> D.1b Appendices to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Fe Flores, LP Project (ND22-008) — San Marcos City Council, May 26, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

Attachment 3
Wildlife Species Observed

Scientific Name

Common Name

Occupied
Habitat
On-Site Abundance/
Seasonality (Birds Only) Evidence of Occurrence

INVERTEBRATES

PIERIDAE WHITES & SULPHURS
Pieris rapae cabbage white (I) DL O
BIRDS

ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, & EAGLES
Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk FO F/ Y O

COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS & DOVES
Zenaida macroura mourning dove FO C/ Y O

TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird DL C/ Y O

CORVIDAE CROWS, JAYS, & MAGPIES
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow FO C/ Y O

AEGITHALIDAE BUSHTIT
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit UD C/ Y V
Melozone [=Pipilo] crissalis California towhee DL C/ Y O

MAMMALS

SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS & CHIPMUNKS
Otopermophilus [=Spermophilus] beecheyi California ground squirrel DL B

CANIDAE CANIDS
Canis latrans coyote DL S
(I) = Introduced species
NOTE: Zoological nomenclature for invertebrates is in accordance with the NatureServe 2021 and Evans 2008; for fish with NatureServe 2021; for reptiles and amphibians with Crother et. al (2017); for birds with Chesser et al. 2021; for mammals with Bradley et al. (2014), American Society of Mammalogists 2021.

Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 2 ends

Attachment 3
Wildlife Species Observed

Scientific Name

Common Name

Occupied
Habitat
On-Site Abundance/
Seasonality (Birds Only) Evidence of Occurrence

HABITATS ABUNDANCE
DL = Disturbed land C = Common to abundant; almost always encountered in proper habitat, usually in FO = Flying overhead moderate to large numbers
UD = Urban/developed F = Fairly common; usually encountered in proper habitat, generally not in large numbers

EVIDENCE OF OCCURRENCE SEASONALITY (birds only)
B = Burrow Y = Year-round resident; probable breeder on-site or in vicinity O = Observed
S = Scat
V = Vocalization

ATTACHMENT 4
Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to Occur

Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 1 ends

Attachment 4
Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential to Occur Scientific Name
Common Name
Sensitivity Code & Status
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Detected On-Site
Yes/No
Potential to
Occur On-Site
(Observed or

L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/
Federal
Status
CNPS
Rank
County of
San Diego
ANGIOSPERMS: DICOTS

APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii
San Diego button-celery
SE/FE 1B.1 -- Biennial/perennial herb; vernal
pools, mesic areas of coastal sage
scrub and grasslands, blooms
April–June; elevation less than
2,000 feet. Known from San Diego
and Riverside counties. Additional
populations occur in Baja
California, Mexico.

No U Unlikely to occur due to lack
of vernal pools, mesic areas of
coastal sage scrub, and
grasslands. This species has
been documented within a 1-
mile radius of the survey area
(CDFW 2022b).

ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens
decumbent goldenbush
–/– 1B.2 -- Perennial shrub; chaparral, coastal
sage scrub; sandy soils, often in
disturbed areas; blooms April–
November; elevation less than 500
feet.

Yes H This species was observed on-
site.

Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 2 ends

L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/
Federal
Status
CNPS
Rank
County of
San Diego
ANGIOSPERMS: MONOCOTS

THEMIDACEAE BRODIAEA FAMILY
Brodiaea filifolia
thread-leaved brodiaea
[=thread-leaf brodiaea]
SE/FT 1B.1 -- Perennial herb (bulbiferous);
cismontane woodland, coastal
sage scrub, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools;
often clay soils; blooms March–
June; elevation 80-3,675 feet.

California endemic. Known from
San Diego, Riverside, Orange, Los
Angeles, and San Bernardino
counties.

No U Unlikely to occur due to lack
of cismontane woodland,
coastal sage scrub, playas,
valley and foothill grassland,
and vernal pools
. Additionally,
the survey was conducted
during the time of this
species blooming period and
no flowering individuals or
vegetative stems/stalks were
observed at the time of
survey. This species has been
documented within a 1-mile
radius of the survey area
(CDFW 2022b).

Brodiaea orcuttii
Orcutt’s brodiaea
–/– 1B.1 -- Perennial herb (bulbiferous);
closed cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools; mesic, clay soil;
blooms May–July; elevation less
than 5,600 feet.

No U Unlikely to occur due to lack
of closed cone coniferous
forest, chaparral, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools.

This species has been
documented within a 1-mile
radius of the survey area
(CDFW 2022b).

Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 3 ends

L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/
Federal
Status
CNPS
Rank
County of
San Diego

FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND LISTED PLANTS STATE LISTED PLANTS FE = Federally listed endangered SE = State listed endangered FT = Federally listed threatened

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY (CNPS): CALIFORNIA RARE PLANT RANKS (CRPR) 1B = Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. .1 = Species seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened; high degree and immediacy of threat). .2 = Species fairly threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat).

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON-SITE
U = Unexpected

ATTACHMENT 5
Sensitive Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur

Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 1 ends

Attachment 5
Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring or with the Potential to Occur Common Name/
Scientific Name
Sensitivity Code & Status
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Detected
On-Site?
Yes/No
Potential to
Occur On-Site
(Observed or

L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/Federal
Status
County of
San Diego

INVERTEBRATES

BRANCHINECTIDAE FAIRY SHRIMP
San Diego fairy shrimp
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
FT MHCP Vernal pools. No U Not expected to occur. No
vernal pools or other
depressions containing
wetland or vernal pool plant
species characteristic of vernal
habitat were observed.

BIRDS

ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, & EAGLES
Cooper’s hawk (nesting)
Accipiter cooperii
WL/- MHCP Mature forest, open
woodlands, wood edges,
river groves. Parks and
residential areas.

No M Moderate potential to nest
within the survey area due to
the presence of suitable trees
for nesting.

POLIOPTILIDAE GNATCATCHERS
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
SSC/FT MHCP Coastal sage scrub, maritime
succulent scrub. Resident.

No U Not expected to occur due to
the lack of coastal sage scrub,
and maritime succulent scrub.

This species has been
documented within a 1-mile
radius of the survey area
(CDFW 2022b).

Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 2 ends

L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/Federal
Status
County of
San Diego

PASSERELLIDAE NEW WORLD PASSERINES
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
WL/- MHCP Coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, grassland.

Resident.

No U Not expected to occur due to
the lack of coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, and grassland. This
species has been documented
within a 1-mile radius of the
survey area (CDFW 2022b).

MAMMALS

MUSTELIDAE WEASELS, OTTERS, & BADGERS
American badger
Taxidea taxus
SSC/- -- Grasslands, Sonoran desert
scrub.

No U Not expected to occur in the
survey area due to the high
level of disturbance and lack
of suitable habitat. This species
has been documented within a
1-mile radius of the survey
area (CDFW 2022a).

Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 3 ends

L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/Federal
Status
County of
San Diego
(I) = Introduced species
NOTE: Zoological nomenclature for invertebrates is in accordance with the NatureServe 2021 and Evans 2008; for fish with NatureServe 2021; for reptiles and amphibians with Crother et. al (2017); for birds with Chesser et al. 2021; for mammals with Bradley et al. (2014), American Society of Mammalogists 202 1. Determination of the potential occurrence for listed, sensitive, or noteworthy species is based upon known ranges and habitat preferences for species follows Eriksen and B elk 1999, Nature Festivals of San Diego County 2002, Evans 2008, Page et al. 2013, Jennings and Hayes 1994, Unitt 2004, Tremor et. al. 2017, Western Bat Working Group 2017, and Harvey et al. 2011. Listing status is based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database (CDFW) 2022d and the County of San Diego MHCP (SANDAG 2003).

STATUS CODES
Listed/Proposed
FT = Listed as threatened by the federal government

Other
SSC = California Department of Fish and Wildlife species of special concern WL = California Department of Fish and Wildlife watch list species MHCP = Multiple Habitat Conservation Program covered species

Potential to Occur On-Si te
M = Medium
U = Unexpected

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Fe Flores, LP Project

APPENDIX C
Cultural Resources Survey

Cultural Resources Survey for the
Santa Fe Flores Project
San Marcos, California

Prepared for

Santa Fe Flores, LP
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Contact: Paul Mayer

Prepared by

RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
P 619.308.9333

RECON Number 9865
March 22, 2022

Nathanial Yerka, Project Archaeologist/Author

Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project
i

NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Author: Nathanial Yerka, Project Archaeologist
Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator Consulting Firm: RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
Report Date: March 21, 2022
Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Fe Flores Project, San Marcos, California
Submitted to: Mr. Paul Mayer
Prepared for: Santa Fe Flores, LP
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067

Project Number: RECON Number 9865
USGS Quadrangle Map: 7.5-minute, San Marcos
Acres: 2.5
Keywords: Negative archaeological survey; San Marcos quadrangle RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) conducted a cultural resources inventory for the proposed Santa Fe Flores Project. The survey covered the entire 2.5 acres of the project located at 2972 and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 217-161-1800 and 217-161-1900).

Cult ural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ iii Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1

1.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2

2.0 Natural Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 2

3.0 Cultural Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 6

3.1 Pa
leoindian Period ............................................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Ar
chaic Period ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Lat
e Prehistoric Period ..................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Ethn
ohistory ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Spa
nish Period .................................................................................................................................... 9

3.6 Me
xican Period ................................................................................................................................. 10

3.7 Ame
rican Period ............................................................................................................................... 10

3.8 Ci
ty of San Marcos ............................................................................................................................ 11

4.0 Background Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 11

5.0 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14

6.0 Report of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14

7.0 Management Considerations................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18

8.0 Certification and Project Staff ................................ ................................ ................................ . 19

9.0 References Cited ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 19

FIGURES
1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2: Project Location on USGS Map .................................................................................................................... 4 3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................... 5 TABLES
1: Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project .............................................................................. 12 Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

PHOTOGRAPHS
1: Overview of Project Area from the Southeast Corner, Looking North ......................................... 15 2: Two Granite Boulders Checked for Cultural Manipulation, Looking North-Northeast ............ 15 3: Overview of Project Area from Northern Terrace on Eastern Boundary, Looking Southwest ..................................................................................................................................... 16 4: Overview of Manufactured Drainage Area on Northern Terrace, Looking South ..................... 16 5: Overview of Southern Terrace Showing a Portion of OHV Disturbance, Looking South ....... 17 6: Episodic Rubbish Dumping on Northern Terrace, Looking West-Northwest ............................. 17

ATTACHMENT
1: N ative American Heritage Request Letter
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT (Under Separate Cover)
1: Records Search : Historical Resources with Primary and Trinomial Designations ; Reports; Historic Addresses

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
C.E. Common Era
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
project Santa Fe Flores Project
RECON RECON Environmental, Inc.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 1 ends

Summary
RECON Environmental conducted a cultural resources inventory, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Register of Historical Resources for the proposed Santa Fe Flores Project (project). The survey covered the entire 2.5-acre parcel located at 2972 and 2982 South Sant a Fe Avenue adjacent to Las Flores Drive on assessor parcel numbers 217-161-1800 and 217- 161-1900. The project is located on a previously graded area and requires a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to Multi -family Residential to allow the development of 50 multi-family residential units that would be three to four stories in height. The project would also include a 1,000-square-foot roof deck for fitness and leisure, a 1,170-square-foot ground floor leasing and amenity center, and 120 square-foot ground floor fire command center. Vehicle parking would include a total of 107 surface parking spaces and bicycle parking would include a total of 11 lock ers or bike storage rooms located on the upper and lower levels.

RECON requested a records search at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. The search radius was one mile. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are recorded on or adjacent to the project area. A total of 31 cultural resources have been documented within one mile of the proj ect boundary, including 9 prehistoric period resources and 2 2 historic period resources. In addition, there are 19 historic addresses listed within the one-mile search radius.

The cultural resources survey took place on March 10, 2022, using a survey interval of approximately seven meters across the property. The RECON archaeologist was accompanied by a Luise ño representative from Saving Sacred Sites. No significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found during the survey of the project area. The project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources. However, the possibility exists for the buried prehistoric archaeological deposits to exist on -site. Because of this factor, RECON recommends that all ground -disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitors representing the Luiseño community.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 2 ends

1.0 Introduction
The Santa Fe Flores project (pro ject) is located in the city of San Marcos at 2972 and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue adjacent to Las Flores Drive on Assessor Parcel Numbers 217 -161-1800 and 217-161-1900 (Figure 1). The 2.5 -acre project area is undeveloped and is currently designated Commercial and Light Industrial in the City of San Marcos (City) General Plan and zoned as Commercial and Light Industrial. The project is located on a previously graded site and requires a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to Multi -family Residential to allow the development of 50 multi-family residential units that would be three to four stories in height. The project would also include a 1,000-square-foot roof deck for fitness and leisure, a 1,170-square-foot ground floor leasing and amenity center, and 120-square-foot ground floor fire command center. Vehicle parking would include a total of 107 surface parking spaces and bicycle parking would include a total of 11 lockers or bike storage rooms located on the upper and lower levels.

The project area is in an unsectioned portion of the Los Vallecitos de San Marcos land grant, of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 -minute topographic map, San Marcos quadrangle (Figure 2; U.S. Geological Survey 1996). The project area is currently undeveloped land. It is surrounded on the west and north by industrial development, to the east by multi-family residential development, and to the south by single-family residential development (Figure 3).

2.0 Natural Setting
The project area is dominated by disturbed habitat which includes areas that have been disturbed through frequent off-roading activity. The project area is comprised of non-native herbaceous cover mixed with non -native grasses. A smaller portion of the project area consists of urban/developed land which features landscaping that receives routine maintenance and irrigation; this area occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area and consists of ornamental vegetation. Elevation of the project area ranges between approximately 495 feet above mean sea level in the south and 550 above mean sea level to the north.

Soils within the project area consist of Diablo clay on the northern portion and Huerhuero loam on the southern portion (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). The Diablo clay series with 9 to 15 percent slopes occurs on strong slopes and ranges from 26 to 37 inches in depth over rock. The Huerhuero loam soil series is loam soils developed in sandy marine sediments and have slopes ranging from 2 to 9 percent. In a representative profile the surface layer is brown and pale brown, strongly acid to medium acid loam. The upper subsoil is brown moderately alkaline clay. Below this is brown mildly alkaline clay loam and sandy loam (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973).

FIGURE 1
Regional Location
kj

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR

CAMP PENDLETON

MARINE CO BASE
Daley Ranch
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Tr ails
Regional Park
Cleveland
NF
Lake Wohlford
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k
S
w
e
e
t w
at e r R i v e r
S
a n D
ie
gu
i t o R i v e r
S
a
n
L u i s R
e
y R i v e r
E s
c
o
n
d
i d
o C r e e k
S a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
San Pasqual Reservation
Rincon
Reservation
La Jolla
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Valley Center
Bostonia
Casa de
Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks Ranch
Granite Hills
Hidden
Meadows
Jamul
Lake
San Marcos
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring Valley
Winter Gardens
UV163
UV78
UV56
UV76
UV75
UV54
UV125
UV67
UV94
UV52
§¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
Carlsbad
Chula
Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
La Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
Vista
kj

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR

CAMP PENDLETON

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
Carlsbad
Chula
Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
La Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
Vista
0 5Miles [
M:\JOBS5\9865\common_gis\fig1.mxd 03/08/2022 bma
LOS

ANGELES

ORANGE RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO

SAN DIEGO
MEXICO
Project Locationkj
FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, San Marcos quadrangle, 1996, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant 0 2,000Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9865\common_gis\fig2_USGS.mxd 03/21/2022 bma FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph

S SANTA FE AVE

LAS FLORES DR

VIALAVENTA

N LAS FLORES DR

NORMAN STRASSE
RD

DE LEONE RD

S SANTA FE AVE

LAS FLORES DR

VIALAVENTA

N LAS FLORES DR

NORMAN STRASSE
RD

DE LEONE RD
Image Source: NearMap (flown January 2022)
0 200Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9865\common_gis\fig3_aerial.mxd 03/21/2022 bma Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 6 ends

3.0 Cultural Setting

3.1 Paleoindian Period
The Paleoindian Period in northern San Diego County is most closely associated with the San Dieguito Complex, as identified by Malcolm Rogers (1938, 1939, 1945) and Claude N. Warren (1961, 1964, 1966, 1967). The San Dieguito Complex includes the Lake Mohave sites, Death Valley I sites, and Playa I and II sites according to Warren (1967) and represents a generalized hunting tradition (Moratto 2004). The San Dieguito Complex can be found in all of San Diego County, parts of Riverside County, north through the Mohave Desert, east through western Arizona, and south into northern Baja California and northern Sonora (Rogers 1966). The San Dieguito Complex assemblage is dominated by finely made scraping and chopping tools, such as well-made scraper planes, choppers, scraping tools, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and leaf -shaped projectile points.

These tools were often made of fine -grained, slate-green felsite, or fine-grained basalt. Projectile points consist of Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types along with non -diagnostic leaf-shaped points.

Evidence of seed grinding technology (manos and metates) is scarce. San Dieguito sites in the desert are typically found around dry Pleistocene playas (Moratto 2004). Site locations and assemblages suggest a subsistence emphasis on lacustrine resources and big game hunting.

3.2 Archaic Period
The Archaic Period in northern San Diego County is represented by the Pauma Complex, a local manifestation of the widespread Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The Millingstone Horizon has been identified throughout coastal southern and central California and includes La Jolla Complex of the San Diego region and the Pauma Complex in the foothills of San Diego and Riverside counties.

These have very similar assemblages and are thought to be different environmental adaptations of the same culture (True 1958). A similar assemblage has been identified in the Cajon Pass area of Riverside County and is referred to as the Sayles Complex (Kowta 1969). This is thought to be transitional between the Pinto Complex of the Mojave Desert and the Millingstone Horizon of the coast (Kowta 1969:1).

The Pauma Complex assemblage suggests a generalized subsistence focus with an emphasis on hard seeds. This emphasis is indicated by the appearance of numerous slab and basin metates and the adoption of a mixed cobble/core -based tool assemblage composed primarily of crudely made choppers, scrapers, and cobble hammerstones.

Pauma Complex sites are typically found on terraces or ridges above a water source such as a stream.

They often do not have discernible midden development, but they may have subsurface deposits.

While they typically have numerous portable metates and manos, they lack bedrock milling, and mortars and pestles (True and Waugh 1981:101-102).

Major technological change within the Archaic Period in San Diego County appears to have been limited mainly to the introduction of large side-notched and Elko series projectile points. There seems to have been some reorientation in settlement from coastal to inland settings during the latter Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 7 ends

portion of this period in northern San Diego County. This settlement shift appears to have occurred around 4,000 years ago and is thought to relate to the final phases of Holocene sea level rise and the resulting siltation of coastal lagoons. Prior to this time, the lagoons had been highly productive sources of shellfish for La Jollan people (Gallegos 1987; Warren et al. 1993).

3.3 Late Prehistoric Period
Near the coast and in the Peninsular Mountains beginning approximately 1,500 years ago, patterns began to emerge that suggest the ethnohistoric Kumeyaay. The Late Prehistoric Period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversif ied and intensif ied during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell -bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive but effective technological innovations. The late prehistoric archaeology of the San Diego coast and foothills is characterized by the Cuyamaca Complex. The Cuyamaca Complex is described by the presence of steatite arrow shaft straighteners, steatite pendants, steatite comales (heating stones), Tizon Brownware pottery, ceramic figurines reminiscent of Hohokam styles, ceramic “Yuman bow pipes,”
ceramic rattles, miniature pottery , various cobble-based tools (e.g., scrapers, choppers, hammerstones), bone awls, manos and metates, mortars and pestles, and Desert Side-notched (more common) and Cottonwood Series projectile points (True 1970).

Other parts of northern San Diego County are also represented by the San Luis Rey Complex (Meighan 1954; True et al. 1974). First described by Meighan (1954) and based on excavations at Pala some 16 miles north-northeast of the study area, San Luis Rey I sites are associated with bedrock milling features and often have recognizable midden soils. The artifact assemblage includes manos and metates, Cottonwood Triangular, and less frequently Desert Side-notched type projectile points, drills, bifacially flaked knives, bone awls, occasional steatite arrow shaft straighteners, and bone and shell ornaments (True and Waugh 1981:87). The Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side- notched points are both smaller than earlier types, suggesting the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology into the region.

San Luis Rey II consists of the same assemblage with the addition of Tizon Brownware ceramics, red and black pictographs, cremation remains in urns, and historic materials such as glass beads and metal objects. True (1966) demonstrated that the San Luis Rey Complex almost certainly represents the ancestors of the Luiseño.

Meighan argued that ceramics, probably introduced into north San Diego County from the south, appeared around 1750 Common Era (C.E.) and were a product of indigenous diffusion that appeared at about the same time or slightly earlier than the Spanish arrival. In contrast, True et al. (1974) suggested that pottery may have appeared as early as 1200 to 1600 C.E. Later, Griset (1996) obtained 22 accelerator mass spectrometry dates from residue on pottery sherds , and she reviewed and recalibrated a number of others. Griset found four dates earlier than 800 C.E. The earliest pottery date in San Diego County according to Griset’s study was from Ystagua at 549 C.E. (1996:251 -253).

However, Griset’s data suggest that pottery was not common in San Diego County until about 1400 C.E. (1996:262). The earliest date for Tizon Brownware in the San Diego region is not long after the advent of Lower Colorado Buff Ware, which was dated as early as 430 C.E. in the vicinity of Blythe (Hildebrand 2003:258-259).

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 8 ends

3.4 Ethnohistory
The study area falls along the border of the Luiseño and Kumeyaay tribal territories (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2014), which can be described as a line following Agua Hedionda Creek, extending northeasterly inland towards Lake Henshaw, north into Riverside County, and west through San Juan Capistrano to the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Kumeyaay historically occupied the area south of Agua Hedionda into what is now Baja California , Mexico, and east into the Imperial Valley. Spanish explorers and missionaries noted that this geopolitical boundary was not static but rather fluid and dynamic (Luomala 1978:593). Because of this fluidity, the San Marcos area could have been inhabited by either the Luiseño or the Kumeyaay during the late Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric periods (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2014). Work by Gallegos (Gallegos et al. 2002) and Comeau (Comeau et al. 2012) has attributed nearby archaeological resources to the Luiseño. This evidence supports Sparkman’s (1908) attribution of the area to the Luiseños.

The Luiseño are the most southwesterly of the Shoshonean or Uto -Aztecan speakers. Historically, the Luiseño social structure was the clan triblet. The triblet was composed of patrilineally related people who were politically and economically autonomous from neighboring triblets. Unlike other Takic-speaking tribes that surrounded them, the Luiseño do not appear to have been organized into exogamous moieties, but may have been loosely divided into mountain -oriented groups and ocean-oriented groups (Bean and Shipek 1978). One or more clans would have resided together in a village (Oxendine 1980). A heredit ary village chief held a position that controlled economic, religious, and warfare powers (Bean and Shipek 1978). The chief had an assistant and an advisory council of shamans and ritual specialists. These positions were also hereditary, with successors being selected from the advisor’s lineage.

Luiseño settlement systems have been carefully reconstructed on the basis of extensive ethnographic and ethnohistoric research (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925; Sparkman 1908; Strong 1929; White 1963). A Luiseño clan controlled one, or possibly more, specified territories, called rancherias. White (1963) suggests that the average inland rancheria had a territory of approximately 30 square miles.

He suggested that the Luiseño settlement system consisted of a series of villages or rancherias located on terraces above a valley bottom watercourse (e.g., the San Luis Rey River). Villages were usually located in defensible locations in sheltered canyons or coves, or on the sides of slopes in warm thermal zones, near reliable water sources. The rancheria owned territory in a contiguous strip leading from the valley bottom to upland areas. This vertical pattern of rancheria territory facilitated gathering plant foods through the year. In early spring, tubers and berries first ripened along the watercourse below the rancheria. As spring turned to summer, chaparral plants near the rancheria became ripe. Later, those at a higher elevation above the rancheria ripened. In fall, people moved temporarily to higher elevations (e.g., Palomar Mountain) for the acorn harvest (White 1963).

A wide variety of plants growing in the various biotic communities between the coast and mountains were utilized by the Luise ño, including acorns, annual grasses , seeds, yucca, sage, chia, lemonade berry, manzanita, and other wild greens and fruits (Kroeber 1925) These resources become available at different times of the year, prompting moves to different campsites. In addition to plant-associated moves, trips to coastal camps to exploit marine resources such as shellfish, fish, and marine mammals would take place.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 9 ends

According to most ethnographic accounts, acorns were considered the most important food source (Bean and Shipek 1978). Since acorns mature at differing rates between groves, and even within individual groves, movement from place to place would have been necessary to be able to effectively harvest the annual acorn crop. Acorns could be harvested in one of two ways, either gathered from the ground after they had fallen or knocked off the tree with long sticks. After harvesting, acorns could either be processed into meal or stored for winter. Acorns had to be dry to be stored to prevent spoilage. Acorns to be processed were first shelled, then worked lightly with a pestle, and winnowed to remove the thin seed covering. Next, acorns were pounded to a fine flower and leached to remove the tannins. After this, acorn flour was ready to be cooked.

Baskets, both coiled and twined, were used in gathering, preparation, and storage of food (Bean and Shipek 1978). Basket size and shape depended on its use. Pottery vessels were used for cooking and storage. Pottery was made using the paddle and anvil technique, and was seldom decorated (Bean and Shipek 1978). Nets and pouches made of cordage and animal skins were used for carrying food and tools.

Animal resources used by the Luiseño included most of the mammals occurring in their territory, except for predator animals and tree squirrels (Bean and Shipek 1978). Reptiles were also avoided as a food source. Birds hunted included quail, ducks, and doves. Larger animals were hunted with the bow and arrow, while smaller game was caught using nets, deadfalls, slings, and throwing sticks.

Game drives were also used for hunting rabbits and deer. Coastal marine animals exploited included sea mammals, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks (Bean and Shipek 1978). Basketry fish traps, seines, dip nets, bone, and shell hooks were used. Dugout and light balsa canoes were used for near- shore ocean fishing (Bean and Shipek 1978).

3.5 Spanish Period
The Spanish Period in Alta California (1769 –1821) represents a time of European exploration and settlement. Military and religious contingents established the San Diego Presidio and the San Diego Mission in 1769, San Carlos Borromeo (Carmel) in 1770, and San Gabriel Arcangel in 1771. The opening of the mission system created the need to link Alta California with Sonora, Mexico. Juan Bautista de Anza of Tubac was commissioned to open up a road across the Colorado Desert to San Gabriel and on to Monterey. Mission San Luis Rey de Francia, the closest mission to the project, was founded on June 13, 1798 by Padre Fermin Lasu én. Two sub-missions, San Antonio de Pala Asisten cia and Las Flores Estancia, were established in the early 1800s to support Mission San Luis Rey. The project is on the western end of Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Rancho, which was run by Mission San Luis Rey for cattle grazing.

The Spanish mission system used forced Native American labor to produce goods and provide services needed for European settlement. The mission system also introduced horses, cattle, sheep, and agricultural goods and implements as well as new construction methods and architectural styles.

Also, with the arrival of the Spanish came devastating epidemics and very high death rates. According to available mission records, the worst year was 1806 when a measles epidemic spread through southern California. An estimated 33.5 percent of the Indian population along the coast died (Cook 1976:424).

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 10 ends

3.6 Mexican Period
The Mexican Period (1821–1848) retained many of the Spanish institutions and laws. While Spanish and Mexican settlement was focused on coastal Alta California, exploration of inland areas continued, often during the course of pursuing neophytes that had run away from the missions . In 1824, Santiago Arguello, an officer of the San Diego Presidio “discovered” San Felipe Valley, which opened the route through present day Warner Springs and Riverside and on to the San Gabriel Mission. This route, which became known as the Sonora Road, soon became the official Mexican mail route (Gudde and Bright 2004; Lawton 1976:58).

The missions were secularized in 1834 , opening vast tracts of former mission lands for private use and settlement. Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Rancho was granted to Don José Maria Alvarado in 1834 (Pourade 1969). Cattle ranching dominated the southern California economy, and the hide and tallow trade with New England merchant ships increased during the early part of the Mexican Period.

Native American communities continued to decline, particularly those close to the coast. However, some Native Americans found jobs as vaqueros, laborers, gardeners, and housekeepers (Rolle 1998:57).

3.7 American Period
The signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which signaled the end of the Mexican– American War, gave Alta California, the northern three- quarters of Arizona, New Mexico, a greatly enlarged Texas, and southern parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah to the United States (Rolle 1998:91). The treaty guaranteed citizenship to former Mexican citizens if they chose to stay in the new lands of the United States and it promised to respect their property. Native Americans had been granted Mexican citizenship in 1821 but the Americans never recognized their legal claims to U.S. citizenship, to property rights, or to other civil rights. In 1850, California was admitted to the Union as a free state (Phillips 1996:60-61).

On January 24, 1848, gold was discovered by John W. Marshall at Sutter’s Fort in the central Sierra Nevada foothills. Sutter and Marshall did their best to keep it a secret, but the news of the discovery was published on March 15 in the San Francisco Californian newspaper. The subsequent Gold Rush launched an immigrant tide , which engulfed many of the Spanish and Mexican cultural tra ditions and eliminated many remaining vestiges of Native American culture. Many Mexican ranchos were overrun by forty-niners or dissolved in land claim disputes (Rolle 1998). Native American Rancherias were supposedly recognized by the American government in the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo but not in reality.

The homestead system and the railroad encouraged American settlement in California after the Civil War, but settlement was slow in southern California. Most communities and ranches in northern San Diego and southern Riverside counties were not established until the land booms of the 1880s following completion of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads linking San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino with the East.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 11 ends

3.8 City of San Marcos
By the late 1850s, part of Los Vallecitos de San Marcos had been sold to Cave Couts, who primarily used the parcels to raise livestock. The remainder of the grant, sold to Lorenzo Soto by Jose Alvarado’s widow, Luga rda Osuna, was patented by the U.S. Land Commission in 1883 (Carrol 1975:40). Major Gustavus French Merriam soon after established the first permanent European settlement in the North Twin Oaks Valley. On the 160 -acre homestead, Merriam began wine and honey production (City of San Marcos 2010).

Not long after Major Merriam’s settlement, German and Dutch immigrants began moving into the area in the early 1880s. By 1883, John H. Barham founded the first town in the area, just few miles south of the Merriam’s settlement. Named “Barham Township,” the new town site had a post office, a blacksmith, a feed store, and a weekly newspaper by 1884 . The San Marcos Land Company purchased nearly all of the San Marcos land formerly owned by the Couts family in 1887, dividing the land into planned community tracts, establishing the town of San Marcos (City of San Marcos 2010). The arrival of the Santa Fe Railroad brought more people to the San Marcos area, but its siting outside the town forced the community to move the town center to present-day Mission Road and Pico Avenue. By the mid-1900s, dairies and poultry production became critical to the area’s economic development (City of San Marcos 2010).

