02E3379B4A — Santee City Council, May 28, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.83
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.20
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.11
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 27.10
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TC(MIN) = 16.84 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.77
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.50
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 99.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 10.64 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 19.02
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.11
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.56
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.54 Tc(MIN.) = 17.38
50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.713
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8400
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.606
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.56
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 18.95 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.11 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 768.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.713
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6071
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.11
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.68
TC(MIN.) = 17.38
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 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.) = 17.38
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.71
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.48
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.68
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 27.10 8.83 4.198 8.11
2 10.68 17.38 2.713 6.48

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 32.53 8.83 4.198
2 28.19 17.38 2.713
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 32.53 Tc(MIN.) = 8.83
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 948.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.6 TC(MIN.) = 8.83
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 32.53
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1261
Analysis prepared by:

RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, California 92110
619-291-0707 Fax 619-291-4165
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * (J-19964) AUBREY GLEN *
* UNDETAINED FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS *
* POST-PROJECT CONDITION: 100-YR, 6-HR STORM EVENT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: AG1HPSTU.RAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:27 11/07/2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.400
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 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)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TC(MIN) = 7.10 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.04
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.00
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 266.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 94.34 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 566.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.95
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 20.00
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.19 Tc(MIN.) = 8.29
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 266.00 = 566.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 266.00 TO NODE 266.00 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.) = 8.29
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.56
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 20.00
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 242.00 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) = 67.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 99.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.50
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.961
WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 57.39
(Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual)
THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.323
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 242.00 TO NODE 244.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 99.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 109.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.63 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.34
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.75
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.42
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.04 Tc(MIN.) = 6.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.621
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.770
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.78
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.00
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.34
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.80 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.50 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 244.00 = 176.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 244.00 TO NODE 252.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 98.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.63
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.00
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.64 Tc(MIN.) = 6.64
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 252.00 = 316.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 252.00 TO NODE 252.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.264
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.45
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.38
TC(MIN.) = 6.64
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 252.00 TO NODE 254.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.27 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 73.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.90
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.38
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.31 Tc(MIN.) = 6.96
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 254.00 = 389.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 254.00 TO NODE 254.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.111
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.94
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.27
TC(MIN.) = 6.96
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 254.00 TO NODE 256.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.35 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 65.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.76
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.27
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 7.14
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 256.00 = 454.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 256.00 TO NODE 256.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.024
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.53
TC(MIN.) = 7.14
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 256.00 TO NODE 256.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.024
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.62
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.15
TC(MIN.) = 7.14
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 256.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.57 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 43.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.02
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.15
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.12 Tc(MIN.) = 7.26
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 258.00 = 497.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 258.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.970
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.54
TC(MIN.) = 7.26
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 258.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.32 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 68.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.12
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.54
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 7.45
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 260.00 = 565.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 260.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.890
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.26
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.97
TC(MIN.) = 7.45
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 260.00 TO NODE 262.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.62 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 38.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.22
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.97
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 7.55
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 262.00 = 603.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 262.00 TO NODE 262.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.848
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.80
TC(MIN.) = 7.55
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 262.00 TO NODE 264.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.47 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 53.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.42
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.80
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 Tc(MIN.) = 7.69
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 264.00 = 656.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 264.00 TO NODE 264.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.791
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.92
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.63
TC(MIN.) = 7.69
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 264.00 TO NODE 266.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.88 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 12.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.59
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.63
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 7.72
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 266.00 = 668.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 266.00 TO NODE 266.00 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.) = 7.72
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.78
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.34
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.63
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 20.00 8.29 4.565 5.60
2 8.63 7.72 4.779 2.34

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 27.26 7.72 4.779
2 28.25 8.29 4.565
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 28.25 Tc(MIN.) = 8.29
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 266.00 = 668.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 266.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.68 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 32.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.99
PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.25
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 8.35
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 270.00 = 700.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.544
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7273
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.59
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 28.25
TC(MIN.) = 8.35
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 98.76 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 248.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.99
PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.25
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.46 Tc(MIN.) = 8.81
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 948.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 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.) = 8.81
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.39
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.11
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 28.25
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TC(MIN) = 16.84 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.89
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.97
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)<<<<<
============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 99.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 11.11 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 19.34
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.15
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.60
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.53 Tc(MIN.) = 17.37
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.832
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8400
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.607
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.29
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.04
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 19.34 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.12 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.59 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 768.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.832
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6079
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.5 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.16
TC(MIN.) = 17.37
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 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.) = 17.37
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.83
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.48
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 11.16
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 28.25 8.81 4.390 8.11
2 11.16 17.37 2.832 6.48

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 33.90 8.81 4.390
2 29.38 17.37 2.832
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 33.90 Tc(MIN.) = 8.81
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 948.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.6 TC(MIN.) = 8.81
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 33.90
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

____________________________________________________________________________ ****************************************************************************

RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, California 92110
619-291-0707 Fax 619-291-4165
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * (J-19964) AUBREY GLEN *
* DETAINED FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS *
* POST-PROJECT CONDITION: 100-YR, 6-HR STORM EVENT *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: AG1HPSTD.RAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:07 11/07/2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.400
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 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)

TC(MIN) = 12.40 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.90
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 266.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 94.34 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 566.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.22
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.90
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.52 Tc(MIN.) = 13.92
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 266.00 = 566.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 266.00 TO NODE 266.00 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.) = 13.92
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.27
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.60
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.90
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 242.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

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 12.46 7.72 4.779
2 12.80 13.92 3.267
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 12.80 Tc(MIN.) = 13.92
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 266.00 = 668.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 266.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.68 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 32.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.28
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.80
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 13.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 270.00 = 700.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.256
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.4800
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.80
TC(MIN.) = 13.99
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 98.76 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 248.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.54
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.80
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.75 Tc(MIN.) = 14.74
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 948.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 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.) = 14.74
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.15
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.11
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 12.80
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

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 22.27 14.74 3.149
2 22.67 17.37 2.832
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.67 Tc(MIN.) = 17.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 948.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.6 TC(MIN.) = 17.37
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 22.67
============================================================================ ============================================================================

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C
Backup for Weighted Runoff Coefficients
19964 - AUBREY GLEN
11/6/2024
19964 - AUBREY GLEN RUNOFF COEFFICENT DETERMINATION (PRE PROJECT) Upstream Node Downstream Node TRIBUTARY AREA (SQ FT) AREA (AC.) %IMPERVIOUS (ASSUMED) IMPERVIOUS POST PROJECT (SQFT) SOIL TYPE IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF COEFFICENT PERVIOUS RUNOFF COEFFICENT WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFICENT 100 102 4356 0.1 0% 0 D 0.9 0.35 0.35102 110 74052 1.7 5% 3703 D 0.9 0.35 0.38110 115 8712 0.2 5% 436 C 0.9 0.30 0.33115 120120 125 4356 0.1 0% 0 C 0.9 0.30 0.30125 130 4356 0.1 0% 0 C 0.9 0.30 0.30130 135 4356 0.1 0% 0 C 0.9 0.30 0.30135 150 4356 0.1 0% 0 C 0.9 0.30 0.30150 150 100188 2.3 65% 65122 C 0.9 0.30 0.69150 250 4356 0.1 90% 3920 C 0.9 0.30 0.84250 250 13068 0.3 90% 11761 C 0.9 0.30 0.84250 260 17424 0.4 90% 15682 C 0.9 0.30 0.84260 260 26136 0.6 90% 23522 C 0.9 0.30 0.84260 270 8712 0.2 90% 7841 C 0.9 0.30 0.84270 270200 202 4356 0.1 50% 2178 C 0.9 0.3 0.60202 205 13068 0.3 90% 11761 C 0.9 0.3 0.84205 205 26136 0.6 65% 16988 C/D 0.9 0.33 0.70205 207205 207 4356 0.1 0% 0 C/D 0.9 0.33 0.33206 207 8712 0.2 65% 5663 C 0.9 0.3 0.69206 207 21780 0.5 65% 14157 C 0.9 0.3 0.69207 210208 210 26136 0.6 65% 16988 C 0.9 0.3 0.69209 210 39204 0.9 65% 25483 C 0.9 0.3 0.69210 215212 215 21780 0.5 65% 14157 C 0.9 0.3 0.69215 220 BASIN 100/POC 1BASIN 200/POC 1
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\Hydrology\RationalMethod\19964_MASTER_DRNWQ_SHEET.xlsx 19964 - AUBREY GLEN
11/6/2024
211 220 39204 0.9 65% 25483 C 0.9 0.3 0.69217 220 17424 0.4 65% 11326 C 0.9 0.3 0.69217 220218 220 4356 0.1 70% 3049 C 0.9 0.3 0.72220 222222 225 17424 0.4 5% 871 C 0.9 0.3 0.33 225 230230 270 109335.6 2.51 90% 98402 C 0.9 0.3 0.84
270 270270 290 5227.2 0.12 90% 4704 C 0.9 0.3 0.84
290 290 2613.6 0.06 65% 1699 C 0.9 0.3 0.69
SUM 635540.4 14.59
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\Hydrology\RationalMethod\19964_MASTER_DRNWQ_SHEET.xlsx 19964 - AUBREY GLEN
11/7/2024
19964 - AUBREY GLEN RUNOFF COEFFICENT DETERMINATION (POST PROJECT) Upstream Node Downstream Node TRIBUTARY AREA (SQ FT) AREA (AC.) %IMPERVIOUS (ASSUMED) IMPERVIOUS POST PROJECT (SQFT) SOIL TYPE IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF COEFFICENT PERVIOUS RUNOFF COEFFICENT WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFICENT 230 1 230 1 243936 5.6 0 C 0.9 0.3
230 266266 266240 242 2178 0.05 78% 1699 C 0.9 0.3 0.77242 244 7840.8 0.18 78% 6116 C 0.9 0.3 0.77244 252252 252 4791.6 0.11 78% 3737 C 0.9 0.3 0.77252 254254 254 43560 1.00 78% 33977 C 0.9 0.3 0.77254 256256 256 3920.4 0.09 78% 3058 C 0.9 0.3 0.77256 256 6969.6 0.16 78% 5436 C 0.9 0.3 0.77256 258258 258 5227.2 0.12 78% 4077 C 0.9 0.3 0.77258 260260 260 3049.2 0.07 78% 2378 C 0.9 0.3 0.77260 260 3049.2 0.07 78% 2378 C 0.9 0.3 0.77260 262262 262 10454.4 0.24 78% 8154 C 0.9 0.3 0.77262 264264 264 10890 0.25 78% 8494 C 0.9 0.3 0.77264 266266 266266 270270 270 7405.2 0.17 78% 5776 C 0.9 0.3 0.77270 290290 290 270 2 270 2 274428 6.3 0 C 0.9 0.3
270 290 5227.2 0.12 78% 4077 C 0.9 0.3 0.77
BASIN 100/POC 1
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\Hydrology\RationalMethod\19964_MASTER_DRNWQ_SHEET.xlsx 19964 - AUBREY GLEN
11/7/2024
290 290 2613.6 0.06 78% 2039 C 0.9 0.3 0.77290 290
SUM 635540.4 14.59
Notes:

1. Node 230 is the summation of offsite areas of Basin 200 that are tributary to Node 270. There is no change in the offsite development and it is equivalent to the pre-project hydrolodgy for the offsite area in Basin 200 tributary to Node 270, hence the reason the AES code 7 and user information is specfied at that node. Reference the Post-Project Drainage Study Map provided in Map Pocket 2 of the Drainage Study for Aubrey Glen, published by RICK Engineering dated August 30th, 2024 or revision thereof for more specific information. 2. Node 270 is the summation of offsite areas of Basin 100 that are tributary to Node 270. There is no change in the offsite development and it is equivalent to the pre-project hydrolodgy for the offsite area in Basin 100 tributary to Node 270, hence the reason the AES code 7 and user information is specfied at that node. Reference the Post-Project Drainage Study Map provided in Map Pocket 2 of the Drainage Study for Aubrey Glen, published by RICK Engineering dated August 30th, 2024 or revision thereof for more specific information. \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\Hydrology\RationalMethod\19964_MASTER_DRNWQ_SHEET.xlsx

!

!

"#$%&"'$()*+,
%-*.$
()*+,
!$/"0(
12$%"-3()*+,
-0"4"00$-*

5
5

5

5

5

5

5

67
8
9

!

8

8
!
8!

6!

6

6

(2,%".:+
-*

33
".:+&
$&$%#$'

:"&2%(')0+&1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*4%(1+:$

$."(*-3 *4(%1-+"(*
,&+$1;:"0:0-**(+<$%$2%(')0$';"+:()++:$
;%"++$*2$%1"&&"(*(4

:"&2%(')0+1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*;:"0::-&<$$*%$2%(')0$';"+:
2$%1"&&"(*.%-*+$'<,:(1-&%(+:$%&!-2&

&(23)#"-3="*0:$&>

1.7 in.

!

!

"#$%&"'$()*+,
%-*.$
()*+,
!$/"0(
12$%"-3()*+,
-0"4"00$-*

56
7
8

!

7

7
!
7!

5!

5

5

(2,%".9+
-*

33
".9+&
$&$%#$'

9"&2%(')0+&1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*4%(1+9$

$."(*-3 *4(%1-+"(*
,&+$1:9"090-**(+;$%$2%(')0$':"+9()++9$
:%"++$*2$%1"&&"(*(4

9"&2%(')0+1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*:9"099-&;$$*%$2%(')0$':"+9 2$%1"&&"(*.%-*+$';,9(1-&%(+9$%&!-2&

&(23)#"-3<"*09$&=

2.8 in.

1.7 10 2.8 60.7 n/a

4.5 in/hr

!

!

"#$%&"'$()*+,
%-*.$
()*+,
!$/"0(
12$%"-3()*+,
-0"4"00$-*

5

5

67
8
9

!

8

8
!
8!

6!

6

6

(2,%".:+
-*

33
".:+&
$&$%#$'

:"&2%(')0+&1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*4%(1+:$

$."(*-3 *4(%1-+"(*
,&+$1;:"0:0-**(+<$%$2%(')0$';"+:()++:$
;%"++$*2$%1"&&"(*(4

:"&2%(')0+1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*;:"0::-&<$$*%$2%(')0$';"+:
2$%1"&&"(*.%-*+$'<,:(1-&%(+:$%&!-2&

&(23)#"-3="*0:$&>

2.3 in.

!

!

"#$%&"'$()*+,
%-*.$
()*+,
!$/"0(
12$%"-3()*+,
-0"4"00$-*

5

5

5
6

78
9
:

!

9

9
!
9!

7!

7

7

(2,%".;+
-*

33
".;+&
$&$%#$'

;"&2%(')0+&1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*4%(1+;$

$."(*-3 *4(%1-+"(*
,&+$1<;"0;0-**(+=$%$2%(')0$'<"+;()++;$
<%"++$*2$%1"&&"(*(4

;"&2%(')0+1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*<;"0;;-&=$$*%$2%(')0$'<"+; 2$%1"&&"(*.%-*+$'=,;(1-&%(+;$%&!-2&

&(23)#"-3>"*0;$&?

3.9 in.

2.3 50 3.9 58.9 n/a

5.9 in/hr

!

!

"#$%&"'$()*+,
%-*.$
()*+,
!$/"0(
12$%"-3()*+,
-0"4"00$-*

56
7
8

!

7

7
!
7!

5!

5

5

(2,%".9+
-*

33
".9+&
$&$%#$'

9"&2%(')0+&1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*4%(1+9$

$."(*-3 *4(%1-+"(*
,&+$1:9"090-**(+;$%$2%(')0$':"+9()++9$
:%"++$*2$%1"&&"(*(4

9"&2%(')0+1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*:9"099-&;$$*%$2%(')0$':"+9 2$%1"&&"(*.%-*+$';,9(1-&%(+9$%&!-2&

&(23)#"-3<"*09$&=

2.4 in.

!

!

"#$%&"'$()*+,
%-*.$
()*+,
!$/"0(
12$%"-3()*+,
-0"4"00$-*
5

5

5
5
5

5
5

67
8
9

!

8

8
!
8!

6!

6

6

(2,%".:+
-*

33
".:+&
$&$%#$'

:"&2%(')0+&1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*4%(1+:$

$."(*-3 *4(%1-+"(*
,&+$1;:"0:0-**(+<$%$2%(')0$';"+:()++:$
;%"++$*2$%1"&&"(*(4

:"&2%(')0+1-,0(*+-"*"*4(%1-+"(*;:"0::-&<$$*%$2%(')0$';"+:
2$%1"&&"(*.%-*+$'<,:(1-&%(+:$%&!-2&

&(23)#"-3="*0:$&>

4.4 in.

2.4 100 4.4 54.5 n/a

6.0 in/hr
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California (Laurel Heights)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/13/2021

Page 1 of 4 ends

3632400 3632500 3632600 3632700 3632800 3632900 3633000 3633100 3633200 3633300 3632400 3632500 3632600 3632700 3632800 3632900 3633000 3633100 3633200 3633300 497000 497100 497200 497300 497400 497500 497600 497700 497000 497100 497200 497300 497400 497500 497600 497700 32° 50' 17'' N
117° 1' 55'' W
32° 50' 17'' N
117° 1' 25'' W
32° 49' 44'' N
117° 1' 55'' W
32° 49' 44'' N N 117° 1' 25'' W
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:5,050 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Project
Location

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, May 27, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 22, 2018—Aug 31, 2018
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.

Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California (Laurel Heights)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/13/2021

Page 2 of 4 ends

Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI CmrG Cieneba very rocky
coarse sandy loam,
30 to 75 percent
slopes
D 36.5 43.8%
FaC Fallbrook sandy loam, 5
to 9 percent slopes
C 7.5 9.0%
FaD2 Fallbrook sandy loam, 9
to 15 percent slopes,
eroded
C 17.8 21.3%
FeE Fallbrook rocky sandy
loam, 9 to 30 percent
slopes
C 1.4 1.6%
RaC Ramona sandy loam, 5
to 9 percent slopes
C 20.3 24.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 83.5 100.0%
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Laurel Heights Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/13/2021

Page 3 of 4 ends

Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

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.

Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Laurel Heights Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
4/13/2021

Page 4 of 4 ends

APPENDIX D
Inlet Sizing Calculations
Aubrey Glen
Jn-1996411/06/2024
Grate Inlet Sizing (Weir vs. Orifice)
Weir coefficient, Cw 3.0
Orifice coefficient, Co 0.60
Available head, h (feet) 0.25Q100 (Node 252) cfs 0.44
Inlet Type
Effective Length,
Le
(inches)
Effective Length,
Le
(feet)
Debris Factor3 x Le
(feet)
Effective Area,
Ae
(in2)
Effective Area,
Ae
(ft2)
Debris Factor3 x Ae
(ft2)
Capacity based on
Weir Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Capacity based on
Orifice Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Governing
Equation
1212 Series - 12"x12"
Catch Basin1 51.17 4.26 2.13 160.79 1.12 0.56 0.8 1.3 Weir 1218 Series - 12"x18"
Catch Basin1 59.17 4.93 2.47 214.44 1.49 0.74 0.9 1.8 Weir 1818 Series - 18"x18"
Catch Basin1 67.06 5.59 2.79 272.77 1.89 0.95 1.0 2.3 Weir 2424 Series - 24"x24"
Catch Basin1 86.72 7.23 3.61 455.94 3.17 1.58 1.4 3.8 Weir 3636 Series - 36"x36"
Catch Basin1 126.38 10.53 5.27 952.59 6.62 3.31 2.0 8.0 Weir Type 'I' Catch Basin2 110.75 9.23 4.61 699.56 4.86 2.43 1.7 5.8 Weir Note:1. Based on Brooks Products, Inc. - H 20-44 Traffic, Steel Grate, not Parkway, Cast-iron grate2. Based on Drawing Number D-13 & D-15 in the City of San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, dated April 20033. A reduction factor of 50% assumed for clogging.4. Weir equation, Q = CwLe(h)3/2; Orifice equation, Q = CoAe(2gh)1/25. "cfs" = cubic feet per second Aubrey Glen
Jn-1996411/06/2024
Grate Inlet Sizing (Weir vs. Orifice)
Weir coefficient, Cw 3.0
Orifice coefficient, Co 0.60
Available head, h (feet) 0.25Q100 (Node 256, 0.09 AC) cfs 0.34 Inlet Type
Effective Length,
Le
(inches)
Effective Length,
Le
(feet)
Debris Factor3 x Le
(feet)
Effective Area,
Ae
(in2)
Effective Area,
Ae
(ft2)
Debris Factor3 x Ae
(ft2)
Capacity based on
Weir Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Capacity based on
Orifice Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Governing
Equation
1212 Series - 12"x12"
Catch Basin1 51.17 4.26 2.13 160.79 1.12 0.56 0.8 1.3 Weir 1218 Series - 12"x18"
Catch Basin1 59.17 4.93 2.47 214.44 1.49 0.74 0.9 1.8 Weir 1818 Series - 18"x18"
Catch Basin1 67.06 5.59 2.79 272.77 1.89 0.95 1.0 2.3 Weir 2424 Series - 24"x24"
Catch Basin1 86.72 7.23 3.61 455.94 3.17 1.58 1.4 3.8 Weir 3636 Series - 36"x36"
Catch Basin1 126.38 10.53 5.27 952.59 6.62 3.31 2.0 8.0 Weir Type 'I' Catch Basin2 110.75 9.23 4.61 699.56 4.86 2.43 1.7 5.8 Weir Note:1. Based on Brooks Products, Inc. - H 20-44 Traffic, Steel Grate, not Parkway, Cast-iron grate2. Based on Drawing Number D-13 & D-15 in the City of San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, dated April 20033. A reduction factor of 50% assumed for clogging.4. Weir equation, Q = CwLe(h)3/2; Orifice equation, Q = CoAe(2gh)1/25. "cfs" = cubic feet per second Aubrey Glen
Jn-1996411/06/2024
Grate Inlet Sizing (Weir vs. Orifice)
Weir coefficient, Cw 3.0
Orifice coefficient, Co 0.60
Available head, h (feet) 0.25
Q100 (Node 256, 0.16 AC) cfs 0.61
Inlet Type
Effective Length,
Le
(inches)
Effective Length,
Le
(feet)
Debris Factor3 x Le
(feet)
Effective Area,
Ae
(in2)
Effective Area,
Ae
(ft2)
Debris Factor3 x Ae
(ft2)
Capacity based on
Weir Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Capacity based on
Orifice Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Governing
Equation
1212 Series - 12"x12"
Catch Basin1 51.17 4.26 2.13 160.79 1.12 0.56 0.8 1.3 Weir 1218 Series - 12"x18"
Catch Basin1 59.17 4.93 2.47 214.44 1.49 0.74 0.9 1.8 Weir 1818 Series - 18"x18"
Catch Basin1 67.06 5.59 2.79 272.77 1.89 0.95 1.0 2.3 Weir 2424 Series - 24"x24"
Catch Basin1 86.72 7.23 3.61 455.94 3.17 1.58 1.4 3.8 Weir 3636 Series - 36"x36"
Catch Basin1 126.38 10.53 5.27 952.59 6.62 3.31 2.0 8.0 Weir Type 'I' Catch Basin2 110.75 9.23 4.61 699.56 4.86 2.43 1.7 5.8 Weir Note:1. Based on Brooks Products, Inc. - H 20-44 Traffic, Steel Grate, not Parkway, Cast-iron grate2. Based on Drawing Number D-13 & D-15 in the City of San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, dated April 20033. A reduction factor of 50% assumed for clogging.4. Weir equation, Q = CwLe(h)3/2; Orifice equation, Q = CoAe(2gh)1/25. "cfs" = cubic feet per second Aubrey Glen
Jn-1996411/06/2024
Grate Inlet Sizing (Weir vs. Orifice)
Weir coefficient, Cw 3.0
Orifice coefficient, Co 0.60
Available head, h (feet) 0.25Q100 (Node (260) cfs 0.26
Inlet Type
Effective Length,
Le
(inches)
Effective Length,
Le
(feet)
Debris Factor3 x Le
(feet)
Effective Area,
Ae
(in2)
Effective Area,
Ae
(ft2)
Debris Factor3 x Ae
(ft2)
Capacity based on
Weir Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Capacity based on
Orifice Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Governing
Equation
1212 Series - 12"x12"
Catch Basin1 51.17 4.26 2.13 160.79 1.12 0.56 0.8 1.3 Weir 1218 Series - 12"x18"
Catch Basin1 59.17 4.93 2.47 214.44 1.49 0.74 0.9 1.8 Weir 1818 Series - 18"x18"
Catch Basin1 67.06 5.59 2.79 272.77 1.89 0.95 1.0 2.3 Weir 2424 Series - 24"x24"
Catch Basin1 86.72 7.23 3.61 455.94 3.17 1.58 1.4 3.8 Weir 3636 Series - 36"x36"
Catch Basin1 126.38 10.53 5.27 952.59 6.62 3.31 2.0 8.0 Weir Type 'I' Catch Basin2 110.75 9.23 4.61 699.56 4.86 2.43 1.7 5.8 Weir Note:1. Based on Brooks Products, Inc. - H 20-44 Traffic, Steel Grate, not Parkway, Cast-iron grate2. Based on Drawing Number D-13 & D-15 in the City of San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, dated April 20033. A reduction factor of 50% assumed for clogging.4. Weir equation, Q = CwLe(h)3/2; Orifice equation, Q = CoAe(2gh)1/25. "cfs" = cubic feet per second Aubrey Glen
Jn-1996411/06/2024
Grate Inlet Sizing (Weir vs. Orifice)
Weir coefficient, Cw 3.0
Orifice coefficient, Co 0.60
Available head, h (feet) 0.25Q100 (Node (270) cfs 0.59
Inlet Type
Effective Length,
Le
(inches)
Effective Length,
Le
(feet)
Debris Factor3 x Le
(feet)
Effective Area,
Ae
(in2)
Effective Area,
Ae
(ft2)
Debris Factor3 x Ae
(ft2)
Capacity based on
Weir Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Capacity based on
Orifice Equation3, 4,
Qcap
(cfs5)
Governing
Equation
1212 Series - 12"x12"
Catch Basin1 51.17 4.26 2.13 160.79 1.12 0.56 0.8 1.3 Weir 1218 Series - 12"x18"
Catch Basin1 59.17 4.93 2.47 214.44 1.49 0.74 0.9 1.8 Weir 1818 Series - 18"x18"
Catch Basin1 67.06 5.59 2.79 272.77 1.89 0.95 1.0 2.3 Weir 2424 Series - 24"x24"
Catch Basin1 86.72 7.23 3.61 455.94 3.17 1.58 1.4 3.8 Weir 3636 Series - 36"x36"
Catch Basin1 126.38 10.53 5.27 952.59 6.62 3.31 2.0 8.0 Weir Type 'I' Catch Basin2 110.75 9.23 4.61 699.56 4.86 2.43 1.7 5.8 Weir Note:1. Based on Brooks Products, Inc. - H 20-44 Traffic, Steel Grate, not Parkway, Cast-iron grate2. Based on Drawing Number D-13 & D-15 in the City of San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, dated April 20033. A reduction factor of 50% assumed for clogging.4. Weir equation, Q = CwLe(h)3/2; Orifice equation, Q = CoAe(2gh)1/25. "cfs" = cubic feet per second Hydraulic Analysis Report
Project Data
Project Title: 19964 - Aubrey Glen
Designer:

Project Date: Thursday, October 19, 2023
Project Units: U.S. Customary Units
Notes:

Curb and Gutter Analysis: Node 244
Notes:

Gutter Input Parameters
Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0200 ft/ft
Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft
Uniform Gutter Geometry
Manning's n: 0.0130
Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft
Design Flow: 1.0000 cfs
Gutter Result Parameters
Width of Spread: 5.8556 ft
Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in
Area of Flow: 0.3429 ft^2
Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.5462
Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.4053 in
Inlet Input Parameters
Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade
Inlet Type: Curb Opening
Length of Inlet: 8.0000 ft
Local Depression: 4.0000 in
Inlet Result Parameters
Intercepted Flow: 0.9994 cfs
Bypass Flow: 0.0006 cfs
Efficiency: 0.9994
Curb and Gutter Analysis: Node 254
Notes:

Gutter Input Parameters
Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0200 ft/ft
Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft
Uniform Gutter Geometry
Manning's n: 0.0130
Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft
Design Flow: 3.9000 cfs
Gutter Result Parameters
Width of Spread: 9.7549 ft
Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in
Area of Flow: 0.9516 ft^2
Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.3597
Gutter Depth at Curb: 2.3412 in
Inlet Input Parameters
Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade
Inlet Type: Curb Opening
Length of Inlet: 18.0000 ft
Local Depression: 4.0000 in
Inlet Result Parameters
Intercepted Flow: 3.9000 cfs
Bypass Flow: 0.0000 cfs
Efficiency: 1.0000
Curb and Gutter Analysis: Node 258
Notes:

Gutter Input Parameters
Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0200 ft/ft
Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft
Uniform Gutter Geometry
Manning's n: 0.0130
Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft
Design Flow: 0.4500 cfs
Gutter Result Parameters
Width of Spread: 4.3404 ft
Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in
Area of Flow: 0.1884 ft^2
Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.6777
Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.0417 in
Inlet Input Parameters
Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade
Inlet Type: Curb Opening
Length of Inlet: 6.0000 ft
Local Depression: 4.0000 in
Inlet Result Parameters
Intercepted Flow: 0.4500 cfs
Bypass Flow: 0.0000 cfs
Efficiency: 1.0000
Curb and Gutter Analysis: Node 262
Notes:

Gutter Input Parameters
Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0200 ft/ft
Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft
Uniform Gutter Geometry
Manning's n: 0.0130
Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft
Design Flow: 0.8800 cfs
Gutter Result Parameters
Width of Spread: 5.5815 ft
Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in
Area of Flow: 0.3115 ft^2
Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.5664
Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.3396 in
Inlet Input Parameters
Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade
Inlet Type: Curb Opening
Length of Inlet: 8.0000 ft
Local Depression: 4.0000 in
Inlet Result Parameters
Intercepted Flow: 0.8800 cfs
Bypass Flow: 0.0000 cfs
Efficiency: 1.0000
Curb and Gutter Analysis: Node 264
Notes:

Gutter Input Parameters
Longitudinal Slope of Road: 0.0200 ft/ft
Cross-Slope of Pavement: 0.0200 ft/ft
Uniform Gutter Geometry
Manning's n: 0.0130
Gutter Width: 1.5000 ft
Design Flow: 0.9100 cfs
Gutter Result Parameters
Width of Spread: 5.6521 ft
Gutter Depression: 0.0000 in
Area of Flow: 0.3195 ft^2
Eo (Gutter Flow to Total Flow): 0.5611
Gutter Depth at Curb: 1.3565 in
Inlet Input Parameters
Inlet Location: Inlet on Grade
Inlet Type: Curb Opening
Length of Inlet: 8.0000 ft
Local Depression: 4.0000 in
Inlet Result Parameters
Intercepted Flow: 0.9100 cfs
Bypass Flow: 0.0000 cfs
Efficiency: 1.0000

APPENDIX E
Storm Drain Sizing Calculations
Aubrey Glen
J-1996411/7/2024
Manning's n: 0.013
Sizing Factor (%): 30
Slope at:

Node ID (Post-Project) Storm Drain ID Q100 (cfs1) Q100 with Sizing Factor (cfs1) Minimum Pipe Size2 (feet) Recommended Pipe Size (inches) Minimum Pipe Size2 (feet) Recommended Pipe Size (inches) 230-266 (Detained Flow) 1 6.9 8.97 1.41 18" 1.24 18"
230-266 (Undetained Flow) 1 20.0 26.00 2.11 30" 1.85 24" 244-252 2 1.00 1.30 0.68 10" 0.60 8"
252 (Curb Inlet Lateral) 3 0.45 0.59 0.51 6" 0.45 6"
252-254 4 1.38 1.79 0.77 10" 0.68 10"
254 Lateral 5 3.94 5.12 1.14 18" 1.01 12"
254-256 6 5.27 6.85 1.28 18" 1.12 18"
256 (Grate Inlet Lateral) 7 0.35 0.46 0.46 6" 0.41 6"256 (Grate Inlet Lateral) 8 0.62 0.81 0.57 8" 0.50 6" 256-258 9 6.15 8.00 1.35 18" 1.19 18"
258 (Curb Inlet Lateral) 10 0.46 0.60 0.51 6" 0.45 6"
258-260 11 6.54 8.50 1.38 18" 1.22 18"
260 (Grate Inlet Laterals) 12 0.26 0.34 0.41 6" 0.36 6" 260-262 13 6.97 9.06 1.42 18" 1.24 18"
262 (Curb Inlet Lateral) 14 0.90 1.17 0.66 8" 0.58 8"
262-264 15 7.80 10.14 1.48 18" 1.30 18"264-266 16 8.63 11.22 1.54 24" 1.35 18" 266-270 (Detained Flow) 17 12.80 16.64 1.78 24" 1.56 24"270-290 (Detained Flow) 18 12.80 16.64 1.78 24" 1.56 24" 266-270 (Undetained Flow) 17 28.25 36.73 2.40 24" 3 2.10 24" 3 270-290 (Undetained Flow) 18 28.25 36.73 2.40 24" 3 2.10 24" 3 Note:1. "cfs" = cubic feet per second.2. Minimum pipe sizes are calculated using the Manning's equation and are based on the flow rates with 30% factor.3. The existing infrasture at the tie-in location is 24" storm drain. To avoid telescoping, the recommended pipe size at this location is limited to a 24".

1.0% 2.0%
Preliminary Storm Drain Size
The purpose of this table is to provide an estimated pipe size to convey the 100-year flow rates with a sizing factor. \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\Hydraulics\19964_Hydraulics_Storm_Drain_Sizing.xls 342.4
339.1
337.6
337.1
345.5
348.6
348.4
348.4
346.8
339.0
336.6
333.2
333.7
334.3
335.7
335.7
336.3
336.7
336.8
337.3
337.4
337.5
337.5
337.5
337.5
337.6
338.2
338.2
338.3
338.4
338.4
338.5
338.5
338.5
338.6
338.6
338.7
338.8
339.2
339.4
339.4
339.4
339.5
339.6
339.7
340.3
340.4
340.5
340.5
340.5
340.7
341.1
341.2
341.5
341.5
341.7
341.7
341.9
342.2
342.2
342.3
342.3
342.6
342.6
342.7
342.8
343.3
343.5
344.5
344.6
344.6
345.2
345.2
345.3
345.5
345.5
345.6
345.7
345.8
346.0
346.2
346.3
346.4
346.6
346.6
347.5
347.5
06-NOV-2024 17:08
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\Civil\PlanSets\TM\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\Civil\PlanSets\TM\19964_TM_SHT06_Site_North.dgn OF
City of Santee, California
TM NO. 2020-xx
TM NO. 2024-XX/DR 2024-XX
c 2024 Rick
Engineering Com
pany

GORGE SITE

MISSION
13 5620 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
619-291-0707
rickengineering.com

SANTA CLARITA PHOENIX TUCSON LAS VEGAS DENVER

SAN DIEGO ORANGE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO
SDD-116~5' B INLET
340
D9-A4
SDD-116~5' B INLET
SDD-116~5' B INLET
W
M
8'X
2 0'M
W
S
ROS 11331
AUB
REY
G
LEN
D
R
31' 31'

RAISED MEDIAN
EXIST.

RAISED MEDIAN
EXIST.
1631-WS

WATER PER
EXIST. 8" ACP
MAP 15341
EXIST. FH
PED. RAMP
EXIST.
18' 28'

SIDEWALK

GUTTER AND
EXIST. CURB
PED. RAMPS
EXIST.

PER
DWG.2006-3
46 EX
SI
T.DUAL
81"
RCP
SD
PER 2006-345
EXIST. DUAL 19"X30" RCPA SD
EXIST. 36" EL CAPITAN AQUADUCT WATER PER 773-W
EXIST. FH
ST. LIGHT
EXIST.

PER WS-1537
EXIST. 8" VCP SEWER
11' 11'
PER 93-131
EXIST. 24" RCP SD
RO
S
EM
O
N
D
E
LAN
E
(PVT
.)
BELLAMONT PASS (PVT.)
BASSETT LANE (PVT.)
6'

BE REMOVED

BROW DITCH TO
EXIST.

PER 93-131
24" RCP SD
EXIST.

BE REMOVED

BROW DITCH TO
PED. RAMP EXIST.

EXIST.

TO BE REMOVED
EXIST. DWY.

