED ROCK: Brown, damp, silty SAND with clay and weathered GRANITE Boring terminated at 6.5'
Borehole Diameter: 8" San Diego, CA 92121
Sample Description
SURFACE COVER: Topsoil
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled wih soil upon completion
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1 A - 11
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
Page A-i
INFILTRATION TEST DATA
Project: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road, San Marcos
Project No.: 18-223618.1
Date: 9/21/2018
Test Hole: P1
Tested by: J. Eudell
Depth of Hole, ft, D: 7
Boring Radius, in: 8
UCSD: SM
Reading
#
Start
Time
Stop
Time
∆ t Time
Interval
Do
Initial Depth
to Water
Level
Df
Final Depth
to Water
Level
∆ D
Change in
Water Level
hr:mm hr:mm min in in in
1 8:00 8:15 25 13.75 55 9.3
2 9:30 10:00 25 15.75 48 6.8
Reading
#
Start
Time
Stop
Time
∆ t Time
Interval
(10 or 30)
Do
Initial Depth
to Water
Level
Df
Final Depth
to Water
Level
∆ D
Change in
Water Level
Percolation
Rate
Corrected
Infiltration
Rate
hr:mm hr:mm min min/ in in/hr
1 8:55 9:05 10 18.0 21.0 3.0 3.3 1.05
2 9:05 9:15 10 19.0 21.0 2.0 5.0 0.71
3 9:15 9:25 10 21.0 23.0 2.0 5.0 0.73
4 9:25 9:35 10 19.8 22.5 2.8 3.6 0.99
5 9:35 9:45 10 22.5 24.0 1.5 6.7 0.56
6 9:45 9:55 10 24.0 25.0 1.0 10.0 0.38
7 9:55 10:05 10 25.0 26.3 1.3 8.0 0.48
8 10:05 10:15 10 26.3 27.6 1.4 7.4 0.53
9 10
11 12
Sources :
Appendix D, Approved Infiltration Rate As s es s ment Methods for Selection of Storm Water BMPs (San Diego) Appendix A, Infiltration Tes ting (Rivers ide County)
Appendix D, Infiltration Rate Protocol, 2011 (Orange County) inches (0.25" precision)
Pecolation Test Data Sheet
Pre-Soak Procedure (See notes) Calculations
Greater than 6"
(y/n)
Y
Y
IN RIVERSIDE, 2Y=SAND: 10 min intervals for 1 hour. IF NOT SAND: 12 intervals at 30 min each, refilling each time IN SAN DIEGO, Presoak for at least 2 hours if sandy soils. Rates of fall are measured for six hours, refilling each half hour (or 10 minutes for sand). Tests are generally repeated until consistent results are obtained.
Raw Data Calculations
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
Page A-ii
Project: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road, San Marcos
Project No.: 18-223618.1
Date: 9/21/2018
Test Hole: P2
Tested by: J. Eudell
Depth of Hole, ft, D: 7
Boring Radius, in: 8
UCSD: SM
Reading
#
Start
Time
Stop
Time
∆ t Time
Interval
Do
Initial Depth
to Water
Level
Df
Final Depth
to Water
Level
∆ D
Change in
Water Level
hr:mm hr:mm min in in in
1 8:45 9:10 25 38 28.5 9.5
2 9:10 9:35 25 35.5 39 4.5
Reading
#
Start
Time
Stop
Time
∆ t Time
Interval
(10 or 30)
Do
Initial Depth
to Water
Level
Df
Final Depth
to Water
Level
∆ D
Change in
Water Level
Percolation
Rate
Corrected
Infiltration
Rate
hr:mm hr:mm min min/ in in/hr
1 9:40 10:10 30 39.0 40.0 1.0 30.0 0.16
2 10:35 11:10 35 40.5 41.0 0.5 70.0 0.07
3 11:10 11:40 30 41.0 41.5 0.5 60.0 0.09
4 11:40 12:10 30 41.5 42.0 0.5 60.0 0.09
5 12:10 12:40 30 42.0 42.2 0.2 150.0 0.03
6 12:40 1:30 50 42.0 42.5 0.5 100.0 0.05
7 1:30 2:25 55 42.5 43.0 0.5 110.0 0.05
8 2:25 3:15 50 43.0 43.5 0.5 100.0 0.05
9 10
11 12
Sources :
Appendix D, Approved Infiltration Rate As s es s ment Methods for Selection of Storm Water BMPs (San Diego) Appendix A, Infiltration Tes ting (Rivers ide County)
Appendix D, Infiltration Rate Protocol, 2011 (Orange County) inches (0.25" precision)
Pecolation Test Data Sheet
Pre-Soak Procedure (See notes) Calculations
Greater than 6"
(y/n)
Y
Y
IN RIVERSIDE, 2Y=SAND: 10 min intervals for 1 hour. IF NOT SAND: 12 intervals at 30 min each, refilling each time IN SAN DIEGO, Presoak for at least 2 hours if sandy soils. Rates of fall are measured for six hours, refilling each half hour (or 10 minutes for sand). Tests are generally repeated until consistent results are obtained.
Raw Data Calculations
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
Page A-iii
Project: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road, San Marcos
Project No.: 18-223618.1
Date: 9/21/2018
Test Hole: P3
Tested by: J. Eudell
Depth of Hole, ft, D: 7
Boring Radius, in: 8
UCSD: SM
Reading
#
Start
Time
Stop
Time
∆ t Time
Interval
Do
Initial Depth
to Water
Level
Df
Final Depth
to Water
Level
∆ D
Change in
Water Level
hr:mm hr:mm min in in in
1 9:20 9:45 25 27 2 25.0
2 9:45 10:10 25 27 5 22.0
Reading
#
Start
Time
Stop
Time
∆ t Time
Interval
(10 or 30)
Do
Initial Depth
to Water
Level
Df
Final Depth
to Water
Level
∆ D
Change in
Water Level
Percolation
Rate
Corrected
Infiltration
Rate
hr:mm hr:mm min min/ in in/hr
1 10:40 11:10 30 19.0 29.0 10.0 3.0 1.25
2 11:10 11:45 35 20.0 29.0 9.0 3.9 0.97
3 11:45 12:15 30 20.0 28.5 8.5 3.5 1.07
4 12:15 12:45 30 17.5 27.5 10.0 3.0 1.22
5 12:45 1:30 45 13.0 29.0 16.0 2.8 1.27
6 1:30 2:30 60 14.0 31.0 17.0 3.5 1.04
7 2:30 3:20 50 14.0 29.0 15.0 3.3 1.08
8 9
10 11
12 Sources :
Appendix D, Approved Infiltration Rate As s es s ment Methods for Selection of Storm Water BMPs (San Diego) Appendix A, Infiltration Tes ting (Rivers ide County)
Appendix D, Infiltration Rate Protocol, 2011 (Orange County) inches (0.25" precision)
Pecolation Test Data Sheet
Pre-Soak Procedure (See notes) Calculations
Greater than 6"
(y/n)
Y
Y
IN RIVERSIDE, 2Y=SAND: 10 min intervals for 1 hour. IF NOT SAND: 12 intervals at 30 min each, refilling each time IN SAN DIEGO, Presoak for at least 2 hours if sandy soils. Rates of fall are measured for six hours, refilling each half hour (or 10 minutes for sand). Tests are generally repeated until consistent results are obtained.
