97B89860Fe — Santee City Council, December 10, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 2
APRIL 2025
The community center building would include an eastern and western wing, which are joined by the lobby and entrance area. There are two entrances to the proposed community center, the south entrance and the north entrance, both of which lead to the lobby area. Entry plazas are located outside of both entrances, which would include benches and landscaped areas. The lobby would include a reception area, access to both wings of the building, a staircase, and an elevator. The eastern wing would be one story tall and would include event space, storage, a kitchen, utilities, and an outdoor covered dining area (located south of the event space). The service yard and biofiltration basin would be located immediately east of the eastern wing. The first floor of the western wing would include office space, restrooms, storage, janitors’ closet. The second floor would include event space, an event deck, concession space, restrooms, and storage. Amphitheater seating and bike storage would be located west of the western wing (Figure 2).

The project site would be modified to include sufficient parking for both the proposed Community Center building and the existing YMCA building. The existing asphalt parking lot would become the new east parking lot, and the existing grassy field would become the new west parking lot. The existing asphalt parking lot includes 270 regular stalls and 9 accessible stalls, while the new east and west asphalt parking lots would include a combined total of 275 regular stalls and 12 accessible stalls. Loading and unloading during events (i.e. deliveries and catering) would occur in the walled and gated utility yard located east of the proposed Community Center building.

The project would expand the existing driveway apron connecting to Riverwalk Drive, which would be the only offsite improvement. The driveway apron would be expanded to accommodate a secondary entrance and exit to the new west parking lot. The project would use existing on-site utility connections. 2 Regulatory Framework

2.1 CEQA and the California Register of Historic Resources CEQA requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated for the potential to impact the environment, including effects to historical resources. Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA. It defines historical resources as “any object, building, structure, site, area, or place, which is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (Division I, Public Resources Code, Section 5021.1(b)).

Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR, or California Register) criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project which demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance.

The California Register is used in the consideration of historic resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The California Register includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 3
APRIL 2025
significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the California Register, and they are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.), consisting of the following:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

2.2 Native American Historic Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code section 5097 et seq.)
State law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the NRHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

2.3 California Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act
The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California Repatriation Act), enacted in 2001, required all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions. The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes.

2.4 California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Health and Safety Code TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 4
APRIL 2025
Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County coroner has examined the remains (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[c]). In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), the NAHC will notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. Within 48 hours of being granted access to the site, the MLD may recommend means of treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and associated grave goods.

2.5 Assembly Bill 52
California Assembly Bill 52, which took effect July 1, 2015, establishes a consultation process between California Native American Tribes and lead agencies in order to address tribal concerns regarding project impacts and mitigation to “tribal cultural resources” (TCR). Public Resources Code section 21074(a) defines TCRs and states that a project that has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR is a project that may have an adverse effect on the environment. A TCR is defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either:

1. listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register of historical resources, or

2. determined by a lead agency to be a TCR.

2.6 City of Santee General Plan
Divided into nine elements, the Santee General Plan is a statement of intent by the City as to the future development of the community. This is accomplished through objectives and policies that serve as a long-term policy guide for physical, economic, and environmental growth. The Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan discusses water resources, land resources, archaeological and cultural resources, biological resources, and open space.

Section 4.3 of the Conservation Element discusses archaeological, cultural, and historic resources known to be within the City. The goal of the Conservation Element is to conserve open space, natural, and cultural resources.

The following objective and policies contained in the Conservation Element of the Santee ▪ General Plan are relevant to the analysis found in this section:
- Objective 8.0: Preserve significant cultural resources. - Policy 8.1. The City shall require either the preservation of significant historic or prehistoric sites, or the professional retrieval of artifacts prior to the development of a site, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Preservation may include various measures including avoidance, preservation in place, incorporation into open space, or covering or capping.

The type of preservation would depend upon the nature and significance of the archaeological resource and the practical requirements of the proposed land use. - Policy 8.2. The City should require curation of any recovered artifacts as a condition of any cultural resources mitigation program.

TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 5
APRIL 2025

2.7 Guidelines for Determining Significance
According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change:

Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.

The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
▪ Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR; or
▪ Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or ▪ Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
▪ When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). ▪ If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.
▪ If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c–f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources.
▪ If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 6
APRIL 2025
Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report (EIR), if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

Section 15064.5(d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:

When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission.

Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:

1. The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5); and

2. The requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act.

Under CEQA, an EIR is required to evaluate any impacts on unique archaeological resources (California Public Resources Code section 21083.2.) A “unique archaeological resource” is defined as:
[A]n archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. (California Public Resources Code section 21083.2(g)). An impact to a non-unique archaeological resource is not considered a significant environmental impact and such non-unique resources need not be further addressed in the EIR (Public Resources Code section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(c)(4)).

As stated above, CEQA contains rules for mitigation of “unique archaeological resources.” For example, “[i]f it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites.

2. Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements.

3. Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites.

TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 7
APRIL 2025

4. Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites.” (Pub.

Resources Code section 21083.2(b)(1)-(4).)
Public Resources Code section 21083.2(d) states that “[e]xcavation as mitigation shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. Excavation as mitigation shall not be required for a unique archaeological resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, if this determination is documented in the environmental impact report.” The rules for mitigating impacts to archaeological resources to qualify as “historic resources” are slightly different.

According to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b), “[p]ublic agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historic resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site:

A. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites.

Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.

B. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;

2. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space;

3. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site[; and]

4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

Thus, although section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, in addressing “unique archaeological sites,” provides for specific mitigation options “in no order of preference,” CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b), in addressing “historical resources of an archaeological nature,” provides that “[p]reservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites.”
Under CEQA, “[w]hen data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation,” the lead agency may cause to be prepared and adopt a “data recovery plan,” prior to any excavation being undertaken. The data recovery plan must make “provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historic resource.” (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).) The data recovery plan also “must be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center.” (Ibid.) Further, “[i]f an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation.” (Ibid.) However, “[d]ata recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historic resource, provided that determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(D).)
TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 8
APRIL 2025
3 Results

3.1 Records Search

3.1.1 Previous Cultural Resources Reports
Dudek performed a California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) records search of the Project area and a one-mile radius at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) on October 10, 2022. The records search results revealed that 71 previous archaeological resources studies have been conducted within one-mile of the Project area. Of the 71 previous studies, four studies intersect the Project area and are listed in Table 1 below.

These studies consist of two monitoring reports, a regional archaeological survey, and an archaeological resources inventory report. Overall, the entire Project area has been previously studied and resulted in negative results in the Project area. This includes the 2007 monitoring reports (SD-11189 and SD-11190) for the Town Center Community Park Mass Grading, which includes all of the Project area. No archaeological resources were found during this monitoring. The studies that do not intersect the area are included in Confidential Appendix A.

Table 1. Reports Intersecting Project Area
Report Number Authors Date Title
SD-00546 San Diego State
University
Foundation
1975 An Archaeological Survey of the San Diego River
Valley
SD-08888 Kyle Consulting 2003 Cultural Resource Survey for the Town Center Park, City of Santee, California
SD-11189 Brian F. Smith and
Associates
2007 Results of Archaeological Monitoring at Town Center Community Park Mass Grading, Santee, California
(CIP 2004-31) (Negative Archaeological Monitoring
Report)
SD-11190 Brian F. Smith and
Associates
2007 Paleontological Monitoring Report, Town Center
Community Park Mass Grading Project, City of
Santee, San Diego County, California (CIP2004-31)

3.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The SCIC records search did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project area. The records search did identify 14 archaeological resources within the one-mile search radius of the Project area (Table 2). Of the total 14 resources identified in the one-mile buffer, six are prehistoric resources, six are historic, and two are dual components. Fifty-five historic addresses were recorded within the one-mile search area, with none intersecting the Project area. The results of the records search and all DPR forms are attached as part of Confidential Appendix A.

TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 9
APRIL 2025
Table 2. Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources in the One-Mile Record Search Radius
Primary
Number
Trinomial
(CA-) Age Description
In/Out of
Project
Area
P-37-005669 SDI-005669 Prehistoric Site: artifact scatter and midden Out P-37-007603 SDI-007603 Prehistoric Site: artifact scatter and midden Out P-37-009245 SDI-009245 Historic Site: trash scatter from 30's/40's Out P-37-009248 SDI-009248 Historic Site: farm complex Out
P-37-020175 — Historic Building Out
P-37-025303 — Prehistoric Isolate: flake Out
P-37-028466 — Prehistoric Isolate: 3 flakes in tilled field Out P-37-030482 SDI-019370 Prehistoric Site: habitation Out P-37-032655 SDI-020693 Historic Site: trash scatter from 30's/40's Out P-37-032878 SDI-020778 Multicomponent Site: prehistoric habitation, historic trash Out P-37-035505 — Historic Building Out
P-37-035815 SDI-021860 Prehistoric Site: lithic scatter Out P-37-037786 SDI-022504 Historic Site: Fanita Rancho remnants Out P-37-039090 SDI-022955 Multicomponent Site: bedrock milling and 1891 Santee School location
Out

3.2 Archival Research
In addition to the SCIC records search, Dudek conducted an on-line review of historic aerial photographs of the Project area and general vicinity, to help determine the possible development and land use of the Project area in the past. Historic aerial photographs of the Project area were available for, 1953, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1971, 1978, 1980-1991, 1993-2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 (NETR 2022). The historical aerials from 1953 to 1981 revealed that the Project area was undeveloped. Aerials show dirt roads roughly correlating to today’s Park Center Drive, and Riverwalk Drive present on the earliest images. In 1972 the Rio Seco school complex was completed to the west-northwest of the Project area. The tributary to the San Diego River that runs on the south and eastern borders of the Project area are shown to be essentially in the same place as today’s maps, however it is rarely shown with water. In 1994 the area to the east of the Project area was graded and dragged to create two baseball fields. Between 2001 and 2005 the ball fields and surrounding area were revamped, graded and developed into the Cameron Family YMCA facility. Between 2005 and 2009 the Project area was graded and developed into the parking lot for the YMCA. This development included the finishing of Riverwalk Drive and Park Center Drive. A pedestrian bridge was added in 2010, connecting the southwestern corner of the Project area to the south bank of the tributary.

3.3 NAHC and Tribal Correspondence
Dudek requested a NAHC search of the SLF on September 13, 2022 for the Project area. The SLF consists of a database of known Native American resources. These resources may not be included in the SCIC database. The TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 10 APRIL 2025
results of the SLF were received on November 9, 2022 and were positive and the NAHC recommended contacting the Barona Group of the Capitan Grande and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, with instruction to also contact the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee via phone. The NAHC response also included a list of 17 other Native American representatives for tribes that are traditionally affiliated with the Project area. The NAHC correspondence is included in the Appendix B.

Letters with a map and description of the planned Project were sent to the17 Native American individuals and organizations on November 23, 2022. Responses are paraphrased below:

Ray Teran of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians responded on November 10, 2022. His response indicated that the Project area holds cultural significance to Viejas and that cultural resources have been located within or adjacent to the proposed project. No specific location information or descriptions were provided. He further requests that Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities.

Angelina Gutierrez of the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians responded on December 8, 2022, indicating that the Project area was within the Traditional Use Area and that they would like to engage in formal government-to-government consultation under AB-52.

Any additional responses to the letters will be forwarded to the City and included in subsequent drafts of the report.

In compliance with Assembly Bill 52, the City, as lead agency, is responsible for conducting government to government consultation with pertinent tribal entities. For information regarding Assembly Bill 52, please refer to the Project’s CEQA document.

3.4 Intensive Pedestrian Survey
Dudek archaeologists Jessica Colston and Philip Sharp-Garcia conducted site visits of the proposed Project area on November 7, 2022 and April 9, 2025, respectively. The site visits employed standard archaeological procedures and techniques consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Five-meter interval survey transects were conducted in an east-west direction for any area of the Project area that was not covered by asphalt or landscaping.

Within the transects, the ground surface was examined for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, features indicative of the current or former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historic artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics, building materials). Ground disturbances such as burrows, cut banks, and drainages were also visually inspected for exposed subsurface materials.

The Project area is flat and almost completely developed as a parking lot, with landscaped transitions on the southern and eastern borders with the San Diego Riverbank. Ground visibility was poor (0-5%) overall, due to the 90% coverage by the parking lot. The southern and eastern borders are landscaped and lush with foliage. This foliage obscured most of the ground visibility. Modern debris (e.g., refuse, plastic fragments, irrigation pipes, glass fragments) is strewn throughout the Project area. The pedestrian surveys did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project area.

TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 11 APRIL 2025
4 Summary and Management Considerations

4.1 Archaeological Recommendations
Dudek’s archaeological resources inventory of the Project indicates that there is low sensitivity for identifying intact subsurface archaeological deposits during Project implementation. The SCIC records search and the site visit did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project area; however, 14 archaeological resources were identified within the one-mile radius. The review of aerial photographs also reveals the Project area has been disturbed by mass grading activities. The previous development of the Project area for the Town Center Community Park was monitored for cultural resources and yielded negative results. A site visit of the Project area confirmed that the Project area has been completely developed and did not identify any archaeological resources. Due to a lack of evidence for cultural resources within the project site, Dudek recommends that no further archaeological management is necessary beyond standard measures to address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources and human remains.

The City, informed by Native American outreach, has determined that cultural resources monitoring is required during project implementation. The mitigation measures below will ensure the identification and proper treatment of any archaeological resources discovered during project implementation.

MM-CUL-01 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources If potential archaeological resources are uncovered during grading, the Applicant shall be required to halt all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the material to determine whether it is a “unique cultural resource” as defined in Section 21083.2 (g) of the CEQA Statutes. If the new discovery is evaluated and found to be significant under CEQA and avoidance is not feasible, additional work such as data recovery may be warranted. A data recovery plan shall be developed by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City and Native American representatives, if applicable. round disturbance can continue only after the resources has been properly mitigated and with approval by the City..

MM-CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
The qualified archaeologist, or an archaeological monitor (working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist), shall observe all initial ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, vegetation removal, grubbing, grading, and excavation. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the applicant and the City, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined by the qualified archaeologist that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the project site. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment (as prescribed below). The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries.

After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the City and any Native American groups who request a copy.

A copy of the final report shall be filed at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC).

TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 12 APRIL 2025
A Native American Monitor of Kumeyaay descent shall be present for any pre-construction meeting and for all ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Should any cultural or tribal cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City Planner, or designee, with concurrence from the Native American Monitor, are satisfied that treatment of the resource has occurred. In the event that a unique archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource is discovered, and in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b)(1), (2), and (4), the resource shall be moved and buried in an open space area of the Project site, such as slope areas, which will not be subject to further grading activity, erosion, flooding, or any other ground disturbance that has the potential to expose the resource. The on-site area to which the resource is moved shall be protected in perpetuity as permanent open space. No identification of the resource shall be made on-site; however, the Applicant shall plot the new location of the resource on a map showing latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates and provide that map to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for inclusion in the Sacred Lands File (SLF). Disposition of the resources shall be at the discretion of the City of Santee, but in accordance with the foregoing.

In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, all work shall immediately cease in the area (within 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Native American monitor. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the applicant and the City on the significance of the resource.

If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation.

Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the applicant and the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The qualified archaeologist and the City shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resources, beyond those which are scientifically important, are considered.

If human remains are encountered, all work shall halt in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the discovery and the San Diego County Coroner will be contacted in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The applicant and the City will also be notified. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC will be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access and shall provide recommendations for the treatment of the remains. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, the applicant will ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices.

TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 13 APRIL 2025
Should you have any questions relating to this report and its findings, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760.815.6642 or [email protected].

Respectfully Submitted,
——————————
Jessica Colston
Archaeologist
Att.: Figure 1, Record Search
Figure 2, Project APE
National Archaeological Database Information
Confidential Appendix A, SCIC Records Search Results
Appendix B, NAHC Correspondence and Tribal Outreach
cc: Matthew DeCarlo, Micah Hale, Dudek
TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14169 14 APRIL 2025
5 References
City of Santee General Plan. 2003. Accessed December 12, 2022. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/ home/showpublisheddocument/7199/636336570186700000
NETR (National Environmental Title Research). 2022. Address search for 10123 Riverwalk Dr, Santee, CA 92071.

Accessed December 12, 2022. http://www.historicaerials.com/. 67 Project Location
Santee Community Center Project
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Series El Cajon Quadrangle
Township 15S / Range1W / Section 22
Date: 4/10/2025 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1416903\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure1-ProjectLocation.mxd 0 1,000 2,000Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
San
Clemente
Dana Point Temecula
Murrieta
La Quinta Coachella Lake
Elsinore
Hemet Palm Desert Perris Indio
Palm
Springs
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Lemon Grove
La Mesa
Santee
Poway
San Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial
Beach
Del Mar
Coronado
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
M e x i c o
905
52 54 94
241 133
125
73 98
78 86
67 74 111 74
76 79
805
215
15 5
8 S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y Project Site
Date: 4/10/2025 - Last saved by: rstrobridge - Path: Z:\Projects\j1416903\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\Figure2-ProjectArea.mxd

LEAVESLY TRL

CANOPY PARK LN

LITTLE LEAF LN

STAR MAGNOLIA LN

PARK CENTER DR

RIVERWALK DR

MERRY BROOK TRL
Nearmap, SANDAG, SanGIS
Project Area
Santee Community Center Project
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2022
0 50 100Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2
TO: KYLE PETERSON
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT,

CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
14862
APRIL 2025
National Archaeological Database (NADB) Information
Authors: Jessica Colston, Matthew DeCarlo MA, RPA., Micah Hale PhD, RPA.

Firm: Dudek
Project Proponent: HMC Architects
Report Date: April 2025
Report Title: Archaeological Resources Inventory Report for the Santee Community Center Project, City of Santee, California
Type of Study: Archaeological Resources Inventory
Resources: None
USGS Quads: El Cajon, California, Township 15 South, Range 1 West, Section 22 Acreage: 5.2-acres
Permit Numbers: N/A
Keywords: Inventory, Negative, City of Santee, San Diego River, Santee School Confidential Appendix A
SCIC Records Search Results

Appendix B
NAHC Correspondence and Tribal Outreach
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

November 9, 2022
Matthew DeCarlo
Dudek
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Santee Recreation Center Project, San Diego County
Dear Mr. DeCarlo:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Barona Group of the Capitan Grande and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on the attached list for information. Please also contact the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee via phone at (760) 803-5694 for information. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. A SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites, such as the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) archaeological Information Center for the presence of recorded archaeological sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. Please contact all of those listed; if they cannot supply information, they may recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Barona Group of the Capitan
Grande
Raymond Welch, Chairperson
1095 Barona Road
Lakeside, CA, 92040
Phone: (619) 443 - 6612
Fax: (619) 443-0681
[email protected]
Diegueno
Campo Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190 Church Road, Suite 1
Campo, CA, 91906
Phone: (619) 478 - 9046
Fax: (619) 478-5818
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 368 - 4382
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 933 - 2200
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Clint Linton, Director of Cultural
Resources
P.O. Box 507
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 803 - 5694
[email protected]
Diegueno
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Virgil Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 130
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 765 - 0845
Fax: (760) 765-0320
Diegueno
Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians
Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson
2005 S. Escondido Blvd.

Escondido, CA, 92025
Phone: (760) 737 - 7628
Fax: (760) 747-8568
Diegueno
Jamul Indian Village
Lisa Cumper, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA, 91935
Phone: (619) 669 - 4855
[email protected]
Diegueno
Jamul Indian Village
Erica Pinto, Chairperson
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA, 91935
Phone: (619) 669 - 4785
Fax: (619) 669-4817
[email protected]
Diegueno
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of
Mission Indians
Carmen Lucas,
P.O. Box 775
Pine Valley, CA, 91962
Phone: (619) 709 - 4207
Kwaaymii
Diegueno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Santee Recreation Center Project, San Diego County.

PROJ-2022-
006556
11/09/2022 11:14 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
11/9/2022
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Nation
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 766 - 4930
Fax: (619) 766-4957
Diegueno
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Michael Linton, Chairperson
P.O Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 782 - 3818
Fax: (760) 782-9092
[email protected]
Diegueno
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Allen Lawson, Chairperson
P.O. Box 365
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 3200
Fax: (760) 749-3876
[email protected]
Diegueno
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
John Flores, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 365
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 3200
Fax: (760) 749-3876
[email protected]
Diegueno
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Kristie Orosco, Kumeyaay
Resource Specialist
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA, 92019
Phone: (619) 445 - 6917
Kumeyaay
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Cody Martinez, Chairperson
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA, 92019
Phone: (619) 445 - 2613
Fax: (619) 445-1927
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
John Christman, Chairperson
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 445 - 3810
Fax: (619) 445-5337
Diegueno
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Ernest Pingleton, Tribal Historic
Officer, Resource Management
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 659 - 2314
[email protected]
Diegueno
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Santee Recreation Center Project, San Diego County.

PROJ-2022-
006556
11/09/2022 11:14 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
11/9/2022

November 23, 2022
Mr. John Christman, Chairperson
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
1 Viejas Grade Rd.

Alpine, CA 91901

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Christman,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

As part of the cultural resources study prepared for the proposed project, Dudek contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project area. The NAHC emailed a response on November 9, 2022, which stated that the SLF search identified the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.

The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the proposed project area, please contact me directly at (760) 815-6642 or at [email protected] within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

Records Search
Santee Community Center Project
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series El Cajon Quadrangle
Township 15S; Range 1W; Sections 22
Date: 10/10/2022 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1416903\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Cultural\SanteeCommunityCenter_RecrodsSearch_1Mile.mxd 0 2,000 1,000 Feet
Study Area
1 Mile Buffer
FIGURE 1
1:24,000
0 570 285 Meters

November 23, 2022
Ms. Lisa Cumper, THPO
Jamul Indian Village
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA 91935

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Cumper,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. John Flores, Environmental Coordinator
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
P.O. Box 365
Valley Center, CA 92082

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Flores,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
Ewiiaapaayp Tribe
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA 91901

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Garcia,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
P.O. Box 365
Valley Center, CA 92082

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Lawson,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources
Ipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
P.O. Box 507
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Linton,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Michael Linton, Chairperson
Mesa Grande Band of Dieguneo Mission Indians
P.O. Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070

November 23, 2022
Ms. Carmen Lucas,
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians
P.O. Box 775
Pine Valley, CA 91962

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Lucas,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Cody Martinez, Chairperson
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA 92019

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Martinez,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Ms. Javaughn Miller, Tribal Administrator
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
8 Crestwood Rd.

Boulevard, CA 91905

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Miller,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Ms. Kristie Orosco, Resource Specialist
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA 92019

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Orosco,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Ms. Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson
Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians
2005 S. Escondido Blvd.

Escondido, CA 92025

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Osuna,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Ms. Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
8 Crestwood Rd.

Boulevard, CA 91905

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Parada,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Virgil Perez, Chairperson
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
P.O. Box 130
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Perez,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Ernest Pingleton, Tribal Historic Officer
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
1 Viejas Grade Rd.

Alpine, CA 91901

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Pingleton,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Mr. Robert Pinto, Chairperson
Ewiaapaayp Tribe
4054 Willow Rd.

Alpine, CA 91901

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Pinto,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Ms. Erica Pinto, Chairperson
Jamul Indian Village
P.O. Box 612
Jamul, CA 91935

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Pinto,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

November 23, 2022
Ms. Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA 91905

Subject: Information Request for the Santee Community Center Project in City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Santos,
The Santee Community Center Project is located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project site is located in a developed urban area of the City. The project site is bound by the Cameron Valley YMCA and Sportsplex USA to the west. This area falls within the following PLSS area: Township 15S/ Range 1W – Section 22, El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 1:24,000 USGS maps (Figure 1).

Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, City of Santee, in writing (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)).
14169
2 November 2022
Respectfully,
Archaeologist
DUDEK
Phone: (760) 815-6642
Email: [email protected]
Attachments: Figure 1. Records search area Map.
1 Jessica Colston
From: Ray Teran <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 12:08 PM
To: Jessica Colston; Ernest Pingleton; Matthew DeCarlo
Subject: RE: Santee Community Center PN 14169
Jessica, THX for the info. The entire San Diego River plane is littered with village/gathering locations.

As such, please see below.

The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (“Viejas”) has reviewed the proposed project and at this time we have determined that the project site has cultural significance or ties to Viejas. Cultural resources have been located within or adjacent to the APE-DE of the proposed project.

Viejas Band request that a Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities and to inform us of any new developments such as inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts, cremation sites, or human remains.

If you wish to utilize Viejas cultural monitors (Viejas rate is $54.15/hr. plus GSA mileage), please call Ernest Pingleton at 619-655-0410 or email, [email protected], for contracting and scheduling. Thank you.

From: Jessica Colston <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Ray Teran <[email protected]>; Ernest Pingleton <[email protected]>; Matthew DeCarlo <[email protected]>
Subject: Santee Community Center PN 14169
Hi Ray,
I wanted to reach out to provide you with the Santee Community Center Project’s description. I have also attached the map and mock up documents, since they show pretty well the current area and the proposed development.

The Project description is as follows:

The Santee Community Center would involve the development of a 12,500 SQ Ft, 2 story structure adjacent to the current city-owned YMCA. The development would consist of removing the current parking lot surface for the building footprint, as well as some of the adjacent landscaping on the south side of the parking lot. This is followed by excavation, grading for the pad. It is anticipated that utility trenching will also be required.

Please reach out to me if you have any further questions.

Safe Travels,
Jessica Colston
Archaeologist
605 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024
Cell: 760.815.6642
2 www.dudek.com

TRIBAL COUNCIL
Stephen W. Cope
Chairman
Justin Quis Quis
Vice Chairman
Jenny Alto
Secretary-Treasurer
Roberta Cameron
Councilman
Melody S. Arviso
Councilman
December 8, 2022
DUDEK
Jessica Colston
Archaeologist
605 Third Street
Encinitas Ca 92024
RE: Santee Community Project
Dear Mrs. Colston,
The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office has received your notification of the project referenced above. This letter constitutes our response on behalf of Desiree M. Whitman THPO of the San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Indians.

We have consulted our maps and determined that the project as described is not within the boundaries of the recognized San Pasqual Indian Reservation. It is, however, within the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). Furthermore, As the project progresses, we would like to engage in formal government-to-government consultation under AB-52 so that San Pasqual can have a voice in the development of the measures that will be taken to protect these sites and mitigate any adverse impacts. We would appreciate being given access to any cultural resource reports that have been or will be generated during the environmental review process so we can contribute most effectively to the consultation process.

We appreciate your involvement with your initiative and look forward to working with you on future efforts. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at 760-651-5142 or [email protected]
Sincerely,
Angelina Gutierrez
Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Deputy THPO/Monitor Supervisor San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians
Appendix D
Geotechnical Report

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER

SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

HMC Architects
8910 University Center Lane, #650
San Diego, CA 92122
Prepared by:

GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, California 92618
Group Delta Project Number IR786
June 15, 2022
32 Mauchly, Suite B, Irvine, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 450-2100 Anaheim – Irvine – Ontario – San Diego – Torrance
www.GroupDelta.com
HMC Architects June 15, 2022
8910 University Center Lane, #650 Group Delta Project No. IR786 San Diego, CA 92122
Attention: Kyle Peterson, AIA, LEED AP, DBIA
Managing Manager
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Santee Community Center
Santee, California
Dear Kyle:

Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta) is pleased to submit this geotechnical investigation report for the proposed Santee Community Center Phase 1 project located in the City of Santee, California. This report and our associated geotechnical services were provided in general accordance with our consulting agreement with HMC Group (HMC), dated January 12, 2022.

We appreciate the opportunity to provided geotechnical services for this project. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 450-2100.

Yours Sincerely,
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.

Michael Givens, PhD, PE, GE, PG Giovani Valdivia
Associate Engineer Staff Engineer
Distribution: Addressee (1 PDF file via email)
9/30/2023
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Scope of Work......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Site Description....................................................................................................... 2

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................ 2

2.1 Field Exploration ..................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................. 2

3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS................................................................... 3

3.1 Geology................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Fill ........................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Alluvium.................................................................................................................. 3

3.4 Granitic Rock........................................................................................................... 3

3.5 Groundwater........................................................................................................... 4

4.0 SEISMICITY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.......................................................................... 4

4.1 Ground Rupture...................................................................................................... 4

4.2 Earthquake Ground Motions .................................................................................. 4

4.3 Liquefaction and Seismically‐Induced Settlement...................................................5

4.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads...............................................................................6

4.5 Expansive Soils........................................................................................................ 7

4.6 Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis..............................................................................7

5.0 KEY GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 7

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 8

6.1 General ................................................................................................................... 8

6.2 Community Center Structure.................................................................................. 8

6.2.1 Post‐Tensioned Slabs or Reinforced Mat Slab Foundations........................8

6.2.1.1 Subgrade Reaction and Expansive Soil Design Parameters........8

6.2.1.2 Bearing Capacity and Settlement ..............................................9 Geotechnical Investigation Report June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786
Santee, CA Page ii
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

6.2.1.3 Lateral Resistance....................................................................10

6.2.2 Shallow Foundations with Grade Beams and Ground Improvement ........10

6.3 Slope Setback........................................................................................................ 11

6.4 Soil Corrosion Potential......................................................................................... 11

6.5 Stormwater Infiltration ......................................................................................... 11

6.6 Retaining Walls ..................................................................................................... 12

6.7 Ancillary Structures............................................................................................... 13

6.8 Pole Type Foundation ........................................................................................... 13

6.9 Slab‐on‐Grade ....................................................................................................... 13

6.9.1 Interior Slabs............................................................................................. 13

6.9.1.1 Moisture Protection ................................................................13

6.9.2 Exterior Slabs............................................................................................. 14

6.10 Pavement Design .................................................................................................. 14

6.10.1 Flexible Pavements ................................................................................... 14

6.10.2 Rigid Concrete Pavements ........................................................................14

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 15

7.1 Plan Review........................................................................................................... 15

7.2 Ground Improvement........................................................................................... 15

7.2.1 Depth Range of Ground Improvement......................................................15

7.2.2 Methods of Ground Improvement............................................................15

7.2.3 Areal Extent of Ground Improvement.......................................................16

7.3 Earthwork ............................................................................................................. 16

7.3.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................ 16

7.3.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing.............................................................16

7.3.1.2 Remedial Grading ....................................................................17

7.3.2 Fill Compaction.......................................................................................... 17

7.3.3 Imported Fills ............................................................................................ 17

7.3.4 Temporary Excavations and Shoring .........................................................18

7.4 Utility Trenches..................................................................................................... 19 Geotechnical Investigation Report June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786
Santee, CA Page iii
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

7.5 Construction Observation and Testing..................................................................19

8.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................. 19

9.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1   Mapped Seismic Design Parameters Per CBC 2022 / ASCE 7‐16 Table 2   Summary of Global Stability Results
Table 3   Post‐Tensioned Slab Foundation Design Recommendations Table 4   Corrosion Potential Test Results
Table 5   Flexible Pavement Design Sections

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1   Site Location Map
Figure 2   Site Conceptual Plan
Figure 3   Exploration Location Map
Figure 4   Regional Geologic Map
Figure 5   Regional Fault Map
Figure 6   Liquefaction Zone Map
Figure 7   Flood Hazard Zone Map

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A   Field Investigation
Appendix B   Laboratory Testing
Appendix C   Calculations

N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER

SANTEE, CALIFORNIA

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents our geotechnical investigation and recommendations for design of the proposed Santee Community Center in Santee, California. The project site is located adjacent to the Cameron Family YMCA at 10123 Riverwalk Drive in the City of Santee. The project site is shown in Figure 1, Site Location Map.

1.1 Project Description
It is our understanding that the proposed building is part of phase one of three phases, consisting of the development of the primary Community Center. The proposed Community Center will have an approximate area of 12,500 square feet consisting of dedicated facilities for teens and seniors, lobby space, multi‐purpose rooms, administrative offices, and storage. Other associated improvements include parking facilities and landscape architecture. A conceptual development plan is presented in Figure 2.