S
TREET
"E
"
(PVT
.)
STREET "F" (PVT.)
MAP 15341

MISSION GORGE ROAD

PUBLIC STREET
19 3
12 13
11 4
14 4
18 16
11 13
1 2
& GUTTER
4" CURB
13 15
3 14
3 4
11 12 13
18 16
11 13
12 4
20 15
13 11
10 10
6 10
2 6'
13'
12'
36'
7 8
16 1.0%

1.0%
14 REMOVED

RAMP TO BE
EXIST. PED.

TO BE REPLACED
EXIST. CURB
PER 6572-WS
EXIST. 8" PVC SEWER

REMOVED
TO BE

POWER POLE
EXIST.
(FF 343.6)
(FF 344.1)
(FF 340.65)
(FF 339.85)
8" ACP WATER
POC TO EXIST.
22 22
27 E
X
IS
T.2
"H
P
GAS
M
AIN
24 25
26 ALLEY "A" (PVT.)

REMOVED
TO BE

POWER POLE
EXIST.

S
E
W
E
R
E
X
IS
T.6
"
VCP
27 AUB
REY
G
LEN
D
R
4" CURB
11 16
18 3.0
%
2 3
4 5
6 18'
8'
16' 12'
FS 344.5
FS 345.0
FS 343.9
FS 340.3
FS 340.9
FS 340.9
7 11'
11'
9'
1 1
2 5'
2 5'
2 5'
15 3
3 9'
9'
9' 9'
2 5'
2 5'
10'
10'
10'
10'
16 52
PLAN 2
PE 340.9
51 PLAN 1
PE 340.7
50 PLAN 1
PE 340.7
PLAN 2
PE 340.9
49 PLAN 2
PE 341.1
45 46
PLAN 2
PE 341.1
47 PLAN 1
PE 341.1
48 PLAN 1
PE 341.1
37 PLAN 2
PE 344.5
38 PLAN 2
PE 344.5
39 PLAN 1
PE 345.2
40 PLAN 1
PE 345.2
32 PLAN 1
PE 348.1
PLAN 1
PE 349.1
31 30
PLAN 1
PE 349.1
29 PLAN 1
PE 349.6
27 PLAN 2
PE 350.1

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.
16'
10'
15'
10'
15'
15 31' 31'
3 0'

IN PLACE

PROTECT
ST. LIGHT,
EXIST.
23 21
19'
18' 18'
3 10'
10'
10'
10'
15 24"
15 24"
REMAIN

SIDEWALK TO

GUTTER AND
EXIST. CURB

CURB INLET
EXIST. 21' TYPE-B2
FS 347.46
FS 347.85
TC 346.56
FS 345.99
BS 346.23
TS 347.23
2-STEPS REQ'D
BS 347.40
TS 348.40
2-STEPS REQ'D
FS 345.45 FS 345.45
TC 346.06
BS 346.64
TS 347.64
2-STEPS REQ'D
TC 345.26
FS 345.04
BS 344.87
TS 347.69
6-STEPS REQ'D
BS 341.36
TS 345.24
8-STEPS REQ'D
BS 341.44
TS 344.52
7-STEPS REQ'D
BS 341.58
TS 342.58
2-STEPS REQ'D
TC 342.65
FS 341.30
TC 341.86

3.5% 2.7% 2.3%

2.5% 4.5%

4.0 %

2.5% 3.2% 1.6%
18' 18'
2 4'
36'
9' 9'

5.5'
FS 341.40
FS 341.40
FS 342.18
BS 337.10
TS 340.98
8-STEPS REQ'D
BS 337.42
TS 340.80
7-STEPS REQ'D
1 FS 337.39 FS 337.07
FS 338.52
5'1
4'1
2'1

3.6%

4.6%
44 PLAN 1
PE 344.3
43 PLAN 1
PE 344.3
42 PLAN 2
PE 345.0
41 PLAN 2
PE 345.0
36 PLAN 1
PE 347.5
35 PLAN 1
PE 347.5
34 PLAN 2
PE 347.6
33 PLAN 2
PE 347.6
28 PLAN 2
PE 350.1
BS 338.55
TS 341.10
5-STEPS REQ'D
BS 338.35
TS 341.10
6-STEPS REQ'D
FS 338.30

CURB INLET
EXIST. 21' TYPE-B2
EXIST. CLEANOUT

REPLACE
31 29
30 29
10' 10'
32 AS SHOWN

RELOCATED
EX. FH TO BE
10' 10' 10'
12 13
14 14
10 1
1 12
10 11 11
10 11 11
W
M
8'X
2 0'M
W
S
3421
3421
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
D10-B9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
H
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
H
BWV
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
H
X
X
X
X
PB
X
ER
X
X
TPB
X
X
X
IRR
X
X
X
M
X
H
M
X
H
M
X
H
M
X
H
IRR
IRR
X
IRR
X
M
X
H
X
X
X
X
M
X
H
X
IRR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TVP X
X
EP
X
X
X
S
X
X
X
X
X
IRR
X
X
PBX
X
X
X
X
X
ER
X
340
340
340
340
340
3 40
3 40
340
340
340
340
340
X
P
X
B
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
X
B
M
X
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IRR
IRR
X
IR
X
R
S
X
X
X
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
PBX
PB
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
C
X
B
C
X
O
BWV
X
X
GM
X
PBX
X
S
X
C
X
X
X
PBX
BWV
E
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
345
3 4
345
5 345
345
345
345
3 45
345
345
345
345
345
345
345
X
XX
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
IRR
X
IRR
IRR
X
X
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
X
PB
X
M
X
H
X
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

WALL ELEVATION TABLE

TW BW XX
1 2
3 PDMWD EASEMENT NOTE:

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

EASEMENT WILL BE SHOWN ON ALL FINAL
ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE TO SAID FACILITIES. SAID

TO PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FOR

BE LOCATED WITHIN A UTILITY EASEMENT DEDICATED

SHOWN HEREON WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE TO

AIR-VAC VALVES, AND ALL RELATED APPURTENANCES

HYDRANTS, WATER METERS, BLOW OFF VALVES,
ALL DISTRICT FACILITIES, I.E. WATER MAINS, FIRE
SEE SHEET 7
4 5
GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 20'
20 10 0 20 40 60
PROPOSED 5' SIDEWALK PER RSD G-07 (PUBLIC)
PROPOSED 4" ROLLED CURB. SEE DETAIL, SHT. 3 (PVT.)
PROPOSED 0" CURB (PVT.)
PROPOSED SIDEWALK PER RSD G-07 (PVT.)
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT (PVT.)
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT (PVT.)
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT (PVT.) (RSD D-09)
PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE W/ RPDA (PVT.)

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LATERAL (PVT.)

PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER METER ASSEMBLY
PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER RP DEVICE (PVT.)
PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE (PVT.)
PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER (PVT.)
PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT (PVT.)
PROPOSED SEWER MAIN (PVT.)
PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE (PVT.)
(PROVIDE "NO DUMPING" STENCILING
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLET (PVT.)
(RSD D-01) (PROVIDE "NO DUMPING" STENCILING
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN TYPE-A CURB INLET (PVT.)

NOTED OTHERWISE)
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN (PVT.) (18" HDPE UNLESS
20 21
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
PROPOSED 6" CURB & GUTTER PER RSD G-02 (PUBLIC)
341.0 337.0
6 7
341.5
341.0
345.1
345.5
348.5
350.5
338.5
339.8
342.0
342.9
344.5
343.5
PROPOSED 10" PVC WATER MAIN (PUBLIC)

EASEMENT TABLE
1 BE VACATED.

WATER DISTRICT EASEMENT TO
EXIST. 10' PADRA DAM MUNICIPAL
1 27

TO BE REMOVED/ABANDONED
EXIST. 6" ACP WATER MAIN
24 CAP AT MAIN.

EXIST. GAS LATERAL TO BE REMOVED.
25 26
CAP AT MAIN.

EXIST. SEWER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED.

CAP AT MAIN.

EXIST. WATER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED.
23 PROPOSED TYPE F CATCH BASIN PER RSD D-07 (PVT.)
DEVICE (PVT.) (MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM) (BMP-1)
PROPOSED S.D. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT

SITE NORTH TO MISSION GORGE ROAD
6 29 PROPOSED 24" RCP STORM DRAIN (PUBLIC)
30 PER RSD D-09 (TYPE-A) (PUBLIC)

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT
31 PER RSD D-10 (TYPE-B9) (PUBLIC)

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT
32 PER WAS. STD. WF-02

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
1 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18
353.6
353.7
351.5
351.5
345.5
60 349.276
342.7
343.3
344.4
344.5
344.6
345.2
345.3
345.5
345.5
345.5
345.6
345.8
346.0
346.2
346.2
346.3
346.4
346.4
346.6
346.6
346.8
347.2
347.2
347.4
347.5
347.5
347.5
347.6
347.7
347.8
348.2
348.6
348.8
349.1
349.1
349.2
349.2
349.3
349.3
349.3
349.4
349.4
349.5
349.9
350.6
350.7
351.3
351.5
352.4
353.7
355.3
355.6
355.7
356.2
356.4
356.4
356.5
356.5
356.6
357.0
357.2
357.4
357.6
357.6
357.9
358.7
358.9
359.3
359.6
359.6
359.7
360.0
360.2
370.9
372.3
377.7
377.8
377.8
378.4
378.7
10'
06-NOV-2024 17:08
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\Civil\PlanSets\TM\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\Civil\PlanSets\TM\19964_TM_SHT07_Site_South.dgn OF
City of Santee, California
TM NO. 2020-xx
TM NO. 2024-XX/DR 2024-XX
c 2024 Rick
Engineering Com
pany

GORGE SITE

MISSION
13 5620 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
619-291-0707
rickengineering.com

SANTA CLARITA PHOENIX TUCSON LAS VEGAS DENVER

SAN DIEGO ORANGE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO

LARK STREET
MW
3416
I
RP
X
X
X
BWV
W
M
MAP 15341

MARX GEORGE
APN:386-300-10

MARX GEORGE
APN:386-300-10
PER
2006-3
46 EXIST.18
"
RCP
SD

SIDEWALK

GUTTER AND
EXIST. CURB
MAP 15341
EXIST. FH
PED. RAMP
EXIST.

RO
S
EM
O
N
D
E
LAN
E
(PVT
.)
BELLAMONT PASS (PVT.)
LOT 5
MAP 688

BE REMOVED

BROW DITCH TO
EXIST.

STREET "A" (PVT.)
S
TREET
"D
"
(PVT
.)
STREET "C" (PVT.)
S
TREET
"B
"
(PVT
.)
1 20
14 15
13 11
10 10
6 10
2 6'
13'
2 6'
13'
3 7
8 9
11 11
13 16
18 16
10 13
11 14
16 14 16
4 20
10 SIDEWALK

GUTTER AND
EXIST. CURB,
CONNECT TO 3
4 15
24"
15 13 11
3 4
13 11
13 4
11 15
14 14
16 18
12 16
12 16
16 15
24"
PER G-1366
30" HDPE
EXIST.
16 LAUREL

HEIGHTS
DRIVE
(EXIST
.PVT
.RD
.)

1.7%

1.0%
12 EXIST.6"PVC SEWER
EXIST.6"
VCP
SEWER
(FF 343.6)
22 ACP
WATER
EXIST.6"
EXIST. 6" ACP
POC TO
27 E
X
IS
T.2
"H
P
GAS
M
AIN
22 AREA
COMMON
27 AUB
REY
G
LEN
D
R
25 2
4'
13'
RIM=371.0
PER G-1366
CL TYPE A-4 C.O.

EXIST.

PER G-1366
RIPRAP
EXIST.

1.8%

2.0 %

2.0 %
6 7
8 9
10 11
13 14
15 16
18 FS 346.8
FS 347.3
FS 349.5 FS 350.3
FS 352.2
FS 351.3
FS 349.3
11'
11'
9'
9'
FS 350.0
1 8'
2 5'
13'
9' 9'
2 5'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10' 10'
10'
10'
10'
12 23
(FL 361.1)
(TW 365.10)
PER G-1366

HEADWALL
EXIST. SD
15'
10'
7'
16 13'
32 PLAN 1
PE 348.1
PLAN 1
PE 349.1
31 30
PLAN 1
PE 349.1
29 PLAN 1
PE 349.6
27 PLAN 2
PE 350.1
1 PLAN 2
PE 347.9
2 PLAN 1
PE 347.6
3 PLAN 2
PE 347.9
4 PLAN 2
PE 347.9
5 PLAN 1
PE 348.8
6 PLAN 1
PE 348.8
9 PLAN 2
PE 347.9
10 PLAN 1
PE 348.3
11 PLAN 1
PE 348.9
12 PLAN 2
PE 349.3
19 PLAN 2
PE 349.7
20 PLAN 1
PE 350.2
21 PLAN 1
PE 350.7
22 PLAN 2
PE 351.1
26 PLAN 2
PE 349.8
25 PLAN 1
PE 350.3
24 PLAN 1
PE 350.8
23 PLAN 2
PE 351.3
8 PLAN 2
PE 349.4
13 PLAN 2
PE 350.2
15 PLAN 1
PE 351.1
16 PLAN 1
PE 351.1
18 PLAN 2
PE 352.0

STRUCTURE
EXIST. TWO-STORY

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.

STRUCTURE

ONE-STORY
EXIST.
10'
15'
12'
16'
2'
5' 12'
19'
FS 347.6
2 6'
19'
5'
12'
13' 13'
18' 18'
3 0'
W
A
Y
P
ER
P
W
-
3 8
P
RO
P
O
S
ED
D
R
IV
E
12 10'

5.5'
& GUTTER
4" CURB
33 2
& GUTTER
4" CURB
TC 352.13
TC 350.36
FS 347.46
FS 347.85
TC 346.56
FS 345.99
BS 346.23
TS 347.23
2-STEPS REQ'D
BS 347.40
TS 348.40
2-STEPS REQ'D
FS 345.45 FS 345.45
TC 346.06
BS 346.64
TS 347.64
2-STEPS REQ'D
TC 345.26
FS 345.04
BS 344.87
TS 347.69
6-STEPS REQ'D

2.5% 4.5%

4.0 %

2.5% 3.2% 1.6%

2.0 %

2.9%

2.6%
36'
9' 9'
11'
26'
13' 13'
26'
13' 13'

2.5% 2.5%
FS 352.25
FS 350.45
TC 350.21 FS 349.80
FS 349.13
FS 348.55
17 FS 348.93 3.2%
FS 348.15 FS 347.84
FS 348.03
FS 348.10

4.6%
FS 349.04
FS 349.04
TC 350.21 TC 350.45
BS 348.56
TS 349.56
2-STEPS REQ'D
TC 348.25 TC 348.50

3.6%

4.6%
FS 350.55
BS 350.51
TS 351.01
1-STEP REQ'D

2.5%

3.6%
BS 347.69
TS 348.19
1-STEP REQ'D
36 PLAN 1
PE 347.5
35 PLAN 1
PE 347.5
34 PLAN 2
PE 347.6
33 PLAN 2
PE 347.6
28 PLAN 2
PE 350.1
17 PLAN 2
PE 352.0
14 PLAN 2
PE 350.2
7 PLAN 2
PE 349.4

8.0'
10' 10' 10'
10'
10'
14'
10 1
1 12
1 13
0 1
1 1
1 10 11 11
10 1
1 1
1 12
12 W
M
3421
3421
3421
3421
3421
3416
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309 3309
PDMWD EASEMENT NOTE:

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

EASEMENT WILL BE SHOWN ON ALL FINAL
ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE TO SAID FACILITIES. SAID

TO PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FOR

BE LOCATED WITHIN A UTILITY EASEMENT DEDICATED

SHOWN HEREON WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE TO

AIR-VAC VALVES, AND ALL RELATED APPURTENANCES

HYDRANTS, WATER METERS, BLOW OFF VALVES,
ALL DISTRICT FACILITIES, I.E. WATER MAINS, FIRE
PROPOSED 5' SIDEWALK PER RSD G-07 (PUBLIC)
PROPOSED 4" ROLLED CURB. SEE DETAIL, SHT. 3 (PVT.)
PROPOSED 0" CURB (PVT.)
PROPOSED SIDEWALK PER RSD G-07 (PVT.)
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT (PVT.)
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT (PVT.)
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT (PVT.) (RSD D-09)
PROPOSED FIRE SERVICE W/ RPDA (PVT.)

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER LATERAL (PVT.)

NOTED OTHERWISE)
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN (PVT.) (18" HDPE UNLESS
20 21
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
PROPOSED 6" CURB & GUTTER PER RSD G-02 (PUBLIC)
PROPOSED 10" PVC WATER MAIN (PUBLIC)

EASEMENT TABLE
1 BE VACATED.

WATER DISTRICT EASEMENT TO
EXIST. 10' PADRA DAM MUNICIPAL
27 TO BE REMOVED/ABANDONED
EXIST. 6" ACP WATER MAIN
24 CAP AT MAIN.

EXIST. GAS LATERAL TO BE REMOVED.
25 26
CAP AT MAIN.

EXIST. SEWER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED.

CAP AT MAIN.

EXIST. WATER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED.
23 PROPOSED TYPE F CATCH BASIN PER RSD D-07 (PVT.)
DEVICE (PVT.) (MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM) (BMP-1)
PROPOSED S.D. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT
29 PROPOSED 24" RCP STORM DRAIN (PUBLIC)
30 PER RSD D-09 (TYPE-A) (PUBLIC)

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT
31 PER RSD D-10 (TYPE-B9) (PUBLIC)

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT
32 PER WAS. STD. WF-02

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
33 PROPOSED CURB OUTLET PER RSD D-25A
7 350.5 343.5
10'
10'
10'
11 12 13
X
X
X
X
X
X
345
3 4
345
5 345
345
345
345
345
345
345
XX
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10 X
X
M
X
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
X
X
S
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EMX
X
X
TVP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
3 50
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
X
X
T
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PBX
PB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PB
X
X X
X
X
X
C
X
O
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
X
B
P
X
B
X
X
X
C
X
O
X
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X XX
U
X
V
355
355
355
355
355
355
355
X
X
P
X
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
X
B
X
X
IRR
X
X
X
IRRX
X
IRR
IR
X
R
X
X
X
BWV
X
X
X
X
X
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
P
X
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
S
X
X
X
FS 351.55
FS 350.95
FS 348.55
XX
X
X
GVX
C
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
360
360
360
PB
360
X
X
X
S
X
IRR
GVX
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
X
X X
X X
X
365
365
365
365
3 65
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BWV
IRR
X
X
PB
X

IRR IRR
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
X
X
IRR
IRR
3 70
370
370
370 370
X
M
X
H
M
X
H
X
X
X
X
IRR
X
IRR
X
M
X
H
X
IRR
I
IRR
RR
X
IRR
X
X
375
375 X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SEE SHEET 5
MAP 7646
GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 20'
20 10 0 20 40 60

WALL ELEVATION TABLE

TW BW XX
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 350.5
350.5
355.0
359.0
362.5
361.0
361.5
359.5
357.5
350.5
350.0
346.5
349.5
351.8
352.1
350.3
349.0
349.0
349.0
349.0
349.0
349.0
7 SITE SOUTH
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
3 6
4 5
7 8

APPENDIX F
Emergency Overflow Calculations

SCHEMATIC OF OFF-SITE FLOW

CONVEYANCE FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

5.30 CFS x 2 Openings +6.47 CFS x 2 Openings =23.54 CFS23.54 CFS > 20.0 CFS,therefore the Q100 flowratefrom Laurel Heights is fullyconveyed by Type-F CatchBasin TW 361.3
EXIST.

