Agenda packet — San Marcos City Council, May 26, 2026 (part 8 of 10)

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 1L: Inflow to Rtank 1-B
Inflow
=

3.410 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
Primary
=

3.410 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
, Atten= 0%
, Lag= 0.0 min
Routed to Pond 2P : Rtank 1-B Alt1
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs DISCHARGE Imported from Tank-1 B RatHydro.csv
Link 1L: Inflow to Rtank 1-B
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
3 2
1 0

DISCHARGE
Imported from
Tank-1 B RatHydro.csv

3.410 cfs

3.410 cfs
1788
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 4 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: Rtank 1-B Alt1
Inflow
=

3.410 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
Outflow
=

0.045 cfs
@

6.06 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
, Atten= 99%
, Lag= 117.3 min
Primary
=

0.045 cfs
@

6.06 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
Routed to Pond 3P : Stormgate 1
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 528.62'
@ 6.06 hrs
Surf.Area= 2,200 sf
Storage= 4,212 cf
Plug-Flow detention time=
1,087.8 min calculated for 0.109 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time=
1,087.6 min ( 1,300.2 - 212.6 )
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
526.60'
10,701 cf
Tank 1-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
526.60
2,200

0.0 0
0 2,200
527.00
2,200

95.0 836
836
2,267
528.00
2,200

95.0 2,090
2,926
2,433
529.00
2,200

95.0 2,090
5,016
2,599
530.00
2,200

95.0 2,090
7,106
2,765
531.72
2,200

95.0 3,595
10,701
3,051
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
526.60'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

6.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
526.60'
/
526.53'

0.0117
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
526.60'

1.10" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow
Max=0.045 cfs
@ 6.06 hrs
HW=528.62'
TW=526.63'
(Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert
(Passes 0.045 cfs of 4.655 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice
(Orifice Controls 0.045 cfs @ 6.76 fps)
1789
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 5 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: Rtank 1-B Alt1
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
3 2
1 0
Peak Elev=528.62'
Storage=4,212 cf

3.410 cfs

0.045 cfs
1790
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 7 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Stormgate 1
Inflow
=

0.045 cfs
@

6.06 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
Outflow
=

0.045 cfs
@

6.06 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
, Atten= 0%
, Lag= 0.3 min
Primary
=

0.045 cfs
@

6.06 hrs
, Volume=

0.109 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 526.63'
@ 6.06 hrs
Surf.Area= 16 sf
Storage= 2 cf
Plug-Flow detention time=

0.9 min calculated for 0.109 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time=

0.8 min ( 1,301.0 - 1,300.2 )
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
526.53'
91 cf
Stormgate (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
526.53
16 0.0
0 0
16 527.00
16 100.0
8 8
23 528.00
16 100.0
16 24
37 529.00
16 100.0
16 40
51 530.00
16 100.0
16 56
65 531.72
16 100.0
28 83
90 532.22
16 100.0
8 91
97 Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
526.53'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

13.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
526.53'
/
526.08'

0.0346
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Primary
531.72'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.50

0.50 Width
(feet)

4.00 4.00

0.00 Primary OutFlow
Max=0.045 cfs
@ 6.06 hrs
HW=526.63'
(Free Discharge)
1=Culvert
(Inlet Controls 0.045 cfs @ 1.08 fps)
2=Custom Weir
( Controls 0.000 cfs)
1791
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 8 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 3P: Stormgate 1
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)

0.048

0.046

0.044

0.042

0.04 0.038

0.036

0.034

0.032

0.03 0.028

0.026

0.024

0.022

0.02 0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01 0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002
0 Peak Elev=526.63'
Storage=2 cf

0.045 cfs

0.045 cfs
1792
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 3 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 2L: Inflow to StormTrap 2-B
Inflow
=

5.023 cfs
@

4.08 hrs
, Volume=

0.182 af
Primary
=

5.023 cfs
@

4.08 hrs
, Volume=

0.182 af
, Atten= 0%
, Lag= 0.0 min
Routed to Pond 4P : StormTrap 2-B Alt 1
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs DISCHARGE Imported from Tank-2 B RatHydro adj.csv
Link 2L: Inflow to StormTrap 2-B
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
5 4
3 2
1 0

DISCHARGE
Imported from
Tank-2 B RatHydro adj.csv

5.023 cfs

5.023 cfs
1793
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 10 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 4P: StormTrap 2-B Alt 1
Inflow
=

5.023 cfs
@

4.08 hrs
, Volume=

0.182 af
Outflow
=

1.089 cfs
@

4.19 hrs
, Volume=

0.148 af
, Atten= 78%
, Lag= 6.4 min
Primary
=

1.089 cfs
@

4.19 hrs
, Volume=

0.148 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 491.85'
@ 4.19 hrs
Surf.Area= 1,400 sf
Storage= 5,858 cf
Plug-Flow detention time=
1,380.3 min calculated for 0.148 af (81% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time=
1,361.2 min ( 1,573.6 - 212.4 )
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
486.93'
6,747 cf
Tank 2-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
486.93
1,400

0.0 0
0 1,400
488.00
1,400

85.0 1,273
1,273
1,542
489.00
1,400

85.0 1,190
2,463
1,675
490.00
1,400

85.0 1,190
3,653
1,807
490.93
1,400

85.0 1,107
4,760
1,931
491.00
1,400

85.0 83
4,843
1,940
492.00
1,400

85.0 1,190
6,033
2,072
492.60
1,400

85.0 714
6,747
2,152
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
486.93'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

34.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
486.93'
/
486.59'

0.0100
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
486.93'

0.50" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#3
Device 1
490.93'

12.00" W x 3.00" H Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited
to
weir
flow
at
low
heads

#4
Device 1
492.10'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.50

0.50 Width
(feet)

5.00 5.00

0.00 Primary OutFlow
Max=1.089 cfs
@ 4.19 hrs
HW=491.85'
(Free Discharge)
1=Culvert
(Passes 1.089 cfs of 7.953 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice
(Orifice Controls 0.015 cfs @ 10.66 fps)
3=Orifice
(Orifice Controls 1.074 cfs @ 4.30 fps)
4=Custom Weir
( Controls 0.000 cfs)
1794
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 11 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 4P: StormTrap 2-B Alt 1
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
5 4
3 2
1 0
Peak Elev=491.85'
Storage=5,858 cf

5.023 cfs

1.089 cfs
1795
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 6 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 3L: Inflow to Rtank 3-B
Inflow
=

2.480 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
Primary
=

2.480 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
, Atten= 0%
, Lag= 0.0 min
Routed to Pond 5P : Rtank 3-B Alt1
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs DISCHARGE Imported from Tank-3 B RatHydro.csv
Link 3L: Inflow to Rtank 3-B
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
2 1
0 DISCHARGE
Imported from
Tank-3 B RatHydro.csv

2.480 cfs

2.480 cfs
1796
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 12 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 5P: Rtank 3-B Alt1
Inflow
=

2.480 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
Outflow
=

0.032 cfs
@

6.07 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
, Atten= 99%
, Lag= 118.1 min
Primary
=

0.032 cfs
@

6.07 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
Routed to Pond 6P : Stormgate 2
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 522.92'
@ 6.07 hrs
Surf.Area= 1,264 sf
Storage= 3,435 cf
Plug-Flow detention time=
1,224.1 min calculated for 0.088 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time=
1,223.7 min ( 1,431.6 - 207.9 )
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
520.06'
8,406 cf
Tank 3-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
520.06
1,264

0.0 0
0 1,264
521.00
1,264

95.0 1,129
1,129
1,382
522.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
2,330
1,509
523.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
3,530
1,635
524.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
4,731
1,761
525.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
5,932
1,887
526.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
7,133
2,013
527.06
1,264

95.0 1,273
8,406
2,146
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
520.06'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

14.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
520.06'
/
519.94'

0.0086
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
520.06'

0.85" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
Primary OutFlow
Max=0.032 cfs
@ 6.07 hrs
HW=522.92'
TW=520.02'
(Dynamic Tailwater)
1=Culvert
(Passes 0.032 cfs of 5.810 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice
(Orifice Controls 0.032 cfs @ 8.09 fps)
1797
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 13 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 5P: Rtank 3-B Alt1
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
2 1
0 Peak Elev=522.92'
Storage=3,435 cf

2.480 cfs

0.032 cfs
1798
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 14 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 6P: Stormgate 2
Inflow
=

0.032 cfs
@

6.07 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
Outflow
=

0.032 cfs
@

6.07 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
, Atten= 0%
, Lag= 0.4 min
Primary
=

0.032 cfs
@

6.07 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 520.02'
@ 6.07 hrs
Surf.Area= 16 sf
Storage= 1 cf
Plug-Flow detention time=

1.0 min calculated for 0.088 af (100% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time=

0.9 min ( 1,432.5 - 1,431.6 )
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
519.94'
120 cf
Stormgate 2 (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
519.94
16 0.0
0 0
16 521.00
16 100.0
17 17
31 522.00
16 100.0
16 33
45 523.00
16 100.0
16 49
59 524.00
16 100.0
16 65
74 525.00
16 100.0
16 81
88 526.00
16 100.0
16 97
102
527.06
16 100.0
17 114
117
527.46
16 100.0
6 120
123
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
519.94'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=
290.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
519.94'
/
490.01'

0.1032
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Primary
527.06'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.40

0.40 Width
(feet)

4.00 4.00

0.00 Primary OutFlow
Max=0.032 cfs
@ 6.07 hrs
HW=520.02'
(Free Discharge)
1=Culvert
(Inlet Controls 0.032 cfs @ 0.99 fps)
2=Custom Weir
( Controls 0.000 cfs)
1799
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 15 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 6P: Stormgate 2
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)

0.034

0.032

0.03 0.028

0.026

0.024

0.022

0.02 0.018

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01 0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002
0 Peak Elev=520.02'
Storage=1 cf

0.032 cfs

0.032 cfs
1800
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 9 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 4L: Inflow to StormTrap 4-B
Inflow
=

2.560 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.092 af
Primary
=

2.560 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.092 af
, Atten= 0%
, Lag= 0.0 min
Routed to Pond 7P : StormTrap 4-B Alt1
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs DISCHARGE Imported from Tank-4 B RatHydro.csv
Link 4L: Inflow to StormTrap 4-B
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
2 1
0 DISCHARGE
Imported from
Tank-4 B RatHydro.csv

2.560 cfs

2.560 cfs
1801
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 16 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: StormTrap 4-B Alt1
Inflow
=

2.560 cfs
@

4.10 hrs
, Volume=

0.092 af
Outflow
=

1.225 cfs
@

4.16 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
, Atten= 52%
, Lag= 3.7 min
Primary
=

1.225 cfs
@

4.16 hrs
, Volume=

0.088 af
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 495.15'
@ 4.16 hrs
Surf.Area= 600 sf
Storage= 2,456 cf
Plug-Flow detention time=
1,094.2 min calculated for 0.088 af (95% of inflow)
Center-of-Mass det. time=
1,087.6 min ( 1,296.9 - 209.3 )
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
490.33'
2,892 cf
Tank 4-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
490.33
600

0.0 0
0 600
491.00
600

85.0 342
342
658
492.00
600

85.0 510
852
745
493.00
600

85.0 510
1,362
832
494.00
600

85.0 510
1,872
919
495.00
600

85.0 510
2,382
1,006
496.00
600

85.0 510
2,892
1,092
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
490.33'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

32.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
490.33'
/
490.01'

0.0100
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
490.33'

0.40" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#3
Device 1
494.00'

12.00" W x 3.00" H Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited
to
weir
flow
at
low
heads

#4
Primary
495.50'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.50

0.50 Width
(feet)

2.50 2.50

0.00 Primary OutFlow
Max=1.224 cfs
@ 4.16 hrs
HW=495.15'
(Free Discharge)
1=Culvert
(Passes 1.224 cfs of 7.856 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice
(Orifice Controls 0.009 cfs @ 10.55 fps)
3=Orifice
(Orifice Controls 1.215 cfs @ 4.86 fps)
4=Custom Weir
( Controls 0.000 cfs)
1802
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 17 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 7P: StormTrap 4-B Alt1
Inflow
Primary
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
95 90
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
Flow (cfs)
2 1
0 Peak Elev=495.15'
Storage=2,456 cf