San Marcos saw another period of rapid growth after 1956 when it established a water connection with the Colorado River water supply . With more water came more opportunities for small businesses. Through the 1960s, the city slowly gained new residents but by the 1970s, San Marcos became the third fastest-growing city in the state with a population of 17,479. During the 1980s, San Marcos almost doubled its population to 33,800. Growth has continued to boom in San Marcos bringing the city’s present population to 83,781 (City of San Marcos 2010).

4.0 Background Research
RECON requested a records search at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, which is a member of the California Historical Resources Information System. The search radius was one mile. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are recorded on or adjacent to the project area. A total of 31 cultural resources have been documented within one mile of the project boundaries (Confidential Attachment 1 ; Table 1), including 9 prehistoric period resources and 22 historic period resources. In addition, there are 19 historic addresses listed within the one- mile search radius. A summary of the available site data appears in Table 1.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 12 ends

Table 1
Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project
Primary # Trinomial Age Site Type Recording Events
P-37-
005584

CA-SDI-
005584 Prehistoric Lithic scatter; Bedrock milling
feature 1977 (Randy Franklin)
P-37-
005633

CA-SDI-
005633 Prehistoric
Lithic scatter; Ceramic scatter;
Bedrock milling feature;
Burials; Habitation debris;
Other - shell
1977 (Randy Franklin); 2002, 2007 (Delman
James, Rich Bark, Brian Glenn, Jerry Sabio, Ted
Cooley, Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.)
P-37-
008813

CA-SDI-
008813 Prehistoric Lithic scatter; Bedrock milling
feature 1981 (Linda Roth)
P-37-
008814

CA-SDI-
008814 Historic Trash scatter; Other - burned
residence 1981 (Linda Roth)
P-37-
008815

CA-SDI-
008815 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 1981 (Linda Roth)
P-37-
011663

CA-SDI-
011663 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 1990 (Scott Crull, Ken Smith, Palomar College) P-37-
013009

CA-SDI-
013009 Prehistoric Lithic scatter; Bedrock milling
feature
1993 (B. Glenn, C. Schultze, K. Collins, Ogden
Environmental Services, Inc.)
P-37-
018186 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018187 Historic 1-3 Story commercial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018188 Historic 1-3 Story commercial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018189 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018190 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018191 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018192 Historic 1-3 Story commercial building;
Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018193 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018194 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018195 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018196 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018197 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018198 Historic 1-3 Story commercial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018199 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018200 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018201 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-
018202 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 13 ends

Table 1
Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project
Primary # Trinomial Age Site Type Recording Events
P-37-
025309

CA-SDI-
016787 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 2003 (Gallegos & Associates) P-37-
030664

CA-SDI-
019476 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
1994 (R. Carrico, D. James, and A. Pigniolo,
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.); 2009
(CalTrans District 11)
P-37-
033557 Historic Roads; Highway
2013 (Larry Tift, ASM Affiliates, Inc.); 2015 (Kent
Manchen, Matt DeCarlo, ASM Affiliates, Inc.);
2017 (Haley Chateene, PanGIS); 2017 (A. Foglia,
K. Keckeisen, PanGIS, Inc.); 2018 (Sarah
Stringer-Bowsher, ASM Affiliates, Inc.)
P-37-
036868 Historic Dam 2016 (Lucas Piek, ASM Affiliates) P-37-
036869 Historic Dam 2016 (Lucas Piek, ASM Affiliates) P-37-
036870 Prehistoric Isolate - flake 2016 (Lucas Piek, ASM Affiliates) P-37-
038298 Historic Single-family property 2019 (Terri Jacquemain, CRM Tech)

Fifty-eight cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project. One cultural resource investigation appears to have included the project area: Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Widening of South Santa Fe Avenue, Vista, California, conducted in 1974.

A letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento on February 11, 2022, requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File (Attachment 1). No response from the NAHC has been received as of the writing of this report.

Historic aerial photographs and topographic maps by Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC available online (at http://www.historicaerials.com) were inspected to identify any previous uses of the property. Aerial photographs from 1938, 1947, and 1953 show the project in agriculture. The 1938 and 1953 aerial photographs exhibit the parcels in fallow agriculture where the 1947 shows the central portion planted possibly with trees. All three aerials support that the agriculture originates from the adjacent property to the west which is supported by the 1949 topographic map. A 1964 aerial photograph shows building development in both parcels with ancillary structures supporting the northern parcel. Both parcels now have independent entrances to their properties off of what would be present-day South Santa Fe Avenue in the south and North Las Flores Drive to the north. The buildings and supporting structures on the p arcel to the north were removed between 1989 and 1990. The building on the southern parcel was removed between 2005 and 2009. Also during this time, the present-day alignment for North Las Flores Drive was installed along with the generally west-facing bank of ornamental vegetation which dominates the eastern project boundary. A west-northwest by east- southeast alignment of K -Rails were added to the southern edge of the upper/northern terrace of the northern parcel between 2016 and 2018. Also installed in the upper/northern terrace during this time is an assumed drainage depression with stormwater manhole, culvert, and corrugated vertically placed metal pipe ( Nationwide Env ironmental Title Research, LLC 2022).

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 14 ends

5.0 Methods
The project area was surveyed by RECON archaeologist Nathanial Yerka on March 10, 2022. Mr. Yerka was accompanied by Native American monitor Vi’i Sialo’i of Saving Sacred Sites. Mr. Yerka served as project archaeologist and author and Carmen Zepeda-Herman served as principal investigator.

Ms. Zepeda-Herman is a member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The primary goal of this survey was to determine (1) if there are previously unrecorded cultural resources present, and if so, document the resources’ locations and what they consist of, and (2) to update conditions of previously recorded cultural resources. The project area was inspected for evidence of archaeological materials such as debris, flaked and ground stone tools, ceramics, milling features, and human remains. Photographs were taken to document the environmental setting and general conditions.

6.0 Report of Findings
The survey did not identify any prehistoric artifacts or features, or any potentially significant historic artifacts or features.

The field inspection was conducted on foot, in conditions of high clouds, strong daylight, and cool temperatures. Survey transect intervals were approximately seven meters, spaced ac ross the property. The project area is terraced into three generally flat steps with steep south -southwest- facing slopes. The entire surface of both parcels is disturbed. The southern parcel has a high amount of import gravel that link the area as a possible supporting parking area to the business adjacent to the west, with entry/exit to both the business improved parking area, as well as North Las Flores Drive (Photograph 1). Imported topping mulch is placed along a shallow berm that abuts the sidewalk of South Santa Fe Avenue and swings northeast to a manufactured slope with irrigated ornamental vegetation that supports Las Flores Drive. Near the top of the first/lower terrace are two granite imported boulders (Photograph 2). Near the eastern manufactured bank is an installed concrete stormwater culvert. At the southern edge of the second/upper terrace is a west- northwest by east-southeast alignment of K -Rails (Photograph 3). Also on this terrace is a central manufactured depression that is assumed to aid for drainage with stormwater manhole, culvert, and corrugated vertically placed metal pipe (Photograph 4). A significant amount of rodent disturbance occurs along the western boundary; back dirt was checked for cultural material. There is current project area ground surface disturbance in the form of off -highway vehicle and bicycle activity (Photograph 5; see also Photographs 1 and 3). The project area also exhibits a fair amount of modern rubbish, mostly in the form of broken consumer bottle glass, as well as episodic dumping of furniture (Photograph 6) and dimensional lumber.

P:\9865\Arc\Photos\photos1-6.docx 03/21/22
PHOTOGRAPH 1
Overview of Project Area from the Southeast Corner, Looking North PHOTOGRAPH 2
Two Granite Boulders Checked for Cultural Manipulation, Looking North-Northeast

P:\9865\Arc\Photos\photos1-6.docx 03/21/22
PHOTOGRAPH 3
Overview of Project Area from Northern Terrace on Eastern Boundary, Looking Southwest
PHOTOGRAPH 4
Overview of Manufactured Drainage Area on Northern Terrace, Looking South

P:\9865\Arc\Photos\photos1-6.docx 03/21/22
PHOTOGRAPH 5
Overview of Southern Terrace Showing a Portion of OHV Disturbance, Looking South
PHOTOGRAPH 6
Episodic Rubbish Dumping on Northern Terrace, Looking West-Northwest

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 18 ends

7.0 Management Considerations
The key consideration for the management of cultural resources within the CEQA framework is their eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). A resource must satisfy one or more of the qualifying criteria in order to be considered eligible for listing. In order to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a resource must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Cultural and historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. For the purposes of eligibility for CRHR, integrity is defined as "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance" (California Office of Historic Preservation 2005:67).

No significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found during the survey of the project area. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were mapped on or immediately adjacent to the property in the record search files. Therefore, the project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources. However, it appears probable that soil has been dumped on a significant portion of the parcel, obscuring the original ground . Also, the project i s in an area of alluvial deposition adjacent to San Marcos Creek. Because of these factors, the possibility exists for buried prehistoric archaeological deposits on -site. RECON recommends that all ground -disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor representing the Luiseño community. If archaeological materials are identified during construction activities, work in the immediate area shall cease and an archaeologist meeting the City of San Marcos Qualifications Standards for Archaeology must evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, a data recovery program shall be implemented. If human remains are found, construction shall halt in the immediate area and procedures set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and State health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. After completion of monitoring, a final report with the monitoring methods and results shall be prepared and submitted to the City.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 19 ends

8.0 Certification and Project Staff
This report was prepared in compliance with the CEQA (Section 21083.2 of the Statutes and Appendix K of the Guidelines) and with policies and procedures of the City of San Marcos. To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information contained in this report are accurate.

_______________________________________ __________________________________________ Nathanial Yerka Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA
Project Archaeologist/Author Principal Investigator

The following individuals participated in the field tasks or preparation of this report.

Carmen Zepeda-Herman Principal Investigator
Nathanial Yerka Project Archaeologist/Author
Vi’i Sialo’i Luiseño Native American Monitor
Benjamin Arp GIS Specialist
Jennifer Gutierrez Production Specialist

9.0 References Cited
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2014 Cultural Resources Study for the Mulberry Drive Development Project, San Marcos.

Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Bean, Lowell, and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

California Office of Historic Preservation
2005 Technical Assistance Series #10: California State Law and Historic Preservation: Statues, Regulations and Administrative Policies Regarding Historic Preservation and Protection of Cultural and Historical Resources. Sacramento.

Carrol, William
1975 San Marcos: A Brief History. Coda Productions, San Marcos, California.

Comeau, Brad, Micah Hale, and Mark Becker
2012 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Palomar Station Project, San Marcos, San Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Cook, Shelburne F.
1976 The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 20 ends

Gallegos, D. R.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito–La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos.

San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Papers 1:23-34.

Gallegos, D.R., M. Guerrero, J. Flenniken, and T. Stopes 2002 Data Recovery Program for Packbell Site CA -SDI-5633, San Marcos, California . Gallegos and Associates, Carlsbad, CA. Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Griset, Suzanne
1996 Southern California Brown Wa re. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Gudde, Erwin G., and William Bright
2004 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names .

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hildebrand, John
2003 Ceramics Excavated from the Lower Colorado River Region by the North Baja Pipeline Project. In A View Across the Cultural Landscape of the Lower Colorado Desert: Cultural Resource Investigations for the North Baja Pipeline Project edited by James H. Cleland and Rebecca McCorkle Apple, pp. 245-260. Document on file with the Southeast Information Center, Imperial Valley College Desert Museum, Ocotillo, California.

Kowta, Makoto
1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6.

Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Lawton, Harry W.
1976 History and Ethnohistory of the Yuha Desert (1769 -1865). In Background to Prehistory of the Yuha Desert Region, edited by Philip J. Wilke, pp. 43 -72. Ballena Press , Ramona, California.

Luomala, Katharine
1978 Tipai-Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 21 ends

Moratto, Michael
2004 California Archaeology. Reprint, Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC
2022 Historic photographs of the survey area inspected at historicaerials.com. A ccessed on March 10, 2022.

Oxendine, Joan
1980 The Luiseno Girls Ceremony. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2 (1)37-

50. Phillips, George H.
1996 The Enduring Struggle: Indians in California History. MTL, Inc., Sparks, Nevada.

Pourade, Richard F.
1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego. A Copley Book, Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego.

Rogers, Malcolm J.
1938 Archaeological and Geological Investig ations of the Culture Levels in an Old Channel of San Dieguito Valley. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook 37:344-45. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas.

San Diego Museum of Man Papers 3.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(2):167-198.

Albuquerque.
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West, edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union-Tribune. San Diego, California.

Rolle, Andrew
1998 California: A History. Harlan Davidson, Wheeling, Illinois.

San Marcos, City of
2010 History. Available at http://www.ci.san-marcos.ca.us/index.aspx?page=139. Accessed on January 27, 2015.

Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234.

Strong, William
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology 26:1-358.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 22 ends

True, D.L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3):255-263. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Department of Anthropology Publications, University of California, Los Angeles.

True, D. L., and G. Waugh
1981 Archaeological Investigations in Northern San Diego County, California: Frey Creek. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):84-115.

True, D. L., C. W. Meighan, and H. Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California . University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. December.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1996 7.5-minute topographic map series, San Marcos Quadrangle, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant.

Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology , Vol. 11, No. 3 (Autumn, 1955), pp. 214- 230. University of New Mexico.

Warren, Claude N.
1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in California Prehistory. Archaeological Survey Annual Report (1960-1961). Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 5.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis . American Antiquity 32(2):168-185.

Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

Page 23 ends

Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer
1993 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods in Historic Properties Background Study by Brian F.

Mooney and Associates. Document on file with the City of San Diego Clean Water Program.

White, Raymond
1963 Luiseno Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

ATTACHMENT 1
Native American Heritage Commission Request Letter

Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 Capitol Mall, RM 364
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 653-4082
(916) 657-5390 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search

http://www.nahc.ca.gov/sILrequest.html
Project: Santa Fe Flores
County: San Diego County

USGS Quadrangle
Name: San Marcos
Township: Range: Section(s): unsectioned Los Vallecitos de San Marcos
Contact Information
Company/Firm/Agency: RECON Environmental, Inc.

Contact: Carmen Zepeda-Herman
Street Address: 3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
City: San Diego ZIP: 92108
Phone: 619-308-9333
Fax: Click here to enter text.

Email: [email protected]
Project Description:

The project proposes to construct multifamily housing within vacant parcels equaling 2.23 acres.

Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project

CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT
Not for Public Review
Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Fe Flores, LP Project

APPENDIX D
Geotechnical Report

Paul Mayer
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, California
Dear Mr. Mayer
July 1, 2020
Project No. 19-2118C
Attached herewith is the Limited Geotechnical Investigation report prepared for the proposed San Marcos Residences Project to be located at 2972 South Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you have questions or comments concerning this report, please contact us at your convenience.

Distribution: Mr. Paul Mayer
Respectfully submitted,
GHOSTRIDER, INC.
d~ ;f tJ1.J-L
Jerry L. Michal
Senior Geotechnical Engineer

LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES PROJECT
2972 SOUTH SANTA FE A VENUE

SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR
MR. PAUL MAYER

INTRODUCTION
On May 6, 2020, a limited geotechnical investigation was performed by this firm for the proposed three-story accessory San Marcos Residences project to be located at 2972 South Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California. The purposes of this investigation were to explore and evaluate the geotechnical engineering conditions at the subject site and to provide appropriate geotechnical engineering recommendations for design of foundation support and below grade walls, as well as recommendations for construction of the proposed development.

The location of the site is depicted on the Index Map (Enclosure A-1). Aerial imagery was used as a base map for our Site Plan (Enclosure A-2).

The results of our investigation, together with our conclusions and recommendations, are presented in this report.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services provided during this limited geotechnical investigation included the following:
• A field reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area • Logging and sampling of exploratory borings for testing and evaluation • Laboratory testing on selected samples
• Evaluation of the geotechnical engineering/geologic data to develop site-specific recommendations for site grading and foundation design. • Preparation of this limited report summarizing our findings, professional op1mons and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction

PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Page No. 2
Project No. 19-2118C
Information furnished to this office indicates that the site is planned to be developed to include a 3- story multi-family residential structure with one to two (2) underground levels of parking. Light to moderate foundation loads are expected. Additional details were not provided during preparation of this report.

The final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.

SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at 2972 South Santa Fe Avenue in the City of San Marcos, California. The property, San Diego County Assessor's Parcel Number 217611900, is currently undeveloped and is about 0.8 acres in size. The highest elevation on the subject site is about 530 MSL in the northeast corner and the lowest is about 495 MSL in the southwest corner. The site is situated in northwest quarter of projected Section 20, Range 3 West, Township 11 South, San Bernardino Principal Meridian, at latitude 33.157418 ° north, longitude 117.200068 ° west.

FIELD INVESTIGATION
The soil conditions underlying the subject site were explored by means two (2) Hollow Stern Auger (HSA) exploratory borings (B-1 and B-2) drilled to a maximum depth of about 51 feet below ground surface (bgs) using a limited access rig, and three (3) hand augering borings (B-3 through B-5) drilled to depths of about 5 to 15 feet bgs. Samples were obtained with Modified California (MC) Split Spoon and Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) at intervals between 2.5 and 5 feet. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are indicated on Enclosure A-2.

Continuous logs of the subsurface conditions, as encountered within the exploratory borings, were recorded at the time of drilling by a representative of this firm. Both relatively undisturbed and bulk Page No. 3
Project No. 19-2118C
samples of typical soil types obtained were returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for testing and evaluation.

The exploratory boring logs, together with the in-place density data, are presented in Appendix B.

The exploratory borings were backfilled with excavated soils using reasonable effort to restore the areas to their initial condition prior to leaving the site, but they were not compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent or greater. In an area as small and deep as a boring, consolidation and subsidence of soil backfill may occur over time causing a depression. The client is advised to observe exploratory boring areas occasionally and, when needed, backfill noted depressions.

LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
Included in the laboratory testing program were field dry density and moisture content tests on relatively undisturbed samples. The results are included on the exploratory boring logs. Sieve analysis and Atterberg limits were performed for classification purposes. Direct shear testing was performed for material strength evaluation and consolidation testing was performed to estimate amount of settlement of the cohesive materials. Preliminary corrosivity testing was performed by Project X Corrosion Engineering of Murrieta.

Laboratory test results appear in Appendix C. Soil classifications provided in our geotechnical investigation are in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

FAULTING AND GROUND RUPTURE
The site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Special Studies zone.

As with most of southern California, the subject site is situated in an area of active and potentially active faults. Active faults present several potential risks to structures, the most common of which Page No. 4
Project No. 19-2118C
are strong ground shaking, dynamic densification, liquefaction, mass wasting, and surface rupture at the fault plane. The following four factors are the principal determinants of seismic risk at a given location:
• Distance to seismogenically capable faults.
• The maximum or "characteristic" magnitude earthquake for a capable fault. • Seismic recurrence interval, in turn related to tectonic slip rates. • Nature of earth materials underlying the site.

Based upon proximity to regionally significant, active faults, ground shaking is considered to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site. Characteristics of the major active fault zones selected for inclusion in analysis of strong ground shaking are listed in the following table. Numerous significant fault zones are located at distances exceeding 40 kilometers from the site, as shown in Enclosure A-6, but greater distances, lower slip rates, and/or lesser maximum magnitudes indicate much lower risk to the site from the latter fault zones than those listed below.

Fault Zone1'3'5
Elsinore [Julian]
(rl-ss)
Elsinore [Temecula]
(rl-ss)
Rose Canyon [Del
Mar]
(rl-ss)
Rose Canyon
(Oceanside)
(rl-ss)
Newport Inglewood
[Offshore]
(rl-ss)
San Andreas
[Coachella Segment]
(rl-ss)
Distance from
Site (km)

26.9 26.9

19.5 18.4

21.5 139
Fault Length
(km)1,2
75 52
70 70
150
96 Slip Rate
(mm/yr)1
3±1

2.5±2

1.5±0.5

25.0±5.0
Page No. 5
Project No. 19-2118C
Reference Earthquake
MCMax)4

7.3 7.5

7.2 7.2

7.0 7.2
Fault
Type1
A
A
B
B
B
A

1. California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey , 2007 (Appendix AJ, California Fault Parnmeters for the National Seismic Hazard Maps and Wo1:king Gwup on California Earthq uake Pwbabilities , CGS Special Report 203A, USGS Open File Report 2007 ·1437A.

2. U.S . Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2008, website : 2008 National Seismic Hazanls Maps - Sow-ce Pa1·ametel's,.

3. Southern California Earthquake Data Center , website: Significant Emthquakes and Faults, http://scedc.caltech .edu/s ignificant/fault ·index .html

4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, BSSC2014 (Scenario Catalog), website:
https ://earthquake. usgs.gov/scenarios/catalog/bssc2014/

5. Fault Geometry: (ss) strike slip ; (r) reverse; (n) norma1 (rl) right lateral; (lll left lateral; (0) oblique; (45 N) direction.

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING
The subject site 1s situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, one of eleven such provinces recognized in the California Geological Survey Note 36. The geomorphic provinces are topographic -geologic groupings of convenience based primarily on landforms, characteristic lithologies, and late-Cenozoic structural and geomorphic history. The northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges province encompasses southwestern California west of the Imperial-Coachella Page No. 6
Project No. 19-2118C
Valley trough including the California coast and Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands, and south of the major portion of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, which includes the Santa Monica, San Gabriel, and San Bernardino mountains. Most of the Peninsular Ranges province lies outside California, continuing south to include the Baja California Peninsula.

The province is characterized by youthful, steeply sloped, northwest-trending elongated ranges and intervening valleys whose general northwesterly trend is terminated abruptly on the north by the east west grain of the Transverse Ranges. Average elevations across the province rise slowly to the east, culminating in generally abrupt escarpments and steep slopes near the eastern margin. Near the northern edge of the province lie several anomalously flat and low basins that stretch from the San Bernardino region to western Los Angeles. These basins generally result from fault junctures and tectonic interaction with the adjacent Transverse Ranges.

Structurally, the bulk of the Peninsular Ranges are composed of a number of relatively stable crustal blocks bounded by active strike-slip faults of the San Andreas transform system. Although some folding and minor faulting has occurred within the blocks, intense structural deformation and earthquake activity are generally restricted to block margins.

The province contains a diverse array of metamorphic, sedimentary, volcanic, and intrusive igneous rocks. Near the coastline, younger rocks include thick sequences of marine and non-marine elastic and pelitic sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and Tertiary age, ranging from claystones to conglomerate. Inland, the province is dominated by large masses of chronologically correlative, granitic rock of varying composition belonging to the Southern California batholith. In general, metamorphic rocks of this province, which are found in close association with batholithic basement rocks, represent highly-altered host rocks for magmatic emplacement of the batholith during the Mesozoic Era.

The subject site is located in the San Diego coastal plain. The area of the subject site is underlain by Tertiary marine and non-marine, elastic sedimentary bedrock, which overlies crystalline basement Page No. 7
Project No. 19-2118C
rock of the Southern California Batholith. A regional geology map (Ken and Tan, 2007) indicates the project site is located on the Eocene Santiago Formation, as shown in the Enclosure A-3.

SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
Native soils consisting mainly of sandy clay and lean clay (CL) were observed during the field exploration at the proposed project site to the maximum explored depth of 50 ½ feet. Generally, clayey soils were grayish to dark brown in color, moist, and stiff to very stiff in consistency. Our exploratory logs are provided in Appendix B.
2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE - SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Based on the geologic setting and anticipated earthwork for construction of the proposed project, the soils underlying the site are classified as Site Class "D, stiff soil profile", according to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The seismic parameters according to the 2019 CBC are summarized in the following table.
2019 CBC - Seismic Parameters
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters ss = 0.901 and sl = 0 .. 331 Site Coefficients F = 1.14 and F = 1.969 a V
Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake SMs = 1.027 and SM1 = 0.652 Spectral Response Parameters Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters SDS = 0.685 and SD1 = 0.434 Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM = 0.471
Seismic Design Category D

GROUNDWATER
Page No. 8
Project No. 19-2118C
No groundwater was encountered within any hand auger boring to the maximum explored depth of 50 ½ feet. There are no water wells in the close vicinity of the project site from the State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library. The nearest water well for which information was available through this water library, was well No. Station 331103N1171048W001, which is located about 8 miles southeast of the site. Groundwater information from this well indicated groundwater elevation was about 628 MSL in 1987, just 9 feet below ground surface at the subject site.

An inquiry to Geotracker located a report for a property within 200 feet east to the project site, as shown in Enclosure A-9. A total of 23 relevant water wells were installed between 2005 and 2016 and groundwater was encountered ad depths between 10 and 36 feet below ground surface at the site.

Based on these data, a design groundwater level is adopted at 10 feet below ground surface.

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The subject site does not lie within a zone of potential, seismically induced seismically-induced liquefaction (Enclosure A-5). Based on the type of soil, mapped shallow depth to bedrock, and groundwater depth greater than 50 feet, liquefaction is not considered to be a geologic constraint.

LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY
There was no visual evidence of landslides on or near the subject property noted during the field investigation. There are no mapped landslides on or near the subject site as shown in Enclosure A-4.

Landslides are not considered to be a geologic constraint at the subject site.

FLOODING POTENTIAL
Page No. 9
Project No. 19-2118C
According to FEMA, the subject site is within flood hazard zone "X" (2019), which is defined here as an area outside of the 0.2% annual flood risk zone, as presented in Enclosure A-7. Flooding is not considered to be a geologic constraint at the subject site.

Seiching:

Seiching is the oscillation of an enclosed body of water, usually due to strong groundshaking following a seismic event. Seiching can affect lakes, water towers, swimming pools. There were no enclosed bodies of water observed in close enough proximity to affect the project site. Seiching should not be considered to be a geologic constraint at this site.

Tsunamis:

Tsunamis are not considered to be a geologic hazard at the subject site due to its elevation and inland location.

EXP ANSI ON POTENTIAL
A sample of the near surface soils was tested and indicated an Expansion Index (EI) of 155 which indicates a very high expansion potential. Specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil forces are anticipated for this site. Requirements for reinforcing steel to satisfy structural criteria are not affected by this recommendation. Additional evaluation of soils for expansion potential should be conducted by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operation.

CHEMICAL/CORROSIVITY TESTING
Page No. 10
Project No. 19-2118C
A selected sample of material was delivered to Project X Corosion Engineers for preliminary corrosivity analysis. Laboratory testing consisted of pH, resistivity, chlorides and sulfates. The results of the laboratory tests appear in Appendix C.

The result from the resistivity test indicates a "very corrosive" condition to ferrous metals. Specific corrosion control measures, such as coating of the pipe with non-corrosive material or alternative non-metallic pipe material, are considered necessary.

Results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate a Class S2 ( or "severe") anticipated exposure to sulfate attack. Based on the criteria from Table 19.3.2.1 of the American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Practice (2014), special measures, such as specific cement types or water-cement ratios, are considered necessary for this Class S2 exposure to sulfate attack.

The soluble chloride content of the soils tested indicates is considered "corrosive" to reinforcing steel. The results should be considered in combination with the soluble chloride content of the hardened concrete in determining the effect of chloride on the corrosion of reinforcing steel.

Ghostrider, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. If further information concerning the corrosion characteristics, or interpretation of the results submitted herein, is required, then a competent corrosion engineer could be consulted.

CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field and laboratory investigations, it is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic standpoints, provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented during grading and construction.

Page No. 11
Project No. 19-2118C
Moderate to severe seismic shaking can be expected at the site. There are no known active faults on or trending toward the subject site; the site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone.

Groundwater was not encountered within any of our exploratory borings at the site. Groundwater data from nearby wells indicate levels can be up to 10 feet below ground surface and this value is adopted for design. Liquefaction is not considered to be a potential hazard to the site.

Landslides are not considered to be a geologic constraint on the subject site. Temporary excavations are anticipated to conform to local and State codes with regard to the subsurface materials present at the site.

Materials encountered during this investigation were found to be highly expansive. Specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil forces are required to be implemented at the site with additional testing during grading.

Based upon our field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that for the proposed structure, deep foundations are an adequate option to support the proposed 3-story structure with one to two (2) underground levels due to the existence of highly compressive soils. The proposed structure can be also supported on a mat foundation following proper site development grading/excavation and if designed to accommodate total and differential settlement, as discussed in this report.

The final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on a review of the conceptual plans, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are implemented.

Page No. 12
Project No. 19-2118C
Deep foundations are an adequate option to support the proposed 3-story structure with one to two (2) underground levels. Foundation loads are not available at the time of preparing this report.

Considering the subsurface conditions and anticipated large column loads, it is recommended the use of deep foundations consisting of grouped 24-inch diameter auger displacement piles (ACD). Driven piles are not recommended due to noise and vibration which may disturb surrounding neighbors during pile driving. We recommend 24-inch-diameter ACD piles to be tipped in the very dense layer found at a depth of approximately 50 feet below existing ground surface or deeper.

Recommendations for allowable pile loads, settlements, and pile lengths are provided in the following subsections.

AXIAL CAPACITY
Pile axial resistance has been determined for 24-inch-diemeter ACD piles. Two different pile cut-off elevations have been considered to represent the portion of the structures with one basement level and ( approximately 10 feet below existing ground surface) and the portion of the structure with two basement levels (approximately 20 feet below existing ground surface). The ultimate axial capacities with no factor of safety applied are presented in Enclosure A-8a. The allowable downward axial capacities have considered a factor of safety of 2 and are presented in Enclosure A-8b. Pile capacities shown in Enclosures A-8a and A-8b are for dead-plus-live load capacities; a one-third increase may be used for wind or seismic loads. The allowable upward axial capacities have considered a factor of safety of 3 and are presented in Enclosure A-8c. Uplift due to wind or seismic loading may use a reduced factor of safety of 2. The capacities presented in this report are based on the strength of the soils; the compressive and tensile strengths of the pile sections should be checked to verify the structural capacity of the piles.

LATERAL CAPACITY
The lateral capacity of the recommended piles was evaluated using the computer program LPILE v2016 (Ensoft, 2016) for head deflections of 0.25, 0.5 and 1 inches and for fixed head and free head conditions. Lateral capacities are summarized in the table below and shall be reviewed by the structural engineer to confirm the structural capacity of the pile.

Lateral Capacity of 24-inch ACD Single Pile
Pile Head
Pile Head Max.Shear Max. Moment
Deflection
Condition (kips) (kip-ft)
(inch)

0.25 14 68
Free 0.5 20 108

1.0 27 172

0.25 29 172
Fixed 0.5 41 271

1.0 57 427
Page No. 13
Project No. 19-2118C
I
Depth to Max.