HEADWALL

CROSS SECTION OF OFF-SITE FLOW

CONVEYANCE FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS
360.7 359.6 TW 361.3 H = 11.6'
359.6 FL 360.5 HP

0.9' 5.30 5.30 CFS x 2 Openings = 10.6 CFS

0.9' 6.47 6.47 CFS x 4 Openings = 12.94 CFS

**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 266.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 99.68 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 32.00 MANNING'S N = 0.015

USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7273
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.59
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 28.17
TC(MIN.) = 8.46
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 100.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 98.76 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 248.00 MANNING'S N = 0.015

ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.97
PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.17
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.46 Tc(MIN.) = 8.92
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 290.00 = 948.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 290.00 TO NODE 290.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
============================================================================ Total Q discharging
from Aubrey Glen Site
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Nov 6 2024 19964 - Aubrey Glen 24in. SD Capacity
Circular
Diameter (ft) = 2.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 0.50
N-Value = 0.013
Calculations
Compute by: Known Depth
Known Depth (ft) = 2.00
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 2.00
Q (cfs) = 15.99
Area (sqft) = 3.14
Velocity (ft/s) = 5.09
Wetted Perim (ft) = 6.28
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 1.44
Top Width (ft) = 0.00
EGL (ft) = 2.40
0 1 2 3 4
Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Section

99.50 -0.50
100.00 0.00
100.50 0.50
101.00 1.00
101.50 1.50
102.00 2.00
102.50 2.50
103.00 3.00
Reach (ft)

28.17 CFS - 15.99 CFS =

12.18 CFS OF OVERFLOW
ADD 300' TO ELEVATIONS
PROVIDED TOB 39.1

BOTTON OF
BASIN (FG 37.6)
TOB 38.6
FF 341.6 FF 341.4 FF 341.4 FF 341.6 MWS 8' X 24' 54.7'

SINCE BASIN IS SLOPED, HALF

THE BASIN LENGTH IS USED
IN WEIR EQUATION (27.35FT)
Weir Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Wednesday, Nov 6 2024 1996 - Aubrey Glen Overflow Back Up (Weir)
Rectangular Weir
Crest = Sharp
Bottom Length (ft) = 27.35
Total Depth (ft) = 20.00
Calculations
Weir Coeff. Cw = 3.33
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 12.18
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.26
Q (cfs) = 12.18
Area (sqft) = 7.15
Velocity (ft/s) = 1.70
Top Width (ft) = 27.35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 1996 - Aubrey Glen Overflow Back Up (Weir) -4.00 -4.00

0.00 0.00

4.00 4.00

8.00 8.00

12.00 12.00

16.00 16.00

20.00 20.00
Length (ft) Weir W.S.

0.26 + 338.6 = 338.86 FT
338.86 OVERFLOW DEPTH < 341.4 (FF ELEV)

EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TO DISCHARGE

ONTO MISSION GORGE ROAD
MAP POCKET 1
Drainage Study Map
for
Townsend Multi-Family
[Pre-Project]
360
365
375
380
385
385
390
395
395
395
400
400
400
405
405
410
415
410
410
410
410
410
370
365
375
370
385
375
20"
98"ROUND
98"ROUND
ECB
ECB
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
ECB
CB
PP
PP

STOPSTOP
KIBE
ALEN
KIBE
ALEN
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
EKPE
EKPE
LCAER
LCAER
CB
S
S
S
S
S
CB
HV-2003
S
S
S
CB
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
CB
CB
370
375 375
(PRE-PROJECT)
250
0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 80'
80 40 80 160 240
INLET
INLET
270
BASIN 100
BASIN 200
LINE 4
225
230
100
102
110
115
120
125
130
135
200
202
205
210
215
207
222
260
217
218
220
212
211
206

0.3AC.

2.51AC.

0.12AC.

0.06 AC.

0.1AC.

1.7AC.

0.1AC.

0.3AC.

0.1AC.

0.4AC.

0.1AC

0.4AC.
.

0.9AC.

0.6 AC.

0.9AC.

0.5AC.

0.6 AC.

0.1AC.

0.2AC.

0.5AC.

0.2AC.

0.4AC.

0.6 AC.

0.1AC.

2.3AC.

0.1AC.

PROJECT SITE

AUBREY GLEN

NOT PART OF PROJECT

OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT,

NOT PART OF PROJECT

OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT,
Tc = 7.1 min
Q_100 = 20.0 cfs
A = 5.6 ac
Tc = 12.4 min
Q_100 = 6.9 cfs
A = 5.6 ac

FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

UNDETAINED FLOWS

FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

DETAINED FLOWS
Tc = 8.59 min
Q_100 = 43.62 cfs
A = 14.59 ac
Tc = 17.14 min
Q_100 = 22.88 cfs
A = 14.59 ac

FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

PRE-PROJECT WITH UNDETAINED

FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

PRE-PROJECT WITH DETAINED

MISSIONGORGEROAD
AUBREY
GLEN
DRIVE
X
339.89 X
150
BASIN 100
BASIN 200 - NODE 230
POI1-BASIN 100 & BASIN 200 -NODE 290
21-JAN-2025 11:04
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\19964_drn_pre01.dgn

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - EXHIBIT FOR DRAINAGE STUDY ONLY
LEGEND

SUB BASIN DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
XXXXX
XX.X AC.

BOUNDARY

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN

DRAINAGE AREA

DRAINAGE NODE ID

FLOW PATH
NOTES
c 2021 Rick
Engineering Com
pany
5620 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
619-291-0707
rickengineering.com

SANTA CLARITA PHOENIX TUCSON LAS VEGAS DENVER
SAN DIEGO ORANGE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO J-19964

AUBREY GLEN
FOR

DRAINAGE STUDY MAP

POINT OF COMPARISON (POC)

ON-SITE DRAINAGE AREA
ENGINEERING ON JULY 19, 2021.

HEIGHTS DRAINAGE STUDY, PUBLISHED BY RICK

REFERENCE ONLY AND SOURCED FROM THE LAUREL

3. FLOWS TO NODE 230 ARE PROVIDED FOR
OFF-SITE DRAINAGE AREAS.

HATCHED IN BLUE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF
OF THE AUBREY GLEN PROJECT. AREAS NOT

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ON-SITE DRAINAGE AREA

2. AREAS HATCHED IN BLUE ARE
CONVEYED TO THE SAN DIEGO RIVER.

GORGE ROAD AND COLLECTED BY INLETS AND

ARE CONVEYED NORTH, TURNING EAST ON MISSION

EASTERN EDGE OF AUBREY GLEN DRIVE WHERE THEY
OF THE SITE. FLOWS THEN DISCHARGE ALONG THE

COBBLE SWALE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER

1. FLOWS FROM BASIN 100 DISCHARGE TO A
Revised January 29, 2025
November 7, 2024
MAP POCKET 2
Drainage Study Map
for
Townsend Multi-Family
[Post-Project]
360
365
375
380
385
385
390
395
395
395
400
400
400
405
405
410
415
410
410
410
410
410
370
365
375
370
385
375

DOVE STREET

LARK STREET
20"
98"ROUND
98"ROUND
ECB
ECB
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
ECB
CB
PP
PP

STOPSTOP
KIBE
ALEN
KIBE
ALEN
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
EKPE
EKPE
LCAER
LCAER
19964_MissionGorge\Survey\_Field\FieldData\RawData\alta\ CB
S
S
S
S
S
CB
S
S
CB
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
CB
CB
370
375 375

FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

PRE-PROJECT WITH DETAINED

FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

POST-PROJECT WITH DETAINED
0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 80'
80 40 80 160 240
8'X20'MWS
3421
3421
3421
3421
3421
3421
3421
3416
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
033 9
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
D10-B9
3421
BASIN 100
BASIN 200

5.6 AC

6.3AC

0.05AC

0.18AC
0 0.16 AC
.12AC

0.07AC

0.25AC

0.17AC

0.12AC

0.06 AC
Tc = 7.1 min
Q_100 = 20.0 cfs
A = 5.6 ac

NOT PART OF PROJECT

OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT,

NOT PART OF PROJECT

OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT,
Tc = 12.4 min
Q_100 = 6.9 cfs
A = 5.6 ac

0.09A
256
C
264
240
242
230
244
254
252
258
260
262
270

0.24AC

0.11AC

1.00 AC

0.07AC

FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

UNDETAINED FLOWS

FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

DETAINED FLOWS
Tc = 17.14 min
Q_100 = 22.88 cfs
A = 14.59 ac
Tc = 17.37 min
Q_100 = 22.67 cfs
A = 14.59 ac

FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

POST-PROJECT WITH UNDETAINED
Tc = 8.81 min
Q_100 = 33.90 cfs
A = 14.59 ac
Tc = 8.59 min
Q_100 = 43.62 cfs
A = 14.59 ac

FLOWS FROM LAUREL HEIGHTS

PRE-PROJECT WITH UNDETAINED
INLET

MISSIONGORGEROAD
AUBREY
GLEN
DRIVE
X
339.89 X
340 340
266
345
345
345
350
350
350 350
350 350
BASIN 100
BASIN 200 - NODE 230
POI1-BASIN 100 & BASIN 200 -NODE 290
20-MAR-2025 16:08
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\19964_drn_post01.dgn

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - EXHIBIT FOR DRAINAGE STUDY ONLY
LEGEND

SUB BASIN DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
XXXXX
XX.X AC.

BOUNDARY

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN

DRAINAGE AREA

DRAINAGE NODE ID

FLOW PATH
NOTES
c 2021 Rick
Engineering Com
pany
5620 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
619-291-0707
rickengineering.com

SANTA CLARITA PHOENIX TUCSON LAS VEGAS DENVER
SAN DIEGO ORANGE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO J-19964 (POST-PROJECT)

POINT OF COMPARISON (POC)

ON-SITE DRAINAGE AREA
FROM THE ADJACENT LAUREL HEIGHTS PROJECT.

CALCULATED USING THE UNDETAINED Q100 FLOWS

4. PEAK FLOWS CALCULATED AT POI 1 ARE
100. FLOWS REMAIN UNCHANGED AT

4. NO IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED IN BASIN
DISCHARGE DIRECTLY TO MISSION GORGE ROAD.

WILL OVERTOP THE PROJECT FRONTAGE OF

3. IN THE EVENT OF EMERGENCY OVERFLOW, FLOWS
WATER STORM DRAIN LINE.

THROUGH THE PROJECT SITE THROUGH A CLEAN
TYPE-F CATCH BASIN AT NODE 230 AND ROUTED

2. FLOWS FROM BASIN 200 ARE COLLECTED BY A
REDUCTION OF RUNOFF AND PEAK FLOW.

TO THE PRE PROJECT CONDITION, RESULTING IN A

REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS AREA IN COMPARISON

1. THE POST PROJECT CONDITION PROPOSES A

TOWNSEND MULTI-FAMILY
FOR

DRAINAGE STUDY MAP
Revised March 21, 2025
January 29, 2025
November 7, 2024
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]

CITY OF SANTEE

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)

STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR

TOWNSEND MULTI-FAMILY
TM-2024-0003
7735 Mission Gorge Road
Santee, CA 92071
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):
386-701-02
ENGINEER OF WORK:

Shavger Rekani PE
___________________________________________________________________________________ Shavger Rekani PE 90893, 3/26
PREPARED FOR:

KB Homes Coastal
9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 600
San Diego, California 90025
PDP SWQMP PREPARED BY:

RICK
5620 Friars Rd, San Diego, CA 92110
(619) 291-0707
PLANS PREPARED BY:

RICK
5620 Friars Rd, San Diego, CA 92110
(619) 291-0707
DATE OF SWQMP:

November 7, 2024
January 29, 2025
Revised March 21, 2025
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronym Sheet
PDP SWQMP Preparer's Certification Page
PDP SWQMP Project Owner's Certification Page
Submittal Record
Project Vicinity Map
FORM I-1 Applicability of Permanent, Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements FORM I-2 Project Type Determination Checklist (Standard Project or PDP) FORM I-3B Site Information Checklist for PDPs
FORM I-4 Source Control BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM I-5 Site Design BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM I-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs
Attachment 1a: DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit
Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design
Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Plan
Attachment 3a: B Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 3b: Draft Maintenance Agreement (when applicable) Attachment 4: Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Storm Water BMPs

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008

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

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STORM WATER QUALITY

MANAGEMENT PLAN (PDPSWQMP)

AUBREY GLEN
Revision Page
March 21, 2025
This PDPSWQMP presents a revision to the January 29, 2025, report pursuant to the City of Santee plan check comments received March 14, 2025. The following text identifies the plan check comments along with the responses in bold.

PDPSWQMP Review Comments – Dr. Luis A. Parra & William O’Gorman (Dated 3/14/2025) II. SWQMP Study Review

1. EOW to sign and stamp report prior to approval.

Noted; signature and stamp has been provided.

2. Developer to sign Owners Certification to approval.

Noted; signature has been provided.
3b. Third Review: EOW has stated in the response that the dispersion area will have amended soil. On the DMA Exhibit, revise the callout for pervious dispersion by adding “with amended soil”.

Callout has been revised to add “with amended soil” as requested. 4a. Second Review: A rock lined swale on Mission Gorge Road is proposed to treat runoff from the Aubrey Glen Drive & Mission Gorge Road improvements. However, there is a concern that a 40’ long swale is inadequate to treat all tributary runoff including co-mingled flows, approximately 6.3 acres according to the drainage study. We believe there is an adequate area within Aubrey Glen Drive Right-Of-Way to provide additional treatment opportunities. i. New Comment, Third Review: The EOW responded that green street BMPs do not need to be sized. However, we believe that 2 x 20 feet swales to treat 500 linear feet of new sidewalk—most of which is on a different road—along with approximately 6.3 acres of comingled flow, does not provide adequate treatment. We also believe that the fact that green street BMPs do not need to be sized to a specific numeric criteria is not excuse to completely disregard a reasonable practical size (after all, if the designer were right and sizing is completely irrelevant when we assign the green street definition into a design, then what prevents the design to use a 5 ft long swale using the designer’s logic)? Common engineering sense should be the prevailing criteria in this case. In reality, the swale may become inundated and the short length of the swale most likely prevents pollutants attached to sediment particles from settling, and also establishes a very short residence time inside the swale. It is the reviewers’ opinion that treatment should be provided to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) when using green-street BMPs to follow the intent of the MS4 permit. It is our belief that such MEP has not been satisfied in this case. Refer to section E.3.b.(3).(a) on page 96 of 139 of the MS4 permit for design criteria regarding new or retrofit paved sidewalks for PDP Exemptions, subject to the City’s discretion. New sidewalks should direct runoff to adjacent vegetated areas or remain hydraulically disconnected from paved roads. Along Aubrey Glen Drive, east of the sidewalk, there are opportunities within the 5-foot landscaped area for sidewalk runoff to discharge into and remain hydraulically disconnected from the paved road. In summary, the reviewer does not believe that (a) the swales proposed are the only possible option, and (b) that they satisfied the non-numerical criteria of “to the maximum extent practicable”.

Per meeting with the City of Santee, REC Consultants, and RICK on 3/19/2025, the removal of the green street elements along Mission Gorge Road was discussed in-lieu of installing green street elements along Aubrey Glen Drive. However, due to constraints, a portion of the proposed sidewalk along Aubrey Glen Drive has been hydraulically disconnected and will flow across a 4.5’ wide landscape buffer and into Aubrey Glen Drive. During the meeting, the removal of the green street element along Mission Gorge Road was discussed. After further consideration, they will remain to treat the full depth pavement replacement of Aubrey Glen Drive which is tributary to the green street elements along Mission Gorge Road. It is noted that a large area is tributary to these green street elements and it’s likely that a higher maintenance frequency will be required. Please see the updated O&M Table provided in Attachment 3 of the PDP SWQMP.
4bi. New Comment, Third Review: The detail shows 20” of ponding and storage within a lined swale.

How will this runoff drain?
The downstream finished grade of the swale will tie into the flow line of the gutter to allow the surface ponding to draw down. The remaining water held below the surface will be taken up by vegetation or evapotranspiration. Runoff drains through curb cuts located upstream and downstream of the swale. A screenshot of the County of San Diego Green Street Standard GS-2.01 plan view has been provided for reference.
5ai. New Comment, Third Review: The storm drain callouts have been added but each point to the incorrect storm drain. Please swap the callouts to resolve the comment.

Callouts have been updated to reference the correct storm drain system.

CITY OF SANTEE INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: John Keane, Principal Civil Engineer
FROM: Emily Stein, Storm Water Program Coordinator
DATE: March 6, 2025
SUBJECT: TM-2024-0003 Aubrey Glen 7737 Mission Gorge Rd The Stormwater Department has reviewed this project’s most recent submittal dated January 29, 2025, and requests that the applicant address the following:

1. Storm Water Quality Management Plan:
a. Please fill out Form I-6 for each of the two green streets elements. Assign a unique identifying number to each swale.

I-6 forms have been filled out for each green street element along Mission Gorge Road. The green street elements have been given ID’s of 3A and 3B. b. Please fill out Form I-8 to its entirety.

A complete I-8 Form has been provided by the geotechnical engineer and included in report.