Raw Data Calculations
APPENDIX B
Lab Data
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-215538.1
October 8, 2018
Page B-i
LABORATORY TEST DATA
Index Test Results
Soil Sample Plasticity Index Liquid Limit Fines Content (%) Minus No. 10 Sieve Content (%)
B2 @ 5 feet - - - 100
B3 @ 5 feet - - 35 100
B7 @ 2 feet NP - 28 95
In-Place Moisture and Density
Soil Sample Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%)
B1 @ 2 feet 103.7 106.9 3.1
B2 @ 5 feet 105.3 110.5 4.9
B3 @5 feet 111.4 119.7 7.4
B4 @ 2 feet 120.5 128.9 6.9
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-215538.1
October 8, 2018
Page B-ii
HYDROMETER TEST DATA
Gravel
No. 4
Sand Silt
No. 200
Clay
0.005 mm
Colloid
0.001 mm3-in
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
Percent Finer than
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Boring B3 @ 5 ft
Gravel
No. 4
Sand Silt
No. 200
Clay
0.005 mm
Colloid
0.001 mm3-in
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
Percent Finer than
Particle Size (mm)
Grain Size Distribution
Boring B7 @ 2 ft
APPENDIX C
General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations Subgrade Preparation
Earthwork – Structural Fill/Excavations
Underground Pipeline Installation – Structural Backfill Cast-in-Place Concrete
Foundations
Laterally Loaded Structures
Excavations and Dewatering
Waterproofing and Drainage
Chemical Treatment of Soils
Paving
Site Grading and Drainage
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 1 -
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
1. In general, construction should proceed per the project specifications and contract documents, as well as governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Subgrade preparation in this section is considered to apply to the initial modifications to existing site conditions to prepare for new planned construction.
3. Prior to the start of subgrade preparation, a detailed conflict study including as -builts, utility locating, and potholing shoul d be conducted. Existing features that are to be demolished should also be identified and the geotechnical study should be referenced to determine the need for subgrade preparation, such as over-excavation, scarification and compaction, moisture conditioning, and/or other activities below planned new structural fills, slabs on grade, pavements, foundations, and other structures.
4. The site conflicts, planned demolitions, and subgrade preparation requirements should be discussed in a pre-construction meeting with the pertinent parties, including the geotechnical engineer, inspector, contractors, testing laboratory, surveyor, and others.
5. In the event of preparations that will require work near to existing structures to remain in -place, protection of the existing structures should be considered. This also includes a geotechnical review of excavations near to existing structures and utilities and other concerns discussed in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Consideratio ns, EARTHWORK and
UNDERGROUND PIPELINE
INSTALLATION.
6. Features to be demolished should be completely removed and disposed of per jurisdictional requirements and/or other conditions set forth as a part of the project. Resul ting excavations or voids should be backfilled per the recommendations in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations, EARTHWORK section.
7. Vegetation, roots, soils containing organic materials, debris and/or other deleterious materials on the site should be removed from structural areas and should be disposed of as above. Replacement of such materials should be in accordance with the recommendations in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations, EARTHWORK
section
8. Subgrade preparation required by the geotechnical repo rt may also call for as over -excavation, scarification and compaction, moisture conditioning, and/or other activities below planned structural fills, slabs on grade, pavements, foundations, and other structures. These requirements should be provided within the geotechnical report. The execution of this work should be observed by the geotechnical engineering representative or inspector for the site. T esting of the subgrade preparation should be performed per the recommendations in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations, EARTHWORK section.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 2 -
9. Subgrade Preparation cannot be completed on frozen ground or on ground that is not at a proper moisture condition. Wet subgrades may be dried under favorable weather if they are disked and/or actively worked during hot, dry, weather, when exposed to wind and sunlight. Frozen ground or wet material can be removed and replaced with suitable material. Dry material can be pre -soaked, or can have water added and worked in with appropriate equipment. The soil conditions should be monitored by the geotechnical engineer prior to compaction. Following this type of work, approved subgrades should be protected by direction of surface water, covering, or other methods, otherwise, re-work may be needed.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 3 -
EARTHWORK – STRUCTURAL FILL
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Earthwork in this section is considered to apply to the re -shaping and grading of soil, rock, and aggregate materials for the purpose of supporting man -made structures. Where earthwork is needed to raise the elevation of the site for the purpose of supporting structures or forming slopes, this is referred to as the placement of structural fill. Where lowering of site elevations is needed prior to the installation of new structures, this is referred to as earthwork excavations.
3. Prior to the start of earthwork operations, the geotechnical study should be referenced to determine the need for subgrade preparation, such as over -excavation or scarification and compaction of unsuitable soils be low planned structural fills, slabs on grade, pavements, foundations, and other structures. These required preparations should be discussed in a pre- construction meeting with the pertinent parties, including the geotechnical engineer, inspector, contractors, testing laboratory, surveyor, and others. The preparations should be observed by the inspector or geotechnical engineer representative, and following such subgrade preparation, the geotechnical engineer should observe the prepared subgrade to approve it for the placement of earthwork fills or new structures.
4. Structural fill materials should be relatively free of organic materials, man- made debris, environmentally hazardous materials, and brittle, non-durable aggregate, frozen soil, soil clods or rocks and/or any other materials that can break down and degrade over time.
5. In deeper structural fill zones, expansive soils (greater than 1.5 percent swell at 100 pounds per square foot surcharge) and rock fills (fills containing particles larger than 4 inches and/or containing more than 35 percent gravel larger than ¾-inch diameter or more than 50 percent gravel) may be used with the approval and guidance of the geotechnical report or geotechnical engineer. This may require the placement of geotextiles or other added costs and/or conditions. These conditions may also apply to corrosive soils (less than 2,000 ohm-cm resistivity, more than 50 ppm chloride content, more than 0.1 percent sulfates)
6. For structural fill zones that are closer in depth below planed struct ures, low expansive materials, and materials with smaller particle size are generally recommended, as directed by the geotechnical report (see criteria above in 5). This may also apply to corrosive soils.
7. For structural fill materials, in general the compaction equipment should be appropriate for the thickness of the loose lift being placed, and the thickness of the loose lift being placed should be at least two times the maximum particle size incorporated in the fill.
