ATTACHMENT D
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPENDIX F
STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Page
1 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April, 2022
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(
PDP)
STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
29 72 & 2982
S SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):
217
-
161
-
18 & 217
-
161
-
19 ENGINEER OF WORK:
___________________________________________________________________________________
WILLIAM J. SUITER, RCE 68964
PREPARED FOR:
SANTA FE FLORES LP
P.O. BOX 903
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
(858) 888
-
2488
PDP SWQMP
PREPARED BY:
PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 661
-
6695
DATE
OF SWQMP
:
OCTOBER
2021
REVISED: MARCH 2022
REVISED: APRIL 2022
GRADING
PLANS PREPARED BY:
PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSO
CIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 661
-
6695
Page
2 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
P
age intentionally left blank
Page
3 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
................................
................................
................................
................................
.....
3 ACRONYMS
................................
................................
................................
................................
...................
4 PDP SWQMP PREPARER'S CERTI
FICATION PAGE
................................
................................
..........................
5 PDP SWQMP PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE
................................
................................
...............
7 SUBMITTAL RECORD
................................
................................
................................
................................
.....
9 PROJECT VICINITY MAP
................................
................................
................................
...............................
10 FORM I
-
1 APPLICABILITY OF STORM WATER BMP REQUIREMENTS
................................
..........................
11 FORM I
-
2 PROJECT TYPE DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
................................
................................
..............
13 FORM I
-
3B SITE INFORMATION CHECK
LIST FOR PDPS
................................
................................
................
15 FORM I
-
4 SOURCE CONTROL BMP CHECKLIST FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
................................
...
25 FORM I
-
5 SITE DESIGN BMP CHECKLIST FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
................................
.............
27 FORM I
-
6 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS
................................
................................
.....................
29 ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
................................
..............................
35 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES
................................
....
37 ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION
................................
.........................
39 ATTACHMENT 4 COPY OF PLAN SHEETS WITH PERMANENT STORM WATER BMPS
................................
.
41 Page
4 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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 Board
SIC
Standard Industrial Classification
SWQMP
Storm Water Quality Management Plan
Page
5 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
PDP SWQMP PREPARER'S
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project
Name:
San Marcos Residences
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]
PREPARE
R'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 Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the
PD
P
requirements of the
City of San Marcos
BMP Design Manual,
which is a design
manual for compliance with local
City of San Marcos
and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water
Quality Control Board Sa
n Diego Region Order No. R9
-
2015
-
01 00
) 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 development 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 bei
ng proposed and the applicable
BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially
negative impacts of this project's land developme
nt activities on water quality.
I unders
tand and
acknowledge that the plan check review of this
PDP
SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review
and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project
design.
________________________________________________________
Engineer of Work'
s
Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date
W. Justin Suiter
________________________________________________________
Print Name
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
________________________________________________________
Company
____________________________
Date
Engineer's Seal:
Page
6 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Page
intentionally blank
Page
7 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
PDP SWQMP PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name:
San Marcos Residences
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]
PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
This PDP SWQMP has been prepared for
Santa Fe Flores,
LP
by
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.
The PDP
SWQMP is intended to comply with the PDP requirements of the City of San Marcos
BMP Design
Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City of San Marcos
and regional MS4 Permit
(California Regi
onal Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9 -
201
5 -
01 00
)
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 undersig
ned transfers its interests in the property, its successor -
in
-
interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement the best management practices (BMPs) described within this plan, including ensuring
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
Paul Mayer
____________________
____________________________________
Print Name
Santa Fe Flores LP
________________________________________________________
Company
____________________________
Date
Page
8 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Page intentionally blank
Page
9 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
SUBMITTAL RECORD
Use this Table to keep a record of
submittals of this 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 resp
onse
to
plancheck
comments
behind this page
.
Submittal
Number
Date
Project Status
Summary of
Changes
1 October
2021
Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Initial Submittal
2 March 2022
Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Resubmittal to address City comments
3 April 2022
Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Resubmittal to address City
comments
4
Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Page
10 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
Project Name:
San Marcos Residences
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit
Application Number]
Page
11 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
FORM I
-
1 APPLICABILITY OF STORM WATER BMP REQUIREMENTS
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:
San Marcos Residences
Description:
Proposed
54 -
unit multifamily development with parking lots, access drive, outdoor garden area, miscellaneous hardscape and landscaping.
Permit Application Number (if applicable):
Date:
10/21
/2021
Project Address:
2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue
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 developmen t 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 re
aching "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 build
ing):
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
. S
ee 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.
Page
12 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Discussion / justification, and additional requirements for exceptions 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
3 a.
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 co arse
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.
Page
13 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
FORM I
-
2 PROJECT TYPE DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
Project Type
Determination
Checklist
Form I
-
2 [March 15, 2016]
Project
Information
Project Name
/Description
:
San Marcos Residences
Permit Application Number (if applicable):
Date:
10/21/2021
Project Address:
2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue
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: _ 70,628
__ ft
2 (__
1.62 ___) 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 i ncludes 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 pr
ojects 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)
Str
eets, 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.
Page
14 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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 fl
ow 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
a
reas 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 Desig
n 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 imperviou
s surface created or replaced (B
/
A
)*100: _______%
The percent impervious surface created or replaced is (select one based on the above calcul ation):
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
Page
15 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
FORM I
-
3B SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST FOR PDPS
Site Information
Checklist
For
PDP
s
Form
I
-
3B (PDPs)
[
March 15, 2016
]
Project Summary Information
Project Name
San Marcos Residences
Project Address
2972 & 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue
San Marcos, CA 92069
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s))
217
-
161
-
18 &
217
-
161
-
19 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)
Agua Hedionda (904.2)
Parcel Area
(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated
with the project)
___
2. 23
_ Acres (_
97,036
__ Square Feet)
Area to be D
isturbed by the
P
roject
(Project Area)
___
2.06 _ Acres (_
89,554
__ Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
___
1.62 _ Acres (_
70,628
__ Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
___
0.43 _
Acres (_
18,926
__ Square Feet)
Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.
This may be less than the Parcel Area.
Page
16 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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
Prev
iously graded but not built out
Demolition completed without new construction
Agricultural or other non
-
impervious use
Vacant,
undeveloped/natural
Description / Additional Information:
Project site partially graded and storm drain improvements installed during
construction of Las Flores
abutment along the east side of the project site.
Existing Land Cover Includes (select all t
hat apply)
:
Vegetative Cover
Non
-
Vegetated
Pervious Areas
Impervious Areas
Description / Additional Information:
Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group
(select all that apply)
:
NRCS Type A
NRCS Type B
NRCS Type C
NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW)
:
GW Depth < 5 feet
5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet
10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet
GW Depth > 20 feet
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercourses
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
None
Description / Additional Information:
Page
17 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Form
I
-
3B Page 3 of
10 , Form
Date: March 15, 2016
Description of Existing Site Drainage Patterns
How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer:
(
1) whether existing drainage
conveyance is natural or urban;
(2) Is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if yes, quantify all offsite drainage areas,
design
flows, and locations where offsite flows enter the project site ,
and summarize how such flows are
conveyed through the site;
(3)Provide details regarding existing project site drainage conveyance network, including any existing storm drains, concre
te channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels; and
(4
)
Identify all discharge locations from the existing project site
along with a summary of conveyance
system size and capacity for each of th
e discharge locations. Provide summary of the pre
-
project
drainage areas and design flows to each of the existing runoff discharge locations.
Describe existing site drainage patterns
(
Refer to the “Preliminary Hydrology Study for San Marcos Residences” pr
epared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated October 2021 .
)
:
The site is surrounded by residential homes to the north, east and south, and industrial offices to the west. The site
is primarily undeveloped with a shared access driveway at the property’s southerly boundary. The driveway also provides access to the adjacent commercial property’s parking lot and commercial building
. The southern portion of the site is relatively flat wh ile the central portion slopes up
to an elevated pad at the north end of the site. Las Flores Drive along the property’s eastern boundary has approximately a 15
-
20% grade upward to the north to allow vehicle access over the railroad tracks north of the pro
perty. Elevations across the site range from a high of approximately 546 feet in the northeast corner of the property to a low of approximately 494.50 feet at the southwest corner of the property.
The existing site is divided into four drainage basins:
The first drainage basin
consists of the northerly half graded pad where runoff flows overland and into an existing storm drain inlet structure in the center of the pad. Captured runoff exits the site through an existing 18” RCP at the easterly boundary an
d into the public storm drain system within Las Flores Drive.
The second drainage basin
is a similar, but much smaller, sump condition into a storm drain inlet structure exists just southerly of the north half sump condition mentioned above. Captured runo ff also
exits the site through a separate 18” RCP at the easterly boundary and into the public storm drain system within Las Flores Drive where it confluences with the north half pad runoff. Pipe flows continue to travel southerly down Las Flores Drive bef
ore combining with flows from a 54” RCP and 24” RCP.
Combined pipe flows are then diverted to the west along South Santa Fe Avenue through a 60” RCP.
The third drainage basin
consists of the southern half of the site where runoff generated from the adjac
ent liquor store property and the project site combines to surface flow southerly. Surface runoff exits the drainage basin through the existing shared access driveway on South Santa Fe Avenue then into the public street’s curb and gutter and flows northerl y approximately 100’ before being captured by
an existing curb inlet structure. Captured runoff is diverted across South Santa Fe Avenue through an 18” RCP storm drain pipe and into a 60” RCP that continues flowing westerly.
The fourth drainage basin
is l
ocated along the west edge of Drainage Basin E1 north half pad, a small area of existing graded slopes that surface flows to the west and onto the adjacent property.
Page
18 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Form
I
-
3B Page 4 of
10 ,
Form Date: March 15, 2016
Description of Proposed Site Develop
ment
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:
General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Commercial and Light Industrial to Multifamily Residential to allow
54 dwelling units on a 2.23 acre site. To achieve proposed density, applicant intends to utilize State density bonus law allowances.
List/describe
proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):
The project proposes to develop the existing vacant property and construct a new multi -
family
residential buildi
ng
with approximately
54 dwelling units, at
-
grade parking lot
s
, access drives, hardscape
and landscape, and associated improvements including
proprietary biofiltration
storm water devices
that
meet the requirements for pollutant control and an underground
storm water
storage
facilities
to
comply with hydromodification management flow control
and
to mitigate the 100
-
year storm event
peak discharge rate.
List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):
Proposed pervious fea
tures include landscape areas.
Does the project include grading and changes to site topography?
Yes
No
Description / Additional Information:
The project site will be graded to create pads suitable for the construction of structures, improvements
and associated underground utilities.