2.560 cfs

1.225 cfs
1803

APPENDIX
C

Existing and Proposed Hydrology Maps

1804
575
570
570
565
565
560
560
560
555
555
555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515
515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

LAS FLORES DRIVE
S. SANTA FE AVENUE
L=149'
L=270'
L=57'
L=34'
L=100'
L=100'
L=92'
L=29'
E1.1
A=1.11 AC
E1.0
A=0.13 AC
E4.0
A=0.14 AC
E2.0
A=0.04 AC
E3.0
A=0.22 AC
E3.1
A=1.43 AC
EX. P/L
N23°37'25"E
302.74'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N71°25'12"W
102.01'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°19'42"E
222.07'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N66°38'44"W
250.78'
167.99'
EX. ROW
EX. ROW
APN: 217-16-17
APN: 217-16-25

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N71°08'14"E

28.75'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N61°17'56"E

40.16'
NODE #145
ELEV=494.68
Q100=5.16 CFS
V100=3.24 FPS
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 36-INCH RCP
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 24-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE B-1 INLET
EX. 42-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
NODE #120
ELEV=543.68
NODE #115
526.08 IE
Q100=2.35 CFS
V100=6.21 FPS
NODE #105
ELEV=538.97
NODE #110
ELEV=532.40
528.18 IE
EX. CMP RISER
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE B-1 INLET
NODE #135
ELEV=538.13
NODE #150
ELEV=538.66
NODE #155, ELEV=527.29
Q100=0.37 CFS
V100=4.38 FPS
NODE #125
ELEV=523.57
517.12 IE
EX. TYPE F

CATCH BASIN
EX. 18-INCH RCP
NODE #130
516.53 IE
Q100=0.10 CFS
V100=2.39 FPS
PROP. P/L PER

SEPARATE LLA
EX. P/L TO BE

REMOVED
EX. P/L TO BE

REMOVED
EX. P/L TO BE ADJUSTED

PER SEPARATE LLA
N23°34'48"

PROJECT BOUNDARY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°32'36"E

0.60'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N71°30'04"E

8.15'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N66°25'12"E

3.98'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°50'13"E

32.84'
EX. P/L
NODE #100
ELEV=575.97
NODE #140
ELEV=517.74
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" =
20'
0 20'
40'
60'
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\Appendix C - Existing and Proposed Condition Hydro Exhibits

EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT

SOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT

SOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES
LEGEND

RIGHT OF WAY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

BASIN BOUNDARY

SUBAREA BOUNDARY

EXISTING CONTOURS

LIMITS OF EXISTING BUILDING

LIMITS OF EXISTING AC PAVEMENT

STREET CENTERLINE

SURFACE DRAINAGE DEPTH

UNDERGROUND PIPE DRAINAGE PATH

STORM DRAINAGE PIPE
1805
570
570
565
565
560
560
560
555
555
555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545 540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535535
535
535
535
535
535535535535535
535
530
530
530 530 530 530 530
530
530
530
525
525
525525525525525
525
525
520
520520
520520520
520
520
515515
515 515 515
515
515
515
510510
510510510
510
510510
505
505
505505505
505
505 500
500
500500
500
500
500500
495
495
495
495
495 495 495

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSD
SD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSDSD
SDSD
SD

SDSDSD SDSDSDSD
SDSDSD
SDSD
SDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD
L=147'
L=169'
L=13'
L=5'L=198'

LAS FLORES DRIVE
S. SANTA FE AVENUE
APN: 217-161-25APN: 217-161-25
APN: 217-560-51
APN: 219-114-28 APN: 219-114-28APN: 219-114-28
PROP. UNDERGROUNDDETENTION SYSTEM "1-B"
PROP.UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM "2-B"
PROP. WEIR BYPASSSTRUCTURE
PROP. PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATION SYSTEM "2-A"
PROP. PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATION SYSTEM"5-A"
PROP. PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATION SYSTEM "4-A"
PROP. PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATION SYSTEM "1-A"PROP. WEIR BYPASSSTRUCTURE 1 L=6'
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUTEX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUTEX. 18-INCH RCP EX. 18-INCH RCPEX. 18-INCH RCPEX. 18-INCH RCPEX. 42-INCH RCPEX. 42-INCH RCPEX. 18-INCH RCP EX. 18-INCH RCPEX. CURB INLET
EX. CURB INLETEX. 54-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCPEX. 18-INCH RCPEX. CURB INLET
PROP. CURB OUTLET
PROP. SDCO
PROP. RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATION SYSTEM "3-A"
L=8'
L=109' L=2'
L=3'L=68'
L=32'
PROP.UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM "3-B"
PROP.UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM "4-B"
L=17'
NODE #300ELEV=538.73 FS
NODE #305ELEV=534.51 FL
NODE #255ELEV=494.90 FSELEV=490.82 IE
NODE #445ELEV=487.96 IEQ100=10.77 CFS (UNDETAINED)V100= 5.29 FPS (UNDETAINED)Q100=2.74 CFS (DETAINED)V100=3.88 FPS (DETAINED) NODE #160ELEV=526.08 IEQ100=3.82 CFS (UNDETAINED)V100=8.88 FPS (UNDETAINED)Q100=0.44 CFS (DETAINED)V100=5.20 FPS (DETAINED) NODE #220ELEV=494.93 IE
NODE #210ELEV=498.60 FL497.10 IE OUT
NODE #215ELEV=496.19 IE (OUT)ELEV=495.99 IE (IN)
NODE #245ELEV=498.60 FLNODE #250ELEV=498.09 FL
NODE #500ELEV=509.20 FG
NODE #510ELEV=493.99 FLQ100=2.04 CFSV100=3.10 FPS
L=148'
NODE #120ELEV=546.4 FG
NODE #125ELEV=538.60 FLELEV=535.60 IE
NODE #115ELEV=530.54 IENODE #135ELEV=526.53 IE
NODE #140ELEV=575.97 FG
NODE #145ELEV=538.40 FLELEV=536.40 IE
NODE #110ELEV=532.20 IE INELEV=530.87 IE OUT
NODE #100ELEV=535.65 FLNODE #105ELEV=535.35 FLELEV=533.71 IE NODE #200ELEV=532.55 FS
NODE #130ELEV=526.60 IENODE #150ELEV=526.53 IENODE #155ELEV=526.33 IE NODE #225ELEV=522.0 FGNODE #230ELEV=502.0 FGELEV=500.00 IE L=6'
NODE #605ELEV=523.4 FGQ100=0.03 CFS
NODE #600ELEV=526.0 FG
NODE #115ELEV=530.42 IE
NODE #205ELEV=530.26 FSL=83'
NODE #220ELEV=494.25 IE
L=96'
NODE #235ELEV=490.26 IENODE #240ELEV=488.79 IE
NODE #260ELEV=488.05 IE
NODE #310ELEV=531.08 FLELEV=528.08 IE
NODE #315ELEV=527.88 FS
NODE #320ELEV=527.47 IEELEV=526.14 IE
NODE #325ELEV=526.06 IE
NODE #330ELEV=520.06 IE
NODE #340ELEV=492.34 IE
NODE #400ELEV=525.20 FL
NODE #405ELEV=525.00 FLELEV=523.30 IEL=17' NODE #410ELEV=521.38 IENODE #415ELEV=499.51 IE NODE #420ELEV=499.50 IEELEV=498.17
NODE #425ELEV=497.33 IENODE #430ELEV=492.66 IE
NODE #505ELEV=496.66 FS
L=60'
L=177'
L=34'L=302'
L=302'
69'
L=40'
L=75'
L=192'
L=9'
L=82'
L=290' L=290' L=210'
L=100'
L=343' L=74'L=30' L=52'
L=30'
L=162'
L=100'
L=100'
L=63'
P1.10.47
P1.30.18
P3.00.10
P2.10.36
P2.20.44 P2.40.07 P2.50.10
P2.30.07 AC
P1.20.05
P4.00.03 P4.20.32 P5.00.13
P6.00.01
P1.00.04
P3.10.05P2.00.08
P3.20.26 P4.10.15
P5.10.16
NODE #335ELEV=519.94 IE
L=14'
PROP. WEIRBYPASSSTRUCTURE 2
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\Appendix C - Existing and Proposed Condition Hydro ExhibitsGRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' 020'40'60'

PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBITSOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMESCITY OF SAN MARCOS

PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBITSOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES

LEGENDRIGHT OF WAYPROJECT BOUNDARYBASIN BOUNDARYSUB-BASIN BOUNDARYEXISTING CONTOURSLIMITS OF EXISTING BUILDINGLIMITS OF PROPOSED BUILDING

STREET CENTER LINE

LIMITS OF PROPOSED PAVEMENT

SURFACE DRAINAGE PATHUNDERGROUND PROPOSED PIPE DRAINAGE PATHUNDERGROUND EXISTING PIPE DRAINAGE PATH P##HYDROLOGIC SUB-BASIN NUMBERHYDROLOGIC AREA (ACRES)

LIMITS OF EXISTING PAVEMENT
1806

ATTACHMENT D.9

STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
1807
Page
1 of
45 City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date:

December
2024

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

(
PDP)

STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)

FOR

OUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES

29 72 & 2982

S SANTA FE AVENUE

SAN MARCOS, CA 92069

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):

217
-
161
-
18 & 217
-
161
-
19 , PORTION OF 217
-
161
-
17 -
00 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:

PLSA

34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE B

DANA POINT, CA 92629

(949) 661
-
6695

DATE

OF SWQMP
:

DECEMBER

202
4 JUNE 2025

GRADING
PLANS PREPARED BY:

PLSA

34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE B

DANA POINT
, CA 926
29 (949) 661
-
6695

1808

Page 2 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Page intentionally left blank

1809

Page 3 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................... 4 PDP SWQMP PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION 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 CHECKLIST 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 .............................................................. 39 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES .................................... 41 ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION ......................................................... 43 ATTACHMENT 4 COPY OF PLAN SHEETS WITH PERMANENT STORM WATER BMPS ................................. 45

1810

Page 4 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

ACRONYMS

APN Assessor's Parcel Number
BMP Best Management Practice
HMP Hydromodification Management Plan
HSG Hydrologic Soil Group
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
N/A Not Applicable
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PDP Priority Development Project
PE Professional Engineer
SC Source Control
SD Site Design
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Bo ard SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan

1811

Page 5 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

PDP SWQMP PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE

Project Name: South Santa Fe Townhomes
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]

PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION

I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsi ble Charge of design of storm water best management practices (BMPs) for this project, and t hat 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 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 Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9 -2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.

I have read and understand that the City Engineer h as adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land deve lopment activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this PDP SWQMP has been comp leted to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applica ble BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this PDP SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Respons ible 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

PLSA_________________________________________________________________ Company

____________________________
Date
Engineer's Seal:

1812

Page 6 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Page intentionally blank

1813

Page 7 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

PDP SWQMP PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE

Project Name: South Santa Fe Townhomes
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]

PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION

This PDP SWQMP has been prepared for Santa Fe Flore s, LP by PLSA. 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 Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9 -2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.

The undersigned, while it owns the subject property , is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan. Once the undersigned trans fers its interests in the property, its successor-i n- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibili ty to implement the best management practices (BMPs) described within this plan, including ensuri ng on-going operation and maintenance of structural BMPs. A signed copy of this document shall be available on the subject property into perpetuity.

________________________________________________________ Project Owner's Signature

Paul Mayer________________________________________________________ Print Name

Santa Fe Flores LP________________________________________________________ Company

____________________________
Date

1814

Page 8 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Page intentionally blank

1815

Page 9 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

SUBMITTAL RECORD

Use this Table to keep a record of submittals of th is PDP SWQMP. Each time the PDP SWQMP is re- submitted, provide the date and status of the proje ct. In column 4 summarize the changes that have been made or indicate if response to plan check com ments is included. When applicable, insert response to plan check comments behind this page.

Submittal
Number
Date Project Status Summary of Changes
1 Decem ber 202 4 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Initial Submittal
2 June 2025 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design

3 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design

4 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design

1816

Page 10 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

PROJECT VICINITY MAP

Project Name: South Santa Fe Townhomes
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]

1817

Page 11 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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: South Santa Fe Townhomes
Description: Proposed 46 -unit multifamily development with parking lots, access drive, outdoor garden area, miscellaneous hardscape and landscaping.