8. Fill lift thickness (including beddin g) should generally be proportioned to achieve 95 percent or more of a standard proctor (ASTM D689) maximum dry density (MDD) or 90 percent or more of a modified proctor (ASTM D1557) MDD, depending on the state practices. For subgrades below
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 4 -
roadways, the general requirement for soil compaction is usually increased to 100 percent or more of the standard proctor MDD and 95 percent or more of the modified proctor MDD.
9. Soil compaction should be performed at a moisture content generally near optimum moisture content determined by either standard or modified proctor, and ideally within 3 percent below to 1 percent over the optimum for a standard proctor, and from 2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum for a modified proctor.
10. In some instances fill areas are difficult to access. In such cases a low -strength soil-cement slurry can be used in the place of compacted fill soil. In general such fills should be rated to have a 28 - day strength of 75 to 125 psi, which in some areas is referred to as a “1- sack” slurry. It should be noted that these materials are wet during placement, and require a period of 2 days (24 hours) to cure before additional fill can be placed above them. Testing of this material can be done using concrete cylinder compression strength testing equipment, but care is needed in removing the test specimens from the molds. Field testing using the ball method, and spread or flow testing is also acceptable.
11. For fills to be placed on slopes, benching of fill lifts is recommended, which may require cu tting into existing slopes to create a bench perpendicular to the slope where soil can be placed in a relatively horizontal orientation. For the construction of slopes, the slopes should be over-built and cut back to grade, as the material in the outer portion of the slope may not be well compacted.
12. For subgrade below roadways, runways, railways or other areas to receive dynamic loading, a proofroll of the finished, compacted subgrade should be performed by the geotechnical engineer or inspector prior to th e placement of structural aggregate, asphalt or concrete. Proofrolling consists of observing the performance of the subgrade under heavy -loaded equipment, such as full, 4,000 Gallon water truck, loaded tandem -axel dump truck or similar. Areas that exhibit instability during proofroll should be marked for additional work prior to approval of the subgrade for the next stage of construction.
13. Quality control testing should be provided on earthwork. Proctor testing should be performed on each soil type, and one -point field proctors should be used to verify the soil types during compaction testing. If compaction testing is performed with a nuclear density gauge, it should be periodically correlated with a sand cone test for each soil type. Density testing should be performed per project specifications and or jurisdictional requirements, but not less than once per 12 inches elevation of any fill area, with additional tests per 12-inch fill area for each additional 7,500 square- foot section or portion thereof.
14. For ea rthwork excavations, OSHA guidelines should be referenced for sloping and shoring.
Excavations over a depth of 20 feet require a shoring design. In the event excavations are planned near to existing structures, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to evaluate whether such excavation will call for shoring or underpinning the adjacent structure. Pre -construction and post- construction condition surveys and vibration monitoring might also be helpful to evaluate any potential damage to surrounding structures.
15. Excavations into rock, partially weathered rock, cemented soils, boulders and cobbles, and other hard soil or “hard -pan” materials, may result in slower excavation rates, larger equipment with
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 5 -
specialized digging tools, and even blasting. It is also not unusual in these situations for screening and or crushing of rock to be called for. Blasting, hard excavating, and material processing equipment have special safety concerns and are more costly than the use of soil excavation equipment. Additionally, this type of excavation, especially blasting, is known to cause vibrations that should be monitored at nearby structures. As above, a pre -blast and post -blast conditions assessment might also be warranted.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 6 -
UNDERGROUND PIPELINE – STRUCTURAL BACKFILL
1. In g eneral, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable State Department of Transportation, the State Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protec tion Agency, City and/or County Public Works, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Private Utility Companies, and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered, and in some cases work may take place to multiple different standards. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Underground pipeline in this section is considered to apply to the installation of underground conduits for water, storm water, irrigation water, sewage, electricity, telecommunications, gas, etc. Structural backfill refers to the activity of restoring the grade or establishing a new grade in the area where excavations were needed for the underground pipeline installation.
3. Prior to the start of underground pipeline installation, a detailed conflict study including as - builts, utility locating, and potholing should be conducted. The geotechnical study should be referenced to determine subsurface conditions such as caving soils, unsuitable soils, shallow groundwater, shallow rock and others. In addition, the utility company responsible for the line also will have requirements for pipe bedding and support as well as other special requirements.
Also, if the underground pipeline traverses other properties, rights -of-way, and/or easements etc. (for roads, waterways, dams, railways, other utility corridors, etc.) those owners may have additional requirements for construction.
4. The required preparations above should be discussed in a pre- construction meeting with the pertinent parties, including the geotechnical engineer, inspector, contractors, testing laboratory, surveyor, and other stake holders.
5. For pipeline excavations, OSHA guidelines should be referenced for sloping and shoring.
Excavations over a depth of 20 feet require a shoring design. In the event excavations are planned near to existing structures or pipelines, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to evaluate whether such excavation will call for shoring or supporting the adjacent structure or pipeline. A pre -construction and post -construction condition survey and vibration monitoring might also be helpful to evaluate any potential damage to surrounding structures.
6. Excavations into rock, partially weathered rock, cemented soils, boulders and cobbles, and other hard soil or “hard-pan” materials, may result in slower excavation rates, larger equipment with specialized digging tools, and even blasting. It is also not unusual in these situations for screening and or crushing of rock to be called for. Blasting, hard excavating and material processing equipment have special safety concerns and are more costly than the use soil excavation equipment. Additionally, this type of excavation, especially blasting, is known to cause vibrations that should be monitored at nearby structures. As above, a pre-blast and post- blast conditions assessment might also be warranted.
7. Bedding material requirements vary between utility companies and might depend of the type of pipe material and availability of different types of aggregates in different locations. In
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 7 -
general, bedding refers to the material that supports the bottom of the pipe, and extends to 1 foot above the top of the pipe. In general the use of aggregate base for larger diameter pipes (6-inch diameter or more) is recommended lacking a jurisdictionally specified bedding material.
Gas lines and smaller diameter lines are often backfilled with fine aggregate meeting the ASTM requirements for concrete sand. In all cases bedding with less than 2,000 ohm -cm resistivity, more than 50 ppm chloride content or more than 0.1 percent sulfates should not be used.
8. Structural backfill materials above the bedd ing should be relatively free of organic materials, man-made debris, environmentally hazardous materials, frozen material, and brittle, non - durable aggregate, soil clods or rocks and/or any other materials that can break down and degrade over time.
9. In general the backfill soil requirements will depend on the future use of the land above the buried line, but in most cases, excessive settlement of the pipe trench is not considered advisable or acceptable. As such, the structural backfill compaction equipm ent should be appropriate for the thickness of the loose lift being placed. The thickness of the loose lift being placed should be at least two times the maximum particle size incorporated in the fill. Care should be taken not to damage the pipe during compaction or compaction testing.