The finish floor elevation of the proposed Community Center is not available at the time of preparing this report and it has been assumed at grade (with no basement).

1.2 Scope of Work
The objective of this report was to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction for the proposed development. Our scope of work for the project includes the following task:

Review of the available published geotechnical and geologic reports, maps, and subsurface data for the project site and surrounding area.  Perform three geotechnical borings to evaluate the subsurface conditions.  Perform laboratory testing to quantify physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils.
 Evaluate geologic and seismic hazards including local seismicity, surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and other considered geologic hazards.  Evaluate seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC).
 Provide geotechnical recommendations for site development earthwork, including removal of unsuitable soils, excavations, placement of compacted fill/backfill, and reuse of excavated materials.
 Provide geotechnical recommendations for support of the proposed structures.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 2
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx  Evaluate the corrosivity of the on‐site soils.
 Provide pavement design recommendations.
 Prepare this report presenting the results of our investigation, conclusions, and recommendations.

1.3 Site Description
The project site is a 12,500 square feet rectangular shaped area east of Cameron Family YMCA, within the parking lot area. The project site is currently occupied by an asphalt concrete (AC) paved parking lot used for the YMCA. The site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 345 feet above mean sea level. The southern and eastern limits of the property has slopes that descend into the Woodglen Vista Creek.

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 Field Exploration
The field exploration program was performed on February 17, 2022 and consisted of drilling three (3) hollow stem auger borings (B‐1 through B‐3) to a maximum depth of 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). The locations of these explorations are shown in Figure 3. A detailed explanation of the field exploration including boring logs is presented in Appendix A.

2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the field exploration to help characterize the subsurface materials and to evaluate their index and engineering properties. The performed tests are identified on the boring logs in Appendix A. A detailed description of the laboratory testing program including test results is presented in Appendix B.

The laboratory testing program consisted of the following:
 Moisture content and dry density
 Grain size distribution and percent passing No. 200 sieve  Atterberg Limits
 Direct Shear
 Expansion index test
 Corrosivity tests (pH, sulfates, chlorides and electrical resistivity)  R‐Value test
Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 3
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology
The subject site is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by a series of northwest trending mountain ranges separated by valleys, with a coastal plain of subdued landforms. The mountain ranges are underlain primarily by Mesozoic metamorphic rocks that were intruded by plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith, while the coastal plain is underlain by subsequently deposited marine and nonmarine sedimentary formations.

In general the project site is underlain at depth by early Cretaceous age undivided tonalite and granodiorite (Map Symbol – Kgr, referred to as Granitic Rock in this report) covered by Holocene young alluvial deposits (Map Symbol – Qya). The young alluvial deposits are associated with the San Diego River and generally consist of poorly to well graded sandy soils. Not presented in the geologic map, but identified during our field investigation was surficial fill material. A regional geologic map of the project site is illustrated in Figure 4 and the pertinent units are discussed below.

3.2 Fill
Undocumented fill is soil where there is no record of compaction testing and/or observation by a Geotechnical Engineer’s representative. Undocumented fill depths ranged from 4 to 10 feet were encountered in our exploratory borings. As described in the boring logs, the fill generally consists of clayey sand (SC) with approximately 38 to 42 percent fines with trace to little gravel.

Deeper fills could be present anywhere within the site and could locally extend deeper.

3.3 Alluvium
The Holocene‐age young alluvial fan deposits (Map Symbol – Qya) are associated with the San Diego River. The alluvial deposits at the project site generally consist of loose to medium dense sands (SM, SP‐SM, SW, SW‐SM) to a depth of 28 feet below ground surface.

3.4 Granitic Rock
Early Cretaceous‐age granitic rock (Map Symbol Kgr) comprised of tonalite and granodiorite is believed to underlie the entire site at depth. Decomposed granitic rock materials were encountered in our exploratory Boring B‐1 at a depth of about 28 feet. As described in the boring logs, the granitic rock materials encountered are gray in color and highly weathered for the depth explored. Granitic rock weathered to well graded sand with silt or clay (SW‐SC, SW‐SM).

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 4
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

3.5 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at depths between 14.5 to 16.1 feet bgs (between 331.0 and 328.9 feet above MSL) during our field investigation. The State Water Resources Control Board website (GeoTracker, 2021) provides depth to groundwater data from 2002 to 2013 at the former RCP Block & Brick Inc. site located at 9631 N. Magnolia Avenue, about ¼‐mile southeast of the site. The data indicates groundwater depths ranging from about 328.2 to 330.7 feet above MSL in the 8 monitoring wells installed at that site (SCS Engineers, 2013).

Groundwater levels may fluctuate over time due to changes in the water surface elevation and flow rate within the Woodglen Vista Creek, as well as variations in rainfall, irrigation and site drainage conditions.

4.0 SEISMICITY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Potential seismic hazards during an earthquake include ground rupture, strong ground shaking, seismic slope instability, liquefaction and dynamic settlement, and earthquake induced flooding due to tsunamis or dam failures. Potential geologic hazards include landslides, erosion, subsidence, volcanic eruptions, and poor soil conditions (compressible, collapsible or expansive soils). Each of the potential hazards is discussed in more detail below.

4.1 Ground Rupture
The project site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest known active fault is the Mission Gorge located at a distance of approximately 10.4 km away from the project site as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, ground surface rupture due to active faulting is not considered a potential hazard at the project site.

4.2 Earthquake Ground Motions
Similar to most sites in southern California, the project site is susceptible to strong ground motions generated during earthquakes on nearby faults. The intensity of ground motion is dependent on the distance between the fault and the project site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the subsurface soil conditions. These seismic hazards and their potential impact at the project site are discussed below.

Design ground motion parameters and response spectra were developed for the project site in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7‐16 standard for essential facilities. Based on the underlying geology and subsurface exploration data the site classification forseismic design is Site Class D per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7‐16. Mapped seismic design parameters for the project site using the USGS Seismic Design Maps web application are presented in Table 1.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center   Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA   Page 5
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx Table 1: Mapped Seismic Design Parameters per CBC 2022 / ASCE 7‐16 Latitude: 32.85076°      Longitude: ‐116.97683°
Site Class D
Mapped MCE Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (SS) 0.77 Mapped MCE Spectral Response Acceleration at Period of 1 Second (S1) 0.283 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.192
Site Coefficient, Fv 2.034
Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (SMS) 0.918 Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration at Period of 1 Second (SM1) 0.576 Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (SDS) 0.612(1) Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Period of 1 Second (SD1) 0.384(2) Peak Ground Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class (PGAM) 0.419 Notes   (1) For T ≤ 1.5 Ts, SDS should be used only to obtain Cs using Equation 12.8‐2. (2): If SD1 is used to obtain CS with either equation 12.8‐3 or 12.8‐4 of ASCE 7‐16, the value must be increased by a factor of 1.5. This may only be used for T > 1.5 TS.

4.3 Liquefaction and Seismically‐Induced Settlement
Liquefaction involves the sudden loss in strength of a saturated, cohesionless soil (sand and non‐ plastic silts) caused by the build‐up of pore water pressure during cyclic loadings, such as those produced by an earthquake. This increase in pore water pressure can temporarily transform the soil into a fluid mass, resulting in a vertical settlement, and can also cause lateral ground deformations. Typically, liquefaction occurs in areas where these three simultaneous conditions exist:
• Loose to medium dense cohesionless soils
• Groundwater within 50 feet of the surface
• Strong shaking, such as caused by an earthquake
The project site is mapped within a liquefaction zone identified by City of Santee in their General Plan, Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Map, 2020 (Figure 6.). The project site is considered to have a moderate to high liquefaction potential.

Liquefaction triggering analyses was performed using simplified procedures recommended by NCEER (Youd and Idriss, 1997, 2001) for SPTs. The analyses uses a peak ground acceleration value for the 2,475‐year return period earthquake (PGAM) based on ASCE 7‐16 of 0.42g and a moment magnitude of Mw 6.4 computed using the USGS based on the Dynamic U.S. 2014 (v4.2) deaggregation tool (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/). A design groundwater of

14.5 feet was used in the analyses.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 6
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx Potential liquefiable layers were encountered at a depth between 14.5 and 28 feet bgs. The soils consist of loose to medium dense sandy soils. The potential forliquefaction to occur at the project site under the design earthquake is considered high. Liquefaction‐induced settlement was calculated on the order of 4 inches. Dry seismic settlements above this depth are calculated at less than 0.1 inches. Differential settlement from the liquefaction induced settlements could be on the order of 2. The values reported are using the NCEER (Youd and Idriss, 1997, 2001) method for SPTs. Liquefaction triggering and liquefaction‐induced settlement calculations are provided in Appendix C.

4.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads
The project site is mapped as marginally susceptible to landslide based on City of Santee General Plan, Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Map, 2020 (Figure 6). The project site is relatively flat with some embankments built up to the south and east near the Woodglen Vista Creek. Based on our review of an existing contour map the adjacent slopes are approximately 7 feet high and are sloped at approximate 4H:1V.

Two‐dimensional limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were performed using the computer program SLIDE to assess the adjacent slopes for overall stability considering static, seismic and rapid drawdown conditions. Soil strength parameters for the analyses were selected based on our field and laboratory testing as summarized in Appendix A and B. The analyses were performed using Spencer’s(1967) method ofslices and the results are summarized in Table 2 and the calculations are presented in Appendix C.

Globalstability underseismic loading conditions were conducted using a pseudo‐static horizontal acceleration coefficient (kh) equal to 2/3 x PGA = 0.279. Initial check for the seismic condition includes liquefied soil strengths evaluated according to Idriss and Boulanger (2008) to evaluate the potential for lateral spreading. A factor of safety greater than 1.1 for the aforementioned condition indicates a relatively small displacement and adequate stability, while a lower factor of safety requires a displacement analysis. The factor of safety was less than 1.1 and indicates a potential for lateral spreading. The horizontal displacements were calculated using a Newmark type simplified procedure recommended by Bray and Travasarou (2007). The estimated displacement is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Global Stability
Static Case
“Seismic Case – Pseudo‐Static (Lateral Spreading)”
with Reduced Liquefaction Strengths
Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety
(kh = 2/3 PGA)
Ky
Lateral Spreading
Displacement (in)

4.8 <1.1 0.14 8.6
Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 7
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

4.5 Expansive Soils
The onsite near surface materials are generally clayey sands. A laboratory test was performed on one sample of the near surface materials that had a measured Expansion Index (EI) value of 68 as shown in Appendix B. This indicates a medium expansion potential (51<EI<90) based on American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM) D4829 standard. Considering that moderately expansion soils are present at the project site, remedial grading should be performed to remove expansive materials or alternatively, foundations can be designed to resist these expansion pressures.

4.6 Flooding, Seiches and Tsunamis
The project site is located in a flood hazard zone X, areas with reduced flood risk due to levee, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Figure 7. The project site is located adjacent to Woodglen Vista Creek that is at a lower elevation. Consequently, the potential for flooding due to seiches or dam failures is considered to be low.

The project site is located at an elevation of about 340 feet above MSL and a distance of about 20 miles away from the coastal region and therefore, the potential for hazard associated with tsunami impact is negligible.

5.0 KEY GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
The proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are implemented. A summary of key geotechnical findings is provided below.
 The upper 4 to 10 feet of the subsurface soils are undocumented fill that consists of predominantly clayey sand material that can have variable strengths. Remedial grading recommendations are provided in Section 7.3.1.2.
 Potentially liquefiable soils are present at the site between a depth of 14.5 to 28 feet bgs that could result in approximately 4 inches of liquefaction‐induced settlement and a seismic differential settlement on the order of 2 inches. Measures such as post‐tension slabs, mat foundations and/or ground improvementshould be considered to mitigate the effects of the total and differential settlements. Lateral spreading is estimated to be on the order of 8.5‐inches and shallow footings on ground improvement should be tie together.
 Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 14.5 feet bgs. No basements are proposed, however, excavations extending near groundwater may encounter unstable bottoms. Excavations that extend within 5 feet or less of groundwater table should consider lighter construction equipment to avoid developing a “pumping” subgrade that would require remedial subgrade stabilization.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 8
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx  Medium expansive soils were encountered in the upper 4 to 10 feet at the site.

Foundations should be designed to resist the expansive soils as recommended in Section 6.2 or the upper 4 feet of soils from final grade should be removed and replaced with non‐expansive material as recommended in Section 7.3.1.2.  Laboratory tests results indicate that the onsite soils may be very corrosive to buried ferrous metals. A corrosion consultant may be contacted for specific corrosion control recommendations.
 Onsite infiltration is not feasible due to the presence of shallow groundwater and near surface soils that have an infiltration rate of less than 0.001 inches per hour as discussed in Section 6.1.

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General
City of Santee has commenced the predesign forthe proposed Santee Community Center project.

Community Center building will be part of phase one of a total of three phases. We understand that a two‐story building is planned to be built at the projectsite. No basement levels are planned for this development.

Considering the subsurface soils are prone to liquefaction‐induced settlements on the order of 4‐inches and lateral spreading maybe on the order of 8.5‐inches, it is recommended to use shallow foundations with grade beams or a reinforced mat foundation situated on ground improvement. Slabs on grade will need to be designed for the expansive nature of the onsite soils or slabs on grade will require removal and replacement of at least 4 feet below final grade to mitigate onsite expansive soils.

Pile foundations are not recommended for the building considering the need to account for the presence ofsandy material below groundwater, presence of bedrock and the potential for lateral spreading. Drilled piles would most likely be needed for embedment into the bedrock and to accommodate the lateral spreading kinematic loads. Drilling would be prone to caving sands during construction and use of casings and/or “wet” method construction would be required. An experienced contractor specializing in these conditions would be required. It is most likely more cost effective to control overall settlement with ground improvement and there is a lower risk of constructability issues.

6.2 Community Center Structure

6.2.1 Post‐Tensioned Slabs or Reinforced Mat Slab Foundations

6.2.1.1 Subgrade Reaction and Expansive Soil Design Parameters The existing nearsurface soils at the projectsite consist of clayey sands. These materials generally have a medium expansion potential (51<EI<90). Site preparation and compaction requirements Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 9
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx should follow recommendations provided in Section 7.3. A post‐tensioned slab or mat thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer using parameters in Table 3 and considering liquefaction‐induced .

Table 3. Post‐Tensioned Slab Foundation Design Recommendations Design Parameter Value
Plasticity Index 20‐30
Expansion Index 51‐90
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 80
Thornthwaite Moisture Index ‐20
Depth of Constant Soil Suction (feet) 9
Center
Lift
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em, (feet) 5.3
Center Lift, ym, (inches) ‐0.5
Edge
Lift
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em, (feet) 2.7
Edge Lift, ym, (inches) 1.0
The modulus of subgrade reaction concept can be used in the design of mat foundations and slabs‐on‐grade. The modulus of subgrade reaction is not an intrinsic property of the soil since it also depends on the dimensions and stiffness of the slab and the stress level. The mat slab foundation should be designed for settlements and bending moments using a value of 150 pci for the normalized modulus of subgrade reaction coefficient Kv1 (namely, corresponding to a 1‐foot square bearing plate). Depending on the level of ground improvement, this value may be increased and should be coordinated with the ground improvementspecialty contractor. To ensure rigidity of the foundation a subgrade reaction coefficient, Kv, should be used based on Terzaghi (1955) and is defined as:

Kv = Kv1* [(m + 0.5)/1.5m] * [(B+1)/2B]2
where “B” is the width of the foundation measured in feet, and “m” is the ratio of length over width of a rectangular foundation. The flat concrete slab of the matsystem should, at a minimum, have continuous two‐way reinforcing at the top and the bottom and be designed by the project structural engineer.

6.2.1.2 Bearing Capacity and Settlement
An allowable average bearing pressure of 1,000 psf and a maximum allowable bearing of 1,500 psf for concentrated areas may be used for design if the remedial measure presented in Section 7.3.1.2 are followed. For planning purposes, an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf can be anticipated if ground improvement is extended to the bottom of the foundation as discussed in Section 7.2. The final bearing capacity should be confirmed by the ground improvementspecialty contractor. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one‐third for short term wind or seismic loads. The expected total post‐construction (static) settlement of a PT slab or mat foundation with the allowable bearing pressure is expected to be less than Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 10
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

1.5 inches of static settlement. The static differential settlement is expected to be less than ¾‐inch over a distance of 40 feet. The foundation should be situated a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade.

The total static‐plus‐seismic settlement under PGAM seismic settlement analysis will be on the order of 4 to 5‐inches and a differential of 2 inches. The dry seismic are negligible and the large settlements are associated with the liquefaction induced settlements as discussed in Section 4.3.

Mat foundations shall be designed to accommodate the expected vertical differential settlements per ASCE 7‐16 Section 12.13.1.

6.2.1.3 Lateral Resistance
Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction developed between the bottom of footings and the supporting soil, and by the passive soil pressure developed on the face of the footing. An allowable passive resist of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and a coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used for lateral sliding resistance of footings. Both values include a factor of safety of at least 1.5 and both passive and sliding resistance may be used in combination without reduction.

The allowable lateral resistance may be increased by one‐third for short term wind or seismic loads.

6.2.2 Shallow Foundations with Grade Beams and Ground Improvement The Community Center can be supported by shallow foundationsif they are horizontally tied with grade beams, founded over ground improvement as discussed in Section 7.2 and remedial grading is performed in accordance with 7.3.1.2. The seismic‐induced permanent horizontal ground displacement exceeds 3 inches if the design earthquake is realized and ASCE 7‐19 Section 12.13.9.2.1.1 shall be followed.

Final ground improvement layout shall be designed by a specialty contractor as discussed in Section 7.2. The ground improvement will be controlled by allowable settlements, that should not exceed 1.5 inches of total (static‐plus‐seismic) and should be evaluated by the specialty contractor as part of their submittal to support their plans. For planning purposes, spread footings situated on ground improvement as discussed in Section 7.2 is expected to accommodate an allowable dead‐plus‐live load pressure of at least 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The static differential settlement should be less than ½‐inch over a distance of 40 feet.

Ground improvement should be placed after remedial grading to remove and replace 4 feet of soil below the slab if the slab is not designed to accommodate expansive forces of the existing soils. Shallow footings should have a minimum dimension of 2 feet and shallow continuous footings should have a minimum width of 1.5 feet. Locate the bottoms of all footings at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.

Resistance to lateral loads recommendations from Section 6.2.1.3 apply for shallow footings.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 11
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

6.3 Slope Setback
As per section 1808.7.2 of the 2022 CBC, which references Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2022 CBC, the distance between the face of the footing from the face of descending slopes should be at least the smaller of H/3 and 40 feet, where H is the height of the slope.

6.4 Soil Corrosion Potential
Near surface soils collected from Boring B‐1 were tested to evaluate the corrosion potential of subsurface materials. The tests include pH, electrical resistivity, soluble chloride and soluble sulfate concentrations are summarized in Table 4 and attached at Appendix B.

Table 4: Corrosion Potential Test Results
Based on pH, sulfate content and chloride content of the test sample, the near surface soils are considered not corrosive to concrete. The following correlation can generally be used between electrical resistivity and the corrosion potential of soils in contact with buried metals:

Electrical Resistivity (Ohm‐Cm) Corrosion Potential
Less than 1,000 Severe
1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive
2,000 to 10,000 Moderate
Greater than 10,000 Mild
On the basis of the laboratory testing, the onsite soils are very corrosive to buried metals. Typical corrosion control measures may be incorporated into the design, such as providing adequate concrete cover or protective coatings for steel reinforcement, and coating or providing sacrificial anodes as needed for buried metal pipes. Adequate cover for steel below grade shall follow ACI 318 guidelines. Group Delta does not practice corrosion engineering and our evaluation and recommendations are preliminary in nature. For further guidance and verification of our preliminary results, a corrosion specialist should be consulted.

6.5 Stormwater Infiltration
The City of Santee BMP Design Manual (2016) states that the depth to groundwater beneath the base of any infiltration BMP must be greater than 10 feet for infiltration BMPs to be allowed. The groundwater was encountered between 14.5 and 16.1 feet at the site during our investigation and would require the invert of any BMP to be situated in the upper 5 feet. The upper 5 feet ofsoil consists Sample/Depth pH Resistivity
[Ohm‐cm]
Sulfate Content
[ppm]
Chloride Content
[ppm]
B‐1 @ 1’‐ 5’ 8.87 830 <100 <100
Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 12
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx of clayey sands that are not suitable for infiltration. The hydraulic conductivity of the clayey sands was estimated to be less than 0.001 inches per hour utilizing the Hazen empirical equation that is a function of the grain size diameter corresponding to 10 percent passing as determined by ASTM D422. Consequently, the invert of the BMP system would need to extend within 10 feet of the measured groundwater and onsite infiltration is not considered feasible for the project.

6.6 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be placed on 2 feet of compacted fill that is prepared as discussed in Section 7.3. The continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18‐inches and have a minimum embedment of at least 18‐inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Footings with this minimum width and embedment may be designed for an allowable dead‐plus‐live pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one‐ third when considering temporary loads associated with wind and seismic loading. Short‐term static settlements for footings are expected to be less than 1‐inch. Differential settlements will be less than ½‐inch over a distance of 40‐feet. Estimated liquefaction‐induced settlements may be on the order of 4‐inches if a design level earthquake is realized. Retaining walls typically can accommodate large displacements without collapse. However, if any retaining wall is considered a critical component to the structure, then ground improvement could be utilized to limit vertical displacements.

The magnitude of lateral earth pressure depends on wall movement. Cantilever retaining walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height may be designed for active pressure conditions. Active earth pressure for design may be taken as an equivalent fluid unit weight of 34 pcf for level backfill. The pressure does not include seepage forces or surcharge loads.

Surcharge loads within a 1H:1V plane extending back and up from the base of the wall should be accounted for in design. For uniform areal surcharge loading the lateral pressure on the wall may be taken as a uniformly distributed pressure equal to 28 percent of the vertical pressure for active condition. Other surcharge loading conditions should be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis.

The wall should be designed to resist an active pressure combined with a seismic increment of lateral earth pressure when the retained height H is 6‐feet or greater. The combined active static and seismic lateral earth pressure were computed based on a horizontal acceleration coefficient kh of 0.14g that is based on one third of PGAM. The combined active static and seismic lateral earth pressure is equivalent to a fluid with a density of 53 pcf. Therefore, a seismic increment of 19 pcf may be used for design of seismic earth pressure.

Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction based on ASTM D1557. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate strength. Heavy compaction equipment, which could cause distress to the walls, should not be used within 5‐feet of the wall. We recommend that all retaining walls be backfilled with very low expansion granular soils (EI<20) and a Sand Equivalent (SE) of not less than 20. The shallow onsite material is considered expansive and import material will be required.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 13
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx All walls should be constructed with a properly designed drainage system to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. This may consist of gravel and filter fabric or geocomposite panel drains discharging through weep holes or subdrains.

6.7 Ancillary Structures
Ancillary structures for the project are anticipated to be non‐occupancy structures such as trash enclosures, site fence walls, etc. and recommendations provided in Section 6.6 may be used. In addition, associated pavement recommendations for trash enclosures are provided in Section 6.10.2.

6.8 Pole Type Foundation
Light poles may be supported on pole‐type foundation. Pole‐type foundation may be designed per Section 1807.3, Embedded Posts and Poles, of the CBC 2022. Equation 18‐1 may be used for a non‐constrained condition, and Equations 18‐2 and 18‐3 may be used for a constrained condition. S1 and S3, the allowed lateral soil bearing pressure may be taken as 200 psf. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by one‐third for short term wind or seismic loads.

6.9 Slab‐on‐Grade

6.9.1 Interior Slabs
Site preparation and compaction requirements should follow the recommendations provided in Section 7.3.1. Concrete slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should have a minimum reinforcement with 6x6 W2.9/2.9 welded wire mesh or equivalent. All slab reinforcement should be properly supported to ensure the desired placement. In addition, final design of the foundation should be in accordance with ASCE 7‐19 Section 12.13.9.2.1. The actual slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer. Building slabs should be either designed for the expansive soils or the upper 4 feet of soil should be removed and replaced with non‐expansive material.

6.9.1.1 Moisture Protection
To reduce the potential for moisture transmission through slabs where moisture sensitive floor covering will be installed, we recommend that a vapor barrier be used. In accordance with ACI 302.2R‐06, the material must comply with the requirements of ASTM E1745, “Standard Specification for Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs,” and have a permeance of less than 0.01 perms per ASTM E96. The installation of the moisture barrier should comply with ASTM E1643. Concerning whether to place two inches of sand over the retarder, reference is made to ACI 302.2R, Section 7.2, which states that the anticipated benefits and risks associated with the location of the vapor retarder should be Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 14
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx reviewed on a case by case basis with all appropriate parties, considering anticipated project conditions and the potential effects of concrete curing, cracking, and curling.

6.9.2 Exterior Slabs
Exterior slabs and sidewalks should be at least 4‐inches thick, and should be constructed on at least 2 feet of very low expansion (EI<20) compacted soil, as recommended in Section 7.3.1.

6.10 Pavement Design

6.10.1 Flexible Pavements
Asphalt concrete pavement design was conducted in general accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2020). In orderto aid in pavement analyses, R‐Value tests were conducted on shallow subgrade samples collected from Borings B‐2 during the field investigation.

The test result is provided in Appendix B and the test indicted an R‐Value of 20. Table 5 provides recommendations for pavement sections considering alternative base sections for clayey subgrade and sandy subgrade conditionsforseveral traffic index (TI) values considering a 20‐year design.

Table 5: Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design Sections Traffic Index (TI) Asphalt Concrete (HMA)
Thickness (inches)
Class II Aggregate Base
Thickness (inches)

4.5 3.0 5.0
5 3.0 7.0

5.5 3.0 9.0
6 3.5 9.5

6.5 4.0 10.0
The asphalt concrete thickness can be divided into base and finish courses. The uppermost 1‐foot of subgrade soil should be scarified immediately prior to constructing the new pavements, brought to about optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. All aggregate bases should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base should conform to Section 200‐2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC). Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203‐6 of the SSPWC or Section 39 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. We recommend that asphalt concrete be compacted to between 91 and 97 percent of the Rice density per ASTM D2041.

6.10.2 Rigid Concrete Pavements
Rigid concrete pavements may be desirable in certain areas where heavy equipment may induce large pavement loads, such as a fire access road or near trash bin storage locations. Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement design was conducted in accordance with a simplified design Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 15
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx procedure (Chapter 4) of the Portland Cement Association. The methodology is based on a 20‐year design life. For design, it was assumed that aggregate interlock would be used for load transfer across control joints. The subgrade soils were assumed to provide “medium” subgrade support and the concrete modulus of rupture at 28‐days was assumed to be 600 pounds per square inch (psi). Based on these assumptions, we recommend that the PCC pavement sections at the site consist of 6‐inch of concrete placed over 6 inches of compact aggregate base.

Crack control joints should be constructed for all PCC slabs on a maximum spacing of 12‐feet, each way.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Plan Review
Detail design and foundation and grading plans should be reviewed by Group Delta prior to beginning construction. Design loads and final structural configuration should be reevaluated to ensure conformance to the recommendations and findings of this report.

7.2 Ground Improvement

7.2.1 Depth Range of Ground Improvement
Ground improvement should be performed to mitigate the potential for liquefaction‐induced settlements and differential movements from undocumented fill. The final design of the ground improvement should be based on permissible displacement allowed during a seismic event to avoid risk of collapse or other project damage goals. The minimum zone of improvement should extend from the bottom of footings to a few feet into the weathered bedrock layer below the lowest liquefiable layer. For planning purposes, the ground improvement may be assumed from El. 333 to El. 315 feet. Ground improvement isrequired to extend from El. 315 feet to the bottom of footings if shallow foundations are utilized as discussed in Section 6.2.2.

7.2.2 Methods of Ground Improvement
In general, methods to mitigate liquefaction include methods that mix soil and cement (soil mixing and jet grouting), grouts that permeate the soil pores (permeation grouting), and densification methods (compaction grouting, vibroflotation, or stone columns). Considering the readily accessible nature of the projectsite and the depths of needed improvements are between 13 feet and 30 feet below ground surface, a densification method is well suited for the project.

Compaction grouting would be the most effective method to densify the potentially liquefiable soils and limit liquefaction‐induced settlements. Compaction grouting involves injecting grout into the ground in a grid pattern that displaces and compacts the surrounding soils. The grout columns have an added benefit in that they are rigid inclusions that provide additional resistance to further restrict lateral spreading. Pre‐ and post‐grouting cone penetration tests (CPTs) can be performed to indicate the effectiveness of the improvement.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 16
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx Stone columns are a more cost effective option that could be utilized for reducing liquefaction‐induced settlements as well as providing adequate bearing to improve the undocumented fill at the site. Stone columns construction involves the introduction of rock material into the native material by downhole vibratory methods. Stone column construction is often referenced as vibro‐replacement or vibro‐displacement that can be a top or bottom feed processto install stone columns to the targeted depths. Alternative to vibration methods include rammed aggregate piers (RAP) that are installed by drilling and ramming lifts of well‐graded aggregate to form the high‐density columns.

A qualified soil improvement contractor should be selected and provide design of the mix proportions, depth, spacing, and size of the zone of treatment based on the target foundation design parameters and their design requirementsfor the selected ground improvement method.

Quality control procedures for installation and verification of material strengths will be developed once the method of ground improvement has been selected.

7.2.3 Areal Extent of Ground Improvement
Compaction grouting and stone columns would both be placed in grid patternsfor the entire area of the foundation and should extend at least five feet laterally from the foundation of the building.

7.3 Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in general accordance with the applicable local grading ordinance and the requirements of the 2022 California Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on the conditions observed by our personnel during grading.

7.3.1 Site Preparation

7.3.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing
The area that will be developed should be cleared and grubbed of all improvements, and vegetation in general accordance with Section 300‐1 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction [SSPWC] (Green Book, 2018).

Existing subsurface utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed and the excavations backfilled and compacted as described in Section 7.3.2. Alternatively, abandoned utilities may be grouted with a two‐sack sand‐cement slurry under the observation of Group Delta. After clearing and grubbing the site, remedial grading should be performed in the building and other general improvement areas as recommended in the following sections.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 17
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

7.3.1.2 Remedial Grading
Approximately 4 to 10 feet of undocumented fill as discussed in Section 3.4 was identified at the site that consists of predominantly clayey sand material that can have variable strength. The undocumented fill below the proposed building should be removed to at least 7 feet below the existing grade or at least 4 feet from the bottom of slab, whichever is deeper. The removal areas should extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the edge of the footings in all directions. As an alternative, ground improvement may be utilized to improve the undocumented fill as discussed in Section 7.2. If the slab on grade is not designed for expansive soils of the existing soils, then removal and replacement of at least 4 feet below final grade is required. The replacement soils should meet the requirements noted in Section 7.3.3.

In general the exposed subgrade at the bottom of overexcavation should be proof rolled with loaded heavy equipment under Group Delta’s observation to disclose any areas of deeper unsuitable soils. Areas of soft, loose, wet, pumping, or otherwise unsuitable soils should be further excavated or stabilized as recommended by Group Delta in the field. After proof‐rolling the exposed subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted as described in Section 7.3.2. The excavation may then be backfilled from bottom of overexcavation to the planned finish subgrade with compacted fill.

7.3.2 Fill Compaction
All fill and backfill should be placed at slightly above optimum moisture content using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. In general, the minimum recommended relative compaction is 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557. All fill placed within the proposed building areas and below foundations should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Group Delta so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved.

Rocks or concrete fragments greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension should not be used in structural fill.

7.3.3 Imported Fills
Imported fill sources, if any, should be observed and tested prior to hauling onto the site to evaluate the suitability for use. Imported fill materials should consist of granular soil with less than 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on ASTM D 1140 and an EI less than 20 based on ASTM D4829. More stringent requirements may apply for soils to be used for specific purposes. Samples of the proposed import should be tested by Group Delta in order to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use. During grading operations, soil types may be encountered by the contractor that do not appear to conform to those discussed in this report.