Permit Application Number (if applicable): Date: 12/10 /202 4 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 development projects.

Development projects are defined as construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment, or reconstruction of any public or private projects. In addition, the identification of a development project, as it relates to storm water regulations, would truly apply to development and redevelopment activities that have the potential to contact storm water and contribute a source of pollutants, or reduce the natural absorption and infiltration abilities of the land.

To access the BMP Design Manual, Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) templates, and other pertinent information related to this program please refer to:
http://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/stormwater/development-planning

Please answer each of the following steps below, starting with Step 1 and progressing through each step until reaching "Stop".

Step Answer Progression
Step 1: Based on the above, Is the project a
"development project" (See definition above)?
See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for
further guidance if necessary.
 Yes Go to Step 2.
No Permanent BMP requirements do not apply. No
SWQMP will be required. Provide brief discussion
below.

STOP.

Discussion / justification if the project is not a "development project" (e.g., the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building):

Step 2: Is the project a Standard Project, Priority
Development Project (PDP), or exception to PDP
definitions?

To answer this item, complete Form I-2, Project
Type Determination. See Section 1.4 of the BMP
Design Manual in its entirety for guidance.

In addition to Section 1.4, please refer to the
City’s SWQMP Submittal Requirements form.

Standard Project
Only Standard Project requirements apply,
including Standard Project SWQMP. STOP.
 PDP Standard and PDP requirements apply, including
PDP SWQMP. Go to Step 3 on the following page.
Exception to PDP
definitions
Standard Project requirements apply, and any
additional requirements specific to the type of
project. Provide discussion and list any additional
requirements below. Prepare Standard Project
SWQMP. STOP.
1818

Page 12 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 3a. Discharge storm water
runoff directly to the Pacific Ocean?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply.  No Continue to Step 3b.

Step 3b . Discharge storm water
runoff directly to an enclosed
embayment, not within protected
areas?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply.  No Continue to Step 3c.

Step 3c . Discharge storm water
runoff directly to a water storage
reservoir or lake, below spillway or
normal operating level?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply.  No Continue to Step 3d.

Step 3d . Discharge storm water
runoff directly to an area identified in
WMAA?
Yes STOP . Hydromodification requirements do not apply.  No Hydromodification requirements apply to the project. Go to Step

4. Discussion / justification if hydromodification control requirements do not apply:

Step 4 (PDPs subject to
hydromodification control
requirements only). Does protection
of critical coarse sediment yield areas
apply based on review of WMAA
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Area Map?
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.

Yes Management measures required for protection of critical coarse sediment yield areas (Chapter 6.2).

Stop.
 No Management measures not required for protection of critical coarse sediment yield areas.

Provide brief discussion below.

Stop.

1819

Page 13 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
FORM I-2 PROJECT TYPE DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
Project Type Determination Checklist Form I -2
[March 15, 2016]
Project Information
Project Name /Description : South Santa Fe Townhomes
Permit Application Number (if applicable): Date: 12/10/2024 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: _ 75,064 __ ft 2 (__ 1. 72 ___) acres Is the project in any of the following categories, (a) through (f)? Yes

No

(a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces (collectively over the entire project site). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.

Yes

No

(b) Redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.

Yes

No

(c) New and redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and support one or more of the following uses:
(i) Restaurants. This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). (ii) Hillside development projects. This category includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater.
(iii) Parking lots. This category is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce.
(iv) Streets, roads, highways, freeways, and driveways. This category is defined as any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles.

1820

Page 14 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -2 Page 2 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Yes

No

(d) New or redevelopment projects that create and/ or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and discharging directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). “Discharging directly to” includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).

Note: ESAs are areas that include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Board and San Diego Water Board; State Water Quality Protected Areas; water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Board and San Diego Water Board; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermittees. See BMP Design Manual Section 1.4.2 for additional guidance.

Yes

No

(e) New development projects , or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, that support one or more of the following uses:
(i) Automotive repair shops. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any one of the following SIC codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, or 7536-7539.
(ii) Retail gasoline outlets (RGOs). This category includes RGOs that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day.

Yes

No

(f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction.

Note: See BMP Design Manual Section 1.4.2 for additional guidance.

Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the Priority Development Project categories (a) through (f) listed above?
No – the project is not a Priority Development Project (Standard Project).  Yes – the project is a Priority Development Project (PDP).

The following is for redevelopment PDPs only:

The area of existing (pre-project) impervious area at the project site is: ________ ft 2 (A)
The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is ________ ft 2 (B) Percent impervious surface created or replaced (B/A)*100: _______% The percent impervious surface created or replaced is (select one based on the above calculation):
less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) – only new impervious areas are considered PDP OR
greater than fifty percent (50%) – the entire project site is a PDP

1821

Page 15 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
FORM I-3B SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST FOR PDPS
Site Information Checklist
For PDPs
Form I-3B (PDPs)
[March 15, 2016]
Project Summary Information
Project Name South Santa Fe Townhomes
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 , Portion of 217 -161 -17 -00 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)

___2.60_ Acres (_113,143__ Square Feet)
Area to be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area)

___2.62_ Acres (_114,115__ Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area)

___1.72_ Acres (_75,064 Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area)

___0.77_ Acres (_39,051__ Square Feet)
Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.

This may be more than the Parcel Area.

1822

Page 16 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I-3B Page 2 of 10 , Form Date: March 15 , 201 6
Descrip tion of Existing Site Condition
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply):
Existing development
Previously graded but not built out
Demolition completed without new construction
Agricultural or other non-impervious use
 Vacant, undeveloped/natural

Description / Additional Information:

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 that 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:

1823

Page 17 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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, concrete 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 the 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 South Santa Fe Townhomes” prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated December 2024.):

The site is surrounded by residential homes to the north, east and south, and industrial offices to th e west. The site is primarily undeveloped with a shar ed 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 while the central portion slopes up to an elevated pad at the north end of the site. La s Flores Drive along the property’s eastern boundar y has approximately a 15-20% grade upward to the nort h to allow vehicle access over the railroad tracks north of the property. Elevations across the site r ange from a high of approximately 546 feet in the northeast corner of the property to a low of approx imately 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 and 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 runoff 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 before 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 adjacent 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 northerly 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 located 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.

1824

Page 18 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I-3B Page 4 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Description of Proposed Site Development
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:

A Multi-Family Site Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map (TSP) for Condominium Purposes to allow 46 dwelling units on a 2.60 acre site.

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 development with approximately 46 dwelling units, at-grade parking lots, 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 features 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.

1825

Page 19 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I-3B Page 5 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Description of Proposed Site Drainage Patterns
Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)?
 Yes
No
If yes, provide details regarding the proposed project site drainage conveyance network, including storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels, and the method for conveying offsite flows through or around the proposed project site. Identify all discharge locations from the proposed project site along with a summary of the conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide a summary of pre- and post-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the runoff discharge locations. Reference the drainage study for detailed calculations.

Describe proposed site drainage patterns (refer to “Preliminary Hydrology Study for South Santa Fe Townhomes prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated December 2024.):

The proposed site is divided into six (6) drainage basins:

Drainage Basin P1 consists of the proposed site’s upper level buildings, buildings 3 and 4, and a portion of existing hillside area from an adjacent lot that drains into the project site at the northeast corner of the property. Runoff from areas P1.0 and P1.1 will be captured by a series of area drains around the buildings and a ribbon gutter within the building drive aisles then drain to a proprietary biofiltration system. Treated flows and peak flows then enter the private storm drain pipe system again and flow to an underground storm water storage facility for detention. Area P1.2 is a self-mitigating area along the north property line of the project where a ditch captures perimeter surface runoff then pipe flows to the underground detention facility to confluence with P1.0 and P1.1. A weir bypass structure downstream of the detention system will control flow rates to meet hydromodification and peak 100-year storm flow rates before confluencing with Area P1.3. Area P1.3 generates surface runoff that drains into the project site from the adjacent hillside lot at the north east corner of the site. A new concrete ditch is proposed along the project’s northeasterly boundary to capture off-site run-on from the hillside that will bypass treatment and detention. Detained and bypass flows will then confluence 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.

Drainage Basin P2 consists of the proposed site’s 2 lower level buildings (building 1 and 2), south amenity areas, and portion of the on-site access road. Areas P2.0 and P2.1 generate surface runoff that sheet flows southerly down the access road via curb and gutter into a curb inlet then flows via underground pipe to a proprietary biofiltration system within the southeast amenity area for the project. Treated flows and peak flows from the biofiltration system will then exit and pipe flow to an underground storm water storage facility for detention. Area P2.3 is a self-mitigating area that bypasses treatment but pipe flows to the detention system to confluence with areas P2.0 and P2.1. Subareas P2.4 and P2.5 generate runoff from a portion of the lower access road that sheet flows southerly via curb and gutter into a biofiltration system with a curb inlet, but will bypass detention. Treated and peak flows from the biofiltration system will then exit and pipe flow to confluence with the detention tank’s outlet pipe flows. All flow from P2 will confluence with detained flows from P3 and P4 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.

1826

Page 20 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I-3B Page 6 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Drainage Basin P3 consists of the proposed site’s upper parking areas and building 5. Surface runoff will be captured in a ribbon gutter and routed to a curb inlet which leads to 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. Flows exiting the detention system will pipe flow down the access road to confluence with detained flows from P4 and P2 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.

Drainage Basin P4 consists of proposed buildings 6 and 7, and the 2:1 slopes between the two buildings.

Runoff will be captured in area drains around both buildings that will then pipe flow 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 within the amenity area north of Building 2. Flows exiting the detention system will pipe flow into the access road to confluence with P3 then pipe flow down the access road to confluence with P2 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.

Drainage Basin P5 consists of the adjacent property’s existing commercial building, existing parking area and existing 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 the P5 runoff without comingling with on-site project runoff. Surface flows from P5 then flow southerly via ribbon gutter and onto South Santa Fe Avenue curb and gutter via new curb outlet.

Drainage Basin P6 consists of downslopes on the northwestern side of the project site. Storm water runoff will surface flow onto the adjacent property. This area is infeasible to capture and is considered self-mitigating.

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:
1827

Page 21 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

Form I-3B Page 7 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water and Pollutants of Concern Describe flow path of storm water from the project site discharge location(s), through urban storm conveyance systems as applicable, to receiving creeks, rivers, and lagoons as applicable, and ultimate discharge to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable):

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 heads 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 Pacific Ocean.

List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs and/or Highest Priority Pollutants from the WQIP for the impaired water bodies:
303(d) Impaired
Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s)
TMDLs / WQIP Highest Priority
Pollutant
Agua Hedionda
Creek
Benthic Community Effects, Bifenthrin,
Chlorpyrifos, Cypermethrin, Cyfluthrin,
Cyhalothrin, Lambda, Deltamehrin,
Indicator Bacteria, Manganese,
Pyrethroids, Malathion, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, Selenium, Total Dissolved
Solids, Toxicity, Turbidity
Benthic Community Effects, Bifenthrin,
Chlorpyrifos, Cypermethrin, Cyfluthrin,
Cyhalothrin, Lambda, Deltamehrin,
Indicator Bacteria, Manganese,
Pyrethroids, Malathion, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, Selenium, Total Dissolved
Solids, Toxicity, Turbidity
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon Toxicity 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 pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):

Pollutant
Not Applicable to the
Project Site
Expected from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving Water
Pollutant of Concern
Sediment X 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
1828

Page 22 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I-3B Page 8 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Hydromodification Management Requirements
Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)?  Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean.
No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides.

Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above):

Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries?
Yes
 No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps

If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed?
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite  No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps

If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result?  No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2.b of the SWQMP. Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.

Discussion / Additional Information:

1829

Page 23 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I-3B Page 9 of 10 , Form Date: March 15, 2016
Flow Control for Post -Project Runoff*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit.

There is one (1) POCs for the project, POC-1. POC-1 is located southwest of the project site where the existing curb inlet 18” lateral confluences with the 60” main in South Santa Fe Avenue (See Attachment 1a and 2a).

Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)?  No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2

If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer:

Discussion / Additional Information: (optional)

1830

Page 24 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed.

1831

Page 25 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 : S outh Santa Fe Townhomes
Permit Application Number
Source Control BMPs
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC -1 through SC -6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist.

Answer each category below pursuant to the following.
• "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion / justification must be provided.
• "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas).

Discussion / justification may be provided.

Source Control Requirement Applied?
SC -1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4  Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SC -1 not implemented:

SC -2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage  Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SC -2 not implemented:

SC -3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run -On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No  N/A
Discussion / justification if SC -3 not implemented:

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:

1832

Page 26 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 control
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots

 Yes
 Yes
Yes
Yes
 Yes
Yes
Yes
 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
 Yes
 Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Discussion / justification if SC -6 not implemented. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discussed. Justification must be provided for all "No" answers shown above.

1833

Page 27 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 : South Santa Fe Townhomes
Permit Application Number
Site Design BMPs
All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD -1 through SD -8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist.

Answer each category below pursuant to the following.
• "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion / justification must be provided.
• "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve).

Discussion / justification may be provided.

Site Design Requirement Applied?
SD -1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Yes No  N/A Discussion / justification if SD -1 not implemented:

SD -2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Yes  No N/A Discussion / justification if SD -2 not implemented:

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:

1834

Page 28 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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:

Harvest and use is not feasible for this project.

1835

Page 29 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
FORM I-6 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS
Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Form I-6 (PDPs)
[March 15, 2016]
Project Identification
Project Name : South Santa Fe Townhomes
Permit Application Number
PDP Structural BMPs
All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s).

PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the local jurisdiction at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative and engineer of record to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the local jurisdiction must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual).

Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet (page 3 of this form) for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP).

Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated or separate.

DMAs 1-5/ BMPs 1A-5A
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 storm 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 6-11
According to section 5.2.1 of the BMP Design Manual for the City of San Marcos, these DMAs qualify as de-minimis or 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 are undisturbed native topsoil, or disturbed soils that have been amended and aerated, impervious

1836

Page 30 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -6 Page 2 of 10 Form Date: March 15, 2016
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 permanent 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. 1A 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 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 & Associates
34270 Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite B
Dana Point, CA 92629
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

1837

Page 31 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

Form I -6 Page 3 of 10 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. 2A DMA Nos: 2
Construction Plan Sheet No.

1838

Page 32 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024

Form I -6 Page 4 of 10 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. 3A DMA Nos: 3
Construction Plan Sheet No.

1839

Page 33 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -6 Page 5 of 10 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. 4A DMA Nos: 4
Construction Plan Sheet No.

1840

Page 34 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -6 Page 6 of 10 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. 5A DMA Nos: 5
Construction Plan Sheet No.

1841

Page 35 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -6 Page 7 of 10 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. 1B DMA Nos: 1, 7
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 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)

1842

Page 36 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -6 Page 8 of 10 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. 2B DMA Nos: 2, 8
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 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)

1843

Page 37 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -6 Page 9 of 10 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. 3B 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 requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
 Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below)

1844

Page 38 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Form I -6 Page 10 of 10 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. 4B DMA Nos: 4
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 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)

1845

Page 39 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 use harvest and use BMPs)

Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-8.


Included
Not included because the entire
project will use harvest and use BMPs

Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design
Worksheets / Calculations (Required)

Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP
Design Manual for structural pollutant
control BMP design guidelines


Included

1846

Page 40 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit:

The DMA Exhibit must identify:

Underlying hydrologic soil group
Approximate depth to groundwater
Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
Existing topography and impervious areas
Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite Proposed demolition
Proposed grading
Proposed impervious features
Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source controls (see Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Form I-3B)
Structural BMPs (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail)

1847
555
555
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535 535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510 510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500 500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SDSDSDSD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD
SDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD
SD SD
SD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD
SDSD
SDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

LAS FLORES DRIVE
S. SANTA FE AVENUE
APN: 217-161-25 APN: 217-161-25
APN: 217-560-51
APN: 219-114-28
PROP. WEIR BYPASS

STRUCTURE
PROP. WEIR BYPASS
STRUCTURE 2
PROP. WEIR BYPASS
STRUCTURE 1
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 42-INCH RCPEX. 42-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. CURB INLET
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 54-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
PROP. CURB OUTLET
PROP. SDCO
POC-1
1 3
2 2
2 2
34 5
44 6
7 7
8 10
9 11
2A 2B
1A 1B
1B
5A
4A
4B
3A
3B
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\Attachments\Attachment 1- Backup for BMPs\Att 1a - DMA Exhibit GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20'
0 20' 40' 60'

DMA EXHIBIT

SOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

DMA EXHIBIT

SOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES

DRAINAGE

MANAGEMENT

AREA (DMA)
TOTAL
AREA
(SF/AC)
TOTAL IMPV.

AREA (SF/AC)
TOTAL PERV.

AREA (SF/AC) DMA TYPE BMP TYPE BMP
#
1 DRAINS TO
BMP

DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY

BIOFILTRATION

DETENTION
VAULT
2 DRAINS TO
BMP

DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY

BIOFILTRATION

DETENTION
VAULT
6,493/

0.15 15,866/

0.36 22,359/

0.51 10,965/

0.25 27,334/

0.63 38,299/

0.88 DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY
BIOFILTRATION3 4,730/

0.11 12,861/

0.29 17,591/

0.40 DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY
BIOFILTRATION4 10,145/

0.23 11,824/

0.27 21,969/

0.50 DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY
BIOFILTRATION5 1,493/

0.03 5,943/

0.14 7,436/

0.17 DE MINIMIS6 83/

0.001
396/

0.009
479/

0.01 SELF
MITIGATING7 1,361/

0.03 742/

0.02 2,103/

0.05 8 3,163/

0.07 0/

0.00 3,163/

0.07 9 369/

0.008
98/

0.002
467/

0.01 10 45/

0.001
0/

0.00 45/

0.001
11 204/

0.005
0/

0.00 204/

0.005
SELF

MITIGATING
SELF

MITIGATING
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

BMP SIZE

PROVIDED
1A
1B
2A
2B
3A
4A
5A
4'x8'
4'x17'
4'x8'
4'x8'
4'x4'

DMA SUMMARY LEGEND

RIGHT OF WAY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

BASIN BOUNDARY

EXISTING CONTOURS

STREET CENTER LINE

PROPOSED STORM DRAINSD

PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM

PROPOSED PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM

LIMITS OF PROPOSED BUILDING

LIMITS OF PROPOSED PAVEMENT
DMA AREA #X
DMA AREA #X

UNDERGROUND EXISTING PIPE DRAINAGE PATH

DETENTION
VAULT 1B

DETENTION
VAULT 2B

DRAINS TO
BMP

DETENTION
VAULT 3B

DRAINS TO
BMP

DETENTION
VAULT 4B
2,200 SF

5.12' HIGH
1,400 SF

5.67' HIGH
1,264 SF
7' HIGH
600 SF

5.67' HIGH
1848
ATTACHMENT 1c
1849
3527 South Santa Fe Townhomes
DMA-1
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.75 inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.51 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.67 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= 933 cubic-feet
Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 15,866 0.9 14,279
Pervious 6,493 0.1 649
Total 22,359 14,929 0.67
DMA-2
1 85 th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.75 inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.88 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.67 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= 1606 cubic-feet
Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 27,334 0.9 24,601
Pervious 10,965 0.1 1,097
Total 38,299 25,697 0.67
DMA-3
1 85 th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.75 inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.40 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.68 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= 753 cubic-feet
4/4/2025
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
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
1850
Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 12,861 0.9 11,575
Pervious 4,730 0.1 473
Total 17,591 12,048 0.68
DMA-4
1 85 th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.75 inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.50 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.53 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= 729 cubic-feet
Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 11,824 0.9 10,642
Pervious 10,145 0.1 1,015
Total 21,969 11,656 0.53
DMA-5
1 85 th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.75 inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.17 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.74 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= 344 cubic-feet
Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 5,943 0.9 5,349
Pervious 1,493 0.1 149
Total 7,436 5,498 0.74
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
Weighted RF
Weighted RF
Weighted RF
1851
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 (3 people per unit x 46 units) x (1.86 cuft/person-36 hr) = 256.68 cuft/36hr Landscape Irrigation
(0.90 ac irrigated) x (390 gal/ac-36hr) x (0.13368 cuft/gal) = 46.92 cuft/36hr Total = 257 cuft + 47 cuft = 304 cuft

3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1.

DCV = 4,365 cuft
1852

ATTACHMENT 1d

1853

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.

1854
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.

1855
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.
1856
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

1857
TsaP-1QyaTsaP-2P-2 APPROXIMATE PERC TEST LOCATIONLEGENDTERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION TsaAPPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACTQUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL QyaFLOOD PLAIN DEPOSITS 1858

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”

1859

APPENDIX B

PERCOLATION TEST DATA AND

INFILTRATION RATE CONVERSION CALCULATIONS
1860
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
1861
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,
1862
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)
1863

APPENDIX C

PERCOLATION TEST BORING LOGS

1864

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
1865
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
1866
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
1867
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
1868

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1869

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"
1870

APPENDIX E
C.4-1 WORKSHEET
1871
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
1872
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
1873
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:

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.
1874
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:

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.
1875

ATTACHMENT 1e

1876
3527 S Santa Fe Townhomes
DMA-1
Modular Wetlands-4-8 treats 0.115 cfs
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= 0.51 acres Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF 8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.67 unitless Impervious 15,866 0.9 14,279 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.07 cfs Pervious 6,493 0.1 649

1.5Q= 0.103 cfs Total 22,359 14,929 0.67
DMA-2
4 DCV requiring flow-thru DCV
flow-thru 1108 cubic-feet Modular Wetlands-4-17 treats 0.206 cfs 6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.88 acres Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF 8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.67 unitless Impervious 27,334 0.9 24,601 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.12 cfs Pervious 10,965 0.1 1,097

1.5Q= 0.177 cfs Total 38,299 25,697 0.67
DMA-3
Modular Wetlands-4-8 treats 0.083 cfs
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= 0.40 acres Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF 8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.68 unitless Impervious 12,861 0.9 11,575 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.06 cfs Pervious 4,730 0.1 473

1.5Q= 0.083 cfs Total 17,591 12,048 0.68
DMA-4
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Weighted RF
Weighted RF
Weighted RF
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
12/6/2024
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
1877
Modular Wetlands-4-8 treats 0.115 cfs
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= 0.50 acres Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF 8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.53 unitless Impervious 11,824 0.9 10,642 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.05 cfs Pervious 10,145 0.1 1,015

1.5Q= 0.080 cfs Total 21,969 11,656 0.53
DMA-5
Modular Wetlands-4-4 treats 0.052 cfs
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= 0.17 acres Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF 8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.74 unitless Impervious 5,943 0.9 5,349 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.03 cfs Pervious 1,493 0.1 149

1.5Q= 0.038 cfs Total 7,436 5,498 0.74
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Weighted RF
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Weighted RF
1878

Page 41 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 Drawdown Calculations
and Overflow Design Summary
(Required)
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the
BMP Design Manual

Included
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document

Attachment 2e Vector Control Plan (Required when
structural BMPs will not drain in 96
hours)

Included (to be provided in Final
Engineering)
Not required because BMPs will drain
in less than 96 hours

1879

Page 42 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
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 proposed 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)

1880
570
570
565
565
560
560
560
555
555
555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535 535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510 510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500 500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X

LAS FLORES DRIVE
S. SANTA FE AVENUE
E1.0
A=1.29 AC
E4.0
A=0.14 AC
E2.0
A=0.04 AC
E3.0
A=1.65 AC
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N23°37'25"E 302.74'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N71°25'12"W 102.01'
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N23°19'42"E 222.07'
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N66°38'44"W 250.78'
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N23°34'48"E 588.84'
EX. ROW
EX. ROW
APN: 217-16-17
APN: 217-16-25

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°31'31"E

47.03'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N61°17'56"E

40.16'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N71°08'14"E

28.75'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N61°17'56"E

40.16'
EX. 60-INCH RCP EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 36-INCH RCP
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 24-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE B-1 INLET
EX. 42-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
EX. CMP RISER
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE B-1 INLET
EX. TYPE F

CATCH BASIN
EX. 18-INCH RCP
LEGEND

LIMITS OF EXISTING BUILDING

LIMITS OF EXISTING AC PAVEMENT

STREET CENTERLINE

RIGHT OF WAY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

BASIN BOUNDARY

EXISTING CONTOURS

STORM DRAINAGE PIPE

UNDERGROUND PIPE DRAINAGE PATH
DMA ID

DMA AREA (AC)

DMA REFERENCE CALLOUT

HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT

PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS

SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT

PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS

SOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES
1881
555
555
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535 535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510 510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500 500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SDSDSDSD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD
SDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD
SD SD
SD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD
SDSD
SDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

LAS FLORES DRIVE
S. SANTA FE AVENUE
APN: 217-161-25 APN: 217-161-25
APN: 217-560-51
APN: 219-114-28
PROP. WEIR BYPASS

STRUCTURE
PROP. WEIR BYPASS
STRUCTURE 2
PROP. WEIR BYPASS
STRUCTURE 1
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. TYPE A-4 CLEANOUT
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 42-INCH RCPEX. 42-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
EX. CURB INLET
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 54-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 60-INCH RCP
EX. 18-INCH RCP
PROP. CURB OUTLET
PROP. SDCO
POC-1
1 3
2 2
2 2
34 5
44 6
7 7
8 10
9 11
2A 2B
1A 1B
1B
5A
4A
4B
3A
3B
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\Attachments\Attachment 2 - Backup for Hydromodification Control Measures\Att 2a - Hydromod Exhibits GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20'
0 20' 40' 60'

HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT

POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS

SOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT

POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS

SOUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES

DRAINAGE

MANAGEMENT

AREA (DMA)
TOTAL
AREA
(SF/AC)
TOTAL IMPV.