10. Fill lift thickness (including bedding) should generally be proportioned to achieve 95 percent or more of a standard proctor (ASTM D689) maximum dry density (MDD) or 90 percent or more of a modified proctor (ASTM D1557) MDD, depending on the state practices (in general the modified proctor is required in California and for projects in the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers). For backfills within the upper poritons of roadway subgrades, the general requirement for soil compaction is usually increased to 100 percent or more of the standard proctor MDD and 95 percent or more of the modified proctor MDD.
11. Soil compaction should be performed at a moisture content generally near optimum moisture content determined by either standard or modified proctor, and ideally within 3 percent below to 1 percent over the optimum for a standard proctor, and from 2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum for a modified proctor.
12. In some instances fill areas are difficult to access. In such cases a low-strength soil-cement slurry can be used in the place of compacted fill soil. In general such fills should be rated to have a 28-day strength of 75 to 125 psi, which in some areas is referred to as a “1-sack” slurry. It should be noted that these materials are wet, and require a period of 2 days (24 hours) to cure before additional fill can be placed above it. Testing of this material can be done using concrete cylinder compression strength testing equipment, but care is needed in removing the test specimens from the molds. Field testing using the ball method, and spread or flow testing is also acceptable.
13. Quality control testing should be provided on structural backfill to assist the contractor in meeting project specifications. Proctor testing should be performed on each soil type, and one- point field proctors should be used to verify the soil types during compaction testing. If compaction testing is performed with a nuclear density gauge, it should be periodically correlated with a sand cone test for each soil type.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 8 -
14. Density testing should be performed on structural backfill per project specifications and or jurisdictional requirements, but not less than once per 12 inches elevation in each area, and additional tests for each additional 500 linear-foot section or portion thereof.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 9 -
CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
SLABS-ON-GRADE/STRUCTURES/PAVEMENTS
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable Americ an Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Cast-in-place concrete (concrete) in this section is considered to apply to the installation of cast - in-place concrete slabs on grade, including reinforced and non -reinforced slabs, structures, and pavements.
3. In areas where concrete is bearing on prepared subgrade or structural fill soils, testing and approval of this work should be completed prior to the beginning of concrete construction.
4. In locations where a concrete is approved to bear on in -place (native) soil or in locations where approved documented fills have been exposed to weather conditions after approval, a concrete subgrade evaluation should be performed prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and or concrete. This can consist of probing with a “t” -handled rod, borings, penetrometer testing, dynamic cone penetration testing and/or other methods requested by the geotechnical engineer and/or inspector. Where unsuitable, wet, or frozen bearing material is encountered, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted for additional recommendations.
5. Slabs on grade should be placed on a 4 -inch thick or more capillary barrier consisting of non - corrosive (more than 2,000 ohm-cm resistivity, less than 50 ppm chloride content and less than 0.1 percent sulfates) aggregate base or open -graded aggregate material. This mat erial should be compacted or consolidated per the recommendations of the structural engineer or otherwise would be covered by the General Considerations for EARTHWORK
.
6. Depending on the site conditions and climate, vapor barriers may be required below in-door grade- slabs to receive flooring. This reduces the opportunity for moisture vapor to accumulate in the slab, which could degrade flooring adhesive and result in mold or other problems. Vapor barriers should be specified by th e structural engineer and/or architect. The installation of the barrier should be inspected to evaluate the correct product and thickness is used, and that it has not been damaged or degraded.
7. At times when rainfall is predicted during construction, a mud-mat or a thin concrete layer can be placed on prepared and approved subgrades prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or tendons.
This serves the purpose of protecting the subgrades from damage once the reinforcement placement has begun.
8. Prior to the placement of concrete, exposed subgrade or base material and forms should be wetted, and form release compounds should be applied. Reinforcement support stands or ties should be
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 10 -
checked. Concrete bases or subgrades should not be so wet that they are softened or have standing water.
9. For a cast -in-place concrete, the form dimensions, reinforcement placement and cover, concrete mix design, and other code requirements should be carefully checked by an inspector before and during placement. The reinforcement s hould be specified by the structural engineering drawings and calculations.
10. For post -tension concrete, an additional check of the tendons is needed, and a tensioning inspection form should be prepared prior to placement of concrete.
11. For Portland cement pavements, forms an additional check of reinforcing dowels should performed per the design drawings.
12. During placement, concrete should be tested, and should meet the ACI and jurisdictional requirements and mix design targets for slump, air entrainment, unit weight, compressive strength, flexural strength (pavements), and any other specified properties. In general concrete should be placed within 90 minutes of batching at a temperature of less than 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Adding of water to the truck on the jobsite is generally not encouraged.
13. Concrete mix designs should be created by the accredited and jurisdictionally approved supplier to meet the requirements of the structural engineer. In general a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less is advisable, and aggregates, cement, flyash, and other constituents should be tested to meet ASTM C-33 standards, including Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR). To further mitigate the possibility of concrete degradation from corrosion and ASR, Type II or V Portland Cement should be u sed, and fly ash replacement of 25 percent is also recommended. Air entrained concrete should be used in areas where concrete will be exposed to frozen ground or ambient temperatures below freezing.
14. Control joints are recommended to improve the aesthetics of the finished concrete by allowing for cracking within partially cut or grooved joints. The control joints are generally made to depths of about 1/4 of the slab thickness and are generally completed within the first day of construction.
The spacing should be laid out by the structural engineer, and is often in a square pattern. Joint spacing is generally 5 to 15 feet on-center but this can vary and should be decided by the structural engineer. For pavements, construction joints are generally considered to function as control joints.
Post-tensioned slabs generally do not have control joints.
15. Some slabs are expected to meet flatness and levelness requirements. In those cases, testing for flatness and levelness should be completed as soon as possible, usually the same day as concrete placement, and before cutting of control joints if possible. Roadway smoothness can also be measured, and is usually specified by the jurisdictional owner if is required.
16. Prior to tensioning of post-tension structures, placement of soil backfills or continuation of building on newly-placed concrete, a strength requirement is generally required, which should be specified by the structural engineer. The strength progress can be evaluated by the use of concrete compressive str ength cylinders or maturity monitoring in some jurisdictions. Advancing with backfill, additional concrete work or post-tensioning without reaching strength benchmarks could result in damage and failure of the concrete, which could result in danger and har m to nearby people and property.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 11 -
17. In general, concrete should not be exposed to freezing temperatures in the first 7 days after placement, which may require insulation or heating. Additionally, in hot or dry, windy weather, misting, covering with wet burlap or the use of curing compounds may be called for to reduce shrinkage cracking and curling during the first 7 days.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 12 -
FOUNDATIONS
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Foundations in this section are considered to apply to the construction of structural supports which directly transfer loads from man -made structures into the earth. In general, these include shallow foundations and deep foundations. Shallow foundations are generally constructed for the purpose of distributing the structural loads horizontally over a larger area of earth. Some types of shallow foundations (or footings) are spread footings, continuous footings, mat foundations, and reinforced slabs-on-grade. Deep foundations are generally designed for the purpose of distributing the structural loads vertically deeper into the soil by the use of end bearing and side friction. Some types of deep foundations are driven piles, auger -cast piles, drilled shafts, caissons, helical piers, and micro-piles.