Page
19 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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 di
scharge 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
(refer to “Preliminar
y Hydrology Study for San Marcos
Residences” prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated October 2021. )
:
The proposed site is divided into five drainage basins:
The first drainage basin
consists of the proposed site’s upper level building, north pa rking lot area and a
portion of existing public ROW hillside area that drains into the project site at the northeast corner of the property. Surface runoff will sheet flow southwesterly across the parking area, through a curb opening and into a proprietary
biofiltration system. Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility before exiting the project site through an existing 18” RCP storm drain pipe that flows
out into the public storm
drain system in Las Flores Drive.
The second drainage basin
consists of the proposed site
’s
lower level building, south parking lot area,
and access road. Surface runoff will sheet flow southerly down the access road, across the
parking area
then through curb openings into one of two proprietary biofiltration systems. Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility before exiting the
project site through a new 18” RCP storm drain pipe and connect to the existing 60” RCP storm drain pipe in South Santa Fe Avenue.
The third drainage basin
consists of the adjacent property’s existing commercial building, existing parking area and exist
ing undeveloped hillside to the west of the project site. A new concrete ditch is proposed along the project site’s westerly boundary along the new access road and a new ribbon gutter along the existing parking area to capture off
-
site runoff without comin
gling with on
-
site runoff and
divert the surface flows out onto South Santa Fe Avenue as in the existing condition.
The fourth drainage basin
consists of the existing hillside area at the northwest corner of the site. Storm water runoff will surface flow
westerly and onto the adjacent property as in the existing condition.
The fifth drainage basin
consists of the existing public right
-
of
-
way hillside area at the northeast corner
of the project site. A new concrete ditch is proposed along the project’s easterly boundary to capture off
-
site runoff from the hillside without comingling with on -
site run
off and divert
s
the surface flow to an
underground storm drain piping system to confluence with runoff from Drainage Basin 1. Pipe flows will combine with
the first drainage basin
pipe flows (downstream of its BMP systems) and exit the site through an exis
ting 18” RCP storm drain pipe that flows out into the public storm drain system in Las Flores Drive.
Page
20 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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:
Page
21 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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 discharg
e to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable):
Storm water runoff that leaves the project site enters the existing 60” RCP in South Santa Fe Avenue then diverts flow westerly approximately 600’ down South Santa Fe Avenue then he ads southerly
approximately 400’ down Community drive before entering an unlined vegetated channel /stream
.
Runoff continues to travel westerly downstream through the Agua Hedionda Hydrologic Area eventually outlets into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Pac
ific Ocean.
List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs
and/or High
est Priority Pollutants from the WQIP
for the impaired
water bodies:
303(d) Impaired Water Body
Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s)
TMDLs
/ WQIP Highest Priority
Pollutant
Agua Hedionda Creek
Pesticides, Fecal Indicator
Bacteria, Pesticides,
Metals/Metalloids, Nutr
ients,
Salinity, Toxicity, Miscellaneous
Riparian Habitat Degradation,
Hydromodification Impacts
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Toxicity
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 pollutant
s 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
X
Nutrients
X
X
Heavy Metals
Organic Compounds
Trash & Debris
X
X
Oxygen Demanding
Substances
X
Oil & Grease
X
Bacteria & Viruses
Potential
X
Pesticides
X
Page
22 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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 whos e 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 managemen t 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 Downs
tream 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 prote ction 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 are as are
identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.
Discussion / Additional Information:
Page
23 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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 ch
annel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit.
There are two (2) POCs for the project, POC
-
1 and POC
-
2. POC
-
1 is located
near the center of the
property’s eastern property boundary and POC
-
2 is located along near the
center of the property’s
southern property boundary.
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 r
esult 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)
Page
24 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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.
N/A
Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed
This space provided for additi
onal information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed.
Page
25 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
FORM I
-
4 SOURCE CONTROL BMP CHECKLIST FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Source Control BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I
-
4 [
March 15, 2016
]
Project
Identification
Project Name
: San Marcos Residences
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 pr
oject 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. Discuss ion /
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 / justifica
tion 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:
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:
Page
26 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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
Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest co
ntrol
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 Ma
intenance
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.
Page
27 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
FORM I
-
5 SITE DESIGN BMP CHECKLIST FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Site Design BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I
-
5 [
March 15, 2016
]
Project
Identification
Project Name
: San Marcos Residences
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 b
elow 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 proje
ct 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
exis
ting natural areas to conserve
).
Discussion / justification may be provided.
Site Design
Requirement
Applied?
SD
-
1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features
Yes
No
N/A
Discussion / justification if SD
-
1 not implemented:
SD
-
2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation
Yes
No
N/A
Discussion / justification if SD
-
2 not implemented:
SD
-
3 Minimize Impervious Area
Yes
No
N/A
Discussion / justification if SD
-
3 not implemented:
SD
-
4 Minimize Soil Compaction
Yes
No
N/A
Discussion / justification if SD
-
4 not implemented:
SD
-
5 Impervious Area Dispersion
Yes
No
N/A
Discussion / justification if SD
-
5 not implemented:
Page
28 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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:
SD
-
7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species
Yes
No
N/A
Discussion / justification if SD
-
7 not
implemented:
SD
-
8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation
Yes
No
N/A
Discussion / justification if SD
-
8 not implemented:
Page
29 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
FORM I
-
6 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS
Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Form
I
-
6 (PDPs)
[
March 15, 2016
]
Project
Identification
Project Name
: San Marcos Residences
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 t
he 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).
Describe the g
eneral 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 (typ e of BMPs selected). For
projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated or separate.
DMAs 1
-
3/ BMPs 1
-
3 Step 1A: The DMA is not self
-
mitigating, de minimis, or self
-
retaining
.
Step 1B: There are no site design BMPs proposed for the project for which the runoff factor can be adjusted.
Step 2: Harvest and use is not feasible. Refer to Attachment
1c.
Step 3: Pursuant to the geotechnical report and
Worksheet C.4
-
1, infiltration is not feasible.
Step 4: Proprietary Biofiltration BMPs (BF
-
3) have been selected and sized per the design criteria to meet pollutant control requirements and an underground stor m water storage facility has been selected
and sized per the design criteria to meet hydromodification management flow control requirements and to mitigate the project site’s 100
-
year peak flows
DMAs
4 -
6 According to section 5.2.1 of the BMP Design Manual
for the City of San Marcos, these DMAs qualify as
self
-
mitigating since the vegetation in the landscaped area is native and/or non -
native/ non
-
invasive
drought tolerant species that do not require regular application of fertilizers and pesticides, soils a
re
Page
30 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Form I
-
6 Page 3 of X
(Copy as many as needed)
Form Date: March 15, 2016
Undisturbed native topsoil, or disturbes
soils that have been amended and aerated, impervious area within the self
-
mitigated area is only hydraulically connected to a brow ditch and not any other impervious areas, and the self
-
mitigating areas are hydraulically separated from DMAs that contain p
ermanent pollutant control BMPs.
Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP)
Structural BMP ID No. 1
DMA Nos: 1
Construction Plan Sheet No.
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 ty
pe/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 discu
ssion 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:
Pollu
tant 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 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)
William J. Suiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
1911 San Diego Avenue,
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Santa Fe Flores LP
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Page
31 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Form I
-
6 Page 3 of X
(Copy as many as needed) 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. 2
DMA Nos: 2
Construction Plan Sheet No.
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 biofiltr ation 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 secti
on 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
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)
William J. Suiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associa
tes
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Santa Fe Flores LP
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Page
32 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Form I
-
6 Page 3 of X (Copy as many as needed) 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. 3
DMA Nos: 3
Construction Plan Sheet No.
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 req uirements (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 biofiltrati on 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
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)
William J. Suiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associa
tes
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Santa Fe Flores LP
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Page
33 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Form I
-
6 Page 3 of X (Copy as many as needed) 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. 10
DMA Nos: 1
Construction Plan Sheet No.
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 requi rements (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
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)
William J. Suiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associa
tes
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Santa Fe Flores LP
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Page
34 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Form I
-
6 Page 3 of X (Copy as many as needed) 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. 11
DMA Nos: 2
-
3 Construction Plan Sheet No.
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 requi rements (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
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)
William J. Suiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associa
tes
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Santa Fe Flores LP
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance?
Santa Fe Flores LP
Page
35 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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
Attachment 1b
Tabular Summary of DMAs
Showing DMA
ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA Area, and
DMA Type
(
Required
)
*
*Provide table in this Attachment OR
on
DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a
Included
on DMA Exhibit
in
Attachment 1a
Included
as Attachment 1b,
separate
from DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1c
Form I
-
7,
Harvest and Use Feasibility
Screening
Checklist
(Required unless the
entire
project will use infiltration
BMPs
)
Refer to
Appendix B.3
-
1 of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I
-
7.
Included
Not included because the entire
project will use infiltration BMPs
Attachment 1d
Form I
-
8,
Categorization of Infiltration
Feasibility Condition (Required unless the
project will us
e 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
Page
36 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit :
The DMA Exh
ibit 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 n
umbers, 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 Ch apter 4, Appendix
E.1, and Form I
-
3B)
Structural BMPs (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail)
ATTACHMENT 1c
Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist
PLSA No. 3527
3a. Is the 36-hour demand greater than
or equal to the DCV?
Yes /
√
No
3c. Is the 36-hour demand less
than 0.25DCV?
√
Yes
Harvest and use appears to be feasible.
Conduct more detailed evaluation and
sizing calculations to confirm that DCV
can be used at an adequate rate to meet
drawdown criteria.
√
Harvest and use is
considered to be infeasible.
3b. Is the 36-hour demand greater than
0.25DCV but less than the full DCV?
Yes /
√
No
Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct
more detailed evaluation and sizing
calculations to determine feasibility. Harvest
and use may only be able to be used for a
portion of the site, or (optionally) the storage
may need to be upsized to meet long term
capture targets while draining in longer than
36 hours.
Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening
Worsksheet B.3-1
1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season?
√
Toilet and urinal flushing
√ Landscape irrigation
Other:
2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours.
Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2.
Toilet/Urinal Flushing
(9.3 gal/person-day) x (0.13368 cuft/gal) x (1.5 days) = 1.86 cuft/person-36hr Assume (2 people per 1-bed/1bath unit x 23 units) x (1.86 cuft/person-36 hr) = 85.56 cuft/36hr (3 people per 2-bed/2-bath unit x 27 units) x (1.86 cuft/person-36hr) = 150.66 cuft/36hr Total Toilet/Urinal Flushing= 85.56 + 150.66 = 236 cuft/36hr Landscape Irrigation
(0.43 ac irrigated) x (390 gal/ac-36hr) x (0.13368 cuft/gal) = 23 cuft/36hr Total = 236 cuft + 23 cuft = 259 cuft
3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1.