In that case, Group Delta should be notified in order to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 18
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

7.3.4 Temporary Excavations and Shoring
The contractor is responsible for excavation safety, and all excavations should comply with the current California and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements (29 CFR‐Part 1926, Subpart P), as applicable. For planning purposes OSHA Type C soils may be assumed for temporary excavations, which allowsfor temporary slopes up to 20 feet high at a gradient of 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical). Unshored excavations should not extend below a 1:1 plane extending down from any improvements or foundations to be protected in place.

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

Vertical temporary excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored. No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is greater from the top of the excavation, unless the shoring is designed for surcharge loading. All shoring should comply with OSHA regulations and 29 CFR Part 1926 guidelines and be observed and deemed safe by the designated competent person on site. The designated competent person should observe all excavations to determine the safety prior to excavation. Shoring designs may utilize the following soil parameters:
 Unit Weight: 120 pcf
 Friction Angle: 32 degrees
 Active Coefficient (Ka): 0.307
 At‐Rest Coefficient (K0): 0.470
For design of cantilevered temporary shoring, where the surface of the backfill is level, it can be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 37 pcf. Surcharge loads from equipment or stockpiled material should be kept behind the top of the temporary excavations a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the excavation, or the shoring should be designed for the additional pressure. Foundation and traffic loads from adjacent areas should also be added to the lateral earth pressures.

For design of temporary rigid shoring such as braced shoring or trench shields in sandy soils, we recommend the use of a rectangular lateral pressure of 24H psf, where H is the height of the shoring in feet. In addition, 47 percent of any surcharge load should be included as a uniform rectangular loading on the shoring. For traffic loads no larger than highway trucks, the surcharge may be taken as a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. Other surcharge loads may be evaluated by Group Delta on a case‐by‐case basis.

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

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 19
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx

7.4 Utility Trenches
Excavations for utility trenches should be readily accomplished with conventional excavating equipment. All shoring and excavation should comply with current OSHA regulations and be observed by the designated competent person on site.

The bedding for any new sewer and water service pipelines should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should consist of clean sand, No. 4 concrete aggregate or gravel, and should have a sand equivalent of not less than 30. The pipe zone material, which extends to a level 12 inches above the pipe should consist of sand and should have a sand equivalent of no less than 30, and a maximum rock size of 1 inch. All imported materials should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer before being brought on site.

Trench zone backfill extends from a level 12 inches above the pipe to the finished subgrade. In general, on‐site excavated materials are suitable as backfill. Any boulders or cobbles larger than 3 inches in any dimensions, or any organics or other deleterious materials, should be removed before backfilling. We recommend that all backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding six to eight inches in thickness and be compacted to at least 90% of relative compaction as determined by the ASTM D1557. Mechanical compaction will be required to accomplish compaction above the bedding along the entire pipeline alignments. Jetting or flooding of backfill should not be permitted.

In backfill areas, where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, 2‐sack slurry (CLSM) may be substituted for compacted backfill.

7.5 Construction Observation and Testing
The Geotechnical Engineer should observe subgrade preparation, backfill and fill placement.

Excavation bottom should be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of concrete, steel, piping, or backfill materials. Sufficient in‐place field density tests should be performed during fill placement to verify that the entire fill is placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the geotechnical report and applicable codes.

8.0 LIMITATIONS
Thisinvestigation was performed per generally accepted Geotechnical Engineering principles and practice. The professional engineering work and judgments presented in this report meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

This report has been prepared for HMC Architects, the City of Santee, and its design consultants.

It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes and should not be used for other projects or other purposes without review and approval by Group Delta.

The recommendations for this project, to a high degree, are dependent upon proper quality control of site grading, fill and backfill placement, and paving. The recommendations are made contingent on the opportunity for Group Delta to observe the earthwork operations. This firm Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 20
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx should be notified of any pertinent changesin the project, or if conditions are encountered in the field, which differs from those described herein. If parties other than Group Delta are engaged to provide such services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility for the geotechnical phase of the project and must either concur with the recommendations in this report or provide alternate recommendations.

9.0 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, Standard 7‐16.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Soil and Rock, Volume 04.08, 2008.

Bray and Travasarou (2007). “Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake Induced Deviatoric Slope Displacements”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental engineering, ASCE, V 133(4)
California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, California, 2022.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 2020). Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 630 Flexible Pavement, July 1.

Caltrans, Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual, 2010a.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 2018). Standard Specifications.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). http://www.fema.gov/, 2021.

Green Book, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2018.

Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008). “ Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes”, monograph series, No. MNO‐12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:

Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Edited by T.L.Youd and I.M.Idriss, April 2001.

Portland Cement Association, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements, 1995.

Geotechnical Investigation June 15, 2022
Santee Community Center Group Delta Project No. IR786 Santee, CA Page 21
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center_v3.docx Southern California Earthquake Center, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG SP 117, “Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California”, University of Southern California, 1999.

Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No.8, pp 861‐878, 1987.

CAL/OSHA (2018). Title 8 Regulations, Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 6.

Excavations. https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1541_1.html United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2019, Unified Hazard Too, accessed on March 4, 2022 at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/.

FIGURES

SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure Number:
1 Project Number:

IR786
Project Name:

Santee Community Center,
Santee CA
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
32 MAUCHLY, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 450-2100
SITE
Reference: USGS, US Topo 7.5 Minute Map for El Cajon Quadrangle, CA 2021 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
32 MAUCHLY, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 450-2100
Figure Number: 2
Project Number:

IR789
Project Name:

Santee Community Center
Santee, CA

SITE CONCEPTUAL PLAN

NOT TO SCALE
Phase 1 Location (Community Center)
Note: Site Plan taken from HMC Architects 100% Schematic Design Package GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
32 MAUCHLY, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 450-2100
Figure Number: 3
Project Number:

IR786
Project Name:

Santee Community Center
Santee, CA

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
B-1
Approximate Boring Location
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
32 MAUCHLY, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 450-2100
Figure Number:
4 Project Number:

IR789
Project Name:

Santee Community Center
Santee, CA
Regional Geologic Map

NOT TO SCALE
Qya – Young alluvium (Holocene)
Qoa – Older alluvium (Holocene and Pleistocene)
Tfr – Friars Formation (Eocene)
Ksp – Santiago Peak Volcanics (Early Cretaceous)
SITE
Kgr – Granitoid rocks (Early Cretaceous)
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
32 MAUCHLY, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 450-2100
Figure Number:

Project Number:

IR789
Project Name:

Santee Community Center
Santee, CA

REGIONAL FAULT MAP
Reference: USGS Quaternary Faults, NSHM 2014 Fault Sources https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html NSHM 2014 Fault Sources
Normal
Strike Slip
Thrust
Unassigned
Point Loma
SITE
5 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
32 MAUCHLY, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 450-2100
FIGURE NO.:
6 PROJECT NO.:

IR786

LIQUEFACTION ZONE MAP
PROJECT NAME:

Santee Community Center
Santee, CA
REFERENCES:

City of Santee General Plan, Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Map, Figure 8-3, 2020 SITE
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
32 MAUCHLY, SUITE B
IRVINE, CA 92618 (949) 450-2100
FIGURE NO.:
7 PROJECT NO.:

IR786

FLOOD HAZARD ZONE MAP
PROJECT NAME:

Santee Community Center
Santee, CA
SITE

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC - Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix A\Appendix A.docx

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTION
The subsurface conditions at the project site were investigated by performing borings as described below. A summary of field explorations (Table A-1), boring record legend, key for soil classification, boring records, drive hammer energy calibrations, and other relevant information are presented in the attachments to this appendix. Specific details for each boring are presented in the title block of each boring record.

Prior to beginning the exploration program, access permission and drilling permits were obtained as necessary. Subsurface utility maps were reviewed prior to selecting locations for subsurface investigations. Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified, and each exploration location was cleared for underground utilities using geophysical techniques as needed. Approved traffic control plans were implemented where necessary during field activities. The exploration methods are described in the following sections.

SOIL DRILLING AND SAMPLING
Drilling, Logging, and Soil / Rock Classification
Borings were performed by Group Delta’s drilling subcontractors under the continuous technical supervision of a Group Delta field engineer or geologist, who visually inspected the soil samples, maintained detailed records of the borings, measured groundwater levels, and visually / manually classified the soils in accordance with the ASTM D 2488 and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logging and classification was performed in general accordance with Caltrans “Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010 Edition)”. A Boring Record Legend, Key for Soil Classification, and boring records are presented in the attachments to this appendix.

Sampling
Bulk samples of soil cuttings were collected at selected depths and drive and/or push samples were collected at a typical interval of 5 feet from the borings (closer or wider sample spacing was employed where considered necessary or appropriate). The sampling was performed using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers in accordance with ASTM D 1586, Ring-Lined “California” Split Barrel samplers in accordance with ASTM D 3550, and/or Thin-Walled “Shelby” Tube Samplers in accordance with ASTM D 1587.

Bulk samples were collected from auger cuttings and placed in plastic bags.

SPT drive samples were obtained using a 2-inch outside diameter and 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler without lining. The soil recovered from the SPT sampling was sealed in plastic bags to preserve the natural moisture content.

Appendix A – Geotechnical Investigation Report
Santee Community Center Page A-2
HMC
Group Delta Project No. IR786
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC - Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix A\Appendix A.docx Modified California (“MODCAL”) drive samples were collected with a 3.0 inch outside diameter (OD) (unless indicated otherwise on the boring record) ring-lined split barrel sampler with a 2.42-inch inside diameter (ID) cutting shoe. The sampler barrel is lined with 18-inches of metal rings for sample collection and has an additional length of waste barrel. Stainless steel or brass liner rings for sample collection are 1-inch high, 2.42-inch inside diameter, and 2.5-inch outside diameter. California samples were removed from the sampler, retained in the metal rings, and placed in sealed plastic canisters to prevent loss of moisture.

At each sampling interval, the drive samplers were fitted onto sampling rod, lowered to the bottom of the boring, and driven 18 inches or to refusal (50 blows per 6 inches) with a 140-lb hammer free-falling a height of 30-inches (unless otherwise indicated on the boring record).

Shelby tube samplers (if used) were pushed to collect undisturbed samples of soft to stiff cohesive soils where encountered. The samples were secured within the tubes and the tubes were sealed with plastic caps and electric tape in the field to prevent moisture loss.

Compared to the SPT, the California sampler provides less disturbed samples. Shelby Tubes provide the least sample disturbance and are considered undisturbed.

Penetration Resistance
SPT blow counts adjusted to 60% hammer efficiency (N60) are routinely used as an index of the relative density of coarse-grained soils, and are sometimes used (but less reliable) to estimate consistency of cohesive soils. For samples collected using non-SPT samplers, different hammer weight and drop height, and/or efficiency different than 60%, correction factors can be applied to estimate the equivalent SPT N60 value following the approach of Burmister (1948) as follows:

N*60 = NR * CE * CH * CS
where
N*60 = equivalent SPT N60
NR = Raw Field Blowcount (blows per foot)
CE = Hammer Efficiency Correction = Eri / 60%
CH = Hammer Energy Correction = (W * H) / (140 lb * 30 in) CS = Sampler Size Correction = [(2.0 in)2-(1.375 in)2]/[Do 2 -Di
2 ]
Eri = hammer efficiency, %
W= actual drive hammer weight, lbs
Appendix A – Geotechnical Investigation Report
Santee Community Center Page A-3
HMC
Group Delta Project No. IR786
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC - Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix A\Appendix A.docx H = actual drive hammer drop, inch
Do, Di = actual sampler outside and inside diameter, respectively, inches Burmister’s correction assumes that penetration resistance (blowcount) is inversely proportional to the hammer energy. For a hammer other than a 140# hammer with 30” drop the hammer energy correction is equal to the ratio of the theoretical hammer energy (weight times drop) to the theoretical SPT hammer energy, or CH = (W * H) / (140 lb * 30 in).

Burmister’s correction assumes that penetration resistance (blowcount) is proportional to the annular end area of the drive sampler. For example, California drive samplers with Do=3 inch and Di=2.42 inch the sampler size correction factor is the ratio of the annular area of an SPT split spoon to that of the California Sampler, or CS =[2.02-1.3752]/[32-

2.422] = 0.67.

To normalize the field SPT and California blowcounts to a hammer with 60% efficiency, an energy correction factor equal to Hammer Efficiency (%) / 60% was applied to the field blowcounts. Hammer efficiency was determined by Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) measurement and/or by published correlations with the CME Automatic Hammer blow count rate (USBR, 1999). Hammer efficiency measurements are presented in the attachments to this appendix.

The correction factors applied to obtain N*60 are shown in the “NOTES” section of the boring record title block. Corrected N*60 are primarily used, with due engineering judgment, for qualitative assessment of in place density or consistency.

Relative Density and Consistency
Equivalent SPT N*60 values were used as the basis for classifying relative density of granular/cohesionless soils. Wherever possible consistency classification of cohesive soils was based on undrained shear strength estimated in the field with a pocket penetrometer and/or Torvane or by testing in the laboratory. Where pocket penetrometer or other tests could not be performed, consistency of cohesive soils was estimated by correlations to Equivalent SPT N*60. The correlations for consistency and relative density are shown in the Boring Record Legend in the attachments to this appendix. Drive sample field blow counts, SPT N*60 values, pocket penetrometer/Torvane readings, and corresponding density/consistency classifications are presented on the boring records.

Appendix A – Geotechnical Investigation Report
Santee Community Center Page A-4
HMC
Group Delta Project No. IR786
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC - Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix A\Appendix A.docx Borehole Abandonment
At the completion of the drilling groundwater was measured (where possible) and the borings were abandoned by backfilling the borehole with as indicated on the records.

Where necessary excess cuttings and drilling fluids were placed in 55-gallon drums, sampled, and tested for contaminants, temporarily stored at an approved location, and legally disposed of off-site. The surface was patched with cold mix asphalt concrete or quickset concrete, as necessary. Notes describing the borehole abandonment are presented in the title block of each boring record.

Sample Handling and Transport
Geotechnical samples were sealed to prevent moisture loss, packed in appropriate protective containers, and transported to the geotechnical laboratory for further examination and geotechnical testing.

Laboratory Testing
The soil samples were further examined and tested in the laboratory and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System following ASTM D 2487 and D 2488 (see the Key for Soil Classification in the attachments to this appendix). Field classifications presented on the records were modified where necessary on the basis of the laboratory test results. Descriptions of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix B.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Tables
Summary of Field Explorations
Figures
Boring Record Legend
Key for Soil Classification
Boring Records
Hammer Efficiency Calibrations
Summary of Field Explorations
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC ‐ Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix A\Table A‐1 Summary of Field Explorations.docx Table A‐1: Summary of Field Explorations
Exploration
No.

Completion
Date
Ground
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Total Depth
(feet)
Groundwater
Depth
(feet)
Elevation
(feet)
B‐1 2/17/22 345 50.0 16.1 328.9B‐2 2/17/22 346 21.5 15.9 330.1B‐3 2/17/22 345.5 21.5 14.5 331.0 Boring Record Legend, Key for Soil Classification, and Boring Records

HOLE IDENTIFICATION
Where:

H: Hole Type Code
YY: 2-digit year
NNN: 3-digit number (001-999)
Holes are identified using the following
convention:

Where:

H: Hole Type Code
YY: 2-digit year
NNN: 3-digit number (001-999)

SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND

DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE
Describe the soil using descriptive terms
in the order shown
Minimum Required Sequence:

USCS Group Name (Group Symbol); Consistency or
Density; Color; Moisture; Percent or Proportion of Soil; Particle Size; Plasticity (optional).
= optional for non-Caltrans projects
Description Sequence Examples:

SANDY lean CLAY (CL); very stiff;
yellowish brown; moist; mostly fines;
some SAND, from fine to medium; few
gravels; medium plasticity; PP=2.75.

Well-graded SAND with SILT and
GRAVEL and COBBLES (SW-SM);
dense; brown; moist; mostly SAND,
from fine to coarse; some fine GRAVEL;
few fines; weak cementation; 10%
GRANITE COBBLES; 3 to 6 inches;
hard; subrounded.

Clayey SAND (SC); medium dense,
light brown; wet; mostly fine sand,; little
fines; low plasticity.

GROUP
DELTA

CONSULTANTS
BORING RECORD LEGEND #1

GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

AND GEOLOGISTS
Ref.: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010) Refer to
Section
Sequence
Identification
Components
FieldLabRequiredOptional
1 Group Name 2.5.2 3.2.2 ●
2 Group Symbol 2.5.2 3.2.2 ●
Description
Components
3 Consistency of
Cohesive Soil 2.5.3 3.2.3 ●
4 Apparent Density
of Cohesionless
Soil

2.5.4 ●
5 Color 2.5.5 ●
6 Moisture 2.5.6 ●
Percent or
Proportion of Soil 2.5.7 3.2.4 ●
Particle Size 2.5.8 2.5.8 ●
Particle Angularity 2.5.9 ○
7 Particle Shape 2.5.10 ○
8 Plasticity (for finegrained soil) 2.5.11 3.2.5 ○
9 Dry Strength (for
fine-grained soil) 2.5.12 ○
10 Dilatency (for finegrained soil) 2.5.13 ○
11 Toughness (for
fine-grained soil) 2.5.14 ○
12 Structure 2.5.15 ○
13 Cementation 2.5.16 ●
Percent of
Cobbles and
Boulders

2.5.17 ●
14 Description of
Cobbles and
Boulders

2.5.18 ●
15 Consistency Field
Test Result 2.5.3 ●
16 Additional
Comments 2.5.19 ○
Hole Type
Code
A Auger boring (hollow or solid stem,
bucket)
R Rotary drilled boring (conventional)
RC Rotary core (self-cased wire-line,
continuously-sampled)
RW Rotary core (self-cased wire-line, not
continuously sampled)
P Rotary percussion boring (Air)
HD Hand driven (1-inch soil tube)
HA Hand auger
D Driven (dynamic cone penetrometer)
CPT Cone Penetration Test
O Other (note on LOTB)

H-YY-NNN
Description
Cementation; % cobbles & boulders;
Description of cobbles & boulders;
Consistency field test result
Where applicable:

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL

COBBLES
Well-graded GRAVEL with SAND
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT
Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND
(or SILTY CLAY and SAND)
Well-graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)
Poorly graded GRAVEL
Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY
(or SILTY CLAY)
Poorly graded SAND with SILT
Poorly graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY)
Poorly graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL
(or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL)
Lean CLAY
ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND
SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT
GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND
GW-GC
GP-GM
GP-GC
GM

GROUP SYMBOLS AND NAMES

DRILLING METHOD SYMBOLS
Auger Drilling
Term

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS

WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS
Dynamic Cone
or Hand Driven Rotary Drilling Diamond Core Static Water Level Reading (after drilling, date) Ref.: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010) Shelby Tube
NX Rock Core
Bulk Sample
Piston Sampler
HQ Rock Core
Other (see remarks)
First Water Level Reading (during drilling)

SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
OL
OL
CH
MH
OH
OL/OH

ORGANIC SOIL
ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC SOIL
SANDY ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL

GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL
GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
OH
SM
SC
GW
GW-GM
CL
CL-ML
ML
COBBLES and BOULDERS

BOULDERS
PT

SILTY GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL

SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

SILTY CLAY
SILTY CLAY with SAND
SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL

SANDY SILTY CLAY
SANDY SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL

GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY
GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY with SAND
SILT with SAND
SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY SILT
SANDY SILT with GRAVEL
PEAT
Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND
Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY (or SILTY
CLAY)
Well-graded SAND
Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL
Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL
Poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND
Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND
Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND
(or SILTY CLAY and SAND)
Poorly graded SAND
Poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL
Poorly graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL
SANDY lean CLAY
GRAVELLY lean CLAY
SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY
GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND
Elastic SILT
ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL
SANDY elastic ELASTIC SILT

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND
Group Names
SC-SM
Graphic / Symbol Graphic / Symbol Group Names
GC
GP
GC-GM
SP-SC
SW
SP
SW-SM
SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND
CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND
SILTY GRAVEL with SAND
Standard California Sampler
Modified California Sampler
Well-graded SAND with SILT
SW-SC
SP-SM
Consolidation (ASTM D 2435-04)
Compaction Curve (CTM 216 - 06)
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index
(AASHTO T 89-02, AASHTO T 90-00)
Collapse Potential (ASTM D 5333-03)
Sand Equivalent (CTM 217 - 99)
Corrosion, Sulfates, Chlorides (CTM 643 - 99;
CTM 417 - 06; CTM 422 - 06)

GRAVELLY SILT
GRAVELLY SILT with SAND
SILT
ORGANIC SILT with SAND
ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL

SANDY ORGANIC SILT
C
Consolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D 4767-02)
Lean CLAY with SAND
Lean CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL
ORGANIC lean CLAY
GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY
GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
Fat CLAY
Elastic SILT with GRAVEL
SANDY elastic SILT
SANDY elastic SILT with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY elastic SILT
GRAVELLY elastic SILT with SAND
ORGANIC elastic SILT
SANDY ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL

GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT
GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT with SAND

ORGANIC SILT
PI
Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422-63 [2002])
Point Load Index (ASTM D 5731-05)
R-Value (CTM 301 - 00)
Specific Gravity (AASHTO T 100-06)
Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D 427-04)
Swell Potential (ASTM D 4546-03)
Pocket Torvane
Unconfined Compression - Soil (ASTM D 2166-06)
Unconfined Compression - Rock (ASTM D
2938-95)
CL
CU
PL
PM Pressure Meter
Pocket Penetrometer
SG
SW
TV
UC
Well-graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL
(or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL)
ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY
SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL
Fat CLAY with SAND
Fat CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY fat CLAY
SANDY fat CLAY with GRAVEL
GRAVELLY fat CLAY
GRAVELLY fat CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC fat CLAY
ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND
ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL
SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY
Elastic SILT with SAND
UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
(ASTM D 2850-03)
UW Unit Weight (ASTM D 4767-04)
VS Vane Shear (AASHTO T 223-96 [2004])
CP
PP
R
SL
CR
SE
DS Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080-04)
EI Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829-03)
M Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216-05)
OC Organic Content (ASTM D 2974-07)
P Permeability (CTM 220 - 05)
PA
Well-graded GRAVEL
Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT
GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND
GROUP
DELTA

CONSULTANTS
BORING RECORD LEGEND #2
Material
Change
Estimated
Material
Change
Soil/Rock
Boundary
Change in material is observed in the
sample or core, and the location
of change can be accurately measured.

Change in material cannot be accurately
located because either the change is
gradational or because of limitations in the
drilling/sampling methods used.

Material changes from soil characteristics
to rock characteristics.

Definition

DEFINITIONS FOR CHANGE IN MATERIAL
Symbol
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

AND GEOLOGISTS
Very Loose
Loose
SPT N - Value (blows / foot) 60

PLASTICITY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Cobble
Coarse
Fine 1/5 - 3/4
Coarse 1/16 - 1/5
Medium 1/64 - 1/16
Fine 1/300 - 1/64
Stiff 1.0 - 2.0 0.50 - 1.0

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
Descriptor Size (in)
Silt and Clay < 1/300
Dry No discernable moisture
Moisture present, but no free water
Descriptor
Dense
Medium Dense
5 - 10
10 - 30
0 - 5
30 - 50
Descriptor
Moist

APPARENT DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS MOISTURE
Wet
Very Dense > 50
Criteria
Visible free water
Descriptor Shear Strength (tsf)

PERCENT OR PROPORTION OF SOILS
Sand
Boulder
Criteria
Trace
Gravel
Descriptor
> 12
3/4 - 3
3 - 12
Few 5 to 10%
Little 15 to 25%
Some 30 to 45%
Mostly 50 to 100%
Nonplastic
High
Descriptor Criteria
A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

The thread can barely be rolled, and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

The thread is easy to roll, and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit; it cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS VS. N60 CEMENTATION
Description
Medium
Particles are present but estimated
to be less than 5%
0 - 2

PARTICLE SIZE
It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

Very Soft < 0.12

1.0 - 2.0
> 4.0 > 2.0

2.0 - 4.0
Pocket Penetrometer, PP
Measurement (tsf)
Soft 0.25 - 0.50 0.12 - 0.25
< 0.25
Medium Stiff 0.50 - 1.0 0.25 - 0.50
Hard
Very Stiff
Low
GROUP
DELTA

CONSULTANTS
BORING RECORD LEGEND #3
Vane Shear, VS.

Measurement (tsf)

0.50 - 1.0
< 0.12

1.0 - 2.0
> 2.0

0.12 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.50
Torvane, TV.

Measurement (tsf)

0.50 - 1.0
< 0.12

1.0 - 2.0
> 2.0

0.12 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.50
Descriptor Criteria
Strong
Moderate
Weak
Crumbles or breaks with considerable
finger pressure.

Will not crumble or break with finger
pressure.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or
little finger pressure.

SPT N (blows / foot) 60
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
2 - 4
4 - 8
Stiff 8 - 15
Very Stiff 15 - 30
Hard > 30
Ref.: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010), with the exception of consistency of cohesive soils vs. N . 60 Ref: Peck, Hansen, and Thornburn, 1974, “Foundation Engineering”, Second Edition Note: Only to be used (with caution) when pocket penetrometer or other data on undrained shear strength are unavailable. Not allowed by Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging and Classificaton Manual, 2010
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

AND GEOLOGISTS

RELATIVE STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK ROCK HARDNESS

ROCK GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

IGNEOUS ROCK

SEDIMENTARY ROCK

METAMORPHIC ROCK

BEDDING SPACING

WEATHERING DESCRIPTORS FOR INTACT ROCK
Diagnostic Features
Texture and Solutioning
Extremely
Strong
Very thickly bedded
Descriptor Thickness or Spacing
Descriptor Body of Rock Fracture Surfaces
Chemical Weathering-Discoloration-Oxidation
Texture Solutioning General Characteristics
Descriptor
Decomposed Discolored of oxidized throughout, but resistant minerals such as quartz may
be unaltered; all feldspars
and Fe-Mg minerals are
completely altered to clay
Complete separation of
grain boundaries
(disaggregated)
Resembles a soil; partial or
complete remnant rock
structure may be preserved;
leaching of soluble minerals
usually complete
Can be granulated by hand.

Resistant minerals such as
quartz may be present as
"stringers" or "dikes".

Intensely
Weathered
Discoloration or oxidation
throughout; all feldspars and
Fe-Mg minerals are altered
to clay to some extent; or
chemical alteration produces
in situ disaggregation (refer
to grain boundary
conditions)
All fracture
surfaces are
discolored or
oxidized;
surfaces are
friable
Partial separation, rock
is friable; in semi-arid
conditions, granitics are
disaggregated
Altered by
chemical
disintegration
such as via
hydration or
argillation
Leaching of
soluble minerals
may be
complete
Dull sound when struck with
hammer; usually can be
broken with moderate to heavy
manual pressure or by light
hammer blow without
reference to planes of
weakness such as incipient or
hairline fractures or veinlets.

Rock is significantly weakened.

Moderately
Weathered
Discoloration or oxidation
extends from fractures
usually throughout; Fe-Mg
minerals are "rusty"; feldspar
crystals are "cloudy"
Mechanical Weathering
and Grain Boundary Conditions
Lengths mostly in range of 4 in. to 1 ft, with most lengths about 8 in.

Very Strong
Strong
Medium Strong
Weak
Very Weak
Extremely Weak
14,500 - 30,000
No fractures
Lengths greater 3 ft
Lengths average from 1 in. to 4 in. with scattered fragmented intervals with lengths less than 4 in.

Lengths from 1 to 3 ft, few lengths outside that range
Mostly chips and fragments with few scattered short core lengths Unfractured
Moderately Fractured
Intensely Fractured
7,000 - 14,500
3,500 - 7,000
700 - 3,500
150 - 700
> 30,000
< 150
Descriptor
Massive
Thickly bedded
Moderately bedded
Thinly bedded
Very thinly bedded
Laminated
> 10 ft
3 to 10 ft
< 3/8 inch
1 to 3 ft
3-5/8 inches to 1 ft
1-1/4 to 3-5/8 inches
3/8 inch to 1-1/4 inches
Criteria
Very Slightly Fractured
Slightly Fractured
Very Intensely Fractured
Extremely Hard
All fracture
surfaces are
discolored or
oxidized
Partial separation of
boundaries visible Generallypreserved
Soluble minerals
may be mostly
leached
Hammer does not ring when
rock is struck. Body of rock is
slightly weakened.

Slightly
Weathered
Discoloration or oxidation is
limited to surface of, or short
distance from, fractures;
some feldspar crystals are
dull
Minor to
complete
discoloration or
oxidation of most
surfaces
No visible separation,
intact (tight) Preserved Minor leaching of some soluble minerals may be
noted
Hammer rings when crystalline
rocks are struck. Body of rock
not weakened.

Hammer rings when crystalline
rocks are struck. No separation, intact No change No solutioning (tight) No discoloration
or oxidation
No discoloration, not
oxidized
Fresh
CORE RECOVERY CALCULATION (%)
RQD
Criteria
CALCULATION (%)
Very hard
Hard
Moderately
Hard
Very Soft
Soft
Moderately
Soft
Specimen can be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick with heavy pressure; heavy hammer blows required to break specimen Specimen can be readily indented, grooved, or gouged with fingernail, or carved with pocket knife; breaks with light hand pressure Uniaxial
Compressive Strength (psi)

FRACTURE DENSITY
Descriptor
Specimen cannot be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick; can only be chipped with repeated heavy hammer blows
Specimen cannot be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick; breaks with repeated heavy hammer blows
Specimen can be grooved or gouged with pocket knife or sharp pick with light pressure, breaks with light to moderate hand pressure
Total length of core run (in.)
Length of intact core pieces > 4 in. x 100 Total length of core run (in.) Specimen can be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick with light or moderate pressure; breaks with moderate hammer blows
Specimen can be grooved 1/6 in. with pocket knife or sharp pick with moderate or heavy pressure; breaks with light hammer blow or heavy hand pressure Note: Combination descriptors (such as "slightly weathered to fresh") are used where equal distribution of both weathering characteristics is present over significant intervals or where characteristics present are "in between" the diagnostic feature. However, combination descriptors should not be used where significant identifiable zones can be delineated. Only two adjacent descriptors shall be combined. "Very intensely weathered" is the combination descriptor for "decomposed to intensely weathered".

Length of the recovered core pieces (in.) x 100
Ref.: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010) GROUP
DELTA

CONSULTANTS
BORING RECORD LEGEND #4
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

AND GEOLOGISTS
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
KEY FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION #1
CLASSIFICATION OF INORGANIC FINE GRAINED SOILS (Soils with >50% finer than No. 200 Sieve) CL: LL<50; above A-Line.CH: LL>50; above A-Line.ML: LL<50; below A-Line, or PI<4, or Non-Plastic
MH: LL>50; below A-Line.CL-ML: above A-Line and PI=4 to 7CL/CH, ML/MH: at or near LL=50ML/CL, MH/CH: at or near the A-Line Laboratory Classification of Clay and Silt Field Identification of Clays and Silts REFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010).

Reference: ASTM D 2487 and 2488
“A”‐LINE

0.73*(LL‐20)
PI=7PI=4
KEY FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION #2
Note: Values estimated to nearest 5% to be used for visual identification, values in parentheses to be used for classification when based on laboratory grain size data.

Reference: ASTM D 2487 and 2488
REFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010).