3. For shallow foundations, the minimum bearing depth considered should be greater than the maximum design frost depth for the location of construction. This can be found on frost depth maps (ICC), but the standard of practice in the city and/or county should also be consulted. In general the bearing depth should never be less than 18 inches below planned finished grades.
4. Shallow continuous foundations should be sized with a minimum width of 18 inc hes and isolated spread footings should be a minimum of 24 inches in each direction. Foundation sizing, spacing, and reinforcing steel design should be performed by a qualified structural engineer.
5. The geotechnical engineer will provide an estimated bearing capacity and settlement values for the project based on soil conditions and estimated loads provided by the structural engineer. It is assumed that appropriate safety factors will be applied by the structural engineer.
6. In areas where shallow foundations are bearing on prepared subgrade or structural fill soils, testing and approval of this work should be completed prior to the beginning of foundation construction.
7. In locations where the shallow foundations are approved to bear on in -place (native) soil or in locations where approved documented fills have been exposed to weather conditions after approval, a foundation subgrade evaluation should be performed prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. This can consist of probing with a “t”-handled rod, borings, penetrometer testing, dynamic cone penetration testing and/or other methods requested by the geotechnical engineer and/or inspector. Where unsuitable foundation bearing material is encountered, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted for additional recommendations.
8. For shallow foundations to bear on rock, partially weathered rock, hard cemented soils, and/or boulders, the entire foundation system should bear directly on such material. In this case, the rock surface should be prepared so that it i s clean, competent, and formed into a roughly horizontal, stepped base. If that is not possible, then the entire structure should be underlain by a zone of
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 13 -
structural fill. This may require the over -excavation in areas of rock removal and/or hard dig. In general this zone can vary in thickness but it should be a minimum of 1 foot thick. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted in this instance.
9. At times when rainfall is predicted during construction, a mud-mat or a thin concrete layer can be placed on prepared and approved subgrades prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. This serves the purpose of protecting the subgrades from damage once the reinforcing steel placement has begun.
10. For cast-in-place concrete foundations, the excavations dimension s, reinforcing steel placement and cover, structural fill compaction, concrete mix design, and other code requirements should be carefully checked by an inspector before and during placement. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For deep foundations, the geotechnical engineer will generally provide design charts that provide foundations axial capacity and uplift resistance at various depths given certain- sized foundations.
These charts may be based on blow count data from drilling and or laboratory testing. In general safety factors are included in these design charts by the geotechnical engineer.
12. In addition, the geotechnical engineer may provide other soil parameters for use in the lateral resistance analysis. These parameters are usually raw data, and safety factors should be provided by the shaft designer. Sometimes, direct shear and or tri-axial testing is performed for this analysis.
13. In general the spacing of deep foundations is expected to be 6 shaft diameters or more. If that spacing is reduced, a group reduction factor should be applied by the structural engineer to the foundation capacities per FHWA guidelines. The spacing should not be less than 2.5 shaft diameters.
14. For deep foundations, a representative of the geotechnical engineer should be on -site to observe the excavations (if any) to evaluate that the soil conditions are consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report. Soil/rock stratigraphy will vary at times, and this may result in a change in the planned construction. This may require the use of fall protection equipment to perform observations close to an open excavation.
15. For driven foundations, a representative of the geotechnical engineer should be on-site to observe the driving process and to evaluate that the resistance of driving is consistent with the design assumptions. Soil/rock stratigraphy will vary at times and may this may result in a change in the planned construction.
16. For deep foundations, the size, depth, and ground conditions should be verified during construction by the geotechnical engineer and/or inspector responsible. Open excavations should be clean, with any areas of caving and groundwater seepage noted. In areas below the groundwater table, or areas where slurry is used to keep the trench open, non -destructive testing techniques should be used as outlined below.
17. Steel members including structural steel piles, reinforcing steel, bolts, threaded steel rods, etc. should be evaluated for design and c ode compliance prior to pick -up and placement in the foundation. This includes verification of size, weight, layout, cleanliness, lap-splices, etc. In addition, if non-destructive testing such as crosshole sonic logging or gamma -gamma logging is required, access tubes should be attached to the steel reinforcement prior to placement, and should be
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 14 -
relatively straight, capped at the bottom, and generally kept in- round. These tubes must be filled with water prior to the placement of concrete.
18. In cases where steel welding is required, this should be observed by a certified welding inspector.
19. In many cases, a crane will be used to lower steel members into the deep foundations. Crane picks should be carefully planned, including the ground conditions at placement o f outriggers, wind conditions, and other factors. These are not generally provided in the geotechnical report, but can usually be provided upon request.
20. Cast-in-place concrete, grout or other cementations materials should be pumped or distributed to the bottom of the excavation using a tremmie pipe or hollow stem auger pipe. Depending on the construction type, different mix slumps will be used. This should be carefully checked in the field during placement, and consolidation of the material should be consid ered. Use of a vibrator may be called for.
21. For work in a wet excavation (slurry), the concrete placed at the bottom of the excavation will displace the slurry as it comes up. The upper layer of concrete that has interacted with the slurry should be removed and not be a part of the final product.
22. Bolts or other connections to be set in the top after the placement is complete should be done immediately after final concrete placement, and prior to the on-set of curing.
23. For shafts requiring crosshole sonic logging or gamma-gamma testing, this should be performed within the first week after placement, but not before a 2 day curing period. The testing company and equipment manufacturer should provide more details on the requirements of the testing.
24. Load testing of deep foundations is recommended, and it is often a project requirement. In some cases, if test piles are constructed and tested, it can result in a significant reduction of the amount of needed foundations. The load testing frame and equipment should be sized appropriately for the test to be performed, and should be observed by the geotechnical engineer or inspector as it is performed. The results are provided to the structural engineer for approval.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 15 -
LATERALLY LOADED STRUCTURES - RETAINING
WALLS/SLOPES/DEEP FOUNDATIONS/MISCELLANEOUS
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Laterally loaded structures for this section are generally meant to de scribe structures that are subjected to loading roughly horizontal to the ground surface. Such structures include retaining walls, slopes, deep foundations, tall buildings, box culverts, and other buried or partially buried structures.
3. The recommendations put forth in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for FOUNDATIONS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, EARTHWORK, and SUBGRADE PREPARATION
should be reviewed, as they are not all repeated in this section, but many of them will apply to the work. Those recommendations are incorporated by reference herein.