DCV = 3,912 cuft
ATTACHMENT 1d
October 18, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-16426G
Mr. Paul Mayer
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, California
Phone: (858) 888-2488 Via Email: [email protected]
Subject: Site Percolation Testi ng and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi -Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue
San Marcos, California
References: At End of Document – Appendix A
Mr. Mayer:
In accordance with your request and our proposal No. G-5522 dat ed August 30, 2021, CTE, Inc. has performed percolation testi ng at the site and provides an e valuation of the infiltration characteristics and feasibility for the proposed project locate d at the subject site. This report presents the accumulated field and laboratory data collected an d provides preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding the site’s suitabilit y for design and development of stormwater infiltration BMP devices.
Our evaluation of the site’s in filtration characteristics and f easibility was performed in general accordance with the guidelines set forth in the City of San Marcos BMP design Manual (Updated February 2016).
Based on our geotechnical analysis of the accumulated data and information, and in consideration of the potential for geotechnical hazards associa ted with onsite infiltration, CTE has determined that infiltrati on in any amount at the site is n ot feasible and should not be allowed. Any/all basins for sto rage of stormwater runoff shoul d be lined with an impermeable liner and piped offsite via a suitable discharge outlet.
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & PERCOLATION TESTING
1.1 Site Description
The subject site is located at 2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue. The pr oposed development is bounded by S. Santa Fe Avenue to the southwest, N. Las Flores Drive to the east, and commercial structures to the north and west.
Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Page 2 Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi-Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California
October 18, 2021
CTE Job No. 10-16426G
S:\Projects\10-16426G (S. Santa Fe Ave Perc Testing)\Ltr_Infiltration Evaluation Results (10-16426G).doc The subject site generally descends to the southwest with appro ximate elevations ranging from a high of 540 feet above mean sea le vel (msl) at the northeast en d of the site, to a low of 495 feet above msl at the southern end of the site. The site currently consists of three undeveloped terraced building pads that are separated by an approximately 1 0-foot-tall 2:1 (horizontal distance: vertical distance) slope.
1.2 Field Exploration
Due to the sloping nature of the site, and in consideration of the proposed multi-story structures that are planned to be terraced into the sloping site, CTE dete rmined that the southern-lower area of the site is the only potential suitable/feasible area for de velopment of infiltration BMP devices. As such, our percolation testing was only performed in this area.
Two percolation test borings were excavated on September 30, 2021 using a Diedrich D50 truck- mounted drill rig equipped with e ight-inch diameter hollow-stem a u g e r s t o d e p t h s o f f i v e f e e t below the existing ground surface. The test holes were excavat ed such that the percolation testing was performed at or near the anticipated bottom elevation of proposed infiltration basin/s.
Groundwater was not encountered in either of the percolation te st excavations. In addition, groundwater was not encountered in any of the previous subsurfa ce explorations (extending to a maximum depth of approximately 51.5 feet below existing ground surface) performed by Ghostrider, Inc., as referenced in their Limited Geotechnical I nvestigation Report, dated July 1 st,
2020.
1.3 Site-Specific Geologic and Soil Information
Reference to the published regional geologic map, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’x60’ Quadrangle, Kennedy & Tan, 2007 , indicates that the site is underlain by Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (May Symbol: Tsa). However, during our subsurface fi eld explorations within the southern-lower portion of the site, young alluvial deposits wer e encountered at the surface and extended to the maximum explored depth of 5 feet bgs. As obser ved in the exploratory excavations, the encountered all uvial materials consist of stif f to very stiff, dark brown, moist, Sandy Clay (CL) with some gravel. Detailed logs of the percola tion test borings are provided in the attached Appendix C.
1.4 Percolation Test Methods
Percolation testing was performed on October 1 st, 2021, subsequent to a twenty-hour presoak period, and in general accordance with applicable regional stan dards outlined in the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook (09/2011) . The percolation rate test results are presented in the following section in Table 2.2 and are included in Appendix B.
Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Page 3 Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi-Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California
October 18, 2021
CTE Job No. 10-16426G
S:\Projects\10-16426G (S. Santa Fe Ave Perc Testing)\Ltr_Infiltration Evaluation Results (10-16426G).doc
2.0 CALCULATED INFILTRATION RATE
As per the regionally accepted methods outlined in the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook (09/2011), percolation test rates are to be converted to infiltration rates using the Porchet Method. The intent of cal culating the converted infiltration rate is to take into account bias inherent in percolation test borehole sidewall infiltration that would not occur at a basin bottom where such sidewalls may not present.
The infiltration rate (I
t) is derived by the equation:
I
t = ΔH πr2 60 = ΔH 60 r
Δt(πr2 +2πrHavg) Δt(r+2Havg)
Where:
I
t = tested infiltra tion rate, inches/hour
ΔH = change in head over th e time interval, inches
Δt = time interval, minutes
r = effective ra dius of test hole
H
avg = average head over the time interval, inches
Given the measured percolation rates, the calculated infiltrati on rates are presented with and without a Factor of Safety applied in Table 2.2 below. A completed C.4-1 Worksheet is included in Appendix D. The civil engineer of record should determine a n appropriate factor of safety to be applied via completion of Worksheet D.5-1 provided in Append i x D o f t h e City of San Marcos BMP design Manual (Updated February 2016) . However, CTE does not recommend using a factor of safety of less than 2.0.
TABLE 2.0
RESULTS OF PERCOLATION TESTING WITH FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED Test
Location
Test Depth
(inches)
Procedure Geologic Unit
Percolation
Rate (inches
per hour)
Infiltration
Rate (inches
per hour)
Infiltration Rate
with FOS of 2
Applied (inches
per hour)
P-1 60 Non-Sandy Qya 1.250 0.052 0.026
P-2 60 Non-Sandy Qya 1.250 0.052 0.026
NOTES Water level was measured from a fixed point at the top o f the hole.
Weather was sunny during percolation testing.
Qya = Quaternary Y oung Alluvial Deposits
The test holes were eight inches in diameter.
Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Page 4 Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi-Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California
October 18, 2021
CTE Job No. 10-16426G
S:\Projects\10-16426G (S. Santa Fe Ave Perc Testing)\Ltr_Infiltration Evaluation Results (10-16426G).doc
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The percolation testing and conve rted infiltration rates indica te that partial infiltration at the site appears feasible, however, base d on the sloping nature of the s ite, the planned development, the presence of high to very high expansion potential soils, the fi ne-grained nature of the encountered soils, and the potential for lateral migration of i nfiltration water into relatively close proximity public right-of-way and utility trenches, it is CTE opinion that the site is not considered suitable for infiltration in any amount. Any/all ba s i n s f o r s t o r a g e o f s t o r m w a t e r runoff should be lined with an impermeable liner and piped offsite via a suitable discharge outlet.
4.0 LIMITATIONS
CTE’s conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions in the explored locations,the data collected and our evaluation of potential geotechnical hazards related to onsite infiltration.
The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated . If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
Rodney J. Jones, RCE# 84232
Senior Engineer
Attachments:
Figure 1 Percolation Test Location Map
Appendix A References
Appendix B Percolation Test Data and Infiltration Rate Conversion Calculations Appendix C Percolation Test Boring Logs
Appendix D Laboratory Test Results
Appendix E Worksheet C.4-1
TsaP-1QyaTsaP-2P-2 APPROXIMATE PERC TEST LOCATIONLEGENDTERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION TsaAPPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACTQUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL QyaFLOOD PLAIN DEPOSITS
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. Ghostrider, Inc., Limited Ge otechnical Investigation, 2972 Sout h Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, Project No. 19-2118C, dated July 1, 2020.
2. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2007, “Geologic Map of the Oceansi de 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California”, California Geological Survey, Map No. 2.
3. Riverside County, Revised 9/2011, “Design Handbook for Low Impa ct Development BMPs””.
4. City of San Marcos, February 2016, “BMP Design Manual For Perma nent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management”
APPENDIX B
PERCOLATION TEST DATA AND
INFILTRATION RATE CONVERSION CALCULATIONS
Project: S. SANTA FE MULTI‐FAMILY HOUSING
Project No.: 10 ‐16426G
P‐1 Total Depth: 60 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 7:25:00 Initial None 12.88 initial ‐
7:55:00 30 12 12.88 14.63 1.75 0.058 3.500
8:25:00 30 12.75 12.00 14.13 2.13 0.071 4.250
8:55:00 30 12.875 12.75 14.13 1.38 0.046 2.750
9:25:00 30 12.125 12.88 14.00 1.13 0.038 2.250
9:55:00 30 13.75 12.13 13.75 1.63 0.054 3.250
10:25:00 30 11.625 13.75 14.63 0.88 0.029 1.750
10:55:00 30 13 11.63 13.00 1.38 0.046 2.750
11:25:00 30 13.875 13.00 13.88 0.88 0.029 1.750
11:55:00 30 12.625 13.88 14.50 0.63 0.021 1.250
12:25:00 30 13.375 12.63 13.38 0.75 0.025 1.500
12:55:00 30 13.5 13.38 14.00 0.63 0.021 1.250
13:25:00 30 NO 13.50 14.13 0.63 0.021 1.250
P‐2 Total Depth: 60 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 7:25:00 Initial None 11.50 initial ‐
7:55:00 30 12.25 11.50 15.13 3.625 0.121 7.250
8:25:00 30 12.125 12.25 15.63 3.375 0.113 6.750
8:55:00 30 12.5 12.13 15.13 3.000 0.100 6.000
9:25:00 30 12 12.50 15.50 3.000 0.100 6.000
9:55:00 30 10 12.00 15.75 3.750 0.125 7.500
10:25:00 30 11.125 10.00 14.13 4.125 0.138 8.250
10:55:00 30 13.625 11.13 13.63 2.500 0.083 5.000
11:25:00 30 12.625 13.63 14.63 1.000 0.033 2.000
11:55:00 30 13.625 12.63 13.63 1.000 0.033 2.000
12:25:00 30 12.75 13.63 14.25 0.625 0.021 1.250
12:55:00 30 13.5 12.75 13.50 0.750 0.025 1.500
13:25:00 30 NO 13.50 14.13 0.625 0.021 1.250
Tables P‐1
Percolation Field Data and Calculated Rates
Inches Inches
∆t = 30 ∆t = 30
Df = 14.13 Df = 14.13
r = 4 r = 4
D0 = 13.50 D0 = 13.50
DT = 60 DT = 60
Ho = 46.5 in Ho = 46.5 in
Hf = 45.875 in Hf = 45.875 in
∆H = ∆D = 0.625 in ∆H = ∆D = 0.625 in
Havg = 46.1875 in Havg = 46.1875 in
It = 0.052 in/hr It = 0.052 in/hr
Total Depth of Test Hole, Total Depth of Test Hole,
Percolation Rate Conversion P‐1 Percolation Rate Conversion P‐2 Time Interval, Time Interval,
Final Depth of Water, Final Depth of Water,
Test Hole Radius, Test Hole Radius,
Initial Depth to Water, Initial Depth to Water,
Test Depth Procedure Soil Type*
(inches) (USCS
Classification)
P-1 60 Non-Sandy Qya 1.250 0.052 0.026
P-2 60 Non-Sandy Qya 1.250 0.052 0.026
TABLE
RESULTS OF PERCOLATION TESTING WITH 2.0 FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED Test Location Percolation Rate
(inches per hour)
Infiltration
Rate (inches
per hour)
Infiltration Rate with
FOS of 2 Applied
(inches per hour)
APPENDIX C
PERCOLATION TEST BORING LOGS
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBO LS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES
LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OF NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,
NON-PLASTIC FINES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,
PLASTIC FINES
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES
INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY
OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
ADDITIONAL TESTS
(OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS)
MAX- Maximum Dry Density PM- Permeability PP- Pocket Penetrometer GS- Grain Size Distribution SG- Specific Gravity WA- Wash Analysi s SE- Sand Equivalent HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct Shear EI- Expansion Index AL- Atterberg Limits UC- Unconfined Compressi on CHM- Sulfate and Chloride RV- R-Value MD- Moisture/Density Content , pH, Resistivity CN- Consolidation M- Moisture COR - Corrosivity CP- Collapse Potential SC- Swell Compression SD- Sample Disturbed HC- Hydrocollapse OI- Organic Impurities REM- Remolded
FIGURE: BL1
GW
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT IS
LESS THAN 50
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT IS
GREATER THAN 50
SANDS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
GRAVELS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN
GRAVELS
< 5% FINES
GRAVELS
WITH FINES
CLEAN
SANDS
< 5% FINES
SANDS
WITH FINES
COARSE GRAINED SOILS
MORE THAN HALF OF
MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
FINE GRAINED SOILS
MORE THAN HALF OF
MATERIAL IS SMALLER
THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYSCOBBLESCOBBLESBOULDERS
PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
Depth (Feet)
Bulk Sample
Driven Type
Blows/Foot
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
U.S.C.S. Symbol
Graphic Log
BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
Block or Chunk Sample
Bulk Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler)
Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample
Groundwater Table
Soil Type or Classification Change
???????
Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried (?)]
"SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock
FIGURE: BL2
PROJECT: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
Depth (Feet)
Bulk Sample
Driven Type
Blows/6"
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
U.S.C.S. Symbol
Graphic Log
DESCRIPTION
CL
5 8
9 P-1
Total Depth: 5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Soil Cuttings
GS
QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS:
Very stiff, slightly moist, dark brown, sandy CLAY with gravel.
DJT SPT ~497 FEET
BORING: P-1 Laboratory Tests
1 10-16426G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 9/30/2021
S. SANTA FE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVDRILLER: PACIFIC DRILLING 1 0 5
10 15
20 25
PROJECT: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
Depth (Feet)
Bulk Sample
Driven Type
Blows/6"
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
U.S.C.S. Symbol
Graphic Log
DESCRIPTION
CL
4 8
8 S. SANTA FE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DE
VDRILLER: PACIFIC DRILLING 1 1
10-16426G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 9/30/2021
DJT SPT ~497 FEET
BORING: P-2 Laboratory Tests
QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS:
Very stiff, slightly moist, dark brown, sandy CLAY with gravel.
GS
Total Depth: 5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Soil Cuttings
P-2
0 5
10 15
20 25
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit (%) Plas ticity Index Classification P-1 4-5 CL
P-2 4-5 CL
CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-16426G FIGURE: C-1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
2"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
4 8
10 16
20 30
40 50
100
200
1.5"
APPENDIX E
C.4-1 WORKSHEET
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-11 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Worksheet C.4-1 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
1 Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
2 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-12 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 2 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
3 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
Part 1
Result*
If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are “Yes” a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.
The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is “No”, infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a “full infiltration” design.
Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings .
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-13 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 3 of 4
Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
5 Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 6 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
X
X
Refer to CTE's "Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation" letter report, dated October 18, 2021, CTE Job No. 10-16426G.
Refer to CTE's "Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation" letter report, dated October 18, 2021, CTE Job No. 10-16426G.
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-14 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 4 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
Part 2
Result*
If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.
The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.
If any answer from row 5 -8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CTE concludes
that the site is in
a "no infiltration"
conditions.
ATTACHMENT 1e
3527 San Marcos Residences
DMA-1
1 85
th
percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d=
0.7 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=
1.01 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below
C=
0.73 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
0 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) – TCV - RCV
DCV=
1882
cubic-feet
Area (sq ft)
Runoff Factor
A x RF
Impervious
34,828
0.9 31,345
Pervious
9,170
0.1 917
Total
43,998
32,262
0.73 DMA-2
1 85
th
percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d=
0.7 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=
0.52 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below
C=
0.84 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
0 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) – TCV - RCV
DCV=
1108
cubic-feet
Area (sq ft)
Runoff Factor
A x RF
Impervious
20,908
0.9 18,817
Pervious
1,835
0.1 184
Total
22,743
19,001
0.84 2/15/2022
Weighted RF
Design Capture Volume
Worksheet B-2.1
Appendix B: Stormwater Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV
Weighted RF
Design Capture Volume
Worksheet B-2.1
3527 San Marcos Residences
DMA-3
1 85
th
percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d=
0.7 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=
0.55 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below
C=
0.66 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
0 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) – TCV - RCV
DCV=
922
cubic-feet
Area (sq ft)
Runoff Factor
A x RF
Impervious
16,781
0.9 15,103
Pervious
7,064
0.1 706
Total
23,845
15,809
0.66 2/15/2022
Appendix B: Stormwater Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV
Design Capture Volume
Worksheet B-2.1
Weighted RF
3527 San Marcos Residences
DMA-1
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
DCV
flow-thru
1882
cubic-feet
6 Design rainfall intensity
i=
0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=
1.01 acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C=
0.73 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A)
Q=
0.15 cfs
1.5Q=
0.222
cfs
DMA-2
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
DCV
flow-thru
1108
cubic-feet
6 Design rainfall intensity
i=
0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=
0.52 acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C=
0.84 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A)
Q=
0.09 cfs
1.5Q=
0.131
cfs
DMA-3
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
DCV
flow-thru
922
cubic-feet
6 Design rainfall intensity
i=
0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=
0.55 acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C=
0.66 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A)
Q=
0.07 cfs
1.5Q=
0.109
cfs
2/28/2022
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows
Flow-thru Design Flows
Worksheet B.6-1
Flow-thru Design Flows
Worksheet B.6-1
Flow-thru Design Flows
Worksheet B.6-1
DMA BMP type DMA AREA (SF)
Total DMA
AREA (acres)
REQ flow for
dma (cfs)
StormGarden
Filter Bed Size (SF)
StormGarden
System Flow
Rate (cfs)
1 StormGarden Boxless BioFiltration 43,998 1.01 70 0.226 2 StormGarden Boxless BioFiltration 22,743 0.52 41 0.132 3 StormGarden Boxless BioFiltration 23,845 0.55 34 0.110 Totals 145
NOTES:
1. StormGarden loading rate at 145"/HR is 1.45 GPM/SF of Filter Bed.
2. The StormGarden width and length can be customized to any size and shape conceivable because it is a boxless system and indpendent of a concrete form.