CLASSIFICATION OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (Soils with <50% “fines” passing No. 200 Sieve) (<5% fines)
(<5% fines)
(5-12% fines)
(>12% fines)
(>12% fines)
(5-12% fines)
Granular Soil Gradation ParametersCoefficient of Uniformity: Cu = D60/D10 Coefficient of Curvature: Cc= D302 / (D60 x D10)
D10 = 10% of soil is finer than this diameter
D30 = 30% of soil is finer than this diameterD60 = 60% of soil is finer than this diameter GroupSymbol Gradation or Plasticity Requirement
SW……………Cu > 6 and 1 < Cc <3
GW …………...Cu > 4 and 1 < Cc <3
GP or SP……….Clean gravel or sand not meeting
requirement for SW or GW
SM or GM……...Non-plastic fines or below A-Line or PI<4SC or GC……….Plastic fines or above A-Line and PI>7 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
-200
PI
EI
CR
DS
-200
-200
-200
B-1
S-3
S-5
11 10
13 6
15 95
95 91
13 20
31 B-1
R-2-2
R-2-1
S-3
R-4-2
R-4-1
S-5
R-6-2
R-6-1
10 14
12 9
14 3
5 6
2 3
7 3
6 7
1 2
4 3
7 8
ASPHALT: 4-inch
AGGREGATE BASE: 6-inch
CLAYEY SAND (SC): very dark grey (2.5YR 3/1); moist;
little SAND; few GRAVEL; medium plasticity (FILL).
(Fines = 42.5%)
CLAYEY SAND (SC): loose to medium dense; dark grey
(2.5YR 4/1); trace of GRAVEL; medium plasticity
(ALLUVIUM).

SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense; dark grey (2.5YR
4/1); moist; fine grained SAND; some fines; non-plastic; micaceous.

Well-graded SAND (SW): medium dense; greyish brown
(2.5YR, 5/2); wet; fine to coarse grained SAND; trace
fines and GRAVELS; slightly micaceous.
(Fines = 4.7%)
Loose; dark greyish brown (2.5YR 4/2); thinly bedded;
iron oxide stainning.
(Fines = 2.9%)
Poorly-graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM): medium
dense; dark greyish brown (2.5YR 4/2); wet; fine to
medium grained SAND; trace of fine GRAVEL; slighlty
micacenous.
(Fines = 5%)
GRANITIC ROCK: massive; grey (5YR, 6/1); highly
weathered to decomposed; soft; Well-graded SAND with
CLAY (SW-SC): very dense; wet; fine to coarse grained
HAMMER EFFICIENCY (ERi)
START SHEET NO.

DRILL RIG
OTHER
TESTS

GRAPHIC
LOG

MOISTURE
(%)
DEPTH (feet)
DRILLING COMPANY ELEVATION (feet)

SITE LOCATION
345

CHECKED BY
340
335
330
325
320
5 10
15 20
25 AFTER DRILLING
1 of 2
Tri-County Hollow Stem Auger S. Narveson
Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in.

DEPTH/ELEV. GW (ft)
NOTES
2/17/2022

DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY
BORING DIA. (in)
RECOVERY (%)
GROUND ELEV (ft)
B-1

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

PROJECT NUMBER HOLE ID
BLOW/FT "N"

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS / 6 IN)

PROJECT NAME
Santee Community Center RQD (%)
SAMPLE NO.

DIEDRICH D120
IR786
85 50 16.1 / 328.9 ATTERBERG LIMITS (LL:PI) DRILLING METHOD

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Bulk; SPT (1.4"); MC (2.4")

DURING DRILLING

DRIVE SAMPLER TYPE(S) & SIZE (ID)
Santee, CA
TOTAL DEPTH (ft)
FIGURE
A-2 a

HAMMER TYPE (WEIGHT/DROP)
8 16.1 / 328.9
SPT N*
FINISH

THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION
OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER

LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION
WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA

PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.

N60 =1.42 NSPT =0.95NMC
M. Givens
2/17/2022

BORING RECORD
60 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS SAMPLE TYPE
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, CA 92618
GDC_LOG_BORING_2016 IR786 - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER.GPJ GDC2013.GDT 3/16/22 43:16
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
S-11
REF
REF
REF
REF
REF
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
S-11
REF
REF
REF
REF
REF
50/3"
60/3"
50/2"
50/2"
50/1"
SAND; few to little fines; non-plastic to low plasticity.

Iron oxide stainning
Trace of iron oxide staining.

Boring terminated at 50 feet below the existing ground
surface (bgs).

Groundwater was encountered at 16.1 feet bgs
Backfilled with Cement and bentonite gel.

HAMMER EFFICIENCY (ERi)
START SHEET NO.

DRILL RIG
OTHER
TESTS

GRAPHIC
LOG

MOISTURE
(%)
DEPTH (feet)
DRILLING COMPANY ELEVATION (feet)

SITE LOCATION
345

CHECKED BY
310
305
300
295
290
35 40
45 50
55 AFTER DRILLING
2 of 2
Tri-County Hollow Stem Auger S. Narveson
Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in.

DEPTH/ELEV. GW (ft)
NOTES
2/17/2022

DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY
BORING DIA. (in)
RECOVERY (%)
GROUND ELEV (ft)
B-1

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

PROJECT NUMBER HOLE ID
BLOW/FT "N"

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS / 6 IN)

PROJECT NAME
Santee Community Center RQD (%)
SAMPLE NO.

DIEDRICH D120
IR786
85 50 16.1 / 328.9 ATTERBERG LIMITS (LL:PI) DRILLING METHOD

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Bulk; SPT (1.4"); MC (2.4")

DURING DRILLING

DRIVE SAMPLER TYPE(S) & SIZE (ID)
Santee, CA
TOTAL DEPTH (ft)
FIGURE
A-2 b

HAMMER TYPE (WEIGHT/DROP)
8 16.1 / 328.9
SPT N*
FINISH

THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION
OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER

LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION
WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA

PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.

N60 =1.42 NSPT =0.95NMC
M. Givens
2/17/2022

BORING RECORD
60 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS SAMPLE TYPE
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, CA 92618
GDC_LOG_BORING_2016 IR786 - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER.GPJ GDC2013.GDT 3/16/22 R
-200
-200
B-1
S-2
S-4
16 50
6 22
37 90
B-1
S-2
R-3-2
R-3-1
S-4
R-5-2
R-5-1
23 48
9 21
18 8
8 14
23 27
4 4
2 12
9 13
ASPHALT: 4-inch
AGGREGATE BASE: 6-inch
CLAYEY SAND (SC): dark gray (2.5YR 4/1); moist; little
GRAVEL and cobble; medium plasticity (FILL).

Poorly-graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM): medium
dense; moist; fine to medium grained SAND; few fines
(ALLUVIUM).
(Fines = 9.5%)
No recovery.

Well-graded SAND (SW): loose; grey (2.5YR 5/1); wet;
fine to coarse grained SAND; trace of fines; trace of fine GRAVEL.
(Fines = 3.1%)
SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense; very dark gray
(2.5YR 3/1); wet; fine grained SAND; some fines; trace
of GRAVEL; non-plastic; micaceous.

Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).

Groundwater was encountered at 15.9 feet bgs.

Backfilled with Cement and Bentonite gel.

HAMMER EFFICIENCY (ERi)
START SHEET NO.

DRILL RIG
OTHER
TESTS

GRAPHIC
LOG

MOISTURE
(%)
DEPTH (feet)
DRILLING COMPANY ELEVATION (feet)

SITE LOCATION
346

CHECKED BY
345
340
335
330
325
320
5 10
15 20
25 AFTER DRILLING
1 of 1
Tri-County Hollow Stem Auger S. Narveson
Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in.

DEPTH/ELEV. GW (ft)
NOTES
2/17/2022

DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY
BORING DIA. (in)
RECOVERY (%)
GROUND ELEV (ft)
B-2

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

PROJECT NUMBER HOLE ID
BLOW/FT "N"

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS / 6 IN)

PROJECT NAME
Santee Community Center RQD (%)
SAMPLE NO.

DIEDRICH D120
IR786
85 21.5 15.9 / 330.1 ATTERBERG LIMITS (LL:PI) DRILLING METHOD

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Bulk; SPT (1.4"); MC (2.4")

DURING DRILLING

DRIVE SAMPLER TYPE(S) & SIZE (ID)
Santee, CA
TOTAL DEPTH (ft)
FIGURE
A-3

HAMMER TYPE (WEIGHT/DROP)
8 15.9 / 330.1
SPT N*
FINISH

THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION
OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER

LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION
WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA

PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.

N60 =1.42 NSPT =0.95NMC
M. Givens
2/17/2022

BORING RECORD
60 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS SAMPLE TYPE
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, CA 92618
GDC_LOG_BORING_2016 IR786 - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER.GPJ GDC2013.GDT 3/16/22 PA
-200
B-1
S-3
S-5
22 10
8 12
46 73
B-1
R-2-2
R-2-1
S-3
R-4-2
R-4-1
S-5
21 14
8 17
2 11
11 9
5 5
3 4
4 2
5 7
ASPHALT: 3-inch
AGGREGATE BASE: 6-inch
CLAYEY SAND (SC): very dark grey (2.5YR 3/1); moist;
little GRAVEL and cobble; medium plasticity (FILL).

Medium dense; fine grained SAND; some fines; few
GRAVEL.
(Gravel = 7%, Sand = 55%, Fines = 38%)
Lean CLAY with SAND (CL): medium stiff to stiff; very
dark (2.5YR 3/1); moist; little fine grained SAND; little GRAVEL and cobble; medium plasticity; PP = 1.0 tsf.

SILTY SAND (SM): medium dense; dark gray (5YR 4/1);
wet; fine grained SAND; some fines; non-plastic;
micaceous (ALLUVIUM).

SANDY SILT (ML): loose; dark grey (5YR 4/1); wet;
some fine grained SAND; non-plastic; micaceous.
(Fines = 50.5%)
Well-graded SAND (SW): medium dense; grayish brown
(2.5YR 5/2); wet; fine to coarse grained SAND; trace of fines; trace of fine GRAVEL.

Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).

Groundwater was encountered at 15.9 feet bgs.

Backfilled with Cement and Bentonite gel.

HAMMER EFFICIENCY (ERi)
START SHEET NO.

DRILL RIG
OTHER
TESTS

GRAPHIC
LOG

MOISTURE
(%)
DEPTH (feet)
DRILLING COMPANY ELEVATION (feet)

SITE LOCATION
345.5

CHECKED BY
345
340
335
330
325
320
5 10
15 20
25 AFTER DRILLING
1 of 1
Tri-County Hollow Stem Auger S. Narveson
Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in.

DEPTH/ELEV. GW (ft)
NOTES
2/17/2022

DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY
BORING DIA. (in)
RECOVERY (%)
GROUND ELEV (ft)
B-3

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

PROJECT NUMBER HOLE ID
BLOW/FT "N"

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS / 6 IN)

PROJECT NAME
Santee Community Center RQD (%)
SAMPLE NO.

DIEDRICH D120
IR786
85 21.5 14.5 / 331.0 ATTERBERG LIMITS (LL:PI) DRILLING METHOD

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Bulk; SPT (1.4"); MC (2.4")

DURING DRILLING

DRIVE SAMPLER TYPE(S) & SIZE (ID)
Santee, CA
TOTAL DEPTH (ft)
FIGURE
A-4

HAMMER TYPE (WEIGHT/DROP)
8 14.5 / 331.0
SPT N*
FINISH

THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION
OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER

LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION
WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA

PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.

N60 =1.42 NSPT =0.95NMC
M. Givens
2/17/2022

BORING RECORD
60 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS SAMPLE TYPE
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, CA 92618
GDC_LOG_BORING_2016 IR786 - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER.GPJ GDC2013.GDT 3/16/22 Hammer Efficiency Calibration

APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC - Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix B\Appendix B Template.docx

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
B.1 General
The laboratory testing was performed using appropriate American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Caltrans Test Methods (CTM).

Modified California drive samples, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) drive samples and bulk samples collected during the field investigation were carefully sealed in the field to prevent moisture loss. The samples of earth materials were then transported to the laboratory for further examination and testing. Tests were performed on selected samples as an aid in classifying the earth materials and to evaluate their physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory testing for this investigation included:
• Soil Classification: USCS (ASTM D 2487) and Visual Manual (ASTM D 2488); • Moisture content (ASTM D 2216) and Dry Unit Weight (ASTM D 2937); • Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318);
• Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D 422) & % Passing #200 Sieve (ASTM D 1140); • Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080);
• Expansion Index (D 4829);
• Soil Corrosivity:
o pH (CTM 643);
o Water-Soluble Sulfate (ASTM D 516, CTM 417);
o Water-Soluble Chloride(Ion-Specific Probe, CTM 422);
o Minimum Electrical Resistivity (CTM 643);
• Resistance R-Value (CTM 301).

A summary of laboratory test results is presented in Table B-1. Brief descriptions of the laboratory testing program and test results are presented below.

B.2 Soil and Rock Classification
Earth materials recovered from subsurface explorations were classified in general accordance with Caltrans’ “Soil and Rock Logging Classification Manual, 2010”. The subsurface soils were classified visually / manually in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) following ASTM D 2488; soil classifications were modified as necessary based on testing in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM D 2487.

The details of the soil and rock classification systems and boring records presenting the classifications are presented in Appendix A.

Appendix B – Geotechnical Investigation Report
Santee Community Center Page A-2
HMC
Group Delta Project No. ir786
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC - Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix B\Appendix B Template.docx B.3 Moisture Content and Dry Unit Weight
The in-situ moisture content of selected bulk, SPT and Ring samples was determined by oven drying in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. Selected California Ring samples were trimmed flush in the metal rings and wet weight was measured. After drying, the dry weight of each sample was measured, volume and weight of the metal containers was measured, and moisture content and dry density were calculated in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 and D 2937. Results of these tests are presented in Table B-1 and on the boring records in Appendix A.

B.4 Atterberg Limits
Characterization of the fine-grained fractions of soils was evaluated using the Atterberg Limits. This test includes Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit tests to determine the Plasticity Index in accordance with ASTM D 4318. Results of these tests are presented on the boring records in Appendix A, are summarized in Table B-1, and are attached at the end of this Appendix.

B.5 Grain Size Distribution and Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve:

Representative samples were dried, weighed, soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated, and then washed on the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of fines (soil passing No. 200 sieve) was determined for selected samples in accordance with ASTM D 1140. For selected samples the washed fraction retained on the No. 200 sieve was then screened on a No. 4 sieve, and the fraction retained on No. 4 was weighed to determine the percentage of gravel. For selected samples, the washed material retained on No. 200 sieve was shaken through a standard stack of sieves in accordance with ASTM D 422 to determine the grain size distribution. The relative proportion (or percentage) by dry weight of gravel (retained on No. 4 sieve), sand (passing No. 4 and retained on No. 200 sieve), and fines (passing No. 200 sieve) are listed on the boring records in Appendix A and summarized in Table B-1.

B.6 Direct Shear Test
To determine the drained shear strength parameters of the on-site soils, direct shear tests were performed on selected in situ samples in accordance with ASTM D 3080. After the initial weight and volume measurements were made, the sample was placed in the shear machine, and a selected normal load was applied. The sample was saturated or kept at field moisture (to model worst case field conditions), allowed to consolidate under the selected normal load, and then sheared to failure. Shear rate was selected to maintain drained conditions. Shear stress and vertical/horizontal sample deformations were monitored throughout the test. The process was repeated on additional samples of the same soil Appendix B – Geotechnical Investigation Report
Santee Community Center Page A-3
HMC
Group Delta Project No. ir786
N:\Projects\_AV\I700\IR786 HMC - Santee Community Center\07_Reports\Appendix B\Appendix B Template.docx material at two additional normal loads. The test results are presented at the end of this appendix.

B.7 Expansion Index
The expansion potential of the site soils was estimated using the Expansion Index Test in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The results of this test are listed in Table B-1.

B.8 Soil Corrosivity
Tests were performed in order to determine corrosion potential of site soils on concrete and ferrous metals. Corrosivity testing included minimum electrical resistivity and soil pH (Caltrans method 643), water-soluble chlorides (Orion 170A+ Ion Probe or Caltrans Test Method 422), and water-soluble sulfates (ASTM D 516). The test results are summarized presented at the end of this appendix.

B.9 R-Value
Resistance “R” Value tests were performed by stabilometer method on selected bulk samples of the subgrade soils. The tests were conducted in general accordance with CTM 301. The test results are attached at the end of this appendix.

B.10 List of Attached Figures
The following tables and figures are attached and complete this appendix:

Tables
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Figures
Atterberg Limits Test Results
Grain Size Analysis Test Results
Direct Shear Test Results
Corrosion Test Results
R-Value Test Results
B-1 B-1 0.0 BULK SC 42.5 -200, PI, EI, CR
B-1 5.0 MC SC 10 DS
B-1 R-2-2 5.5 SC 13.0 95 107
B-1 R-2-1 6.0 SCB-1 S-3 10.0 SPT SM 14B-1 15.0 MC SW 12 4.7 -200 B-1 R-4-2 15.5 SWB-1 R-4-1 16.0 SW 20.0 95 114
B-1 S-5 20.0 SPT SW 9 2.9 -200
B-1 25.0 MC SP-SM 14 5.0 -200
B-1 R-6-2 25.5 SP-SMB-1 R-6-1 26.0 SP-SM 31.0 91 119
B-1 S-7 30.0 SPT SW-SC REFB-1 S-8 35.0 SPT SW-SC REFB-1 S-9 40.0 SPT SW-SC REFB-1 S-10 45.0 SPT SW-SC REFB-1 S-11 50.0 SPT SW-SC REFB-2 B-1 0.8 BULK SC RB-2 S-2 5.0 SPT SP-SM 23 9.5 -200B-2 10.0 MC SP-SM 48B-2 R-3-2 10.5 SP-SMB-2 R-3-1 11.0 SP-SMB-2 S-4 15.0 SPT SW 9 3.1 -200B-2 20.0 MC SM 21 B-2 R-5-2 20.5 SMB-2 R-5-1 21.0 SM 37.0 90 123
B-3 B-1 0.8 BULK SCB-3 5.0 MC SC 21 7 55 38 PA
B-3 R-2-2 5.5 SCB-3 R-2-1 6.0 SC
Sample
No.

Boring
No.

Depth
(ft)
Sample
Type Other Tests
USCS
Group
Symbol
Geologic
Unit PI Gravel Mini Vane UU Test
Sheet 1 of 2
Sand Fines Clay
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Atterberg Limits Undrained Shear Strength, Su (ksf) Grain Size Distribution (%) by dry weight Pocket
Pen. LL PL
Total
Unit
Wt (pcf)
SPT
N*60
(blows/ft)
TABLE B-1: Summary of Laboratory Results
Project: Santee Community CenterLocation: Santee, CA
www.GroupDelta.com Number: IR786
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC.
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, California 92618
Voice: (949) 450-2100 Fax: (949) 450-2108
GDC_TABLE_B-1 (2014) IR786 - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER.GPJ GDC2013.GDT 3/16/22 43 16 27
B-3 S-3 10.0 SPT CL 14
B-3 15.0 MC ML 8 50.5 -200B-3 R-4-2 15.5 MLB-3 R-4-1 16.0 ML 46.0 73 107B-3 S-5 20.0 SPT SW 17 Sample
No.

Boring
No.

Depth
(ft)
Sample
Type Other Tests
USCS
Group
Symbol
Geologic
Unit PI Gravel Mini Vane UU Test
Sheet 2 of 2
Sand Fines Clay
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Atterberg Limits Undrained Shear Strength, Su (ksf) Grain Size Distribution (%) by dry weight Pocket
Pen. LL PL
Total
Unit
Wt (pcf)
SPT
N*60
(blows/ft)
TABLE B-1: Summary of Laboratory Results
Project: Santee Community CenterLocation: Santee, CA
www.GroupDelta.com Number: IR786
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC.
32 Mauchly, Suite B
Irvine, California 92618
Voice: (949) 450-2100 Fax: (949) 450-2108
GDC_TABLE_B-1 (2014) IR786 - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER.GPJ GDC2013.GDT 3/16/22 REVISION 0, DATED 1/31/15
Project Name: HMC - Santee Tested By : J. Krehbiel Date: 03/09/22 Project No. : IR786 Data Input By: J. Krehbiel Date: 03/10/22 Sample No.: B-1 Checked By: JLK Date: 03/10/22
Sample Location: 1-5'

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
TEST NO. 1 2 1 2 3 4
Number of Blows [N] 35 27 17
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 17.98 17.71 28.66 27.53 28.33 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 17.06 16.81 23.50 22.77 23.14 Wt. of Container (gm.) 11.18 11.04 11.17 11.71 11.48
Moisture Content (%) [Wn] 15.65 15.60 41.85 43.04 44.51 LIQUID LIMIT 43
PLASTIC LIMIT 16
PLASTICITY INDEX 27
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) = 16.8
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL=Wn(N/25)º·¹²¹

PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint Wet Preparation
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint Dry Preparation
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126

STANDARD METHOD FOR ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D4318

41.5 42.0

42.5 43.0

43.5 44.0

44.5 45.0
10 100
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

NUMBER OF BLOWS
15 20 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)
MH or OH ML or OL
CL or OL
CL-ML
CH or OH
Classification of fine-grained
& fine-grained fraction
of soils

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND

GRAVEL SAND CLAY
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS SAMPLE NUMBER: B-3 LIQUID LIMIT: --
SAMPLE DEPTH: 5' DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: -- PLASTICITY INDEX: --
SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. IR786
FIGURE B-1.1
100
96 94
90 84
75 62
49 43
38 35
32 31
28 27 25 23
19 3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Hydrometer ←7% Gravel 55% Sand ↔ 38% Fines→
22 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
Percent Finer by Weight
SAMPLE: B-1 @ 5' PEAK ULTIMATE
Description: f' 36 o
35 o
C' 250 PSF 200 PSF

IN-SITU AS-TESTED
STRAIN RATE: 0.0010 IN/MIN gd 92.3 PCF 92.3 PCF
(Sample was consolidated and drained) wc 15.0 % 23.0 %
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project No. IR786
FIGURE B-1.1
Yellowish brown clayey sand (SC)
0 1000
2000
3000
4000

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
SHEAR STRESS [PSF]
STRAIN [%]
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
SHEAR STRESS [PSF]
NORMAL STRESS [PSF]
Peak Strength Test Results
36 Degrees, 250 PSF Cohesion
Ultimate Strength Test Results
35 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion

STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR

EXPANSION INDEX
(ASTM D4829) REV.1, DATED 1/31/15
PROJECT: SAMPLE NUMBER:

PROJECT NO.: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

TESTED BY: DATE: CHECKED BY: SAMPLED BY:

LOCATION: Page____ of ____
MOISTURE CONTENT TRIAL NO. NO. 1 NO. 2 NO. 3
WET SOIL WEIGHT g
DRY SOIL WEIGHT g
A MOISTURE (((WET - DRY) / DRY) X 100) %

RING PREPARATION
B WET WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g
C RING WEIGHT g
D WET WEIGHT OF SOIL (B - C) g
E DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (D / ((A /100)+1)) g
F DRY DENSITY OF SOIL (E * 0.3016) g
G CALCULATE (2.7 * A * F)
H CALCULATE (168.5 - F)
J SAMPLE SATURATION (G / H) %

DIAL READINGS FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT
K INITIAL SETUP READING in O WET WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g L 10 MINUTE DRY READING in P DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL AND RING g M 24 HOUR WET READING in Q WEIGHT OF WATER (O - P) g
N EXPANSION INDEX ((M - L) * 1000) EI R DRY WEIGHT OF SOIL (P - C) g Remarks (if any) S MOISTURE CONTENT ((Q/R )* 100) %

EXPANSION INDEX CORRECTION
T CALCULATE (50 - J)
U CALCULATE ((65 + N ) / (220 - J))
V CALCULATE (T * U)

CORRECTED EXPANSION INDEX (N - V)
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126
HMC - Santee Community Center B-1 @ 1-5'
IR786 Dk.yellowish brown clayey sand (SC)
% COARSE:

SRN
269.6
244.5
597.0
J. Krehbiel 3/10/2022 JLK

10.3%
200.8
396.2
359.2
635.6
555.2

80.4 354.4

0.200

22.7%

0.268
68 3011.8

60.2 50.0%
108.3
B-1 @ 1 - 5' 8.87 830 0.05 0.01

CEMENT TYPE
--

II, IP(MS), IS(MS)
V
V plus pozzolan
Project Number: IR786
Above 0.15
Negligible
Corrosive
Severely Corrosive
Project Name: Santee Community Center
CHLORIDE (CI) CONTENT (%) GENERAL DEGREE OF CORROSIVITY TO METALS

0.00 to 0.03

0.03 to 0.15
Above 2.00
2,000 to 5,000
Above 10,000
Moderately Corrosive
Mildly Corrosive
Slightly Corrosive
5,000 to 10,000

SOIL RESISTIVITY (OHM-CM) GENERAL DEGREE OF CORROSIVITY TO

FERROUS METALS
0 to 1,000
1,000 to 2,000
Very Corrosive

CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D516, CTM 643)

0.00 to 0.10

0.10 to 0.20

0.20 to 2.00
SAMPLE pH

RESISTIVITY
(OHM-CM)

SULFATE
CONTENT (%)

CHLORIDE
CONTENT (%)
SULFATE CONTENT (%) SULFATE EXPOSURE

CORROSIVITY PARAMETERS
Corrosive
Negligible
Moderate
Severe
Very Severe

GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92126
SAMPLE NO.: SAMPLE DATE: 2/17/22
SAMPLE LOCATION: TEST DATE: 3/10/22
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

LABORATORY TEST DATA
TEST SPECIMEN 12345
A COMPACTOR PRESSURE 120 160 220 [PSI]
B INITIAL MOISTURE 4.0 4.0 4.0 [%]
C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT 1200 1200 1200 [G]
D WATER ADDED 130 115 105 [ML]
E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) 11.3 10.0 9.1 [%]
F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) 15.3 14.0 13.1 [%]
G MOLD WEIGHT 2088.5 2103.2 2017.6 [G]
H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT 3187.0 3191.9 3133.6 [G]
I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) 1098.5 1088.7 1116.0 [G]
J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT 2.50 2.45 2.47 [IN]
K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) 115.5 118.1 121.0 [PCF] L EXUDATION LOAD 2812 4802 6065 [LB]
M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) 224 383 484 [PSI]
N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 44 39 31 [PSI]
O STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS 117 104 84 [PSI]
P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI 4.55 3.99 3.86 [Turns]
Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER 17 25 37
R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) 17 25 37
S EXPANSION DIAL READING 0.0008 0.0030 0.0041 [IN]
T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) 35 130 178 [PSF]
U COVER BY STABILOMETER 0.76 0.68 0.57 [FT]
V COVER BY EXPANSION 0.27 1.00 1.37 [FT]
TRAFFIC INDEX: 4.5
GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.58
UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 20
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 22
R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 20
*Note: Gravel factor estimated from pavement section using CTM 301, Section C, Part b.

REV. 2, DATED 1/31/15
B-2
1' - 5'
Yellowish brown clayey sand (SC)

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
CT301
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.

ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126
Project No. IR786
FIGURE 1.1
Sample: B-2, 1' - 5' R-Value at Equilibrium: 20
COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTS Project No. IR786
FIGURE 1.2
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126 0102030405060708090100
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
R-Value
Exudation Pressure [psi]

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Cover Thickness by Stabilometer [FT]
Cover Thickness by Expansion [FT]

APPENDIX C - CALCULATIONS
Liquefaction Triggering Assessment and Settlement Calculation Standard Penetration Tests
Settlement Calculation From Tokimastu & Seed (1987)
per Tokimatsu & Seed (1987) Mw Neq Vol. Strain Ratio
Borehole No B‐1Amax 0.42 g 85 % Borehole diameter (mm) Correction CB El. Top of Bedrock (ft) 8.50 26 1.25 Ground Elevation (NAVD 88) 345.00 ft Mw 6.40 1.0 115 1 317 7.50 15 1.00 Water Depth (Exploration) 16.10 ft MSF 1.50 Triggering 345.00 ft 150 1.05 6.75 10 0.85Water Depth (Design) 14.50 ft MSFVol 0.78 Settlement User Input 200 1.15 6.00 5 0.60 ft 5.25 2 ‐ 3 0.40
Demand Results Fs,not adjusted
γ Soil Type FC σv0 u σv0' σv0'design rd Diameter Diameter Sampler Uncorrected CE CB CR CS N60 CN (N1)60 αβ (N1)60,CS CRR7.5 Kσ CRR CSR FS φ' σm'Gmax γeff x γeff γvol CSRM7.5 γvol γvol Layer Cumulative ft ft ft ft ft m pcf % psf psf psf psf in mm Above Gasp degree psf ksf (Geff/Gmax) % % % % in in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 340 5 5 8.5 5 1.5 115 SC 43 575 0 575 575 0.99 8.0 203 MC 11 7 1.42 1.15 0.75 1.00 9 1.7 15 5.00 1.20 23 0.26 1.00 0.40 0.27 N.A. 32 372 957 1.6E‐04 0.05 ‐3.78 ‐3.07 0.04 0.18 ‐ 0.04 0.04 3.74 N.A. 333 10 12 6.5 12 3.7 120 SM 43 1,415 0 1,415 1,415 0.97 8.0 203 SPT 10 10 1.42 1.15 0.80 1.00 13 1.2 16 5.00 1.20 24 0.28 1.00 0.41 0.27 N.A. 32 915 1,522 2.5E‐04 0.07 ‐3.36 ‐2.94 0.05 0.18 ‐ 0.05 0.04 3.70 N.A. 327 15 18 5.5 18 5.5 120 SW 5 2,135 119 2,016 1,917 0.96 8.0 203 MC 13 9 1.42 1.15 0.85 1.00 12 1.02 12 0.00 1.00 12 0.13 1.00 0.20 0.29 0.69 32 1,240 1,628 3.4E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.19 2.19 2.19 1.44 3.66 0.69 322 20 23 4.5 23 7.0 120 SW 3 2,735 431 2,304 2,205 0.95 8.0 203 SPT 6 6 1.42 1.15 0.95 1.00 9 0.96 9 0.00 1.00 9 0.10 0.98 0.15 0.32 0.47 32 1,426 1,565 4.5E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.21 2.78 2.78 1.50 2.22 0.47 318 25 27 3.0 27 8.2 120 SP‐SM 5 3,215 680 2,535 2,435 0.93 8.0 203 MC 15 10 1.42 1.15 0.95 1.00 16 0.91 14 0.00 1.00 14 0.15 0.96 0.22 0.34 0.65 32 1,575 1,922 4.3E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.22 2.00 2.00 0.72 0.72 0.65 316 30 29 4.0 29 8.8 150 BR 10 3,515 805 2,710 2,610 0.93 8.0 203 SPT 100 100 1.42 1.15 0.95 1.00 100 0.9 100 0.87 1.02 100 too dense 0.94 too dense 0.34 2.00 32 1,688 3,808 2.3E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐ 0.00 0.00 2.00 310 35 35 5.5 35 10.7 150 BR 10 4,415 1,179 3,236 3,136 0.89 8.0 203 SPT 100 100 1.42 1.15 1.00 1.00 100 0.8 100 0.87 1.02 100 too dense 0.90 too dense 0.34 2.00 32 2,028 4,174 2.6E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐ 0.00 0.00 2.00 305 40 40 5.0 40 12.2 150 BR 10 5,165 1,491 3,674 3,574 0.85 8.0 203 SPT 100 100 1.42 1.15 1.00 1.00 100 0.8 100 0.87 1.02 100 too dense 0.87 too dense 0.34 2.00 32 2,311 4,456 2.7E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐ 0.00 0.00 2.00 300 45 45 5.0 45 13.7 150 BR 10 5,915 1,803 4,112 4,012 0.80 8.0 203 SPT 100 100 1.42 1.15 1.00 1.00 100 0.7 100 0.87 1.02 100 too dense 0.85 too dense 0.32 2.00 32 2,595 4,721 2.7E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐ 0.00 0.00 2.00 295 50 50 2.5 50 15.2 150 BR 10 6,665 2,115 4,550 4,450 0.75 8.0 203 SPT 100 100 1.42 1.15 1.00 1.00 100 0.7 100 0.87 1.02 100 too dense 0.83 too dense 0.31 2.00 32 2,878 4,972 2.8E‐04 ‐‐‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐ 0.00 0.00 2.00 Elevation SPT Depth SPT Corrected Depth Thickness Design Depth Sampler Corrected
Design
Depth
Soil Parameters Soil Stress Demand Bore Hole Blow Counts (N) NCEER (2001)
Energy RatioSettlement FS <=Finished Grade El.