4. Laterally loaded structures are generally affected by ov erburden pressure, water pressure, surcharges, and other static loads, as well as traffic, seismic, wind, and other dynamic loads. The structural engineer must account for these loads . In addition, eccentric loading of the foundation should be evaluated and accounted for by the structural engineer. The structural engineer is also responsible for applying the appropriate factors of safety to the raw data provided by the geotechnical engineer.
5. The geotechnical report should provide data regarding soil lateral earth pressures, seismic design parameters, and groundwater levels. In the report the pressures are usually reported as raw data in the form of equivalent fluid pressures for three cases. 1. Static is for soil pressure against a structure that is fixed at top and bottom, like a basement wall or box culvert. 2. Active is for soil pressure against a wall that is free to move at the top, like a retaining wall. 3. Passive is for soil that is resisting the movement of the structure, usually at the toe of the wall where the foundation and embedded section are located. The structural engineer is responsible for deciding on safety factors for design parameters and groundwater elevations based on the raw data in the geotechnical report.
6. Generally speaking, direct shear or tri-axial shear testing should be performed for this evaluation in cases of soil slopes or unrestrained soil retaining walls over 6 feet in height or in lower walls in some cases based on the engineer’s judgment. For deep foundations and completely buried structures, this testing will be required per the discretion of the structural engineer.
7. For non-confined retaining walls (walls that are not attached at the top) and slopes, a geotechnical engineer should perform overall stability analysis for slid ing, overturning, and global stability. For walls that are structurally restrained at the top, the geotechnical engineer does not generally perform this analysis. Internal wall stability should be designed by the structural engineer.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 16 -
8. Cut slopes into rock should be evaluated by an engineering geologist, and rock coring to identify the orientation of fracture plans, faults, bedding planes, and other features should be performed.
An analysis of this data will be provided by the engineering geologist to identi fy modes of failure including sliding, wedge, and overturning, and to provide design and construction recommendations.
9. For laterally loaded deep foundations that support towers, bridges or other structures with high lateral loads, geotechnical reports generally provide parameters for design analysis which is performed by the structural engineer. The structural engineer is responsible for applying appropriate safety factors to the raw data from the geotechnical engineer.
10. Construction recommendations for deep foundations can be found in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations-FOUNDATIONS
section.
11. Construction of retaining walls often requires temporary slope excavations and shoring, including soil nails, soldier piles and lagging or laid-back slopes. This should be done per OSHA requirements and may require specialty design and contracting.
12. In general, surface water should not be directed over a slope or retaining wall, but should be captured in a drainage feature trending parallel to the slope, with an erosion protected outlet to the base of the wall or slope.
13. Waterproofing for retaining walls is generally required on the backfilled side, and they should be backfilled with an 18-inch zone of open graded aggregate wrapped in filter fabric or a synthetic draining product, which outlets to weep holes or a drain at the base of the wall. The purpose of this zone, which is immediately behind the wall is to relieve water pressures from building behind the wall.
14. Backfill compaction around retaining walls and slopes requires special care. Lighter equipment should be considered, and consideration to curing of cementitious materials used during construction will be called for. Additionally, if mechanically stabilized earth walls are being constructed, or if tie-backs are being utilized, additional care will be necessary to avoid damaging or displacing the materials. Use of heavy or large equipment, and/or beginning of backfill prior to concrete strength verification can create dangers to construction and human safety. Please refer to the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Con siderations-CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
section. These concerns will also apply to the curing of cell grouting within reinforced masonry walls.
15. Usually safety features such as handrails are designed to be installed at the top of retaining walls and slopes. Prior to their installation, workers in those areas will need to be equipped with appropriate fall protection equipment.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 17 -
EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Excavation and Dewatering for this section are generally meant to describe structures that are intended to create stable, excavations for the construction of infrastructure near to existing development and below the groundwater table.
3. The recommendations put forth in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for LATERALLY LOADED STRUCTURES, FOUNDATIONS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, EARTHWORK ,
and SUBGRADE PREPARATION should be reviewed, as they are not all repeated in this section, but many of them will apply to the work. Those recommendations are incorporated by reference herein.
4. The site excavations will generally be affected by overburden pressure, water pressure, surcharges, and other static loads, as well as traffic, seismic, wind, and other dynamic loads. The structural engineer must account for these loads as described in Section 5.2 of this report. In addition, eccentric loading of the foundation should be evaluated and accounted for by the structural engineer. The structural engineer is also responsible for applying the appropriate factors of safety to the raw data provided by the geotechnical engineer.
5. The geotechnical report should provide data regarding soil lateral earth pressures, seismic design parameters, and groundwater levels. In the report the pressures are usually reported as raw data in the form of equivalent fluid pressures for three cases. 1. Static is for soil pressure against a structure that is fixed at top and bottom, like a basement wall or box culvert. 2. Active is for soil pressure against a wall that is free to move at the top, like a retaining wall. 3. Passive is for soil that is resisting the movement of the structure, usually at the toe of the wall where the foundation and embedded section are located. The structural engineer is responsible for deciding on safety factors for design parameters and groundwater elevations based on the raw data in the geotechnical report.
6. The parameters provided above are based on laboratory testing and engineering judgement. Since numerous soil layers with different properties will be encountered in a large excavation, assumptions and judgement are used to gene rate the equivalent fluid pressures to be used in design. Factors of safety are not included in those numbers and should be evaluated prior to design.
7. Groundwater, if encountered will dramatically change the stability of the excavation. In addition, pumping of groundwater from the bottom of the excavation can be difficult and costly, and it can result in potential damage to nearby structures if groundwater drawdown occurs. As such, we recommend that groundwater monitoring be performed across the site during design and prior to construction to assist in the excavation design and planning.
8. Groundwater pumping tests should be performed if groundwater pumping will be needed during construction. The pumping tests can be used to estimate drawdown at nearby properties, and also
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 18 -
will be needed to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the soil for the design of the dewatering system.
9. For excavation stabilization in granular and dense soil, the use of soldier piles and lagging is recommended. The soldier pile spacing and size should be determined by the structural engineer based on the lateral loads provided in the report. In general, the spacing should be more than two pile diameters, and less than 8 feet. Soldier piles should be advanced 5 feet or more below the base of the excavation. Passive pressures from Section 5.2 can be used in the design of soldier piles for the portions of the piles below the excavation.
10. If the piles are drilled, they should be grouted in-place. If below the groundwater table, the grouting should be accomplished by tremmie pipe, and the concrete should be a mix intended for placement below the groundwater table. For work in a wet excavation, the concrete placed at the bottom of the excavation will displace the water as it comes up. The upper layer of concrete that has interacted with the water should be removed and not be a part of the final product. Lagging should be specially designed timber or other lagging. The temporary excavation will need to account for seepage pressures at the toe of the wall as well as hydrostatic forces behind the wall.