Moment (feet)

8.4 9.6

10.8 0.0

0.0 0.0
For grouped piles, the lateral pile capacity can be reduced based on a p-multiplier of 0.55, assuming a 3 by 3 pile group arrangement and a pile center-to-center spacing of 3D (where D is the pile diameter). In case piles are spaced at a center to center spacing of 7D or greater, no reduction in lateral pile capacity is needed and a single pile system can be used.

PILE SETTLEMENT
The amount of settlement estimated for the pile foundation is less than ½ inch. Once foundation details are completed, details should be provided to the geotechnical engineer for additional settlement estimates.

MAT FOUNDATIONS
The proposed structure can be supported on a mat foundation following proper site development grading/excavation and designed to accommodate total and differential settlement, as discussed in this report.

Subgrade Reaction
Page No. 14
Project No. 19-2118C
The modulus of subgrade reaction concept is used in the design of the mat foundations and slabs-on grade. This modulus is not an intrinsic property of the soil as depends on the dimensions and stiffness of the slab and the stress level. The mat slab foundation should be designed for bending moments using a value of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the normalized modulus of subgrade reaction coefficient Kv1 (namely, corresponding to a 1-foot square bearing plate). Following Terzaghi (1955), the subgrade reaction coefficient, Kv, can be defined as:

Kv = Kv1* [(m + 0.5)/1.5m] * [(B+l)/2B]2
where "B" is the width of the foundation measured in feet, and "m" is the ratio of length over width of a rectangular foundation.

The flat concrete slab of the mat system should, at a minimum, have continuous two-way reinforcing at the top and the bottom and be designed by the project structural engineer.

Bearing Capacity and Settlement
An allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for design. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short term wind or seismic loads. The expected total post construction settlement of the mat slab is expected to be on the order of 2 inches. The differential settlement is expected to be less than one half of the total settlement.

Lateral Resistance
Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction developed between the bottom of foundation and the supporting soil, and by the passive soil pressure developed on the face of the footing. For design purposes, an allowable passive resist of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pct) and a coefficient of friction of 0.40 may be used for lateral sliding resistance of foundation.

CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL SITE GRADING:

Page No. 15
Project No. 19-2118C
It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a representative of the geotechnical engineer. An on-site, pre-job meeting with the developer, the contractor and the geotechnical engineer should occur prior to all grading-related operations.

Operations undertaken at the site without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusions of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project.

Grading of the subject site should be performed, at a m1mmum, rn accordance with these recommendations and with applicable portions of the current California Building Code (CBC). The following recommendations are presented for your assistance in establishing proper grading criteria.

INITIAL SITE PREPARATION:

All areas to be graded should be stripped or cleaned of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials. Deleterious materials include slabs, trees, vegetation, trash, and demolition debris. These materials should be removed from the site for disposal. The cleaned soils may be reused as properly compacted fill. Rocks or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be used in compacted fills. If encountered, existing utility lines should be traced, removed and rerouted from areas to be graded.

MINIMUM MANDATORY REMOVAL AND RECOMPACTION OF EXISTING SOILS:

The field exploration indicated the site is underlain by native soils generally consisting stiff to very stiff clays. These soils are considered potentially compressible. The preliminary plans indicated that a portion of the building would have one and two basement levels at about 10 to 20 feet below the exiting grade.

Page No. 16
Project No. 19-2118C
Based on these considerations, we recommend the following removals for the different foundation systems:
• Structures supported on pile foundation do not require removal of soils if prepared following recommendations on this report
• Structures supported on mat foundations or slabs on grade require removal of at least 2 feet of soil below the bottom of the footing. The areas should extend at least 3 feet laterally beyond the footing lines. For general areas ( excluding the unit footprint), surface improvements such as sidewalks and exterior flatwork, removal and recompaction should be a minimum of 1 feet below existing grade.

The open excavation bottoms observed by our engineer/ geologist to verify and document in writing that all undocumented fill is removed prior to refilling with properly tested and documented compacted fill. The removed and cleaned soils are not suitable to be reused as compacted fill material due to the cohesive material content. Import fill sources should be observed and tested prior to hauling onto the site to evaluate the suitability for use. Imported fill materials should consist of granular soil with less than 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on ASTM Dl 140 and an EI less than 20 based on ASTM D489.

Further subexcavation may be necessary depending on the conditions of the underlying soils. The actual depth of removal should be determined at the time of grading by the project geotechnical engineer/geologist. The determination will be based on soil conditions exposed within the excavations. At minimum, any undocumented fill, topsoil or other unsuitable materials should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill.

In-place density tests may be taken in the removal bottom areas where appropriate to provide data to help support and document the engineer/geologist's decision.

EXCAVATION ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES:

Page No. 17
Project No. 19-2118C
Removal and recompaction of the soils adjacent to existing structures may result in unacceptable distress by the removal of bearing and lateral support. The following precautionary measures should be utilized during proposed subexcavation/recompaction operations to reduce the potential for distress to existing adjacent structures.

During compacted fill mat construction for the proposed structure, the excavation and replacement of soils adjacent to any existing structures should be accomplished in the shortest period of time possible. Sufficient forces and equipment should be available to accomplish any removal and replacement of soils adjacent to existing structures within one 8-hour working day. The excavation should not be performed during periods of rain or threat of rain. During the excavation operation, the moisture content of the soils near existing structures should be monitored. If excessive moisture contents or excessively dry soils are encountered, the geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately.

The actual excavation and recompaction of soils near existing structures should be performed in alternating sections. A checkerboard-type (A-B) system should be utilized by initially removing and recompacting every other square and thereupon going back and removing and recompacting the remaining squares. The width of these excavations is usually equal to the blade or bucket size of the available equipment but should not exceed 6 feet.

PREPARATION OF FILL AREAS:

Prior to placing fill, and after the mandatory subexcavation operation, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified and moisture treated to a depth of 6 inches or more. The soils should be brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557.

PREPARATION OF FOOTING AREAS:

All footings should rest upon at least 2 feet of properly compacted fill material. In areas where the Page No. 18
Project No. 19-2118C
required thickness of compacted fill is not accomplished by the mandatory removal operation, the footing areas should be overexcavated to a depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest proposed footing base grade. The required overexcavation should extend at least 3 feet laterally beyond the footing lines, where reasonably possible. In instances where the 3-foot lateral overexcavation may not be accomplished, this firm should be contacted to evaluate the effect. The bottom of this excavation should then be scarified, and moisture treated to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D1557 prior to refilling the excavation to the required grade as properly compacted fill.

All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical engineer to verify that they have been excavated into compacted fill prior to placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level, and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture-softened soils should be removed from the excavations prior to placing of concrete.

Excavated soils derived from the footing and/or utility trenches should not be placed in building slab on-grade areas or exterior concrete flatwork areas unless the soils are brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density.

COMP ACTED FILLS:

The on-site soils are not considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill. Import fill should be inorganic, non-expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical engineer of import sources sufficiently ahead of their use so that the sources can be observed and approved as to the physical characteristic of the import material. For all import material, the contractor shall also submit current verified reports from a recognized analytical laboratory indicating that the import has a "not applicable" potential for sulfate attack based upon current American Concrete Institute (ACI) criteria and is "mildly corrosive" to ferrous metal and copper. The reports shall be accompanied by a written statement from the contractor that the laboratory test results are representative of all import material that will be brought to the job.

Page No. 19
Project No. 19-2118C
Fill should be spread in near-horizontal layers, approximately 8 inches thick. Thicker lifts may be approved by the geotechnical engineer if testing indicates that the grading procedures are adequate to achieve the required compaction. Each lift should be spread evenly, thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of the material and moisture in each layer, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTMD1557.

TEMPORARY EXCAVATION AND SHORING
Excavations for construction of basement levels are anticipated to be as deep as 10 feet below existing grade to the front of the proposed building and 20 feet to the back of the building. The contractor is responsible for excavation safety, and all excavations should comply with the current California and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CALOSBA) requirements (29 CFR-Part 1926, Subpart P), as applicable. Temporary slopes, up to 20 feet high, may be cut at a gradient of 3/4H: 1 V (horizontal:vertical) with the bottom 4 feet is permitted to be cut vertically.

If sloping or benching is not practical due to space constraints, temporary shoring may be used.

Vertical temporary excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored. No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is greater from the top of the excavation, unless the shoring is designed for surcharge loading. All shoring should comply with OSHA regulations and 29 CFR Part 1926 guidelines and be observed and deemed safe by the designated competent person on site. The designated competent person should observe all excavations to determine the safety prior to excavation.

For design of cantilevered temporary shoring, where the surface of the backfill is level, it can be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 37 pcf. Surcharge loads from equipment or stockpiled material should be kept behind the top of the temporary excavations a horizontal distance of at least twice the depth of the excavation, or the shoring should be designed for the additional pressure. Foundation and traffic loads from adjacent areas should also be added to the lateral earth pressures.

Page No. 20
Project No. 19-2118C
For design of temporary rigid shoring such as braced shoring or trench shields in sandy soils, we recommend the use of a rectangular lateral pressure of 24H psf, where H is the height of the shoring in feet. In addition, 46 percent of any surcharge load should be included as a uniform rectangular loading on the shoring. For traffic loads no larger than highway trucks, the surcharge may be taken as a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. Other surcharge loads may be evaluated by Ghostrider on a case-by-case basis.

Surface drainage should be controlled and prevented from running down the temporary excavations or down the face of the shoring. Ponding water should not be allowed within the excavation.

To provide adequate support, concrete slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of 24 inches of compacted soil. The final pad surfaces should be rolled to provide smooth, dense surfaces. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and should consist of at least No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced at 16 inches on center each way. Additional reinforcement may be required by the structural engineer.

Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor retarder/barrier. We recommend that a vapor retarder/barrier be designed and constructed according to the American Concrete Institute 302. lR, Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, which addresses moisture vapor retarder/barrier construction. At a minimum, the vapor retarder/barrier should comply with ASTM E1745 and have a nominal thickness of at least 10 mils. The vapor retarder/barrier should be properly sealed, per the manufacturer's recommendations, and protected from punctures and other damage. Per the Portland Cement Association (www.cement.org/tech/cct_con_vapor_retarders.asp), for slabs with vapor-sensitive covermgs, a layer of dry, granular material (sand) should be placed under the vapor retarder/barrier. For slabs in humidity-controlled areas, a layer of dry, granular material (sand) should be placed above the vapor retarder/barrier.

EXCAVATIONS:

Page No. 21
Project No. 19-2118C
The soils encountered within our exploratory borings are generally classified as a Type "A" soil in accordance with the CAL/OSHA excavation standards. Unless specifically evaluated by our engineering geologist, all the trench excavations should be performed following the recommendation of CAL/OSHA (State of California, 2013) for Type "A" soil. Based upon a soil classification of Type "A", the temporary excavations should not be inclined steeper than¾ horizontal to 1 vertical for maximum trench depth of less than 20 feet. For trench excavations deeper than 20 feet or for conditions that differ from those described for Type "A" in the CAL/OSHA excavation standards, this firm should be contacted.

BASEMENT WALLS:

Basement walls below grade must be designed to resist at-rest earth pressures. Where the grade is level behind the walls, this pressure corresponds to a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure equivalent to that developed by a fluid with a density of 46 pcf. This earth pressure assumes that all walls are constructed with a properly designed drainage system to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. Any surcharge loadings such as heavy crane loads, stockpiled materials or traffic shall be added to this pressure.

Basement walls should also be designed for seismic earth pressure. Basement walls should be designed to resist, an active pressure combined with a seismic increment of lateral active earth pressure. To compute this, a horizontal acceleration coefficient kh of 0.16g based on one-half of two third of PGAM is used. The combination of active static and seismic lateral earth pressure is equivalent to a fluid with a density of 37 pcf. Therefore, a seismic increment of 12 pcf may be used for design of seismic earth pressure.

Lateral earth pressures recommended in this report assume that adequate drainage is provided behind the walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. Basement wall should have backdrains to adequately prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls.

POTENTIAL EROSION AND DRAINAGE:

Page No. 22
Project No. 19-2118C
The potential for erosion should be mitigated by proper drainage design. The site should be graded so that surface water flows away from structures at a minimum gradient of 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from structures. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of structures should be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from structures. Water should not be allowed to flow over graded areas or natural areas so as to cause erosion. Graded areas should be planted or otherwise protected from erosion by wind or water.

Water should not be permitted to collect or pond in yard areas. This water will either seep into the ground (loosening the soils) or will overflow onto the slope. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control, and severe damage can occur quickly.

Homes should be provided with roof drains, gutters, and downspouts connected to subsurface pipes.

Roof water should not be allowed to discharge onto the ground surface without collecting into surface drains and pipes. Water should not be allowed to collect against foundations or retaining walls.

These walls are typically built to withstand the effects of normal soil moisture and may require subsurface drains to collect and transfer excessive water away from the structures.

All drainage devices should be checked at least twice per year to ensure that they are not blocked.

All blockages should be cleared.

Drains at the top of slopes should not allow water to overflow onto the slope.

Terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the tops of slopes are designed to carry runoff water to an appropriate discharge point. These drains should be checked at least twice per year and cleaned of any accumulation of dirt and other debris. Water that backs up in surface drains will overflow and seep into the slope, creating instability.

Page No. 23
Project No. 19-211 SC
Loose soil or debris should not be left on slopes. Loose soils soak up water more readily than compacted fill and will often slide downslope. This material may clog terrace drains and may cause additional slope damage.

Slopes should not be over-irrigated. Naturally, ground cover will require some moisture during the hot summer months, but during the wet season, irrigation can cause heavy ground cover to move, which not only destroys the cover, but also may begin slope surface erosion. Heavy ground cover can cause surface sloughing when saturated due to the increased weight and weakening of the near surface soil.

Irrigation systems should not be left running on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy season.

Swales that have been graded around the home or on the lot should not be blocked. These swales are typically constructed to provide drainage toward the driveways, street or other positive outlet.

SLOPE SETBACK:

As per section 1808.7.2 of the 2019 CBC, which references Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2019 CBC, the distance between the face of the footing from the face of descending slopes should be at least the smaller of H/3 and 40 feet, where H is the height of the slope. The distance between the face of the structure and the toe of ascending slopes should be the smaller of 15 feet and H/2. Footings should be deepened as necessary to meet this requirement.

SLOPE CONSTRUCTION:

Slopes for the project should be inclined at 2H: 1 V or shallower. Fill slopes should be overfilled during construction and then cut back to expose fully compacted soil. A suitable alternative would be to compact the slopes during construction and then roll the final slopes to provide dense, erosion resistant surfaces.

Page No. 24
Project No. 19-2118C
Where fills are to be placed against existing slopes steeper than 5(h):l(v), and the depth of fill exceeds 5 feet, the existing slopes should be benched into competent bedrock or native materials to provide a series of level benches to seat the fill and to remove potential undocumented fill. The benches should be a minimum of 4 feet in width, constructed at approximately 4-foot vertical intervals. In addition, a shear key should be constructed across the toe of slopes. The shear key should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and should penetrate a minimum of 2 feet beneath the toe of the slope into competent bedrock or native materials.

SLOPE PROTECTION:

Inasmuch as the on-site materials are susceptible to erosion by wind and running water, it is our recommendation that the slopes at the project be planted as soon as possible after completion, where possible. The use of succulent ground covers, such as iceplant or sedum, is not recommended. If watering is necessary to sustain plant growth on slopes, then the watering operation should be monitored to assure proper operation of the water system and to prevent over watering.

Measures should be provided to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces.

Rodent infestation can also be a serious issue with respect to slope stability. Rodent tunneling and burrowing alters the strength of the soil and can allow water to infiltrate the soil, resulting in slope failure. Rodent burrows can also provide direct access for surface water to the slope face, causing surficial slope "blowouts". Although a maintenance issue, we recommend that measures be taken to prevent rodent infestation in slopes.

FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
It is recommended that we review the foundation plans for the proposed structure as they become available. The purpose of this review is to determine if these plans have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report. This review will also provide us an opportunity to submit additional recommendations as conditions warrant.

GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Page No. 25
Project No. 19-211 SC
The project civil engineer should review this report, incorporate critical information on to the grading plan and reference this geotechnical study, by company name, project number and report date, on the grading plan. Final grading plans should be reviewed by us when they become available to address the suitability of our grading recommendations with respect to the proposed development.

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION:

All grading operations, including site clearing and stripping, should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer's field representative will be present to provide observation and field testing and will not supervise or direct any of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Neither the presence of the geotechnical engineer's field representative nor the observations and testing by the geotechnical engineer shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that the geotechnical engineer will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project, which will be the sole responsibility of the contractor.

LIMITATIONS
Ghostrider, Inc. has striven to perform our services within the limits prescribed by our client, and in a manner consistent with the usual thoroughness and competence of reputable geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists practicing under similar circumstances. No other representation, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended by virtue of the services performed or reports, opinion, documents, or otherwise supplied.

This report reflects the testing conducted on the site as the site existed during the investigation, which is the subject of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage oftime, due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Changes in applicable or appropriate standards may also occur whether as a result of legislation, application or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, this report is indicative of only those conditions tested at Page No. 26
Project No. 19-2118C
the time of the subject investigation, and the findings of this report may be invalidated fully or partially by changes outside of the control of Ghostrider, Inc. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon observations performed and data collected at separate locations, and interpolation between these locations, carried out for the project and the scope of services described. It is assumed and expected that the conditions between locations observed and/or sampled are similar to those encountered at the individual locations where observation and sampling was performed. However, conditions between these locations may vary significantly. Should conditions that appear different than those described herein be encountered in the field by the client or any firm performing services for the client or the client's assign, this firm should be contacted immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect.

If this report or portions thereof are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be understood by all parties that they are provided for information only and should be used as such.

The report and its contents resulting from this investigation are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse on extensions or modifications of the project, or for use on any other project.

CLOSURE
Page No. 27
Project No. 19-2118C
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this report provides the information desired at this time. Should questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Respectfully submitted,
GHOSTRIDER, INC.
cJ ~ ~ nt.:l-e
Jerry L. Michal, GE 2515
Geotechnical Engineer

REFERENCES
Page No. 28
Project No. 19-2118C
American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318- 14), Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14), American Concrete Institute
California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, California , 2019.

California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey, 2008, Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, Regional Geologic Map Series, Scale: 1:100,000.

California Department of Water Resources, Interactive Web Site, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/
California Department of Water Resources, Control Board, Geotracker Website, https :/ / geotracker. waterboards.ca. gov
Coduto, Donald P., 2001, Foundation Design, Principles and Practices 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall.

Coduto, Donald P ., et.al., 2011, Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practices, 2nd edition, Pearson.

Das, Braja, M., 2007, Principles of Foundation Engineering, 6th edition, Thomson.

Day, R. W., 2012, Geotechnical Engineer's Portable Handbook, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York
Ensoft, 2019, LPile Software
Harden, D.R., 1997, California Geology: Prentice Hall.

SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/ Terzaghi, K., "Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction", Journal of Geotechnique, Vol. 5, 1955.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Administration, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map 06073C0787H, Scale 1 :6,000.

Page No. 29
ProjectNo. 19-2118C
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 2019, Landslide Inventory Hazard Program, ESRI. https ://www.usgs.gov/news/landslide-risks-highlighted-new-online-tool This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Appendix A
Maps and Pile Calculations
....
-.

RA (.

SH
..

I i VEl'tS V
M OS
e era
l 73 I
'....eke San
v1arc s
Reference: Bing Maps, Microsoft 2020, Here 2020
Date: Index Map
-----------, 5/29/2020 South Santa Fe Ave.
-----------, Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069
L.B.
/ Site Location
•
... .. :

GHOSTRIDER
San Ma
VILLA<->£: 0
Figure
A-1
0 Appx. Boring Location
Reference: Bing Maps, Microsoft 2020, Here 2020
Date: Boring Locations ----------1 Figure
5/29/2020 South Santa Fe Ave. t---'-""---------1
Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069 -----=-------I

GHOSTR I DER
A-2
L.B.

YoJt>g ailuv1al 'looa-pia fl dcpos,ts (Holoce, e a"ld Idle Ple,s~u:,rc) San11ago f"om,at,01 tn11CJal<J Eocene;.

Alluv1.£il lloou-pla,n d.:,pos.its (late ioloccnui
Reference: Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle, Kennedy and Tan, 2007 Date: Geologic Map
5/29/2020 South Santa Fe Ave.

Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069
L.B.
-t
+---0
O'-'StiORE ,._.,.._p SY~!BOLS
("1~' ~t;! ..... .,..Ii ::IC.C_,,,.,_,.,. u..¥:o<,l ~.:,U.t,Ej: *°'t''tl ::.:Ci"'"'-""'¥\'fi'• _·:-tr,,:~~...,.,,. . ..,..,,_._ .. ~ .. -~ .. t,,:,,ct,. D • ~.,,-.., t>T~ N•.•w ff':l -.~..-ta,.- .,.,11, _ _,..,, r.1-,,._~u-¥">l,t"f>'O -~~.,r1• .... ~1,.;r,_.

Figure

GHOSTRIOER
A-3
•
• ,
..
..

San Marcos
Landslide
... ...
f- g,,., co-- f c c,. cc- ,. ":'xt:::--: or na:ur ,:- of ands d -:
€
C: J.-1f c!5 "'lt co ns.ecL;e--: 8 1 lc-ds de: at tr s
0 1:at 011 ·5
Reference: USGS U.S. Landslide Inventory Hazard Program, ESRI, HERE Date: Landslide Hazards
1--------------t
Figure
5/29/2020 South Santa Fe Ave. 1--.;.___;_ ________ --4
Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069
-------------

GHOSTRIDER
A-4
L.B.
• Possible Liquefaction Areas
Reference: Google Earth, Google 2019, SD County, SANDAG, LUEG-GIS, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Date: Liquefaction Hazards Figure
5/29/2020 South Santa Fe Ave.

Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069

GHOSTRIDER
A-5
L.B.

SITE LOCATION
\
r.:.-
·::-·
'wJ;'
::..
/ \
~ f \
I ' I i
'"io 1n-. <';"~ ';t,,.;'1 ~ l r:-f'f t~.ri t :: h.~Of"U r.-.-=f.t ,, .. x ,.;:.. .. ..... '0\,1•h,m ... 1 r 1Mnr c .. ecord
Prr v4,•,,." , f , ., ,J. ft 11 rtr I n, 11t11n • ..-- :-tf~ cw f, r l••l'"k' ,r tf-<ajt 1/ r•d Q .111h~11 1,1t•,• d -..,;.,I, ( , r ·· ! Reference: Esri, HERE, USGS, NGA, USDA, California Geologic Survey, Fault Activity Map Date: Fault Zones
6/25/2020 South Santa Fe Ave.

Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069 1-----'-----------i
L.B.
c:.
·./.:, 11 ~;
,:::.,,,,t~,
.....

GHOSTRIOER
I'
;\
Figure
A-6
0 250
L e g e n d
SPEClAL FLOOO I
KA.ZARO AREAS
OTl-lER AR~ Of'

FLOOD HAZARD
500 1.000
w.llhef'.~noocsue .. ~>Ol'l tB¥~
W itr> Bl"'EorO..,ptn ~ .-. ,._, - u,.,.
0 .2' An.....al CrMU>ct floo<I H;uaN:I . A<._._,.
of :1.-.,arm....ic,..n<:"811<>0Cl'Mlll <i .. e~e
=:~~~-...:.-~:a:~-: .. "•g,e
.. f vtu•• Condi'!- l."'- Annl.UII
Cl'>M,_..Fbod H::t.tatcl
A,ea wttn Aeo..c.a rlood RIM< aue to
Le;,ee Sei!NociK
Art• ""'lt, n~ RlU, CILa· IO'-•-
b ~•• o• M"sn~,A- H=•••
El'le<1,~eLOMR's
OTHER AREAS ~a of ~u,m,_...,s FID6d HJU,lr<f _
CENERA.L. ~ . CUh·.n.orS10,111S--
SYRUCT\JRES U:"'8+, Dike . or FloOO'wo.&IJ
Reference : FEMA Flood Map Service Center
1,500
e, ... ,__, '""" '' Anno"°'•~•
Wate r S<lrlace EJe,\,~l..o<Jrl
CoeKLJI Tr~ed
- Bau- Fiooo £Je,,,i,bon L>ne lBH; 1
= UmitoJStudy
-- Jvr1idk:ttOI\ SOiina.My
- Co.Hta.lT,.ans,ect8aw.hrte
OTHE'R - Profile- 8.!:selint'
FEAT\JRES __ H,dfog,-apnk: r eat.ne

0.gJtaJ Data A~11i,i,ble
NO Digita l Daius Av.a,lable
Unma~ a
Tht> p1n d~ea on tne map t'i an .11pp,o.uma1e
()C)ln1 1-eiM tlMI by tht l.lf>e, ana ooe-s not re~~n , .,., ilUll'IOtiL11tJYI! Of0Qer1)' IDC.:t:10fl
Date: FEMA Flood Zone
6/28/2020 South Santa Fe Ave. 1---------------1 Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069 1------'----------1 L.B.

Tnts map com phe,s with FEMA"; standalOS to, the use or dlgitat t1ood maps If it ts not Told as d.esc,tbed below.

TI-e basemap s.howtt c-ompa.e,. ~th FEMA 's. b-a!temap
acc-utaC) s.ta1uia,e1s
The flOC>d haz.ard lnto rmat k>n Is derh.·acl c1Ki!'CUy from the autnor1 tam,e NFHL "1teb serv.c.es pro"1idied b,1 FEMA... Thi!> map ~as e!lported on o 2.b ,J;fJ .. , 1 09 aoo does not
reflect cna11ges Of amendments subsequent to this date and time. 'The NFHL ana ettect,w, mtormauon may Change or
t>ecome superseded b) new- aata over time .

Tnts ma.o lmage ts "Oid 1t me one 01 m<M"e of lhe rouo .... tn.g. rnap el~mentsdo noc appear . Da~mao lmag!-f)I . hood zone labels. tegend. scat~ Dar. map creatl!Oft date ,. communil) identrfle,s, FIRM panel twmbet . .a.no FlRM ettec-th•e date~ Map images rot unma~d an.ct unmodem12ed areas cannot b'I! used ro,
regulato,., purpo.ses .

Figure

GHOSTRIDER
A-7
0 530
520
510
500
490
460
200
" ~
'
'~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·,
' ' ' ' ' ' ..
' ' ' ' '
24-INCH DI.AlVIETER ACD PILE
UL TlfvlATE DO\\ 'N\VARD CAPACITIES
400
Axia l Capacities ( kip s)
600
I
800
I
1000
- Ultimate Dowmvard Capacity - Two Basement Levels
- - - - Ultimat e Downwa rd Capac ity - One Baseme11t Level ~
~
' ~ ' r--... ' '
~
'
' ' ' ' ..
' .. ..
~
.. .. .. .. "',
' ....
1200
-
450 ....
~
', ....... .... .... .. , .... 440 ·, .. ....
' .... ... ...
430 '· ·,
' ' ' .... ....
' .. 420
Date: Ultimate Downward Axial Pile Capacity
-----------
Figure
6/28/2020 South Santa Fe Ave. 1--.;..........:_ _______ _.

Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069
-----'--------

GHOSTRIDER
A-8a
L.B.
0 100
530
24-NCH DIA1v1ETER ACD PILE
ALLO\.VABLE DO\.V)f\.VARD CAPACITIES
Axial Capacitie s (l(ips)
200 300 400 500 600
--- Allowable Dnwnward Capacity - T,vo Basement Levels
520 ----Allowable Downward Capacity - One Basement Level - 510
500
490
" ~
'
'~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ....
'
"'
I
' ' ' I"'-. ' ' ~-
'
~
' ' ' ' ' '~ '
460
450
440
'
~
' ' ~
' ' ' ' '
~
' ' ..
' ... .. .. _
, .
~
... ... ... ... ' ... ' ... ', ......... ... ... ... ...... ... 430 ......
-..... ... ...... ......
420
........

Notes :
1) Allowable pile capaci ties are calcualted using a Factor of Safety of 2 2) Capacities are based on the strength of the soils
3) Comp ressiv e and tensile strengths of the pile section s ho uld be checke d to ve rify the structur al ca pacities .

Date: Allowable Downward Axial Pile Capacity 1---------------1 Figure 6/28/2020 South Santa Fe fwe.
--------------... o_r_a_w_n_B~y_: _______ s an Marcos, CA 92069 GHOSTRIOER A-8b
L.B.
0 50
520
24-INCH DIAivIETER ACD PILE

ALLOWABLE UPWARD CAPACITY
100
Axial Capacities (kips )
150 200 250
I
-Allowable Upward Capacity - One Level Basement
300
\
----Allowable Upward Capac ity - Two Levels Basement
510
500
490
,--.
480 a)
~
,;::;
.g
"' a:;
~ 470
460
450
\
\
~
\
\
\
\
"
\
\
'
~
' ' ' ' ' " '
~
'
~
" .
" " " " ' ' ,.
~
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
~-
' ' ' .. .. .. ..
' ' ..
~
.. ' .. ' ' ' .. ' ..
440 .. ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. 430
Notes:
1) Allowable pile capacities are calcualted using a Factor of Safety of 3 2) Capaciti es are based on the strength of the soils
3) Compr essh·e and tensile strengths of the pile secti on should be checked to Yerify the sh11ctmal capacities.

Date: Allowable Upward Axial Pile Capacity
1--------------1
Figure
6/28/2020 South Santa Fe Ave. 1--..;._.....;... _______ ---I Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069
1-----'----------1

GHOSTR I DER
A-8c
L.B.

If' 1 Jr1•\
ler C<J<lli HJ
-at~ ly lndE~~r d ·r !
-c,,-r"'td Su, .. v1 ·p B,·
9 .
9 S, r•,·1ro ot ~- !
\/1:.'.J. Sc.1•1 1/J'I ')'-
Reference: California Geotracker, Google Maps
!'lf)u' t f- ()J(.',_ '.
,1..ir· 10e 1't.r
9 =•r ult f I,

Q SITE LOCATION
0 0
•
0 0
0 0 F1-e.~ Pc r ::
0 ;..G_ar--.: - o. · e 3,: : '/., ':"d ~
■ UST .: ·ea :J~ s le-~
0 SIGNIFI ES A CLOSED SIT E
0 9
_J:.; r qre 5 V, !
El
Date: Geotracer Borings and LUST site
6/13/2020 South Santa Fe Ave. GHOSTRIDER
Drawn By: San Marcos, CA 92069 11--------------1 L.B.