Station
(No Minimum
Elevation)
Blow Count Correction Factors Cyclic Resistance Dry Sand Saturated Sand Settlement C:\Program Files\Oasys\OvaExcel\IR786 - SPT Liquefaction Assesment_v3_Mw 6.4.xlsx : B-1 Printed 3/18/2022 Time 9:56 AM Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake Induced Deviatoric Slope Displacements by Jonathan D. Bray and Thaleia Travasarou
Journal of Geotechnical and Geonvironmental Engineering, ASCE, V. 133(4), pp. 381-392, April 2007

SEE NOTES BELOW FOR GUIDANCE IN THE USE OF SPREADSHEET
Input Parameters
Yield Coefficient (ky) 0.14 Based on pseudostatic analysis Initial Fundamental Period (Ts) 0.16 seconds 1D: Ts=4H/Vs 2D: Ts=2.6H/Vs Degraded Period (1.5Ts) 0.24 seconds
Moment Magnitude (Mw) 6.4
Spectral Acceleration ( Sa(1.5Ts) ) 0.918 g
Additional Input Parameters
Probability of Exceedance #1 (P1) 84 %
Probability of Exceedance #2 (P2) 50 %
Probability of Exceedance #3 (P3) 16 %
Displacement Threshold (d_threshold) 30 cm
Intermediate Calculated Parameters
Non-Zero Seismic Displacement Est (D) 21.83 cm eq. (5) or (6) Standard Deviation of Non-Zero Seismic D 0.66
Results
Probability of Negligible Displ. (P(D=0)) 0.00 eq. (3)
D1 11.3 cm calc. using eq. (7)
D2 21.8 cm calc. using eq. (7)
D3 42.1 cm calc. using eq. (7)
P(D>d_threshold) 0.32 eq. (7)
Notes

1. Values highlighted in blue are input parameters, and results are presented in the table with the yellow heading.

2. Probability of Exceedance is the desired probability of exceeding a particular displacement value.

3. Displacements D1, D2, and D3 correspond to P1, P2, and P3, respectively. (e.g., the probability of exceeding displacement D1 is P1)

4. The 16%, 50%, and 84% percentile displacement values at selected ky values are shown to the right.

5. Calculated seismic displacements are due to deviatoric deformation only (add in volumetrically induced movement).

6. ky may range between 0.01 and 0.5, Ts between 0 and 2 s, Sa between 0.002 and 2.7 g, M between 4.5 and 9

7. Rigid slope is assumed for Ts < 0.05 s

8. When a value for D is not calculated, D is < 1cm

9. ky may be estimated using the simplified equations shown below.

10. Examples of how Ts is estimated are shown below.

11. Vs = weighted avg. shear wave velocity for the sliding mass, e.g., for 2 layers, Vs = [(h1)(Vs1) + (h2)(Vs2)]/(h1 + h2) Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake Induced Deviatoric Slope Displacements by Jonathan D. Bray and Thaleia Travasarou
Journal of Geotechnical and Geonvironmental Engineering, Vol 133, No. 4, pp. 381-392, April 2007 Dependence on ky
ky P(D="0") D (cm) Dmedian (cm) D-84% (cm) D-16% (cm)

0.020 0.00 131.1 131.1 252.6 68.0

0.05 0.00 77.2 77.2 148.7 40.0

0.07 0.00 55.2 55.2 106.4 28.6

0.1 0.00 35.6 35.6 68.7 18.5

0.15 0.00 19.6 19.6 37.7 10.1

0.2 0.00 12.0 12.0 23.0 6.2

0.3 0.03 5.4 5.3 10.4 2.6

0.4 0.17 2.9 2.5 5.2 <1

0.1 1
10 100
1000

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Median Displacement (cm)
Yield Coefficient
Median
84% Percentile
16% Percentile
Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake Induced Deviatoric Slope Displacements by Jonathan D. Bray and Thaleia Travasarou
Journal of Geotechnical and Geonvironmental Engineering, Vol 133, No. 4, pp. 381-392, April 2007

4.855
W
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Fill Material 115 Mohr‐Coulomb 200 35
Alluvium 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 100 32
Alluvium 2 120 Undrained 220
GraniƟc Rock 150 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 40
425 400 375 350 325 300
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Analysis Description Static
Company Group Delta Scale 1:300 Drawn By GVFile Name Existing.slmd Date 3/18/22 Project
IR786 Santee Community Center
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.010

0.677
W

0.279
Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Fill Material 115 Mohr‐Coulomb 200 35
Alluvium 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 100 32
Alluvium 2 120 Undrained 220
GraniƟc Rock 150 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 40
425 400 375 350 325 300
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Analysis Description Seismic
Company Group Delta Scale 1:300 Drawn By GVFile Name Existing.slmd Date 3/18/22 Project
IR786 Santee Community Center
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.010

1.030
W

0.14 Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3) Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Fill Material 115 Mohr‐Coulomb 200 35
Alluvium 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 100 32
Alluvium 2 120 Undrained 220
GraniƟc Rock 150 Mohr‐Coulomb 0 40
425 400 375 350 325 300
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Analysis Description Ky Run
Company Group Delta Scale 1:300 Drawn By GVFile Name Existing.slmd Date 3/18/22 Project
IR786 Santee Community Center
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.010
32 Mauchly, Suite B, Irvine, CA 92618 TEL: (949) 450‐2100 Anaheim – Irvine – Ontario – San Diego – Torrance
www.GroupDelta.com
HMC Architects January 11, 2024
8910 University Center Lane, #650 Group Delta Project No. IR753 San Diego, California, 92122
Attention: HMC Architects June 15, 2022
8910 University Center Lane, #650 Group Delta Project No. IR786 San Diego, CA 92122
Attention: Kyle Peterson, AIA, LEED AP, DBIA
Managing Manager
Subject: Review of Foundation Plans, Grading Plans and Specifications Santee Community Center
Santee, California
Dear Mr. Segesman,
We have reviewed the foundation plans, grading plans and specification for the Santee Community Center project located at 10129 Riverwalk Drive, Santee, California. The 100% Construction Document plans dated August 28, 2023 and Specifications dated August 25, 2023 were prepared by HMC Architects and contained the reviewed items. The plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented in Group Delta Consultants, Inc. report entitled “Geotechnical Investigation Report, Santee Community Center, Santee, California,” dated June 15, 2022. The ground improvement plans specified on the plans are to be prepared by others and should be reviewed by Group Delta or the City’s Geotechnical consultant prior to construction for concurrence with our recommendations.

Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter.

Please let us know if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Sincerely,
Group Delta Consultants, Inc.

Michael J. Givens, PhD, PE, GE, PG
Associate Geotechnical Engineer
9/30/2025
Appendix E
Hazardous Materials Assessment

MEMORANDUM
To:

From:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

This hazardous materials assessment was conducted for the proposed Santee Community Center Project (project), which proposes development in the downtown area of the City of Santee, in the southwestern portion of San Diego County. The proposed project site is 5.20 acres of a current parking lot, grass field, and paved walking paths located north and east of and adjacent to a city-owned YMCA facility, located at 10123 Riverwalk Drive (Attachment A, Site Map). The project site is situated directly south of Riverwalk Drive, 0.03 miles west of Park Center Drive, and adjoining a channelized tributary to the north and west. The project site can be accessed from Riverwalk Drive to the north.

The proposed project would involve the construction of the Santee Community Center building, which would be two stories and include event space, office space, and support spaces and would total 12,500 gross square feet.

Proposed project activities would include partial removal of existing parking, site preparation, grading/land improvement, paving, and construction of the proposed Community Center.

The purpose of this hazardous materials assessment is to determine if there are any potential environmental concerns on the project site related to hazardous materials and/or waste. This hazardous materials assessment consists of a review and summary of regulatory agency records, historical aerial photographs, and potential site hazards due to hazardous material pipelines and/or oil and gas wells. 1 Physical Setting
The project site is located in the downtown area of the City of Santee. The average elevation of the project site ranges approximately between 340 to 355 feet above mean sea level (Google Earth 2023). Surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, and recreational. The project site is bounded by Riverwalk Drive to the north, a YMCA to the southwest, a sports complex to the west, and a channelized tributary adjacent to the south and east (Attachment A). The San Diego River, which flows northeast–southwest, is located approximately 0.21 miles south of the project site.

Dudek consulted the online California Water Board Groundwater Information System for information about public supply wells in the project site area (SWRCB 2025a). No wells were identified on the project site. The nearest water Caitlin Munson, Dudek
Audrey Herschberger, Stephanie Chao, Dudek
Hazardous Materials Assessment for Santee Community Center April 17, 2025
A – Figure 1, Project Location
B - Historic Aerial Photographs

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT FOR SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER 14169 2
APRIL 2025
supply well was identified approximately 0.32 miles southeast of the project site. No depth to water was identified for nearby wells through the GAMA system. Dudek consulted GeoTracker for groundwater depth information through nearby groundwater monitoring and cleanup sites (SWRCB 2025b). The nearest groundwater data were identified approximately 0.28 miles northeast of the project site, within a monitoring well network consisting of 23 wells (Circle K#2955, GeoTracker Site ID T0607302618). The well nearest the project site had a depth to groundwater that ranged from 5.91 feet below top of casing when it was first measured in December 2010 to 11.40 feet below top of casing when it was measured most recently in October 2016.

Dudek conducted a search for oil and gas wells within 1 mile of the project site (CalGEM 2025). No oil and gas wells were identified within 1 mile of the project site.

Dudek reviewed the National Pipeline Mapping System online database (USDOT 2025). The National Pipeline Mapping System map did not identify any gas transmission or hazardous liquid pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants, breakout tanks, accidents, or incidents on or within 1 mile of the project site. 2 Online Regulatory Databases

2.1 Cortese List Sites
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to compile a list of hazardous waste and substances sites (Cortese List). While the Cortese List is no longer maintained as a single list, the following databases provide information that meet the Cortese List requirements:

1. List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor database (California Health and Safety Codes 25220, 25242, 25356, and 116395);

2. List of LUST Sites by County and Fiscal Year from the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database (California Health and Safety Code 25295);

3. List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the State Water Resources Control Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (California Water Code Section 13273[e] and 14 CCR Section 18051);

4. List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the State Water Resources Control Board (California Water Code Sections 13301 and 13304); and

5. List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Dudek conducted a search of the above-described databases that provide information on Cortese List sites. The project site was not identified on these Cortese List databases. While multiple sites were identified with 1 mile of the project site, based on the environmental conditions, distance from the project site, and regulatory status of each of the Cortese List sites, it was determined that there were no sites that may have potentially impacted the environmental conditions of the project site.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT FOR SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER 14169 3
APRIL 2025

2.2 Non-Cortese List Hazardous Materials Sites
Dudek also reviewed other online databases that provide environmental information on release and cleanup cases in the State of California. While these databases are not included in the Cortese List, they may provide additional information regarding potential environmental contamination on the project site. Table 1 provides a summary of the databases searched.

Table 1. Online Database Listings
Database Details
California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA)
https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite/
The CalEPA Regulated Site Portal is a website that combines data about environmentally regulated sites and facilities in California into a single, searchable database and interactive map. Data sources include California Environmental
Reporting System (CERS), EnviroStor, GeoTracker, California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) (CalEPA 2025).

Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
EnviroStor
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/
The DTSC’s data management system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at
hazardous waste facilities and sites with known
contamination or sites where there may be reasons for
further investigation (DTSC 2025).

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
GeoTracker
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
The California RWQCB’s data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. GeoTracker
contains records for sites that require cleanup, various unregulated projects, and permitted facilities. Sites include Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, Department of
Defense, Cleanup Program, Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas
Production, Permitted Underground Storage Tanks, and Land Disposal Sites (SWRCB 2025b).

San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health and Quality
https://publicservices.sandiegocounty.gov/
CitizenAccess/Default.aspx
The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and Quality online database for public records includes permit records, reports and correspondence, underground storage tank compliance information, complaints, industrial compliance inspection files, and food facility and public swimming pool inspection reports.

The project site was identified in the San Diego DEHQ database (DEHQ 2025) and CalEPA Regulated Site Portal (CalEPA 2025). Various permit records were identified for the adjoining property located at 10123 Riverwalk Drive, the Cameron Family YMCA (also recorded as YMCA of San Diego), dating from December 2002 to April 2023. The permits and records were in relation to facility remodeling, pool installation, and resurfacing and modifications of the facility’s pools. Two temporary food vendor permits were also identified for 10123 Riverwalk Drive, issued in March 2023. No records were identified that would indicate a potential impact of hazardous waste or materials to the project site. An inspection report from December 2022 notes use and disposal of pool chemicals (County of San Diego 2022). Pool chemicals are also recorded in the CalEPA Regulated Site Portal, including sodium hypochlorite, sodium bicarbonate, and hydrochloric acid. Four violations are noted by CalEPA between 2014 and 2017. The nature

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT FOR SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER 14169 4
APRIL 2025
of the violations is not noted; however, subsequent inspections completed between 2017 and 2022 were completed without violations. There are no comments regarding releases or mishandling of hazardous materials.

Three geotechnical borings were reported on the project site, which were completed at the southeastern corner of the site. Water was identified approximately 16 feet below ground surface (Group Delta 2022). Soil samples from each boring were analyzed for metals, volatile organic compounds, and petroleum hydrocarbons. No contaminants of concern were identified above normal background concentrations.

Multiple sites within 0.50 miles of the project site were identified as permitted handlers or emitters of hazardous materials. These listings are administrative, and do not indicate an unregulated or reportable release of hazardous materials to the environment. Multiple sites were also identified as contaminated sites (release sites). All of these sites have received regulatory closure, indicating the releases have been cleaned up or remediated to the satisfaction of the regulatory agency. Some of these closed sites, despite cleanup efforts, have remaining environmental contamination and received a low-risk regulatory closure or have institutional controls placed on the property.

However, based on site characterization, regulatory status of each site, distance from the project site, and current land use designations, none of the identified sites are considered likely to have impacted the environmental conditions of the project site.
3 Historical Aerial Photographs
Dudek reviewed historical aerial photographs obtained from Historic Aerials by NETR Online for 1953, 1966, 1978, 1985, 1996, 2005, 2014, 2020, and 2022 (Attachment B; NETR 2025). The most recent Google Earth image dated December 2022 (Google Earth 2022) was also reviewed. The photographs provided background information to assess the possibility of past activities that could present environmental concerns for the project site. The aerial photographs are described in Table 2.

Table 2. Aerial Photographs
Date Description
1953 The project site is vacant with an unimproved road that runs to the south and east of the project site. The surface area of the project site appears to have been mowed for potential agricultural use. The areas directly adjoining the project site appear similar to the project site while the surrounding areas of the project site appear to be vacant and undeveloped. 1966 The project site appears to have less definitive mowing or cultivation lines observed and appears similar to unused vacant land. Apparent commercial and residential structures are observed in the surrounding area, approximately 0.25 miles north, northeast, west, and southeast of the project site.
1978 The project site appears similar to the 1966 aerial photograph. Increased development has occurred in the surrounding areas.
1985 The project site appears similar to the 1978 aerial photograph. A small structure is observed just south of the project site. Further development has occurred in the surrounding areas.
1996 The project site appears similar to the 1985 aerial photograph. The small structure previously observed south of the project site in the 1985 aerial photograph is no longer present. The area adjoining to the southwest of the project site appears to be undergoing development where previous vegetation has been cleared. Increased development is observed in the surrounding areas north and southeast of the project site.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT FOR SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER 14169 5
APRIL 2025
Table 2. Aerial Photographs
Date Description
2003 The eastern portion of the subject property appears undeveloped and covered with grass.

The western portion of the subject property and southwestern adjoining property are under development and formerly vegetated areas have been graded and excavated. Construction equipment and vehicles appear to be staged on the project site. The surrounding areas appear similar to the 1996 aerial photograph, with increased development to the southeast.
2005 Further development has occurred on the western portion of the project site and in the area adjoining to the southwest. There is now an apparent recreational facility to the southwest with at least one large, roofed structure with multiple outdoor pools. The western portion of the project site appears to be an associated parking lot and lawn.

Increased development has occurred in the surrounding area to the southeast of the project site. The rest of the surrounding areas appear similar to the 1996 aerial photograph.
2009 The project site now appears to be entirely developed as a parking lot for the southwestern adjoining recreational facility. More area appears to be under construction farther to the west. Increased vegetation adjoining to the east and south around a channelized tributary is observed. A road has been constructed to the north (Riverwalk Drive) leading to the recreational facility, and another development to the northeast (nursing facility) is observed. Increased residential development is observed north of the project site with increased recreational development observed west and south of the project site. 2014 The western portion of the project site is now a grass field, while the eastern portion remains a parking lot. The recreational facility adjoining to the west is complete with baseball diamonds and additional buildings. Increased residential development is observed north of the project site with increased recreational development observed west and south of the project site.
2020, 2022 The project site, adjoining properties, and surrounding areas appear similar to the 2014 aerial photograph.

Source: Attachment B
4 Fire Insurance Maps
A search for historical Sanborn fire insurance maps was conducted using the Library of Congress Geography and Map Reading Room’s online search database (LOC 2025). Sanborn maps provide information regarding the historical uses of the project site and surrounding properties. Sanborn maps typically exist for cities with populations of 2,000 or more; the coverage is dependent on the location of the project site within the city limits. Sanborn maps were not available within the vicinity of the project site.
5 Summary and Conclusions
The project site, 5.20 acres, is located in the City of Santee, in the southwestern portion of San Diego County. The project site is of even topography (340 to 355 feet amsl) in a space currently used as a parking lot and green space.

The project site is bounded by commercial development (consisting of a YMCA) to the southwest, Riverwalk Drive to the north, a sports complex to the west, and a channelized tributary to the south and east. The proposed project involves development of a 12,500 square foot Community Center inclusive of dedicated facilities for teens

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT FOR SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER 14169 6
APRIL 2025
and seniors, lobby space, multipurpose rooms, administrative offices and storage, parking, infrastructure improvements to support the new facilities, and landscaped common areas.

The project site was vacant and predominantly unused until its use as a parking lot began between 2005 and 2009.

Development of the YMCA to the southwest of the project site, which included development of the western portion of the project site, began in approximately 2003. Development of residential, commercial, and recreational properties in the surrounding areas began in the 1970s; adjoining properties to the east, south, and north were developed between 2005 and 2014. Three geotechnical borings were completed on the project site in 2022. Water was identified approximately 16 feet below ground surface.

The project site was not listed on the Cortese List databases. Review of other regulatory databases revealed release and cleanup cases, including Cortese List sites, within 0.5 miles of the project site. Based on a review of the available information, there are no cases that could have potentially impacted the project site. 7 Potential Impacts
Based on the information reviewed for this hazardous materials assessment, Dudek did not identify any potential impacts to the project site.
8 References
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2025. CalEPA Regulated Site Portal. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite/.

CalGEM (California Geologic Energy Management). 2025. California Geologic Energy Management Division, online Well Finder database. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/ WellFinder.aspx.

County of San Diego. 2022. UPFP Inspection Checklist, YMCA of San Diego County/Cameron Facility. December 13, 2022.

DEHQ (San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and Quality). 2025. Citizen Access. DEHQ Search Applications. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://publicservices.sandiegocounty.gov/ CitizenAccess/Default.aspx.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2025. California Department of Toxic Substances Control online database. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Group Delta. 2022. Boring Completion Report, Santee Community Center. April 11, 2022.

Google Earth. 2022. Google Earth Imagery Date December 1, 2022.

LOC (Library of Congress, Geography & Map Reading Room). 2025. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Online Checklist. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/sanborn/.

NETR. 2025. Historic Aerials. Accessed on April 9, 2025. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ASSESSMENT FOR SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER 14169 7
APRIL 2025
USDOT (US Department of Transportation). 2024. National Pipeline Mapping System Public Map Viewer. U.S.

Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer.

SWRCB. 2025a. California Water Boards, Groundwater Information System. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/.

SWRCB. 2025b. California Water Quality Control Board online database. Accessed April 9, 2025. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.

Attachment A
Figure 1, Project Location
Cuy
a
m
a
c
a
St
Magnolia Park Dr
Palm Glen Dr
Bilteer Ct
P
ark
Center Dr
Leave sly Trl
Riverwalk Dr
River Bluff Dr
C
ottonw
o
od A
ve
River P
ark Dr
Claudia Ave
Park Center Dr
Riverwalk Dr
Town Center
Community Park
- East
Town Center
Community Park
- West
YMCA & Santee
Aquatics Center
Rio Seco
Elementary
Sportsplex
USA Santee
N
Magnolia A
ve
Project Boundary
0 200 400
Feet
Date: 2/14/2024 User: rstrobridge Path: Z:\Projects\j1416903\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\MND\Santee Community Center MND.aprx Map: Project Location Layout: Figure 1 Project Location Temecula
Murrieta
Chula Vista
Encinitas
San Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Lemon Grove
El Cajon
Poway
San Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial Beach
Del Mar
Coronado
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y
S a n D i e g o
C o u n t y
M e x i c o
ÄÆ52
ÄÆ94
274 ÄÆ
ÄÆ74 195 ÄÆ
ÄÆ56
ÄÆ86
ÄÆ78
ÄÆ67
ÄÆ76 ÄÆ79
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦8
Project Site
El Cajon Quadrangle - Township 15S Range 1W Section 22
SOURCE: Maxar 2022
Project Location
Santee Community Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FIGURE 1
Attachment B
Historical Aerial Photographs

ATTACHMENT B / HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
14169 B-1
APRIL 2025
Aerial 1. Aerial photograph of the project site from 1953.

Aerial 2. Aerial photograph of the project site from 1966.

ATTACHMENT B / HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
14169 B-2
APRIL 2025
Aerial 3. Aerial photograph of the project site from 1978.

Aerial 4. Aerial photograph of the project site from 1985.

ATTACHMENT B / HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
14169 B-3
APRIL 2025
Aerial 5. Aerial photograph of the project site from 1996.

Aerial 6. Aerial photograph of the project site from 2003.

ATTACHMENT B / HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
14169 B-4
APRIL 2025
Aerial 7. Aerial photograph of the project site from 2005.

Aerial 8. Aerial photograph of the project site from 2009.

ATTACHMENT B / HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
14169 B-5
APRIL 2025
Aerial 9. Aerial photograph of the project site from 2014.

Aerial 10. Aerial photograph of the project site from 2020.

ATTACHMENT B / HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
14169 B-6
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix F
Hydrology Technical Memorandum

MEMORANDUM
To: Kyle Peterson, HMC Architects
From: Eric Schniewind, Dudek
Subject: Hydrology Technical Memorandum for Santee Community Center Project Date: April 17, 2025
Attachments: A – Drainage Study for Santee Community Center, Psomas, February, 2025 B – Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), Psomas, February, 2025 This memorandum describes the existing hydrology and water quality setting and regulatory requirements related to stormwater runoff that would apply to development associated with the proposed Santee Community Center (Project or proposed Project) in the City of Santee, California. The Project site is located at the southwest corner of Riverwalk Drive and Park Center Drive adjacent to an existing City-owned YMCA facility at 10123 Riverwalk Drive.

The proposed facility would include a 12,500-square-foot structure and a new parking lot to be located north of the existing YMCA facility. The following provides information and resources that can be used in support of the environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 Environmental Setting

1.1 Regional Hydrology

1.1.1 Los Coches Creek – San Diego River Watershed
The Project site is located within the San Diego River watershed, which is approximately 45 miles long and extends from the mountains in the Cleveland National Forest to the Pacific Ocean (SWRCB 2024). The river flows through unincorporated areas of San Diego (including the community of Lakeside), the City of Santee, and the City of San Diego. The Los Coches Creek is a tributary to San Diego River and drains a mostly urbanized watershed until it joins the San Diego River in the lower portion of the river. The lower 20 miles of the San Diego River has been adversely affected by various human activities including various mining projects, abandoned mining pits, mining waste, urban runoff pollutants, and also encroachment of invasive, non-native plant species, which has degraded water quality, beneficial uses, and habitats. As a result, the lower 20 miles of the San Diego River is on the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Impaired Waters 303(d) list for bifenthrin (an insecticide), chlordane (pesticide), chloride, color, cyfluthrin (insecticide), cypermethrin (insecticide), bacteria, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, permethrin, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and turbidity (RWQCB 2024). Los Coches Creek is also on the 303(d) list for bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, and selenium (RWQCB 2024).

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 2
APRIL 2025

1.1.2 San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin
The Project site is located within the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin No. 9-15), which includes the smaller subbasin known as the Santee Basin (Carollo Engineers 2021). The Santee Basin is designated by the Department of Water Resources, in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), to be a very low priority basin (DWR 2024). The basin is unadjudicated and not critically overdrafted. The Pueblo water rights are the key water rights doctrine that governs allocation of surface water and groundwater of the San Diego River (Carollo Engineers 2021). As a result, this basin is not subject to the requirements of developing a groundwater sustainability plan because of the low priority designation.

Water supply for the City of Santee is provided by Padre Dam Municipal Water District that only pumps a small amount of groundwater from the basin to supplement the recycled water system (Carollo Engineers 2021). During the period of 2016 to 2020, the volume of water pumped from the basin has ranged from 0 to 198 acre-feet per year. Instead, water supply is primarily imported from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). This potable water supply is imported from the California State Water Project (North Bay, South Bay, and California Aqueducts) and the Colorado River (Los Angeles and Colorado River Aqueducts) by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The water supply is treated at Metropolitan’s Skinner Treatment Plant near Temecula, California, and then released into SDCWA’s system.

1.2 Existing Project Site Stormwater Drainage
The portion of the Project site where the community center is proposed currently consists of a parking lot and landscaped areas along the southern portion of the site (Attachment A). Stormwater runoff currently occurs as sheet flow toward the south of the parking lot where it is conveyed via two existing earthen swales and discharged into Woodglen Vista Creek, a tributary to San Diego River. The portion of the site that would be developed into a parking lot is currently covered in grass where stormwater drains to three existing grate inlets that convey runoff via a storm drainpipe to the west and into Woodglen Vista Creek (Attachment A).

1.3 Proposed Project Site Stormwater Drainage
As proposed, the new community center would be located on a portion of the existing parking lot with the remaining portion redesigned and a separate new parking lot located north of the existing YMCA. Stormwater would be managed through a series of catch basins, roof drainages, and a total of 8 biofiltration basins (5 basins located to the south and east of the proposed building and 3 basins located on the west and south edge of the proposed parking lot). The catch basins and roof drainages would convey runoff to the biofiltration basins. Off-site flows from the northern portion of the existing parking lot would be intercepted by a new cross gutter at the north end of the site and conveyed to the existing earthen swale, bypassing the treatment basins, and ultimately discharging into Woodglen Vista Creek similar to existing conditions (Attachment A). The runoff from the new parking lot would be conveyed via surface flow to the three biofiltration basins located in the landscaped areas of the parking lot, and then conveyed to Woodglen Creek.

The total amount of impervious surfaces after development would increase from the current condition of 45.7% impervious surfaces (71% impervious in the community center location and 16% impervious in the proposed parking lot location) to approximately 77% impervious (78% for the community center location and 76% at the parking lot) (Attachment A). As a result, the calculated 100-year, 6-hour peak storm flow would increase from

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 3
APRIL 2025

22.4 cubic feet per second to 26.2 cubic feet per second in the proposed condition (Attachment A). The design of the proposed stormwater drainage control features are in accordance with the San Diego County Hydraulic Design Manual and the San Diego County Project Clean Water’s Stormwater Technical Guide.

1.4 Flood Zones
The Project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain, although the southwestern corner of the site does abut against a flood hazard zone (FEMA 2024).

1.5 Water Supply
As previously noted, water supply for the City of Santee is provided by Padre Dam Municipal Water District that sources the majority of its water from SDCWA. SDCWA obtains its water from three sources: imported California State Water Project water, Colorado River water, and desalinated water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant. The Padre Dam Municipal Water District’s water supplies also include recycled water and a very small amount of groundwater used to supplement the recycled water system (Carollo Engineers 2021).

The current water usage on site is unknown but limited to possible irrigation demands and assumed to be relatively low. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the Padre Dam Municipal Water District can meet projected water demands out to 2045 under normal, single dry year, and multiple (5) year scenarios (Carollo Engineers 2021).
2 Regulatory Setting

2.1 Federal

2.1.1 Clean Water Act
Increasing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led to the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. As amended in 1977, this law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251 et seq.). The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA established basic guidelines for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The CWA requires that states adopt water quality standards to protect public health, enhance the quality of water resources, and ensure implementation of the CWA.

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (Beneficial Use and Water Quality Objectives) The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for the protection of the beneficial uses of waters within the proposed Project area. RWQCB uses its planning, permitting, and enforcement authority to meet its responsibilities adopted in the Basin Plan to implement plans, policies, and provisions for water quality management.

In accordance with state policy for water quality control, RWQCB employs a range of beneficial use definitions for surface waters, groundwater basins, marshes, and mudflats that serve as the basis for establishing water quality objectives and discharge conditions and prohibitions. The Basin Plan for the Los Angeles Region has identified

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 4
APRIL 2025
existing and potential beneficial uses supported by the key surface water drainages throughout its jurisdiction.

Under CWA Section 303(d), the State of California is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and objectives. A total maximum daily load defines how much of a specific pollutant/stressor a given water body can tolerate and still meet relevant water quality standards. RWQCB has developed total maximum daily loads for select reaches of water bodies.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Water Quality Certification) Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for any federal permit (e.g., a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit) obtain certification from the state, requiring that discharge to waters of the United States would comply with provisions of the CWA and with state water quality standards. For example, an applicant for a permit under Section 404 of the CWA must also obtain water quality certification per Section 401 of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless such a discharge is exempt from CWA Section 404. For the Project area, the Los Angeles RWQCB provides the water quality certification required under Section 401 of the CWA.

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
The CWA was amended in 1972 to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit program, as authorized by Section 402 of the CWA, was established to control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States (33 USC 1342). In California, EPA has authorized the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) permitting authority to implement the NPDES program.

Regulations (Phase II Rule) that became final on December 8, 1999, expanded the existing NPDES program to address stormwater discharges from construction sites that disturb land equal to or greater than 1 acre and less than 5 acres (small construction activity). The regulations also require that stormwater discharges from small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) be regulated by a NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Order No. 99-08-DWQ (i.e., the General Construction Permit). Postconstruction stormwater controls to satisfy requirements of the NPDES program are permitted under the Phase II Small MS4 Permit (Order No. 2013-001 DWQ effective July 1, 2013).

To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project applicant must provide a Notice of Intent, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and other documents required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of best management practices (BMPs), and a sedimentmonitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Routine inspection of all BMPs is required under the provisions of the Construction General Permit. On September 2, 2009, SWRCB issued a new NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 - as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) that became effective July 1, 2010.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 5
APRIL 2025
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the CWA established a permitting program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which include wetlands adjacent to national waters (33 USC 1344). This permitting program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and enforced by EPA.

2.1.2 National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program in order to provide flood insurance within communities that were willing to adopt floodplain management programs to mitigate future flood losses. The act also required the identification of all floodplain areas within the United States and the establishment of flood-risk zones within those areas. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the primary agency responsible for administering programs and coordinating with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. FEMA is responsible for preparing Flood Insurance Rate Maps that delineate the areas of known special flood hazards and their risk applicable to the community. The program encourages the adoption and enforcement by local communities of floodplain management ordinances that reduce flood risks. In support of the program, FEMA identifies flood hazard areas throughout the United States on FEMA flood hazard boundary maps.

2.1.3 Federal Antidegradation Policy
The Federal Antidegradation Policy (40 CFR 131.12) requires states to develop statewide antidegradation policies and identify methods for implementing them. Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), state antidegradation policies and implementation methods shall, at a minimum, protect and maintain: (1) existing in-stream water uses; (2) existing water quality where the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary to support existing beneficial uses, unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate economic and social development in the area; and (3) water quality in waters considered an outstanding national resource.