In both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Form, a no infiltration condition has been identified and a basis of very low infiltration rates provided as the basis. Part 1 results (Page 2 of the Form) states that if any answers from row 1-4 is ‘no’ that infiltration may be possible. Given the answer to Criteria 1 is no, the Geotech moved directly to Part 2. Similarly in Part 2, the answer to Criteria 5 is no, so the Geotech moved directly to the Part 2 results stating ‘no infiltration’.
c. DMA Exhibit
i. Repeat Comment: In addition to the MWS, add a note calling out the HOA as the responsible party for maintenance of the biofiltration basin, green streets elements, brow ditches, and FTC devices. HOAs tend to resist all of their maintenance obligations and it is easier to enforce when it is called out in the SWQMP.

Note on DMA has been updated to state that the modular wetland system, biofiltration basin, green street elements, and brow ditches are to be maintained by the HOA into perpetuity. The modular wetland system is designated as the proposed FTC device.
ii. DMA Nos. SM-1 and SM-2 are called out twice on the exhibit. a. Please assign unique DMA IDs for all DMAs, or, can also consider combining SM-1 and SM-2 with GS-1, per recommendation from REC.

SM-1 and SM-2 have been split to create SM-3 and SM-4. It is not intended for SM-1 and SM-2 to be treated by the green street elements as they are selftreating areas. b. Consider combining DM-1 with GS-1, if feasible.

DM-1 cannot be combined with GS-1 as its not tributary to the green street elements along Mission Gorge Road.
c. Update the DMA table in the exhibit and also in Attachment 1B depending on how you want to proceed.

DMA Table in exhibit and Attachment 1B has been updated accordingly. iii. Please call out/identify relocated dispersion areas.

Dispersion areas are not identified in any backyard areas and are called out on the DMA exhibit.
d. Attachment 3a: Include maintenance actions and items for the green streets elements and FTC devices.

The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Table in Attachment 3a has been updated to include maintenance action items for the green street elements. Since the modular wetland system (MWS) is the proposed FTC device, its operations and maintenance items are listed.

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STORM WATER QUALITY

MANAGEMENT PLAN (PDPSWQMP)

AUBREY GLEN
Revision Page
January 29, 2025
This PDPSWQMP presents a revision to the November 7, 2024 report pursuant to the City of Santee plan check comments received December 19, 2024. The following text identifies the plan check comments along with the responses in bold.

PDPSWQMP Review Comments – Dr. Luis A. Parra & William O’Gorman (Dated 12/19/2024) II. SWQMP Study Review
ii.1. Main SWQMP Comments
1a. Second Review: The EOW is proposing Impervious Area Dispersion to satisfy retention requirements utilizing Dispersion Area from the City of San Diego Criteria & worksheet. This is acceptable; however, the calculations within the worksheet relies on this area being amended soil per their SD-F BMP Factsheet. Confirm this area will feature amended soil. If it is, call this out as a BMP on the DMA exhibit, with a detail showing the depth of amended soil.

Noted; dispersion areas are classified as amended soils. Amended soil detail will be provided in future submittal during Final Engineering. Amended soils for this project are only used for site design and to prove that on site retention is met, classifying the amended soils as BMPs is not necessary as they're not a structural BMP. In Final Engineering, the amended soils will be included in the maintenance agreement to be maintained into perpetuity. 1b. Second Review: A portion of the dispersion area is located within the private yards according to the Landscape Concept Plan. Please remove the dispersion area from the private yards, as the dispersion area needs to be a permanent BMP and there is no guarantee what future homeowners will use this area for.

Noted; dispersion areas removed from private yards.
1c. Second Review: Add preliminary roof ridge lines and downspout locations to the DMA exhibit to show the intent that a portion of the roofs are to drain to that area. Add a note saying that roof downspout locations are to be verified prior to issuance of the building permits.

Roof ridge lines and downspout locations have been assumed by bisecting the roof area. Its anticipated that revisions will occur between preliminary and final engineering, and roof ridge lines and downspout locations will be provided in the final engineering phase. Note added to exhibit as requested.
ii.2. Additional SWQMP Comments

3. EOW to sign and stamp report prior to approval.

Noted; signature and stamp to be provided in later submittal prior to approval.

4. EOW to sign and stamp report prior to approval.

Noted; signature and stamp to be provided in later submittal prior to approval. 6a. New Comment, Second Review: A rock lined swale on Mission Gorge Road is proposed to treat runoff from the Aubrey Glen Drive & Mission Gorge Road improvements. However, there is a concern that a 40’ long swale is inadequate to treat all tributary runoff including co-mingled flows, approximately 6.3 acres according to the drainage study. We believe there is an adequate area within Aubrey Glen Drive Right-Of-Way to provide additional treatment opportunities.

The rock lined swale are proposed as a green street element feature, which are not required to be numerically sized. The city has requested a meandering sidewalk to match the existing frontage improvements of the neighboring property, given the constraints, the proposed swales have been maximized within the area adjacent to roadway. 6b. New Comment, Second Review: Provide a detail of the rock lined swale. Call out the swale or revise callout #33 on the Preliminary Grading Plan.

Details for "green street element" have been added to the TM plans. 6c. New Comment, Second Review: The small landscaped slope area upstream of the rock lined swales are delineated as a self-mitigating DMA, however, these DMA’s do not fit the criteria of a selfmitigating DMA as they drain into a BMP (the rock swale). Revise to include them within the DMA that flows into the swale.

Classified self-mitigating areas meet the criteria as noted in the City of Santee BMP Design Manual. The called-out areas are pervious areas along the property line of the project which don't require treatment.
7a. Second Review: A Trash Capture Device has not been shown on the plans.

The proposed modular wetland system is already considered an acceptable certified full trash capture system per Table 2: High Flow Capacity Trash Full Capture Systems, developed by the State Water Resources Control Board. No additional Trash Capture Device is required. 8ai. Second Review: The upstream bypass was removed, and it appears the MWS was not designed with internal bypass. The MWS detail on sheet 15 of the Tentative Map includes notes that “Unit was set offline doe to not meeting the required inlet to outlet drop ratio of 1.33’ for sediment storage.

If internal bypass is required, EOR must adjust elevations to meet manufacturing requirements.” & “Recommended external bypass at elevation = 337.02”. Revise the design/detail to convey the bypass peak flow rate.

The external bypass has been re-added to plans. During a high flow event, flows will back up in the modular wetland system (MWS) to the external bypass, then discharge to a bypass pipe with a flow line set at an elevation above the water quality depth. High flows will be diverted to continue downstream in the storm drain, with low flows directed to the MWS. Refer to the MWS detail for the water quality ponding depth.
8bi. Second Review: Provide a Modular Wetland detail prepared by CONTECH, or other approved proprietary system, for the proposed BMP due to invert elevations of the downstream storm drain being critical. At minimum, show the flow line in, flow line out, and adequate internal bypass (if utilized). See comment above. Provide adequate bypass.

The external bypass has been re-added to plans. During a high flow event, flows will back up in the modular wetland system (MWS) to the external bypass, then discharge to a bypass pipe with a flow line set at an elevation above the water quality depth. High flows will be diverted to continue downstream in the storm drain, with low flows directed to the MWS. Refer to the MWS detail for the water quality ponding depth.
8ci. Second Review: The planting for the Modular Wetland System remains unchanged from the 1st submittal. The selected plants do not appear on the approved plant list from Contech. Revise planting or provide documentation from Contech that the selected plants are appropriate.

Noted; selected plants revised per Landscape Architect recommendations. 9b. Second Review, New Comment: Please provide a detail of the biofiltration basin.

Detail for biofiltration basin has been included on sheet 15 of 16 of the TM. 12ci. Second Review: Comment has not been addressed. - Call out the storm drain system. Identify the offsite storm drain for runoff from Laurel Heights.

Callout added to DMA exhibit, one for the Aubrey Glen Storm Drain, and another for the Laurel Heights Storm Drain.

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STORM WATER QUALITY

MANAGEMENT PLAN (PDPSWQMP)

AUBREY GLEN
Revision Page
November 7, 2024
This PDPSWQMP presents a revision to the August 30, 2024 report pursuant to the City of Santee plan check comments received October 24, 2024. The following text identifies the plan check comments along with the responses in bold.

PDPSWQMP Review Comments – Dr. Luis A. Parra & William O’Gorman (Dated 10/21/2024) II. SWQMP Study Review
ii.1. Main SWQMP Comments

1. The main discussion regarding the SWQMP is not included in the document submitted: How to justify the use of a proprietary BMP with negligible retention capacity as a replacement of a retention or partial retention non-proprietary BMP in a development occurring in soil type C with groundwater deep in excess of 20 ft (per form 1-3B) when a certain percentage of retention is expected? The document does not address this issue and leaves it open for a next submittal.

Therefore, without more details or explanations, the reviewers cannot agree with the BMP selection occurring in the document presented, and cannot prepare a detailed review. Please provide detailed justification of the selection of a proprietary BMP and how the project is planning to comply with retention requirements. Also, justify why some areas destined as parks cannot be used for some detention/infiltration capabilities in such a way that:
o (a) The layout of the buildings is not altered.
o (b) The functionality as a park/open space remains.
o (c) Some water quality/retention function can be gained by the project.

The City of Santee does not have a retention worksheet as part of its BMP Design Manual, so worksheet B-5.2 and B-5.6 from the City of San Diego have been included based on direction from City Staff on 11/5/2024. The DMA exhibit has designated the areas that will be reserved for impervious area dispersion.

2. A DMA Map with a clear estimation of percentage impervious of each DMA has not been included. A clear estimation of impervious percentages cannot be verified, and it seems that pervious percentage has been assigned very generously, from what can be approximately inferred from the Open Space Map provided (pervious areas overlap doors, impervious pathways for walking, do not include BMP area nor landscape in sidewalks, include what it looks like walking paths as pervious areas, etc). The reviewers do not believe that the overall perviousness of the project approaches 27% (BMP-1 25% pervious + BMP-2 50% pervious gives an overall 72% pervious). Consequently, a detailed review of the calculations is not possible. Please provide a detailed DMA map with reliable pervious percentage calculations to provide a detailed review.

When updating the percentage pervious, update of the drainage calculations will also be necessary.

Typically for the first submittal of entitlements, a rough assumption of impervious area is used acknowledging there likely will be site changes that would impact a detailed impervious area calculation. However, given this comment, a detailed measurement was performed and details provided in Attachment 1A showing the calculation of impervious area. DMA-1 is 73% impervious and DMA-2 is 44% impervious.

However, anticipating that there might be additional site changes that could potentially increase the percent impervious, the proposed MWS that treats DMA-1 was sized for a tributary area of 85%. The required water quality flow rate based on its actual percent impervious is 0.529cfs per Attachment 1E, however 0.58cfs will be provided. Similarly, the footprint of the biofiltration basin is well oversized for the area tributary to it (103 sf required vs 296 sf provided).

As a consequence of comments 1 and 2, a detailed review will occur in the next submittal. However, some comments have been added in the following section to reduce review time in the future. New comments should be expected in the next round when the main issues are addressed. ii.2. Additional SWQMP Comments

3. EOW to sign and stamp report prior to approval.

Comment noted. This will be included in a future submittal.

4. Developer to sign Owners Certification prior to approval.

Comment noted. This will be included in a future submittal.

5. Check “Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water” for AC Condensation lines on forms I-3B and I-4. “Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water” for AC Condensation lines on forms I-3B and I-4 has been checked.

6. The proposed street improvements (sidewalk) along Aubrey Glen is included within DMA 1, but it is not clear how runoff is captured and conveyed to the Modular Wetland System (BMP-1) for treatment. Either demonstrate how runoff is captured & conveyed, or delineate a separate DMA and provide an additional BMP for treatment of the Aubrey Glen Improvements.

Separate DMAs have been delineated for frontage improvements that will be tributary to a green street element on Mission Gorge Road as well as self-mitigating areas that define vegetated slopes on the edge of the property and one de minimis area on the eastern edge that is not tributary to any BMPs.

7. On the DMA Exhibit, call out a Trash Capture Device to be installed on the cleanout downstream of the Modular Wetland and bypass storm drain line to comply with the NPDES Full Trash Capture Order.

After review of the memorandum titled, “Full Capture Device Installation Planning for Compliance with the Statewide Trash Control Policy” dated January 17, 2019 and prepared by DMax, it appears that the public inlets downstream of our project site will provide full trash capture compliance. Additionally, it states for years 7 through 10 that the City of Santee would pass an ordinance requiring private properties to install BMPs on their property to address private PLUs. If this ordinance has been passed, please provide a copy for reference.

The memorandum includes exhibits that define a strategy for full compliance and this site has not been identified for the placement of a full trash capture device within the private property.

8. Modular Wetland System (BMP-1) General Comments:
o (a) The proposed curb inlet immediately upstream from the MWS has one 24” pipe discharging into the MWS and another 24” pipe discharging into a proposed cleanout.

Clarify what is happening in this area on the plans and in the reports. If this is being utilized as a diversion structure, provide calculations and details demonstrating the entire water quality flow is treated by the modular wetland without overflowing to the clean water line. o (b) Provide a Modular Wetland detail prepared by CONTECH, or other approved proprietary system, for the proposed BMP due to invert elevations of the downstream storm drain being critical. At minimum, show the flow line in, flow line out, and adequate internal bypass (if utilized).

The following is a response to comment 8a and 8b above. To simplify the design, internal bypass within the MWS is proposed for high flows and the upstream diversion structure has been removed along with the small reach of storm drain. We have provided a detail from Contech, however it will need to be revised to show an internal weir wall.

Coordination with the vendor is currently ongoing and this detail will be provided with a future submittal.
o (c) Ensure the planting is appropriate for the BMP based on the Modular Wetland Plant List.

Comment noted. Planting will be appropriate.

9. Biofiltration Basin (BMP-2) General Comment:
o (a) Provide calculations for the proposed biofiltration basin in accordance with Appendix B.5 and Worksheet B.5-1 of the City’s BMP Manual.

Worksheet B.5-1 has been included in Attachment 1E.

10. Include the Infiltration Feasibility Worksheet Form I-8. Justify a no infiltration condition and how the retention condition will be satisfied.

Form I-8 has been included in Attachment 1D.

11. Attachment 1B DCV Calculation references “Summit Avenue”. Please revise.

Comment noted, this has been revised.

12. DMA Exhibit General Comments:
o (a) Identify all pervious areas in the exhibit with a typical color as it does not seem in agreement with grading plans to assume DMA-1 with 25% pervious and DMA-2 with 50% pervious.

For clarity, an additional exhibit has been prepared showing the impervious and pervious area of the site and it has been included in Attachment 1A. o (b) Label contours and add arrows for flow paths.

Comment noted and addressed.
o (c) Call out the storm drain system. Identify the offsite storm drain for runoff from Laurel Heights.

Comment noted and addressed.
o (d) Label Aubrey Glen and Mission Gorge Road.

Comment noted and addressed.

CITY OF SANTEE INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: Michael Coyne, Principal Planner
FROM: John Keane, Principal Civil Engineer
VIA: Emily Stein, Storm Water Program Coordinator
DATE: October 15, 2024
SUBJECT: TM-2024-0003 Mission Gorge Condos Aubrey Glen 7737 Mission Gorge Rd The Stormwater Department has reviewed this project’s most recent submittal dated September 25, 2024, and requests that the applicant address the following:

1. Storm Water Quality Management Plan (for Priority Development Projects):
a. On the DMA Exhibit:
i. Call out all storm drain inlets as containing a Full Trash Capture Device (FTC) and identify type/model.

The memorandum includes exhibits that define a strategy for full compliance and this site has not been identified for the placement of a full trash capture device within the private property.
ii. Call out location(s) of pet waste stations.

Pet waste stations have been called out.
iii. Add a note designating the HOA as the responsible party for maintenance of the Modular Wetland System (MWS), biofiltration basin, and FTC devices.

Form I-6 in the PDPSWQMP calls out the HOA as the responsible part for maintenance of the MWS.
iv. Include details of the MWS, biofiltration basin, FTC devices, and pet waste stations.

These may be added as separate sheet(s) if necessary.

Details of the MWS and biofiltration basin have been provided in Attachment 1A. • b. Attachment 1B (sheet no. 42 of 74):
i. Calls out DMA-1 as being treated by BMP-1A and 1B. Please confirm if this is a typo or if two MWSs/BMPs are treating DMA-1.

This has been revised. DMA-1is treated by BMP-1 (MWS) and DMA-2 is treated by BMP-2 (biofiltration basin).

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008

SWQMP PREPARER'S

CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: Townsend Multi-Family
Permit Application Number: TM-2024-0003

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 Santee BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City of Santee 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 Shavger Rekani
________________________________________________________ Print Name
RICK ______________________________
Company
3/21/2025
Date
Engineer's Seal:

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008

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

Submittal
Number
Date Project Status Summary of Changes
1 8/30/2024 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Initial Submittal
2 11/7/2024 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Minor site changes, addition of
retention area, and impervious area
exhibit
3 1/29/2025 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Update retention areas and address
City of Santee comments.
4 3/21/2025 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Address City of Santee comments.

Addition of green street elements
along Aubrey Glen.

X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Project Name: Townsend Multi-Family
Permit Application Number: TM-2024-0003
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Applicability of Permanent, Post-Construction
Storm Water BMP Requirements
(Storm Water Intake Form for all Development Permit Applications) Form I-1
Model BMP Design
Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Aubrey Glen
Permit Application Number: TM-2024-0003 Date: 3/21/2025 Project Address:
7735 Mission Gorge Road Santee, CA 92071
Determination of Requirements
The purpose of this form is to identify permanent, post-construction requirements that apply to the project. This form serves as a short summary of applicable requirements, in some cases referencing separate forms that will serve as the backup for the determination of requirements.

Answer each step below, starting with Step 1 and progressing through each step until reaching "Stop".

Upon reaching a Stop, do not complete further Steps beyond the Stop.

Refer to BMP Design Manual sections and/or separate forms referenced in each step below.

Step Answer Progression
Step 1: Is the project a "development
project"?
See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes Go to Step 2.
No Stop.

Permanent BMP requirements do not apply.

No SWQMP will be required. Provide
discussion below.

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

Step 2: Is the project a Standard
Project, Priority Development Project
(PDP), or exception to PDP definitions?
To answer this item, see Section 1.4 of
the BMP Design Manual in its entirety
for guidance, AND complete Form I-2,
Project Type Determination.
Standard
Project
Stop.

Only Standard Project requirements apply,
including Standard Project SWQMP.
PDP Standard and PDP requirements apply,
including PDP SWQMP.

Go to Step 3.
Exception
to PDP
definitions
Stop.

Standard Project requirements apply, and any
additional requirements specific to the type of
project. Provide discussion and list any
additional requirements below. Prepare
Standard Project SWQMP.