Figure
A-9
Appendix B
Exploratory Logs
Date:

Coa r!'>,:
{irai 11cd
Soils•
More than
50 "..,
Reta ined
on No. 200
Fine
Urnirwd
Soil s"'
50 "O or
Pa:-.sc~ No.
.:wo Skn:

SUBS U RFAC E EX PLORATIO N LEGE N D

U NIFI E D SO I L C LA SSI F I CA TIO N SYST E M
V isua l- Man ual Proce dur e (ASTM D2488)

C O NS IS T EN C Y / R E LATI VE

D EN SITY
MAJOR D IV !S 10\/S
50 ': i, or more
of Coarse
Fr~c1io n
Rc1,1im;do11
:--Jo. -l Sicv .. •
Sand:,,
/Vlon.:: 1han
50 "., of Co~1rsc
Frm:1io11 Pa.;:,,,:_..,
'.'lo. 4 Sin·c
Clean
Cir.1\'ds
(!ra vels
\\ ith
Fines
Silts :.rnd Cla~
Liquid Limits 50 '!., o r h.--:.s
Silts and lbys
Liquid Limits GreJ t~r 111:..111 50
•;
Highl y Org:mi..:: Soib
GROl : P

SYMBOLS
GW
Cir
GM
( iC:

S\V
SP
SM
SC'
~IL
CL

01. /VIII
CH
0 11
PT
Based on material pass ing the 3-inch sieve .

TYPICAL A~IES CR ITER l1\
Well Grath:d Cir;ivcb ,ind Grnn:1- Ri.::f.:r..:m.:c: •f-1)~md11tio11 Eng im:..:ring·. Pcck. Hansen.

Sand Mixtures. Lilt!,: or no Firh.'S T hornbu rn. 2nd Editio n.

Poorl y Gradcd {ir:,vcb ;md
(lra,.('"1-S~nd \.fi,.ture-.. I .in le or
no Finc !'>
Silty <..ir.wcb. Gravd-S;md-Sill
Mix1urc .. ~••
("l.iyey {jra,el. Cir•n el-Sand -( "Jay
Mi, rurc:-.•.,
W e ll (ir;nkd Sr1mb, anti Cir:l\cl y
Sam.ls. Little or no Fini.::s
Poorly Grade d Sands and
(I rawly Sands. Little or no Fine!>
S ilty Sands . Snnd-S 1lt !\1ixtures••
Claye y Sands. Snml-Cby
l\-lixlurt."..,••
lnorg;mic Silb. Sandy Silts. Rock
Flour
lnorg. :.mk C:k1y:-- nf Low to
:vtcdimn Plt1-;1id1y. Gra\ ·clly
Clays. Smtdy C:l.1ys. Si!i-y Ck1ys.

Lc,111 Cla~.:.

Oqpnii.: Si!h and Org:.i nic ,ill y
C l.1ys of Low Plas 1icity
lnvrg,mil.'. Silt:.-. \h.:.it ·~ous vr
l1i:1tom: 11:-cnu:-. s ilt:-.. Pbs tii.: Silts
lnorg,mi c Clay s of l-ligh
Plastic ity. Fat Clay:,,
O rgan ic (: by:- o f Medium lo
lligh 111.islicity
1'1.·;_11. Muck. ur Othi.:r I l1ghly
Organ k Soils
S1,mdard Peni.:1ra1ion T~1
Gr,mukir Soils
l>cnctrn tiun Rcsbltmi:1. ·.

N. (Blows Foot)
IU - 30
30 - 50
Rcl:11ivc
Density
1\led ium
Vi;.·ryDi.:nsc
Stam lar<l Pcn~tr:u ion T .. --:it
Cnhc~i, ·e Soils
Pcnl.."tration
Rc'-i :sta ni.:c. N.
(Blows , F, Hll )
8 - 15
15 - 30
:,, 30
Consi:- tency
v,.,f),Soft
Soft
Mc d ium
St iff
V.:-ry Sliff
l lar<l
Unc<infined
Co111 pres~ in:

Stn:ngth.
(Toth / Sq.

Ft.I

0.25 ~ 0.5
ll.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0
More than 12%, passing the No. 200 sieve: 5'Yo to 12¾, passing No. 200 sieve requires use of due l sym bols (i.e ., SP-SI\ G P-GM, SP-SC. GP-GC'. etc.) : Bo rder l ine class ifications arc des ignat ed as C l !/C l, GM /SM, SP/SW. etc.

U.S. Sta nda rd Sieve Si,:e 12" 3" 3/4" #4 # 10 #40 #200 Unific.~d Soil C lassiflcation
Ucsig nation
I
Bouldcc.; I Cobbles
1 11--__ G_· r~av_c1 __ -l1
1 _ _ _ ~_S_an_d _~---1
1 1
Coarse I F ine Coar.;;c I Mediu m I Fine
Silto ml
Ch1y
Dry
Mo ist
Wet
Moisture Cond ition
Abse nce of mo istu re> du sty.
d ry to t he touch.

Damp but no visib le mo isture .

V is ibl e free wate r, usu all y
below the wa ter table.

Mate rial Quantity
Tra ce
Slightl y
Littl e
Some
< 5 %
5 - 12%
12 - 2 5%
25 - 5 0 %
Othe r S y mbo ls
C - Core Sa mp le
S - S PT Samp le
B - Bul k Sa m ple
CK - C hun k Sam pl e
R - Ring Samp le
N - N ucl ea r G au ge T es!
V - Wa ter T a bl e
Figure
312612019 s· 1·t· d uses s ·1 c1 ·t· · ch D B imp 1 1e 01 s ass, 1cat1on art •
B-1 rawn y:

L.B.

GHOSTRIDER
Project Name: San Marcos Apts.

Drill Rig Type of Rig:

Drill Hole Dia .: 6"
I f I $:l
~I
Ill
I
0 -- I ~ .... ...
~ ~ 0 ~
~
0 ..d I ,!
""' - I s .... i:i. 0 ~ Ill
i:i. e
Ill
0 ~ = ~ Ill I ~ Ill O -A lfL Z ~,...l!J u_ -- SC
o.o- -

2.5 - ---

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
BORINGNO. 1
Date: 5/6/2020
Drive Wt.: 140 lbs.

Drop: 30"
Logged By: D.J. / Gostrider
Elevation: From Surface
Depth of Boring (ft.): 50.5
Description
--- - - +--+--- ---¾---+---f--- --f-'~,-,..f l---+------------------ - ----- ---1 5·0 -'7.f" 5,13,15
7·5 -T 7,12,17
100 -IR:"" 4,15,29

12.5 - ----
CL
CL
CL

97.4 16.0
100.3 25.3
102.6 21.4
. -- --- - -+----+-- --lr-----l
150 -T 10,20,3, CL 100.7 23.7

17.5 - '--
____ - +--l--- -+----1--- ---¾---l
2o.o- R 10,19,1:

22.5 - -
25 0 -!R" 11 ,23,4'

27.5 - ---
CL
CL
100.5 23.0
102.3 23.4
----- +----i l--- -+----+-- ---¾---l
:o~~-- S l 0,20,35 CL 23.7

32.5 - '--
Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay, Moist, Stiff
Grayish Brown Clay, Moist, Stiff
; /: ;_11~ - +Gr_ a"-yi_sh_B_ro_wn_ S_an_ d,_y_C_la..._y-'-, _M_o_is~t,c....V_e_ry"---S_ti_ff _______ __ --1 Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay, Moist , Very Stiff
Dark Brown Clay with Yellowish Streaking , Moist , Very Stiff : : : : :
...

Light Grayish Brown Sandy Clay, Moist , Very Stiff
' • · '
: Grayish Brown Clay with Sand, Moist, Very Stiff
---- ·+--r-- -+----+-- --1---l > .

35.o - S 9,17,24 CL 21.4 Grayish Brown Clay with Sand, Moist, Very Stiff : _
7 : __ -_.j..--+-- --1----+---1---- ~ \:\ul-- - ---------- - ---- - ------- -1 4o.o- S 9,24,34 CL 18.0

42.5 - -
-- --+---t i--- -+----+--- -+----l
45·0 - s 1021 31 CL
.... , - ' ' 20.8

47.5 -
---- +---l l--- -+----+--- -+----I
Grayish Brown Clay with Sand, Moist, Very Stiff
Greenish Brown Sandy Clay, Moist, Very Stiff

50.0- ~ 18,50,- CL 24.8 IUreemsh Hrown Sandy Clay, Moist, Hard --· - >-- - - - - - • " - - :- - .:;;;--~ -a:. - ~ oie' Refusa'fat'"s"l ';°Backtillect WithSl'iirry - - - - - - - - - -

52.5 - -
--
-- ·--- -1--1- - - +--- -l-- -+-- -l---+---1---------- - ------------ --l ----
S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample D - Disturbed Sample

GHOSTRIDER

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
BORINGNO. 2
Project No.:

Project Name: San Marcos Devlop. Date: 5/6/2020 Logged By: D.J. / Ghostrider Elevation: From Surface
Depth of Boring (ft.): 20.5 '
Type of Rig: Drill Rig Drive Wt.: 140 lbs .

Drill Hole Dia.: 6" Drop: 30"
3 -T 2,3,6 CL 96.5 25.0
5 --
--+--, l-- ---+-- -+-- +---t
6 - - R 14,20,21 CL 112.2 16.8
7 -
-- --!-----+---+-- +---!
8 --
...
...

Cl)
• ~ l
~
] I
= 0
Description
1 Q_I _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
0'-3' - Dark Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel, Moist, ,;-L-o-os_e ___ _ Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay, Moist, Stiff
Yellow ish Brown Sandy Clay, Moist , Very Stiff
--··-··+-- -+---- - 1--- --<1-- - -+----J . .. "!t--+- - - --- ----------- - - - - - ----j 9 -
----·1---+ ----l-----+--- - 1----- -1
.:~. '"7f' 7,13,19 CL 17.7 Olive Green Brown Sandy Clay, Moist, Stiff : :
11 --
-- -+--!-----+- - -+--+---! - .
12 -
---1---+ ----l- - ---+--- - 1------1
13 -
----- 1-----+ - --+-- +---I
14 -
---+----t - --+-- -+---~ --I
: 5 -T 9,21,22 CL 107.9 19.3
16 --
17 ,__
: :

OliveGreen Brown Sandy Clay, Moist, Very Stiff :1t--+---- - ---~-~- ~ -~-- - - - ------i +----t ---+-----+---~ --1 : ·.· --+---- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - ----< 18 ,--
19-
+----l ---+--- --+-- - ~ -----t :
20 - ris 9,17,23 CL 18.4 v11veKedd1sh.8rownSandyCJay,M01st, VeryStm - "" - - - '""' - - """' - • " - _ .._..,, __ _ - 'Hole'A.'6'"anctoiiedat 2\J'":i3aclruliecl wit'li'ciittmgs - - - - - - - " 21 ----
--- +-----,l-----+ ---+--+-- --t--+--t----- - ------ - - - --- - - --- ----1 22--
----+-- 1-----+---+--+----t--+---t- - --- - - - - --------- - - - -----j ~---·---- - --+-- --+-- --<l--- -+----<l---+- - - - - ---- - - - --- - - - - --- - - ---1 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample D - Disturbed Sample

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
BORINGNO. 3
Proj ect No.:

Proj ect Name: San Marcos Devlop. Date : 5/6/2020 Logged By: D.J. / Ghostrider Elevation: From Surface
Depth of Boring (ft.): 20.5'
Type of Rig: Drill Rig Drive Wt.:

Drill Hole Dia.: 6" Drop :

I
a,) ' "' I g I
---~~ ~-0 ~ g ~ ~ C) ' ·; f Ql ._,
a,)i:i:i ~ ~L-- 1~= ~ 1'a "o<"o "' ci~ , ~-2:
~ s O ~ = ~ ~ ~ ·o §
Description
,_Ci Ji 2; -~·~ '-oo=..;
0 !c-,u"' ..... --+..cA;;c..~ ,_~
,_ ---1.----1- --+-- S_C_+-----1----1 ; ::} ::; ,,i~ -+o- •_~3_'_-_D_a_r_k_B_r_o_w_n_C_ la_,_y_ey,,__S_a_nd_ w_i_th_G_ ra_v_e..cl,'----M_ o_is-'t,'----L- o_o_s_e ------1 ~ -... : _ _,__ __ ...._ ____ __,__--1 })1f--f ------------------------- --1 > ./· ·<'" -:" Jf--f .._-----,---,...---,,.. .--,.---.---.c,----;=,--.----,---.--,---.---------- --1 ·; _ ...!:_ 6,6, 7 SC 103 .8 20.6 '.-:'. '.'.-:'. Dark Brown Clayey Sand with Grave, Moist, Loo se "'--1-------+----1------1--~ . .
4'-5.5' - Dark Brown Sandy Clay , Moist, Loose
--- ·+--f----+-- -+--+-----1
5 T 4,6,10 CL 115.6 12.8 ::;:; :: l1JarkBrownSandyCiay , Mo1stLOose - i-.:----~-- .... --.. -- -- ------------------------6 _.__ - --- "'--1---- ---+----l-----l----f-- +----+ --------- - -------------------1 7 ,.__
8 '--
- ,J----l ----1--- --+----l--- --l----1----1------------------------------, 9 •--·~----l----f - - -4----1-- -f--- ---+--f-----+ - - - ---- --- - --- --- --- --- ---1 10 - o--
11 .__
-· ,-1--~ - --1-----1---+-- ---ll---- +----1 --- -------------------------1 ---••-l-----!----1----4----1--- --1---+--+ - ----------------------------, 13 --- ·-'--~ - --l-----l--- -+.-- ---ll--- - -+.----1 ----------------------------1 14 1--
--- +----! '--- --1-----+----1--- --1---+--+--------------------------1 15 · -
--- +----! '--- --1------+---+-- --+--+---+ --------------------------t 16-
--- -1----11----+---+--+-- -l---+---1-----------------------------1 17 - -
18 -
---1--1- ---+---+-- - l--- -+--l--+--------------------------l 19- -
--1-~---1--- -+.---1---- --l---1-----1-----------------------------I 20 -
-- •-l----f ---4----l----l--- --l----1-----+----------------------------1 21 ,__
--- -1----11----+---+--+-- -l---+--1- ----------------------------1 22 ,___
-- -1----11--- -+---+--+-- -f--+---1-----------------------------1 -- -l----l---+---+----l--- -+---l---+------------------------ ---1 S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample D - Disturbed Sample

GHOSTRIDER

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
BORING NO. 4
Project Nam e: San Marcos Devlop. Date: 511012020 Logged By: L.B. I Ghostrider Elevation: From Surface
Depth of Boring (ft.): 15'
Type of Rig: Hand Auger Drive Wt.: NIA
Drill Hole Dia .: 3" Drop: NIA
1 I
Description
I ,__
2 _,__
3 R NIA SC
4 ---
- l--½--+---+-- -+---1-:-",~,-lll----ll------------------- - ---- -----1 5 - 1--
·- ----
7 ,__
CL 101.5 15.7
\Ti
Gryaish Brown Sandy Clay, Moist , Dense
+---! ---+--- +--------I li------------- ----- ------- ---1 8 _,__
---·+---l ---+-- - +-- - - ----1
9 -
·--- -1----1 ----l------+----l-- ----1
: ::

CL 103.5 20.1 Yellowish Brown Clay with Sand, Moist, Stiff .. -1:--------~'------~--~--------------, 11 - o-
---1----1 ----l------+-- --I------I
12 ..___
- ·-· +---l ----l------+-- - - ----1: :: : :: ·11---+-------------------------, 13 -
- +---1--- -+----+-- - - ---l •. ·lf--1- ---- --------------------1 14- o--
- . K NIA CL JUU.l 22.J :•:.. Yellow1shJ:lrown:SanctyCLay, Mo1st, Very:Stm 15 - - - - •• - - - - -• - --- - .,. -1I"ioieA'6'"anaoiiectat TI•;"'Ba'ctdillect with-Cuttings- - - - - - - - • 16 -
--- +--l---+---+-- -+--+-- +----1----------------------- --l 17 - -
·---1----4---+-- - l--- -+---l--- -+--- ---------------------- ----1 19-
·--+--½--+---+-- -+--+-- -+---ll-- ---------------------- ---j 20 - -
-- -1-----1----l---- --+----+---l------+--1---- ---- ---- --- ------- -----1 21 - .....__
---- ~---1 --+---+-- -l-- - +-- -+-- 1-------------------------- -1 22 - ---
---~---t --+---+-- -l---+-- -+- l------- - ---------------- ---j ,__ - - - -1----l ----l-------l-------+---l------+--1----- - - - ----------- - ---- -l --- ~---t --+---+-- -l---+-- -+-- 1-------------------------- -l S - SPT Sample R - Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample D - Disturbed Sample

GHOSTRIDER

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
BORING NO. 5
Project Name : San Marcos Devlop. Date: 511012020 Logged By: L.B. I Ghostrid er Elevation: From Surface
Depth of Boring (ft.): 15'
Type of Rig: Hand Auger Drive Wt.: NIA
Drill Hole Dia.: 3" Drop: NIA
2 - -
-- R NIA
3 - -
4 -
S - 7 NIA
-- -
SC
SC
:;:;:;:'J>--+- - - ---- - --~------------- --i
109 9 10 I : :t lf---t -D-ar_k_B_r_o_wn_ C_l_a_ye_y_S_an_ d_wi_·th_ Gr_a_v_e_l,_M __ o- i-st_, -Lo- os-e------- ---1 110.3 13.5 '<',','
'' '
Dark Brown Clayey Sand, Moist, Loose
6 - - ~ .. #--- +---<1-----t-----+--- +-- ---{<· '.· . · l l---4-- - ---- - ---- - ---- - ------- --i ---- +---, 1----+-----+---+----t
8 - -- --+---, 1--- -t----+---+-- -t
9 -
.. . .
. . · . Jf--+---------------------------i
--+---<1-----t-----+---+-- ---{ :-:- .. Jr----t------------------------- -i IO - ~ NIA CL 100.1
~---·------11 - -

20.0 : : : : Y e11owisn tlrown :sanay uay, Moist, :stm
- -~~ ... - 'liol e Abanctonedat 10.5', BacictJ.'fiectwi'tti l'.uttings - - - - - - - • ·- -·-t--t--- -+- ----t-------; ------- ------ --------- - - -------t 12- -
13 -
·--+---<l----+-----+---+----t- - +---+ ------------------------ ---1 14- -
- --+---, 1------t- ---+--- +-- --1---+---t- ------ - - ------ - --------- -----1 -- +---l ----+-----+-- - +-- -+--+---+ ------------------------ ----1 16 - -
--- +---, 1----t----+--- +----t- - - +---t- ----- ------------------- -----1 ---- +---< l----t- ----+-- - +-----+- - +----+------- - ----- ------ - -------1 18 -
---+---< l----+-----+-- - +-- ---+--+---+ ----------- --------- -------1 19- -
. '·•+---,1----t----+---+----t--+---t--- - ----- ----- - - ----- ---------1 20 - -
- -•1--+- ---+------+-- - t----+--t---+-------------- - ------ -----f 21 - -
·-· -+---- l----+- - ---+---+----t--+----t- - - - ----- ----- - - --- - - - ------1 22 - -
· ·+---,1----t----+---+----t- - +----t------------------------------1 ~--- -~1----+---+--+----+--+----+ - - - - - --- - - --- - - --------- ----t --
--- -+---l - ---+-----+-- - +-- -+--+--+- ----- - - - - -------------- ----1 S - SPT Sample R • Ring Sample B - Bulk Sample D - Disturbed Sample Appendix B
Exploratory Logs
Appendix C
Laboratory Testing
Dry Density and Moisture Content
Date Tested: 5/20/2020
Boring# Sample# Depth (ft) Dry Density Moisture Description (pcf) Content(%) B-1 2 5' 97.4 16.0% Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
B-1 3 7.5' 100.3 25.3% Grayish Brown Qay
B-1 4 10' 102.6 21.4% Grayish Brown Sandy Clay
B-1 5 15' 100.7 23.7% Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
B-1 6 20' 100.5 23.0% Dark Brown Clay with
Yellowish Streaks
B-1 7 25' 102.3 23.4% light Gray Brown Sandy Clay
B-2 1 3' 96.5 25.0% Yellowish Brown Clay with
Sand
B-2 2 6' 112.2 16.8% Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
B-2 4 15' 107.9 19.3% Olive Green Brown Clay with
Sand
B-3 1 2.5' 103.8 20.6% Dark Brown Qayey Sand with
Gravel
B-3 2 5' 115.6 12.8% Dark Brown Sandy Clay
Performed in General Accordance with ASTM D7263 Band D2216 Project Name FIGURE

GHOSTRIDER
TECH: L.B. Santa Fe Apartments C-1
DATE: 11-Jun-20
Dry Density and Moisture Content
Date Tested: 5/20/2020
Boring# Sample# Depth (ft) Dry Density Moisture Description (pct) Content(%) B-4 1 3' 110.5 13.1% Dark Brown Clayey Sand with
Gravel
B-4 2 6' 101.5 15.7% Grayish Brown Sandy Clay
B-4 3 10' 103.5 20.1% Yellowish Brown Clay with
Sand
B-4 4 15' 100.1 22.3% Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
B-5 1 2.5' 109.9 10.1% Dark Brown Clayey Sand with
Gravel
B-5 2 5' 110.3 13.5% Dark Brown Clayey Sand
B-5 3 10' 100.l 20.0% Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay
Performed in General Accordance with ASTM D7263 Band D2216 Project Name FIGURE

GHOSTRIDER
TECH: L.B. Santa Fe Apartments C-2
DATE: 11-Jun-20
Materials Finer than No. 200 Sieve
Date Tested 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 Boring No B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1 B-1
Sample No. 2 3 4 5 6 7
Depth, ft. 5' 7.5' 10' 15' 20' 25'
Dry Weight before wash, g 94.1 127.4 122.5 114.9 147.2 104.5 Dry Weight After Wash, g 29.3 3.9 16.5 18.5 61.8 21.5
Weight Loss, No. 200, g 64.8 123.5 106 96.4 85.4 83
Passing No. 200, % 68.9 96.9 86.5 83.9 58.0 79.4
LJdU\ .

Yellowish Grayish Grayish Yellowish Brown Clay Light Gray Sample Description Brown Brown Clay Brown Brown with Brown Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Yellowish Sandy Clay
C'h.~,.,l,~
Date Tested 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 5/15/2020
Boring No B-1 B-1 B-1
Sample No. 9 10 11
Depth, ft. 35' 40' 45'
Dry Weight before wash, g 163.3 145.3 233.6
Dry Weight After Wash, g 12.4 10.6 40.2
Weight Loss, No. 200, g 150.9 134.7 193.4
Passing No. 200, % 92.4 92.7 82.8
Grayish Grayish Greenish
Sample Description Brown Clay Brown Clay Brown
with Sand with Sand Sandy Clay
TEST PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
Project Name FIGURE

GHOSTRIDER
Tech: LB Santa Fe Apartments C-3
DATE: 6/11/2020
Materials Finer than No. 200 Sieve
Date Tested S/16/2020 S/16/2020 S/16/2020 S/16/2020 S/16/2020 Boring No B-2 B-2 B-2 B-2 B-2
Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5
Depth, ft. 3' 6' 10' 15' 20'
Dry Weight before wash, g 156.5 97.4 159.5 145 185.8
Dry Weight After Wash, g 14.3 9.9 5.1 5.2 22.7
Weight Loss, No. 200, g 142.2 87.5 154.4 139.8 163.l
Passing No. 200, % 90.9 89.8 96.8 96.4 87.8
Yellowish Yellowish Olive Green Olive Green Olive
Sample Description Brown Clay Brown Brown Clay Brown Clay Reddish Brown with Sand Sandy Clay with Sand with Sand Sandy Clay Date Tested S/16/2020 S/16/2020
Boring No B-3 B-3
Sample No. 1 2
Depth, ft. 2.5' 5'
Dry Weight before wash, g 161.9 144.3
Drv Weight After Wash, g 82.4 54.9
Weight Loss, No. 200, g 79.5 89.4
Passing No. 200, % 49.1 62.0
Dark
Brown Dark
Sample Description Clayey Brown
Sand with Sandy Clay
Gravel
TEST PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
Project Name FIGURE

GHOSTRIDER
Tech: AE Santa Fe Apartments C-4
DATE: 6/11/2020
Materials Finer than No. 200 Sieve
Date Tested 5/16/2020 5/16/2020 5/16/2020 5/16/2020
Boring No B-4 B-4 B-4 B-4
Sample No. 1 2 3 4
Depth, ft. 3' 6' 10' 15'
Drv Weight before wash, g 210.3 185.9 191.5 203.5
Dry Weight After Wash, g 120.5 21.1 15.9 26.7
Weight Loss, No. 200, g 89.8 164.8 175.6 176.8
Passing No. 200, % 42.7 88.6 91.7 86.9
LJdlK
Brown Grayish Yellowish Yellowish
Sample Description Clayey Brown Brown Clay Brown
Sand w/ Sandy Clay with Sand Sandy Clay
r~~"-'
Date Tested 5/16/2020 5/16/2020 5/16/2020
Boring No B-5 B-5 B-5
Sample No. 1 2 3
Depth, ft. 2.5' 5' 10'
Dry Weight before wash, g 265.5 220.1 189.3
Drv Weight After Wash, g 193.5 131.5 21.3
Weight Loss, No. 200, g 72 88.6 168
Passing No. 200, % 27.1 40.3 88.7
Dark Dark Brown Yellowish
Sample Description Clayey Brown Brown Clayey Sand w/ Sand Sandy Clay Gravel
TEST PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
Project Name FIGURE

GHOSTRIDER
Tech: AE Santa Fe Apartments C-5
DATE: 6/11/2020

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
Date Tested: 5/17/2020
uses
SYMBOL SAMPLE NAME DEPTH CLASSIFICATION uses
(ft) LL PL PI Entire Sample (Minus No. 40
Sieve Fraction)
• B-1 5' 36 16 20 CL CL
■ B-1 20 41 15 26 CL CL
• B-3 2.5' 38 17 21 CL CL
0 B-4 15' 44 15 29 CL CL
□
I::.
+
◊
70 / 60
/ V
~ CH / 50
/ V >< w
/
C
~ 40 >-
/
V I-
I/ u
i== 30 Ill
/
0 /
<(
_,J CL ■ MH&OH D-
20 -• ~
/
- V / 10 ~
-/ L-ML / \IIL&OL
0 /
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
Project Name: FIGURE

GHOSTRIDER
Santa Fe Apartments C-6
TECH:L.B.
28-Jun-20
DIRECT SHEAR T.EST
GEOTEK
Pmject Nome: 29I2 Santa. Fe, San Marcos So.mp{e Location:

Project Number: 19,21 IBC Dote Teited: €,/8/2020
4llOJJ
! 500.Q
li'J
li'J
UJ ,c
1-
~~•:l!J
:5 I
li'J
1000.0
' ' ' '
' ' '

PEAK VALUE
; : I I ! I
-------_____ _, _____ ------... --+--------_____ .., _____ -------_.,. -------------◄---- ----- ---- ◄------------- .. -------- ------4 ! ; i I
' ' ' '
l I I I
-------------; ------------+----------------------------{--------------i--- -------- --~------- --- ----+----- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
___ .J
j
' ' ' ' ' ' ' -;
:
' :
' ' l
:
' ' ' ' ' ' ' :
' ' ' l t t 1 J
- - -------- --- - ------- - --- - _, _ - ---- - ---- --- -- -- ----- - - _..J __________ ---~--- - -- - - ----- .J __ - - --- - _____ ..i, _______ _ --- __ J I I : I
' ' ' ' ' '
: l
' ' ' ------------ . -------------!..----------- ----·-----------..:-------------~-------------.,-------------...---------·-----~ I t I f I

I I ' I
' ' ' i r !
!
' :
' ' ' ' i
'
' ,).0 +-------i-------+-------------1------1------+-------------i Notes:

O,) J (l)] .Q 1303 .0 2000!.l
NORMAL STRESS [1>5H
Shear Strength: <P = 13.5 °
I • Th e soil specimens sheared we r,e "undisturbed " ring 5,lmJ>les. 2 • The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated con dirions. 3 . Tht> cescs were run at a shear ract> of 0.0 35 in /min.

Dll.O DJO.O
C = 2088.00 psf
C-7
GEOTEK
PIREC T_SHj:AR TEST
Ultimate Value
Proje<:t Name: 2 972 Santa Fe, San Marcos Sample Location:
------------Project Number: 19-2118C Dote T erted:
m,JO
!()Ji)Q
B-1 @ 6
6/8/2020
-,- -----' I
00 ------------------------------------
00 5000 I())) 0 20000
NORM AL STRESS lpsfl
Shear Strength: 32.6 °
Not e s: I . The soil specimens sheared were •undisturbed " ring samples . 2 • The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.

3. The tes ts were run a t a shear rate of0.03S in /min . rnoa 3500 ,)
C = 570 .00 psf
C-8
GEOTEK
Project Name:

Project Number.
))J(l(l
~
~
U'l
a:X.Ouu
:.5 ::c
U'l
!S()(l<)
1•))00

S(),),)
2972 Santa Fe, San Marcos Sample Location:

I 9•2118C Date Tested:

Peak Value
s.4@ 1s
6/8/2020
.
' .
' ' ' ◄ ---:
' .
' :
00 -------------------- ------------------00 5(11J() l OJ)O l:, r)j I) 20J,),) 3)0)() ~,))J 0 NORMAL STRESS lpsft
Shear Strength: <t> = 19.4 ° C :: 1296.00 psf
Notes : I - The soil specimens sheared were "undisturbed " ring samples. 2 . The above reflect direct shear strength at saturated conditions.

3. The tests were run at a shear race of 0.035 in /min.

C-9
GEOTEK

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Ultimate Value
Project Name : 2972 Santa Fe, San Marcos Sample Location: B,4 @ 15 -------------Project Number: 19-21 18C
~ ~)1J(J

0. ~
~
1/)
c6'(1Juu
~ :t:

U)
1';.J,JO
j,))Q,J
Dote Tested: 6/8 /2020
' ' - • t- - ➔
'
00 --------------------------------------00
NORMA L STRESS lpsH
Shear Strength: 23.3 °
Not e s: I • The so il specimens sheared were "undistu rbed " ring samples . 2 - The above reflect direct shear streng th at saturated condi tions. 3 • The tes ts were run at a shear rate o f 0.035 in /min.

C=
)JOJ 0 lSOOO 40)) ,J
444 .00 psf
C-10
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829)
Location Sample No. Depth (ft) Sample Description
B-1 Bull< 3'-8' Yellowish Brown Clay with
Sand
Density Determination Trial#l Trial #2
Weight Compacted Sample and Ri •. 724.7
Weight of Ring 367.4
Net Weight of Sample 357.3
Wet Density, pcf 108.3
Dry Density, pcf 94.3
Moisture Determination
Wet Weight of Sample, g 200 .8
Dry Weight of Sample, g 174.9
Moisture Content, % 14.8%
Expansion Index 154
Corrected Expansion Index 155 (VERY HIGH)
% Saturation 50.8
Expansion Readings Moisture Content after Test
DATE TIME READING Wet+Ring 797.7
5/20/2020 7:00AM 0.1475 Dry 311.2
5/20/2020 7:10AM 0.1474 <<Add Water 38.3%
5/22/2020 9:00AM 0.3011 << Final
Project Name FIGURE

GHOSTRIDER
!TECH: L.B. Santa Fe Apartments C-11
!DATE: 6/28/2 020
0 2
3 4
5 100
BORING NO .