2.2 State

2.2.1 Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221: Water Supply Assessments and Water Supply Verifications
Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221, effective January 1, 2002, improve the linkage between certain land use decisions made by cities and counties and water supply availability. The statutes require detailed information regarding water availability and reliability with respect to certain developments to be included in the administrative record. Under Water Code Section 10912(a), projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act requiring a water supply assessment include residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; hotels, motels, or both having more than 500 rooms; industrial, manufacturing, or processing plants, or industrial parks planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area; mixed-use projects that include one or more of the projects specified; or a project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount required by a 500-dwelling-unit project. A fundamental source document for compliance with SB 610 is the UWMP, which can be

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 6
APRIL 2025
used by the water supplier to meet the standard for SB 610. The proposed Project does not meet the requirements for a water supply assessment to be prepared.

2.2.2 California Water Code Section 10610 et seq., Urban Water Management Planning Act
California urban water providers are required by state law to develop an UWMP to ensure sufficient water supplies are available to meet the long-term needs of their customers during normal, dry, or multiple-dry years. The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers, which provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supply more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, to develop an UWMP every 5 years, in the years ending in 0 and 5.

In the act, the California Legislature declared that the waters of the state are a limited and renewable resource subject to ever-increasing demands; that the conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies are of a statewide concern; that successful implementation of plans is best accomplished at the local level; that conservation and efficient use of water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the state and their water resources; that conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies shall be a guiding criterion in public decisions; and that urban water suppliers shall be required to develop water management plans to achieve conservation and efficient use.

The Padre Dam Municipal Water District’s 2020 UWMP has been prepared in compliance with these requirements of the act, as well as the additional reporting requirements of the Water Conservation Act of 2009. The UWMP is intended to serve as a general, flexible, and open-ended document that periodically can be updated to reflect changes in regional water supply trends, conservation policies, and water use efficiency policies.

2.2.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three-bill legislative package—Assembly Bill 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley)—collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For critically overdrafted basins, sustainability should be achieved by 2040. For the remaining high- and medium-priority basins, 2042 is the deadline. Through SGMA, the California Department of Water Resources provides ongoing support to local agencies through guidance, financial assistance, and technical assistance. SGMA empowers local agencies to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage basins sustainably and requires Groundwater Sustainability Plans for crucial (i.e., medium to high priority) groundwater basins in California. The San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin (which includes the Santee Basin) is not subject to SGMA requirements.

2.2.4 California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Since 1973, the California SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs have been delegated the responsibility for administering permitted discharge into the waters of California. The Project site falls within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWCQB. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.; California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 15) provides a comprehensive water-quality management system for the protection of California waters. Under the act, “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste,

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 7
APRIL 2025
within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state” must file a report of the discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. Pursuant to the act, the RWQCB may then prescribe “waste discharge requirements” that add conditions related to control of the discharge. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act defines “waste” broadly, and the term has been applied to a diverse array of materials, including nonpoint source pollution. When regulating discharges that are included in the federal SWA, the state essentially treats waste discharge requirements and NPDES as a single permitting vehicle. In April 1991, SWRCB and other state environmental agencies were incorporated into the California Environmental Protection Agency.

RWQCB regulates urban runoff discharges under the NPDES permit regulations. NPDES permitting requirements cover runoff discharged from point (e.g., industrial outfall discharges) and nonpoint (e.g., stormwater runoff) sources.

RWQCB implements the NPDES program by issuing construction and industrial discharge permits.

Under the NPDES permit regulations, BMPs are required as part of a SWPPP. EPA defines BMPs as “schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of Waters of the United States.” BMPs include “treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage” (40 CFR 122.2).

2.2.5 CALGreen
The California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, of the California Code of Regulations, also known as CALGreen, is designed to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by using design and construction methods that reduce the negative environmental impact of development and to encourage sustainable construction practices. CALGreen provides mandatory direction to developers of all new construction and renovations of residential and non-residential structures with regard to all aspects of design and construction, including, but not limited to, site drainage design, stormwater management, and water use efficiency. Required measures are accompanied by a set of voluntary standards designed to encourage developers and local agencies to aim for a higher standard of development.

2.2.6 California Water Code
The California Water Code includes 22 kinds of districts or local agencies with specific statutory provisions to manage surface water. Many of these agencies have statutory authority to exercise some forms of groundwater management. For example, a Water Replenishment District (Water Code Section 60000 et seq.) is authorized to establish groundwater replenishment programs and collect fees for that service, while a Water Conservation District (Water Code Section 75500 et seq.) can levy groundwater extraction fees. Through special acts of the California Legislature, 13 local agencies have been granted greater authority to manage groundwater. Most of these agencies, formed since 1980, have the authority to limit export and control some in-basin extraction upon evidence of overdraft or the threat of an overdraft condition. These agencies can also generally levy fees for groundwater management activities and for water supply replenishment.

2.2.7 Assembly Bill 3030 – Groundwater Management Act
In 1992, Assembly Bill 3030 was passed, which increased the number of local agencies authorized to develop a groundwater management plan and set forth a common framework for management by local agencies throughout California. These agencies could possess the same authority as a water replenishment district to “fix and collect

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 8
APRIL 2025
fees and assessments for groundwater management” (Water Code Section 10754), provided they receive a majority of votes in favor of the proposal in a local election (Water Code Section 10754.3).

2.3 Regional

2.3.1 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
As previously detailed, the Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB. The San Diego RWQCB authorizes NPDES permits that ensure compliance with wastewater treatment and discharge requirements.

The San Diego RWQCB enforces wastewater treatment and discharge requirements for properties near and surrounding the Project site.

2.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit
The County of San Diego (County) and its copermittee cities, including the City of Santee, have a joint Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES permit (MS4 Permit) (Permit Order No. R9-2013-0001, NPDES Permit No. CAS0109266) that was amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 (adopted February 11, 2015) and R9-2015-0100 (adopted November 18, 2015. The MS4 Permit is intended to implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The permittees listed under the joint permit have the authority to develop, administer, implement, and enforce stormwater management programs within their own jurisdiction.

Urban stormwater runoff is defined in the MS4 Permit as including stormwater and dry weather flows from a drainage area that reaches a receiving water body or subsurface. The permit regulates the discharge of all wet- and dry-weather urban stormwater runoff within the County and the jurisdictions of its copermittees. Pursuant to Provision B of Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended, the copermittees must develop a water quality improvement plan for each of the watershed management areas in the San Diego Region. The water quality improvement plans guide the copermittees’ jurisdictional runoff management programs toward achieving improved water quality in MS4 discharges and receiving waters.

2.3.3 County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance
(Effective February 26, 2016)
In order to protect water resources and to improve water quality, the County developed a Watershed Protection Program that would provide controls on the stormwater conveyance system and protect receiving waters. Other purposes of the program are to enable the use of management practices by the County and its citizens that will reduce the adverse effects of non-stormwater and polluted stormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance system and receiving waters; to secure benefits from the use of stormwater as a resource; and to ensure the County is compliant with applicable state and federal law and California RWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001, NPDES No.

CAS0109266 as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100. The County prepared the 2020 BMP Design Manual, which provides guidance for land development and public improvement projects to comply with the 2013 MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by Order Nos. R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100). The BMP Design Manual provides guidance for the implementation of stormwater quality control measures in new

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 9
APRIL 2025
development and redevelopment projects in unincorporated areas of the County with the intention of improving water quality and mitigating potential water quality impacts from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges.

2.4 Local

2.4.1 Santee Municipal Code – Stormwater
Chapter 9.06 of the City of Santee Municipal Code provides the stormwater management and discharge control requirements for new development and redevelopment projects in the City. Projects are required to implement BMPs for both operation and construction activities. Illicit discharges and illicit connections are prohibited as well as spills, dumping, or disposal of any solid or liquid waste including any pollutant as defined in Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 USC Section 1362(6), or incorporated into California Water Code Section 13373. 3 Impact Analysis
Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements Construction
The proposed Project would involve earthwork activities and soil disturbance over the course of construction that could expose soils to the effects of wind and water erosion and sedimentation and other pollutants associated with construction activity could be released from accidental spills or unauthorized releases. Standard construction management practices, as required through the City and the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit, would minimize construction-related impacts on water quality. The Construction General Permit would require implementation of a SWPPP to address potential construction-related impacts on water quality. The SWPPP must specify the location, type, and maintenance requirements for BMPs necessary to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying construction-related pollutants into the City’s municipal storm drain system.

The standard requirements contained in a SWPPP are sufficient to minimize the Project’s potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. Therefore, construction-related impacts of the Project on water quality would be less than significant.

Operation
Redevelopment of the Project site would involve changes to existing drainage patterns and would result in an increase in impervious surfaces from 45.7% to 77%. As a result, the proposed changes to the site use could become a source of pollution from incidental spills of vehicle oils and other pollutants that can be conveyed by storm and landscape irrigation flows. However, all proposed improvements would be required to adhere to existing drainage control requirements including the MS4 NPDES permit and the City’s drainage control requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 9.06). Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project applicant would be required to submit drainage control plans to the City for review and approval. As part of these requirements, the plans would identify post-construction BMPs that are consistent with Low Impact Development requirements and meet all applicable MS4 and City requirements. The proposed Project would include a total of 8 biofiltration basins and use of the existing earthen swale to manage stormwater runoff. These post-construction BMPs would meet the City’s requirements and would be consistent with the County’s 2020 BMP Design Manual. Adherence to these drainage

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 10
APRIL 2025
control requirements would be adequate to protect the water quality of stormwater discharged off site. Therefore, compliance with these existing regulatory requirements for drainage control design measures would reduce potential impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements to a less-than-significant level.

Groundwater Supplies
There are no groundwater extraction wells currently on the Project site and no extraction wells are proposed as part of the Project. The underlying groundwater basin, San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin, is considered by the Department of Water Resources to be a low priority basin and not subject to the requirements of SGMA.

The proposed Project may require dewatering activities during construction due to reported groundwater levels at

14.5 feet below ground surface during the geotechnical investigation (Group Delta 2022). However, even if considered necessary for completion of construction for foundations or utility corridors, the dewatering would be temporary and likely involve only relatively small quantities of groundwater.

The proposed Project would be served by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District that sources the majority of its water from SDCWA. SDCWA obtains its water from imported surface waters (California State Water Project water and Colorado River water) and desalinated water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant. Groundwater is only used to supplement the recycled water system (Carollo Engineers 2021). In addition, according to the 2020 UWMP, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District can meet projected water demands out to 2045 under normal, single dry year, and multiple (5) year scenarios (Carollo Engineers 2021).

Therefore, while the Project would increase the water demand at the site, the proposed Project would not contribute to depletion of groundwater or interfere with recharge of a managed groundwater supply source. Impacts would be less than significant.

Flooding and Water Quality
As noted above, the proposed Project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces at the site that could increase off-site discharges if not managed appropriately. However, in accordance with MS4 Permit requirements and local City drainage control requirements, all runoff from the Project would be required to include post-construction drainage control BMPs that can attenuate peak stormwater flows from the site (Attachment A and Attachment B). The proposed Project would include 8 biofiltration basins to provide both water quality and flow attenuation consistent with the City requirements. Therefore, with adherence to the MS4 Permit and local City drainage control requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 9.06), the proposed changes to drainage patterns would not result in on- or off-site flooding or other adverse effects related to stormwater quantity or quality. There would also be no other sources of polluted runoff that are not already discussed above.

The Project site is not located in a flood hazard zone (FEMA 2024), and is therefore not at threat for impeding or redirecting flood flows.

Overall, the Project would adhere to the existing drainage control regulatory requirements of the NPDES MS4 Permit and City drainage control requirements such that the proposed changes in drainage patterns would have a less-than-significant impact related to erosion/siltation, flooding, capacities of existing infrastructure, or impeding or redirecting flood flows.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT 14169 11
APRIL 2025
4 Conclusion
As described above, the proposed improvements would adhere to existing stormwater drainage control requirements (e.g., NPDES MS4 Permit and City Municipal Code Chapter 9.06) and provide on-site treatment and detention of stormwater flows compared to existing conditions that can reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Water supply is primarily sourced from imported water and very little groundwater; however, even so, according to the current UWMP, the proposed water demand for the projected future can be met in normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios until 2045.
5 References
Carollo Engineers. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for the Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

June 2021. Accessed January 2024. https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/5620/2020- Urban-Water-Management-Plan.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2024. “SGMA Groundwater Basin Prioritization Dashboard” [interactive map application]. Accessed January 10, 2024. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/ bp-dashboard/final/.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2024. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address” [interactive map application]. Accessed January 17, 2024. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search? AddressQuery=10123%20Riverwalk%20Drive%2C%20Santee%20CA.

Group Delta. 2022. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Santee Community Center, Santee, California. Prepared for HMC Architects. San Diego, California: Group Delta Consultants, Inc. March 18, 2022.

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2024. “2020-2022 California Integrated Report of Impaired Water Bodies.” Accessed January 17, 2024. waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/ 2020_2022state_ir_reports_revised_final/apx-c-catreports/category5_report.shtml.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2024. “Restoration of a Reach of the San Diego River within the Unincorporated Community of Lakeside, San Diego County, California.” Accessed January 17, 2024. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/success/r9_lakeside.pdf.

Attachment A
Drainage Study for Santee Community Center, Psomas,
February 2025

DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER
10129 Riverwalk Drive
Santee, CA 92071
February 2025
Prepared for
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Ave.

Santee, CA 92071
(619) 258-4100
Prepared by
401 B Street
Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Psomas Project No. 5HMC010100
Santee Community Center
i February 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Project Data......................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Engineer’s Declaration Statement .................................................................... 4

3.0 Setting ................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Project Description and Location ................................................................................................................ 4

4.0 Hydrologic Method and Criteria ........................................................................ 5

4.1 Existing Conditions and Drainage ............................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Proposed Site Layout, Grading, and Drainage ............................................................................................ 6

4.3 Rational Method Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 7

5.0 Hydrologic Results ............................................................................................. 8

6.0 Hydraulic Methodology and Criteria ................................................................. 8

6.1 Criteria ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

6.2 Storm Drain Design ..................................................................................................................................... 8

6.3 Energy Dissipater Design ............................................................................................................................ 9

7.0 Hydraulic Results ............................................................................................... 9

7.1 Storm Drain Results .................................................................................................................................... 9

8.0 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 9

Santee Community Center
ii February 2025

FIGURES
Figure 1- Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... 5 TABLES
MAPS
A. Existing Conditions Drainage Study Map
B. Proposed Conditions Drainage Study Map
C. FEMA Floodplain Map

APPENDICES
A. Existing Condition Rational Method Results
B. Proposed Condition Rational Method Results
C. Storm Drain Sizing
Santee Community Center
February 2025

1.0 Project Data
Table 1 - Project Data
Project Name/Number Santee Community Center
Project Location 10129 Riverwalk Drive Santee, CA 92071 Project Type and Description Santee Community and parking lot Total Project Site Area (acres) 2.31 acres
Total New Impervious Surface Area 47,063 square feet
Total Replaced Impervious Surface Area 64,220 square feet Total Pre-Project Impervious Surface Area 64,220 square feet (45.7%) Total Post-Project Impervious Surface Area 111,283 square feet (77.1%) Net Impervious Area 47,063 square feet (increase)
Design Storm Frequency and Depth

2.5 inches (100-year, 6-hour)

5.0 inches (100-year, 24-hour)

Santee Community Center
February 2025

2.5 inches (100-year, 6-hour)

5.0 inches (100-year, 24-hour)

Santee Community Center
February 2025

2.0 Engineer’s Declaration Statement
I, Sarah Curran, as the Engineer of Record, hereby take responsible charge for the information included within this Drainage Report. I declare that this report has been prepared in accordance with the applicable City of Santee standards and regulations. __________________________
Sarah Curran, PE RCE #C69620

3.0 Setting

3.1 Project Description and Location
This project proposes a new community center to be constructed on City-owned property in the Santee Town Center Community Park adjacent to an existing Cityowned YMCA facility located at 10123 Riverwalk Drive. The project will include dedicated facilities for teens and seniors, lobby space, multi-purpose rooms, administrative offices and storage, occupying approximately 12,500 square feet as well as a new parking lot to be located just north of the existing YMCA facility. The project’s site improvements will include complimentary drought tolerant landscape architecture, storm water compliance, environmental documentation, realignment of adjacent parking facilities and replacement of displaced parking and accessibility compatibility with adjacent features.

The vicinity map for the project site is illustrated in Figure 1.

Santee Community Center
February 2025
Figure 1-Project Vicinity Map

4.0 Hydrologic Method and Criteria

4.1 Existing Conditions and Drainage
The site currently consists of a parking lot and landscape area along the southern portion of the site. Existing drainage is conveyed via surface flow through the project site from the northwest end of the parking lot to the south. Runoff is then conveyed via two existing earthen swales then discharged into Woodglen Vista Creek and ultimately flows to the San Diego River.

The site of the new parking lot currently consists of a grass area that drains to three existing grate inlets that convey the drainage via storm drain pipe to the west then discharges into Woodglen Vista Creek.

Santee Community Center
February 2025

4.2 Proposed Site Layout, Grading, and Drainage
The proposed site features one building and two covered outdoor event spaces. The project will also redesign a portion of the existing parking lot and create a new parking lot to replace the displaced parking. The site has drainage inlets in the landscaped areas and area drains in the plazas. There are three biofiltration basins located along the southern edge of the site. Drainage of the site is conveyed via catch basins and roof drainage is piped to the biofiltration basins and will then discharge into Woodglen Vista Creek. From the creek, the water will flow to the San Diego River. Offsite flows from the northern portion of the existing parking lot with be intercepted by a new cross gutter at the north end of the project site and conveyed to the existing earthen swale, bypassing the proposed treatment basins, and ultimately discharging into Woodglen Vista Creek similarly to the pre-development condition.

The drainage for the new parking lot is conveyed via surface flow to three biofiltration basins located in the landscaped areas of the parking lot. This drainage will then discharge into Woodglen Vista Creek and ultimately flow to the San Diego River.

The site has been evaluated for flooding risk using the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Panel 1651G) provided within the Maps section of this report. The site is within Zone X, which encompasses areas outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The area south of the site within Woodglen Vista Creek falls within the Zone AE which includes areas that are subject to the 1% annual chance of flood and have base flood elevations determined. For this area directly south of the site, the base flood elevation is determined to be approximately 339 feet. The finish floor of the proposed Community Center building is set at 350.5 feet, which lies above the required 1’ increase above the base flood elevation.

Santee Community Center
February 2025

4.3 Rational Method Analysis
The proposed hydrology was modeled using the San Diego County Hydrology Manual Rational Method. The Rational Method formula estimates the peak rate of runoff at any location in a watershed as a function of the drainage area (A), runoff coefficient (C), and rainfall intensity (I) for a duration equal to the time of concentration (Tc), expressed as follows:

Q = C I A
Where:

Q = peak discharge, in cubic feet per second (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient, proportion of the rainfall that runs off the surface (no units) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area, in inches per hour (Note: If the computed Tc is less than 5 minutes, use 5 minutes for computing the peak discharge, Q)
A = drainage area contributing to the design location, in acres In accordance with the manual, calculations consist of both the 100-year return period, 24-hour duration storm and the 100-year, 6-hour duration storm, applying a Type II storm. According to the isopluvial maps the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall depth for Santee, CA is 5.0 inches; and the depth of the 6-hour storm is 2.5 inches. The runoff coefficients were determined based on the soil type of the native soil, and the percent impervious according to equation:

C = 0.90 x (% Impervious) + Cp x (1 - % Impervious)
Where: Cp = Pervious Coefficient Runoff Value for the soil type C = 0.30 in/hr Santee Community Center
February 2025

5.0 Hydrologic Results
The 100-year, 6-hour peak flow rates for the pre-project and post-project conditions based on the Rational Method results are provided in Table 4.1. The project area is approximately 4.02 acres.

Table 4.1 – Summary of Existing and Proposed Peak Discharge Rates Drainage Basin
ID
Existing Condition Proposed Condition
Area (acres)
100-yr, 6-hr
Peak Flow
Rate (cfs)
Area (acres)
100-yr, 6-hr
Peak Flow
Rate (cfs)
Basin 1A

3.78 18.4

2.00 10.1
Basin 1B 0.61 3.2
Basin 1C 0.17 0.8
Basin 1D 0.38 1.9
Basin 1E 0.46 2.5
Basin 1F 0.16 0.8
Basin 2A

1.39 4.0

0.40 1.9
Basin 2B 0.28 1.6
Basin 2C 0.71 3.4
The peak run-off calculations provided within Appendix A and B demonstrate that unmitigated run-off rates are increased in the proposed condition, as compared to the existing condition. This is a result of increases in impervious area runoff. The project specific SWQMP includes the hydromodification design of permanent storm water management BMPs that are intended to mitigate for the increase in run-off, consistent with the City of Santee BMP Design Manual.

6.0 Hydraulic Methodology and Criteria

6.1 Criteria
Hydraulic calculations were performed in conformance with the San Diego County Hydraulic Design Manual, dated September 2014 and the City of Santee’s Public Works Standards, dated September 1982.

Santee Community Center
February 2025

6.2 Storm Drain Design
Pipe sizes were calculated using Manning’s equation, with an additional 30% sizing factor to account for losses. The major proposed storm drains will be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and the area drains will be constructed using polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The Manning’s roughness coefficient “n” used for the hydraulic calculations for RCP/PVC is 0.013. The Manning’s Equation calculation spreadsheet that was used for the pipe sizing is located in Appendix C.

6.3 Energy Dissipater Design
Energy dissipaters (i.e. riprap) at the storm drain outfalls will be specified using the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings (“D” Series) drawing number D-40, which provides rock classifications for design velocities entering riprap outfalls.

7.0 Hydraulic Results

7.1 Storm Drain Results
See storm drain pipe sizing calculations in Appendix C.

8.0 Conclusion
The design of the stormwater control measures, and other stormwater pollution control are in accordance with the current edition of the San Diego County Project Clean Water’s Stormwater Technical Guide and the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA).

Santee Community Center
February 2025
MAPS

IR
IR

IR IR IRIR

SLPB IR IR
IR IR

IR IR IR IR IR IR
IR
IR IR
IR
IR GVL
GVL
GVL

GVL GVL
IR
IR
IR
IR

IR SLPB
IR
D SDMH
EPB
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR IR
IR
IR
IR
SLPB
CO
IR
IR

IR IR IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR

IR IR IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IRR
IRR
IRIRIR
IRIR
IR T
T
IR IR
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
FHV
IR IR

GTPT GTPT

CATV FHV
IR
IR
IRIR
IRIR
SLPB
IR
IR
IR
IR
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
IR
MB
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR

IRIR IR

IR IR IR IR
IRIR
IRIR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR

PARKING STRIPE
(TYP.)
355
355
355
350
355
355
350
350
350
350
350
350
355
345
350
350
355
355
345
RAMP
RAMP SMH EL=354.33
I.E. NL'Y=340.69
I.E. EL'Y=340.57
I.E. SWL'Y=340.36
347.66 X
348.16 X
RAMP CONC.
345
347
348
349
352
352
353
354
354
351
351
351
352
353
354
351
349
349
354
355
354
355
356
356
357
357
356
357
358
356
354
357
356
352
347
346
348
349
349
348 347
346
354
353
352 351 347
348
349
351
352353
354
351
352
353 354
348.05
AC
347.93
348.49AC
CONC.
349.36
CONC.
349.50
RAMP 352.47TC
352.20FL
352.53TC
352.37FL
352.22 X 352.56 X 350.02 X
352.51 X 354.51 X
349.71 X
350.50 X
349.94 X
349.08 X
347.58 X
344.92 347.42X
X
350.19TC
349.75FL
350.67TC
350.25FL
351.31TC
350.84FL
351.44TC
350.97FL
351.95TC
351.57FL
352.62TC
352.20FL
353.27TC
352.88FL
354.01TC
353.59FL
354.31TC
353.82FL
354.41TC
353.96FL
351.42TC
350.98FL
354.11TC
353.67FL
354.09TC
353.63FL
354.86TC
354.24FL
354.67TC
354.19FL
353.16TC
352.82FL
RW
S
S
SMH
SMH
SMH
SD
EXIST 30" RCP
SD
SD
EXIST 30" RCP
EXIST 18" RCP
EXIST 18" RCP
SD
SD EXIST 30" RCP SD EXIST 30" RCP SD
SD
EXIST 18" RCP
SD
SD
EXIST 24" RCP
EXIST 24" RCP SD
SD
AD
CO
CO
AD
AD
CO
CO
AD

AD AD AD
AD
CO
CO
AD
SD
EXIST 18" RCP
SD
EXIST 18" RCP
SD
SD
EXIST 18" RCP
SD
EXIST 24" RCP
SD
SD
SD
EXIST 18" RCPSD EXIST 12" PVC SD SD
SD
EXIST 12" PVC
SD
SD SDEXIST 12" PVC
EXIST 12" PVC
EXIST 12" PVC
SD EXIST 12" PVC SD SD
EXIST 24" RCP SD
SD
EXIST 30" RCP
SD
EXIST 24" RCP
SD SD
SD
SD EXIST 30" RC
EXIST 24" RCP
SD SD
EXIST 24" RCP
SD
SD
EXIST 12" PVC
SD SD
EXIST 12" PVC SD
EXIST 12" PVC
SD SD SD SD EXIST 12" PVC EXIST 12" PVC
SD

CI SDMH
CI
CI
SDMH

SDMH SDMH
CI
CI CI
AD
AD
AD
337
340
341
342
343
344
339
338
338
339
340
341
342 343
338
POOL
EQUIP

ACTIVITY POOL

EXERCISE POOL

CAMERON FAMILY YMCA

RIVERWALK DRIVE

PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
R/W
C/L
R/W
R/W
C/L

WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK
EXIST 4" PVC
20' 0' 20' 40' 60'

GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 20 FEET NORTH 1" = 20'

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER

PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE

CONDITION
FIGURE A1
LEGEND

CURB RAMP

CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER/RIBBON GUTTER

SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN

CATCH BASIN

CLEANOUT

SLOPE ARROW

NEW CONTOUR

NEW SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR (PER AERIAL SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

EXISTING ELEVATION (PER FIELD SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.1')

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (PER AERIAL
SURVEY, ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

NEW CONTOUR LINE

DAYLIGHT LINE

SAWCUT LINE

RIDGE LINE

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT LINE

DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

SUBCATCHMENT IDENTIFICATION
X%
500
x 505.50
000.00
500.0
500
RIDGE
740
401 B Street, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 961-2800 (619) 961-2392 fax
www.psomas.com

EXISTING SWALE ALONG

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING SWALE ALONG

PROPERTY LINE
1 A=3.78 AC
Q100=18.4 CFS
TC=5 MIN
XX
A=AREA (ACRES)
Q=6-HOUR, 100-YEAR STORM EVENT (CFS)
TC=TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN)
APN:381-051-14-00
2 A=1.39 AC
Q100=4.0 CFS
TC=5 MIN
APN:381-051-14-00

EXISTING OUTLET
LOCATION 2

EXISTING OUTLET
LOCATION 1
1UTIL
IR
IR

IR IR IRIR

SLPB IR IR
IR IR

IR IR IR IR IR IR
IR
IR IR
IR
IR GVL
GVL
GVL

GVL GVL
IR
IR
IR
IR

IR SLPB
IR
D SDMH
EPB
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
SLPB
CO
IR
IR

IR IR IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR

IR IR IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IRR
IRR
IRIRIR
IRIR
IR T
T
IR IR
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
FHV
IR IR

GTPT GTPT

CATV FHV
IR
IR
IRIR
IRIR
SLPB
IR
IR
IR
IR
SLPB
SLPB
SLPB
IR
MB
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR

IRIR IR

IR IR IR IR
IRIR
IRIR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR

PARKING STRIPE
(TYP.)
355
355
355 350
355
355
350
350
350
350
350
350
355
345
350
350
355
355
345
RAMP
RAMP SMH EL=354.33
I.E. NL'Y=340.69
I.E. EL'Y=340.57
I.E. SWL'Y=340.36
RAMP
345
347
348
349
352
352
353
354
354
351
351
351
352
353
354
351
349
349
354
355
354
355
356
356
357
357
356
357
358
356
354
357
356
352
347
346
348
349
349
348
347
346
354
353 352
351 347 348
349
351
352
353 354
351
352
353
354
RAMP 352.47TC
352.20FL
352.53TC
352.37FL
352.22 X 352.56 X 350.02 X
352.51 X 354.51 X
349.71 X
350.50 X
349.94 X
349.08 X
347.58 X
344.92 347.42X
X
350.19TC
349.75FL
350.67TC
350.25FL
351.31TC
350.84FL
351.44TC
350.97FL
351.95TC
351.57FL
352.62TC
352.20FL
353.27TC
352.88FL
354.01TC
353.59FL
354.31TC
353.82FL
354.41TC
353.96FL
351.42TC
350.98FL
354.11TC
353.67FL
354.09TC
353.63FL
354.86TC
354.24FL
354.67TC
354.19FL
353.16TC
352.82FL
RW
S
S
SMH
SMH
SMH
SD
EXIST 30" RCP
SD
SD
EXIST 30" RCP
EXIST 18" RCP
SD EXIST 30" RCP SD
SD
EXIST 18" RCP
SD
SD
EXIST 24" RCP SD SD
SD
AD
CO
CO
AD
AD
CO
CO
AD

AD AD AD
AD CO
CO
AD
SD
EXIST 18" RCP
SD
EXIST 24" RCP
SD
SD
SD
EXIST 18" RCPSD EXIST 12" PVC SD SD
SD
EXIST 12" PVC
SD
SD SDEXIST 12" PVC
EXIST 12" PVC
EXIST 12" PVC
SD EXIST 12" PVC SD SD
EXIST 30" RCP
SD
EXIST 12" PVC
SD SD SD SD EXIST 12" PVC EXIST 12" PVC
SD
CI

SDMH SDMH
CI
AD
AD
AD
337
340
341
342
343
344
339
338
338
339
340 341
342
343
338
POOL
EQUIP

ACTIVITY POOL

EXERCISE POOL

CAMERON FAMILY YMCA

RIVERWALK DRIVE

PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
C/L
R/W
R/W
C/L

WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK
EXIST 4" PVC
WM
WM WM
0' 20' 40' 60'
20'

GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 20 FEET NORTH 1" = 20'

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER

POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE

CONDITION
FIGURE A2
LEGEND

CURB RAMP

CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER/RIBBON GUTTER

SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN

CATCH BASIN

CLEANOUT

SLOPE ARROW

NEW CONTOUR

NEW SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR (PER AERIAL SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

EXISTING ELEVATION (PER FIELD SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.1')

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (PER AERIAL
SURVEY, ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

NEW CONTOUR LINE

DAYLIGHT LINE

SAWCUT LINE

RIDGE LINE

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT LINE

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

SUBCATCHMENT IDENTIFICATION
X%
500
x 505.50
000.00
500.0
500
RIDGE
740
401 B Street, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 961-2800 (619) 961-2392 fax
www.psomas.com
1B
BIOFILTRATION BASIN BF-1C (SURFACE AREA: 930 SF)

GRATED CATCH BASINS TO BE EQUIP WITH TRASH

CAPTURE DEVICES PER CIVIL UTILITY PLAN
BIOFILTRATION BASIN BF-1D (SURFACE AREA: 975 SF)

GRATED CATCH BASINS TO BE EQUIP WITH TRASH

CAPTURE DEVICES PER CIVIL UTILITY PLAN

EXISTING SWALE ALONG

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING SWALE ALONG

PROPERTY LINE

CURB CUT WITH RIP RAP APRON

POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE

AREA (ONSITE CATCH BASIN INLET)

POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE

AREA (ONSITE CATCH BASIN INLET)

EQUIP CATCH BASINS WITH

POLLUTION PREVENTION SIGNAGE

PER PLAN
1A
A=2.00 AC
Q100=10.1 CFS
TC=5 MIN
1B1B
A=0.61 AC
Q100=3.2 CFS
TC=5 MIN
1B
A=AREA (ACRES)
Q=6-HOUR, 100-YEAR STORM EVENT (CFS)
TC=TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN)
2B1B
A=0.28 AC
Q100=1.6 CFS
TC=5 MIN
A=0.40 AC
Q100=1.9 CFS
TC=5 MIN
A=0.71 AC
Q100=3.4 CFS
TC=5 MIN
2C
1C A=0.17 AC
Q100= 0.8 CFS
TC=5 MIN
1B1D
A=0.38 AC
Q100=1.9 CFS
TC=5 MIN
BIOFILTRATION BASIN BF-1B (SURFACE AREA: 860 SF)

GRATED CATCH BASINS TO BE EQUIP WITH TRASH

CAPTURE DEVICES PER CIVIL UTILITY PLAN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN
BF-2C (SURFACE
AREA: 1,370 SF)
BIOFILTRATION BASIN BF-2B
(SURFACE AREA: 385 SF)

GRATED CATCH BASINS TO BE

EQUIP WITH TRASH CAPTURE

DEVICES PER CIVIL UTILITY PLAN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN
BF-2A (SURFACE
AREA: 395 SF)

GRATED CATCH

BASINS TO BE

EQUIP WITH TRASH

CAPTURE DEVICES

PER CIVIL UTILITY
PLAN
GENERAL NOTES:

1. HYDRAULIC SOIL GROUP = C

2. APPROXIMATE DEPTH TO GROUND WATER = 14.5 - 16.1 FT

BELOW EXISTING SURFACE

3. NO EXISTING NATURAL HYDROLOGIC FEATURES EXIST WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS.

4. THERE ARE NO POTENTIAL CRITICAL COURSE SEDIMENT YIELD

AREAS LOCATED WITHIN OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT LIMITS.