AREA (SF/AC)
TOTAL PERV.

AREA (SF/AC) DMA TYPE BMP TYPE BMP
#
1 DRAINS TO
BMP

DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY

BIOFILTRATION

DETENTION
VAULT
2 DRAINS TO
BMP

DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY

BIOFILTRATION

DETENTION
VAULT
6,493/

0.15 15,866/

0.36 22,359/

0.51 10,965/

0.25 27,334/

0.63 38,299/

0.88 DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY
BIOFILTRATION3 4,730/

0.11 12,861/

0.29 17,591/

0.40 DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY
BIOFILTRATION4 10,145/

0.23 11,824/

0.27 21,969/

0.50 DRAINS TO
BMP

PROPRIETARY
BIOFILTRATION5 1,493/

0.03 5,943/

0.14 7,436/

0.17 DE MINIMIS6 83/

0.001
396/

0.009
479/

0.01 SELF
MITIGATING7 1,361/

0.03 742/

0.02 2,103/

0.05 8 3,163/

0.07 0/

0.00 3,163/

0.07 9 369/

0.008
98/

0.002
467/

0.01 10 45/

0.001
0/

0.00 45/

0.001
11 204/

0.005
0/

0.00 204/

0.005
SELF

MITIGATING
SELF

MITIGATING
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

BMP SIZE

PROVIDED
1A
1B
2A
2B
3A
4A
5A
4'x8'
4'x17'
4'x8'
4'x8'
4'x4'

DMA SUMMARY LEGEND

RIGHT OF WAY

PROJECT BOUNDARY

BASIN BOUNDARY

EXISTING CONTOURS

STREET CENTER LINE

PROPOSED STORM DRAINSD

PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM

PROPOSED PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM

LIMITS OF PROPOSED BUILDING

LIMITS OF PROPOSED PAVEMENT
DMA AREA #X
DMA AREA #X

UNDERGROUND EXISTING PIPE DRAINAGE PATH

DETENTION
VAULT 1B

DETENTION
VAULT 2B

DRAINS TO
BMP

DETENTION
VAULT 3B

DRAINS TO
BMP

DETENTION
VAULT 4B
2,200 SF

5.12' HIGH
1,400 SF

5.67' HIGH
1,264 SF
7' HIGH
600 SF

5.67' HIGH
1882

ATTACHMENT 2b

1883
1884

ATTACHMENT 2d

1885
3527 South Santa Fe
12/4/2024

SWMM MODEL SCHEMATICS

PRE-DEVELOPMENT MODEL

POST-PROJECT MODEL
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\SWMM\Output\3527_SWMM_Schematics.xlsx 1886 3527 South Santa Fe
12/4/2024
DMA BMP 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 NA 1.09 288 8.0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0.100 6.000 0.310 0.080 2 NA 1.51 193 13.0% 0% 0% 53% 47% 0.065 7.410 0.305 0.080 Total: 2.60
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 RTank-1B 0.56 554 68% 1.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.310 0.06 2 StormTrap-2B 0.95 1061 66% 9.0% 0% 50% 50% 0.047 7.500 0.305 0.06 3 RTank-3B 0.40 281 74% 1.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.310 0.06 4 StormTrap-4B 0.50 382 54% 14.0% 0% 91% 9% 0.070 6.270 0.309 0.06 5 MWS 0.17 285 80% 3.0% 0% 0% 100% 0.019 9.000 0.300 0.06 SM-9-11 NA 0.016 116 14% 50.0% 0% 0% 100% 0.019 9.000 0.300 0.06 Total: 2.60
C: 0.1 in/hr C: 6 in C: 0.31
D: 0.025 in/hr D: 9 in D: 0.30
POC-1

SWMM INPUT

PRE-DEVELOPMENT

POST-PROJECT
Infiltration: Suction Head: Initial Deficit
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\SWMM\3527_SWMM_Input.xlsx 1887
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
1888
POC-1

;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
Escondido INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Escondido

[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Param1 Param2 Param3 Param4 Param5 ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- DMA-1 6 0.1 0.31
DMA-2 7.41 0.065 0.305

[OUTFALLS]
;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- POC-1 0 FREE NO

[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Escondido FILE "Rain Data\escondido\escondido1.dat"

[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options

SUBCATCHMENTS ALL

NODES ALL

LINKS ALL

[TAGS]

[MAP]
DIMENSIONS -829.402 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
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
1889
POC-1

[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA-1 -758.346 6657.435
DMA-2 662.783 6679.992

[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
Escondido -9.075 7491.454

1890
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

[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
1891
POC-1

;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
Escondido INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Escondido

[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- DMA-1 Escondido Rtank1-B 0.56 68 554 1 0 DMA-2 Escondido StormTrap2-B 0.95 66 1061 9 0 DMA-3 Escondido Rtank3-B 0.40 74 281 1 0 DMA-4 Escondido StormTrap4-B 0.5 54 382 14 0 DMA-5 Escondido POC-1 0.17 80 285 3 0 SM-9-11 Escondido POC-1 0.016 14 116 50 0

[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- DMA-1 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-2 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-3 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-4 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-5 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET SM-9-11 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET

[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Param1 Param2 Param3 Param4 Param5 ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- DMA-1 6 0.075 0.31 7 0 DMA-2 7.5 0.047 0.305 7 0 DMA-3 6 0.075 0.31 7 0 DMA-4 6.27 0.07 0.309 7 0 DMA-5 9 0.019 0.3 7 0 SM-9-11 9 0.019 0.3 7 0

[OUTFALLS]
;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ---------------- POC-1 0 FREE NO

[STORAGE]
;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Type/Params SurDepth Fevap Psi Ksat IMD ;;-------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------------------- --------- -------- -------- -------- Rtank1-B 0 5.12 0 TABULAR Rtank1-B 0 0 StormTrap2-B 0 5.67 0 TABULAR StormTrap2-B 0 0 Rtank3-B 0 7 0 TABULAR Rtank3-B 0 0 StormTrap4-B 0 5.67 0 TABULAR StormTrap4-B 0 0 Stormgate1 0 5.69 0 TABULAR Stormgate1 0 0 Stormgate2 0 7.52 0 TABULAR Stormgate2 0 0

[OUTLETS]
;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------- -------- 1892
POC-1

OUTLET-1 Rtank1-B Stormgate1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH Outlet-1-Rtank1-B NO OUTLET-2 StormTrap2-B POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B NO OUTLET-3 Rtank3-B Stormgate2 0 TABULAR/DEPTH Outlet-3-Rtank3-B NO OUTLET-4 StormTrap4-B POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B NO OUTLET-1-1 Stormgate1 POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 NO OUTLET-3-1 Stormgate2 POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 NO

[CURVES]
;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B Rating 0 0
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 0.2 0.012
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 0.4 0.019
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 0.6 0.024
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 0.8 0.028
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 1 0.031
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 1.2 0.034
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 1.4 0.037
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 1.6 0.04
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 1.8 0.042
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 2 0.044
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 2.2 0.047
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 2.4 0.049
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 2.6 0.051
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 2.8 0.053
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 3 0.055
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 3.2 0.056
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 3.4 0.058
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 3.6 0.06
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 3.8 0.062
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 4 0.063
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 4.2 0.065
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 4.4 0.066
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 4.6 0.068
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 4.8 0.069
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 5 0.071
Outlet-1-Rtank1-B 5.12 0.072
;
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B Rating 0 0
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 0.2 0.003
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 0.4 0.004
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 0.6 0.005
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 0.8 0.006
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 1 0.006
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 1.2 0.007
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 1.4 0.008
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 1.6 0.008
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 1.8 0.009
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 2 0.009
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 2.2 0.01
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 2.4 0.01
1893
POC-1

Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 2.6 0.011
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 2.8 0.011
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 3 0.011
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 3.2 0.012
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 3.4 0.012
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 3.6 0.012
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 3.8 0.013
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 4 0.013
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 4.2 0.301
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 4.4 0.639
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 4.6 0.841
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 4.8 1.002
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 5 1.14
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 5.2 1.347
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 5.4 3.18
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 5.6 6.094
Outlet-2-StormTrap2-B 5.67 7.301
;
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B Rating 0 0
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 0.2 0.008
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 0.4 0.011
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 0.6 0.014
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 0.8 0.017
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 1 0.019
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 1.2 0.02
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 1.4 0.022
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 1.6 0.024
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 1.8 0.025
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 2 0.027
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 2.2 0.028
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 2.4 0.029
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 2.6 0.03
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 2.8 0.032
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 3 0.033
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 3.2 0.034
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 3.4 0.035
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 3.6 0.036
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 3.8 0.037
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 4 0.038
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 4.2 0.039
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 4.4 0.04
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 4.6 0.041
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 4.8 0.041
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 5 0.042
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 5.2 0.043
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 5.4 0.044
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 5.6 0.045
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 5.8 0.046
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 6 0.046
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 6.2 0.047
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 6.4 0.048
1894
POC-1

Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 6.6 0.049
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 6.8 0.049
Outlet-3-Rtank3-B 7 0.05
;
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B Rating 0 0
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 0.2 0.002
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 0.4 0.003
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 0.6 0.003
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 0.8 0.004
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 1 0.004
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 1.2 0.005
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 1.4 0.005
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 1.6 0.005
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 1.8 0.006
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 2 0.006
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 2.2 0.006
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 2.4 0.006
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 2.6 0.007
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 2.8 0.007
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 3 0.007
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 3.2 0.007
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 3.4 0.008
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 3.6 0.008
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 3.8 0.159
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 4 0.544
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 4.2 0.772
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 4.4 0.943
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 4.6 1.088
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 4.8 1.215
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 5 1.33
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 5.2 1.478
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 5.4 2.437
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 5.6 3.935
Outlet-4-StormTrap4-B 5.67 4.553
;
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 Rating 0 0
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 0.2 0.17
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 0.4 0.632
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 0.6 1.298
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 0.8 2.051
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 1 2.674
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 1.2 3.164
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 1.4 3.588
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 1.6 3.966
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 1.8 4.312
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 2 4.632
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 2.2 4.931
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 2.4 5.213
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 2.6 5.48
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 2.8 5.735
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 3 5.979
1895
POC-1

Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 3.2 6.214
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 3.4 6.44
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 3.6 6.658
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 3.8 6.87
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 4 7.075
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 4.2 7.274
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 4.4 7.468
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 4.6 7.657
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 4.8 7.842
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 5 8.022
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 5.2 8.212
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 5.4 9.632
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 5.6 11.979
Outlet-1-1-Stormgate1 5.69 13.247
;
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 Rating 0 0
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 0.2 0.17
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 0.4 0.632
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 0.6 1.298
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 0.8 2.051
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 1 2.674
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 1.2 3.164
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 1.4 3.588
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 1.6 3.966
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 1.8 4.312
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 2 4.632
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 2.2 4.931
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 2.4 5.213
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 2.6 5.48
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 2.8 5.735
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 3 5.979
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 3.2 6.214
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 3.4 6.44
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 3.6 6.658
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 3.8 6.87
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 4 7.075
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 4.2 7.274
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 4.4 7.468
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 4.6 7.657
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 4.8 7.842
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 5 8.022
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 5.2 8.198
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 5.4 8.371
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 5.6 8.54
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 5.8 8.706
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 6 8.869
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 6.2 9.029
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 6.4 9.186
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 6.6 9.34
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 6.8 9.492
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 7 9.641
1896
POC-1

Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 7.2 10.085
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 7.4 11.875
Outlet-3-1-Stormgate2 7.52 13.334
;
Rtank1-B Storage 0 2090
Rtank1-B 5.12 2090
;
StormTrap2-B Storage 0 1190
StormTrap2-B 5.67 1190
;
Rtank3-B Storage 0 1200.8
Rtank3-B 7 1200.8
;
StormTrap4-B Storage 0 510
StormTrap4-B 5.67 510
;
Stormgate1 Storage 0 16
Stormgate1 5.69 16
;
Stormgate2 Storage 0 16
Stormgate2 7.52 16

[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Escondido FILE "Rain Data\escondido\escondido1.dat"

[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options

SUBCATCHMENTS ALL

NODES ALL

LINKS ALL

[TAGS]

[MAP]
DIMENSIONS -2361.375 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None

[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1 367.387 1986.771
Rtank1-B -1852.918 5433.483
StormTrap2-B -346.741 5826.202
Rtank3-B 1114.197 5710.015
StormTrap4-B 2166.127 3972.116
Stormgate1 -1142.903 4267.564
Stormgate2 991.562 4562.225

[VERTICES]
1897
POC-1

;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------

[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA-1 -2092.081 6778.774
DMA-2 -586.916 6911.793
DMA-3 1443.046 6681.614
DMA-4 3293.806 5908.130
DMA-5 -1797.398 3088.207
SM-9-11 2739.090 2608.857

;;Storage Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
Rtank1-B -1852.918 5433.483
StormTrap2-B -346.741 5826.202
Rtank3-B 1114.197 5710.015
StormTrap4-B 2166.127 3972.116
Stormgate1 -1142.903 4267.564
Stormgate2 991.562 4562.225

[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
Escondido 392.092 7571.018

1898

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\SWMM\Output\3527_PreProject_SWMM_results.docx

EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.2 (Build 5.2.4) ------------------------------------------------------------

3527 South Santa Fe
Pre-Development Condition

****************
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 ...... 132.409 611.120
Evaporation Loss ......... 1.894 8.743
Infiltration Loss ........ 118.708 547.885
Surface Runoff ........... 12.932 59.686
Final Storage ............ 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.850

************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 12.932 4.214
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 12.932 4.214
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 ...... 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000

1899

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\SWMM\Output\3527_PreProject_SWMM_results.docx

***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
***************************

Analysis begun on: Wed Dec 4 09:37:48 2024
Analysis ended on: Wed Dec 4 09:37:59 2024
Total elapsed time: 00:00:11

1900

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx

EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.2 (Build 5.2.4) ------------------------------------------------------------

3527 South Santa Fe
Post-Project Condition

****************
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 ...... 132.206 611.120
Evaporation Loss ......... 12.305 56.880
Infiltration Loss ........ 38.479 177.870
Surface Runoff ........... 83.709 386.945
Final Storage ............ 0.005 0.022
Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.734

************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 83.709 27.278
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 78.386 25.543
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
1901

********************************
Highest Flow Instability Indexes
********************************
Link OUTLET-1-1 (7)
Link OUTLET-3-1 (7)

*************************
Routing Time Step Summary
*************************
Minimum Time Step : 59.00 sec
Average Time Step : 60.00 sec
Maximum Time Step : 60.00 sec
% of Time in Steady State : 0.00
Average Iterations per Step : 1.00
% of Steps 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-1 611.12 0.00 57.76 174.49 367.89 20.56 388.46 5.91 0.46 0.636 DMA-2 611.12 0.00 57.31 171.45 358.35 35.45 393.79 10.16 0.79 0.644 DMA-3 611.12 0.00 62.81 141.82 399.49 16.63 416.12 4.52 0.33 0.681 DMA-4 611.12 0.00 46.66 248.81 293.23 31.91 325.14 4.41 0.41 0.532 DMA-5 611.12 0.00 69.89 83.89 433.96 36.97 470.93 2.17 0.14 0.771 SM-9-11 611.12 0.00 33.71 359.99 76.84 160.18 237.02 0.10 0.01 0.388

******************
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 Rtank1-B STORAGE 0.01 4.80 4.80 803 10:05 4.80 StormTrap2-B STORAGE 0.15 4.52 4.52 10332 04:02 4.52 Rtank3-B STORAGE 0.02 6.58 6.58 803 10:06 6.58 StormTrap4-B STORAGE 0.09 3.93 3.93 10332 03:51 3.93 Stormgate1 STORAGE 0.00 0.10 0.10 803 10:07 0.06 1902

*******************
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 0.16 1.40 10332 04:01 2.28 25.5 0.000 Rtank1-B STORAGE 0.46 0.46 10332 03:31 5.91 5.91 0.000 StormTrap2-B STORAGE 0.79 0.79 10332 04:01 10.2 10.2 0.009 Rtank3-B STORAGE 0.33 0.33 10332 03:31 4.52 4.52 0.001 StormTrap4-B STORAGE 0.41 0.41 10332 03:46 4.41 4.41 0.015 Stormgate1 STORAGE 0.00 0.07 803 10:05 0 5.91 20.903 Stormgate2 STORAGE 0.00 0.05 803 10:06 0 4.52 18.597

*********************
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rtank1-B 0.026 0.2 0.0 0.0 10.027 93.7 803 10:05 0.07 StormTrap2-B 0.175 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.383 79.8 10332 04:02 0.76 Rtank3-B 0.020 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.900 94.0 803 10:06 0.05 StormTrap4-B 0.047 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.003 69.3 10332 03:51 0.41 Stormgate1 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.002 1.7 803 10:07 0.08 Stormgate2 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.001 0.9 803 10:08 0.06

***********************
Outfall Loading Summary
***********************

----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total
Freq Flow Flow Volume
Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal 1903

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx
----------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 16.54 0.01 1.40 25.541 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 16.54 0.01 1.40 25.541

********************
Link Flow Summary
********************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 0.07 803 10:05
OUTLET-2 DUMMY 0.76 10332 04:02
OUTLET-3 DUMMY 0.05 803 10:06
OUTLET-4 DUMMY 0.41 10332 03:51
OUTLET-1-1 DUMMY 0.08 803 10:05
OUTLET-3-1 DUMMY 0.06 803 10:06

*************************
Conduit Surcharge Summary
*************************

No conduits were surcharged.

Analysis begun on: Wed Dec 4 09:42:20 2024
Analysis ended on: Wed Dec 4 09:43:01 2024
Total elapsed time: 00:00:41

1904
POC-1
Peak Flow Frequency Summary
Return Period Pre-project Qpeak
(cfs)
Post-project - Mitigated Q
(cfs)
LF = 0.1xQ2 0.103 0.045
2-year 1.035 0.446
Permavoid Layer 1.314 0.829
10-year 1.534 0.972
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN\SWMM\3527 SWMM_PostProcessing_Alt1.xlsx 1905

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Flow in cfs
Return Period in Years
POC-1
Peak Flow Frequency Curves
Pre-project Qpeak
Post-project Mitigated Qpeak
1906
Low-flow Threshold: 10% POC-1

0.1xQ2 (Pre): 0.103 cfs
Q10 (Pre): 1.534 cfs
Ordinate #: 100
Incremental Q (Pre): 0.01430 cfs
Total Hourly Data: 382736 hours The proposed BMP: PASSED Permavoid Layer Pre-project Flow
(cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project %
Time Exceeding
Post-project %
Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
0 0.103 407 1.06E-03 443 1.16E-03 109% Pass
1 0.118 383 1.00E-03 377 9.85E-04 98% Pass
2 0.132 370 9.67E-04 326 8.52E-04 88% Pass
3 0.146 363 9.48E-04 280 7.32E-04 77% Pass
4 0.161 354 9.25E-04 249 6.51E-04 70% Pass
5 0.175 337 8.81E-04 230 6.01E-04 68% Pass
6 0.189 320 8.36E-04 206 5.38E-04 64% Pass
7 0.204 311 8.13E-04 191 4.99E-04 61% Pass
8 0.218 296 7.73E-04 182 4.76E-04 61% Pass
9 0.232 282 7.37E-04 179 4.68E-04 63% Pass
10 0.246 272 7.11E-04 170 4.44E-04 63% Pass
11 0.261 258 6.74E-04 160 4.18E-04 62% Pass
12 0.275 239 6.24E-04 152 3.97E-04 64% Pass
13 0.289 221 5.77E-04 145 3.79E-04 66% Pass
14 0.304 203 5.30E-04 132 3.45E-04 65% Pass
15 0.318 192 5.02E-04 117 3.06E-04 61% Pass
16 0.332 186 4.86E-04 114 2.98E-04 61% Pass
17 0.347 181 4.73E-04 105 2.74E-04 58% Pass
18 0.361 175 4.57E-04 86 2.25E-04 49% Pass
19 0.375 171 4.47E-04 79 2.06E-04 46% Pass
20 0.389 164 4.28E-04 72 1.88E-04 44% Pass
21 0.404 154 4.02E-04 71 1.86E-04 46% Pass
22 0.418 148 3.87E-04 68 1.78E-04 46% Pass
23 0.432 145 3.79E-04 67 1.75E-04 46% Pass
24 0.447 140 3.66E-04 63 1.65E-04 45% Pass
25 0.461 134 3.50E-04 60 1.57E-04 45% Pass
26 0.475 127 3.32E-04 58 1.52E-04 46% Pass
27 0.490 122 3.19E-04 56 1.46E-04 46% Pass
28 0.504 119 3.11E-04 53 1.38E-04 45% Pass
29 0.518 112 2.93E-04 44 1.15E-04 39% Pass
30 0.532 105 2.74E-04 44 1.15E-04 42% Pass
31 0.547 96 2.51E-04 44 1.15E-04 46% Pass
32 0.561 94 2.46E-04 43 1.12E-04 46% Pass
33 0.575 92 2.40E-04 42 1.10E-04 46% Pass
34 0.590 91 2.38E-04 40 1.05E-04 44% Pass
35 0.604 90 2.35E-04 39 1.02E-04 43% Pass
36 0.618 88 2.30E-04 39 1.02E-04 44% Pass
37 0.633 86 2.25E-04 35 9.14E-05 41% Pass
38 0.647 84 2.19E-04 29 7.58E-05 35% Pass
39 0.661 82 2.14E-04 26 6.79E-05 32% Pass
40 0.675 80 2.09E-04 26 6.79E-05 33% Pass
41 0.690 77 2.01E-04 25 6.53E-05 32% Pass
42 0.704 76 1.99E-04 23 6.01E-05 30% Pass
43 0.718 72 1.88E-04 23 6.01E-05 32% Pass
44 0.733 68 1.78E-04 23 6.01E-05 34% Pass
45 0.747 65 1.70E-04 23 6.01E-05 35% Pass
46 0.761 61 1.59E-04 23 6.01E-05 38% Pass
47 0.776 60 1.57E-04 22 5.75E-05 37% Pass
48 0.790 58 1.52E-04 19 4.96E-05 33% Pass
49 0.804 55 1.44E-04 18 4.70E-05 33% Pass
50 0.819 54 1.41E-04 17 4.44E-05 31% Pass
51 0.833 49 1.28E-04 13 3.40E-05 27% Pass
52 0.847 49 1.28E-04 11 2.87E-05 22% Pass
53 0.861 49 1.28E-04 10 2.61E-05 20% Pass
54 0.876 47 1.23E-04 10 2.61E-05 21% Pass
1907
Permavoid Layer Pre-project Flow
(cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project %
Time Exceeding
Post-project %
Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
55 0.890 44 1.15E-04 10 2.61E-05 23% Pass
56 0.904 42 1.10E-04 10 2.61E-05 24% Pass
57 0.919 42 1.10E-04 9 2.35E-05 21% Pass
58 0.933 42 1.10E-04 9 2.35E-05 21% Pass
59 0.947 42 1.10E-04 7 1.83E-05 17% Pass
60 0.962 41 1.07E-04 6 1.57E-05 15% Pass
61 0.976 41 1.07E-04 6 1.57E-05 15% Pass
62 0.990 40 1.05E-04 3 7.84E-06 8% Pass
63 1.004 37 9.67E-05 3 7.84E-06 8% Pass
64 1.019 34 8.88E-05 3 7.84E-06 9% Pass
65 1.033 31 8.10E-05 2 5.23E-06 6% Pass
66 1.047 31 8.10E-05 2 5.23E-06 6% Pass
67 1.062 27 7.05E-05 2 5.23E-06 7% Pass
68 1.076 26 6.79E-05 2 5.23E-06 8% Pass
69 1.090 26 6.79E-05 2 5.23E-06 8% Pass
70 1.105 25 6.53E-05 2 5.23E-06 8% Pass
71 1.119 20 5.23E-05 1 2.61E-06 5% Pass
72 1.133 20 5.23E-05 1 2.61E-06 5% Pass
73 1.147 19 4.96E-05 1 2.61E-06 5% Pass
74 1.162 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
75 1.176 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
76 1.190 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
77 1.205 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
78 1.219 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
79 1.233 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
80 1.248 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
81 1.262 17 4.44E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
82 1.276 16 4.18E-05 1 2.61E-06 6% Pass
83 1.290 14 3.66E-05 1 2.61E-06 7% Pass
84 1.305 11 2.87E-05 1 2.61E-06 9% Pass
85 1.319 9 2.35E-05 1 2.61E-06 11% Pass
86 1.333 8 2.09E-05 1 2.61E-06 13% Pass
87 1.348 7 1.83E-05 1 2.61E-06 14% Pass
88 1.362 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
89 1.376 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
90 1.391 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
91 1.405 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
92 1.419 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
93 1.433 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
94 1.448 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
95 1.462 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
96 1.476 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
97 1.491 7 1.83E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
98 1.505 6 1.57E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
99 1.519 5 1.31E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
100 1.534 5 1.31E-05 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
1908