DESCRIPTION :

MOISTURE
CONTENT( %)
INITIAi 21
<Ps_
I
I\
f\
f\
11\
\
·~
"1
1,000
B-1
I

SANDY CLAY (CL)
DRYDENSln'
I {pci)
106.43
I•
I\ I\. '
~
\
l"l \
~ \ I'--..
~~ '-
10,000
STRESS, psf
DEPTH (fl)

PERCENT

SATURATION
97 NOTE : SOLID CIRCLES INDICATE READINGS AFTER ADDITION OF WATER

CONSOLIDATION TEST RES UL TS
I
@ Converse Consultants Santa Fe Apartments C-12
P.-q<>:I l!l : 2J -81 -1W-0 1.G?J: T u-ni:kr.e : CO.'lW Ll!lATK).'l I
10 5

6.0-7,5
VOID
RATIO

0.569
Project No. Drawing No.
2 0-81-1 88-01 B-1
0 5
10 ~ t;; 15
20 25
30 100
BORI NG NO. :

DESCRIP TION :

MOIST URE
CONTE NT{%)
INITIAL 23
FINAL
qr
I
"h
\
\
)
1 '\
\
~l_
a
1,000 10,000
STRESS, psf
8-4
I
DEPTH (ft)

SANDY CLAY (CL)

DRY DENSITY
I

PERCE NT
(pcl ) SATURATI ON
99 .89 93
NOTE : SOLID CIRCLES INDICATE READI NGS AFTER ADDI TION OF WATER

CONSOLIDATION TEST RES UL TS
----..........

I
@ Converse Consultants Santa Fe Apartments C-13
Prq o::t ID : :.)).81·18!!-0 1.G? J: Tm, µ :r.e : CO.'l.S{l LIDi\T Kl.'I I
r---...._ ,_
105

20.0-21 .5
VOID
RATIO

0.650
Project No. Drawing No.
20-81-188-01
Project X
Corrosion Engineering
Corrosion Control - Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab Bore# / Description
B-1, S-3
Soil Analysis Lab Results
Method
Depth
(ft)

7.5 Client: Ghostrider
Job Name: Santa Fe Apts
Client Job Number: 19-2118C
Project X Job Number:

S200602A June 4, 2020

ASTM ASTM
D4327 D4327
Sulfates Chlorides
so/ - er
(m2/k2) I (wt%) (m2/k2) I (wt%)
s,94t.6 I o.s942 625.2 10.062s
ASTM
G187
Resistivity
As Rec'd I Minimum
(Ohm-cm) I (Ohm-cm)
1,005 I 302
Cations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bic.arbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg= milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND~ 0 ~ Not Detected I NT~ Not Tested I Unk ~ Unknown
Chemical Analysis performed on 1 :3 Soil-To-Water ex.tract 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com
ASTM I
G51
pH

5.10 REPORT S200602A
Page2
Appendix D
USDA - Natural Resources
Conservation Service - Soil
Resource Report
USDA United States
~ Department of
Agriculture
NRCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
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

SANTA FE APARTMENTS
June 28, 2020
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps / portal/nrcs/main/soils/health /) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov .usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs ) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951 ).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface ......................................................... .................................. ......................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made ............................................................ .. .................... 5 Soil Map ......................................... ................................................ ................ ......... 8 Soil Map (Santa Fe Apartments) .............................. ............................................ 9 Legend ............................................................................................................. ... 10 Map Unit Legend (Santa Fe Apartments) .................................................... ....... 11 Map Unit Descriptions (Santa Fe Apartments) ............................................... .... 11 San Diego County Area, California ................................................................. 13 AwC-Auld clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes ...................... .................................. 13 AwD-Auld clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes ............................ .......................... 14 AyE-Auld stony clay, 9 to 30 percent slopes ............................................. 15 DaC-Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes ................ ..................................... 16 DaD-Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, warm MAAT ............................. 18 HrC-Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes .................................. ........... 19 LeD-Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes .......................... 20 References ...................... ..................... ...... .. ................ ............................ ............. 23 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage ; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons , in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping , this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report
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 6 Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest , a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 33" 9'39"N
33" '113"N
N
A
48:BJJ '811lll 481100
""""
481100
MapScae: 1:S,780ifprinted on A landscape (ll"xaS')sheet. ---= = =------=== = =M-,; EO 100 200 :nJ
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map (Santa Fe Apartments)
..,.,, 481400 481!ill
481:alJ 481400
o,_ __ ""250'c"'===:soo,_ ______ 1ooooc=======,;;,'
Map pruja:tiorl: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: VTM Zone 11N WGS84 9 481W) 4817W 481,W 481!Ul
33" 9'39"N
8 ffi
481W) 4817W ..,.,, 4819>)
Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest {AOI)
D Area of Interest (ADI)
Soils
D
□
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Specia l Point Features
~ Blowout
IZI Borrow Pit
X Clay Spot
0 Closed Depression
X Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
0 Landfill
, Lava Flow , ,
,?!;;. Marsh or swamp
--~ Mine or Quarry
@) Miscellaneous Water
0 Perennial Water
V Rock Outcrop
+
Sa line Spot
.. Sandy Spot
,a;;, Severely Eroded Spot
,: Sinkhole
i; Slide or Slip
yJ Sadie Spot
"' Spoil Area -:-::
(: Stony Spot
m Very Stony Spot
-:'r,
~
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Cana ls
Transportation
Rails +++
--
Interstate Highway s
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
• Aerial Photography
10 MAP INFORMATION
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 14, Sep 16, 2019
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
Map Unit Legend (Santa Fe Apartments)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent ~f AOI AwC Auld clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes 7.0
AwD Auld clay, 9 to 15 percent 22.9
slopes
AyE Auld stony clay, 9 to 30 percent 8.8
slopes
Dae Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent 16.1
slopes
DaD Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent 35.4
slopes, warm MAAT
HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent 37.9
slopes
LeD Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 24.8
15 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 152.9
Map Unit Descriptions (Santa Fe
Apartments)
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently , every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting , or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components . They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a 11 4.6%

15.0%

5.7%

10.5%

23.2%

24.8%

16.2%
100.0%
Custom Soil Resource Report
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made yp of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, O to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report
San Diego County Area, California
AwC-Auld clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hb87
Elevation : 300 to 2,700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 inches
Mean annual air temperature : 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 330 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Auld and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations , descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Auld
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from metavolcanics
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 54 inches: clay
H2 - 54 to 59 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 5 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 59 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated) : 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: CLAYEY (1975) (R019XD001CA)
Hydric soil rating: No
13 Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Las posas
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Diablo
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Huerhuero
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
San maguel
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
AwD-Auld clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hb88
Elevation: 300 to 2,700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 14 inches
Mean annual air temperature : 63 degrees F
Frost-free period : 200 to 330 days
Farmland classification : Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Auld and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations , descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Auld
Setting
Landform : Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from metavolcanics
Typical profile
H1 - O to 54 inches: clay
H2 - 54 to 59 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 9 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained
14 Custom Soil Resource Report
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding : None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mm hos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.1 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated) : 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated) : 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: CLAYEY (1975) (R019XD001CA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Las posas
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Huerhuero
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Rock outcrop
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
AyE-Auld stony clay, 9 to 30 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hb89
Elevation: 300 to 2,700 feet
Mean annual precipitation : 14 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 330 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Auld and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components : 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations , descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Auld
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
15 Custom Soil Resource Report
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from metavolcanics
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 30 inches: stony clay
H2 - 30 to 59 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 9 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mm hos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: CLAYEY (1975) (R019XD001 CA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
San maguel
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
DaC-Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hbb8
Elevation: 30 to 3,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 35 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance 16 Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Composition
Diablo and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent
Available water storage in profile : Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Altamont
Percent of map unit: 1 O percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Linne
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Olivenhain
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
17 Custom Soil Resource Report
DaD-Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, warm MAAT
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2w63f
Elevation: 110 to 910 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 21 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 58 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 290 to 365 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Diab/a and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations , descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Diablo
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional) : Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from calcareous shale Typical profile
A - 0 to 15 inches: clay
Bkss1 - 15 to 28 inches: clay
Bkss2 - 28 to 40 inches: clay loam
Cr - 40 to 79 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 9 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 39 to 79 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding : None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: CLAYEY (1975) (R019XD001 CA)
Hydric soil rating: No
18 Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Altamont
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional) : Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Linne
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional) : Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Olephant
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: No
HrC-Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hbcm
Elevation: 1,100 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 260 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Huerhuero and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Huerhuero
Setting
Landform : Marine terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Calcareous alluvium derived from sedimentary rock 19 Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam
H2 - 12 to 55 inches: clay loam, clay
H2 - 12 to 55 inches: stratified sand to sandy loam
H3 - 55 to 72 inches:

Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mm hos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 25.0
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: CLAYPAN (1975) (R019XD061 CA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Stockpen
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Las flores
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Olivenhain
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, ponded
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform : Depressions
Hydric soil rating: Yes
LeD-Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hbdb
20 Custom Soil Resource Report
Elevation: 700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F
Frost-free period: 300 to 340 days
Farmland classification : Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Las flares and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Las Flores
Setting
Landform: Hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Residuum weathered from siliceous calcareous sandstone Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 16 inches: loamy fine sand
H2 - 16 to 28 inches: sandy clay, clay
H2 - 16 to 28 inches: sandy clay, clay
H3 - 28 to 38 inches: loamy coarse sand
H3 - 28 to 38 inches: weathered bedrock
H4 - 38 to 48 inches:

HS - 48 to 52 inches:

Properties and qualities
Slope: 9 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: About 16 inches to abrupt textural change; About 16 inches to natric; 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 30.0
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.5 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: CLAYPAN (1975) (R019XD061CA)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Huerhuero
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
21 Custom Soil Resource Report
Diablo
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Linne
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
22 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/ n rcs/d etail/national/soils/?cid= n res 142p2 _ 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. n res. usda. gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/n ational/soi ls/?cid =nrcs 142 p2 _ 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=nrcs 142p2_05337 4
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 23 Custom Soil Resource Report
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=nrcs 142p2_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/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290 .pdf 24 Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Fe Flores, LP Project

APPENDIX E
CAP Checklist

Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist
Project #________

Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHECKLIST

INTRODUCTION
The City of San Marcos (City) adopted an updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December, 2020. The CAP outlines strategies and measures that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. The purpose of the CAP Consistency Checklist (Checklist), in conjunction with the CAP, is to provide a streamlined review process for all proposed development projects that are subject to discretionary review and/or trigger environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from new development is required under CEQA. The City’s CAP is a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of a CAP.

The purpose of this Checklist is to implement GHG reduction measures from the CAP that apply to new discretionary development projects. New development would demonstrate consistency with relevant CAP strategies and would not conflict with the City’s ability to achieve the identified GHG reduction targets through implementation of applicable measures. Projects that are consistent with the CAP, as determined through the use of this Checklist, may rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions.

Projects that are not consistent with the CAP must prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible. Cumulative GHG impacts would be significant for any project that is not consistent with the CAP.

This Checklist may be updated periodically to incorporate new GHG reduction techniques or to comply with later amendments to the CAP or local, State, or federal law. Comprehensive updates to this Checklist will be coordinated with each CAP update. Administrative updates to the Checklist may occur regularly, as necessary for the purpose of keeping the Checklist up-to-date and implementable. Updates to the CAP Checklist associated with an update to the City’s CAP would also require City Council approval and shall comply with CEQA.

Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net

APPLICABILITY AND PROCEDURES
This Checklist is required only for discretionary projects1 that are subject to and not exempt from CEQA.

Projects that are exempt from CEQA are deemed to be consistent with the City’s CAP, and no further review is necessary, with the exception of a Class 32 “In-Fill Development Projects” categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332), for which projects are required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through this Checklist.

General procedures for Checklist compliance and review are described below. Specific guidance is also provided under each of the questions under Steps 1 and 2 of the Checklist.  The City’s Development Services - Planning Division reviews d evelopment applications and makes determinations regarding environmental review requirements under CEQA.  The specific applicable requirements outlined in the Checklist shall be required as condition s of project approval.
 The project must provide written documentation and supporting evidence that demonstrate how the proposed project would implement each applicable Checklist requirement described herein to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.  If a question in the Checklist is deemed not applicable (N/A) to a project, written documentation and evidence supporting that conclusion shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Each Checklist question provides the scenario(s) where checking N/A may be acceptable. If a measure is deemed not a pplicable for reasons other than those outlined in each question, supporting evidence will need to be provided and would be subject to Planning Division approval. A project may be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP if the N/A response is deemed to be not supported by credible evidence.  Development projects requiring discretionary review that cannot demonstrate consistency with the CAP using this Checklist shall prepare a separate, project -level GHG analysis as part of the CEQA document prepared for the project.

1 In this context, a project is any action that meets the definition of a “Project” in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelin es.

Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net Application Information
Contact Information
Project No. and Name:

Property Address and APN:

Applicant Name and Co.:

Contact Phone: Contact Email:

Was a consultant retained to complete this checklist? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, complete the following:

Consultant Name: Contact Phone:

Company Name: Contact Email:

Project Information

1. What is the size of the project site (acres)?

2. Identify all applicable proposed land uses:
☐ Residential (indicate # of single-family dwelling units):
☐ Residential (indicate # of multi-family dwelling units):
☐ Commercial (indicate total square footage):
☐ Industrial (indicate total square footage):
☐ Other (describe):

3. Provide a description of the project proposed. This description should match the basic project description used for the CEQA document. The description may be attached to the Checklist if there are space constraints.

Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net STEP 1: LAND USE CONSISTENCY
The first step in this section evaluates a project’s GHG emissions consistent with the City’s Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan: For Discretionary Projects Subject to CEQA (Guidance Document). New discretionary development projects subject to CEQA review that emit fewer than 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) annually would not contribute considerably to cumulative climate change impacts as stated in the City’s Guidance Document, and therefore, would be considered consistent with the CAP and associated emissions projections.

For projects that are subject to CAP consistency review, the next step in determining consistency is to assess the project’s consistency with the growth projections used in the development of the CAP. This section allows the city to determine a project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP.

Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net Step 1: Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer) Yes No

1. The size and type of projects listed below would emit fewer than 500 MTCO2e per year.

Based on this threshold, does the proposed project exceed these characteristics?  Single Family Housing: 36 dwelling units
 Multi-Family Housing: 55 dwelling units
 Office: 43,000 square feet
 Commercial Space: 20,000 square feet
 Regional Shopping Center: 18,000 square feet
 Hotel: 37 rooms
 Restaurant (Sit-Down): 6,500 square feet
 Restaurant (Drive-Thru, High Turnover): 2,400 square feet  General Light Industrial: 58,000 square feet
 University: 263 students
 Mixed-Use: See Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency memorandum for methods to estimate mixed-use development thresholds
 Other: For project types not listed in this section the need for GHG analysis and mitigation will be made on a project-specific basis, considering the 500 MTCO2e per year screening threshold.

If “Yes”, proceed to Question 2 of Step 1.

If “No”, in accordance with the City’s CAP screening criteria, the project’s GHG impact is less than significant and is not subject to the measures of the CAP. ☐ ☐

2. Is the proposed project consistent with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation?

If “Yes”, proceed to Step 2.

If “No”, proceed to Question 3 of Step 1
☐ ☐

3. For projects not consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, does the project include a General Plan Amendment that would generate GHG emissions equal to or less than estimated emissions generated under the existing designation?

If “Yes”, proceed to Step 2 and provide estimated project emissions under both existing and proposed designation(s) for comparison.

If “No”, the project’s GHG impact is potentially significant, and a GHG analysis must be prepared in accordance with the City’s Guidance Document and applicable CEQA guidelines. The project must incorporate each of the measures identified in Step 2 to mitigate cumulative GHG emissions impacts, along with other mitigation measures as necessary based on a project specific GHG analysis.. Proceed and complete a project specific GHG analysis, and Step 2 of the Checklist.
☐
☐

Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net STEP 2: CAP MEASURES CONSISTENCY
The second step of CAP consistency review is to evaluate a project’s consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP. Each Checklist item is associated with a specific GHG reduction measure in the City’s CAP. “N/A” should only be checked based on the direction provided in each Checklist Item question. All projects for which the measure is applicable must demonstrate that they would implement measures consistent with the Checklist Item, or fully substantiate how the item would be infeasible for project implementation. “N/A” responses are subject to Planning Division review and approval. If “No” is provided as a response to a question, the project would be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP and result in a significant GHG impact.

Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
Project Design

1. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T-2)

Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential: Will the project install electric vehicle charging stations (Level 2 or better) in at least five percent of the total parking spaces provided on-site?

Check “N/A” if the project is a single-family residential project or would not provide any parking.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 1:
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2. Bicycle Infrastructure (Measure T-8)

Residential and Non-Residential Projects: If the following conditions are met, would the project pay its fair-share contribution to bicycle infrastructure improvements?
☐ Intersection or roadway segment improvements are
proposed as part of the project and,
☐ The City’s General Plan Mobility Element identifies
bicycle infrastructure improvements at any
intersection(s) or roadway segment(s) that would be
improved as part of the project.

Check “N/A” if the conditions above would not be met.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 2:
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

3. Transportation Demand Management (Measure T-9)

Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential: Will the project develop and implement a TDM plan that includes, at a minimum, all of the TDM strategies listed below?
☐ Provide discounted monthly transit pass or provide at least 25 percent transit fare subsidy to
residents/employees.
☐ Provide designated car-share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park-and-ride parking spaces.
2 ☐ Provide pedestrian connections between all internal uses and to all existing or planned external streets
around the project site(s).
☐ Provide secure bicycle parking spaces or bicycle racks, showers, and clothes lockers.
☐ Encourage telecommuting for employees (allow one
telecommute day per week or compressed work weeks)
or provide a telecommute work center with common
office space and equipment available to residents.
-or-
Would the project implement and monitor for four (4) years a TDM program that demonstrates an alternative transportation (i.e. carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, telecommute) mode share of at least 29 percent 3 for all residents?

Check “N/A” if the project is a single-family residential project or is not subject to the City’s TDM Ordinance.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please state which measure option the project for which the project would comply and substantiate how the project satisfies question 3:
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

2 The designated number of car-share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park -and-ride parking spaces provided at a rate equal to or greater than CALGreen minimum requirements.
3 Measure T -10 requires projects to increase alternative mode share by seven percent. The baseline mode share for a lternative transportation (i.e. carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, and telecommute) is 22 percent based on 2010 Census Data.

4. Reduce Parking Near Transit (Measure T-12)

Multi-Family Residential: If located within a half-mile of a major transit stop4, would the project provide at least 27 percent fewer parking spaces than required for the same use based on the City’s municipal code parking requirements?

Check “N/A” if the project is a single-family residential or non-residential project.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 4:
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Water Heaters (Measure E-1)

Residential: Will the project install one of, or a combination of, the following water heater types in place of natural gas water heaters?
☐ Electric heat pump water heater
☐ Instantaneous electric water heater
☐ Electric tank
☐ Solar water heater with heat pump water heater backup ☐ Solar water heater with electric tank backup

Check “N/A” if the project is a non-residential project. ☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 5:
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

4 Major transit stop is defined as a bus or light -rail station with fixed service and 10 -minute minimum headways during peak hours.

Project applicants should confirm with City staff if the project site would fall within this proximity tot a major transit stop.

6. Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E-2)

Non-Residential: Will the project install photovoltaic systems with a minimum capacity of two watts per square foot of gross floor area?

Check “N/A” if the project is a residential project or if installation of on- site photovoltaic would be infeasible.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 6:
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

7. Landscaping Water Use (Measure W-1)

Residential and Non-Residential: Will the project comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance?5

Check “N/A” if the project is not proposing any landscaping or is not subject to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. ☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 7:
_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

5 City of San Marcos Landscape Manual: https://www.san -marcos.net/home/showdocument?id=13984

8. Urban Tree Canopy (Measure C-2)

Single-Family Residential: Will the project plant a minimum of one tree per single-family residential unit?
-or-
Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential: If the project is providing more than 10 parking spaces, will the project plant at least one tree per five parking spaces provided?

Check “N/A” if planting the required number of trees on-site would be infeasible.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 8:
___________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Fe Flores, LP Project

APPENDIX F
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP)

Page
1 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

CITY OF

SAN MARCOS
PRIO

RITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)
ST

ORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR

SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES

2972 & 2982 S SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):
217-161-18 & 217-161-19
ENG
INEER OF WORK:

____
_______________________________________________________________________________ WILLIAM J. SUITER, RCE 68964

PREP
ARED FOR:

SANTA FE FLORES LP
P.O. BOX 903
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
(858) 888-2488

PDP SWQMP PREPARED BY:

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 661-6695

DATE OF SWQMP:

OCTOBER 2021
REVISED: MARCH 2022
REVISED: APRIL 2022

GRADING PLANS PREPARED BY:

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 661-6695

Page
2 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Page intentionally left blank

Page
3 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE
OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................... 4 PDP SWQMP PREPARER'S 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 .............................................................. 35 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES .................................... 37 ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION ......................................................... 39 ATTACHMENT 4 COPY OF PLAN SHEETS WITH PERMANENT STORM WATER BMPS ................................. 41

Page
4 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

ACRONYMS

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

Page
5 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

PDP SWQMP PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE

Project
Name: San Marcos Residences
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]

PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION

I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water best management practices (BMPs) for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the BMPs as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and 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 has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this PDP SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this PDP SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design.

________________________________________________________ Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date

W. Justin Suiter________________________________________________________ Print Na
me

Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates________________________________________________________ Compan
y

____________________________
Date
Engineer's Seal:

Page
6 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Page intentionally blank

Page
7 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

PDP SWQMP PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION PAGE

Project
Name: San Marcos Residences
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]

PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION

This PDP SWQMP has been prepared for Santa Fe Flores, LP by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates. The PDP SWQM
P 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 transfers its interests in the property, its successor-in- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement the best management practices (BMPs) described within this plan, including ensuring on-going operation and maintenance of structural BMPs. A signed copy of this document shall be available on the subject property into perpetuity.

________________________________________________________ Project Owner's Signature

Paul Mayer________________________________________________________ Print Na
me

Santa Fe Flores LP________________________________________________________ Compan
y

____________________________
Date

Page
8 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Page intentionally blank

Page
9 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

SUBMITTAL RECORD

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

Submit
tal
Number

Date Project
Status Summar
y of Chan
ges
1 October 2021 Preliminar
y Design /
Plannin
g/ CEQA
Final Design
Initial S
ubmittal
2 March
2022 Preliminar
y Design /
Plannin
g/ CEQA
Final Design
Resubmit
tal to address City comments
3 April 20
22  Preliminar
y Design /
Plannin
g/ CEQA
Final Design
Resubmit
tal to address City com
ments
4 Preliminar
y Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design

Page
10 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

PROJECT VICINITY MAP

Project
Name: San Marcos Residences
Permit Application Number: [Insert Permit Application Number]

Page
11 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 FORM I-1 APPLICABILITY OF STORM WATER BMP REQUIREMENTS
Applica
bility of Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMP) Requirements (Sto
rm Water Intake Form for all Development Permit Applications) For de
tailed information please visit:
http
://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/stormwater/development-planning Form I-1
[March
15, 2016]
Project Iden
tification
Project
Name: San
Marcos Residences
Descripti
on: Prop
osed 54-uni
t multifamily development with parking lots, access drive, outdoor garden area, miscellaneous hard
scape and landscaping.

Permit App
lication Number (if applicable): Date: 10/21/2
021
Project
Address: 297
2/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue
Determina
tion of Requirements
This for
m is required as part of the City’s application process. The purpose of this form is to identify potential land develop ment
plan
ning 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 a
nswer each of the following steps below, starting with Step 1 and progressing through each step until reachi
ng "Stop".

Step Answer Progressi
on
Step 1: Based
on the above, Is the
project a
"develop
ment project" (See definition above)?
See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for
further guidance if necessary.
 Yes Go to
Step 2.
No
Permanen
t BMP requirements do not apply. No
SWQM
P will be required. Provide brief discussion
below. STOP.

Discussi
on / justification if the project is not a "dev
elopment project" (e.g., the project includes only interi or remodels within an
existing b
uilding):

Step 2: Is the pr
oject a Standard Project, Priority
Devel
opment 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 Standa
rd Project requirements apply,
inclu
ding Standard Project SWQMP. STO
P.
 PDP Standa
rd and PDP requ
irements apply, including

PDP SWQM
P. Go to Step 3 on the following page.
Exception t
o PDP
definitions
Standa
rd Project requi
rements apply, and an
y
addi
tional requirements specific to the type of
projec
t. Provide discussion and list any additional
requi
rements below. Prepare Standard Project
SWQM
P. STO
P.

Page
12 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Discussi
on / justification, and additional requirements for exceptions to PDP definitions, if applicable:

Form I-1 Page 2, Form
Date: March 15, 2016
Step 3 (PD
Ps only). Please
answer the list of questions in this section to determine if hydromodification requirements reply to the propos
ed PDP. Does the project:

Step 3a. Discharg
e storm water
runoff d
irectly to the Pacific Ocean?
Yes STOP. Hydr
omodification requirements do not apply.
 No Continue t
o Step 3b.

Step 3b. Discharg
e storm water
runoff d
irectly to an enclosed
embayment, not within protected
areas?
Yes STOP. Hydr
omodification requirements do not apply.
 No Continue t
o Step
3c.

Step 3c. Discharg
e storm water
runoff d
irectly to a water storage
reservoir or lake, below spillway or
normal operating level?
Yes STOP. Hydr
omodification requirements do not apply.
 No Continue t
o Step 3d.

Step 3d. Discharg
e storm water
runoff d
irectly to an area identified in
WMAA?
Yes STOP. Hydr
omodification requirements do not apply.
 No Hydro
modification requirements apply to the project. Go to Step

4. Discussi
on / justification if hydromodification control requirements do not appl y:

Step 4 (PD
Ps subject to
hydro
modification 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 Manage
ment measures required for protection of critical coarse sedimen
t yield areas (Chapter 6.2).

Stop.
 No Manage
ment measures not required for protection of critical coarse sedimen
t yield areas.

Provide brief discussion below.

Stop.

Page
13 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 FORM I-2 PROJECT TYPE DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
Project Ty
pe Determination Checklist Form I-2
[March
15, 2016]
Project Infor
mation
Project
Name/Des
cription: San Mar
cos Residences
Permit App
lication Number (if applicable): Date:10
/21/2021
Project
Address: 297
2/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue
Project
Type Determination: Standard Project or Priority Development Project (PDP) The proj
ect is (select one):  Ne
w Development Redevelopment
The total pr
oposed newly created or replaced impervious area is: _70,6 28__ ft2 (__1.62___)
acres
Is the pr
oject in any of the following categories, (a) through (f)? Yes

No

(a) New de
velopment projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfa
ces (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) Redevelop
ment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervio
us 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 tha
t create and/
or replace 5,000
square feet or
mor
e 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.

Page
14 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-2 Page 2, Form
Date: March 15, 2016
Yes

No

(d) New
or redevelopment projects that create and/or re
place 2,500 square feet or
mor
e 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 de
velopment projects, or rede
velopment 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 proj
ect 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 followi
ng is for redevelopment PDPs only:

The area
of existing (pre-project) impervious area at the project site is: ________ ft2 (A) The total pr
oposed newly created or replaced impervious area is ________ ft2 (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

Page
15 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 FORM I-3B SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST FOR PDPS
Site Info
rmation Checklist
For PDPs
Form I-3B (P
DPs)
[March
15, 2016]
Project
Summary Information
Project
Name San Mar
cos Residences
Project
Address 2972 &
2982 South Santa Fe Avenue
San Mar
cos, CA 92069

Assess
or's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 217-161-18 & 217-161-19
Permit App
lication Number
Project
Hydrologic Unit Select On
e:
Santa
Margarita 902
San Luis Rey 903
 Carlsbad 904
San Dieguito 905
Penasquitos 906
San Diego 907
Pueblo San Diego 908
Sweetwater 909
Otay 910
Tijuana 911
Project
Watershed
(Complete Hydrologic Unit, Area, and Subarea
Name with Numeric Identifier)
Agua
Hedionda (904.2)
Parcel Area

(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated
with the project)

___2.23_ Acres
(_97,036__ Square Feet)
Area t
o be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area)

___2.06_ Acres
(_89,554__ Square Feet)
Project
Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area)

___1.62_ Acres
(_70,628__ Square Feet)
Project
Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area)

___0.43_ Acres
(_18,926__ Square Feet)
Note:

Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.

This ma
y be less than the Parcel Area.

Page
16 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 2 of 10, For
m Date: March 15, 20
16 Description
of Existing Site Cond
ition
Curren
t Status of the Site (select all that apply):
Existing d
evelopment
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 Lan
d Cover Includes (select all that app
ly):
 Vegeta
tive Cover
 Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas
 Impervious Areas

Description / Additional Information:

Under
lying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all tha t apply):
NRCS
Type A
NRCS Type B
 NRCS Type C
 NRCS Type D

Appr
oximate 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 N
atural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercours
es
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
 None

Description / Additional Information:

Page
17 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 3 of 10, For
m Date:

March 15, 2016
Descript
ion of Existing Site Drainage Patterns
How is st
orm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this d escription should answer:
(1) wheth
er 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 San Marcos Residences” prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated October 2021.):

The site is surrounded by residential homes to the north, east and south, and industrial offices to the west. The site is primarily undeveloped with a shared access driveway at the property’s southerly boundary. The driveway also provides access to the adjacent commercial property’s parking lot and commercial building. The southern portion of the site is relatively flat while the central portion slopes up to an elevated pad at the north end of the site. Las Flores Drive along the property’s eastern boundary has approximately a 15-20% grade upward to the north to allow vehicle access over the railroad tracks north of the property. Elevations across the site range from a high of approximately 546 feet in the northeast corner of the property to a low of approximately 494.50 feet at the southwest corner of the property. The existing site is divided into four drainage basins:

The first drainage basin consists of the northerly half graded pad where runoff flows overland and into an existing storm drain inlet structure in the center of the pad. Captured runoff exits the site through an existing 18” RCP at the easterly boundary 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.

Page
18 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 4 of 10, For
m Date: March 15, 2016
Descript
ion of Proposed Site Development
Project
Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:

General
Plan Amendment and Rezone from Commercial and Light Industrial to Multifamily Residential to allow 54 dwelling units on a 2.23 acre site. To achieve proposed density, applicant intends to utilize State density bonus law allowances.