5. THE CITY OF SANTEE, AS THE PROJECT OWNER, IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PROPOSED BMPS, INCLUDING
BIOFILTRATION BASINS AND TRASH CAPTURE DEVICES.
1B1E
A=0.46 AC
Q100=2.5 CFS
TC=5 MIN
1F
A=0.16 AC
Q100=0.8
CFS
TC=5 MIN
BIOFILTRATION BASIN BF-1F
(SURFACE AREA: 235 SF) GRATED

CATCH BASINS TO BE EQUIP WITH

TRASH CAPTURE DEVICES PER CIVIL

UTILITY PLAN
BIOFILTRATION BASIN BF-1E
(SURFACE AREA: 615 SF)

GRATED CATCH BASINS TO BE

EQUIP WITH TRASH CAPTURE

DEVICES PER CIVIL UTILITY PLAN
STORM WATER POC 2
STORM WATER POC 1
A
6" MIN. TO 12" MAX.

SURFACE PONDING

CLEANOUT WITH COUNTERSUNK PLUG CAP,
RIM ELEVATION TO HAVE 6" FREEBOARD ABOVE

MAX WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
18" MEDIA WITH MIN
5 IN/HR FILTRATION RATE
EXCAVATED SLOPE (1H:1V)
6" MIN DIAMETER UNDERDRAIN. INSTALL 2"

DIAMETER ORIFICE OUTLET CONTROL LOCATED

DOWNSTREAM OF THE UNDERDRAIN

EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS
INFILTRATION STORAGE (MIN 3"

AGGREGATE BELOW UNDERDRAIN)

OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
BROOKS 24"X24" PRECAST GRATED CATCH

BASIN WITH GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE, OR
APPROVED EQUAL. INCLUDE FLOGARD

CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER BY OLD
CASTLE (MODEL NO. FGP-24F8) FOR TRASH
CAPTURE, OR EQUAL. SEE DETAIL 6

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED)

CURB CUT
4-6" DROP FROM CURB CUT TO APRON

APRON FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION
30 MIL HDPEIMPERMEABLE LINER
6" MIN FILTER COURSE

WASHED PEA GRAVEL
CURB

CURB CUT

VEGETATED

SIDE SLOPE

MEDIA SURFACE
AREA

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED)
A

SECTION A-A
PLAN

CLEANOUT
3H:1V
(MAX)
3H:1V
(MAX)
2% MAX
FINISH
GRADE

OVERFLOW

STRUCTURE

UNDERDRAIN

APRON FOR
ENERGY

DISSIPATION
BIOFILTRATION PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION:

1. PREVENT OVER-COMPACTION OF NATIVE SOILS IN AREAS OF THE BASIN WHERE INFILTRATION WILL OCCUR.

DELINEATE THE BIOFILTRATION AREA AND KEEP CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OFF. PROTECT SOILS WITH FENCING, PLYWOOD, ETC.

2. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL IN THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS OF THE DESIGNATED BIOFILTRATION AREA.

STABILIZE UPSLOPE AREAS.

3. DRAINAGE SHOULD BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM BIORETENTION FACILITIES UNTIL UPSLOPE AREAS ARE STABILIZED.

THE CONCENTRATION OF FINES COULD PREVENT POST-CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION AND CAUSE DESIGN FAILURE.

4. IF DRAINAGE IS TO BE ALLOWED THROUGH THE FACILITY DURING CONSTRUCTION LEAVE OR BACKFILL AT LEAST 6 INCHES ABOVE THE FINAL GRADE. TEMPORARILY COVER THE UNDERDRAIN WITH PLASTIC OR FABRIC. LINE OR MULCH THE BIOFILTRATION AREA.

5. BIORETENTION FACILITIES SHOULD REMAIN OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO PREVENT SOIL COMPACTION BY HEAVY EQUIPMENT. PROTECT BIORETENTION AREAS WITH SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING.

6. VERIFY INSTALLATION OF UNDERDRAIN IS CORRECT PRIOR TO PLACING SOIL.

BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL
N.T.S.
12" CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE

MATERIAL (AGGREGATE)

HDPE STORM
DRAIN

FOR REFERENCE ONLY

FLOGARD CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER
NTS

FOR REFERENCE ONLY

DMA DATA TABLE

DMA TITLE TRIBUTARY SIZE (AC) DRAINS TO
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2A
2B
2C

2.00 0.61

0.17 0.38

0.46 0.16

0.40 0.28

0.71 EXISTING POINT OF DISCHARGE
(NO IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED)
BF-1B
BF-1C
BF-1D
BF-1E
BF-1F
BF-2A
BF-2B
BF-2C
1UTIL
NOTE: DMA 1UTIL CONTAINS UTILITY
TRENCHING ONLY. SURFACE

IMPROVEMENTS ARE LIMITED TO

REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF
EXISTING SURFACE TYPE. NO
DRAINAGE OR GRADING IS IMPACTED.

DRAINAGE PATTERNS ARE NOT

DISRUPTED IN THE FINAL CONDITION

AND, FOR THIS REASON, HYDROLOGY
CALCULATIONS ARE EXCLUDED.
1UTIL 0.22 NATURAL SURFACE

FLOW PRESERVED
2A

Santee Community Center
February 2025

APPENDIX A

5.17 22.5
* Intensities are based on the equation from the San Diego County - Hydrology Manual (2004) , Figure 3-1 where:

I(t) = 7.44 * P6 * D^-0.645
**Q based on the rational method equation from the San Diego County - Hydrology Manual (2004) and expressed as:

Q = C * I *A
**Time of Concentration (Tc) is based on the nomograph on San Diego County - Hydrology Manual (2004), Figure 3-4 .

TOTAL
Santee Community Center
February 2025

APPENDIX B

PSOMAS SANTEE CC
401 B STREET, SUITE 1600 PSOMAS#: 5HMC010100SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 CALCULATED BY: JMPreciptation (in.) 100-year Storm
6hr P 2.524hr P 5Adjusted 6hr P N/ABetween 45% to 65%? 50.00% 100 YEAR - PROPOSED CONDITION
DRAINAGE AREA DEVELOPMENT A (ACRES) % OF TOTAL ACREAGE C Tc*** *I50 (IN/HR) Q** (CFS) REMARKS THE FOLLOWING HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS DONE PER METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUALWatershed 1 1A 79% IMPERVIOUS 2.00 38.68% 0.77 5.0 6.6 10.11B 83% IMPERVIOUS 0.61 11.80% 0.80 5.0 6.6 3.2 1C 70% IMPERVIOUS 0.17 3.29% 0.72 5.0 6.6 0.81D 79% IMPERVIOUS 0.38 135.71% 0.77 5.0 6.6 1.9 1E 90% IMPERVIOUS 0.46 64.79% 0.84 5.0 6.6 2.5
1F 71% IMPERVIOUS 0.16 3.09% 0.73 5.0 6.6 0.8
Watershed 2
2A 72% IMPERVIOUS 0.40 7.74% 0.73 5.0 6.6 1.92B 94% IMPERVIOUS 0.28 5.42% 0.86 5.0 6.6 1.6 2C 71% IMPERVIOUS 0.71 13.73% 0.73 5.0 6.6 3.4

5.17 26.3
* Intensities are based on the equation from the San Diego County - Hydrology Manual (2004) , Figure 3-1 where:

I(t) = 7.44 * P6 * D^-0.645
**Q based on the rational method equation from the San Diego County - Hydrology Manual (2004) and expressed as:

Q = C * I *A
***Time of Concentration (Tc) is based on the nomograph on San Diego County - Hydrology Manual (2004), Figure 3-4 .

TOTAL
Santee Community Center
February 2025

APPENDIX C

STORM DRAIN LATERALS
PIPE FLOW - DMA 1A CALCULATIONS
5/31/2023
2BEN010100
LATERAL STATION SD LINE "A"

FLOW REGIME FULL

DESIGN FLOW
"Q100" (cfs) 9.80 cfs
PIPE DIAMETER "d"
(inches) 18''

PIPE MATERIAL HDPE
MANNINGS "n"
VALUE 0.012
PIPE SLOPE "S"
(feet/feet) 0.0100

FRICTION SLOPE
"S f " (feet/feet) 0.0100

DEPTH OF FLOW
"D" (feet) 1.50'
FLOW AREA "A"
(square feet) 1.77 sf
WETTED
PERIMETER "P" 4.71'

HYDRAULIC
RADIUS "R" (A/P) 0.38'

FLOW TOP WIDTH,
T (feet) 0.00'

FLOW VELOCITY
"V" (feet/second) 6.44 fps

VELOCITY HEAD
(V 2
/2G) (feet) 0.64'

SPECIFIC ENERGY
(D+ V 2/2G) (lb-ft/lb) 2.14'

FLOW CAPACITY
DEPTH RATIO "D/d" 1.00

PIPE FLOW
CAPACITY (cfs) 11.38 cfs
1 Santee CC Hydraulic Calculations.xls

STORM DRAIN LATERALS
PIPE FLOW - DMA 2 CALCULATIONS
5/31/2023
2BEN010100

LATERAL STATION
SD

LATERAL
"B-1"
SD

LATERAL
"B-2"
SD

LATERAL
"B-3"

FLOW REGIME NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

DESIGN FLOW
"Q100" (cfs) 2.00 cfs 3.40 cfs 3.70 cfs
PIPE DIAMETER "d"
(inches) 10'' 12'' 12''

PIPE MATERIAL PVC PVC PVC
MANNINGS "n"
VALUE 0.009 0.009 0.009
PIPE SLOPE "S"
(feet/feet) 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100

FRICTION SLOPE
"S f " (feet/feet) 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100

DEPTH OF FLOW
"D" (feet) 0.83' 1.00' 1.00'
FLOW AREA "A"
(square feet) 0.55 sf 0.79 sf 0.79 sf
WETTED
PERIMETER "P" 2.58' 3.14' 3.14'

HYDRAULIC
RADIUS "R" (A/P) 0.21' 0.25' 0.25'

FLOW TOP WIDTH,
T (feet) 0.03' 0.00' 0.00'

FLOW VELOCITY
"V" (feet/second) 5.85 fps 6.55 fps 6.55 fps

VELOCITY HEAD
(V 2
/2G) (feet) 0.53' 0.67' 0.67'

SPECIFIC ENERGY
(D+ V 2/2G) (lb-ft/lb) 1.37' 1.67' 1.67'

FLOW CAPACITY
DEPTH RATIO "D/d" 1.00 1.00 1.00

PIPE FLOW
CAPACITY (cfs) 3.16 cfs 5.15 cfs 5.15 cfs
2 Santee CC Hydraulic Calculations.xls
Attachment B
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), Psomas,
February 2025
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025

CITY OF SANTEE

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)

STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR
Santee Community Center
[INSERT PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBERS]
10129 Riverwalk Drive
Santee, CA 92071
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):
381-051-14-00
ENGINEER OF WORK:
___________________________________________________________________________________ Sarah Curran C69620
[PROVIDE WET SIGNATURE AND STAMP ABOVE LINE]
PREPARED FOR:

City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Ave.

Santee, CA 92071
(619) 258-4100
PDP SWQMP PREPARED BY:

Psomas
401 B St., Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)961-2800
DATE OF SWQMP:

February 2025
PLANS PREPARED BY:

Psomas
401 B St., Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 961-2800
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025

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 Preparation Date: February 2025

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

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025

SWQMP PREPARER'S

CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: CIP 2018-31

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 San Diego 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 of Santee 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 Sarah Curran
________________________________________________________ Print Name
Psomas
________________________________________________________ Company
____________________________
Date
Engineer's Seal:

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025

SWQMP PROJECT OWNER'S

CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: CIP 2018-31

PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
This PDP SWQMP has been prepared for City of Santee by Psomas. The PDP SWQMP is intended to comply with the PDP requirements of the City of Santee BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City of San Diego and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.

The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan. Once the undersigned transfers its interests in the property, its successor-ininterest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement the best management practices (BMPs) described within this plan, including ensuring on-going operation and maintenance of structural BMPs. A signed copy of this document shall be available on the subject property into perpetuity. ________________________________________________________ Project Owner's Signature
________________________________________________________ Print Name
________________________________________________________ Company
____________________________
Date

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025

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 May 26, 2023 ☒ Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Initial Submittal
2 January 12, 2024 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
☒ Final Design
2 nd Submittal
3 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
4 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Project Name: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: CIP 2018-31

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: Date:

Project Address: 10129 Riverwalk Drive 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.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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:

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.

Stop.

Discussion / justification if protection of critical coarse sediment yield areas requirements do not apply:

Critical coarse sediment not located near project site.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Priority Determination Form
Form I-2
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Information
Project Name: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: Date:

Project Address: 10129 Riverwalk Drive 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: 111,283 ft2 (2.56) 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.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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: 235,224 acres ft2 (A) The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is 111,283 ft2 (B) Percent impervious surface created or replaced (B/A)*100: 47.3% 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 PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Site Design Checklist
For PDPs
Form I-3B (PDPs)
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Summary Information
Project Name Santee Community Center
Project Address
10129 Riverwalk Drive Santee, CA 92071
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 381-051-14-00
Permit Application Number CIP 2018-31
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 River Basin, 434 mi2
907.1
Parcel Area
(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated
with the project)

53.81 Acres (2,343,963 Square Feet)
Area to be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area) 3.31 Acres (144,344 Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area) 2.56 Acres (111,283 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area) 0.76 Acres (33,061 Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.

This may be less than the Parcel Area.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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:

Existing parking lot used by the Cameron Family YMCA.

Existing vacant area North of the Cameron Family YMCA.

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

Existing AC parking lot with landscaped buffer areas.

Proposed parking lot location has existing pervious areas.

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
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercourses
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
☒ None
Description / Additional Information:

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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; (2) Is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if yes, quantify all offsite drainage areas, design flows, and locations where offsite flows enter the project site, and summarize how such flows are conveyed through the site;
(3) Provide details regarding existing project site drainage conveyance network, including any existing storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels; and
(4) Identify all discharge locations from the existing project site along with a summary of conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide summary of the pre-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the existing runoff discharge locations.

Describe existing site drainage patterns:

The entire existing parking lot south of Riverwalk Drive conveys stormwater to the south of the lot.

Runoff surface flow is then conveyed into an existing earthen swale then discharged into Woodglen Vista Creek. The creek eventually discharges into the San Diego River. A summary of the pre-project drainage areas and design flows can be found in the Project’s hydrology report.

The vacant area north of the Cameron Family YMCA currently sheet flows south to catch basins located in an earthen swale. From there the drainage is conveyed via pipe to the west where the pipe daylights and outlets into an earthen open channel that flows southerly into Woodglen Vista Creek and eventually into the San Diego River. A summary of the pre-project drainage areas and design flows can be found in the Project’s hydrology report.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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 community center will be constructed on City-owned property in the Santee Town Center Community Park adjacent to an existing City-owned YMCA facility located at 10129 Riverwalk Drive. The Project will include dedicated facilities for teens and seniors, lobby space, multi-purpose rooms, administrative offices and storage, occupying approximately 12,500 square feet. The Project’s site improvements will include complimentary drought tolerant landscape architecture, storm water compliance, environmental documentation, addition of new parking lot area, realignment of adjacent parking facilities (but not replacement of displaced parking) and accessibility compatibility with adjacent features and the new building.

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

The proposed site features one building with support areas and two covered outdoor event spaces and courtyards. The project will also redesign a portion of the existing parking lot. The proposed site will also include the development of a new parking lot to the North of the Cameron Family YMCA.

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

There are four landscaped islands located in the redesigned parking lot as well as planted common areas around the proposed building.

For the proposed new parking lot, there are eight landscaped islands.

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

Grading of the site involves remedial grading per the Project Geotechnical Report requirements and grading to achieve drainage and accessibility compliance requirements around the building and proposed new parking lot area.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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.

Describe proposed site drainage patterns:

Drainage from parking lot areas tributary to our site will be rerouted around our site via a concrete Vgutter that directs the flows to the existing earthen swale and continue to match existing flow conditions. The site has proposed catch basins located in the outdoor event areas to collect surface flows away from the building entryways. There are three biofiltration basins that have a total provided area of 11,000 square feet in order to treat the site and provide hydromodification benefits. Drainage of the site conveys the water to the biofiltration basins and eventually will discharge into Woodglen Vista Creek via surface overflow. A summary of the post-project drainage areas and design flows can be found in the Project’s hydrology report.

For the northern new parking lot, water will be conveyed to the west and to the south of the site into three new biofiltration basins then discharged into and earthen open channel to the west which then flows southerly into Woodglen Vista Creek. The creek eventually discharges into the San Diego River. A summary of the post-project drainage areas and design flows can be found in the Project’s hydrology report.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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:

There are three catch basins on the project site. The site will have a kitchen area for food service, trash enclosure, and features an outdoor plaza, seating, sidewalks, and parking lot.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-3B Page 7 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water and Pollutants of Concern Describe flow path of storm water from the project site discharge location(s), through urban storm conveyance systems as applicable, to receiving creeks, rivers, and lagoons as applicable, and ultimate discharge to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable):

The site has two proposed catch basins located in the outdoor event areas. There are two biofiltration basins that have a required area of 2,000 square feet in order to treat the site. Drainage of the site conveys the water to the biofiltration basins and eventually will discharge into Woodglen Vista Creek.

From the creek, the water will be discharged into the San Diego River.

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 Phosphorus
Total Dissolved Solids
Nitrogen
Indicator Bacteria Highest Priority Pollutant
Cadmium
Benthic Community Effects
Oxygen, Dissolved
Toxicity
Sulfates
Identification of Project Site Pollutants*
*Identification of project site pollutants is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs (note the project must also participate in an alternative compliance program unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated)
Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):

Pollutant
Not Applicable to the
Project Site
Expected from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving Water
Pollutant of Concern
Sediment X
Nutrients X
Heavy Metals X
Organic Compounds X
Trash & Debris X
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Oxygen Demanding
Substances X
Oil & Grease X
Bacteria & Viruses X
Pesticides X

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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):

Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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:

The City of San Diego Regional Watershed Management Area analysis provided mapping of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield areas. The location of our project is not near a Coarse Sediment Yield area. Refer to Attachment 2b.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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.

Drainage of the site is conveyed via catch basins and daylighted roof drainage is piped to the biofiltration basins and will then discharge into Woodglen Vista Creek. From the creek, the water will flow to the San Diego River. Biofiltration basins are sized for hydromodification. Please refer to the HMP exhibit for the discharge area.

Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? ☒ No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer:

Discussion / Additional Information: (optional)

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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.

None.

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 Preparation Date: February 2025
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: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: CIP 2018-31
Source Control BMPs
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist.

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

Discussion / justification may be provided.

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

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

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

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

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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.

Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants not applicable to our site.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: CIP 2018-31
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:

Existing landscaped planters in the parking lot are being removed. Existing pervious area to the south of the project site is being modified to incorporate the Biofiltration BMPs 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:

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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:

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 BMP is not feasible for the project site.

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Form I-6 (PDPs)
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Santee Community Center
Permit Application Number: CIP 2018-31
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).

Bio-1 Biofiltration BMPs were selected for this site due to the ample site area to accommodate these basins. Drainage flows are directed to the basins via surface flow and pipes from catch basins throughout the site. These basins are being utilized for flow and pollutant control. (Continue on page 2 as necessary.)
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 2 of 7 (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. BF-1B
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 3 of 7 (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. BF-1C
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 4 of 7 (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. BF-1D
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 4 of 7 (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. BF-1E
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 4 of 7 (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. BF-1F
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 5 of 7 (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. BF-2A
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 6 of 7 (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. BF-2B
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
Form I-6 Page 7 of 7 (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. BF-2C
Construction Plan Sheet No. C1.9
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)
City of Santee
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? City of Santee Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? City of Santee What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? City of Santee

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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

RIVERWALK DRIVE

PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
R/W
C/L
R/W
R/W
C/L
WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK NORTH 1" = 20'

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER

PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE

CONDITION
FIGURE A1
LEGEND

CURB RAMP

CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER/RIBBON GUTTER

SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN

CATCH BASIN

CLEANOUT

SLOPE ARROW

NEW CONTOUR

NEW SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR (PER AERIAL SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

EXISTING ELEVATION (PER FIELD SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.1')

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (PER AERIAL
SURVEY, ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

NEW CONTOUR LINE

DAYLIGHT LINE

SAWCUT LINE

RIDGE LINE

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT LINE

DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

SUBCATCHMENT IDENTIFICATION
X%
500
x 505.50
000.00
500.0
500
740
Attachment 1a

RIVERWALK DRIVE

PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
C/L
R/W
R/W
C/L
WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK NORTH 1" = 20'

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER

POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE

CONDITION
FIGURE A2
LEGEND

CURB RAMP

CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER/RIBBON GUTTER

SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN

CATCH BASIN

CLEANOUT

SLOPE ARROW

NEW CONTOUR

NEW SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR (PER AERIAL SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

EXISTING ELEVATION (PER FIELD SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.1')

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (PER AERIAL
SURVEY, ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

NEW CONTOUR LINE

DAYLIGHT LINE

SAWCUT LINE

RIDGE LINE

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT LINE

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

SUBCATCHMENT IDENTIFICATION
X%
500
x 505.50
000.00
500.0
500
740 A
6" MIN. TO 12" MAX.

SURFACE PONDING

CLEANOUT WITH COUNTERSUNK PLUG CAP,
RIM ELEVATION TO HAVE 6" FREEBOARD ABOVE

MAX WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
18" MEDIA WITH MIN
5 IN/HR FILTRATION RATE
EXCAVATED SLOPE (1H:1V)
6" MIN DIAMETER UNDERDRAIN. INSTALL 2"

DIAMETER ORIFICE OUTLET CONTROL LOCATED

DOWNSTREAM OF THE UNDERDRAIN

EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS
INFILTRATION STORAGE (MIN 3"

AGGREGATE BELOW UNDERDRAIN)

OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
BROOKS 24"X24" PRECAST GRATED CATCH

BASIN WITH GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE, OR
APPROVED EQUAL. INCLUDE FLOGARD

CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER BY OLD
CASTLE (MODEL NO. FGP-24F8) FOR TRASH
CAPTURE, OR EQUAL. SEE DETAIL 6

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED)

CURB CUT
4-6" DROP FROM CURB CUT TO APRON

APRON FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION
30 MIL HDPEIMPERMEABLE LINER
6" MIN FILTER COURSE

WASHED PEA GRAVEL
CURB

CURB CUT

VEGETATED

SIDE SLOPE

MEDIA SURFACE
AREA

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED) A
PLAN

CLEANOUT
3H:1V
(MAX)
3H:1V
(MAX)
2% MAX
FINISH
GRADE

OVERFLOW

STRUCTURE

UNDERDRAIN

APRON FOR
ENERGY

DISSIPATION
BIOFILTRATION PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION:

1. PREVENT OVER-COMPACTION OF NATIVE SOILS IN AREAS OF THE BASIN WHERE INFILTRATION WILL OCCUR.

DELINEATE THE BIOFILTRATION AREA AND KEEP CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OFF. PROTECT SOILS WITH FENCING, PLYWOOD, ETC.

2. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL IN THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS OF THE DESIGNATED BIOFILTRATION AREA.

STABILIZE UPSLOPE AREAS.

3. DRAINAGE SHOULD BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM BIORETENTION FACILITIES UNTIL UPSLOPE AREAS ARE STABILIZED.

THE CONCENTRATION OF FINES COULD PREVENT POST-CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION AND CAUSE DESIGN FAILURE.

5. BIORETENTION FACILITIES SHOULD REMAIN OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO PREVENT SOIL COMPACTION BY HEAVY EQUIPMENT. PROTECT BIORETENTION AREAS WITH SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING.

6. VERIFY INSTALLATION OF UNDERDRAIN IS CORRECT PRIOR TO PLACING SOIL. 12" CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE

MATERIAL (AGGREGATE)

HDPE STORM
DRAIN
Attachment 1a
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.

Waiting on flush volume from plumbing. X
Due to the use of reclaimed water for the entirety of landscape irrigation, there is no irrigation demand for Harvest and Use (per City of Santee BMP Manual, Section B.3.2.2, bullet 1)
DCV = 4514 cu-ft = 33,767 gallons Daily Occupancy - 190 Total daily toilet/urinal use (based on office/retail space (7 per occupant)) - 1330 uses per day - 1995 uses in 36 hours Average 0.7 gal/flush = 1397 gallons used in 36 hours Attachment 1c Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements 12 Feburary 2016
Worksheet 0-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Worksheet C.4-1 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
1 Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.

Provide basis:

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

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
☒
☒
Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. Attachment 1d Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements 13 Feburary 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 2 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
3 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Provide basis:

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

Provide basis:

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

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

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

Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings. ☒
☒
Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. Attachment 1d Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements 14 Feburary 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 3 of 4
Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
5 Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.

Provide basis:

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

Provide basis:

Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. ☒
☒
Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. Attachment 1d Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements 15 Feburary 2016
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 4 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Provide basis:

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

Provide basis:

Part 2
Result*
If all answers from row 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 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings ☒
☒
Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. Per the project specific Geotechnical Report, the infiltration rate is less than 0.001 inches per hour. No Infiltration Attachment 1d Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 1B DMA 1C DMA 1D DMA 2A DMA 2B DMA 2C unitless 2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 inches 3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 33,565 4,810 22,685 13,250 9,276 24,188 sq-ft 4 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) sq-ft 5 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) sq-ft 6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) sq-ft 7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14) sq-ft 8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23) sq-ft 9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) 8,385 2,640 10,790 4,185 2,930 7,639 sq-ft 10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No No No No No No No yes/no 11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft 12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft 13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft 14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft 15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14) sq-ft 16 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23) sq-ft 17 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft 18 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A #
19 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter ft
20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E #
21 Average Rain Barrel Size gal
22 Total Tributary Area 41,950 7,450 33,475 17,435 12,206 31,827 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.78 0.69 0.71 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.78 0.69 0.71 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 26 Initial Design Capture Volume 1,363 214 990 552 387 1,008 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 29 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio 30 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio 31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.78 0.69 0.71 0.76 0.76 0.76 n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless 32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 1,363 214 990 552 387 1,008 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 33 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 34 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 35 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.78 0.69 0.71 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 36 Final Effective Tributary Area 32,721 5,141 23,767 13,251 9,277 24,189 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,363 214 990 552 387 1,008 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet False
False
Automated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0) Dispersion
Area, Tree Well
& Rain Barrel
Inputs
(Optional)
Standard
Drainage Basin
Inputs
Results
Tree & Barrel
Adjustments
Initial Runoff
Factor
Calculation
Dispersion
Area
Adjustments
No Warning Messages
Attachment 1e
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 1B DMA 1C DMA 1D DMA 2A DMA 2B DMA 2C - - - - unitless 2 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - - - - inches 3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP Location D D D D D D unitless 4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted unitless 5 Nature of Restriction Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater unitless 6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no 7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stories Proposed? No No No No No No yes/no 8 Has Geotechnical Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no 9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 in/hr 10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - - - - in/hr 11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% - - - - percentage 12 Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 - - - - ratio 13 Required Retention Volume 27 4 20 11 8 20 - - - - cubic-feet False
False
Automated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0)
Advanced
Analysis
Basic Analysis
Result
No Warning Messages
Attachment 1e
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 1B DMA 1C DMA 1D DMA 2A DMA 2B DMA 2C - - - - sq-ft 2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 - - - - in/hr 3 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,363 214 990 552 387 1,008 - - - - cubic-feet 4 Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated? Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated unitless 5 Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined unitless 6 Does BMP Have an Underdrain? Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain unitless 7 Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media? Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard unitless 8 Provided Surface Area 860 930 2,795 685 460 3,150 sq-ft 9 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 12 12 12 6 6 6 inches
10 Provided Soil Media Thickness 27 27 27 27 27 27 inches 11 Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness) 27 27 27 27 27 27 inches 12 Underdrain Offset 3 3 3 3 3 3 inches
13 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 inches 14 Specialized Soil Media Filtration Rate in/hr
15 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retention unitless 16 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltration unitless 17 Specialized Gravel Media Pore Space unitless
18 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 19 Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitless 20 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless 21 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 22 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Below Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 23 Effective Retention Depth 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 24 Fraction of DCV Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time) 0.13 0.92 0.60 0.26 0.25 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 25 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Time 120 120 120 120 120 120 0 0 0 0 hours 26 Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.15 0.71 0.53 0.27 0.26 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 27 Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time) 206 152 529 150 102 574 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 28 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 1,157 62 461 402 285 434 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 29 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.0486 0.0486 0.0486 0.0462 0.0462 0.0462 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cfs 30 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 2.44 2.26 0.75 2.91 4.34 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 31 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 32 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 2.44 2.26 0.75 2.91 4.34 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 33 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 14.64 13.54 4.50 17.47 26.02 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 34 Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 35 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless 36 Gravel Pore Space Available for Biofiltration (Above Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 37 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 27.00 27.00 27.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 38 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 5 5 16 2 1 9 0 0 0 0 hours 39 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 11 12 36 7 5 33 0 0 0 0 hours 40 Total Depth Biofiltered 41.64 40.54 31.50 38.47 47.02 24.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 41 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 1,736 93 692 602 427 651 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 42 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 1,736 93 692 602 427 651 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 43 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 868 46 346 301 214 325 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 44 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 868 46 346 301 214 325 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 45 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - - - - yes/no 47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 48 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Retention
Calculations
Automated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0)
False
False
BMP Inputs
Biofiltration
Calculations
False
- BMPs sized at <3% of the effective tributary areas must be accompanied by Reduced Size BMP Maintenance calculations (see last tab).

False
False
Result
False
False
Attention!
Attachment 1e
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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

RIVERWALK DRIVE

PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
C/L
R/W
R/W
C/L
WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK NORTH 1" = 20'

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER

POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE

CONDITION
FIGURE A2
LEGEND

CURB RAMP

CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER/RIBBON GUTTER

SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN

CATCH BASIN

CLEANOUT

SLOPE ARROW

NEW CONTOUR

NEW SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR (PER AERIAL SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

EXISTING ELEVATION (PER FIELD SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.1')

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (PER AERIAL
SURVEY, ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

NEW CONTOUR LINE

DAYLIGHT LINE

SAWCUT LINE

RIDGE LINE

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT LINE

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

SUBCATCHMENT IDENTIFICATION
X%
500
x 505.50
000.00
500.0
500
740 A
6" MIN. TO 12" MAX.