X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-1 Page 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015
[Step 2 Continued from Page 1] Discussion / justification, and additional requirements for exceptions to PDP definitions, if applicable:

Step 3 (PDPs only). Is the project
subject to earlier PDP requirements
due to a prior lawful approval?
See Section 1.10 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes Consult the [City Engineer] to determine
requirements. Provide discussion and identify
requirements below.

Go to Step 4.
No BMP Design Manual PDP requirements apply.

Go to Step 4.

Discussion / justification of prior lawful approval, and identify requirements (not required if prior lawful approval does not apply):

Step 4 (PDPs only). Do
hydromodification control
requirements apply?
See Section 1.6 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes PDP structural BMPs required for pollutant
control (Chapter 5) and hydromodification
control (Chapter 6).

Go to Step 5.
No Stop.

PDP structural BMPs required for pollutant
control (Chapter 5) only.

Provide brief discussion of exemption to
hydromodification control below.

Discussion / justification if hydromodification control requirements do not apply:

The entirety of the site is collected by on storm drain and discharged directly to the San Diego River, which is considered a hydromodification exempt body at the discharge location.

Step 5 (PDPs subject to
hydromodification control
requirements only). Does protection
of critical coarse sediment yield areas
apply based on review of WMAA
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Area Map?
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes Management measures required for
protection of critical coarse sediment yield
areas (Chapter 6.2).

Stop.
No Management measures not required for
protection of critical coarse sediment yield
areas. Provide brief discussion below.

No CCSYA exist in project boundary.
x
x
x
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Priority Determination Form
Form I-2
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Information
Project Name: Townsend Multi-Family
Permit Application Number: TM-2024-0003 Date: 3/21/2025 Project Address:
7735 Mission Gorge Road Santee, CA 92071
Project Type Determination: Standard Project or Priority Development Project (PDP) The project is (select one): New Development Redevelopment The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is: _81,554_ ft2(__1.9__) acres Is the project in any of the following categories, (a) through (f)? Yes No (a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces (collectively over the entire project site). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.

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

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

X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-2 Page 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015
Yes No (d) New or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and discharging directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). “Discharging directly to” includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).

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

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

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

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

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

Yes – the project is a Priority Development Project (PDP).

The following is for redevelopment PDPs only:

The area of existing (pre-project) impervious area at the project site is: ___101,930 ___ ft2 (A)
The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is 81,554_ ft2 (B) Percent impervious surface created or replaced (B/A)*100: __81__% The percent impervious surface created or replaced is (select one based on the above calculation):
less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) – only new impervious areas are considered PDP OR
greater than fifty percent (50%) – the entire project site is a PDP X
X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Site Design Checklist
For PDPs
Form I-3B (PDPs)
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Summary Information
Project Name Townsend Multi-Family
Project Address 7735 Mission Gorge Rd, Santee, CA 92071 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 386-701-02
Permit Application Number TM-2024-0003
Project Hydrologic Unit Select One:
Santa Margarita 902
San Luis Rey 903
Carlsbad 904
San Dieguito 905
Penasquitos 906
San Diego 907
Pueblo San Diego 908
Sweetwater 909
Otay 910
Tijuana 911
Project Watershed
(Complete Hydrologic Unit, Area, and Subarea
Name with Numeric Identifier)
San Diego Hydrologic Unit
Lower San Diego Hydrologic Area
Santee Hydrologic Subarea (907.12)
Parcel Area
(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated
with the project)
__2.55_ Acres (____111,078__ Square Feet)
Area to be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area) _2.69_ Acres (___117,351___ Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area) __1.87_ Acres (__81,554___ Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area) __0.82_ Acres (___35,797____ Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.

This may be less than the Parcel Area.

X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 2 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Existing Site Condition
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply):
Existing development
Previously graded but not built out
Demolition completed without new construction
Agricultural or other non-impervious use
Vacant, undeveloped/natural
Description / Additional Information:

The existing site is an industrial lot with a building and concrete parking lot.

Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply):
Vegetative Cover
Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas
Impervious Areas
Description / Additional Information:

The existing site is an industrial lot with a building and concrete parking lot.

Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply):
NRCS Type A
NRCS Type B
NRCS Type C
NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW):
GW Depth < 5 feet
5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet
10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet
GW Depth > 20 feet
X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercourses
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
None
Description / Additional Information:

X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 3 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Existing Site Drainage Patterns
How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer:
(1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; The existing drainage conveyance onsite is urban. Drainage from the existing project flows south to north and is discharged onto Mission Gorge Road and collected by existing inlets. The inlets convey flows to the existing storm drain conveyance system on Mission Gorge Road, and flow towards the San Diego River. (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, Approximately 5.6 acres with 20 cfs of unmitigated offsite flows are conveyed through the existing site. Drainage from the south is collected by a water quality basin and detention vault and discharged onto the Townsend Multi-Family site. Flows from the site are collected by an existing brow ditch and conveyed to Mission Gorge Road. (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; An existing brow ditch conveys flows from the northern offsite area through the Townsend Multi-Family site.
(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; The pre-project drainage area discharges to the POC-1 location located on Mission Gorge Road. The project site is 2.55 acres, located within Basin 200. Basin 200 includes a portion of southern offsite areas which is 5.6 acres. The total area of Basin 200 inclusive of the project site is 8.15 acres. Basin 100 is represented by the adjacent offsite area that’s also tributary to POC-1. Basin 100 has a total area of 6.44 acres. The total tributary area to POC-1 is 14.59 acres, with a 100-year undetained runoff value of 43.62 cfs, and a detained runoff value of 22.88 cfs.
(5) Describe existing site drainage patterns;
The pre-project site drains generally in the north direction to POC-1 on the northeast side of the property along Mission Gorge Road. The project site is situated in one major basin boundary, Basin 200. Offsite flows adjacent to the project site are represented by Basin 100 and a portion of Basin 200.

Basin 100 begins south of the project site and drains north to a cobble lined swale. Flows from the swale discharge through a curb opening onto Aubrey Glen Drive, then are collected by a v-gutter and conveyed north to an existing curb inlet on Mission Gorge Road. Basin 200 also begins on the south of the site and drains north to a detention vault and then to a water quality basin. Flows are discharged from the basin onto the Townsend Multi-Family project site, then collected by an existing brow ditch and conveyed to Mission Gorge Road. Flows from Basin 100 and 200 confluence on Mission Gorge Road prior to entering the existing storm drain system and ultimately discharging into the San Diego River.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 4 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Proposed Site Development
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:

The proposed project is a 2.69 acre redevelopment project that proposes the construction of multifamily homes, a residential street with street parking, and green street elements along Mission Gorge Road.

List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):

The project’s impervious features include multifamily dwellings, residential street with parking, and street improvements.

List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):

The project’s pervious features include landscaped areas.

Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? Yes
No
Description / Additional Information:

The site will be mass graded for the proposed development.

X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 5 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Proposed Site Drainage Patterns
Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)?
Yes
No
If yes, provide details regarding the proposed project site drainage conveyance network, including storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels, and the method for conveying offsite flows through or around the proposed project site. Identify all discharge locations from the proposed project site along with a summary of the conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide a summary of pre- and post-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the runoff discharge locations. Reference the drainage study for detailed calculations.

The proposed drainage system will collect surface flows via grate and curb storm drain inlets. Flows will be conveyed via underground storm drains to a modular wetland system located north of the property. The modular wetland system discharges flow to additional storm drain which drains to a point of comparison (POC-1) located at a proposed cleanout on Mission Gorge Road. A biofiltration basin is also proposed to treat 0.2 acres of the project frontage that isn’t captured by the modular wetland system. Runoff from the basin confluence flows with the remaining site in a proposed cleanout and drain to POC-1 on Mission Gorge Road.

Describe proposed site drainage patterns:

Drainage patterns for the proposed condition will remain similar to drainage patterns in the preproject condition. In the post-project condition, the project area is also found in Basin 200, with offsite flows in Basin 100. No improvements are proposed in Basin 100; therefore Basin 100 will remain in the same condition as the pre-project. Regarding Basin 200, flows from the adjacent sites south of the project are collected by a proposed clean water line storm drain system and conveyed north to the edge of the property boundary. The clean water line is intended to route offsite flows through the site which are already treated via the water quality basin south of the project. To ensure appropriate sizing, the clean water line is sized and designed for the unmitigated 100-year storm event rather than the mitigated 100-year storm event. Flows from the south are captured in a proposed type-F catch basin on the south property edge of the site and routed to the clean water line that flows north to the property frontage.

Drainage onsite of the Townsend Multi-Family project will be collected by curb inlets and grate inlets and conveyed by a proposed dirty water storm drain system to the northern edge of the property boundary. The dirty water line is treated via proposed modular wetland system (MWS), then confluenced with the clean water line prior to discharge from the site. Additional drainage along the northern portion of the Townsend Multi-Family site is collected by a grate inlet and treated by a biofiltration basin, then joined with flows discharging the site to Mission Gorge Road. Flows from Basin 100 and Basin 200 confluence in a proposed cleanout on Mission Gorge Road prior to ultimately discharging to the San Diego River.

X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 6 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply):
On-site storm drain inlets
Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest control
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
Description / Additional Information:

X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 7 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water and Pollutants of Concern Runoff from the project site enters a curb inlet at the intersection of Summit Avenue and Princess Joann Road and flows to the San Diego River. After entering the San Diego River, runoff is discharged to the Pacific Ocean.

List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs and/or Highest Priority Pollutants from the WQIP for the impaired water bodies:
303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s)
TMDLs / WQIP Highest Priority
Pollutant
San Diego River Enterococcus, Fecal Coliform,
Low Dissolved Oxygen,
Manganese, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, Total Dissolved
Solids, Toxicity
Indicator bacteria.

Identification of Project Site Pollutants*
*Identification of project site pollutants is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs (note the project must also participate in an alternative compliance program unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated)
Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):

Pollutant
Not Applicable to the
Project Site
Expected from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving Water
Pollutant of Concern
Sediment
Nutrients
Heavy Metals
Organic Compounds
Trash & Debris
Oxygen Demanding
Substances
Oil & Grease
Bacteria & Viruses
Pesticides
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 8 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Hydromodification Management Requirements
Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean.
No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides.

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

The project site ties into the existing storm drain system on Mission Gorge Road, then discharges directly to the San Diego River.

X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries?
Yes
No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed?
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps
If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2.b of the SWQMP. Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.

Discussion / Additional Information:

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 9 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit.
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)

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-3B Page 10 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Other Site Requirements and Constraints
When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or local codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements.

Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Source Control BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I-4
Model BMP Design
Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Townsend Multi-Family
Permit Application Number: TM-2024-0003
Source Control BMPs
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist.

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

Discussion / justification may be provided.

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

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

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

Not anticipated for site.

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

Not anticipated for site.

X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-4 Page 2 of 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Source Control Requirement Applied?
SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SC-5 not implemented:

SC-6 Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants (must answer for each source listed below)
On-site storm drain inlets
Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest control
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Discussion / justification if SC-6 not implemented. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discussed. Justification must be provided for all "No" answers shown above.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Site Design BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I-5
Model BMP Design
Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Townsend Multi-Family
Permit Application Number: TM-2024-0003
Site Design BMPs
All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist.

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

Discussion / justification may be provided.

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

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

SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-3 not implemented:

SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-4 not implemented:

SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-5 not implemented:

X
X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-5 Page 2 of 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Site Design Requirement Applied?
SD-6 Runoff Collection Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-6 not implemented:

Rain barrels or permeable pavements not proposed; therefore runoff collection is not applicable to project.

SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SD-7 not implemented:

SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SD-8 not implemented:

Harvest and use is not feasible for project. Reference Worksheet B.3-1 (Form I-7) in Attachment 1c of this report for the Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist.

X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Form I-6 (PDPs)
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Townsend Multi-Family
Permit Application Number: TM-2024-0003
PDP Structural BMPs
All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s).

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

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

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

The site consists of two management areas. DMA-1, which includes the majority of the proposed development that drains to the Modular Wetland system, and DMA-2 which comprises of the north project frontage not captured by the MWS. DMA-1 is 2.40 acres, and DMA-2 is 0.15 acres. Both DMAs require pollutant control BMPs. The total drainage area is 2.55 acres. (Continue on page 2 as necessary.)
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-6 Page 1 of 4 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. BMP – 1
Construction Plan Sheet No.

Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
RICK
Shavger Rekani PE
(619) 291-0707
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? HOA
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? HOA
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? HOA
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-6 Page 2 of 4 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. BMP – 2
Construction Plan Sheet No.

Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
RICK
Shavger Rekani PE
(619) 291-0707
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? HOA
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? HOA
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? HOA
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-6 Page 3 of 4 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. BMP – 3A
Construction Plan Sheet No.

Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) GREEN STREET ELEMENT – DISPERSION AREA Purpose:
Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
RICK
Shavger Rekani PE
(619) 291-0707
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? HOA
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? HOA
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? HOA
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Form I-6 Page 4 of 4 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. BMP – 3B
Construction Plan Sheet No.

Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) GREEN STREET ELEMENT – DISPERSION AREA Purpose:
Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? RICK
Shavger Rekani PE
(619) 291-0707
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? HOA
What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? HOA
HOA
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
ATTACHMENT 1

BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 1a DMA Exhibit (Required)
See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.
Included
Attachment 1b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing
DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA
Area, and DMA Type (Required)*
*Provide table in this Attachment OR on
DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a
Included on DMA Exhibit in
Attachment 1a
Included as Attachment 1b, separate
from DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1c Form I-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility
Screening Checklist (Required unless the
entire project will use infiltration BMPs)
Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-7.
Included
Not included because the entire
project will use infiltration BMPs
Attachment 1d Form I-8, Categorization of Infiltration
Feasibility Condition (Required unless
the project will use harvest and use
BMPs)
Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-8.
Included
Not included because the entire
project will use harvest and use
BMPs
Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design
Worksheets / Calculations (Required)
Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP
Design Manual for structural pollutant
control BMP design guidelines
Included

X
X
X
X
X
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit:

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

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Attachment 1A

360
365
370
375
370
365
370

LARK STREET
X
X
X
PP
CB

STOPSTOP
KIBE
ALEN
KIBE
ALEN
BIKE
LANE
BIKE
LANE
EKPE
EKPE
LCAER
LCAER

MISSIONGORGEROAD
DRIVE
AUBREY
GLEN
8'X20'MWS
3421
3421
3421
3421
3421
3421
3421
3416
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
033 9
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
3309
D10-B9
3421
350
350
340 340
345
345
345
350 350
350 350
X
339.89
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21-MAR-2025 10:26
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\SD CorpStds 2005.dscript \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\19964_swqmp01.dgn c 2021 Rick
Engineering Com
pany
XXXXX
XX.X AC.

FLOW PATH
5620 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
619-291-0707
rickengineering.com

SANTA CLARITA PHOENIX TUCSON LAS VEGAS DENVER

SAN DIEGO ORANGE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO
#XX BMP ID
TO MS4

PREVENTION OF ILLICIT DISCHARGES

STORM DRAIN STENCILING OR SIGNAGE

VEGETATION

CONSERVE NATURAL AREAS, SOILS, AND

MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREAS

MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION

IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSION

TOLERANT SPECIES

LANDSCAPING WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT
SC-2
SD-3
SD-2
SD-5
SD-4
SD-7
SC-1
(DMA) BOUNDARY

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA

DMA AREA
DMA ID

SOURCE CONTROL/SITE DESIGN LEGEND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BMP LEGEND

SOURCES OF RUNOFF POLLUTANTS

ADDITIONAL BMPS BASED ON POTENTIAL
J-19964
SC-6
NOTES
0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 30'
30 15 30 60 90
(BMP) ELEMENT

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

IMPERVIOUS AREA

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - EXHIBIT FOR PDP SWQMP ONLY

PERVIOUS DISPERSION AREA

PERVIOUS AREA

IMPERVIOUS AREA DIRECTED TO

TOWNSEND MULTI-FAMILY
FOR

AREA EXHIBIT

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
Revised March 21, 2025
January 29, 2025
November 7, 2024
VERIFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS.

10. ROOF RIDGES AND DOWN SPOUT LOCATIONS TO BE
INTO PERPETUITY.

BROW DITCHES, ARE TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA

BIOFILTRATION BASIN, GREEN STREET ELEMENTS, AND

9. THE MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM (FTC),
WAS USED IN ALL CALCULATIONS AND SIZING.

8. A CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTION OF 85% IMPERVIOUS
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE DEMOLISHED.

7. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS

6. 85TH PERCENTILE STORM EVENT = 0.52 IN.

EXHIBIT.

IN THE WMAA. PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHMENT 2A FOR AN

LOCATION IDENTIFIED AS APPROPRIATE FOR EXEMPTION

AND DISCHARGED TO THE SAN DIEGO RIVER IN A

THE SITE ARE COLLECTED BY EXISTING STORM DRAIN

5. THE SITE IS CONSIDERED HMP EXEMPT. FLOWS FROM

4. DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER IS GREATER THAN 20-FEET.

COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREA.

3. SITE LOCATION IS OUTSIDE OF CRITICAL
IDENTIFIED ON SITE.

2. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE "C" HAVE BEEN
DESIGN MANUAL DATED FEBRUARY 2016.

QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF SANTEE BMP

THIS EXHIBIT ADDRESS THE PERMANENT STORM WATER

1. SIZES OF THE POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPs SHOWN ON
1 2

0.15AC.
56 SF
177SF

0.13AC.