List/d
escribe prop
osed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyard
s, athletic courts, other impervious features):

The project proposes to develop the existing vacant property and construct a new multi-family residential building with approximately 54 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/d
escribe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):

Proposed p
ervious features include landscape areas.

Does the proj
ect include grading and changes to site topography?
 Yes
No

Description / Additional Information:

The project site will be graded to create pads suitable for the construction of structures, improvements and associated underground utilities.

Page
19 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 5 of 10, For
m Date: March 15, 2016
Descript
ion of Proposed Site Drainage Patterns
Does the proj
ect include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water co nveyance
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 San Marcos Residences” prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated October 2021.):

The proposed site is divided into five drainage basins:

The first drainage basin consists of the proposed site’s upper level building, north parking lot area and a portion of existing public ROW hillside area that drains into the project site at the northeast corner of the property. Surface runoff will sheet flow southwesterly across the parking area, through a curb opening and into a proprietary biofiltration system. Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility before exiting the project site through an existing 18” RCP storm drain pipe that flows out into the public storm drain system in Las Flores Drive.

The second drainage basin consists of the proposed site’s lower level building, south parking lot area, and access road. Surface runoff will sheet flow southerly down the access road, across the parking area then through curb openings into one of two proprietary biofiltration systems. Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility before exiting the project site through a new 18” RCP storm drain pipe and connect to the existing 60” RCP storm drain pipe in South Santa Fe Avenue.

The third drainage basin consists of the adjacent property’s existing commercial building, existing parking area and 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 off-site runoff without comingling with on-site runoff and divert the surface flows out onto South Santa Fe Avenue as in the existing condition.

The fourth drainage basin consists of the existing hillside area at the northwest corner of the site. Storm water runoff will surface flow westerly and onto the adjacent property as in the existing condition.

The fifth drainage basin consists of the existing public right-of-way hillside area at the northeast corner of the project site. A new concrete ditch is proposed along the project’s easterly boundary to capture off-site runoff from the hillside without comingling with on-site runoff and diverts the surface flow to an underground storm drain piping system to confluence with runoff from Drainage Basin 1. Pipe flows will combine with the first drainage basin pipe flows (downstream of its BMP systems) and exit the site through an existing 18” RCP storm drain pipe that flows out into the public storm drain system in Las Flores Drive.

Page
20 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 6 of 10, For
m Date: March 15, 2016
Identif
y whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present

(select all tha
t apply):
 On-site storm drain inlets
 Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest control
 Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
 Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
 Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots

Description / Additional Information:

Page
21 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 7 of 10, For
m Date: March 15, 2016
Iden
tification an
d Narrative of Recei
ving Water an
d Po
llutants of Concern
Describe fl
ow path of storm water from the project site discharge location(s), through urban storm conveyanc
e 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 / WQ
IP Highest Priority
Poll
utant
Agua
Hedionda Creek
Pesticid
es, Fecal Indicator
Bacteria,
Pesticides,
Metals/Metalloids, Nutrients,
Salinity, Toxicity, Miscellaneous
Riparian Habitat Degradation,
Hydromodification Impacts
Agua
Hedionda Lagoon Toxicity
Iden
tification of Project Site Pollutants*
*Iden
tification 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)
Identif
y pollutants expec
ted from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design
Manual Appendix B.6):

Poll
utant
Not App
licable to the
Project
Site
Expected
from the
Project
Site
Also
a Receiving Water
Poll
utant of Concern
Sediment
X X
Nutr
ients X X
Heavy M
etals
Organ
ic Compounds
Trash &
Debris X X
Oxygen
Demanding
Subs
tances X
Oil & Grease
X
Bacteria
& Viruses Potential X
Pesticid
es X
Page
22 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 8 of 10, For
m Date: March 15, 2016
Hydromo
dification Management Requirements
Do hydro
modification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)?  Yes, hyd
romodification 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 th
e 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:

Page
23 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 9 of 10, For
m Date: March 15, 2016
Flow
Control for Post-Proj
ect Runoff*
*This
Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and de
scribe 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 are two (2) POCs for the project, POC-1 and POC-2. POC-1 is located near the center of the property’s eastern property boundary and POC-2 is located along near the center of the property’s southern property boundary.

Has a ge
omorphic 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)

Page
24 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-3B Pa
ge 10 of 10, Fo
rm Date: March 15, 2016
Other S
ite Requirements and Constraints
When ap
plicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water manage
ment 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

Option
al Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This spa
ce provided for additional infor
mation or continuation of information from previous sections as needed.

Page
25 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 FORM I-4 SOURCE CONTROL BMP CHECKLIST FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Source C
ontrol BMP Checklist
for All Devel
opment Projects
(Stand
ard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I-4
[March
15, 2016]
Project Iden
tification
Project
Name: San
Marcos Residences
Permit App
lication Number
Sourc
e Control BMPs
All devel
opment projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 throug h SC-6 where ap
plicable and
feasible. S
ee 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.

Sourc
e Control Requirement Appli
ed?
SC-1 Preventi
on of Illicit Discharges into the MS4  Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SC-1 not i
mplemented:

SC-2 Stor
m Drain Stenciling or Signage  Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justifica
tion if SC-2 not i
mplemented:

SC-3 Protect
Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On,
Runoff, an
d Wind Dispersal
Yes No
 N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SC-3 not i
mplemented:

SC-4 Protect
Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall,
Run
-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No  N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SC-4 not i
mplemented:

Page
26 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-4 Page 2 of
2, Form
Date: March 15, 2016
Sourc
e Control Requ
irement Appli
ed?
SC-5 Protect
Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Ru
noff, and
Wind Disp
ersal
 Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SC-5 not i
mplemented:

SC-6 Addi
tional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants (must ans
wer 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

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
Discussi
on / justification if SC-6 not i
mplemented. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discu
ssed. Justification must be provided for all "No" answers shown above.

Page
27 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 FORM I-5 SITE DESIGN BMP CHECKLIST FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Site De
sign BMP Checklist
for All Devel
opment Projects
(Stand
ard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I-5
[March
15, 2016]
Project Iden
tification
Project
Name: San
Marcos Residences
Permit App
lication Number
Site
Design BMPs
All develop
ment projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 throug h SD-8 wher
e applicable and
feasible. S
ee 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 Requ
irement Appli
ed?
SD-1 Maint
ain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Yes No  N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SD-1 not
implemented:

SD-2 Conserv
e Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Yes  No N/A Discussi
on / justification if SD-2 not
implemented:

SD-3 Minimize I
mpervious Area  Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SD-3 not
implemented:

SD-4 Minimize S
oil Compaction  Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SD-4 not
implemented:

SD-5 Impervi
ous Area Dispersion  Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SD-5 not
implemented:

Page
28 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-5 Page 2 of
2, Form
Date: March 15, 2016
Site
Design Requ
irement Appli
ed?
SD-6 Runoff
Collection  Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SD-6 not
implemented:

SD-7 Landscap
ing with Native or Drought Tolerant Species  Yes No
N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SD-7 not imple
mented:

SD-8 Harv
esting and Using Precipitation Yes  No N/A
Discussi
on / justification if SD-8 not
implemented:

Page
29 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 FORM I-6 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS
Summary
of PDP Structural BMPs Form I-6 (PDP
s)
[March
15, 2016]
Project Iden
tification
Project
Name: San
Marcos Residences
Permit App
lication Number
PDP Str
uctural 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 1-3/ BMPs 1-3
Step 1A
: The DMA is not self-mitigating, de minimis, or self-retaining.

Step 1B: There are no site design BMPs proposed for the project for which the runoff factor can be adjusted.

Step 2: Harvest and use is not feasible. Refer to Attachment 1c.

Step 3: Pursuant to the geotechnical report and Worksheet C.4-1, infiltration is not feasible.

Step 4: Proprietary Biofiltration BMPs (BF-3) have been selected and sized per the design criteria to meet pollutant control requirements and an underground 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 4-6
Accordin
g to section 5.2.1 of the BMP Design Manual for the City of San Marcos, these DMAs qualify as self-mitigating since the vegetation in the landscaped area is native and/or non-native/ non-invasive drought tolerant species that do not require regular application of fertilizers and pesticides, soils are

Page
30 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-6 Page 3 of
X (Copy
as many as needed) Form
Date: March 15, 2016
Undi
sturbed native topsoil, or disturbes soils tha
t have been amended and aerated, impervious area
within th
e 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.

Stru
ctural BMP Summary Information
(Copy
this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structur
al BMP ID No. 1 DMA Nos: 1
Constructi
on Plan Sheet No.

Type of stru
ctural 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)

Purpos
e:
 Pollu
tant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)

Who wi
ll certify construction of this BMP?
Provide na
me 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. S
uiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Lar
et Suiter & Associates
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who wi
ll be the final owner of this BMP? Santa
Fe Flores LP
Who wi
ll maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Santa
Fe Flores LP
What is
the funding mechanism for maintenance? Santa
Fe Flores LP

Page
31 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

Form I-6 Page 3 of
X (Copy
as many as needed) Form Date: March 15, 2016
Stru
ctural BMP Summary Information
(Copy
this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structur
al BMP ID No. 2 DMA Nos: 2
Constructi
on Plan Sheet No.

Type of s
tructural 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)

Purpos
e:
 Pollutan
t 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 wi
ll certify constru
ction of this BMP?
Provide na
me 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. S
uiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Lar
et Suiter & Associates
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who wi
ll be the final owner of this BMP? Santa
Fe Flores LP
Who wi
ll maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Santa
Fe Flores LP
What is
the funding mechanism for maintenance? Santa
Fe Flores LP

Page
32 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

Form I-6 Page 3 of
X (Copy as many as needed) Form Date: March 15, 2016
Stru
ctural BMP Summary Information
(Copy
this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structur
al BMP ID No. 3 DMA Nos: 3
Constructi
on Plan Sheet No.

Type of s
tructural 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)

Purpos
e:
 Pollutan
t 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 wi
ll certify constru
ction of this BMP?
Provide na
me 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. S
uiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Lar
et Suiter & Associates
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who wi
ll be the final owner of this BMP? Santa
Fe Flores LP
Who wi
ll maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Santa
Fe Flores LP
What is
the funding mechanism for maintenance? Santa
Fe Flores LP

Page
33 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022

Form I-6 Page 3 of
X (Copy as many as needed) Form Date: March 15, 2016
Stru
ctural BMP Summary Information
(Copy
this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structur
al BMP ID No. 10 DMA Nos: 1
Constructi
on Plan Sheet No.

Type of s
tructural 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)

Purpos
e:
Pollu
tant control only
 Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)

Who wi
ll certify constru
ction of this BMP?
Provide na
me 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. S
uiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Lar
et Suiter & Associates
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who wi
ll be the final owner of this BMP? Santa
Fe Flores LP
Who wi
ll maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Santa
Fe Flores LP
What is
the funding mechanism for maintenance? Santa
Fe Flores LP

Page
34 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Form I-6 Page 3 of
X (Copy as many as needed) Form Date: March 15, 2016
Stru
ctural BMP Summary Information
(Copy
this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structur
al BMP ID No. 11 DMA Nos: 2-3
Constructi
on Plan Sheet No.

Type of s
tructural 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)

Who wi
ll certify constru
ction of this BMP?
Provide na
me 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. S
uiter, RCE 68964
Pasco Lar
et Suiter & Associates
1911 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92110
Who wi
ll be the final owner of this BMP? Santa
Fe Flores LP
Who wi
ll maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Santa
Fe Flores LP
What is
the funding mechanism for maintenance? Santa
Fe Flores LP

Page
35 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS

This is the
cover sheet for Attachment 1.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attach
ment
Sequ
ence
Conten
ts Checkl
ist
Attachm
ent 1a DMA Exhi
bit (Required)

See D
MA Exhibit Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.

 Inclu
ded

Attachm
ent 1b Tabul
ar Summary of DMAs Showing
DMA
ID ma
tching DMA Exhibit, DMA Area, and
DMA Type (Required)*

*Provide table in this Attachment OR on
DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a


Inclu
ded on DMA
Exhibit in
Attachm
ent 1a
Included as Attachment 1b, separate
from DMA Exhibit

Attachm
ent 1c Form I -7, Har
vest and Use Feasibility
Screenin
g 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.


Inclu
ded
Not
included because the entire
project will use infiltration BMPs

Attachm
ent 1d Form
I-8, Catego
rization of Infiltration
Feasib
ility 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.

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

Attachm
ent 1e Pollu
tant Control BMP Design
Worksh
eets / Calculations (Required)

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

 Inclu
ded

Page
36 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit:

The DMA 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)

ATTACHMENT 1c
Harvest
and Use Feasibility Checklist PLS
A No. 3527
3a. Is the 36-ho
ur 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 an
d Use Feasibility Screening Worsksheet B.
3-1

1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season?
√ Toilet and urinal flushing
√ Landscape irrigation
Other:

2. If there is a
demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours.

Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2.

Toilet/Urinal Flushing
(9.3 gal
/person-day) x (0.13368 cuft/gal) x (1.5 days) = 1.86 cuft/person-36hr Assume (2 people per 1-bed/1bath unit x 23 units) x (1.86 cuft/person-36 hr) = 85.56 cuft/36hr

(3 people per 2-bed/2-bath unit x 27 units) x (1.86 cuft/person-36hr) = 150.66 cuft/36hr Total Toilet/Urina
l Flushing= 85.56 + 150.66 = 236 cuft/36hr
Landscape Irrigation
(0.43 ac
irrigated) x (390 gal/ac-36hr) x (0.13368 cuft/gal) = 23 cuft/36hr Total = 236 cuft + 23 cuft = 259 cuft

3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1.

DCV = 3,912 cuft

ATTACHMENT 1d

October 18, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-16426G

Mr. Paul Mayer
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, California
Phone: (858) 888-2488 Via Email: [email protected]

Subject: Site Percolation Testi ng and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi -Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue
San Marcos, California

References: At End of Document – Appendix A

Mr. Mayer:

In accordance with your request and our proposal No. G-5522 dated August 30, 2021, CTE, Inc. has performed percolation testing 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 associated with onsite infiltration, CTE has determined that infiltration in any amount at the site is n ot feasible and should not be allowed. Any/all basins for sto rage of stormwater runoff shoul d be lined with an impermeable liner and piped offsite via a suitable discharge outlet.

1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & PERCOLATION TESTING

1.1 Site Description
The subject site is located at 2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue. The pr oposed development is bounded by S. Santa Fe Avenue to the southwest, N. Las Flores Drive to the east, and commercial structures to the north and west.

Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Page 2 Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi-Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California
October 18, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-16426G

S:\Projects\10-16426G (S. Santa Fe Ave Perc Testing)\Ltr_Infiltration Evaluation Results (10-16426G).doc The subject site generally descends to the southwest with appro ximate elevations ranging from a high of 540 feet above mean sea le vel (msl) at the northeast en d of the site, to a low of 495 feet above msl at the southern end of the site. The site currently consists of three undeveloped terraced building pads that are separated by an approximately 1 0-foot-tall 2:1 (horizontal distance: vertical distance) slope.

1.2 Field Exploration
Due to the sloping nature of the site, and in consideration of the proposed multi-story structures that are planned to be terraced into the sloping site, CTE dete rmined that the southern-lower area of the site is the only potential suitable/feasible area for development 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 stiff to very stiff, dark brown, moist, Sandy Clay (CL) with some gravel. Detailed logs of the percolation test borings are provided in the attached Appendix C.

1.4 Percolation Test Methods
Percolation testing was performed on October 1 st, 2021, subsequent to a twenty-hour presoak period, and in general accordance with applicable regional stan dards outlined in the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook (09/2011) . The percolation rate test results are presented in the following section in Table 2.2 and are included in Appendix B.

Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Page 3 Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi-Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California
October 18, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-16426G

S:\Projects\10-16426G (S. Santa Fe Ave Perc Testing)\Ltr_Infiltration Evaluation Results (10-16426G).doc

2.0 CALCULATED INFILTRATION RATE
As per the regionally accepted methods outlined in the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook (09/2011), percolation test rates are to be converted to infiltration rates using the Porchet Method. The intent of cal culating the converted infiltration rate is to take into account bias inherent in percolation test borehole sidewall infiltration that would not occur at a basin bottom where such sidewalls may not present.

The infiltration rate (I
t) is derived by the equation:

I
t = ΔH πr2 60 = ΔH 60 r
Δt(πr2 +2πrHavg) Δt(r+2Havg)

Where:

I
t = tested infiltra tion rate, inches/hour
ΔH = change in head over th e time interval, inches
Δt = time interval, minutes
r = effective ra dius of test hole
H
avg = average head over the time interval, inches

Given the measured percolation rates, the calculated infiltrati on rates are presented with and without a Factor of Safety applied in Table 2.2 below. A completed C.4-1 Worksheet is included in Appendix D. The civil engineer of record should determine an 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 of the hole.

Weather was sunny during percolation testing.

Qya = Quaternary Young Alluvial Deposits
The test holes were eight inches in diameter.

Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation Page 4 Proposed S. Santa Fe Multi-Family Housing Development
2927 S. Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California
October 18, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-16426G

S:\Projects\10-16426G (S. Santa Fe Ave Perc Testing)\Ltr_Infiltration Evaluation Results (10-16426G).doc

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The percolation testing and conve rted infiltration rates indica te that partial infiltration at the site appears feasible, however, based 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

Tsa
P-1
Qya
Tsa
P-2
P-2 APPROXIMATE PERC TEST LOCATION
LEGEND
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa

APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT
QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL Qya

FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSITS

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

1. Ghostrider, Inc., Limited Ge otechnical Investigation, 2972 Sout h Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, Project No. 19-2118C, dated July 1, 2020.

2. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2007, “Geologic Map of the Oceansi de 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California”, California Geological Survey, Map No. 2.

3. Riverside County, Revised 9/2011, “Design Handbook for Low Impa ct Development BMPs””.

4. City of San Marcos, February 2016, “BMP Design Manual For Perma nent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management”

APPENDIX B

PERCOLATION TEST DATA AND

INFILTRATION RATE CONVERSION CALCULATIONS
Project: S. SANTA FE MULTI‐FAMILY HOUSING
Project No.: 10 ‐16426G
P‐1 Total Depth: 60 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 7:25:00 Initial None 12.88 initial ‐
7:55:00 30 12 12.88 14.63 1.75 0.058 3.500
8:25:00 30 12.75 12.00 14.13 2.13 0.071 4.250
8:55:00 30 12.875 12.75 14.13 1.38 0.046 2.750
9:25:00 30 12.125 12.88 14.00 1.13 0.038 2.250
9:55:00 30 13.75 12.13 13.75 1.63 0.054 3.250
10:25:00 30 11.625 13.75 14.63 0.88 0.029 1.750
10:55:00 30 13 11.63 13.00 1.38 0.046 2.750
11:25:00 30 13.875 13.00 13.88 0.88 0.029 1.750
11:55:00 30 12.625 13.88 14.50 0.63 0.021 1.250
12:25:00 30 13.375 12.63 13.38 0.75 0.025 1.500
12:55:00 30 13.5 13.38 14.00 0.63 0.021 1.250
13:25:00 30 NO 13.50 14.13 0.63 0.021 1.250
P‐2 Total Depth: 60 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minute inches/hour 7:25:00 Initial None 11.50 initial ‐
7:55:00 30 12.25 11.50 15.13 3.625 0.121 7.250
8:25:00 30 12.125 12.25 15.63 3.375 0.113 6.750
8:55:00 30 12.5 12.13 15.13 3.000 0.100 6.000
9:25:00 30 12 12.50 15.50 3.000 0.100 6.000
9:55:00 30 10 12.00 15.75 3.750 0.125 7.500
10:25:00 30 11.125 10.00 14.13 4.125 0.138 8.250
10:55:00 30 13.625 11.13 13.63 2.500 0.083 5.000
11:25:00 30 12.625 13.63 14.63 1.000 0.033 2.000
11:55:00 30 13.625 12.63 13.63 1.000 0.033 2.000
12:25:00 30 12.75 13.63 14.25 0.625 0.021 1.250
12:55:00 30 13.5 12.75 13.50 0.750 0.025 1.500
13:25:00 30 NO 13.50 14.13 0.625 0.021 1.250
Tables P‐1
Percolation Field Data and Calculated Rates
Inches Inches
∆t = 30 ∆t = 30
Df = 14.13 Df = 14.13
r = 4 r = 4
D0 = 13.50 D0 = 13.50
DT = 60 DT = 60
Ho = 46.5 in Ho = 46.5 in
Hf = 45.875 in Hf = 45.875 in
∆H = ∆D = 0.625 in ∆H = ∆D = 0.625 in
H
avg = 46.1875 in Havg = 46.1875 in
It = 0.052 in/hr It = 0.052 in/hr
Total Depth of Test Hole, Total Depth of Test Hole,
Percolation Rate Conversion P‐1 Percolation Rate Conversion P‐2 Time Interval, Time Interval,
Final Depth of Water, Final Depth of Water,
Test Hole Radius, Test Hole Radius,
Initial Depth to Water, Initial Depth to Water,
Test Depth Procedure Soil Type*
(inches) (USCS
Classification)
P-1 60 Non-Sandy Qya 1.250 0.052 0.026
P-2 60 Non-Sandy Qya 1.250 0.052 0.026
TABLE
RESULTS OF PERCOLATION TESTING WITH 2.0 FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED Test Location Percolation Rate
(inches per hour)
Infiltration
Rate (inches
per hour)
Infiltration Rate with
FOS of 2 Applied
(inches per hour)

APPENDIX C

PERCOLATION TEST BORING LOGS

DEFINITION OF TERMS

PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS 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 Analysis SE- Sand Equivalent HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct Shear EI- Expansion Index AL- Atterberg Limits UC- Unconfined Compression 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 CLAYSCOBBLES COBBLESBOULDERS

PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:

Depth (Feet)
Bulk Sample
Driven Type
Blows/Foot
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
U.S.C.S. Symbol
Graphic Log
BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests

DESCRIPTION
Block or Chunk Sample
Bulk Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler)
Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample
Groundwater Table
Soil Type or Classification Change
???????
Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried (?)]
"SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock
FIGURE: BL2

PROJECT: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:

Depth (Feet)
Bulk Sample
Driven Type
Blows/6"
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
U.S.C.S. Symbol
Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
CL
5 8
9 P-1
Total Depth: 5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Soil Cuttings
GS
QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS:

Very stiff, slightly moist, dark brown, sandy CLAY with gravel.

DJT SPT ~497 FEET
BORING: P-1 Laboratory Tests
1 10-16426G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 9/30/2021
S. SANTA FE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVDRILLER: PACIFIC DRILLING 1 0 5
10 15
20 25

PROJECT: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:

LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:

Depth (Feet)
Bulk Sample
Driven Type
Blows/6"
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
U.S.C.S. Symbol
Graphic Log

DESCRIPTION
CL
4 8
8 S. SANTA FE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DE
VDRILLER: PACIFIC DRILLING 1 1
10-16426G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 9/30/2021
DJT SPT ~497 FEET
BORING: P-2 Laboratory Tests
QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS:

Very stiff, slightly moist, dark brown, sandy CLAY with gravel.

GS
Total Depth: 5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled with Soil Cuttings
P-2
0 5
10 15
20 25

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit (%) Plas ticity Index Classification P-1 4-5 CL
P-2 4-5 CL
CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-16426G FIGURE: C-1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.0010.010.1110100
PERCENT PASSING (%)
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
2"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
4 8
10 16
20 30
40 50
100
200

1.5"

APPENDIX E
C.4-1 WORKSHEET
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-11 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Worksheet C.4-1 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
1 Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
2 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.

X
N/A
N/A
N/A
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-12 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 2 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
3 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.

Part 1
Result*
If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are “Yes” a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.

The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is “No”, infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a “full infiltration” design.

Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings .

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-13 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 3 of 4
Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
5 Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 6 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.

Provide basis:

X
X
Refer to CTE's "Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation" letter report, dated October 18, 2021, CTE Job No. 10-16426G.

Refer to CTE's "Site Percolation Testing and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation" letter report, dated October 18, 2021, CTE Job No. 10-16426G.

Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements C-14 February 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 4 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Provide basis:

Part 2
Result*
If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.

The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.

If any answer from row 5 -8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CTE concludes
that the site is in
a "no infiltration"
conditions.

ATTACHMENT 1e

3527
San Marcos Residences
DMA-1
1 85th percentile 24
-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.7 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 1.01 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.73 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV= 0 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV= 0 cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) – TCV - RCV DCV= 1882 cubic-feet
Area (
sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 34,828 0.9 31,345
Pervious 9,170 0.1 917
Total 43,998 32,262 0.73
DMA-2
1 85 th percentile 24
-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.7 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.52 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.84 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV= 0 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV= 0 cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) – TCV - RCV DCV= 1108 cubic-feet
Area (
sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 20,908 0.9 18,817
Pervious 1,835 0.1 184
Total 22,743 19,001 0.84
2/15/2
022
Weighted
RF
Design Cap
ture Volume Worksheet B-2
.1
Appendix B: Stormwater Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-

1. DCV
Weighted
RF
Design Cap
ture Volume Worksheet B-2
.1
3527
San Marcos Residences
DMA-3
1 85th percentile 24
-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.7 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.55 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below C= 0.66 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV= 0 cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV= 0 cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) – TCV - RCV DCV= 922 cubic-feet
Area (
sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF
Impervious 16,781 0.9 15,103
Pervious 7,064 0.1 706
Total 23,845 15,809 0.66
2/15/2
022
Appendix B: Stormwa
ter Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-

1. DCV
Design Cap
ture Volume Worksheet B-2
.1
Weighted
RF
3527 San Mar
cos Residences
DMA-1
4 DCV requi
ring flow-thru DCV
flow-thru 1882 cubic-feet
6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 1.01 acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.73 unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.15 cfs

1.5Q= 0.
222 cfs
DMA-2
4 DCV requiring flow-thru DCV
flow-thru 1108 cubic-feet
6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.52 acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.84 unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.09 cfs

1.5Q= 0.131 cfs
DMA-3
4 DCV requiring flow-thru DCV
flow-thru
922 cubic-feet
6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 0.55 acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.66 unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A) Q= 0.07 cfs

1.5Q= 0.109 cfs
2/28/2022
Appendix B:

Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksh
eet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
DMA BMP type DMA AREA (SF)
Total DMA
AREA (acres)
REQ flow for
dma (cfs)
StormGarden
Filter Bed Size (SF)
StormGarden
System Flow
Rate (cfs)
1 StormGarden Boxless BioFiltration 43,998 1.01 70 0.226 2 StormGarden Boxless BioFiltration 22,743 0.52 41 0.132 3 StormGarden Boxless BioFiltration 23,845 0.55 34 0.110 Totals 145
NOTES:

1. StormGarden loading rate at 145"/HR is 1.45 GPM/SF of Filter Bed.

2. The StormGarden width and length can be customized to any size and shape conceivable because it is a boxless system and indpendent of a concrete form.

StormGarden Biofilttration System
San Marcos Residences
3/1/2022

Page
37 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES

This is the
cover sheet for Attachment 2.

Mark this box if this attachment is empty because the project is exempt from PDP hydromodification management requirements.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attach
ment
Sequ
ence
Conten
ts Checkl
ist
Attachm
ent 2a Hydro
modification Management Exhibi
t
(Required
)

 Inclu
ded

See Hyd
romodification Management
Exhibit Checklist on the back of this
Attachment cover sheet.

Attachm
ent 2b Manage
ment of Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield
Areas (WMAA Exhibit is required,
additional analyses are optional)

See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual.