StormGarden Biofilttration System
San Marcos Residences
3/1/2022
Page
37 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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 p
roject 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 D
rawdown
C
alculations
and Overflow Design Summary
(Required)
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the
BMP Design Manual
Included
Submitted as separate stand
-
alone
document
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
Page
38 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 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
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
Existing and pr
oposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre
-
development and post
-
project conditions)
Structural BMPs
for hydromodification management
(identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail)
ATTACHMENT 2b
PROJECT SITE
ATTACHMENT 2d
3527 South Santa Fe
3/2/2022
SWMM MODEL SCHEMATICS
PRE-PROJECT MODEL POST-PROJECT MODEL
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_SWMM_Schematics.xlsx 3527 South Santa Fe
3/2/2022
DMA Basin Area (ac)
Width
(Area/Flow
Length) (ft) % Slope
%
Impervious % "B" Soils % "C" Soils % "D" Soils
Weighted
Infiltration
(in/hr):
Weighted
Suction Head
(in):
Weighted
Initial Deficit: N-perv
1 1.1 290 8.0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0.100 6.000 0.320 0.080
2 1.12 143 13.0% 0% 0% 46% 55% 0.059 7.635 0.325 0.080
Total: 2.22
DMA BMP Area (ac)
Width
(Area/Flow
Length) (ft)
%
Impervious % Slope % "B" Soils % "C" Soils % "D" Soils
Weighted
Infiltration
(in/hr):
Weighted
Suction Head
(in):
Weighted
Initial Deficit: N-perv
1 Tank-1 1.010 936 79% 5.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.320 0.06 2 Tank-2 0.522 758 92% 10.0% 0% 46% 54% 0.045 7.620 0.325 0.06 3 Tank-2 0.547 794 70% 7.0% 0% 33% 67% 0.037 8.010 0.327 0.06 SM-4 and 5 NA 0.110 165 0% 50.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.320 0.08 SM-6 NA 0.058 126 15% 50.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.320 0.08 Total: 2.25
C: 0.1 in/hr C: 6 in C: 0.32
D: 0.025 in/hr D: 9 in D: 0.33
POC-1
SWMM INPUT
PRE-PROJECT
POST-PROJECT
Infiltration: Suction Head: Initial Deficit
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\3527_SWMM_Input.xlsx POC-1
[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
3527 South Santa Fe
Pre-Development Condition
[OPTIONS]
;;Option Value
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
ALLOW_PONDING NO
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO
START_DATE 09/24/1964
START_TIME 13:00:00
REPORT_START_DATE 09/24/1964
REPORT_START_TIME 13:00:00
END_DATE 05/23/2008
END_TIME 22:00:00
SWEEP_START 01/01
SWEEP_END 12/31
DRY_DAYS 0
REPORT_STEP 01:00:00
WET_STEP 00:15:00
DRY_STEP 04:00:00
ROUTING_STEP 0:01:00
RULE_STEP 00:00:00
INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL
NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH
FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W
VARIABLE_STEP 0.75
LENGTHENING_STEP 0
MIN_SURFAREA 12.557
MAX_TRIALS 8
HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005
SYS_FLOW_TOL 5
LAT_FLOW_TOL 5
MINIMUM_STEP 0.5
THREADS 1
[EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
;;-------------- ----------------
MONTHLY .06 .08 .11 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 DRY_ONLY NO
[RAINGAGES]
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source
POC-1
;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
Escondido INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Escondido
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- DMA-2 Escondido POC-1 1.12 0 143 13 0 DMA-1 Escondido POC-1 1.1 0 290 8 0
[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- DMA-2 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-1 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-2 7.635 0.059 0.325
DMA-1 6 0.1 0.32
[OUTFALLS]
;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- POC-1 0 FREE NO
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Escondido FILE "J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Rain Data\escondido\escondido1.dat"
[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options
SUBCATCHMENTS ALL
NODES ALL
LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None
[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1 -33.882 5151.408
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1
[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA-2 662.783 6679.992
DMA-1 -758.346 6657.435
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
Escondido -9.075 7491.454
POC-1
[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
3527 South Santa Fe
Post-Project Condition
[OPTIONS]
;;Option Value
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
ALLOW_PONDING NO
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO
START_DATE 09/24/1964
START_TIME 13:00:00
REPORT_START_DATE 09/24/1964
REPORT_START_TIME 13:00:00
END_DATE 05/23/2008
END_TIME 22:00:00
SWEEP_START 01/01
SWEEP_END 12/31
DRY_DAYS 0
REPORT_STEP 01:00:00
WET_STEP 00:15:00
DRY_STEP 04:00:00
ROUTING_STEP 0:01:00
RULE_STEP 00:00:00
INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL
NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH
FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W
VARIABLE_STEP 0.75
LENGTHENING_STEP 0
MIN_SURFAREA 12.557
MAX_TRIALS 8
HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005
SYS_FLOW_TOL 5
LAT_FLOW_TOL 5
MINIMUM_STEP 0.5
THREADS 1
[EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
;;-------------- ----------------
MONTHLY .06 .08 .11 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 DRY_ONLY NO
[RAINGAGES]
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source
POC-1
;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
Escondido INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Escondido
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- DMA-2 Escondido Tank-2Lower 0.522 92 758 10 0 DMA-1 Escondido Tank-1Upper 1.01 79 936 5 0 SM-4-5 Escondido POC-1 0.11 0 165 50 0 DMA-3 Escondido Tank-2Lower 0.547 70 794 7 0 SM-6 Escondido POC-1 0.058 15 126 50 0
[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- DMA-2 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-1 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET SM-4-5 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-3 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET SM-6 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-2 7.62 0.045 0.325
DMA-1 6 0.075 0.32
SM-4-5 6 0.075 0.32
DMA-3 8.01 0.037 0.327
SM-6 6 0.075 0.32
[OUTFALLS]
;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- POC-1 0 FREE NO
[STORAGE]
;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Ksat IMD ;;-------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Tank-1Upper 0 5.58 0 TABULAR Tank1Upper 0 0 Tank-2Lower 0 3.54 0 TABULAR Tank-2Lower 0 0
[OUTLETS]
;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------- -------- Outlet-1 Tank-1Upper POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-1 NO Outlet-2 Tank-2Lower POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-2 NO
[CURVES]
;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
OUTLET-1 Rating 0 0
POC-1
OUTLET-1 0.2 0.01
OUTLET-1 0.4 0.01
OUTLET-1 0.6 0.02
OUTLET-1 0.8 0.02
OUTLET-1 1 0.02
OUTLET-1 1.2 0.02
OUTLET-1 1.4 0.02
OUTLET-1 1.6 0.03
OUTLET-1 1.8 0.03
OUTLET-1 2 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.2 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.4 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.6 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.8 0.04
OUTLET-1 3 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.2 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.4 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.6 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.8 0.04
OUTLET-1 4 0.04
OUTLET-1 4.2 0.04
OUTLET-1 4.4 0.04
OUTLET-1 4.6 0.05
OUTLET-1 4.8 0.05
OUTLET-1 5 0.05
OUTLET-1 5.2 0.87
OUTLET-1 5.4 3.61
OUTLET-1 5.58 7
;
OUTLET-2 Rating 0 0
OUTLET-2 0.1 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.2 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.3 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.4 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.5 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.6 0.02
OUTLET-2 0.7 0.02
OUTLET-2 0.8 0.02
OUTLET-2 0.9 0.02
OUTLET-2 1 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.1 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.2 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.3 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.4 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.5 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.6 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.7 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.8 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.9 0.03
OUTLET-2 2 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.1 0.03
POC-1
OUTLET-2 2.2 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.3 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.4 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.5 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.6 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.7 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.8 0.04
OUTLET-2 2.9 0.04
OUTLET-2 3 0.04
OUTLET-2 3.1 0.37
OUTLET-2 3.2 1.51
OUTLET-2 3.3 3.08
OUTLET-2 3.4 4.99
OUTLET-2 3.5 5.66
OUTLET-2 3.54 5.69
;
Tank1Upper Storage 0 1520
Tank1Upper 5.58 1520
;
Tank-2Lower Storage 0 1995
Tank-2Lower 3.54 1995
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Escondido FILE "J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Rain Data\escondido\escondido1.dat"
[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options
SUBCATCHMENTS ALL
NODES ALL
LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None
[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1 198.110 4329.947
Tank-1Upper 1409.511 5738.859
Tank-2Lower -921.120 5673.022
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
[Polygons]
POC-1
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA-2 -1671.662 6910.758
DMA-1 1501.683 6805.419
SM-4-5 2380.183 4981.105
DMA-3 -341.754 6950.261
SM-6 2311.363 4206.877
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
Escondido 392.092 7571.018
SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PreProject_SWMM_results.docx
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) --------------------------------------------------------------
3527 South Santa Fe
Pre-Development Condition
********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step.
*********************************************************
****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ............... CFS
Process Models:
Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES
RDII ................... NO
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Starting Date ............ 09/24/1964 13:00:00
Ending Date .............. 05/23/2008 22:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
Report Time Step ......... 01:00:00
Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00
Dry Time Step ............ 04:00:00
************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 113.057 611.120
Evaporation Loss ......... 1.623 8.773
Infiltration Loss ........ 101.158 546.802
Surface Runoff ........... 11.234 60.723
Final Storage ............ 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.847
************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 11.234 3.661
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 11.234 3.661
Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000
SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PreProject_SWMM_results.docx Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000
Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000
***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
***************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DMA-2 611.12 0.00 11.07 537.38 0.00 69.00 69.00 2.10 0.88 0.113 DMA-1 611.12 0.00 6.43 556.40 0.00 52.29 52.29 1.56 0.82 0.086
Analysis begun on: Wed Mar 2 11:57:09 2022
Analysis ended on: Wed Mar 2 11:57:39 2022
Total elapsed time: 00:00:30
SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) --------------------------------------------------------------
3527 South Santa Fe
Post-Project Condition
********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step.
*********************************************************
****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ............... CFS
Process Models:
Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES
RDII ................... NO
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... YES
Ponding Allowed ........ NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE
Starting Date ............ 09/24/1964 13:00:00
Ending Date .............. 05/23/2008 22:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
Report Time Step ......... 01:00:00
Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00
Dry Time Step ............ 04:00:00
Routing Time Step ........ 60.00 sec
************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 114.432 611.120
Evaporation Loss ......... 11.688 62.417
Infiltration Loss ........ 25.406 135.682
Surface Runoff ........... 79.431 424.198
Final Storage ............ 0.005 0.025
Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.833
************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 79.431 25.884
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 79.418 25.880
Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000
Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000
Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 0.007 0.002
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.007
********************************
Highest Flow Instability Indexes
********************************
All links are stable.
*************************
Routing Time Step Summary
*************************
Minimum Time Step : 59.00 sec
Average Time Step : 60.00 sec
Maximum Time Step : 60.00 sec
Percent in Steady State : 0.00
Average Iterations per Step : 1.00
Percent Not Converging : 0.00
***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
***************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DMA-2 611.12 0.00 75.02 40.19 499.47 8.58 508.05 7.20 0.45 0.831 DMA-1 611.12 0.00 65.42 114.54 428.12 13.73 441.85 12.12 0.84 0.723 SM-4-5 611.12 0.00 6.89 545.59 0.00 65.06 65.06 0.19 0.08 0.106 DMA-3 611.12 0.00 60.78 148.60 380.17 34.04 414.20 6.15 0.46 0.678 SM-6 611.12 0.00 17.37 463.93 82.01 55.52 137.52 0.22 0.05 0.225
******************
Node Depth Summary
******************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported
Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth
Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 Tank-1Upper STORAGE 0.05 5.15 5.15 11059 08:02 5.15 Tank-2Lower STORAGE 0.05 3.15 3.15 10332 03:23 3.15
SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx
*******************
Node Inflow Summary
*******************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 OUTFALL 0.13 1.47 11059 08:01 0.411 25.9 0.000 Tank-1Upper STORAGE 0.84 0.84 10332 03:16 12.1 12.1 0.007 Tank-2Lower STORAGE 0.89 0.89 10332 03:31 13.4 13.4 0.007
*********************
Node Flooding Summary
*********************
No nodes were flooded.
**********************
Storage Volume Summary
**********************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tank-1Upper 0.082 1 0 0 7.826 92 11059 08:01 0.66 Tank-2Lower 0.103 1 0 0 6.278 89 10332 03:21 0.90
***********************
Outfall Loading Summary
***********************
----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total
Freq Flow Flow Volume
Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 10.97 0.02 1.47 25.878 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 10.97 0.02 1.47 25.878
********************
Link Flow Summary
********************
SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/
|Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full
Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Outlet-1 DUMMY 0.66 11059 08:02
Outlet-2 DUMMY 0.90 10332 03:23
*************************
Conduit Surcharge Summary
*************************
No conduits were surcharged.