11. Depending on the loading, tie back anchors and/or soil nails may be needed. These should be installed beyond the failure envelope of the wall. This would be a plane that is rotated upward 55 degrees from horizontal. The strength of the anchors behind this plane should be considered, and bond strength inside the plane should be ignored. If friction anchors are used, they should extend 10 feet or more beyond the failure envelope. Evaluation of the anc hor length and encroachment onto other properties, and possible conflicts with underground utilities should be carefully considered. Anchors are typically installed 25 to 40 degrees below horizontal. The capacity of the anchors should be checked on 10% of locations by loading to 200% of the design strength. All should be loaded to 120% of design strength, and should be locked off at 80%
12. The shoring and tie backs should be designed to allow less than ½ inch of deflection at the top of the excavation wall, w here the wall is within an imaginary 1:1 line extending downward from the base of surrounding structures. This can be expanded to 1 inch of deflection if there is no nearby structure inside that plane. An analysis of nearby structures to locate their depth and horizontal position should be conducted prior to shored excavation design.
13. Assuming that the excavations will encroach below the groundwater table, allowances for drainage behind and through the lagging should be made. The drainage can be accomplished by using an open-graded gravel material that is wrapped in geotextile fabric. The lagging should allow for the collected water to pass through the wall at select locations into drainage trenches below the excavation base. These trenches should be conside red as sump areas where groundwater can be pumped out of the excavation.
14. The pumped groundwater needs to be handled properly per jurisdictional guidelines.
15. In general, surface water should not be directed over a slope or retaining wall, but should be captured in a drainage feature trending parallel to the slope, with an erosion protected outlet to the base of the wall or slope.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 19 -
16. Safety features such as handrails or barriers are to be designed to be installed at the top of retaining walls and slopes. Prior to their installation, workers in those areas will need to be equipped with appropriate fall protection equipment.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 20 -
Waterproofing and Back Drainage
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Waterproofing and Back drainage structures for this section are generally meant to describe permanent subgrade structures that are planned to be below the historic high groundwater elevation of 20 feet below existing grades.
3. The recommendations put forth in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for FOUNDATIONS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, EARTHWORK, and SUBGRADE PREPARATION
should be reviewed, as they are not all repeated in this section, but many of them will apply to the work. Those recommendations are incorporated by reference herein.
4. In general, surface water should not be directed over a slope or retaining wall, but should be captured in a drainage feature trending parallel to the slope, with an erosion protect ed outlet to the base of the wall or slope.
5. Waterproofing for retaining walls is generally required on the backfilled side, and they should be backfilled with an 18 -inch zone of open graded aggregate wrapped in filter fabric or a synthetic draining product, which outlets to weep holes or a drain at the base of the wall. The purpose of this zone, which is immediately behind the wall is to relieve water pressures from building behind the wall.
6. For the basement walls on this site, sump pumps will be needed to reduce the build-up of water in the basement. The design should be for a historic high groundwater level of 20 feet bgs. The pumping system should be designed to keep the slab and walls relatively dry so that mold, efflorescence, and other detrimental effects to the concrete structure will not result.
7. Backfill compaction around retaining walls and slopes requires special care. Lighter equipment should be considered, and consideration to curing of cementitious materials used during construction will be cal led for. Additionally, if mechanically stabilized earth walls are being constructed, or if tie-backs are being utilized, additional care will be necessary to avoid damaging or displacing the materials. Use of heavy or large equipment, and/or beginning of b ackfill prior to concrete strength verification can create dangers to construction and human safety. Please refer to the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations -CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE section. These concerns will also apply to the curing of cell grouting within reinforced masonry walls.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 21 -
CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF SOIL
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, S tate Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specificatio ns. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Chemical treatment of soil for this section is generally meant to describe the process of improving soil properties for a specific purpose, using cement or chemical lime.
3. A mix design should be performed by the geotechnical engineer to help it meet the specific strength, plasticity index, durability, and/or other desired properties. The mix design should be performed using the proposed chemical lime or cement proposed for use by the contractor, along with samples of the site soil that are taken from the material to be used in the process.
4. For the mix design the geotechnical engineer should perform proctor testing to determine optimum moisture content of the soil, and then mix samples of the soil at 3 percent above optimum moisture content with varying concentrations of lime or cement. The samples will be prepared and cured per ASTM standards, and then after 7 -days for curing, they will be tested for compression strength. Durability testing goes on for 28 days.
5. Following this testing, the geotechnical engineer will provide a recommended mix ratio of cement or chemical lime in the geotechnical report for use by the contractor. The geotechnical engineer will generally specify a design ratio of 2 percent more than the minimum to account for some error during construction.
6. Prior to treatment, the in- place soil moisture should be measured so that the correct amount of water can be used during construction. Work should not be performed on frozen ground.
7. During construction, special considerations for construction of treated soils should be followed. The application process should be conducted to prevent the loss of the treatment material to wind which might transport the materials off site, and workers should be provided with personal protective equipment for dust generated in the process.
8. The treatment should be applied evenly over the surface, and this can be monitored by use of a pan placed on the subgrade. This can also be tested by preparing test specimens from the in-place mixture for laboratory testing.
9. Often, after or during the chemic al application, additional water may be needed to activate the chemical reaction. In general, it should be maintained at about 3 percent or more above optimum moisture. Following this, mixing of the applied material is generally performed using specialized equipment.
10. The total amount of chemical provided can be verified by collecting batch tickets from the delivery trucks, and the depth of the treatment can be verified by digging of test pits, and the use of reagents that react with lime and or cement.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 22 -
11. For the use of lime treatment, compaction should be performed after a specified amount of time has passed following mixing and re -grading. For concrete, compaction should be performed immediately after mixing and re -grading. In both cases, some swelling of t he surface should be expected. Final grading should be performed the following day of the initial work for lime treatment, and within 2 to 4 hours for soil cement.
12. Quality control testing of compacted treated subgrades should be performed per the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and generally in accordance with General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations - EARTHWORK
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 23 -
PAVING
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Paving for this section is generally meant to describe the placement of surface treatments on travel- ways to be used by rubber-tired vehicles, such as roadways, runways, parking lots, etc.
3. The geotechnical engineer is generally responsible for providing structural analysis to recommend the thickness of pavement sections, which can include asphalt, concrete pavements, aggregate base, cement or lime treated aggregate base, and cement or lime treated subgrades.
4. The civil engineer is generally responsible for determining which surface finishes and mixes are appropriate, and often the owner, general contractor and/or other party will decide on lift thickness, the use of tack coats and surface treatments, etc.
5. The geotechnical engineer will generally be provided with the planned traffic loading, as well as reliability, design life, and serviceability factors by the jurisdiction, traffic engineer, designer, and/or owner. The geotechnical study will provide data regarding soil resiliency and strength. A pavement modeling software is generally used to perform the analysis for design, however, jurisdictional minimum sections al so must be considered, as well as construction considerations and other factors.