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02
Flow (cfs)
% Time Exceeding
POC-1
Flow Duration Curve
[Pre vs. Post (Mitigated)]
Pre-project Q
Post-project (Mitigated) Q
1909
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 2 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: Rtank 1-B Alt1
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
526.60'
10,701 cf
Tank 1-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
526.60
2,200

0.0 0
0 2,200
527.00
2,200

95.0 836
836
2,267
528.00
2,200

95.0 2,090
2,926
2,433
529.00
2,200

95.0 2,090
5,016
2,599
530.00
2,200

95.0 2,090
7,106
2,765
531.72
2,200

95.0 3,595
10,701
3,051
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
526.60'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

6.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
526.60'
/
526.53'

0.0117
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
526.60'

1.10" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
1910
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 3 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 2P: Rtank 1-B Alt1
1911
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 4 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Stormgate 1
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
526.53'
91 cf
Stormgate (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
526.53
16 0.0
0 0
16 527.00
16 100.0
8 8
23 528.00
16 100.0
16 24
37 529.00
16 100.0
16 40
51 530.00
16 100.0
16 56
65 531.72
16 100.0
28 83
90 532.22
16 100.0
8 91
97 Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
526.53'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

13.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
526.53'
/
526.08'

0.0346
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Primary
531.72'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.50

0.50 Width
(feet)

4.00 4.00

0.00 1912
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 5 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 3P: Stormgate 1
1913
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 6 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 4P: StormTrap 2-B Alt 1
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
486.93'
6,747 cf
Tank 2-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
486.93
1,400

0.0 0
0 1,400
488.00
1,400

85.0 1,273
1,273
1,542
489.00
1,400

85.0 1,190
2,463
1,675
490.00
1,400

85.0 1,190
3,653
1,807
490.93
1,400

85.0 1,107
4,760
1,931
491.00
1,400

85.0 83
4,843
1,940
492.00
1,400

85.0 1,190
6,033
2,072
492.60
1,400

85.0 714
6,747
2,152
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
486.93'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

34.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
486.93'
/
486.59'

0.0100
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
486.93'

0.50" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#3
Device 1
490.93'

12.00" W x 3.00" H Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited
to
weir
flow
at
low
heads

#4
Device 1
492.10'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.50

0.50 Width
(feet)

5.00 5.00

0.00 1914
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 7 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 4P: StormTrap 2-B Alt 1
1915
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 8 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 5P: Rtank 3-B Alt1
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
520.06'
8,406 cf
Tank 3-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
520.06
1,264

0.0 0
0 1,264
521.00
1,264

95.0 1,129
1,129
1,382
522.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
2,330
1,509
523.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
3,530
1,635
524.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
4,731
1,761
525.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
5,932
1,887
526.00
1,264

95.0 1,201
7,133
2,013
527.06
1,264

95.0 1,273
8,406
2,146
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
520.06'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

14.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
520.06'
/
519.94'

0.0086
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
520.06'

0.85" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
1916
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 9 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 5P: Rtank 3-B Alt1
1917
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 10 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 6P: Stormgate 2
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
519.94'
120 cf
Stormgate 2 (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
519.94
16 0.0
0 0
16 521.00
16 100.0
17 17
31 522.00
16 100.0
16 33
45 523.00
16 100.0
16 49
59 524.00
16 100.0
16 65
74 525.00
16 100.0
16 81
88 526.00
16 100.0
16 97
102
527.06
16 100.0
17 114
117
527.46
16 100.0
6 120
123
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
519.94'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=
290.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
519.94'
/
490.01'

0.1032
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Primary
527.06'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.40

0.40 Width
(feet)

4.00 4.00

0.00 1918
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 11 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 6P: Stormgate 2
1919
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 12 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 7P: StormTrap 4-B Alt1
Volume
Invert
Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
490.33'
2,892 cf
Tank 4-B (Conic)
Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic-feet)
(cubic-feet)
(sq-ft)
490.33
600

0.0 0
0 600
491.00
600

85.0 342
342
658
492.00
600

85.0 510
852
745
493.00
600

85.0 510
1,362
832
494.00
600

85.0 510
1,872
919
495.00
600

85.0 510
2,382
1,006
496.00
600

85.0 510
2,892
1,092
Device
Routing
Invert
Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
490.33'

12.00" Round Culvert
L=

32.0'

RCP,
square
edge
headwall,

Ke=

0.500

Inlet
/
Outlet
Invert=
490.33'
/
490.01'

0.0100
'/'

Cc=

0.900

0.013,

Flow
Area=

0.79 sf

#2
Device 1
490.33'

0.40" Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#3
Device 1
494.00'

12.00" W x 3.00" H Vert. Orifice
C= 0.600
Limited
to
weir
flow
at
low
heads

#4
Primary
495.50'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head
(feet)

0.00 0.50

0.50 Width
(feet)

2.50 2.50

0.00 1920
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc

Page 13 ends

HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 7P: StormTrap 4-B Alt1
1921
Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe RTank-1B
Project No 3527 12/4/2024
Vault Drawdown Time: 76.9 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(in): 1.1
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs)

5.12 10701 0.071

3.4 7106 0.058

2.4 5016 0.048

1.4 2926 0.036

0.4 836 0.018
0 0 0.000
Ave Q: 0.03863
Drawdown (hrs) (Vol/Ave Q): 76.9
1922
Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe StormTrap-2B
Project No 3527 12/4/2024
Vault Drawdown Time: 164.9 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(in): 0.5
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs)
4 4760 0.013

3.07 3653 0.011

2.07 2463 0.009

1.07 1273 0.007

0.00 0 0.00
Ave Q: 0.00802
Drawdown (hrs) (Vol/Ave Q): 164.9
1923
Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe RTank-3B
Project No 3527 12/4/2024
Vault Drawdown Time: 74.0 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(in): 0.85
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs)
7 8406 0.050
6 7133 0.046
5 5932 0.042
4 4731 0.038
3 3530 0.032
2 2330 0.026
1 1129 0.018
0 0 0.000
Ave Q: 0.03155
Drawdown (hrs) (Vol/Ave Q): 74.0
1924
Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe StormTrap-4B
Project No 3527 12/4/2024
Vault Drawdown Time: 112.0 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(in): 0.4
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs)

3.67 1872 0.008

2.67 1362 0.007

1.67 852 0.005

0.67 342 0.003
0 0 0.000
Ave Q: 0.00464
Drawdown (hrs) (Vol/Ave Q): 112.0
1925

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). 1926
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, 20211927
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 1928
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 1929
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 1930
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 1931
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 1932
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 1933
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 1934
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 1935
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.
1936

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 1937
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 1938
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 1939
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 1940
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"

1941
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 1942

Page 43 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION

This is the cover sheet for Attachment 3.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 3a Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds
and Actions (Required)


Included

See Structural BMP Maintenance
Information Checklist on the back of this
Attachment cover sheet.

Attachment 3b Draft Maintenance Agreement (when
applicable)
Included
Not Applicable

1943

Page 44 of 45 ends

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment:

 Preliminary Design / Planning / CEQA level submittal:

Attachment 3a must identify:

Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual

Attachment 3b is not required for preliminary design / planning / CEQA level submittal.

Final Design level submittal:

Attachment 3a must identify:

Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s)
How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable
Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP)
Recommended equipment to perform maintenance
When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management

Attachment 3b: For private entity operation and mai ntenance, Attachment 3b shall include a draft maintenance agreement in the local jurisdicti on's standard format (PDP applicant to contact the [City Engineer] to obtain the current maintenance agreement forms).

1944

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).
1945

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
1946

STORMTRAP MAINTENANCE MANUAL

1. Introduction

Regular inspections are recommended to ensure that the sys tem is functioning as designed.

Please call your Authorized StormTrap Representative if you have questions in regards to the inspection and maintenance of the StormTrap system. Prior to e ntry into any underground storm sewer or underground detention systems, appropriate OSHA a nd local safety regulations and guidelines should be followed.

2. Inspection Schedules for Municipalities

StormTrap Stormwater Management Systems are recommended for inspection whenever the upstream and downstream catch basins and stormwater pipes of t he stormwater collection system are inspected or maintained. This will economize the cost of the inspection if it is done at the same time the Municipal crews are visiting the area.

3. Inspection Schedules for Private Development

StormTrap Stormwater Mangement Systems, for a private d evelopment, are reco mmended for inspection after each major storm water event. At a minimum, u ntil a cleaning schedule can be established, an annual inspection is recommended. If in spected on an annual basis, the inspection should be conducted before the stormwater season be gins to be sure that everything is functioning properly for the upcoming storm season.

4. Inspection Process

Inspections should be done such that at least 2-3 days has lapsed since the most recent rain event to allow for draining. Visually inspect the system at all manhole locations. Utilizing a sediment pole, measure and document the amount o f silt at each manhole location (Figure 1). Inspect each pipe opening to ensure that the silt level or any forei gn objects are not blocking the pipes. Be sure to inspect the outlet pipe(s) because this is typically the smallest 1947

pipe in the system. It is common that most of the larger materials will be collected upstream of the system in catch basins, and it is therefore important at tim e of inspections to check these structures for large trash or blockages.

Remove any blockages if you can during the inspection process only if you can do so safely from the top of the system without entering into the system . Do not go into the system under any circumstances without p roper ventilation equipment and training. Pass any information requiring action onto the appropriate maintenance personnel if you c annot remove the blockages from above during the inspection process. Be sure to describe the location of each manhole and the type of material that needs to be removed.

The sediment level of the system should also be measured and recorded during the inspection process. Recording the sediment level at each manhole is very important in order get a history of sediment that can be graphed over time (i.e. years) in order to estimate when the system will need to be maintained next. It is also important to keep these record s to verify that the inspection process was actually performed if anyone asks for your records in the future.