Analysis begun on: Wed Mar 2 12:59:17 2022
Analysis ended on: Wed Mar 2 12:59:56 2022
Total elapsed time: 00:00:39
Peak Flow Frequency Summary
Return Period Pre-project Qpeak
(cfs)
Post-project - Mitigated Q
(cfs)
LF = 0.1xQ2 0.088 0.016
2-year 0.879 0.156
5-year 1.127 0.713
10-year 1.310 0.991
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\3527 SWMM_PostProcessing.xlsx
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Flow in cfs
Return Period in Years
Peak Flow Frequency Curves
Pre-project Qpeak
Post-project Mitigated Qpeak
Low-flow Threshold: 10%
0.1xQ2 (Pre): 0.088 cfs
Q10 (Pre): 1.310 cfs
Ordinate #: 100
Incremental Q (Pre): 0.01223 cfs
Total Hourly Data: 382736 hours The proposed BMP: PASSED Interval Pre-project Flow
(cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project %
Time Exceeding
Post-project
Hours
Post-project %
Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
0 0.088 423 1.11E-03 390 1.02E-03 92% Pass
1 0.100 402 1.05E-03 269 7.03E-04 67% Pass
2 0.112 378 9.88E-04 232 6.06E-04 61% Pass
3 0.125 368 9.61E-04 207 5.41E-04 56% Pass
4 0.137 352 9.20E-04 176 4.60E-04 50% Pass
5 0.149 338 8.83E-04 156 4.08E-04 46% Pass
6 0.161 324 8.47E-04 152 3.97E-04 47% Pass
7 0.174 314 8.20E-04 130 3.40E-04 41% Pass
8 0.186 302 7.89E-04 124 3.24E-04 41% Pass
9 0.198 291 7.60E-04 122 3.19E-04 42% Pass
10 0.210 279 7.29E-04 118 3.08E-04 42% Pass
11 0.222 266 6.95E-04 110 2.87E-04 41% Pass
12 0.235 248 6.48E-04 105 2.74E-04 42% Pass
13 0.247 221 5.77E-04 103 2.69E-04 47% Pass
14 0.259 203 5.30E-04 95 2.48E-04 47% Pass
15 0.271 191 4.99E-04 85 2.22E-04 45% Pass
16 0.284 185 4.83E-04 85 2.22E-04 46% Pass
17 0.296 182 4.76E-04 83 2.17E-04 46% Pass
18 0.308 178 4.65E-04 82 2.14E-04 46% Pass
19 0.320 169 4.42E-04 81 2.12E-04 48% Pass
20 0.332 162 4.23E-04 80 2.09E-04 49% Pass
21 0.345 156 4.08E-04 79 2.06E-04 51% Pass
22 0.357 147 3.84E-04 78 2.04E-04 53% Pass
23 0.369 145 3.79E-04 74 1.93E-04 51% Pass
24 0.381 142 3.71E-04 72 1.88E-04 51% Pass
25 0.394 136 3.55E-04 61 1.59E-04 45% Pass
26 0.406 129 3.37E-04 46 1.20E-04 36% Pass
27 0.418 125 3.27E-04 46 1.20E-04 37% Pass
28 0.430 120 3.14E-04 45 1.18E-04 38% Pass
29 0.442 118 3.08E-04 42 1.10E-04 36% Pass
30 0.455 108 2.82E-04 41 1.07E-04 38% Pass
31 0.467 99 2.59E-04 41 1.07E-04 41% Pass
32 0.479 93 2.43E-04 40 1.05E-04 43% Pass
33 0.491 92 2.40E-04 38 9.93E-05 41% Pass
34 0.504 91 2.38E-04 35 9.14E-05 38% Pass
35 0.516 90 2.35E-04 33 8.62E-05 37% Pass
36 0.528 87 2.27E-04 31 8.10E-05 36% Pass
37 0.540 87 2.27E-04 31 8.10E-05 36% Pass
38 0.552 85 2.22E-04 31 8.10E-05 36% Pass
39 0.565 84 2.19E-04 31 8.10E-05 37% Pass
40 0.577 80 2.09E-04 31 8.10E-05 39% Pass
41 0.589 78 2.04E-04 31 8.10E-05 40% Pass
42 0.601 74 1.93E-04 31 8.10E-05 42% Pass
43 0.614 70 1.83E-04 31 8.10E-05 44% Pass
44 0.626 67 1.75E-04 24 6.27E-05 36% Pass
45 0.638 66 1.72E-04 21 5.49E-05 32% Pass
46 0.650 62 1.62E-04 20 5.23E-05 32% Pass
47 0.663 59 1.54E-04 18 4.70E-05 31% Pass
48 0.675 57 1.49E-04 18 4.70E-05 32% Pass
49 0.687 53 1.38E-04 18 4.70E-05 34% Pass
50 0.699 52 1.36E-04 18 4.70E-05 35% Pass
51 0.711 49 1.28E-04 18 4.70E-05 37% Pass
52 0.724 49 1.28E-04 17 4.44E-05 35% Pass
53 0.736 48 1.25E-04 17 4.44E-05 35% Pass
Interval Pre-project Flow
(cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project %
Time Exceeding
Post-project
Hours
Post-project %
Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
54 0.748 47 1.23E-04 17 4.44E-05 36% Pass
55 0.760 46 1.20E-04 15 3.92E-05 33% Pass
56 0.773 44 1.15E-04 14 3.66E-05 32% Pass
57 0.785 43 1.12E-04 14 3.66E-05 33% Pass
58 0.797 42 1.10E-04 14 3.66E-05 33% Pass
59 0.809 42 1.10E-04 14 3.66E-05 33% Pass
60 0.821 41 1.07E-04 14 3.66E-05 34% Pass
61 0.834 41 1.07E-04 13 3.40E-05 32% Pass
62 0.846 40 1.05E-04 13 3.40E-05 33% Pass
63 0.858 38 9.93E-05 11 2.87E-05 29% Pass
64 0.870 35 9.14E-05 11 2.87E-05 31% Pass
65 0.883 31 8.10E-05 11 2.87E-05 35% Pass
66 0.895 29 7.58E-05 11 2.87E-05 38% Pass
67 0.907 27 7.05E-05 11 2.87E-05 41% Pass
68 0.919 27 7.05E-05 11 2.87E-05 41% Pass
69 0.931 26 6.79E-05 10 2.61E-05 38% Pass
70 0.944 25 6.53E-05 10 2.61E-05 40% Pass
71 0.956 23 6.01E-05 10 2.61E-05 43% Pass
72 0.968 20 5.23E-05 10 2.61E-05 50% Pass
73 0.980 18 4.70E-05 10 2.61E-05 56% Pass
74 0.993 18 4.70E-05 10 2.61E-05 56% Pass
75 1.005 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
76 1.017 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
77 1.029 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
78 1.041 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
79 1.054 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
80 1.066 17 4.44E-05 9 2.35E-05 53% Pass
81 1.078 17 4.44E-05 6 1.57E-05 35% Pass
82 1.090 17 4.44E-05 5 1.31E-05 29% Pass
83 1.103 16 4.18E-05 5 1.31E-05 31% Pass
84 1.115 12 3.14E-05 5 1.31E-05 42% Pass
85 1.127 9 2.35E-05 5 1.31E-05 56% Pass
86 1.139 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
87 1.152 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
88 1.164 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
89 1.176 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
90 1.188 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
91 1.200 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
92 1.213 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
93 1.225 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
94 1.237 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
95 1.249 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
96 1.262 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
97 1.274 6 1.57E-05 5 1.31E-05 83% Pass
98 1.286 6 1.57E-05 5 1.31E-05 83% Pass
99 1.298 5 1.31E-05 3 7.84E-06 60% Pass
100 1.310 5 1.31E-05 1 2.61E-06 20% Pass
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02
Flow (cfs)
% Time Exceeding
Flow Duration Curve
[Pre vs. Post (Mitigated)]
Pre-project Q
Post-project (Mitigated) Q
3527
Printed 3/2/2022
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
HydroCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 6P: Tank-1 Upper
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
100.00'
8,482 cf
Tank-1 Upper (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
100.00
1,600
0.0 0
0 1,600
101.00
1,600
95.0 1,520
1,520
1,742
102.00
1,600
95.0 1,520
3,040
1,884
103.00
1,600
95.0 1,520
4,560
2,025
104.00
1,600
95.0 1,520
6,080
2,167
105.00
1,600
95.0 1,520
7,600
2,309
105.08
1,600
95.0 122
7,722
2,320
105.58
1,600
95.0 760
8,482
2,391
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
100.00'
12.00" Round Culvert
L=
100.0'
RCP,
groove
end
projecting,
Ke=
0.200
Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
100.00'
/
99.00'
S=
0.0100
'/'
Cc=
0.900
n=
0.013,
Flow
Area=
0.79 sf
#2
Device 1
100.00'
0.90" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#3
Device 1
105.08'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)
0.00 0.50
0.50 Width
(feet)
6.00 6.00
0.00 3527
Printed 3/2/2022
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
HydroCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 6P: Tank-1 Upper
3527
Printed 3/2/2022
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
HydroCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 8P: Tank-2 Lower
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
100.00'
7,062 cf
Tank-2 Lower (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
100.00
2,100
0.0 0
0 2,100
101.00
2,100
95.0 1,995
1,995
2,262
102.00
2,100
95.0 1,995
3,990
2,425
103.00
2,100
95.0 1,995
5,985
2,587
103.04
2,100
95.0 80
6,065
2,594
103.54
2,100
95.0 998
7,062
2,675
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
100.00'
12.00" Round Culvert
L=
100.0'
RCP,
groove
end
projecting,
Ke=
0.200
Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
100.00'
/
99.00'
S=
0.0100
'/'
Cc=
0.900
n=
0.013,
Flow
Area=
0.79 sf
#2
Device 1
100.00'
0.90" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#3
Device 1
103.04'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)
0.00 0.50
0.50 Width
(feet)
7.00 7.00
0.00 3527
Printed 3/2/2022
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
HydroCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 8P: Tank-2 Lower
Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe Tank-1
Project No 3527 Date 3/2/2022
Vault Drawdown
Time:
92.2 hrs
Note: Drawdown time is calculated assuming an initial water surface depth equal to the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening in the vault outlet structure.
Underdrain Orifice
Diameter: 0.9 in
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs) ∆T (hr) Total Time (hr)
5.08 7722 0.048 0.000 0.0
4 6080 0.042 10.181 10.2
3 4560 0.036 10.773 21.0
2 3040 0.029 12.844 33.8
1 1520 0.020 16.960 50.8
0 0 0.000 41.484 92.2
Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe Tank-2
Project No 3527 Date 3/2/2022
Vault Drawdown
Time:
94.2 hrs
Note: Drawdown time is calculated assuming an initial water surface depth equal to the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening in the vault outlet structure.
Underdrain Orifice
Diameter: 0.9 in
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs) ∆T (hr) Total Time (hr)
3.04 6065 0.037 0.000 0.0
2 3990 0.029 17.468 17.5
1 1995 0.020 22.260 39.7
0 0 0.000 54.448 94.2
Manning’s n Values for Overland Flow1
The BMP Design Manuals within the County of San Diego allow for a land surface description other than short prairie grass to be used for hydromodification BMP design only if documentation provided is consistent with Table A.6 of the SWMM 5 User’s Manual.