2.40 AC.

SM-4
150 SF
DMA-2
DM-1
SM-1
GS-1
DMA-1
SD-5
SD-5
SD-7
SD-7
SC-6
SC-2
SC-1
SC-2
SC-1
SD-7
SD-4, SD-5
SD-2, SD-3
SC-2
SC-1
SC-2
SC-1
SC-2
SC-1
SC-2
SC-1
SC-2
SC-1
POC-1
SC-2
SC-1
SC-2
SC-1
SC-2
SC-1
(2,802 SF TOTAL)

DISPERSION

IMPERVIOUS AREA
(2,979 SF TOTAL)

DISPERSION

IMPERVIOUS AREA
GS-2.01
GS-2.01
SYSTEM

CONVEYANCE

STORM DRAIN

AUBREY GLEN
SYSTEM

CONVEYANCE

STORM DRAIN

LAUREL HEIGHTS
3B
3A
(1,114 SF TOTAL)

WITH AMENDED SOIL

DISPERSION AREA

PERVIOUS
(1,739 SF TOTAL)

WITH AMENDED SOIL

DISPERSION AREA

PERVIOUS
SM-2
91SF
SM-3
186 SF

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
SIDEWALK WITH 4.5'

DISCONNECTED

HYDRAULICALLY
130 SF

MATERIAL LIST (INCLUDED WITH STRUCTURE DELIVERY UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)

COUNT DESCRIPTION PART NUMBER PROVIDED BY INSTALLED BY
487.70
CF WETLAND MEDIA (19 BAGS, 14.45 TONS) BIO-WMEDIA CONTECH CONTRACTOR 1 MWSL0820 INTERNALS KIT MWSINT082059586V CONTECH CONTRACTOR 5 DRAINDOWN ASSEMBLY ---- CONTECH PRECASTER
1 SEALANT FOR JOINTS PRECASTER CONTRACTOR
4 30"Ø x 4" FRAME AND COVER, EJ
#001810119A02, NV 325-003656 CONTECH PRECASTER

MARK DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION BY

AUBREY GLEN

SANTEE, CA

PROPOSAL PACKAGE
MODULAR WETLANDS MWSL0820OP -
827143-010
SITE DESIGNATION: BMP 1
BCT
BCT
CHECKED: DRAWN: BCT
DESIGNED: APPROVED: \\PSUWQKTWCRMF01.QUIKRETE.NET\MERLIN\PROJECT\ACTIVE\827100\827143\827143-10-MODULAR WETLANDS\DRAWINGS\827143-10-MWSL0820OP-CONFAB.DWG 11/6/2024 1:19 PM SHEET NO.: OF BCT
11/06/24
PROJECT No.: DATE: 827143SEQ. No.: 010
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as a service to the project owner, engineer and contractor by Contech Engineered Solutions LLC ("Contech"). Neither this drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.

If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability for designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate information supplied by others. 1
MODULAR WETLANDS MWSL0820OP - 827143-010

AUBREY GLEN

SANTEE, CA
SITE DESIGNATION: BMP 1 2
FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO www.ContechES.com/IP

GENERAL NOTES

1. MODULAR WETLANDS LINEAR (MWSL) WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA

AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING

2. STRUCTURE SHALL MEET PEDESTRIAN (300 PSF) LIVE LOAD WITH INCIDENTAL HS-20 SURCHARGE AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT OR BELOW OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CONFIRM ACTUAL

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION

3. MWSL STRUCTURE SHALL BE PRECAST CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C857, ASTM C918 AND ACI-318-14 LOAD

FACTOR DESIGN METHOD

4. WETLAND MEDIA SUPPLIED BY CONTECH AND DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECT SCHEDULE, UNLESS MEDIA

IS INSTALLED PRIOR TO SHIPPING

5. PLANTINGS ARE NOT PROVIDED BY CONTECH. PLANT SELECTION SHALL BE DONE BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

INSTALLATION NOTES
A. ANY SUB-BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

AND SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD
B. MWSL UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON A LEVEL BASE. MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE

RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER C. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE MWSL STRUCTURE. SPREADER BAR WITH SUFFICIENT CABLE IS REQUIRED FOR SAFETY AND REDUCTION OF DAMAGE TO

CONCRETE STRUCTURE
D. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL JOINT SEALANT BETWEEN ALL STRUCTURE SECTIONS FOR STRUCTURE ASSEMBLY E. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPE(S). MATCH PIPE INVERTS WITH ELEVATIONS SHOWN. INVERT OF OUTLET PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH OUTLET BAY FLOOR. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE WALLS (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED

PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL
F. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL RISERS AND CASTINGS, UNLESS SHIPPED CAST INTO TOP SLAB. CONTRACTOR TO USE GROUT AND/OR BRICKS TO MATCH COVERS WITH FINISHED SURFACE, UNLESS SPECIFIED

OTHERWISE
G. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL INLET PROTECTION BAR IF REQUIRED BY LOCAL JURISDICTION H. CONTRACTOR TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT THE MWSL MEDIA BAY FROM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED

EROSION RUNOFF
I. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING CONTECH FOR ACTIVATION OF THE SYSTEM. ACTIVATION OCCURS

WHEN THE SITE IS FULLY STABILIZED WITH FINAL PAVEMENT INSTALLED AND SWEPT CLEAN OF CONSTRUCTION

SEDIMENT, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE
J. CONTACT CONTECH MAINTENANCE AND FIELD OPERATIONS AT 513-645-7770 TO SCHEDULE ACTIVATION.

MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT PROPER ACTIVATION BY A CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE K. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ALL MWSL UNITS BE WATERED BY IRRIGATION LINES OR SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ON A REGULAR BASIS. IF DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ARE TO BE USED, THEY ARE NOT SUPPLIED OR INSTALLED

BY CONTECH

THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES

ONLY AND IS NOT A FINAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
1'-0" 1'-5" 1" 7'-7" 7'-0"
INLET
OUTLET
OUTSIDE BOTTOM ELEV. 332.77
OUTLET 1 INVERT ELEV. 333.35
TOP OF STRUCTURE ELEV. 341.10
WEIR/TREATMENT HGL ELEV. 337.02
INLET 1 INVERT ELEV. 333.85
RIM ELEV. 341.1+/-

PERVIOUS
PAVERS

AND DRAIN
DOWN LINE 7'-5" MEDIA CAGE HEIGHT 8" TOP SLAB 8" BASE SLAB 7'-0"

OUTFLOW RISER
AND FLOWKIT 8'-4" 2"

DRAIN DOWN
LINE TYP. 3'-0" 4'-0" 7'-8"
21'-4" 9'-4"
2'-10" 2'-0"
30 x 4 FRAME AND

COVER CAST-IN TO TOP
SLAB, TYP. OF 4 4'-8" OPEN PLANTER TOP SLAB
7'-2"
11'-6" 2'-5" 2'-5"

OUTLET PIPE
24"Ø HDPE
(32"Ø OPENING)

INLET PIPE
24"Ø HDPE
(32"Ø OPENING)
6'-10"
20'-0" 8'-0"
4" WEIR
WALL 3'-6" 6" SEPARATION WALL 1'-9"
10'-0"
1"Ø IRRIGATION
PORT TYP. OF 3
1" OUTLET BAY

DEPRESSION
(7'-2" x 4'-0")

PREFILTER
CARTRIDGE TYP.

WETLAND

MEDIA BED
TYP. 2'-0" TYP.
1'-9"

SITE DESIGN DATA

WATER QUALITY FLOW
(CFS) 0.58

MAXIMUM POLLUTANT

DENSITY (PREFILTER)
(GPM/SF)

2.1 PREFILTER LOADING
RATE (GPM/SF) 2.03

WETLAND MEDIA

LOADING RATE
(GPM/SF)

1.00 MEDIA OPERATING
HEAD (FT) 3.42

SURFACE LOADING PEDESTRIAN

GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION* 333.35
*GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IS
ASSUMED. EOR TO PROVIDE IF
KNOWN

STRUCTURE DETAILS

NUMBER OF

DELIVERED PIECES
(DOES NOT INCLUDE

GRADE RINGS/RISERS)
2 MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT 9.33' x 21.33' DELIVERED HEAVIEST
PICK* 52175 LB.

TOP SECTION 30950 LB.

BASE SECTION 52175 LB.
*BASE SECTION SHIPPED WITH

INTERNAL WALLS INSTALLED

PROPOSAL

CONTECH

DRAWING BCT
BCT
CHECKED:

DRAWN: BCTDESIGNED: APPROVED: \\QUIKRETE.NET\CONTECH\MERLIN\PROJECT\ACTIVE\827100\827143\827143-10-MODULAR WETLANDS\DRAWINGS\827143-10-MWSL0820OP-CONFAB.DWG 11/6/2024 3:38 PM SHEET NO.: OF BCT
11/06/24
PROJECT No.: DATE: 827143SEQ. No.: 010
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as a service to the project owner, engineer and contractor by Contech Engineered Solutions LLC ("Contech"). Neither this drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.

AUBREY GLEN

SANTEE, CA
SITE DESIGNATION: BMP 1
FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO www.ContechES.com/IP
MARK DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION BY 2
RVRSD
6505 / 000000
LAYOUT 4
MWS-L-8-20-L

33.81 TS

5.70 TIW
ELEVATION VIEW*

PLAN VIEW

TOP SLAB NOT SHOWN

PLAN VIEW

RIGHT END VIEW

INTERNAL COMPONENTS TO BE

INSTALLED ON SITE BY CONTECH
FIELD CONSULTANT.

PLEASE CONTACT CONTECH FOR

CURRENT INSTALLATION LEAD TIME
12901 SE 97th Avenue, Clackamas, OR 97015
800-548-4667 503-240-3393 800-561-1271 FAX

THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES

ONLY AND IS NOT A FINAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

RECOMMENDED EXTERNAL BYPASS
AT ELEVATION = 337.02
*MEDIA CASTINGS, IF REQUIRED, NOT SHOWN

UNIT WAS SET OFFLINE DUE TO NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED
INLET TO OUTLET DROP OF 1.33' FOR SEDIMENT STORAGE.

IF INTERNAL BYPASS IS REQUIRED, EOR MUST ADJUST
ELEVATIONS TO MEET MANUFACTURING REQUIREMENTS.

Attachment 1B

DMA ID TRIBUTARY AREA (SQ FT) AREA (ACRES) IMPERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) %IMPERVIOUS HSG IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF FACTOR PERVIOUS RUNOFF FACTOR AREA WEIGHTED RUNOFF FACTOR DCV (Cubic Feet) TREATED BY POLLUTANT CONTROL TYPE DRAINS TO (POC ID) DMA-1 104338 2.40 1.7 73% C 0.90 0.23 0.72 3243 BMP-1 BIOFIL- MOD WETLAND POC-1 DMA-2 6586 0.15 0.1 44% C 0.90 0.23 0.52 148 BMP-2 PROP. BIOFILTRATION POC-1 GS-1 5767 0.13 0.1 44% C 0.90 0.23 0.52 BMP-3 LID ELEMENT - ROCK SWALE POC-1 SM-1 56 0.00 0.0 0% C 0.90 0.23 0.23 NA NA SELF MITIGATING POC-1SM-2 91 0.00 0.0 0% C 0.90 0.23 0.23 NA NA SELF MITIGATING POC-1SM-3 186 0.00 0.0 0% C 0.90 0.23 0.23 NA NA SELF MITIGATING POC-1SM-4 150 0.00 0.0 0% C 0.90 0.23 0.23 NA NA SELF MITIGATING POC-1 DM-1 177 0.00 0.0 100% C 0.90 0.23 0.90 NA NA DE MINIMIS POC-1 SUM 117351 2.7 1.9 70% 0.70 3391
NO OF DMA TOTAL DMA AREA (ACRES) TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA (ACRES) % IMP AREA WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT TOTAL DCV (CUBIC FEET) TOTAL AREA TREATED (ACRES) NO. OF POCS 8 2.7 1.9 70% 0.70 3391 2.7 1
TABULAR SUMMARY OF DMAs, (AUBREY GLEN)SUMMARY OF DMA INFORMATION (MUST MATCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SWQMP NARRATIVE) \\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\WaterRes\WaterQuality\19964_Drainage_WQ.xlsx Attachment 1C

13 February 2016
Worksheet 0-2. Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening
Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Worsksheet B.3-1

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

2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2.
[Provide a summary of calculations here]

3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1.
[Provide a results here]
3a. Is the 36-hour demand
greater than or equal to the
DCV?
Yes / No
3b. Is the 36-hour demand greater
than 0.25DCV but less than the full
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 may be feasible.

Conduct more detailed evaluation and
sizing calculations to determine
feasibility. Harvest and use may only
be able to be used for a portion of the
site, or (optionally) the storage may
need to be upsized to meet long term
capture targets while draining in
longer than 36 hours.

Harvest and use is
considered to be
infeasible.
x
x

9.3 gal/person/day * 200 people = (1,860 gal/day) * 1.5 days = 2,790 gal/36 hours Moderate plant water use = 1,470 gal/acre * 2.6 acres = 3,822 gal/36 hours Total Demand = 6,612 gallons = 884 cubic feet DCV = 3,391 cubic feet 11 February 2016
Worksheet 0-1. DCV
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) C= unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction TCV= cubic-feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction RCV= cubic-feet
6 Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) – TCV - RCV DCV= cubic-feet

0.52 2.6 0.72 0
0 3,391
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods 6 June 2015
Figure 0-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour Isopluvial Map
DEPTH = 0.52 in
Attachment 1D

FORM I-8 TO BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE SUBMITTAL
29 February 2016
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form I-8 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
The subject site is underlain by very dense/cemented cyrstalline bedrock (tonalite) located within the upper reaches of Mission Gorge. Several onsite borings encountered shallow refusal on hard rock and/or had very high blow counts for minimal penetration. Preliminary percolation testing of soils in the uppermost 10 feet indicated very low rates (0.07 in/hr).

Additionally, very shallow/perched groundwater (10 feet below ground surface) was encountered during prior onsite exploration.
30 February 2016
Form I-8 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 Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings No
31 February 2016
Form I-8 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:

Additionally, very shallow/perched groundwater (10 feet below ground surface) was encountered during prior onsite exploration.
32 February 2016
Form I-8 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 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.

The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.

If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *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 No
Infiltration
Attachment 1E

AUBREY GLEN
J-1996411/6/2024
Water Quality - Mod Wetland - BMP Sizing Calculations
DMA/BMP Name BMP Type
Drainage
Management
Area
(acres)
Drainage
Management
Area
(ft2)
% Impervious
Impervious
Area
(ft2)
Pervious Area
(ft2)
Runoff Factor
for Impervious
Area
Runoff Factor
for Pervious
Area
Effective
Impervious
Area
(ft2)
Runoff Factor
85th Percentile
Storm Event
(in)
Design
Capture
Volume (c.f.)
Biofiltration
Area Provided
(ft2)
Biofiltration
Area Required
(ft2)
DCV Multiplier
Volume
Provided
(ft3)
Volume
Required
(ft3)
Required Water
Quality Flow
Rate (cfs) 1.5*Q
Provided BMP
Flow Rate (cfs) MWS Model Name
DMA-1 Compact Biofiltration - Mod Wetlands 2.40 104338 73% 75895 28443 0.9 0.3 76,838 0.72 0.52 3,243 - 2,245 1.50 - 4,865 0.529 0.577 MWS-L-8-20 Notes:

1. The required and provided Water Quality volumes are based on the 2013 MS4 permit and the City of Santee BMP Design Manual 2. Runoff Factors for pervious and impervious areas were determined from Table 0-1: " Runoff Factors for Surfaces Draining to BMPs - Pollutant Control BMPs" from the City of Santee BMP Design Manual3.The DCV multiplier was found using Section B.4.2 Percent Capture Method and Figure 0-1 Percent Capture Nomgraph from the City of Santee BMP Design Manual REQUIRED TREATMENT FLOW RATE PER ACTUALYPERCENT IMPERVIOUS (73%) IS 0.529CFS. HOWEVER,THE PROVIDED TREATMENT FLOW RATE OF 0.577 CFSIS BASED ON A TRIBUTARY AREA OF APPROXIMATELY85% IMPERVIOUS.

REQUIRED TREATMENT FLOW RATE PER ACTUALPERCENT IMPERVIOUS (73%) IS 0.529CFS. HOWEVER,THE PROVIDED TREATMENT FLOW RATE OF 0.577CFSIS BASED ON A TRIBUTARY AREA OF APPROXIMATELY85% IMPERVIOUS. 28 February 2016
Worksheet 0-1: Simple Sizing Method for Biofiltration BMPs Simple Sizing Method for Biofiltration BMPs Worksheet B.5-1 1 Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs cubic-feet Partial Retention
2 Infiltration rate from Worksheet D.5-1 if partial infiltration is feasible in/hr. 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 36 hours 4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] inches 5 Aggregate pore space 0.40 in/in
6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4/ Line 5] inches 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP sq-ft
8 Media retained pore space 0.1 in/in
9 Volume retained by BMP [[Line 4 + (Line 12 x Line 8)]/12] x Line 7 cubic-feet 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 – Line 9] cubic-feet BMP Parameters
11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] inches 12 Media Thickness [18 inches minimum] inches
13 Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical) – use 0 inches for sizing if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area 1 inches 14 Media available pore space 0.2 in/in
15 Media filtration rate to be used for sizing 5 in/hr.

Baseline Calculations
16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 6 hours
17 Depth filtered during storm [ Line 15 x Line 16] 30 inches 18 Depth of Detention Storage
[Line 11 + (Line 12 x Line 14) + (Line 13 x Line 5)] inches 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 18] inches
Option 1 – Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV
20 Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 10] cubic-feet 21 Required Footprint [Line 20/ Line 19] x 12 sq-ft
Option 2 - Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding 22 Required Storage (surface + pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] cubic-feet 23 Required Footprint [Line 22/ Line 18] x 12 sq-ft
Footprint of the BMP
24 Area draining to the BMP sq-ft
25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 26 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.03] sq-ft 25 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Line 21, Line 23), Line 26) sq-ft Note: Line 7 is used to estimate the amount of volume retained by the BMP. Update assumed surface area in Line 7 until its equivalent to the required biofiltration footprint (either Line 21 or Line 23) 6 18
12 148 0
0 0
296 3
145

17.4 47.4 223 56111 77 6586 0.52 103 103 PROVIDED BOTTOM FOOTPRINT IS 296 SF. THIS WILL BE REFINED DURING FINAL ENGINEERING.

Project Name
BMP ID
1 104338 sq. ft.
2 0.72
3 0.52 inches
4 3255 cu. ft.
5 0 in/hr.
6 2
7 0 in/hr.
10 75 cu. ft.

When Line 8 > 8% =

0.0000013 x Line 83 - 0.000057 x Line 82 + 0.0086 x Line 8 - 0.014 When Line 8 ≤ 8% = 0.023
Target volume retention [Line 9 x Line 4]Reliable infiltration rate, for biofiltration BMP sizing [Line 5 / Line 6] 8 Average annual volume reduction target (Figure B.5-2)

3.5 9
Fraction of DCV to be retained (Figure B.5-3)

0.023
% When Line 7 > 0.01 in/hr. = Minimum (40, 166.9 x Line 7 +6.62) When Line 7 ≤ 0.01 in/hr. = 3.5%
Factor of safety
Area draining to the BMP
Aubrey Glen
Sizing Method for Volume Retention Criteria Worksheet B.5-2 Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 85th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth
Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)]
Volume Retention Requirement
Measured infiltration rate in the DMA Note:

When mapped hydrologic soil groups are used enter 0.10 for NRCS Type D soils and for NRCS Type C soils enter 0.30
When in no infiltration condition and the actual measured infiltration rate is unknown enter 0.0 if there are geotechnical and/or groundwater hazards identified in Appendix C 1/21/2025 Version 1.0 - June 2017
Project Name
BMP ID
1 sq. ft.
2 3 sq. ft.
4 sq. ft.
5 sq. ft.