Exhibi
t showing projec
t drainage
bounda
ries 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

Attachm
ent 2c Geom
orphic Assessment of Receiving

Chan
nels (Optional)
See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design
Manual.
 Not
performed
Inclu
ded
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document

Attachm
ent 2d Flow C
ontrol Facility Design , in
cluding
Structur
al BMP Drawdown Calculations
and Overflow Design Summary
(Required)
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the
BMP Design Manual

Inclu
ded
Submitted a
s separate stand-alone
document

Attachm
ent 2e Vector
Control Plan (Required when
structur
al BMPs will not drain in 96
hours)
Included
 Not required because BMPs will drain
in less than 96 hours

Page
38 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit:

The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify:

Underlying hydrologic soil group
Approximate depth to groundwater
Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
Existing topography
Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite Proposed grading
Proposed impervious features
Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management Existing and 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)

ATTACHMENT 2b

PROJECT SITE

ATTACHMENT 2d

3527 South Santa Fe
3/2/2022

SWMM MODEL SCHEMATICS

PRE-PROJECT MODEL POST-PROJECT MODEL
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_SWMM_Schematics.xlsx 3527 South Santa Fe
3/2/2022
DMA Basin Area (ac)
Width
(Area/Flow
Length) (ft) % Slope
%
Impervious % "B" Soils % "C" Soils % "D" Soils
Weighted
Infiltration
(in/hr):

Weighted
Suction Head
(in):

Weighted
Initial Deficit: N-perv
1 1.1 290 8.0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0.100 6.000 0.320 0.080
2 1.12 143 13.0% 0% 0% 46% 55% 0.059 7.635 0.325 0.080
Total: 2.22
DMA BMP Area (ac)
Width
(Area/Flow
Length) (ft)
%
Impervious % Slope % "B" Soils % "C" Soils % "D" Soils
Weighted
Infiltration
(in/hr):

Weighted
Suction Head
(in):

Weighted
Initial Deficit: N-perv
1 Tank-1 1.010 936 79% 5.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.320 0.06 2 Tank-2 0.522 758 92% 10.0% 0% 46% 54% 0.045 7.620 0.325 0.06 3 Tank-2 0.547 794 70% 7.0% 0% 33% 67% 0.037 8.010 0.327 0.06 SM-4 and 5 NA 0.110 165 0% 50.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.320 0.08 SM-6 NA 0.058 126 15% 50.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.075 6.000 0.320 0.08 Total: 2.25
C: 0.1 in/hr C: 6 in C: 0.32
D: 0.025 in/hr D: 9 in D: 0.33
POC-1

SWMM INPUT

PRE-PROJECT

POST-PROJECT
Infiltration: Suction Head: Initial Deficit
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\3527_SWMM_Input.xlsx POC-1

[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
3527 South Santa Fe
Pre-Development Condition

[OPTIONS]
;;Option Value
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
ALLOW_PONDING NO
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO

START_DATE 09/24/1964
START_TIME 13:00:00
REPORT_START_DATE 09/24/1964
REPORT_START_TIME 13:00:00
END_DATE 05/23/2008
END_TIME 22:00:00
SWEEP_START 01/01
SWEEP_END 12/31
DRY_DAYS 0
REPORT_STEP 01:00:00
WET_STEP 00:15:00
DRY_STEP 04:00:00
ROUTING_STEP 0:01:00
RULE_STEP 00:00:00

INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL
NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH
FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W
VARIABLE_STEP 0.75
LENGTHENING_STEP 0
MIN_SURFAREA 12.557
MAX_TRIALS 8
HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005
SYS_FLOW_TOL 5
LAT_FLOW_TOL 5
MINIMUM_STEP 0.5
THREADS 1

[EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
;;-------------- ----------------
MONTHLY .06 .08 .11 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 DRY_ONLY NO

[RAINGAGES]
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source
POC-1

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

[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-2 7.635 0.059 0.325
DMA-1 6 0.1 0.32

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

[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Escondido FILE "J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Rain Data\escondido\escondido1.dat"

[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options

SUBCATCHMENTS ALL

NODES ALL

LINKS ALL

[TAGS]

[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None

[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1 -33.882 5151.408

[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1

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

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

POC-1

[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
3527 South Santa Fe
Post-Project Condition

[OPTIONS]
;;Option Value
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
ALLOW_PONDING NO
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO

[EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
;;-------------- ----------------
MONTHLY .06 .08 .11 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 DRY_ONLY NO

[RAINGAGES]
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source
POC-1

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

[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- DMA-2 Escondido Tank-2Lower 0.522 92 758 10 0 DMA-1 Escondido Tank-1Upper 1.01 79 936 5 0 SM-4-5 Escondido POC-1 0.11 0 165 50 0 DMA-3 Escondido Tank-2Lower 0.547 70 794 7 0 SM-6 Escondido POC-1 0.058 15 126 50 0

[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- DMA-2 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-1 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET SM-4-5 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-3 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET SM-6 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET

[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-2 7.62 0.045 0.325
DMA-1 6 0.075 0.32
SM-4-5 6 0.075 0.32
DMA-3 8.01 0.037 0.327
SM-6 6 0.075 0.32

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

[STORAGE]
;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Ksat IMD ;;-------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Tank-1Upper 0 5.58 0 TABULAR Tank1Upper 0 0 Tank-2Lower 0 3.54 0 TABULAR Tank-2Lower 0 0

[OUTLETS]
;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated ;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------- -------- Outlet-1 Tank-1Upper POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-1 NO Outlet-2 Tank-2Lower POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-2 NO

[CURVES]
;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
OUTLET-1 Rating 0 0
POC-1

OUTLET-1 0.2 0.01
OUTLET-1 0.4 0.01
OUTLET-1 0.6 0.02
OUTLET-1 0.8 0.02
OUTLET-1 1 0.02
OUTLET-1 1.2 0.02
OUTLET-1 1.4 0.02
OUTLET-1 1.6 0.03
OUTLET-1 1.8 0.03
OUTLET-1 2 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.2 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.4 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.6 0.03
OUTLET-1 2.8 0.04
OUTLET-1 3 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.2 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.4 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.6 0.04
OUTLET-1 3.8 0.04
OUTLET-1 4 0.04
OUTLET-1 4.2 0.04
OUTLET-1 4.4 0.04
OUTLET-1 4.6 0.05
OUTLET-1 4.8 0.05
OUTLET-1 5 0.05
OUTLET-1 5.2 0.87
OUTLET-1 5.4 3.61
OUTLET-1 5.58 7
;
OUTLET-2 Rating 0 0
OUTLET-2 0.1 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.2 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.3 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.4 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.5 0.01
OUTLET-2 0.6 0.02
OUTLET-2 0.7 0.02
OUTLET-2 0.8 0.02
OUTLET-2 0.9 0.02
OUTLET-2 1 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.1 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.2 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.3 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.4 0.02
OUTLET-2 1.5 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.6 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.7 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.8 0.03
OUTLET-2 1.9 0.03
OUTLET-2 2 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.1 0.03
POC-1

OUTLET-2 2.2 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.3 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.4 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.5 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.6 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.7 0.03
OUTLET-2 2.8 0.04
OUTLET-2 2.9 0.04
OUTLET-2 3 0.04
OUTLET-2 3.1 0.37
OUTLET-2 3.2 1.51
OUTLET-2 3.3 3.08
OUTLET-2 3.4 4.99
OUTLET-2 3.5 5.66
OUTLET-2 3.54 5.69
;
Tank1Upper Storage 0 1520
Tank1Upper 5.58 1520
;
Tank-2Lower Storage 0 1995
Tank-2Lower 3.54 1995

[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options

SUBCATCHMENTS ALL

NODES ALL

LINKS ALL

[TAGS]

[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None

[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1 198.110 4329.947
Tank-1Upper 1409.511 5738.859
Tank-2Lower -921.120 5673.022

[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------

[Polygons]
POC-1

;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA-2 -1671.662 6910.758
DMA-1 1501.683 6805.419
SM-4-5 2380.183 4981.105
DMA-3 -341.754 6950.261
SM-6 2311.363 4206.877

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

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PreProject_SWMM_results.docx

EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) --------------------------------------------------------------

3527 South Santa Fe
Pre-Development Condition

********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step.
*********************************************************

****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ............... CFS
Process Models:

Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES
RDII ................... NO
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Starting Date ............ 09/24/1964 13:00:00
Ending Date .............. 05/23/2008 22:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
Report Time Step ......... 01:00:00
Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00
Dry Time Step ............ 04:00:00

************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 113.057 611.120
Evaporation Loss ......... 1.623 8.773
Infiltration Loss ........ 101.158 546.802
Surface Runoff ........... 11.234 60.723
Final Storage ............ 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.847

************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 11.234 3.661
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 11.234 3.661
Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PreProject_SWMM_results.docx Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000
Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DMA-2 611.12 0.00 11.07 537.38 0.00 69.00 69.00 2.10 0.88 0.113 DMA-1 611.12 0.00 6.43 556.40 0.00 52.29 52.29 1.56 0.82 0.086

Analysis begun on: Wed Mar 2 11:57:09 2022
Analysis ended on: Wed Mar 2 11:57:39 2022
Total elapsed time: 00:00:30

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

EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) --------------------------------------------------------------

3527 South Santa Fe
Post-Project Condition

****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ............... CFS
Process Models:

Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES
RDII ................... NO
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... YES
Ponding Allowed ........ NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE
Starting Date ............ 09/24/1964 13:00:00
Ending Date .............. 05/23/2008 22:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
Report Time Step ......... 01:00:00
Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00
Dry Time Step ............ 04:00:00
Routing Time Step ........ 60.00 sec

************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 114.432 611.120
Evaporation Loss ......... 11.688 62.417
Infiltration Loss ........ 25.406 135.682
Surface Runoff ........... 79.431 424.198
Final Storage ............ 0.005 0.025
Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.833

************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 79.431 25.884
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 79.418 25.880
Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000
Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000
Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 0.007 0.002
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.007

********************************
Highest Flow Instability Indexes
********************************
All links are stable.

*************************
Routing Time Step Summary
*************************
Minimum Time Step : 59.00 sec
Average Time Step : 60.00 sec
Maximum Time Step : 60.00 sec
Percent in Steady State : 0.00
Average Iterations per Step : 1.00
Percent Not Converging : 0.00

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Total Total Total Imperv Perv Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DMA-2 611.12 0.00 75.02 40.19 499.47 8.58 508.05 7.20 0.45 0.831 DMA-1 611.12 0.00 65.42 114.54 428.12 13.73 441.85 12.12 0.84 0.723 SM-4-5 611.12 0.00 6.89 545.59 0.00 65.06 65.06 0.19 0.08 0.106 DMA-3 611.12 0.00 60.78 148.60 380.17 34.04 414.20 6.15 0.46 0.678 SM-6 611.12 0.00 17.37 463.93 82.01 55.52 137.52 0.22 0.05 0.225

******************
Node Depth Summary
******************

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported
Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth
Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 Tank-1Upper STORAGE 0.05 5.15 5.15 11059 08:02 5.15 Tank-2Lower STORAGE 0.05 3.15 3.15 10332 03:23 3.15

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

*******************
Node Inflow Summary
*******************

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 OUTFALL 0.13 1.47 11059 08:01 0.411 25.9 0.000 Tank-1Upper STORAGE 0.84 0.84 10332 03:16 12.1 12.1 0.007 Tank-2Lower STORAGE 0.89 0.89 10332 03:31 13.4 13.4 0.007

*********************
Node Flooding Summary
*********************

No nodes were flooded.

**********************
Storage Volume Summary
**********************

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tank-1Upper 0.082 1 0 0 7.826 92 11059 08:01 0.66 Tank-2Lower 0.103 1 0 0 6.278 89 10332 03:21 0.90

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

----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total
Freq Flow Flow Volume
Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 10.97 0.02 1.47 25.878 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 10.97 0.02 1.47 25.878

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

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\Output\3527_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/
|Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full
Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Outlet-1 DUMMY 0.66 11059 08:02
Outlet-2 DUMMY 0.90 10332 03:23

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

No conduits were surcharged.

Analysis begun on: Wed Mar 2 12:59:17 2022
Analysis ended on: Wed Mar 2 12:59:56 2022
Total elapsed time: 00:00:39

Peak Flow Frequency Summary
Return Period Pre-project Qpeak
(cfs)
Post-project - Mitigated Q
(cfs)
LF = 0.1xQ2 0.088 0.016
2-year 0.879 0.156
5-year 1.127 0.713
10-year 1.310 0.991
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\REPORTS\WQMP\SWMM\3527 SWMM_PostProcessing.xlsx

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Flow in cfs
Return Period in Years
Peak Flow Frequency Curves
Pre-project Qpeak
Post-project Mitigated Qpeak
Low-flow Threshold: 10%

0.1xQ2 (Pre): 0.088 cfs
Q10 (Pre): 1.310 cfs
Ordinate #: 100
Incremental Q (Pre): 0.01223 cfs
Total Hourly Data: 382736 hours The proposed BMP: PASSED Interval Pre-project Flow
(cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project %
Time Exceeding
Post-project
Hours
Post-project %
Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
0 0.088 423 1.11E-03 390 1.02E-03 92% Pass
1 0.100 402 1.05E-03 269 7.03E-04 67% Pass
2 0.112 378 9.88E-04 232 6.06E-04 61% Pass
3 0.125 368 9.61E-04 207 5.41E-04 56% Pass
4 0.137 352 9.20E-04 176 4.60E-04 50% Pass
5 0.149 338 8.83E-04 156 4.08E-04 46% Pass
6 0.161 324 8.47E-04 152 3.97E-04 47% Pass
7 0.174 314 8.20E-04 130 3.40E-04 41% Pass
8 0.186 302 7.89E-04 124 3.24E-04 41% Pass
9 0.198 291 7.60E-04 122 3.19E-04 42% Pass
10 0.210 279 7.29E-04 118 3.08E-04 42% Pass
11 0.222 266 6.95E-04 110 2.87E-04 41% Pass
12 0.235 248 6.48E-04 105 2.74E-04 42% Pass
13 0.247 221 5.77E-04 103 2.69E-04 47% Pass
14 0.259 203 5.30E-04 95 2.48E-04 47% Pass
15 0.271 191 4.99E-04 85 2.22E-04 45% Pass
16 0.284 185 4.83E-04 85 2.22E-04 46% Pass
17 0.296 182 4.76E-04 83 2.17E-04 46% Pass
18 0.308 178 4.65E-04 82 2.14E-04 46% Pass
19 0.320 169 4.42E-04 81 2.12E-04 48% Pass
20 0.332 162 4.23E-04 80 2.09E-04 49% Pass
21 0.345 156 4.08E-04 79 2.06E-04 51% Pass
22 0.357 147 3.84E-04 78 2.04E-04 53% Pass
23 0.369 145 3.79E-04 74 1.93E-04 51% Pass
24 0.381 142 3.71E-04 72 1.88E-04 51% Pass
25 0.394 136 3.55E-04 61 1.59E-04 45% Pass
26 0.406 129 3.37E-04 46 1.20E-04 36% Pass
27 0.418 125 3.27E-04 46 1.20E-04 37% Pass
28 0.430 120 3.14E-04 45 1.18E-04 38% Pass
29 0.442 118 3.08E-04 42 1.10E-04 36% Pass
30 0.455 108 2.82E-04 41 1.07E-04 38% Pass
31 0.467 99 2.59E-04 41 1.07E-04 41% Pass
32 0.479 93 2.43E-04 40 1.05E-04 43% Pass
33 0.491 92 2.40E-04 38 9.93E-05 41% Pass
34 0.504 91 2.38E-04 35 9.14E-05 38% Pass
35 0.516 90 2.35E-04 33 8.62E-05 37% Pass
36 0.528 87 2.27E-04 31 8.10E-05 36% Pass
37 0.540 87 2.27E-04 31 8.10E-05 36% Pass
38 0.552 85 2.22E-04 31 8.10E-05 36% Pass
39 0.565 84 2.19E-04 31 8.10E-05 37% Pass
40 0.577 80 2.09E-04 31 8.10E-05 39% Pass
41 0.589 78 2.04E-04 31 8.10E-05 40% Pass
42 0.601 74 1.93E-04 31 8.10E-05 42% Pass
43 0.614 70 1.83E-04 31 8.10E-05 44% Pass
44 0.626 67 1.75E-04 24 6.27E-05 36% Pass
45 0.638 66 1.72E-04 21 5.49E-05 32% Pass
46 0.650 62 1.62E-04 20 5.23E-05 32% Pass
47 0.663 59 1.54E-04 18 4.70E-05 31% Pass
48 0.675 57 1.49E-04 18 4.70E-05 32% Pass
49 0.687 53 1.38E-04 18 4.70E-05 34% Pass
50 0.699 52 1.36E-04 18 4.70E-05 35% Pass
51 0.711 49 1.28E-04 18 4.70E-05 37% Pass
52 0.724 49 1.28E-04 17 4.44E-05 35% Pass
53 0.736 48 1.25E-04 17 4.44E-05 35% Pass
Interval Pre-project Flow
(cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project %
Time Exceeding
Post-project
Hours
Post-project %
Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
54 0.748 47 1.23E-04 17 4.44E-05 36% Pass
55 0.760 46 1.20E-04 15 3.92E-05 33% Pass
56 0.773 44 1.15E-04 14 3.66E-05 32% Pass
57 0.785 43 1.12E-04 14 3.66E-05 33% Pass
58 0.797 42 1.10E-04 14 3.66E-05 33% Pass
59 0.809 42 1.10E-04 14 3.66E-05 33% Pass
60 0.821 41 1.07E-04 14 3.66E-05 34% Pass
61 0.834 41 1.07E-04 13 3.40E-05 32% Pass
62 0.846 40 1.05E-04 13 3.40E-05 33% Pass
63 0.858 38 9.93E-05 11 2.87E-05 29% Pass
64 0.870 35 9.14E-05 11 2.87E-05 31% Pass
65 0.883 31 8.10E-05 11 2.87E-05 35% Pass
66 0.895 29 7.58E-05 11 2.87E-05 38% Pass
67 0.907 27 7.05E-05 11 2.87E-05 41% Pass
68 0.919 27 7.05E-05 11 2.87E-05 41% Pass
69 0.931 26 6.79E-05 10 2.61E-05 38% Pass
70 0.944 25 6.53E-05 10 2.61E-05 40% Pass
71 0.956 23 6.01E-05 10 2.61E-05 43% Pass
72 0.968 20 5.23E-05 10 2.61E-05 50% Pass
73 0.980 18 4.70E-05 10 2.61E-05 56% Pass
74 0.993 18 4.70E-05 10 2.61E-05 56% Pass
75 1.005 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
76 1.017 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
77 1.029 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
78 1.041 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
79 1.054 17 4.44E-05 10 2.61E-05 59% Pass
80 1.066 17 4.44E-05 9 2.35E-05 53% Pass
81 1.078 17 4.44E-05 6 1.57E-05 35% Pass
82 1.090 17 4.44E-05 5 1.31E-05 29% Pass
83 1.103 16 4.18E-05 5 1.31E-05 31% Pass
84 1.115 12 3.14E-05 5 1.31E-05 42% Pass
85 1.127 9 2.35E-05 5 1.31E-05 56% Pass
86 1.139 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
87 1.152 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
88 1.164 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
89 1.176 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
90 1.188 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
91 1.200 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
92 1.213 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
93 1.225 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
94 1.237 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
95 1.249 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
96 1.262 7 1.83E-05 5 1.31E-05 71% Pass
97 1.274 6 1.57E-05 5 1.31E-05 83% Pass
98 1.286 6 1.57E-05 5 1.31E-05 83% Pass
99 1.298 5 1.31E-05 3 7.84E-06 60% Pass
100 1.310 5 1.31E-05 1 2.61E-06 20% Pass

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02
Flow (cfs)
% Time Exceeding
Flow Duration Curve
[Pre vs. Post (Mitigated)]
Pre-project Q
Post-project (Mitigated) Q
35 27
Prin
ted 3/2/2022Prepared by Pas
co Laret Suiter & Associates
Pa
ge 8Hydr
oCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Su
mmary for Pond 6P: Tank-1 Upper
Vo
lume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 1

00.00' 8,482 cf Tank-1 Upper (Conic) Listed below
Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area
(feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft)
10 0.00 1,600 0.0 0 0 1,600
101.00 1,600 95.0 1,520 1,520 1,742
102.00 1,600 95.0 1,520 3,040 1,884
103.00 1,600 95.0 1,520 4,560 2,025
104.00 1,600 95.0 1,520 6,080 2,167
105.00 1,600 95.0 1,520 7,600 2,309
105.08 1,600 95.0 122 7,722 2,320
105.58 1,600 95.0 760 8,482 2,391
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 P
rimary 100.00' 12.00" Round Culvert
L= 100.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 100.00' / 99.00' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
#2 Device 1 100.00' 0.90" Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 105.08' Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 0.50
Width (feet) 6.00 6.00 0.00
35 27
Prin
ted 3/2/2022Prepared by Pas
co Laret Suiter & Associates
Pa
ge 9Hydr
oCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC St
age-Discharge for Pond 6P: Tank-1 Upper

35 27
Prin
ted 3/2/2022Prepared by Pas
co Laret Suiter & Associates
Pa
ge 10Hydr
oCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Su
mmary for Pond 8P: Tank-2 Lower
Vo
lume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 1

00.00' 7,062 cf Tank-2 Lower (Conic) Listed below
Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area
(feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft)
10 0.00 2,100 0.0 0 0 2,100
101.00 2,100 95.0 1,995 1,995 2,262
102.00 2,100 95.0 1,995 3,990 2,425
103.00 2,100 95.0 1,995 5,985 2,587
103.04 2,100 95.0 80 6,065 2,594
103.54 2,100 95.0 998 7,062 2,675
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 P
rimary 100.00' 12.00" Round Culvert
L= 100.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 100.00' / 99.00' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf
#2 Device 1 100.00' 0.90" Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 103.04' Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 0.50
Width (feet) 7.00 7.00 0.00
35 27
Prin
ted 3/2/2022Prepared by Pas
co Laret Suiter & Associates
Pa
ge 11Hydr
oCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC St
age-Discharge for Pond 8P: Tank-2 Lower

Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe Tank-1
Project No 3527 Date 3/2/2022
Vault Drawdown
Time:

92.2 hrs
Note: Drawdown time is calculated assuming an initial water surface depth equal to the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening in the vault outlet structure.

Underdrain Orifice
Diameter: 0.9 in
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs) ∆T (hr) Total Time (hr)

5.08 7722 0.048 0.000 0.0
4 6080 0.042 10.181 10.2
3 4560 0.036 10.773 21.0
2 3040 0.029 12.844 33.8
1 1520 0.020 16.960 50.8
0 0 0.000 41.484 92.2
Vault Drawdown Calculation
Project Name South Santa Fe Tank-2
Project No 3527 Date 3/2/2022
Vault Drawdown
Time:

94.2 hrs
Note: Drawdown time is calculated assuming an initial water surface depth equal to the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening in the vault outlet structure.

Underdrain Orifice
Diameter: 0.9 in
C: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs) ∆T (hr) Total Time (hr)

3.04 6065 0.037 0.000 0.0
2 3990 0.029 17.468 17.5
1 1995 0.020 22.260 39.7
0 0 0.000 54.448 94.2

Manning’s n Values for Overland Flow1

The BMP Design Manuals within the County of San Diego allow for a land surface description other than short prairie grass to be used for hydromodification BMP design only if documentation provided is consistent with Table A.6 of the SWMM 5 User’s Manual.

In January 2016, the EPA released the SWMM Reference Manual Volume I – Hydrology (SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual). The SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual complements the SWMM 5 User’s Manual by providing an in -depth description of the program’s hydrologic components. Table 3 -5 of the SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual expounds upon Table A.6 of the SWMM 5 User’s Manual by providing Manning’s n values for additional overland flow surfaces. Therefore, in order to provide SWMM users with a wider range of land surfaces suitable for local application and to provide Copermittees with confidence in the design parameters, we recommend using the values published by Yen and Chow in Table 3-5 of the EPA SWMM Reference Manua l Volume I – Hydrology. The values are provided in the table below:

Overland Surface Manning value (n)
Smooth asphalt pavement 0.010
Smooth impervious surface 0.011
Tar and sand pavement 0.012
Concrete pavement 0.014
Rough impervious surface 0.015
Smooth bare packed soil 0.017
Moderate bare packed soil 0.025
Rough bare packed soil 0.032
Gravel soil 0.025
Mowed poor grass 0.030
Average grass, closely clipped sod 0.040
Pasture 0.040
Timberland 0.060
Dense grass 0.060
Shrubs and bushes 0.080
Land Use
Business 0.014
Semibusiness 0.022
Industrial 0.020
Dense residential 0.025
Suburban residential 0.030
Parks and lawns 0.040

1Content summarized from Improving Accuracy in Continuous Simulation Modeling: Guidance for Selecting Pervious Overland Flow Manning’s n Values in the San Diego Region (TRWE, 2016).

United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
San Diego County
Area, California
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
July 27, 2021
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that af
fect 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.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the ef fects 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).

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS W
eb Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color
, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). T
o file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Information for All Uses.................................................................................8 Soil Properties and Qualities................................................................................ 8 Soil Qualities and Features...............................................................................8 Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)........................8 References............................................................................................................13 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity
.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology , climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly
, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however , soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

T
axonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

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.

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 dif
ferent 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.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.

Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil.

Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe
Avenue)
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runof
f potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
8 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.

These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Custom Soil Resource Report
9 10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue) 3668700 3668720 3668740 3668760 3668780 3668800 3668820 3668840 3668860 3668880 3668900 3668700 3668720 3668740 3668760 3668780 3668800 3668820 3668840 3668860 3668880 3668900 481290 481310 481330 481350 481370 481390 481410 481430 481290 481310 481330 481350 481370 481390 481410 481430 33° 9' 31'' N
117° 12' 2'' W
33° 9' 31'' N
117° 11' 56'' W
33° 9' 24'' N
117° 12' 2'' W
33° 9' 24'' N
117° 11' 56'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,060 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

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: V
ersion 15, May 27, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 24, 2020—Feb 12, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
11 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI DaD Diablo clay, 9 to 15
percent slopes, warm
MAAT
C 1.7 72.6%
HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
D 0.6 27.4%
T
otals 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
T
ie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www
.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www
.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, W etlands
Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. W
aterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 13 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www
.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing Factors

G-5 February 2016

Figure G.1-2: California Irrigation Management Information System "Reference Evapotranspiration Zones
"

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 CI
MIS Zones 1, 4, 6, 9, and 16 (See CIMIS ETo Zone Map)

January February March April May June July August
Septembe
r October
Novembe
r December
Zone in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month 1 0.93 1.4 2.48 3.3 4.03 4.5 4.65 4.03 3.3 2.48 1.2 0.62 4 1.86 2.24 3.41 4.5 5.27 5.7 5.89 5.58 4.5 3.41 2.4 1.86 6 1.86 2.24 3.41 4.8 5.58 6.3 6.51 6.2 4.8 3.72 2.4 1.86 9 2.17 2.8 4.03 5.1 5.89 6.6 7.44 6.82 5.7 4.03 2.7 1.86 16 1.55 2.52 4.03 5.7 7.75 8.7 9.3 8.37 6.3 4.34 2.4 1.55 January February March April May June July August
Septembe
r October
Novembe
r December
Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31
Zone in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day 1 0.030 0.050 0.080 0.110 0.130 0.150 0.150 0.130 0.110 0.080 0.040 0.020 4 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.150 0.170 0.190 0.190 0.180 0.150 0.110 0.080 0.060 6 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.160 0.180 0.210 0.210 0.200 0.160 0.120 0.080 0.060 9 0.070 0.100 0.130 0.170 0.190 0.220 0.240 0.220 0.190 0.130 0.090 0.060 16 0.050 0.090 0.130 0.190 0.250 0.290 0.300 0.270 0.210 0.140 0.080 0.050

Page
39 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March 2022 ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION

This is
the cover sheet for Attachment 3.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attach
ment
Sequ
ence
Conten
ts Checkl
ist
Attachm
ent 3a Structur
al BMP Maintenance Thresholds
and A
ctions (Required)

 Inclu
ded

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

Attachm
ent 3b Draft Main
tenance Agreement (when
appl
icable)
Included
Not Applicable

Page
40 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March 2022 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment:

 Preliminary Design / Planning / CEQA level submittal:

Attachment 3a must identify:

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

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

Final Design level submittal:

Attachment 3a must identify:

Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP 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 maintenance, Attachment 3b shall include a draft maintenance agreement in the local jurisdiction's standard format (PDP applicant to contact the [City Engineer] to obtain the current maintenance agreement forms).

1. PREVENT
Keeping debris and sediment out of the system by pre-treating runoff is one of the smartest things an engineer can do when designing underground detention systems. It makes no sense to allow trash and sediments to flow unrestricted into an underground system where removal will be expensive. Instead, capture pollutants simply and inexpensively in the inlets, where removal is easy. There are several ways this can be accomplished with minimal cost impacts to your project.

Trash Guard Plus®
Trash Guard Plus is a patented stormwater pretreatment device that traps debris, sediment and floatables in the inlet. It helps extend maintenance cycles by using the full volume of the inlet structure for sediment capacity. And it is easy to maintain by accessing pollutants through the manhole lid.

Trash Guard Plus works by both screening debris out of the runoff and by slowing the flow of runoff, causing sediments to fall to the bottom of the inlet. Testing at NC State has shown the Trash Guard to be effective at removing trash, sediment, nutrients, and metals.

Gratemaster
To treat a single inlet that serves as a junction for a larger drainage area, consider an insert like the Gratemaster. Ideal for capturing sediment and trash, it makes clean-up a snap by holding all the pollutants right near the surface for easy extraction.

R-TANK MAINTENANCE
For more information about Stormwater Management, contact Inside Sales at 800.448.3636 email at [email protected]

TECHNICAL

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
®
Trash Guard Plus®
Gratemaster
Designing an underground stormwater detention system with future maintenance in mind is a simple process that includes three primary objectives: PREVENT debris from entering the system by using good pre-treatment systems, ISOLATE debris and sediments that manage to enter the system, and PROTECT the body of the system by providing backflush mechanisms to ensure longevity.
24" MIN. 3" MIN. BASE MATERIAL

SECTION 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
R-Tank Screening
For a more centralized approach, some engineers prefer to create an opening in the inlet structures to allow the R-Tank modules to penetrate the structure to act as a trash screen. This works best with a structure that includes a sump (see drawing below).

R-TANK MAINTENANCE
800.448.3636
acfenvironmental.com

2. ISOLATE
Some pollutants may elude the pre-treatment systems. Trap these materials inside the maintenance row (see drawing to right). Consolidating sediments in a single location makes them easy to remove. Maintenance rows are formed by using maintenance modules, which have open internal components that are fully accessible by conventional jet-vac systems. These modules are set in a row (or multiple rows) to your desired length. Longer maintenance rows should include an access structure on both ends. Extremely long rows may require access from the middle of the row, as well.

The maintenance row is always wrapped in geotextile independently from the rest of the system. The geotextile retains trash, sediments, and other solids, preventing contamination of the rest of the system.

The maintenance row should be sized to treat the first
flush (usually 1”) of runoff. Use a bypass structure to divert that flow into the maintenance row, and allow
larger flows to continue to a downstream inlet where
they can enter the R-Tank outside of the maintenance
row.

The maintenance row is only available in LD, HD, and
UD modules. For SD and XD modules, consider
creating a forebay around the inlet locations to collect sediment. This is done by using a taller module
installed at a lower invert. Geotextile baffles between the forebay and the rest of the system can help retain
sediments. Concentrate Maintenance Ports
(see PROTECT below) in the forebay to ensure access
to sediment for removal.

3. PROTECT
Every good system has a fall-back plan. You can
ensure a long system life by including maintenance
ports throughout the system footprint to remove any
pollutants that evade the pretreatment system and
maintenance row. Maintenance ports should be
specified within 10’ of inlet and outlet connections,
and roughly 50’ on center (see maintenance port
detail to right).
2 2018

R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW
(SEE PLAN LAYOUT FOR ROW LENGTH)

OPTIONAL

MAINTENANCE
/ACCESS

STRUCTURE
(BY OTHERS)
B AA
B

DIVERSION/ACCESS
STRUCTURE W/ 12" SUMP
(BY OTHERS)
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 PVC PIPE

W/ BEVELED EDGE OR AS

SPECIFIED BY PROJECT ENGINEER
(BY OTHERS)

PEAK FLOW JUNCTION

STRUCTURE
(BY OTHERS)

R-TANKHD

MAIN DETENTION/RETENTION SYSTEM
(SEE PLANS FOR ACTUAL LAYOUT)

MAINTENANCE PORT
(QUANTITY & LOCATIONS

PER PLAN LAYOUT)
Ø24" F&C ACCESS
(TYP, BY OTHERS)
2'-0" MIN. STONE

PERIMETER
Ø12" MIN. PIPE OR AS

SPECIFIED BY

PROJECT ENGINEER
(BY OTHERS)
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 PVC PIPE

W/ BEVELED EDGE OR AS

SPECIFIED BY PROJECT ENGINEER
(BY OTHERS)
NOTE: IF PIPE CONNECTING TO

MAINTENANCE ROW IS LARGER
THAN Ø12" SDR-35, IT SHALL BE

ABUTTED FLUSH TO END PLATE AND
SEALED WITH A GEOTEXTILE BOOT.

GEOTEXTILE

PIPE BOOT

NON-CORROSIVE

HOSE CLAMP

MODULES TOP AND

SIDES WRAPPED WITH
8 OZ. NONWOVEN

GEOTEXTILE

MAINTENANCE

ROW MODULES
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 OR AS SPECIFIED
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

ACF ENVIRONMENTAL 1-800-448-3636
www.acfenvironmental.com

DATE REVISION
NOTE: ENGINEER OF RECORD TO REVIEW, APPROVE AND ENDORSE FINAL SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN.

R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW DETAILS
ACF ENVIRONMENTAL, 1-800-448-3636, www.acfenvironmental.com

DRAWN BY
SHEET NO.