In January 2016, the EPA released the SWMM Reference Manual Volume I – Hydrology (SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual). The SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual complements the SWMM 5 User’s Manual by providing an in -depth description of the program’s hydrologic components. Table 3 -5 of the SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual expounds upon Table A.6 of the SWMM 5 User’s Manual by providing Manning’s n values for additional overland flow surfaces. Therefore, in order to provide SWMM users with a wider range of land surfaces suitable for local application and to provide Copermittees with confidence in the design parameters, we recommend using the values published by Yen and Chow in Table 3 -5 of the EPA SWMM Reference Manua l Volume I – Hydrology. The values are provided in the table below:
Overland Surface Manning value (n)
Smooth asphalt pavement 0.010
Smooth impervious surface 0.011
Tar and sand pavement 0.012
Concrete pavement 0.014
Rough impervious surface 0.015
Smooth bare packed soil 0.017
Moderate bare packed soil 0.025
Rough bare packed soil 0.032
Gravel soil 0.025
Mowed poor grass 0.030
Average grass, closely clipped sod 0.040
Pasture 0.040
Timberland 0.060
Dense grass 0.060
Shrubs and bushes 0.080
Land Use
Business 0.014
Semibusiness 0.022
Industrial 0.020
Dense residential 0.025
Suburban residential 0.030
Parks and lawns 0.040
1Content s ummarized from Improving Accuracy in Continuous Simulation Modeling: Guidance for Selecting Pervious Overland Flow Manning’s n Values in the San Diego Region (TRWE, 2016).
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
San Diego County
Area, California
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
July 27, 2021
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Information for All Uses.................................................................................8 Soil Properties and Qualities................................................................................ 8 Soil Qualities and Features...............................................................................8 Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)........................8 References............................................................................................................13 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.
Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil.
Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe
Avenue)
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
8 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9 10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue) 3668700 3668720 3668740 3668760 3668780 3668800 3668820 3668840 3668860 3668880 3668900 3668700 3668720 3668740 3668760 3668780 3668800 3668820 3668840 3668860 3668880 3668900 481290 481310 481330 481350 481370 481390 481410 481430 481290 481310 481330 481350 481370 481390 481410 481430 33° 9' 31'' N
117° 12' 2'' W
33° 9' 31'' N
117° 11' 56'' W
33° 9' 24'' N
117° 12' 2'' W
33° 9' 24'' N
117° 11' 56'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,060 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, May 27, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 24, 2020—Feb 12, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI DaD Diablo clay, 9 to 15
percent slopes, warm
MAAT
C 1.7 72.6%
HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
D 0.6 27.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 2.3 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 13 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing Factors
G-5 February 2016
Figure G.1-2: California Irrigation Management Information System "Reference Evapotranspiration Z
ones"
Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing Factors
G-6 February 2016
Table G.1-1: Monthly Average Reference Evapotranspiration by ETo Zone (inches/month and inches/day) for use in SWMM Models for Hydromodification Management Studies in San Diego County C
IMIS Zones 1, 4, 6, 9, and 16 (See CIMIS ETo Zone Map)
January February March April May June July August
Septembe
r October
Novembe
r December
Zone in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month 1 0.93 1.4 2.48 3.3 4.03 4.5 4.65 4.03 3.3 2.48 1.2 0.62 4 1.86 2.24 3.41 4.5 5.27 5.7 5.89 5.58 4.5 3.41 2.4 1.86 6 1.86 2.24 3.41 4.8 5.58 6.3 6.51 6.2 4.8 3.72 2.4 1.86 9 2.17 2.8 4.03 5.1 5.89 6.6 7.44 6.82 5.7 4.03 2.7 1.86 16 1.55 2.52 4.03 5.7 7.75 8.7 9.3 8.37 6.3 4.34 2.4 1.55 January February March April May June July August
Septembe
r October
Novembe
r December
Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31
Zone in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day 1 0.030 0.050 0.080 0.110 0.130 0.150 0.150 0.130 0.110 0.080 0.040 0.020 4 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.150 0.170 0.190 0.190 0.180 0.150 0.110 0.080 0.060 6 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.160 0.180 0.210 0.210 0.200 0.160 0.120 0.080 0.060 9 0.070 0.100 0.130 0.170 0.190 0.220 0.240 0.220 0.190 0.130 0.090 0.060 16 0.050 0.090 0.130 0.190 0.250 0.290 0.300 0.270 0.210 0.140 0.080 0.050
Page
39 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
,
Revised: March 2022
ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION
This is
the cover sheet for Attachment 3
.
Indic
ate 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
Page
40 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
,
Revised: March 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 Desig
n Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed
components of the structural BMP(s)
How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance
Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts,
or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable
Maintenance thresholds 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 be
nchmark 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 3
b:
For private entity operation and maintenance, Attachment 3b shall include a draft maintenance agreement in the local jurisdiction's standard format (PDP applicant to contact the [City Engineer] to obtain the current maintenance agreement forms ).
1. PREVENT
Keeping debris and sediment out of the system by pre-treating runoff is one of the smartest things an engineer can do when designing underground detention systems. It makes no sense to allow trash and sediments to flow unrestricted into an underground system where removal will be expensive. Instead, capture pollutants simply and inexpensively in the inlets, where removal is easy. There are several ways this can be accomplished with minimal cost impacts to your project.
Trash Guard Plus®
Trash Guard Plus is a patented stormwater pretreatment device that traps debris, sediment and floatables in the inlet. It helps extend maintenance cycles by using the full volume of the inlet structure for sediment capacity. And it is easy to maintain by accessing pollutants through the manhole lid.
Trash Guard Plus works by both screening debris out of the runoff and by slowing the flow of runoff, causing sediments to fall to the bottom of the inlet. Testing at NC State has shown the Trash Guard to be effective at removing trash, sediment, nutrients, and metals.
Gratemaster
To treat a single inlet that serves as a junction for a larger drainage area, consider an insert like the Gratemaster. Ideal for capturing sediment and trash, it makes clean-up a snap by holding all the pollutants right near the surface for easy extraction.
R-TANK MAINTENANCE
For more information about Stormwater Management, contact Inside Sales at 800.448.3636 email at [email protected]
TECHNICAL
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
®
Trash Guard Plus®
Gratemaster
Designing an underground stormwater detention system with future maintenance in mind is a simple process that includes three primary objectives: PREVENT debris from entering the system by using good pre-treatment systems, ISOLATE debris and sediments that manage to enter the system, and PROTECT the body of the system by providing backflush mechanisms to ensure longevity.
Inlet Connection at Structure.dwg 11/11/16
24" MIN. 3" MIN. BASE MATERIAL
NOTE: MAINTENANCE PORTS
ARE NOT SHOWN
SECTION VIEW
PLAN VIEW
8 OZ NONWOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
R-TANK UNITS
BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 95%
STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY PAVED SURFACEGEOGRID
BASE MATERIALS
AS REQUIRED
OPTIONAL INLET PIPE
ACTUAL NUMBER OF UNITS
PENETRATING STRUCTURE TO BE
DETERMINED BY ENGINEER
OPTIONAL OUTLET PIPE
INLET STRUCTURE TYPE AND SIZE
TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER
12"
SUMP DEPTH TO BE
DETERMINED BY ENGINEER
R-TANK UNITS
OPTIONAL INLET PIPE
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: ACF ENVIRONMENTAL, 1-800-448-3636, www.acfenvironmental.com 11/16
R-TANK INLET CONNECTION
R-Tank Screening
For a more centralized approach, some engineers prefer to create an opening in the inlet structures to allow the R-Tank modules to penetrate the structure to act as a trash screen. This works best with a structure that includes a sump (see drawing below).
R-TANK MAINTENANCE
800.448.3636
acfenvironmental.com
2. ISOLATE
Some pollutants may elude the pre-treatment systems. Trap these materials inside the maintenance row (see drawing to right). Consolidating sediments in a single location makes them easy to remove. Maintenance rows are formed by using maintenance modules, which have open internal components that are fully accessible by conventional jet-vac systems. These modules are set in a row (or multiple rows) to your desired length. Longer maintenance rows should include an access structure on both ends. Extremely long rows may require access from the middle of the row, as well.
The maintenance row is always wrapped in geotextile independently from the rest of the system. The geotextile retains trash, sediments, and other solids, preventing contamination of the rest of the system.
The maintenance row should be sized to treat the first
flush (usually 1”) of runoff. Use a bypass structure to divert that flow into the maintenance row, and allow
larger flows to continue to a downstream inlet where
they can enter the R-Tank outside of the maintenance
row.
The maintenance row is only available in LD, HD, and
UD modules. For SD and XD modules, consider
creating a forebay around the inlet locations to collect sediment. This is done by using a taller module
installed at a lower invert. Geotextile baffles between the forebay and the rest of the system can help retain
sediments. Concentrate Maintenance Ports
(see PROTECT below) in the forebay to ensure access
to sediment for removal.
3. PROTECT
Every good system has a fall-back plan. You can
ensure a long system life by including maintenance
ports throughout the system footprint to remove any
pollutants that evade the pretreatment system and
maintenance row. Maintenance ports should be
specified within 10’ of inlet and outlet connections,
and roughly 50’ on center (see maintenance port
detail to right).
2 2018
R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW
(SEE PLAN LAYOUT FOR ROW LENGTH)
OPTIONAL
MAINTENANCE
/ACCESS
STRUCTURE
(BY OTHERS)
B AA
B
DIVERSION/ACCESS
STRUCTURE W/ 12" SUMP
(BY OTHERS)
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 PVC PIPE
W/ BEVELED EDGE OR AS
SPECIFIED BY PROJECT ENGINEER
(BY OTHERS)
PEAK FLOW JUNCTION
STRUCTURE
(BY OTHERS)
R-TANKHD
MAIN DETENTION/RETENTION SYSTEM
(SEE PLANS FOR ACTUAL LAYOUT)
MAINTENANCE PORT
(QUANTITY & LOCATIONS
PER PLAN LAYOUT)
Ø24" F&C ACCESS
(TYP, BY OTHERS)
2'-0" MIN. STONE
PERIMETER
Ø12" MIN. PIPE OR AS
SPECIFIED BY
PROJECT ENGINEER
(BY OTHERS)
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 PVC PIPE
W/ BEVELED EDGE OR AS
SPECIFIED BY PROJECT ENGINEER
(BY OTHERS)
NOTE: IF PIPE CONNECTING TO
MAINTENANCE ROW IS LARGER
THAN Ø12" SDR-35, IT SHALL BE
ABUTTED FLUSH TO END PLATE AND
SEALED WITH A GEOTEXTILE BOOT.