6. The geotechnical report report will generally provide pavement section thicknesses if requested.
7. For construction of overlays, where new pavement is being placed on old pavement, an evaluation of the existing pavement is needed, which should include coring the pavement, evaluation of the overall condition and thickness of the pavement, and evaluation of the pavement base and subgrade materials.
8. In general, the existing pavem ent is milled and treated with a tack coat prior to the placement of new pavement for the purpose of creating a stronger bond between the old and new material. This is also a way of removing aged asphalt and helping to maintain finished grades closer to ex isting conditions grading and drainage considerations.
9. If milling is performed, a minimum of 2 inches of existing asphalt should be left in-place to reduce the likelihood of equipment breaking through the asphalt layer and destroying its integrity. After milling and before the placement of tack coat, the surface should be evaluated for cracking or degradation. Cracked or degraded asphalt should be removed, spanned with geosynthetic reinforcement, or be otherwise repaired per the direction of the civil and or geotechnical engineer prior to continuing construction. Proofrolling may be requested.
10. For pavements to be placed on subgrade or base materials, the subgrade and base materials should be prepared per the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations – EARTHWORK
section.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 24 -
11. Following the proofrolling as described in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations – EARTHWORK section, the application of subgrade treatment , base material, and paving materials can proceed per the recommendations in the geotechnical report and/or project plans. The placement of pavement materials or structural fills cannot take place on frozen ground.
12. The placement of aggregate base material should conform to the jurisdictional guidelines. In general the materials should be provided by an accredited supplier, and the material should meet the standards of ASTM C-33. Material that has been stockpiled and exposed to weather including wind and rain should be retested for compliance since fines could be lost. Frozen material cannot be used.
13. The placement of asphalt material should conform to the jurisdictional guidelines. In general the materials should be provided by an accredited supplier, and the material should meet the standards of ASTM C-33. The material can be placed in a screed by end-dumping, or it can be placed directly on the paving surface. The temperature of the mix at placement should generally be on the order of 300 degrees Fahrenheit at time of placement and screeding.
14. Compaction of the screeded asphalt should begin as soon as practical after placement, and initial rolling should be performed before the asphalt has cooled significantly. Compaction equipment should have vibratory capabilities, and should be of appropriate size and weight given the thickness of the lift being placed and the sloping of the ground surface.
15. In cold and/or windy weather, the cooling of the screeded asphalt is a quality issue, so preparations should be made to perform screeding immediately after placement, and compaction immediately after screeding.
16. Quality control testing of the asphalt should be performed during placement to verify compaction and mix design properties are being met and that delivery temperatures are correct. Results of testing data from asphalt laboratory testing should be provided within 24 hours of the paving.
Geotechnical Report
Project No. 18-223618.1
October 8, 2018
Page C-- 25 -
SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE
1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), Internation al Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, State Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site.
2. Site grading and drainage for this section is generally meant to describe the effect of new construction on surface hydrology, which impacts the flow of rainfall or other water running across, onto or off-of, a newly constructed or modified development.
3. This section does not apply to the construction of site grading and drainage features.
Recommendations for the construction of such features are covered in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for Earthwork – Structural Fills section and Underground Pipeline
Installation – Backfill section.
4. In general, surface water flows should be directed towards storm drains, natural channels, retention or detention basins, swales, and/or other features specifically designed to capture, store, and or transmit them to specific off-site outfalls.
5. The surface water flow design is generally performed by a site civil engineer, and it can be impacted by hydrology, roof lines, and other site structures that do not allow for water to infiltrate into the soil, and that modify the topography of the site.
6. Soil permeability, density, and strength properties are relevant to the design of storm drain systems, including dry wells, retention basins, swales, and others. These properties are usually only provided in a geotechnical report if specifically requested, and recommendations will be provided in the geotechnical report in those cases.
7. Structures or site features that are not a part of the surface water drainage system should not be exposed to surface water flows, standing water or water infiltration. In general, roof drains and scuppers, exterior slabs, pavements, landscaping, etc. should be constructed to drain w ater away from structures and foundations. The purpose of this is to reduce the opportunity for water damage, erosion, and/or altering of structural soil properties by wetting. In general, a 5 percent or more slope away from foundations, structural fills, slopes, structures, etc. should be maintained.
8. Special considerations should be used for slopes and retaining walls, as described in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations - LATERALLY LOADED STRUCTURES section.
9. Additionally, landscaping features including irrigation emitters and plants that require large amounts of water should not be placed near to new structures, as they have the potential to alter soil moisture states. Changing of the moisture state of soil that provides structural support can lead to damage to the supported structures.
800-419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
February 13, 2019
M. Jamie Looney
UNITE Pacific, Inc.
550 Laguna Drive, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Geotechnical Addendum No.1
Montiel Road Civil
2375 and 235 Montiel Road
San Marcos, California 92069
Partner Project No. 18-223618.1
Dear M. Looney:
Partner Assessment Corporation (Partner) presents the following erodibility factors for use on the subject project. Based on USDA, we are predominantly 86% in the VsC, VsD, and 14% in the Pfc. These values of K for the exposed layers of soil during construction and the layer for the finished site are respectively 0.28 and 0.32. The attached reference document used are the tables for the K Factors for Soil in the San Diego Region.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of the work.
Sincerely,
Matthew Marcus, PE Francisca Chan
Technical Director – Geotechnical Engineering Project Engineer
Attachment: San Diego County Hydrology Manual, 2003. Table 5-3, K Factors.
2.00 1.50
0.75 3
0.75 3
3.00 0.53
0.53 0.85
800-419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
June 10, 2022
Jamie Looney
UNITE Pacific, Inc.
550 Laguna Drive, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Geotechnical Review of SWQMP
Montiel Road Civil
2375 and 235 Montiel Road
San Marcos, California 92069
Partner Project No. 18-223618.1
Dear Jaimie Looney:
Partner Assessment Corporation (Partner) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) review letter for the subject project. We were provided with the following SWQMP for the subject property in order to perform a review of aspects in the plans related to the referenced Partner Geotechnical Report dated 10/22/2018 and our Geotechnical Adde ndum 2 – Revised, dated 6/24/2020:
• EPS Group, I nc. (sealed by Ali Azimi Civil PE), Montiel Road Office Building , dated 5/6/2022, 164 pages
Based on our review, the referenced SWQMP is in general compliance with the recommendations in the referenced Partner Geotechnical Report and the proposed infiltration loca tions and infiltration rates used appear acceptable to us from a geotechnical standpoint. Our review of the S WQMP was limited to geotechnical con cerns only, as listed above. This letter should be used only in conjunction with our approved Geotechnical report and is bound by the same limitations. Not all aspects of the geotechnical report are shown on SWQMP, and as such, the geo technical report should be carefully reviewed independently of the plans by project engineers, contractors, and any others involved in the design and construction of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of the work.
Sincerely,
Matthew Marcus, PE. PG
Technical Director – Geotechnical Engineering