DATE
11/15/17
EDQ
1 of 1

R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW WITH PRECAST INLET/ACCESS STRUCTURE

R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW SECTION A-A

DIVERSION/ACCESS
STRUCTURE W/ 12" SUMP
(BY OTHERS)
FLOW
Ø12" MIN. SDR-35 PVC PIPE

W/ BEVELED EDGE OR AS

SPECIFIED BY PROJECT
ENGINEER (TYP.)

R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE

MODULES TOP AND SIDES
WRAPPED IN 8 OZ.

NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE

PAVED OR GRASS

SURFACE

GEOGRID (REQUIRED IN TRAFFIC AREAS)
PLACED 12” ABOVE THE R-TANKᴴᴰ SYSTEM.

OVERLAP ADJACENT PANELS BY 18” MIN.

GEOGRID SHOULD EXTEND 3' BEYOND THE
EXCAVATION FOOTPRINT.
12" MIN.

OPTIONAL

MAINTENANCE
/ACCESS

STRUCTURE
W/ 12" SUMP
(BY OTHERS)

DIVERSION
WEIR
OUTLET
/BYPASS
PIPE
NOTE: DIVERSION WEIR ELEVATION TO BE SET BY PROJECT ENGINEER BASED ON TREATMENT VOLUME/FLOW RATE REQUIRED.

MAINTENANCE
PLATE
(5 PER MODULE)
2 LAYERS OF ACF S300

WOVEN GEOTEXTILE TO BE

PLACED BETWEEN R-TANK

MODULES AND BASE

SEE TRAFFIC LOADING DETAIL

OR GREEN SPACE DETAIL FOR

COVER REQUIREMENTS

PAVED OR GRASS

SURFACE

GEOGRID
(REQUIRED IN AREAS SUBJECT

TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC LOADS)
12" MIN.

R-TANKHD

MAIN DETENTION/RETENTION SYSTEM
(SEE PLANS FOR ACTUAL LAYOUT)

R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE

MODULES TOP AND SIDES
WRAPPED IN 8 OZ.

NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE

MAINTENANCE PLATE
(5 PER MODULE)
2 LAYERS OF ACF S300 WOVEN

GEOTEXTILE TO BE PLACED BETWEEN

R-TANK MODULES AND BASE

GEOTEXTILES MUST
EXTEND A MINIMUM 6"

BEYOND MODULES

R-TANKHD MAINTENANCE ROW SECTION B-B

SINGLE R-TANKHD - MAINTENANCE MODULE DETAIL
GEOMETRY:

LENGTH = 28.15 IN. (715 MM)
WIDTH = 15.75 IN. (400 MM)
HEIGHT = 17.32 IN. (440 MM)
TANK VOLUME = 4.44 CF
STORAGE VOLUME = 4.22 CF
VOID INTERNAL VOLUME: 95%
VOID SURFACE AREA: 90%

MODULE DATA
LOAD RATING:

33.4 PSI, (MODULE ONLY)
HS20, (WITH ACF COVER SYSTEM)
MATERIAL:
100% RECYCLED POLYPROPYLENE

SMALL PLATES PER
SEGMENT/TOTAL:
5/5

28.15"

17.32"15.75"

15.75"

28.15"

17.32"
TOP

SIDE END

ISOMETRIC
NOTE:

FOR TRAFFIC RATING COVER REQUIREMENTS,
SEE APPROPRIATE DETAIL.

TYPICAL PIPE CONNECTION DETAIL
NOTES
· THIS PORT IS USED TO PUMP WATER INTO THE SYSTEM

AND RE-SUSPEND ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT SO THAT IT
MAY BE PUMPED OUT.
· MINIMUM REQUIRED MAINTENANCE INCLUDES A

QUARTERLY INSPECTION DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF
OPERATION AND A YEARLY INSPECTION THEREAFTER.

FLUSH AS NEEDED.
· ONLY R-TANKᴴᴰ AND R-TANKSD MAY BE USED IN TRAFFIC
APPLICATIONS.

16.25" FRAME AND
COVER

PAVED SURFACE

BACKFILL COMPACTED TO
95% STANDARD PROCTOR

DENSITY
B

GEOGRID
A

NON-CORROSIVE HOSE CLAMP

GEOTEXTILE

NOTCH BOTTOM

OF PIPE

SEE PATTERN

NON-CORROSIVE

SOLID PLATE

PLASTIC, SLATE

OR EQUIVALENT
1" +/- VENTING PERFORATIONS

PIPE NOTCHING

PATTERN
8" NOTCHES CUT IN SHADED
AREAS (8 OPENINGS TOTAL)

1.5"

3.5"

MAINTENANCE PORT
FOR R-TANK, R-TANKᴴᴰ, AND R-TANKSD
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: ACF ENVIRONMENTAL, 1-800-448-3636, www.acfenvironmental.com 6/16 R-TANK
(REGULAR SHOWN)

DEPTH SUMMARY

TYPE A B
R-TANK 12" MIN - 36" MAX AS SHOWN

ON PLANS
R-TANKᴴᴰ 20" MIN - 6.99' MAX 12"
R-TANKSD 18" MIN - 9.99' MAX 12"
12" DIA. PVC

MAINTENANCE
PORT

REINFORCED

CONCRETE COLLAR

WHERE REQUIRED
rotondo-es.com
Maintenance Procedures
Maintaining the StormGarden system is necessary to continue the effective pollutant removal from stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the stormdarin system. Ongoing maintenance will also extend the life of the filter media and the StormGarden system. As the StormGarden filters stormwater runoff, pollutants accumulate within the filter media and floating debris such as silt, trash and leaves accumulate on top of the media underneath the concrete slab. When an excessive amount of silt and trash build up on top of the media, the flow-through rate of the media is reduced, thus decreasing the capacity of the system. Regular replacement of the top mulch layer helps stop the accumulation of such sediment and debris and maintaining the overall performance of the system.

The manufacturer or manufacturer's representative includes a 1-year maintenance plan with each StormGarden purchase. The included maintenance plan consists of a maximum of 2 scheduled visits. If additional visits are required due to excessive sediment and trash loading, they can be performed by the manufacturer/representative for an additional charge. The start of the maintenance plan begins when the system is activated for full operation. Full operation is defined as the unit installed, curb and gutter and transitions in place, and the unit activated by installation contractor, which includes the mulch and plant installed and the temporary throat protection removed.

Activation cannot occur until the site is fully stabilized, which means full landscaping, grass cover, final paving and sweeping is complete. Maintenance visits are scheduled seasonally. The spring visit cleans up after winter loads which include salts and sands, and the fall visit is to remove excessive leaves and debris.

It is the responsibility of the owner to provide adequate irrigation when necessary to the plant of the StormGarden system. Cleanup due to major contamination such as oils, chemicals, toxic spills, etc. will result in additional costs and are not covered under the 1- year maintenance plan provided by manufacturer/representative. Should a major contamination event occur, the owner must block off the outlet pipe to the StormGarden unit (where the cleaned runoff drains to from the StormGarden, such as the bypass inlet) and block off the throat of the StormGarden. All appropriate regulatory parties as well as the manufacturer/representative should be informed immediately.

Each maintenance visit consists of the following tasks:
 Visual inspection of StormGarden unit and surrounding area  Removal of tree grate and erosion control stones
 Removal of sediment, trash, debris and mulch
 Mulch replacement
 Clean and replace erosion control stones
 Evaluation of plant and pruning or replacement if necessary  Clean area around StormGarden unit
 Maintenance report

StormGarden Maintenance Checklist
System
Component Problem Conditions to Check Condition that Should Exist Actions

Inlet/Forebay
Area

Excessive sediment
or trash
accumulation.

Accumulated sediments or trash
impair free flow of water into
StormGarden.

Inlet should be free of
obstructions allowing free
distributed flow of water into
StormGarden.

Sediment and/or trash
should be removed.

Mulch Cover

Trash and floatable debris
accumulation.

Excessive trash and/or debris
accumulation.

Minimal trash or other debris on
mulch cover.

Trash and debris should be removed,
and mulch cover raked level.

Mulch/Media

“Ponding” of water
“Ponding” could indicate
clogging due to excessive fine
sediment loading or spill of
petroleum oils.

Stormwater should drain freely
and evenly through system

Replace mulch and/or media as
necessary.

Underdrain

Not draining/ponding of
water above
“Ponding” could indicate the
drain rock or perforated piping
is clogged.

Stormwater should drain freely and
evenly through system

Flush the underdrain piping using the
cleanout provided. Worse case
scenario is you replace all internal
components if terminally failed.

Vegetation

Plants not growing or
in poor condition.

Soil/mulch too wet, evidence of spill.

Incorrect plant selection. Pest
infestation. Vandalism to plants.

Plants should be healthy
and pest free.

Replant with plants suitable to for system.

Contact qualified landscape professional
or arborist.

Vegetation Plant growth
excessive.

Plants should be appropriate to the
region/climate of the site.

Plants should not be overgrown or
be excessive for the system.

Trim/prune plants in accordance with
typical landscaping and safety
needs.

Structure

Structure has visible
cracks.

Cracks wider than 1/2 inch
Vault should be repaired.

Maintenance frequency will depend on site specific characteristics and will generally need to occur 1-2 times per year

StormGarden Inspection & Maintenance Log
StormGarden System Size/Model: Location:

Date
Mulch &
Debris
Removed
Depth of
Mulch
Added

Mulch
Brand
Height of
Vegetation
Above
Grate

Vegetation
Species

Issues with
System
Comments

StormGarden Activation Checklist

Project Name: Company:

Site Contact Name: Site Contact Phone/Email:

Site Owner/End User Name: Site Owner/End User Phone/Email:

Site
Designation

System Size
Final Pavement
/Top Coat
Complete
Landscaping
Complete /
Soil Stabilized
Construction
materials /
Piles / Debris
Removed
Throat
Opening
Measures
According to
Plan

Plant Species
Requested
 Y
 N
 Y
 N
 Y
 N
 Y
 N

 Y
 N
 Y
 N
 Y
 N
 Y
 N

Page
41 of 41
City of San Marcos PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 15, 2016 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: October 2021, Revised: March & April, 2022 ATTACHMENT 4 COPY OF PLAN SHEETS WITH PERMANENT STORM WATER BMPS

This is the
cover sheet for Attachment 4.

Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the plans:

The plans must identify:

Structural BMP(s) with ID numbers matching Form I-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs The grading and drainage design shown on the plans must be consistent with the delineation of DMAs shown on the DMA exhibit
Details and specifications for construction of structural BMP(s) Signage indicating the location and boundary of structural BMP(s) as required by the [City Engineer] How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP)
Recommended equipment to perform maintenance
When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management Include landscaping plan sheets showing vegetation requirements for vegetated structural BMP(s) All BMPs must be fully dimensioned on the plans
When proprietary BMPs are used, site-specific cross section with outflow, inflow, and model number shall be provided. Photocopies of general brochures are not acceptable.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Fe Flores, LP Project

APPENDIX G
Hydrology Study

PRE

LIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY

FOR

N MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972 &2982 S SANTA FE AVENUE
APN: 217-161-18

TY OF SAN MARCOS, CA

PREPARED FOR:

SANTA FE FLORES LP
P.O. BOX 903
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067

PREPARED BY:

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
949-661-6695

Prepared: October 2021
Revised: March 2022
Revised: April 2022

__________________________________________________
William J. Suiter, RCE 68964 DATE

TABLE O

F CONTENTS

SECTION

Executive
Summary 1.0
Introduction 1.1
Existing Conditions 1.2
Proposed Project 1.3
Conclusions 1.4
References 1.5

Methodology 2.0
Rational Method 2.1
County of San Diego Criteria 2.2
AES Rational Method Computer Model 2.3

Hydrologic Analysis 3.0
Existing Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) 3.1 Proposed Condition Hydrologic Model Output 3.2
(100-Year Event Undetained)
Detention Analysis 3.3
Proposed Condition Hydrologic Model Output 3.4
(100-Year Event Detained)
Hydromodification Management 3.5
Storm Water Pollutant Control 3.6

Appendices
Appendix A: Hydrology Support Material
Appendix B: Detention Support Material
Appendix C: Existing and Proposed Hydrology Maps

1.0 EX

ECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Intr
oduction

This Hydrology Study for the proposed development has been prepared to analyze the hydrologic characteristics of the existing and proposed project site. This report presents both the methodology and the calculations used for determining the storm water runoff from the project site in the pre-developed (existing) conditions and the post-developed (proposed) conditions produced by the 100-year, 6-hour storm event.

1.2 Existing Conditions

The subject property is located at 2972 & 2982 S. Santa Fe Avenue in the City of Vista. The site is west of Las Flores Drive, north of South Santa Fe Avenue, and approximately 1/4 mile north of the 78 freeway.

Vicinity Map

The
site is surrounded by residential homes to the north, east and south, and industrial offices to the west. The site is primarily undeveloped with a shared access driveway at the property’s southerly boundary. The driveway also provides access to the adjacent commercial property’s parking lot and commercial building. The southern portion of the site is relatively flat while the central portion slopes up to an elevated pad at the north end of the site. Las Flores Drive along the property’s eastern boundary has approximately a 15-20% grade upward to the north to allow vehicle access over the railroad tracks north of the property. Elevations across the site range from a high of approximately 546 feet in the northeast corner of the property to a low of approximately 494.50 feet at the southwest corner of the property.

The project site is approximately 2.23 acres. In the existing condition, the project site is divided into four drainage basins (see Pre-Project Hydrology Map in Appendix C).

Drainage basin E1 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. Drainage Basin E2 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.

Drainage Basin E3 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.

Drainage Basin E4 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.

Per the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain with Hydrologic Soil Group C and D. Refer to Appendix A for soil information.

Area weighted runoff coefficients were calculated using the methodology described in section

Summ
ary of Existing Condition 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates

Drainage Basin ID Area (ac) Q100 (cfs)
E1 1.24 2.35
E2 0.04 0.10
E3 1.65 5.16
E4 0.12 0.31

Refer to
the existing condition hydrologic calculations included in Section 3.1 for detailed analysis.

1.3 Proposed Project

The project proposes to develop the existing site into a 54-unit multifamily residential development consisting of 1-bed/1-bath units and 2-bed/2-bath units, access drive, parking stalls, landscape, associated utilities and improvements, proprietary biofiltration systems to meet the requirements for pollutant control and underground storm water storage facilities to meet the requirements for hydromodification management flow control and to mitigate for the 100-year 6-hour storm event.

In the proposed condition, onsite storm water runoff will be collected in a proposed storm drain system and conveyed to the proposed proprietary biofiltration system (BMPs) and subsequently the proposed underground storage facilities (BMPs). Two storm drain systems, each with their own BMPs, are proposed to maintain the site’s historical points of discharge.

In the proposed condition, the project site consists of five drainage basins (see Post-Project Hydrology Map in Appendix C).

Drainage Basin P1 consists of the proposed site’s upper level building, north parking lot area and a portion of existing public ROW hillside area that drains into the project site at the northeast corner of the property. Surface runoff will sheet flow southwesterly across the parking area, through a curb opening and into a proprietary biofiltration system. Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility before exiting the project site through an existing 18” RCP storm drain pipe that flows out into the public storm drain system in Las Flores Drive.

Drainage Basin P2 consists of the proposed sites’ lower level building, south parking lot area, and access road. Surface runoff will sheet flow southerly down the access road, across the parking area then through curb openings into one of two proprietary biofiltration systems.

Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility before exiting the project site through a new 18” RCP storm drain pipe and connect to the existing 60” RCP storm drain pipe in South Santa Fe Avenue.

Drainage
Basin P3 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 off-site runoff without comingling with on-site runoff and divert the surface flows out onto South Santa Fe Avenue as in the existing condition.

Drainage Basin P4 consists of the existing hillside area at the northwest corner of the site.

Storm water runoff will surface flow westerly and onto the adjacent property as in the existing condition.

Drainage Basin P5 consists of the existing public right-of-way hillside area at the northeast corner of the project site. A new concrete ditch is proposed along the project’s easterly boundary to capture off-site runoff from the hillside without comingling with on-site runoff and divert the surface flow to an underground storm drain piping system to confluence with runoff from Drainage Basin 1. Pipe flows will combine with Drainage Basin 1 pipe flows (downstream of its BMP systems) and exit the site through an existing 18” RCP storm drain pipe that flows out into the public storm drain system in Las Flores Drive.

The BMPs will provide hydromodification management flow control and storm water pollutant control to meet the requirements the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region municipal storm water permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, referred to as MS4 Permit). For detailed pollutant control and HMP calculations refer to the report titled “Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for San Marcos Residences” dated March 2021, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.

Area weighted runoff coefficients were calculated using the methodology described in section

3.2.1 of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual and Table 3-1 Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas. Using the Rational Method Procedure outlined in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual, a peak flow rate was calculated for the proposed condition 100-year, 6-hour storm event. The underground storm water storage facilities provide mitigation for the 100-year 6- hour storm event. A detention analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of the storage facilities on the 100-year, 6-hour storm event peak discharge rates. The following table summarizes the proposed condition hydrologic data.

Summary of Proposed Condition 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates

Drainage Basin ID
Area
(ac) Q100 (cfs) Undetained Q100 (cfs) Detained
P1 & P2 1.25 5.71 0.69
P3 1.07 6.44 4.02
P4 0.66 2.90 N/A
P5 0.06 0.16 N/A

Refer to the
proposed undetained and detained hydrologic calculations and detention analysis included in Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and Appendix B for detailed analysis.

1.4 Conclusions

Based upon the analyses included in this report, the proposed proprietary biofiltration devices and underground storage facilities are sized to accommodate the increase in peak runoff in the proposed condition and are designed to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit for both pollutant control and hydromodification management.

1.5 References

“San Diego County Hydrology Manual”, revised June 2003, County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

2.0 M

ETHODOLOGY

Pursua
nt to the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (SDCHM) dated June 2003, the Rational Method is recommended for analyzing the runoff response from drainage areas up to approximately 1 square mile in size. The proposed project and associated watershed basins are less than 1 square mile, therefore the Rational Method was used to analyze the project’s hydrologic characteristics in the existing and proposed conditions.

2.1 Ration
al Method
The
Rational Method (RM) formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (I) is equal to:

I = 7.44 x P
6 x D-0.645
Where:

I = Intensity (in/hr)

P6 = 6
-hour precipitation (in)
D = duration (min – use Tc)

Using the Time of Concentration (Tc) which is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed, the RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow, typically in cubic feet per second (cfs). The RM equation is as follows:

Q = CIA
Where:

Q= flow (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff (runoff vs. infiltration/evaporation/absorption/etc) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area (in/hr)
A = drainage area contributing to the basin (ac)

The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient, C, is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number.

2.2 County
of San Diego Criteria
The County of San Diego has developed its own tables, nomographs, and methodologies for analyzing storm water runoff for areas within the County. The County has also developed precipitation isopluvial contour maps that show even lines of rainfall anticipated from a given storm event (i.e. 100-year, 6-hour storm). The 100-year 6-hour storm event rainfall isopluvial map is included in Appendix A.

One of the variables of the RM equation is the runoff coefficient, C, which is dependent upon land use and soil type. Table 3-1 Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas in the SDCHM categorizes the land use, the associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of impervious area. Each of the categories listed has an associated runoff coefficient for each soil type class. A composite runoff coefficient can also be calculated for an area based on soil type and impervious percentage using the following equation from Section 3.1.2 of the SDCHM:

C = 0.90 × (% Impervious) + Cp × (1 - % Impervious)

Where: Cp = Pervious Coefficient Runoff Value for the soil type (shown in Table 3-1 as Undisturbed Natural Terrain/Permanent Open Space, 0% Impervious)

The onsite hydrologic calculations contained herein figure a composite runoff coefficient for the onsite project areas based on the percentage of impervious area and the percentage of pervious or landscape area. Refer to Appendix A for runoff coefficient calculations.

The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time of concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has adopted the Federal Aviation Agency’s (FAA) overland time of flow equation. This equation essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of concentration to lengths of 100 feet or less, and is dependent on land use and slope.

2.3 AES Rational Method Computer Model
The Rational Method computer program developed by Advanced Engineering Software (AES) satisfies the County of San Diego design criteria, therefore it is the computer model used for this study. The AES hydrologic model is capable of creating independent node-link models of each interior drainage basin and linking these sub-models together at confluence points to determine peak flow rates. The program utilizes base information input by the user to perform calculations for up to 15 hydrologic processes. The required base information includes drainage basin area, storm water facility locations and sizes, land uses, flow patterns, and topographic elevations. The hydrologic conditions were analyzed in accordance with the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual criteria as follows:

Design Storm 100-year, 6-hour
100-year, 6-hour Precipitation 3.3 inches

Rainfa
ll Intensity Based on the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual criteria
Runoff Coefficient* Pervious C soil C = 0.30
Pervious D soil C =0.35
Impervious C soil C = 0.90
Impervious D soil C = 0.90
Soil Type C & D
*Weighted runoff coefficients were calculated where appropriate. Refer to Appendix A.

3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

Table
1 below compares and summarizes the hydrologic calculations provided in Sections 3.1,

3.2 and 3.4.

Table 1: Summary of 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates

Existing Proposed Proposed (Detained)
Drain
age
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
Drainage
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
Drainage
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
E1 1.24 2.35 P1 &
P2 1.25 5.71 P1 & P2 1.25 0.69
E2 0.04 0.10 P3 1.07 6.44 P3 1.07 4.02
E3 1.65 5.16 P4 0.66 2.90 N/A

E4 0.12 0.31 P5 0.06 0.16 N/A

Existing Proposed (Detained
, Cumulative)
Drain
age
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs) Drainage Basin ID Area (ac) Q100 (cfs)
E1, E2 & E3

2.93 7.61 P1, P2, P3 & P4 2.98 7.61
E4 0.12 0.31 P5 0.06 0.16

3.1 Existing Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event)

_____
_______________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1452
Analysis prepared by:

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
ph 949.661.6695
plsaengineering.com
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 3527 SOUTH SANTA FE * * EXISTING CONDITION * * 100-YEAR * ************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 100PRE.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:49 03/01/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.300
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SI

ZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 85
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 575.97
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 538.97
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 37.00
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.684
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.210
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 538.97 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 532.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 149.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0441 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 20.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.321
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 85
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.34 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.64 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.51 Tc(MIN.) = 8.20
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.10 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.300
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.35 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.05 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 249.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 115.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< =====
======================================================================= ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 530.34 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 528.21 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 92.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.22
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.35
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.25 Tc(MIN.) = 8.44
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 115.00 = 341.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 125.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 85
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 57.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 543.68
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 517.12
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 26.56
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.047
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.643
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 517.12 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 516.53 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 29.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.39
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.10
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.20 Tc(MIN.) = 5.25
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 86.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USE
R-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 85
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 538.13
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 517.74
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 20.39
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.431
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.243
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 145.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 517.74 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.68 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 270.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0854 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 20.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.947
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 85
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.06 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.73 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.65 Tc(MIN.) = 7.08
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.47 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.450
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.16 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 145.00 = 370.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 155.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 85
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 34.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 538.66
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 527.29
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 11.37
SUB
AREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.898
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.31
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.31 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 155.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 85
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.31
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.31 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.1 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.31
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

3.2 Proposed Undetained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event)

_____
_______________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
ph 949.661.6695
plsaengineering.com
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 3527 SOUTH SANTA FE * * PROPOSED CONDITION * * 100-YR * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 100PST.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:31 03/02/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.300
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLO
W PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 535.41
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 532.13
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.28
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.146
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 532.13 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 529.64 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 304.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0082 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.013 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.649
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.82 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.96 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.14 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.58 Tc(MIN.) = 7.58
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.91 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.770
TOT
AL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.17 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 210.00 = 7804.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 527.39 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 526.49 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.49
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.17
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.20 Tc(MIN.) = 7.78
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 215.00 = 7894.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 521.91 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 519.88 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 138.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.50
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.17
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.27 Tc(MIN.) = 8.05
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 8032.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.05
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.40
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.01
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.17
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 225.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 21 -----
----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 575.94
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 536.32
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 39.62
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.945
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.776
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 532.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 519.88 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 42.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 15.29
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.65
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 5.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 225.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 132.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.99
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.74
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.65
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 5.17 8.05 6.395 1.01
2 0.65 5.99 7.738 0.24
RAI

NFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 4.50 5.99 7.738
2 5.71 8.05 6.395
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.71 Tc(MIN.) = 8.05
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 8032.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 235.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 519.88 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 517.05 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 193.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.57
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.71
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.38 Tc(MIN.) = 8.42
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 235.00 = 8225.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 245.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 82.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 532.03
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 524.56
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.47
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.420
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 245.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>
>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 245.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 524.56 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 349.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0870 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.013 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.617
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.37 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.11 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.14 Tc(MIN.) = 6.14
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.03 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.20 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.790
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.44 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.12 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 250.00 = 750349.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 255.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 491.45 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 491.04 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 41.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.86
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.44
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.09 Tc(MIN.) = 6.22
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 255.00 = 750390.00 FEET. *****
*********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 255.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.47 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 39.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.70
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.44
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 6.27
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 260.00 = 750429.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 265.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 531.96
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 518.31
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 13.65
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.428
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 265.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 275.00 IS CODE = 51 -----
----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 518.31 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.55 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 276.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0861 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.013 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.709
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.86 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.49 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.02 Tc(MIN.) = 6.02
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.51 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.24 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.570
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.90 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.55 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 265.00 TO NODE 275.00 = ********** FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 280.00 TO NODE 285.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 37.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 531.96
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 527.86
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.10
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.066
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 280.00 TO NODE 285.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C
.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.1 TC(MIN.) = 5.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.16
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

3.3 Detention Analysis (100-Year Event)

The
underground storm water storage facilities (BMPs) provide hydromodification management flow control and mitigation of the 100-year storm event peak flow rate. The 100- year storm event detention analysis was performed using HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling software. The inflow runoff hydrographs to the BMPs were modeled using RatHydro which is a Rational Method Design Storm Hydrograph software that creates a hydrograph using the results of the Rational Method calculations. HydroCAD has the ability to route the 100-year 6- hour storm event inflow hydrograph through the BMPs. Based on the BMP cross sectional geometry, stage storage and outlet structure data, HydroCAD calculates the detained peak flow rate and detained time to peak.

Each underground storm water storage facility has a low-flow orifice to comply with HMP requirements and an overflow weir for larger storm events. Refer to the plans for facility details.

The proposed BMP at the north end of the project site will discharge via proposed storm drain to the east and into the existing public storm drain system within Las Flores Drive. The proposed BMP at the south end of the project site will discharge via proposed storm drain pipe to the south and into the existing public storm drain system within South Santa Fe Drive.

For the proposed detained hydrologic analysis, the effects of the detention provided by the two (2) underground storage facilities were incorporated into the AES analysis. This was done by inserting the results from the HydroCAD analysis, detained peak flow rate and detained time to peak, into the proposed undetained condition AES model to create the proposed detained condition model. Refer to Section 3.4 for the detained AES output.

Based on the results of the HydroCAD analysis, mitigation for the 100-year storm event peak flow rate is provided. Refer to Appendix B for the HydroCAD detention detailed output.

3.4 Propo
sed Detained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event) _____
_______________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
ph 949.661.6695
plsaengineering.com
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 3527 SOUTH SANTA FE * * PROPOSED CONDITION DETAINED * * 100-YR * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 100PSTD.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:06 03/02/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.300
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING

1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
*****
*********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.82 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.96 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.14 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.58 Tc(MIN.) = 7.58
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.96 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.91 ARE
A-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.770
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.17 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

TC(MIN) = 55.68 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.84
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 521.91 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 519.88 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 138.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.26
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.30
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.54 Tc(MIN.) = 56.22
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 8032.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
=====
======================================================================= TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 56.22
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.83
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.01
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.30
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 225.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.99
RAI
NFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.74
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.65
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 0.30 56.22 1.826 1.01
2 0.65 5.99 7.738 0.24

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 0.69 5.99 7.738
2 0.45 56.22 1.826
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.69 Tc(MIN.) = 5.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 8032.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 235.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 519.88 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 517.05 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 193.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.19
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.69
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.62 Tc(MIN.) = 6.61
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 235.00 = 8225.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 245.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 82.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 532.03
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 524.56
ELE
VATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.47
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.420
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 245.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

TC(MIN) = 8.92 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.02 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 255.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 488.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 486.47 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 39.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.94
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.02
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 8.97
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 260.00 = 750429.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 265.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 275.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 518.31 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 494.55 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 276.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0861 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.013 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.709
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C
.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 37.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 531.96
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 527.86
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.10
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.066
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.695
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

3.5 Hyd
romodification Management

To satisfy the requirements of the MS4 Permit, a hydromodification management strategy has been developed for the project based on the Final Hydromodification Management Plan dated March 2011, (Final HMP). A continuous simulation model, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) version 5.1, was selected to size mitigation measures. The SWMM model is capable of modeling hydromodification management facilities to mitigate the effects of increased runoff from the post-development conditions and use changes that may cause negative impacts (i.e. erosion) to downstream channels. For HMP calculations refer to the report titled “Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for San Marcos Residences” dated March 2021,, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.

3.6 Storm Water Pollutant Control

To meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit, the Modular Wetlands Systems are designed to treat onsite storm water pollutants for the 24-hour, 85 th percentile s
torm event. For detailed
pollutant control calculations refer to the report titled ““Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for San Marcos Residences” dated March 2021,, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.

APPE
NDIX A

Hydrology Support Material

San Mar
cos Residences
PLSA
Project No. 3527
3/4/
2022
C = 0.9(%Imper
vious)+Cp(1 - %Impervious)
Soil
Type C D
Impervi
ous 0.9 0.9
Pervious
, Cp 0.3 0.35
E1 53762 C 0 53762 0 0.30
E2 1834 C 0 1834 0 0.30
E3 71987 D 12919 59068 17.9% 0.45
E4 5243 C 0 5243 0 0.30
P1 43998 C 34828 9170 79.2% 0.77
P2 10531 C 829 9702 7.9% 0.35
P3 46587 D 37689 8898 80.9% 0.79
P4 28583 D 11520 17063 40.3% 0.57
P5 2470 C 0 2470 0.0% 0.30
% Impervious
Runoff
Coefficient Table
Weighted Runof
f
Coefficient,
C

PRE-PRO

JECT CONDITION

POST-PROJECT CONDITION
% Impervious Weighted Runof
f
Coefficient,
C
Impervious
Area (sf)
Draina
ge Basin
ID
Total
Area
(sf)
Perviou
s
Area (sf)
Soil
Type
Draina
ge Basin
ID
Total
Area
(sf)
Soil
Type
Impervious
Area (sf)
Perviou
s
Area (sf)

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 dif
ferent 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.

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).

Information about soils is updated periodically
. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey
, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability ,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). T
o file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Information for All Uses.................................................................................8 Soil Properties and Qualities................................................................................ 8 Soil Qualities and Features...............................................................................8 Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)........................8 References............................................................................................................13 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity
.