GEOTEXTILE
PIPE BOOT
NON-CORROSIVE
HOSE CLAMP
MODULES TOP AND
SIDES WRAPPED WITH
8 OZ. NONWOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
MAINTENANCE
ROW MODULES
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 OR AS SPECIFIED
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
ACF ENVIRONMENTAL 1-800-448-3636
www.acfenvironmental.com
DATE REVISION
NOTE: ENGINEER OF RECORD TO REVIEW, APPROVE AND ENDORSE FINAL SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN.
R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW DETAILS
ACF ENVIRONMENTAL, 1-800-448-3636, www.acfenvironmental.com
DRAWN BY
SHEET NO.
DATE
11/15/17
EDQ
1 of 1
R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW WITH PRECAST INLET/ACCESS STRUCTURE
R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW SECTION A-A
DIVERSION/ACCESS
STRUCTURE W/ 12" SUMP
(BY OTHERS)
FLOW
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 PVC PIPE
W/ BEVELED EDGE OR AS
SPECIFIED BY PROJECT
ENGINEER (TYP.)
R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE
MODULES TOP AND SIDES
WRAPPED IN 8 OZ.
NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE
PAVED OR GRASS
SURFACE
GEOGRID (REQUIRED IN TRAFFIC AREAS)
PLACED 12” ABOVE THE R-TANKᴴᴰ SYSTEM.
OVERLAP ADJACENT PANELS BY 18” MIN.
GEOGRID SHOULD EXTEND 3' BEYOND THE
EXCAVATION FOOTPRINT.
12" MIN.
OPTIONAL
MAINTENANCE
/ACCESS
STRUCTURE
W/ 12" SUMP
(BY OTHERS)
DIVERSION
WEIR
OUTLET
/BYPASS
PIPE
NOTE: DIVERSION WEIR ELEVATION TO BE SET BY PROJECT ENGINEER BASED ON TREATMENT VOLUME/FLOW RATE REQUIRED.
MAINTENANCE
PLATE
(5 PER MODULE)
2 LAYERS OF ACF S300
WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO BE
PLACED BETWEEN R-TANK
MODULES AND BASE
SEE TRAFFIC LOADING DETAIL
OR GREEN SPACE DETAIL FOR
COVER REQUIREMENTS
PAVED OR GRASS
SURFACE
GEOGRID
(REQUIRED IN AREAS SUBJECT
TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC LOADS)
12" MIN.
R-TANKHD
MAIN DETENTION/RETENTION SYSTEM
(SEE PLANS FOR ACTUAL LAYOUT)
R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE
MODULES TOP AND SIDES
WRAPPED IN 8 OZ.
NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE
MAINTENANCE PLATE
(5 PER MODULE)
2 LAYERS OF ACF S300 WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE TO BE PLACED BETWEEN
R-TANK MODULES AND BASE
GEOTEXTILES MUST
EXTEND A MINIMUM 6"
BEYOND MODULES
R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW SECTION B-B
SINGLE R-TANKHD - MAINTENANCE MODULE DETAIL
GEOMETRY:
LENGTH = 28.15 IN. (715 MM)
WIDTH = 15.75 IN. (400 MM)
HEIGHT = 17.32 IN. (440 MM)
TANK VOLUME = 4.44 CF
STORAGE VOLUME = 4.22 CF
VOID INTERNAL VOLUME: 95%
VOID SURFACE AREA: 90%
MODULE DATA
LOAD RATING:
33.4 PSI, (MODULE ONLY)
HS20, (WITH ACF COVER SYSTEM)
MATERIAL:
100% RECYCLED POLYPROPYLENE
SMALL PLATES PER
SEGMENT/TOTAL:
5/5
28.15"
17.32"15.75"
15.75"
28.15"
17.32"
TOP
SIDE END
ISOMETRIC
NOTE:
FOR TRAFFIC RATING COVER REQUIREMENTS,
SEE APPROPRIATE DETAIL.
TYPICAL PIPE CONNECTION DETAIL
NOTES
· THIS PORT IS USED TO PUMP WATER INTO THE SYSTEM
AND RE-SUSPEND ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SO THAT IT
MAY BE PUMPED OUT.
· MINIMUM REQUIRED MAINTENANCE INCLUDES A
QUARTERLY INSPECTION DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF
OPERATION AND A YEARLY INSPECTION THEREAFTER.
FLUSH AS NEEDED.
· ONLY R-TANKᴴᴰ AND R-TANKSD MAY BE USED IN TRAFFIC
APPLICATIONS.
16.25" FRAME AND
COVER
PAVED SURFACE
BACKFILL COMPACTED TO
95% STANDARD PROCTOR
DENSITY
B
GEOGRID
A
NON-CORROSIVE HOSE CLAMP
GEOTEXTILE
NOTCH BOTTOM
OF PIPE
SEE PATTERN
NON-CORROSIVE
SOLID PLATE
PLASTIC, SLATE
OR EQUIVALENT
1" +/- VENTING PERFORATIONS
PIPE NOTCHING
PATTERN
8" NOTCHES CUT IN SHADED
AREAS (8 OPENINGS TOTAL)
1.5"
3.5"
MAINTENANCE PORT
FOR R-TANK, R-TANKᴴᴰ, AND R-TANKSD
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: ACF ENVIRONMENTAL, 1-800-448-3636, www.acfenvironmental.com 6/16 R-TANK
(REGULAR SHOWN)
DEPTH SUMMARY
TYPE A B
R-TANK 12" MIN - 36" MAX AS SHOWN
ON PLANS
R-TANKᴴᴰ 20" MIN - 6.99' MAX 12"
R-TANKSD 18" MIN - 9.99' MAX 12"
12" DIA. PVC
MAINTENANCE
PORT
REINFORCED
CONCRETE COLLAR
WHERE REQUIRED
rotondo-es.com
Maintenance Procedur
es
Maintaining the StormGarden system is necessary to continue the effective pollutant removal from stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the stormdarin system. Ongoing maintenance will also extend the life of the filter media and the StormGarden system. As the StormGarden filters stormwater runoff, pollutants accumulate within the filter media and floating debris such as silt, trash and leaves accumulate on top of the media underneath the concrete slab. When an excessive amount of silt and trash build up on top of the media, the flow-through rate of the media is reduced, thus decreasing the capacity of the system. Regular replacement of the top mulch layer helps stop the accumulation of such sediment and debris and maintaining the overall performance of the system.
The manufacturer or manufacturer's representative includes a 1-year maintenance plan with each StormGarden purchase. The included maintenance plan consists of a maximum of 2 scheduled visits. If additional visits are required due to excessive sediment and trash loading, they can be performed by the manufacturer/representative for an additional charge. The start of the maintenance plan begins when the system is activated for full operation. Full operation is defined as the unit installed, curb and gutter and transitions in place, and the unit activated by installation contractor, which includes the mulch and plant installed and the temporary throat protection removed.
Activation cannot occur until the site is fully stabilized, which means full landscaping, grass cover, final paving and sweeping is complete. Maintenance visits are scheduled seasonally. The spring visit cleans up after winter loads which include salts and sands, and the fall visit is to remove excessive leaves and debris.
It is the responsibility of the owner to provide adequate irrigation when necessary to the plant of the StormGarden system. Cleanup due to major contamination such as oils, chemicals, toxic spills, etc. will result in additional costs and are not covered under the 1- year maintenance plan provided by manufacturer/representative. Should a major contamination event occur, the owner must block off the outlet pipe to the StormGarden unit (where the cleaned runoff drains to from the StormGarden, such as the bypass inlet) and block off the throat of the StormGarden. All appropriate regulatory parties as well as the manufacturer/representative should be informed immediately.
Each maintenance visit consists of the following tasks:
Visual inspection of StormGarden unit and surrounding area Removal of tree grate and erosion control stones
Removal of sediment, trash, debris and mulch
Mulch replacement
Clean and replace erosion control stones
Evaluation of plant and pruning or replacement if necessary Clean area around StormGarden unit
Maintenance report
StormGarden Maintenance Checklist
System
Component Problem Conditions to Check Condition that Should Exist Actions
Inlet/Forebay
Area
Excessive sediment
or trash
accumulation.
Accumulated sediments or trash
impair free flow of water into
StormGarden.
Inlet should be free of
obstructions allowing free
distributed flow of water into
StormGarden.
Sediment and/or trash
should be removed.
Mulch Cover
Trash and floatable debris
accumulation.
Excessive trash and/or debris
accumulation.
Minimal trash or other debris on
mulch cover.
Trash and debris should be removed,
and mulch cover raked level.
Mulch/Media
“Ponding” of water
“Ponding” could indicate
clogging due to excessive fine
sediment loading or spill of
petroleum oils.
Stormwater should drain freely
and evenly through system
Replace mulch and/or media as
necessary.
Underdrain
Not draining/ponding of
water above
“Ponding” could indicate the
drain rock or perforated piping
is clogged.
Stormwater should drain freely and
evenly through system
Flush the underdrain piping using the
cleanout provided. Worse case
scenario is you replace all internal
components if terminally failed.
Vegetation
Plants not growing or
in poor condition.
Soil/mulch too wet, evidence of spill.
Incorrect plant selection. Pest
infestation. Vandalism to plants.
Plants should be healthy
and pest free.
Replant with plants suitable to for system.
Contact qualified landscape professional
or arborist.
Vegetation Plant growth
excessive.
Plants should be appropriate to the
region/climate of the site.
Plants should not be overgrown or
be excessive for the system.
Trim/prune plants in accordance with
typical landscaping and safety
needs.
Structure
Structure has visible
cracks.
Cracks wider than 1/2 inch
Vault should be repaired.
Maintenance frequency will depend on site specific characteristics and will generally need to occur 1-2 times per year
StormGarden Inspection & Maintenance Log
StormGarden System Size/Model: Location:
Date
Mulch &
Debris
Removed
Depth of
Mulch
Added
Mulch
Brand
Height of
Vegetation
Above
Grate
Vegetation
Species
Issues with
System
Comments
StormGarden Activation Checklist
Project Name: Company:
Site Contact Name: Site Contact Phone/Email:
Site Owner/End User Name: Site Owner/End User Phone/Email:
Site
Designation
System Size
Final Pavement
/Top Coat
Complete
Landscaping
Complete /
Soil Stabilized
Construction
materials /
Piles / Debris
Removed
Throat
Opening
Measures
According to
Plan
Plant Species
Requested
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
Page
41 of
41 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:
October
2021
, Revised: March
& April
, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
COPY OF PLAN SHEETS
WITH
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 sho
wn 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)
Manufactur
er 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 f or inspection and
maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management
Include landscaping plan sheets showing vegetation requirements for vegetated structural BMP(s)
All BMPs must be fully dimensioned on the plans
When propriet
ary BMPs are used, site
-
specific cross section with outflow, inflow, and model number shall be provided. Photocopies of general brochures are not acceptable.