Identification 1 4 5
6 1114
7 2802
10 sq. ft.
11 sq. ft.
12 13
14 cu. ft.
15 cu. ft.

Identification
1 cu. ft.
2 cu. ft.
3 cu. ft.
4 cu. ft.
5 cu. ft.
cu. ft.
17 Volume Retention Performance Standard is Met
Site Design BMP
Is Line 11 ≥ Line 4? Volume Retention Performance Standard is Met CreditSite Design Type
Sum of volume retention benefits from other site design BMPs (e.g. trees; rain barrels etc.). [sum of Line 16 Credits for Id’s 1 to 5]Provide documentation of how the site design credit is calculated in the PDP SWQMP. 0 16
Is Line 16 ≥ Line 15?
Volume retention required from other site design BMPs
[(1-Line 13) x Line 14] -20.25
Volume Retention for No Infiltration Condition Worksheet B.5-6 104338

0.72 Area draining to the biofiltration BMPAdjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) Required area for Evapotranspiration [Line 3 x 0.03]Biofiltration BMP Footprint 3 1739
0 0
Impervious to Pervious Area ratio [Line 7/Line 6]Effective Credit AreaIf (Line 8 >1.5, Line 6, Line 7/1.5]Target Volume Retention [Line 10 from Worksheet B.5.2] 75 Aubrey Glen
Landscape area that meet the requirements in SD-B and SD-F Fact Sheet (sq. ft.)Impervious area draining to the landscape area (sq. ft.) 2979 75123
2254
Landscape Area (must be identified on DS-3247)
2 28532853
Effective impervious area draining to the BMP [Line 1 x Line 2] Fraction of the performance standard met through the BMP footprint and/or landscaping [Line 11/Line 4] 1.27 Volume Retention Performance Standard
Sum of Landscape area [sum of Line 9 Id’s 1 to 5]Provided footprint for evapotranspiration [Line 5 + Line 10] 0 8 2.52 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 1114 1739
1/21/2025 Version 1.0 - June 2017
THE PROJECT IS PROPOSINGIMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSIONTO MEET THE MINIMUMRETENTION REQUIREMENTS.UPON CONVERSATION WITHTHE CITY STAFF ON 11/5/2024,WE HAVE AGREED UPON USINGCITY OF SAN DIEGOWORKSHEET B.5-6 TO PROVIDEBACKUP CALCULATIONS FORVOLUME RETENTIONCALCULATIONS PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
ATTACHMENT 2

BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.
Mark this box if this attachment is empty because the project is exempt from PDP hydromodification management requirements.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management Exhibit
(Required)
Included
See Hydromodification Management
Exhibit Checklist on the back of this
Attachment cover sheet.

Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit is required,
additional analyses are optional)
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual.
Exhibit showing project drainage
boundaries marked on WMAA
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area
Map (Required)
Optional analyses for Critical Coarse
Sediment Yield Area Determination
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic
Landscape Units Onsite
6.2.2 Downstream Systems
Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment
6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Areas Onsite
Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving
Channels (Optional)
See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design
Manual.
Not performed
Included
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document
Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design, including
Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations
and Overflow Design Summary
(Required)
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the
BMP Design Manual
Included
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document
Attachment 2e Vector Control Plan (Required when
structural BMPs will not drain in 96
hours)
Included
Not required because BMPs will
drain in less than 96 hours
X
X
X
X

NOT APPLICABLE
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
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) Note: Please Reference Attachment 1A to find specified information.

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Attachment 2A

0 24
18 30
36 48
42 18
36 0
24 24
0 18
30 0
18 18
18 18
24 30
24 18
18 0
24 18
30 304
303
305
307
AR
AR
AS AS
AQAQ
A
P
A
P
A
O
A
O
AT AT
San Diego River
Unnamed Pond

SAN DIEGO RIVER

MISSION GORGE RD

WEST HILLS PY
RA
N
C
H
O FA
NITA
D
R

BRITT PL
AU
BREY
G
LEN

STARPIN
E
DR

ROLLING OAKS RD

DOVE ST

VIA MONTISI

WREN ST

FERNRIDGE RD

BASSETT LN
HISER
LN

PRIVATE RD

ROSEMON
D
L
N

VIA SOVANA
CLARE
LN

CORAL RIDGE RD

WISTFUL VISTA

FATHER JUNIPERO SERR TL

CRESCENT RIDGE RD

MIRABELLE LN

RIDGECREST RD

OLIVEHILL R
D

PRIVATE
RD

PRIVATE
RD
P
RIVATE
RD
SANDAG & SanGIS
Legend
Storm Drain System
Pipe
S_Fld_Haz_Ar
FEMA NFHL Floodplain
100-YR Floodway
100-YR Floodplain
500-YR Floodplain
Assessor Parcels
Roads
Rivers
TOPO_2ft_2018
Date of Exhibit: 9/3/2024
DigitalGlobe Aerial Image: 2017
Aubrey Glen
0 200 400
Scale in Feet
[
North
HMP Exemption Exhibit
\\cp .rickeng.com \p rojects\C19500\19964_M issionG orge\GIS\19964_HM P _Exem pt_E xhibit.mxd J-19964
NOTES:

IN BOTH THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED

CONDITION, FLOWS FROM THE SITE AREA

COLLECTED BY THE EXISTING STORMDRAIN

SYSTEM THAT DISCHARGES DIRECTLY INTO

THE SAN DIEGO RIVER AT A LOCATION THAT

IS IDENTIFIED AS APPROPRIATE FOR
EXEMPTION BY THE WMAA.

PROJECT
SITE

DISCHARGE

LOCATION SURFACE FLOW

FLOW IN

STORM DRAIN
Attachment 2B

SANDAG & SanGIS
Legend
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
Project Area
Parcels
Date of Exhibit: 9/3/2024
DigitalGlobe Aerial Image: See Lower Right of Image
CCSYA Exhibit
0 200 400
Scale in Feet
[
North
Aubrey Glen
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C19500\19964_MissionGorge\GIS\19964_CCSYA_Exhibit_portrait.mxd Jn - 19964

PROJECT SITE
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
ATTACHMENT 3
Structural BMP Maintenance Information
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 3.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 3a Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds
and Actions (Required)
Included
See Structural BMP Maintenance
Information Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.

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

X
ATTACHMENT 3B TO BE INCLUDED DURING FINAL ENGINEERING
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
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).

X
X

INSPECTION

FREQUENCY

MAINTENANCE

FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE METHOD INCLUDED IN O&M MANUAL

LANDSCAPED
AREAS
MONTHLY (NOTE: INSPECTOR SHALL

CHECK FOR THE FOLLOWING
MAINTENANCE INDICATORS: EROSION

IN THE FORM OF RILLS OR GULLIES,

PONDING WATER, BARE AREAS,
BURROWS, MOUNDS, AND TRASH.)

1. AS DETERMINED BY INSPECTION; AND

2. ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH.

1. FILL AND COMPACT AREAS OF RUTS, RILLS, OR
GULLIES;

2. RE-SEED AND/OR PLANT SLOPES AND AREAS OF
EXPOSED SOILS; AND

3. ROUTINE MOWING AND TRIMMING AND TRASH
REMOVAL.

YES

AMENDED
SOILS

MONTHLY
(NOTE: INSPECTOR SHALL CHECK

FOR THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE
INDICATORS: EROSION IN THE FORM

OF RILLS OR GULLIES, PONDING

WATER, BARE AREAS, ANIMAL

BURROWS, HOLES, MOUNDS, AND
TRASH)

1. AS DETERMINED BY INSPECTION; AND

2. ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH.

1. REAPPLICATION OF AMENDED SOILS IF SIGNS OF

COMPACTION, WATERLOGGING AND UNHEALTHY

VEGETATION IS PRESENT

2. RE-SEED AND/OR PLANT SLOPES AND AREAS OF
EXPOSED SOILS; AND

3. ROUTINE MOWING AND TRIMMING AND TRASH
REMOVAL.

YES

IMPERVIOUS
AREA

DISPERSION

MONTHLY
(NOTE: INSPECTOR SHALL CHECK

FOR THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE
INDICATORS: EROSION IN THE FORM

OF RILLS OR GULLIES, PONDING

WATER, BARE AREAS, ANIMAL

BURROWS, HOLES, MOUNDS, AND
TRASH)

1. AS DETERMINED BY INSPECTION; AND

2. ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH.

1. REAPPLICATION OF AMENDED SOILS.

2. RE-SEED AND/OR PLANT SLOPES AND AREAS OF
EXPOSED SOILS; AND

3. ROUTINE MOWING AND TRIMMING AND TRASH
REMOVAL. YES
TRASH

STORAGE
AREAS
WEEKLY 1. AS DETERMINED BY INSPECTION;

2. STANDING WATER IN TRASH
STORAGE AREA.

3. LOOSE TRASH OR DEBRIS.

4. LEAKED OR SPILLED MATERIALS.

5. COMPROMISED FENCE, SCREEN,
GATE, WALL, BIN. LID OR ROOF AWNING
(WHERE APPLICABLE).

6. CRACKED OR OTHERWISE

COMPROMISED PAVING OR OTHER

FLAWED FLOOR SURFACE (AS
APPLICABLE).

1. IF STANDING WATER IS OBSERVED IN THE AREA,

DETERMINE THE WATER SOURCE AND REMOVE THE
SOURCE. ALLOW STANDING WATER TO EVAPORATE. IF
WATER DOES NOT EVAPORATE IN 48 HOURS,
REDISTRIBUTE THE WATER TO LANDSCAPED AREA(S).

DO NOT DRAIN WATER TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM;

2. REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE LOOSE TRASH,
DEBRIS, AND LEAKED OR SPILLED MATERIALS. USE

APPROPRIATE SPILL CLEANUP MATERIAL AS

NECESSARY TO REMOVE ALL LEAKED AND SPILLED

MATERIALS INCLUDING MATERIALS ADHERED TO
PAVEMENT. IDENTIFY AND REMOVE OR REPAIR THE
SOURCE OF ANY LEAKED OR SPILLED MATERIALS; AND

3. REPAIR THE FOLLOWING AS APPLICABLE:

COMPROMISED FENCE, SCREEN, GATE, WALL, BIN, LID

OR ROOF AWNING, CRACKED OR COMPROMISED PAVING
OR OTHER FLOOR SURFACE.

YES

PREVENTIVE

STENCILING

AND SIGNAGE

ANNUALLY WHEN FULLY OR PARTIALLY ERASED
SIGNS ARE OBSERVED; WHEN DUMPING

OF TRASH ARE OBSERVED AT PUBLIC

ACCESS POINTS, BUILDING ENTRANCES,
PUBLIC PARKS, ETC.

1. REPLACE OR REPAINT THE STENCILS AND SIGNAGE
SO THAT THEY ARE LEGIBLE; AND

2. MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE PLACED AT ALL
REQUIRED LOCATIONS (I.E.- ALL INLETS).

YES

BIOFILTRATION

FACILITY
(BMP-2)

1. TWICE A YEAR (ON OR BEFORE
SEPTEMBER 15TH AND FOLLOWING
THE RAINY SEASON AFTER MAY 1ST);
AND

2. AFTER EACH "SIGNIFICANT RAIN
EVENT"
(NOTE: INSPECTOR SHALL CHECK

FOR THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE
INIDICATORS: EROSION IN THE FORM

OF RILLS OR GULLIES, PONDING

WATER, BARE AREAS, DEAD

VEGETATION, ANIMAL BURROWS,

HOLES, MOUNDS, AND TRASH)

1. AS DETERMINED BY INSPECTION; AND

2. ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH AND

FOLLOWING THE RAINY SEASON AFTER
MAY 1ST;
AND

3. AFTER EACH "SIGNIFICANT RAIN
EVENT"2

1. REPLACE MULCH IN AREAS OF RUTS, RILLS, OR

GULLIES

2. RE-SEED AND/OR PLANT SLOPES AND AREAS OF

EXPOSED SOILS

3. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TO REMOVE ACCUMULATED

MATERIALS SUCH AS TRASH AND DEBRIS

4. NON-ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO

BACKWASH AND CLEAR UNDERDRAINS IF INSPECTION

INDICATES UNDERDRAINS ARE CLOGGED

5. DEPENDING ON POLLUTANT LOADS, SOILS MAY NEED
TO BE REPLACED EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS.

6. THE RISER STRUCTURE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED TO

AVOID CLOGGING AND ANY LEAKAGE THROUGH
BOLTHOLES.

YES

MODULAR

WETLAND
SYSTEM
(BMP-1)

1. MINIMUM TWICE A YEAR (ON OR
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15TH AND

FOLLOWING THE RAINY SEASON
AFTER MAY 1ST); AND

2. AFTER EACH "SIGNIFICANT RAIN
EVENT"

AS NEEDED BASED ON INSPECTION

FINDINGS

1. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TO REMOVE THE

ACCUMULATED MATERIALS IN THE SCREENING FILTER,

SEPARATION CHAMBER, AND PERIMETER FILTER
(BIOMEDIA GREEN) AND REPLACE FILTER MEDIA

PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED SERVICE PROVIDER PER

MANUFACTUER'S GUIDELINES AND CONDITIONS
DEFINED IN THE WASHINGTON ECOLOGY T.A.P.E.

CERTIFICATION.

2. IF INSPECTION INDICATES INTERNAL COMPONENTS
ARE DAMAGED, ADDITIONAL NON‐ROUTINE

MAINTENANCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIR OR
REPLACE DAMAGED PARTS AS APPLICABLE.

YES
NOTES:

SOURCE CONTROL

1. REFER TO THE "PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) AUBREY GLEN", DATED AUGUST 30, 2024 OR ANY REVISIONS THEREOF FOR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION.

2. A SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT CONSIDERED WHENEVER THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE REPORTS 0.50" OF RAIN IN 48 HOURS FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

3. DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF NORMAL OPERATION, ALL BMPS SHOULD BE INSPECTED ONCE BEFORE AUGUST 31 AND THEN MONTHLY FROM SEPTEMBER THROUGH MAY. THE MINIMUM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY SHOULD BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST YEAR INSPECTIONS.

SITE DESIGN, SOURCE CONTROL AND POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE DETAILS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT APPROVAL NO.:

O&M RESPONSIBLE PARTY DESIGNEE:

STRUCTURAL BMP

BMP DESCRIPTION

SITE DESIGN
19964

AUBREY GLEN
O.M.P.

INSPECTION

FREQUENCY

MAINTENANCE

FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE METHOD INCLUDED IN O&M MANUAL

FULL TRASH CAPTURE
SYSTEM

MODULAR

WETLAND
SYSTEM
(BMP-1)

1. MINIMUM TWICE A YEAR (ON OR
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15TH AND

FOLLOWING THE RAINY SEASON AFTER
MAY 1ST); AND

2. AFTER EACH "SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT"

AS NEEDED BASED ON INSPECTION

FINDINGS

1. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TO REMOVE THE

ACCUMULATED MATERIALS IN THE SCREENING

FILTER, SEPARATION CHAMBER, AND PERIMETER

FILTER (BIOMEDIA GREEN) AND REPLACE FILTER

MEDIA PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED SERVICE

PROVIDER PER MANUFACTUER'S GUIDELINES AND

CONDITIONS DEFINED IN THE WASHINGTON
ECOLOGY T.A.P.E. CERTIFICATION.

2. IF INSPECTION INDICATES INTERNAL

COMPONENTS ARE DAMAGED, ADDITIONAL
NON‐ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WILL BE REQUIRED

TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED PARTS AS
APPLICABLE.

YES

DISPERSION

AREA WITH

AMENDED SOIL
(GS-2.01)

QUATERLY AS NEEDED BASED ON INSPECTION

FINDINGS

1. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE , CHECK CURB CUTS

FOR ACCUMULATED GRIT, LEAVES, AND DEBRIS
THAT MAY BLOCK INFLOW.

2. IDENTIFY MAINTENANCE TASK NEEDS.

3. LOOK FOR EROSION, BARE AREAS, AND WHERE
MULCH, IF APPLICABLE, NEEDS TO BE APPLIED.

4. REMOVE WEEDS, AND ANY DEAD OR DYING
PLANTS. REMOVE TRASH AND ANIMAL WASTE.

YES

VEGETATED

BUFFER FOR

HYDRAULICLY

DISCONNECTED

SIDEWALK

QUATERLY AS NEEDED BASED ON INSPECTION

FINDINGS

1. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, CHECK FOR
MAINTENANCE NEEDS.

2. REMOVAL OF TRASH AND ANIMAL WASTE.

3. REMOVE ANY DEAD OR DYING PLANT MATERIAL.

YES
NOTES:

1. REFER TO THE "PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) AUBREY GLEN", DATED AUGUST 30, 2024 OR ANY REVISIONS THEREOF FOR MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION.

2. A SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT CONSIDERED WHENEVER THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE REPORTS 0.50" OF RAIN IN 48 HOURS FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

GREEN STREET ELEMENTS

SITE DESIGN, SOURCE CONTROL AND POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE DETAILS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT APPROVAL NO.:

O&M RESPONSIBLE PARTY DESIGNEE:

BMP DESCRIPTION
19964

AUBREY GLEN
O.M.P.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: [11-7-24
1-29-25
Revised 3-21-25]
SFR:JS:jg:WR/Reports/PDPSWQMP/4thSub/19964.008
ATTACHMENT 4
Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Storm Water BMPs
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 4.

Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the plans:

The plans must identify:
Structural BMP(s) with ID numbers matching Form I-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs The grading and drainage design shown on the plans must be consistent with the delineation of DMAs shown on the DMA exhibit
Details and specifications for construction of structural BMP(s) Signage indicating the location and boundary of structural BMP(s) as required by the [City Engineer] How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP)
Recommended equipment to perform maintenance
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.

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Santee City CouncilMay 28, 2025

Santee City Council
May 28, 2025