The sediment level in the underground detention system can be determined from the outside of the system by opening up all the manholes and using a sediment pole to measure the amount of sediment at each location. Force the stick to the bottom of the system an d then remove it and measure the amount of sediment at that location. Again, do n ot go into the system under any circumstances without proper ventilation equipment and training.

5. When to Clean the System

Any blockages should be safely removed as soon as practical so that the Stormwater detention system will fill and drain properly before the next stormwater event.

The Dry Detention System should be completely cleaned whenever the sediment occupies more than 10% to 15% of the originally designed system’s volume. The Wet Detention System should be cleaned when the sediment occupies more than 30% or 1/3rd of the originally designed system’s volume. NOTE: Check with your municipality in regards to 1948

cleaning criteria, as the allowable sediment before c leaning may be more or less then described above.

6. How to Clean the StormTrap

The system should be completely cleaned back to 100% of the originally designed storage volume whenever the above sediment levels have been reached. Be sure to wait at least 3 days after a stormwater event to be sure that the system is completely drained (if it is a Dry Detention System), and all of the sediments have settled to the bottom of the system (if it is a Wet Detention System).

Do not enter the System unless you are properly trained, equipped, and qualified to enter a confined space as identified by local occupational safety and health regulations.

There are many maintenance companies that are in business to help you clean your underground stormwater detention syste ms and water quality units. Please cal l your StormTrap representative for referrals in your area.

A. Dry Detention System Cleaning

Maintenance is typically performed using a vacuum truck. Sediment should be flushed towards a vacuum hose for thorough removal. For a Dry Detention System, remove the manhole cover at the top of the system and lower a vacu um hose into one of the rows of the StormTrap system. Open up the manhole at the op posite end of the StormTrap and use sewer jetting equipment to force water in the same row from one end of the StormTrap row to the opposite side. The rows of the StormTrap are completely open in one contiguous channel from one end to the other for easy cleaning.

Place the vacuum hose and the sewer jetting equipment in the next row and rep eat the process until all of the rows have been cleaned.

When finished, replace all covers that were removed and dispose of the collected material properly.
1949

B. Wet Detention System Cleaning

If the system was designed to maintain a permanent pool of water, floatables and any oil should be removed in a separate procedure prior to the removal of all sediment.

The floatable trash is removed first by using a bucket strainer to capture and remove any floating debris.

The floatable oils are then removed off the top of the water by using the vacuum truck to suck off any floatable fluids and liquids.

The next step is to use the vacuum truck to gently remove the clarified water above the sediment layer.

The final step is to clean the sediment for each row as described above in the paragraph “A.

Dry Detention System Cleaning”. For smaller systems, the vacuum truck can remove all of the sediment in the basin without using the sewer jetting equipment be cause of the smaller space.

7. Inspection Reports

Proof of these inspections is the respon sibility of the property owner . All inspection reports and data should be kept on site or at a location where they will be accessible for years in the future. Some municipalities require these inspection and cleaning reports to be forwarded to the proper governmental permitting agency on an annual basis.

Refer to your local and national regulations for any additional maintenance requirements and schedules not c ontained herein. Inspections should be a part of your standard operati ng procedure.

1950

Figure 1. During inspection, measure the distance from finished grade to the top of the sediment inside the system.

Sample inspection and maintenance log

1951

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
Modular Wetlands® Linear
Operation & Maintenance Manual
1952
2 MODULAR WETLANDS® LINEAR

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview ........................................................................................................3 Inspection Summary ....................................................................................... 4 Inspection Process ..........................................................................................5 Maintenance Indicators ..................................................................................6 Inspection Process ..........................................................................................7 Maintenance Summary .................................................................................. 8 Pretreatment Chamber ................................................................ 9 Prefilter Cartridge ......................................................................10 Biofiltration Chamber ................................................................11 Discharge Chamber ...................................................................12 Inspection Report .........................................................................................13 Cleaning and Maintenance Report ................................................................14 1953
3 OVERVIEW
The Modular Wetlands® Linear Biofilter is designed to remove high levels of trash, debris, sediments, nutrients, metals, and hydrocarbons. Its simple design allows for quick and easy installation. The system is housed in a standard precast structure and can be installed at various depths to meet site-specific conditions.

INTRODUCTION
This is the Modular Wetlands Linear Biofilter operation and maintenance manual. Before starting, read the instructions and equipment lists closely. It is important to follow all necessary safety procedures associated with state and local regulations. Some steps required confined space entry. Please contact Contech for more information on pre-authorized third party contractors who can provide installation services in your area. For a list of service providers in your area please visit: www.conteches.com/maintenance.

Pretreatment
Chamber
Biofiltration
Chamber
Discharger
Chamber
Prefilter Box
Biofiltration
Media
Flow
Control
Riser
Vertical
Underdrain
Outflow
Inflow
1954
4 INSTRUCTIONS

INSPECTION SUMMARY
Stormwater regulations require BMPs be inspected and maintained to ensure they are operating as designed to allow for effective pollutant removal and provide protection to receiving water bodies. It is recommended that inspections be performed multiple times during the first year to assess the site specific loading conditions. The first year of inspections can be used to set inspection and maintenance intervals for subsequent years to ensure appropriate maintenance is provided.
• Inspect pre-treatment, biofiltration, and discharge chambers an average of once every six to twelve months. Varies based on site specific and local conditions.
• Average inspection time is approximately 15 minutes. Always ensure appropriate safety protocol and procedures are followed.

The following is a list of equipment required to allow for simple and effective inspection of the Modular Wetlands Linear:
• Modular Wetlands Linear Inspection Form
• Flashlight
• Manhole hook or appropriate tools to remove access hatches and covers • Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures
• Measuring pole and/or tape measure
• Protective clothing and eye protection
• 7/16” open or closed ended wrench
• Large permanent black marker (initial inspections only - first year) Note: entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine inspections of the system

INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE NOTES

1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended that the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms.

2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time.

3. Transport all debris, trash, organics, and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements.

4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations.

5. No fertilizer shall be used in the biofiltration chamber.

6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may not require irrigation after initial establishment. 1955
5 INSPECTION PROCESS

1. Prepare the inspection form by writing in the necessary information including project name, location, date & time, unit number and other information (see inspection form).

2. Observe the inside of the system through the access covers. If minimal light is available and vision into the unit is impaired, utilize a flashlight to see inside the system and all of its chambers.

3. Look for any out of the ordinary obstructions in the inflow pipe, pre-treatment chamber, biofiltration chamber, discharge chamber or outflow pipe. Write down any observations on the inspection form.

4. Through observation and/or digital photographs, estimate the amount of trash, debris accumulated in the pre-treatment chamber. Utilizing a tape measure or measuring stick, estimate the amount of sediment in this chamber. Record this depth on the inspection form.

5. Through visual observation, inspect the condition of the pre-filter cartridges. Look for excessive build-up of sediment on the cartridges, any build-up on the tops of the cartridges, or clogging of the holes. Record this information on the inspection form. The prefilter cartridges can be further inspected by removing the cartridge tops and assessing the color of the BioMediaGREEN filter cubes (requires entry into pre-treatment chamber - see notes previous notes regarding confined space entry). Record the color of the material. New material is a light green color. As the media becomes clogged, it will turn darker in color, eventually becoming dark brown or black.

The closer to black the media is the higher percentage that the media is exhausted and is in need of replacement.

6. The biofiltration chamber is generally maintenance-free due to the system’s advanced pre-treatment chamber. For units which have open planters with vegetation, it is recommended that the vegetation be inspected. Look for any plants that are dead or showing signs of disease or other negative stressors. Record the general health of the plants on the inspection form and indicate through visual observation or digital photographs if trimming of the vegetation is required.

7. The discharge chamber houses the orifice control structure, drain down filter (only in California - older models), and is connected to the outflow pipe. It is important to check to ensure the orifice is in proper operating conditions and free of any obstructions. It is also important to assess the condition of the drain down filter media which utilizes a block form of the BioMediaGREEN. Assess in the same manner as the cubes in the pre- filter cartridge as mentioned above. Generally, the discharge chamber will be clean and free of debris. Inspect the water marks on the side walls. If possible, inspect the discharge chamber during a rain event to assess the amount of flow leaving the system while it is at 100% capacity (pre-treatment chamber water level at peak HGL - top of bypass weir). The water level of the flowing water should be compared to the watermark level on the side walls, which is an indicator of the highest discharge rate the system achieved when initially installed. Record on the form if there is any difference in level from the watermark in inches.

INSPECTION
• Excessive accumulation of sediment in the pre-treatment chamber of more than 6" in depth.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the BioMediaGREEN media housed within the pre- treatment cartridges. The following chart shows photos of the condition of the BioMediaGREEN contained within the pre-filter cartridges. When media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is required.
7 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
New
BioMediaGREEN
0%
Exhausted
BioMediaGREEN
100%85%
1956
6 MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
Based upon the observations made during inspection,
maintenance of the system may be required based on the
following indicators:
• Missing or damaged internal components or
cartridges
• Obstructions in the system or its inlet and/or outlet pipes
• Excessive accumulation of floatables in the
pretreatment chamber in which the length and
width of the chamber is fully impacted more than
18”. See photo below.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment in the
pretreatment chamber of more than 6” in depth.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the
BioMediaGREEN media housed within the
pretreatment cartridges. The following chart shows
photos of the condition of the BioMediaGREEN
contained within the pre-filter cartridges. When
media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is
required.
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the
BioMediaGREEN media housed within the
pretreatment cartridges. When media is more than
85% clogged, replacement is required. The darker
the BioMediaGREEN, the more clogged it is and in
need of replacement.

INSPECTION

MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
Based upon the observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may be required based on the following indicators:
• Missing or damaged internal components or cartridges
• Obstructions in the system or its inlet and/or outlet pipes • Excessive accumulation of floatables in the pre-treatment chamber in which the length and width of the chamber is fully impacted more than 18". See photo below.

INSPECTION

8. Finalize the inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required.
6 ©2022 COPYRIGHT | CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
NOTE: During the first few storms, the water level in the outflow chamber should be observed and a 6” long horizontal watermark line drawn (using a large permanent marker) at the water level in the discharge chamber while the system is operating at 100% capacity. The diagram below illustrates where the line should be drawn. This line is a reference point for future inspections of the system.

Water level in the discharge chamber is a function of flow rate and pipe size. Observation of the water level during the first few months of operation can be used as a benchmark level for future inspections. The initial mark and all future observations shall be made when the system is at 100% capacity (water level at maximum level in the pre-treatment chamber). If future water levels are below this mark when the system is at 100% capacity, this is an indicator that maintenance to the pre-filter cartridges may be needed.

8. Finalize the inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required.
1957
7 INSPECTION PROCESS
• Excessive accumulation of sediment on the BioMediaGREEN media housed within the drain down filter (California only - older models). The following photos show the condition of the BioMediaGREEN contained within the drain down filter. When media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is required. • Overgrown vegetation.
• Water level in the discharge chamber during 100% operating capacity (pretreatment chamber water level at max height) is lower than the water mark by 20%.

The following is a list of equipment to required for maintenance of the Modular Wetlands® Linear:
• Modular Wetlands Linear Maintenance Form
• Manhole hook or appropriate tools to access hatches and covers • Protective clothing, flashlight, and eye protection
• 7/16” open or closed ended wrench
• Vacuum assisted truck with pressure washer
• Replacement BioMediaGREEN for pre-filter cartridges if required (order from one of Contech’s Maintenance Team members at https://www.conteches.com/maintenance).
1959
9 MAINTENANCE | PRETREATMENT CHAMBER

1. Remove access cover over pre-treatment chamber and position vacuum truck accordingly.

2. With a pressure washer, spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and pre-filter cartridges.

3. Vacuum out pre-treatment chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants including trash, debris, and sediments. Be sure to vacuum the floor until the pervious pavers are visible and clean.

4. If pre-filter cartridges require media replacement, continue to step 5. If not, replace access cover and move to step 11.

1. MAINTENANCE (PRE-TREATMENT CHAMBER)
Remove access cover over pre-treatment chamber and position vacuum truck accordingly.