SURFACE PONDING

CLEANOUT WITH COUNTERSUNK PLUG CAP,
RIM ELEVATION TO HAVE 6" FREEBOARD ABOVE

MAX WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
18" MEDIA WITH MIN
5 IN/HR FILTRATION RATE
EXCAVATED SLOPE (1H:1V)
6" MIN DIAMETER UNDERDRAIN. INSTALL 2"

DIAMETER ORIFICE OUTLET CONTROL LOCATED

DOWNSTREAM OF THE UNDERDRAIN

EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS
INFILTRATION STORAGE (MIN 3"

AGGREGATE BELOW UNDERDRAIN)

OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
BROOKS 24"X24" PRECAST GRATED CATCH

BASIN WITH GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE, OR
APPROVED EQUAL. INCLUDE FLOGARD

CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER BY OLD
CASTLE (MODEL NO. FGP-24F8) FOR TRASH
CAPTURE, OR EQUAL. SEE DETAIL 6

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED)

CURB CUT
4-6" DROP FROM CURB CUT TO APRON

APRON FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION
30 MIL HDPEIMPERMEABLE LINER
6" MIN FILTER COURSE

WASHED PEA GRAVEL
CURB

CURB CUT

VEGETATED

SIDE SLOPE

MEDIA SURFACE
AREA

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED) A
PLAN

CLEANOUT
3H:1V
(MAX)
3H:1V
(MAX)
2% MAX
FINISH
GRADE

OVERFLOW

STRUCTURE

UNDERDRAIN

APRON FOR
ENERGY

DISSIPATION
BIOFILTRATION PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION:

1. PREVENT OVER-COMPACTION OF NATIVE SOILS IN AREAS OF THE BASIN WHERE INFILTRATION WILL OCCUR.

DELINEATE THE BIOFILTRATION AREA AND KEEP CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OFF. PROTECT SOILS WITH FENCING, PLYWOOD, ETC.

2. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL IN THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS OF THE DESIGNATED BIOFILTRATION AREA.

STABILIZE UPSLOPE AREAS.

3. DRAINAGE SHOULD BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM BIORETENTION FACILITIES UNTIL UPSLOPE AREAS ARE STABILIZED.

THE CONCENTRATION OF FINES COULD PREVENT POST-CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION AND CAUSE DESIGN FAILURE.

5. BIORETENTION FACILITIES SHOULD REMAIN OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO PREVENT SOIL COMPACTION BY HEAVY EQUIPMENT. PROTECT BIORETENTION AREAS WITH SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING.

6. VERIFY INSTALLATION OF UNDERDRAIN IS CORRECT PRIOR TO PLACING SOIL. 12" CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE

MATERIAL (AGGREGATE)

HDPE STORM
DRAIN
Attachment 2a
2 1
8 16
4 10
25 27
23 22
9 5
12 15
14 3
24 6
26 13
21 20
7 17
18 19
11 Red
Mountain
Reservoir
LAKE

TURNER HENSHAW
LAKE
LAKE

WOHLFORD
BUENA
VISTA

LAGOON DIXON

RESERVOIR
AQUA

HEDIONDA

LAGOON SAN MARCOS
LAKE

SUTHERLAND

RESERVOIR

BATIQUITOS
LAGOON
SAN

DIEGUITO

RESERVOIR

RESERVOIR
LAKE
POWAY

SAN ELIJO
LAGOON

EL CAPITAN

RESERVOIR

SAN VICENTE

RESERVOIR

MIRAMAR

RESERVOIR
SANTEE

RECREATIONAL
LAKES

MISSION
BAY

LOVELAND

RESERVOIR
LAKE

MURRAY MOUNT
HELIX
LAKE

SAN DIEGO
BAY

CHOLLAS

HEIGHTS

RESERVOIR HANSEN

RESERVOIR
MORENA

RESERVOIR

SWEETWATER

RESERVOIR BARRETT
LAKE

LOWER OTAY

RESERVOIOR
LOS

PENASQUITOS
LAGOON
LAKE
RAMONA

UPPER OTAY

RESERVOIR
SAN

DIEGUITO
LAGOON
LAKE
HODGES

SAN VICENTE

RESERVOIR

LAKE LINDO

CARLSBAD CARLSBAD
CHULA
VISTA

EL CAJON EL CAJON

LA MESA LA MESA

NATIONAL NATIONAL
CITY
CITY

OCEANSIDE OCEANSIDE
POWAY
S.D.

COUNTY
S.D.

COUNTY
SAN
DIEGO
SAN
MARCOS
SANTEE
VISTA
Sa n D ie go Riv er
C
h
o
ll as C reek
Sa n
Die g uit o
R
vi er
SanMa rcos Cr eek
Ra ttlesna k e
C
reek
Dul zur a Cree k
S
an
Ma rc o s Creek
E sco ndido
Creek
Tiju ana
Riv er
J
a
mul Cre ek
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Creek
Co tt o nw ood Cree
k
Buena Vi st a
Creek
Pow a y
Cre ek
Ota y River
C arrol Cany o n
L us a rd i C reek
L os
Pen a squ it os Cr eek
E
n
c i n i t a s Cree k
Wo od g le
n
V
i
staCreek
Agua Hediond a Cre ek
Sa
n
ta
Mar g ar i ta
R iver
Sw eet wa ter
Ri v e
r
Ro se Creek
San Lu is Rey Rive
r
O tay
Ri v er
Sa nta
Ysab el Cre e k
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
Regional San Diego County Watersheds Exhibit Date: Sept. 8, 2014 Aerial Imagery Source: DigitalGlobe, 06/2012
Legend
Regional WMAA Streams
Watershed Boundaries
Municipal Boundaries
Rivers & Streams
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
NORTH
Miles 0 5 10 15

REACH ID NAME
1 Santa Margarita River
2 San Luis Rey River
3 Buena Vista Creek
4 Agua Hedionda Creek
5 San Marcos Creek
6 Encinitas Creek
7 Cottonwood Creek (Carlsbad WMA)
8 Escondido Creek
9 San Dieguito Creek - Reach 1
10 San Dieguito Creek - Reach 2
11 Lusardi Creek
12 Los Penasquitos / Poway Creek
13 Rattlesnake Creek
14 Carroll Canyon Creek
15 Rose Creek
16 San Diego River
17 Sycamore Creek
18 Woodglen Vista Creek
19 San Vicente Creek
20 Forester Creek
21 Chollas Creek
22 Sweetwater River - Reach 1
23 Sweetwater River - Reach 2
24 Otay River
25 Jamul / Dulzura Creek
26 Tijuana River
27 Cottonwood Creek (Tijuana WMA)
PROJECT SITE Attachment 2b
SDHM 3.1

PROJECT REPORT
Attachment 2d
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:35 AM Page 2
General Model Information
Project Name: 2025_SCC
Site Name: SCC
Site Address:

City:

Report Date: 2/24/2025
Gage: SANTEE
Data Start: 10/01/1973
Data End: 09/30/2004
Timestep: Hourly
Precip Scale: 1.000
Version Date: 2021/06/28
POC Thresholds
Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Year
Low Flow Threshold for POC2: 10 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC2: 10 Year
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:35 AM Page 3
Landuse Basin Data
Predeveloped Land Use
Pre Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C,NatVeg,Flat 1.79
Pervious Total 1.79
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 1.79
Element Flows To:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 4
Pre Basin 2
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C,NatVeg,Flat 1.39
Pervious Total 1.39
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 1.39
Element Flows To:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 5
Mitigated Land Use
Prop Basin 2
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C,NatVeg,Flat 0.34
Pervious Total 0.34
Impervious Land Use acre
IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1.05
Impervious Total 1.05
Basin Total 1.39
Element Flows To:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Surface rtial Ret 2 Surface rtial Ret 2
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 6
Prop Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C,NatVeg,Flat 0.33
Pervious Total 0.33
Impervious Land Use acre
IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1.46
Impervious Total 1.46
Basin Total 1.79
Element Flows To:

Surface Interflow Groundwater
Surface rtial Ret 1 Surface rtial Ret 1
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 7
Routing Elements
Predeveloped Routing
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 8
Mitigated Routing
Bio Partial Ret 2
Bottom Length: 161.93 ft.

Bottom Width: 161.93 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 0.25
Material type for first layer: Mulch
Material thickness of second layer: 1.5
Material type for second layer: ESM
Material thickness of third layer: 1.5
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.5
Orifice Diameter (in.): 0.749612500000001
Offset (in.): 3
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 21.954
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 24.896
Percent Through Underdrain: 88.18
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Flows To:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Biofilter Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.6019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0467 0.6019 0.0084 0.0000 0.0000

0.0934 0.6019 0.0169 0.0000 0.0000

0.1401 0.6019 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000

0.1868 0.6019 0.0337 0.0000 0.0000

0.2335 0.6019 0.0422 0.0000 0.0000

0.2802 0.6019 0.0506 0.0000 0.0000

0.3269 0.6019 0.0590 0.0000 0.0000

0.3736 0.6019 0.0675 0.0000 0.0000

0.4203 0.6019 0.0759 0.0000 0.0000

0.4670 0.6019 0.0843 0.0000 0.0000

0.5137 0.6019 0.0928 0.0000 0.0000

0.5604 0.6019 0.1012 0.0000 0.0000

0.6071 0.6019 0.1096 0.0000 0.0000

0.6538 0.6019 0.1181 0.0000 0.0000

0.7005 0.6019 0.1265 0.0000 0.0000

0.7473 0.6019 0.1349 0.0000 0.0000

0.7940 0.6019 0.1434 0.0000 0.0000

0.8407 0.6019 0.1518 0.0000 0.0000

0.8874 0.6019 0.1602 0.0000 0.0000

0.9341 0.6019 0.1687 0.0000 0.0000

0.9808 0.6019 0.1771 0.0000 0.0000

1.0275 0.6019 0.1855 0.0000 0.0000

1.0742 0.6019 0.1940 0.0000 0.0000

1.1209 0.6019 0.2024 0.0000 0.0000

1.1676 0.6019 0.2108 0.0000 0.0000

1.2143 0.6019 0.2193 0.0000 0.0000

1.2610 0.6019 0.2277 0.0000 0.0000

1.3077 0.6019 0.2361 0.0000 0.0000
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 9

1.3544 0.6019 0.2446 0.0000 0.0000

1.4011 0.6019 0.2530 0.0000 0.0000

1.4478 0.6019 0.2614 0.0000 0.0000

1.4945 0.6019 0.2699 0.0000 0.0000

1.5412 0.6019 0.2783 0.0000 0.0000

1.5879 0.6019 0.2868 0.0000 0.0000

1.6346 0.6019 0.2952 0.0000 0.0000

1.6813 0.6019 0.3036 0.0000 0.0000

1.7280 0.6019 0.3121 0.0000 0.0000

1.7747 0.6019 0.3237 0.0000 0.0000

1.8214 0.6019 0.3354 0.0000 0.0000

1.8681 0.6019 0.3471 0.0000 0.0000

1.9148 0.6019 0.3587 0.0000 0.0000

1.9615 0.6019 0.3704 0.0000 0.0000

2.0082 0.6019 0.3821 0.0000 0.0000

2.0549 0.6019 0.3937 0.0000 0.0000

2.1016 0.6019 0.4054 0.0000 0.0000

2.1484 0.6019 0.4171 0.0000 0.0000

2.1951 0.6019 0.4287 0.0000 0.0000

2.2418 0.6019 0.4404 0.0000 0.0000

2.2885 0.6019 0.4521 0.0000 0.0000

2.3352 0.6019 0.4637 0.0000 0.0000

2.3819 0.6019 0.4754 0.0000 0.0000

2.4286 0.6019 0.4871 0.0000 0.0000

2.4753 0.6019 0.4987 0.0000 0.0000

2.5220 0.6019 0.5104 0.0000 0.0000

2.5687 0.6019 0.5221 0.0000 0.0000

2.6154 0.6019 0.5337 0.0000 0.0000

2.6621 0.6019 0.5454 0.0000 0.0000

2.7088 0.6019 0.5571 0.0000 0.0000

2.7555 0.6019 0.5687 0.0000 0.0000

2.8022 0.6019 0.5804 0.0000 0.0000

2.8489 0.6019 0.5921 0.0000 0.0000

2.8956 0.6019 0.6037 0.0000 0.0000

2.9423 0.6019 0.6154 0.0000 0.0000

2.9890 0.6019 0.6271 0.0000 0.0000

3.0357 0.6019 0.6387 0.0000 0.0000

3.0824 0.6019 0.6504 0.0000 0.0000

3.1291 0.6019 0.6621 0.0000 0.0000

3.1758 0.6019 0.6737 0.0000 0.0000

3.2225 0.6019 0.6854 0.0000 0.0000

3.2500 0.6019 0.6923 0.0000 0.0000
Biofilter Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

3.2500 0.6019 0.6923 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.2967 0.6019 0.7204 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.3434 0.6019 0.7485 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.3901 0.6019 0.7766 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.4368 0.6019 0.8047 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.4835 0.6019 0.8328 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.5302 0.6019 0.8609 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.5769 0.6019 0.8890 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.6236 0.6019 0.9172 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.6703 0.6019 0.9453 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.7170 0.6019 0.9734 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.7637 0.6019 1.0015 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.8104 0.6019 1.0296 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 10

3.8571 0.6019 1.0577 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.9038 0.6019 1.0858 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.9505 0.6019 1.1139 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

3.9973 0.6019 1.1421 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

4.0440 0.6019 1.1702 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

4.0907 0.6019 1.1983 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

4.1374 0.6019 1.2264 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

4.1841 0.6019 1.2545 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

4.2308 0.6019 1.2826 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000

4.2500 0.6019 1.2942 0.0000 0.0264 0.0000
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 11
Surface rtial Ret 2
Element Flows To:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Bio Partial Ret 2
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 12
Bio Partial Ret 1
Bottom Length: 197.29 ft.

Bottom Width: 197.29 ft.

Material thickness of first layer: 0.25
Material type for first layer: Mulch
Material thickness of second layer: 1.5
Material type for second layer: ESM
Material thickness of third layer: 1.5
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.5
Orifice Diameter (in.): 0.830401500000001
Offset (in.): 3
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 27.587
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 31.943
Percent Through Underdrain: 86.36
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.

Riser Diameter: 12 in.

Element Flows To:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Biofilter Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)

0.0000 0.8936 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0522 0.8936 0.0140 0.0000 0.0000

0.1044 0.8936 0.0280 0.0000 0.0000

0.1566 0.8936 0.0420 0.0000 0.0000

0.2088 0.8936 0.0560 0.0000 0.0000

0.2610 0.8936 0.0700 0.0000 0.0000

0.3132 0.8936 0.0840 0.0000 0.0000

0.3654 0.8936 0.0979 0.0000 0.0000

0.4176 0.8936 0.1119 0.0000 0.0000

0.4698 0.8936 0.1259 0.0000 0.0000

0.5220 0.8936 0.1399 0.0000 0.0000

0.5742 0.8936 0.1539 0.0000 0.0000

0.6264 0.8936 0.1679 0.0000 0.0000

0.6786 0.8936 0.1819 0.0000 0.0000

0.7308 0.8936 0.1959 0.0000 0.0000

0.7830 0.8936 0.2099 0.0000 0.0000

0.8352 0.8936 0.2239 0.0000 0.0000

0.8874 0.8936 0.2379 0.0000 0.0000

0.9396 0.8936 0.2519 0.0000 0.0000

0.9918 0.8936 0.2659 0.0000 0.0000

1.0440 0.8936 0.2799 0.0000 0.0000

1.0962 0.8936 0.2938 0.0000 0.0000

1.1484 0.8936 0.3078 0.0000 0.0000

1.2005 0.8936 0.3218 0.0000 0.0000

1.2527 0.8936 0.3358 0.0000 0.0000

1.3049 0.8936 0.3498 0.0000 0.0000

1.3571 0.8936 0.3638 0.0000 0.0000

1.4093 0.8936 0.3778 0.0000 0.0000

1.4615 0.8936 0.3918 0.0000 0.0000

1.5137 0.8936 0.4058 0.0000 0.0000

1.5659 0.8936 0.4198 0.0000 0.0000
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 13

1.6181 0.8936 0.4338 0.0000 0.0000

1.6703 0.8936 0.4478 0.0000 0.0000

1.7225 0.8936 0.4618 0.0000 0.0000

1.7747 0.8936 0.4811 0.0000 0.0000

1.8269 0.8936 0.5005 0.0000 0.0000

1.8791 0.8936 0.5198 0.0000 0.0000

1.9313 0.8936 0.5392 0.0000 0.0000

1.9835 0.8936 0.5585 0.0000 0.0000

2.0357 0.8936 0.5779 0.0000 0.0000

2.0879 0.8936 0.5973 0.0000 0.0000

2.1401 0.8936 0.6166 0.0000 0.0000

2.1923 0.8936 0.6360 0.0000 0.0000

2.2445 0.8936 0.6553 0.0000 0.0000

2.2967 0.8936 0.6747 0.0000 0.0000

2.3489 0.8936 0.6940 0.0000 0.0000

2.4011 0.8936 0.7134 0.0000 0.0000

2.4533 0.8936 0.7327 0.0000 0.0000

2.5055 0.8936 0.7521 0.0000 0.0000

2.5577 0.8936 0.7715 0.0000 0.0000

2.6099 0.8936 0.7908 0.0000 0.0000

2.6621 0.8936 0.8102 0.0000 0.0000

2.7143 0.8936 0.8295 0.0000 0.0000

2.7665 0.8936 0.8489 0.0000 0.0000

2.8187 0.8936 0.8682 0.0000 0.0000

2.8709 0.8936 0.8876 0.0000 0.0000

2.9231 0.8936 0.9070 0.0000 0.0000

2.9753 0.8936 0.9263 0.0000 0.0000

3.0275 0.8936 0.9457 0.0000 0.0000

3.0797 0.8936 0.9650 0.0000 0.0000

3.1319 0.8936 0.9844 0.0000 0.0000

3.1841 0.8936 1.0037 0.0000 0.0000

3.2363 0.8936 1.0231 0.0000 0.0000

3.2500 0.8936 1.0282 0.0000 0.0000
Biofilter Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)

3.2500 0.8936 1.0282 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.3022 0.8936 1.0748 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.3544 0.8936 1.1215 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.4066 0.8936 1.1681 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.4588 0.8936 1.2148 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.5110 0.8936 1.2614 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.5632 0.8936 1.3080 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.6154 0.8936 1.3547 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.6676 0.8936 1.4013 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.7198 0.8936 1.4480 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.7720 0.8936 1.4946 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.8242 0.8936 1.5413 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.8764 0.8936 1.5879 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.9286 0.8936 1.6345 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

3.9808 0.8936 1.6812 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.0330 0.8936 1.7278 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.0852 0.8936 1.7745 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.1374 0.8936 1.8211 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.1896 0.8936 1.8677 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.2418 0.8936 1.9144 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.2940 0.8936 1.9610 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.3462 0.8936 2.0077 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 14

4.3984 0.8936 2.0543 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.4505 0.8936 2.1010 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.5027 0.8936 2.1476 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.5549 0.8936 2.1942 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.6071 0.8936 2.2409 0.0000 0.0324 0.0000

4.6593 0.8936 2.2875 0.0015 0.0324 0.0000

4.7115 0.8936 2.3342 0.0022 0.0324 0.0000

4.7500 0.8936 2.3685 0.0032 0.0324 0.0000
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 15
Surface rtial Ret 1
Element Flows To:

Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Bio Partial Ret 1
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:08:36 AM Page 16
Analysis Results
POC 1
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 1.79
Total Impervious Area: 0
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 0.33
Total Impervious Area: 1.46
Flow Frequency Method: Cunnane
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.338562
5 year 0.491893
10 year 0.769406
25 year 1.17907
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.014617
5 year 0.350192
10 year 0.548751
25 year 0.771831
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:05 AM Page 17
Duration Flows
The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail

0.0339 510 469 91 Pass

0.0413 451 380 84 Pass

0.0487 411 321 78 Pass

0.0561 361 285 78 Pass

0.0636 330 271 82 Pass

0.0710 303 260 85 Pass

0.0784 259 235 90 Pass

0.0859 235 222 94 Pass

0.0933 209 212 101 Pass

0.1007 184 194 105 Pass

0.1082 160 176 110 Pass

0.1156 153 164 107 Pass

0.1230 145 154 106 Pass

0.1304 140 143 102 Pass

0.1379 136 133 97 Pass

0.1453 129 121 93 Pass

0.1527 127 116 91 Pass

0.1602 123 108 87 Pass

0.1676 120 100 83 Pass

0.1750 116 90 77 Pass

0.1825 110 85 77 Pass

0.1899 103 75 72 Pass

0.1973 99 70 70 Pass

0.2047 94 67 71 Pass

0.2122 90 66 73 Pass

0.2196 83 64 77 Pass

0.2270 78 59 75 Pass

0.2345 72 49 68 Pass

0.2419 65 45 69 Pass

0.2493 59 43 72 Pass

0.2568 56 41 73 Pass

0.2642 53 37 69 Pass

0.2716 45 34 75 Pass

0.2790 44 34 77 Pass

0.2865 40 32 80 Pass

0.2939 39 31 79 Pass

0.3013 38 29 76 Pass

0.3088 38 29 76 Pass

0.3162 38 26 68 Pass

0.3236 36 25 69 Pass

0.3310 35 25 71 Pass

0.3385 34 23 67 Pass

0.3459 30 21 70 Pass

0.3533 28 21 75 Pass

0.3608 27 17 62 Pass

0.3682 27 17 62 Pass

0.3756 26 17 65 Pass

0.3831 24 16 66 Pass

0.3905 23 12 52 Pass

0.3979 22 12 54 Pass

0.4053 21 12 57 Pass

0.4128 17 12 70 Pass

0.4202 16 11 68 Pass
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:05 AM Page 18

0.4276 14 10 71 Pass

0.4351 149 64 Pass

0.4425 139 69 Pass

0.4499 139 69 Pass

0.4574 129 75 Pass

0.4648 128 66 Pass

0.4722 117 63 Pass

0.4796 116 54 Pass

0.4871 106 60 Pass

0.4945 105 50 Pass

0.5019 105 50 Pass

0.5094 105 50 Pass

0.5168 105 50 Pass

0.524295 55 Pass

0.531795 55 Pass

0.539195 55 Pass

0.546585 62 Pass

0.553975 71 Pass

0.561465 83 Pass

0.568865 83 Pass

0.576264 66 Pass

0.583754 80 Pass

0.591153 60 Pass

0.598553 60 Pass

0.606042 50 Pass

0.613442 50 Pass

0.620842 50 Pass

0.628242 50 Pass

0.635742 50 Pass

0.643142 50 Pass

0.650542 50 Pass

0.658042 50 Pass

0.665442 50 Pass

0.672842 50 Pass

0.680242 50 Pass

0.687742 50 Pass

0.695142 50 Pass

0.702542 50 Pass

0.710042 50 Pass

0.717442 50 Pass

0.724842 50 Pass

0.732342 50 Pass

0.739732 66 Pass

0.747132 66 Pass

0.754532 66 Pass

0.762032 66 Pass

0.769432 66 Pass
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:05 AM Page 19
Water Quality
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:05 AM Page 20
POC 2
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2
Total Pervious Area: 1.39
Total Impervious Area: 0
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2
Total Pervious Area: 0.34
Total Impervious Area: 1.05
Flow Frequency Method: Cunnane
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.262905
5 year 0.381973
10 year 0.597472
25 year 0.915591
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.007763
5 year 0.266186
10 year 0.474116
25 year 0.646797
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:33 AM Page 21
Duration Flows
The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail

0.0263 508 553 108 Pass

0.0321 449 292 65 Pass

0.0378 413 277 67 Pass

0.0436 367 264 71 Pass

0.0494 330 250 75 Pass

0.0551 303 235 77 Pass

0.0609 267 224 83 Pass

0.0667 235 205 87 Pass

0.0724 210 190 90 Pass

0.0782 182 172 94 Pass

0.0840 161 168 104 Pass

0.0898 154 154 100 Pass

0.0955 145 144 99 Pass

0.1013 140 131 93 Pass

0.1071 135 123 91 Pass

0.1128 131 111 84 Pass

0.1186 127 105 82 Pass

0.1244 123 98 79 Pass

0.1301 119 87 73 Pass

0.1359 118 82 69 Pass

0.1417 110 73 66 Pass

0.1475 103 70 67 Pass

0.1532 99 65 65 Pass

0.1590 94 58 61 Pass

0.1648 90 53 58 Pass

0.1705 83 49 59 Pass

0.1763 78 48 61 Pass

0.1821 71 45 63 Pass

0.1878 65 41 63 Pass

0.1936 60 39 65 Pass

0.1994 56 37 66 Pass

0.2051 53 34 64 Pass

0.2109 46 34 73 Pass

0.2167 44 32 72 Pass

0.2225 40 31 77 Pass

0.2282 39 31 79 Pass

0.2340 38 28 73 Pass

0.2398 38 26 68 Pass

0.2455 38 26 68 Pass

0.2513 36 23 63 Pass

0.2571 35 20 57 Pass

0.2628 34 20 58 Pass

0.2686 30 18 60 Pass

0.2744 28 18 64 Pass

0.2801 27 16 59 Pass

0.2859 27 16 59 Pass

0.2917 26 16 61 Pass

0.2975 24 16 66 Pass

0.3032 23 14 60 Pass

0.3090 22 13 59 Pass

0.3148 21 12 57 Pass

0.3205 17 12 70 Pass

0.3263 16 12 75 Pass
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:33 AM Page 22

0.3321 14 11 78 Pass

0.3378 14 11 78 Pass

0.3436 13 10 76 Pass

0.3494 13 10 76 Pass

0.3552 12 10 83 Pass

0.3609 12 10 83 Pass

0.3667 11 10 90 Pass

0.3725 118 72 Pass

0.3782 108 80 Pass

0.3840 106 60 Pass

0.3898 106 60 Pass

0.3955 106 60 Pass

0.4013 106 60 Pass

0.407196 66 Pass

0.412896 66 Pass

0.418696 66 Pass

0.424486 75 Pass

0.430275 71 Pass

0.435965 83 Pass

0.441765 83 Pass

0.447565 83 Pass

0.453255 100 Pass

0.459055 100 Pass

0.464854 80 Pass

0.470544 100 Pass

0.476344 100 Pass

0.482144 100 Pass

0.487944 100 Pass

0.493644 100 Pass

0.499444 100 Pass

0.505244 100 Pass

0.510942 50 Pass

0.516742 50 Pass

0.522542 50 Pass

0.528242 50 Pass

0.534042 50 Pass

0.539842 50 Pass

0.545542 50 Pass

0.551342 50 Pass

0.557142 50 Pass

0.562942 50 Pass

0.568642 50 Pass

0.574432 66 Pass

0.580232 66 Pass

0.585932 66 Pass

0.591732 66 Pass

0.597532 66 Pass
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:33 AM Page 23
Water Quality
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:33 AM Page 24
Model Default Modifications
Total of 0 changes have been made.

PERLND Changes
No PERLND changes have been made.

IMPLND Changes
No IMPLND changes have been made.

DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:09:33 AM Page 25
Appendix
Predeveloped Schematic
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:15 AM Page 26
Mitigated Schematic
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 27
Predeveloped UCI File
RUN
GLOBAL
WWHM4 model simulation
START 1973 10 01 END 2004 09 30
RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0
RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1

END GLOBAL
FILES
<File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> ***
WDM 26 2025_SCC.wdm
MESSU 25 Pre2025_SCC.MES
27 Pre2025_SCC.L61
28 Pre2025_SCC.L62
30 POC2025_SCC1.dat
31 POC2025_SCC2.dat

END FILES

OPN SEQUENCE
INGRP INDELT 00:60
PERLND 19
COPY 501
COPY 502
DISPLY 1
DISPLY 2

END INGRP

END OPN SEQUENCE
DISPLY
DISPLY-INFO1
# - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Pre Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9
2 Pre Basin 2 MAX 1 2 31 9
END DISPLY-INFO1

END DISPLY
COPY

TIMESERIES
# - # NPT NMN ***
1 1 1
501 1 1
502 1 1

END TIMESERIES

END COPY
GENER
OPCODE
# # OPCD ***

END OPCODE
PARM
# # K ***

END PARM

END GENER
PERLND

GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***
19 C,NatVeg,Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0

END GEN-INFO
*** Section PWATER***

ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

END ACTIVITY

PRINT-INFO
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 28
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 19 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9

END PRINT-INFO
PWAT-PARM1
<PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 19 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
END PWAT-PARM1
PWAT-PARM2
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 ***
# - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC
19 0 3.8 0.035 100 0.05 2.5 0.915
END PWAT-PARM2
PWAT-PARM3
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 19 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.05
END PWAT-PARM3
PWAT-PARM4
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 ***
# - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP ***
19 0 0.6 0.04 1 0.3 0
END PWAT-PARM4

MON-LZETPARM
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 19 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4

END MON-LZETPARM

MON-INTERCEP
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 19 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.1

END MON-INTERCEP
PWAT-STATE1
<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation
ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 ***
# - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS
19 0 0 0.01 0 0.4 0.01 0
END PWAT-STATE1

END PERLND
IMPLND

GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer ***
# - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***

END GEN-INFO
*** Section IWATER***

ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ***

END ACTIVITY

PRINT-INFO
<ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR
# - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *********

END PRINT-INFO
IWAT-PARM1
<PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI ***
END IWAT-PARM1
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 29
IWAT-PARM2
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 ***
# - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC
END IWAT-PARM2
IWAT-PARM3
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN
END IWAT-PARM3
IWAT-STATE1
<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation
# - # *** RETS SURS
END IWAT-STATE1

END IMPLND

SCHEMATIC
<-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK ***
<Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# ***
Pre Basin 1***
PERLND 19 1.79 COPY 501 12
PERLND 19 1.79 COPY 501 13
Pre Basin 2***
PERLND 19 1.39 COPY 502 12
PERLND 19 1.39 COPY 502 13
******Routing******

END SCHEMATIC

NETWORK
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1
COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ***

END NETWORK
RCHRES

GEN-INFO
RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer ***
# - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out ***

END GEN-INFO
*** Section RCHRES***

ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG ***

END ACTIVITY

PRINT-INFO
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR *********

END PRINT-INFO
HYDR-PARM1
RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section ***
# - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***
END HYDR-PARM1
HYDR-PARM2
# - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 ***
<------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 30
END HYDR-PARM2

END HYDR-INIT

END RCHRES

SPEC-ACTIONS

END SPEC-ACTIONS

FTABLES

END FTABLES

END EXT SOURCES

EXT TARGETS
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL
COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 502 FLOW ENGL REPL

END EXT TARGETS

MASS-LINK
<Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #***
MASS-LINK 12
PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 12
MASS-LINK 13
PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 13

END MASS-LINK

END RUN
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 31
Mitigated UCI File
RUN
GLOBAL
WWHM4 model simulation
START 1973 10 01 END 2004 09 30
RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0
RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1

END GLOBAL
FILES
<File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> ***
WDM 26 2025_SCC.wdm
MESSU 25 Mit2025_SCC.MES
27 Mit2025_SCC.L61
28 Mit2025_SCC.L62
31 POC2025_SCC2.dat
30 POC2025_SCC1.dat

END FILES

OPN SEQUENCE
INGRP INDELT 00:60
PERLND 19
IMPLND 1
RCHRES 1
RCHRES 2
RCHRES 3
RCHRES 4
COPY 2
COPY 502
COPY 1
COPY 501
DISPLY 2
DISPLY 1

END INGRP

END OPN SEQUENCE
DISPLY
DISPLY-INFO1
# - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 2 Surface rtial Ret 2 MAX 1 2 31 9
1 Surface rtial Ret 1 MAX 1 2 30 9
END DISPLY-INFO1

END DISPLY
COPY

TIMESERIES
# - # NPT NMN ***
1 1 1
2 1 1
502 1 1
501 1 1

END TIMESERIES

END COPY
GENER
OPCODE
# # OPCD ***

END OPCODE
PARM
# # K ***

END PARM

END GENER
PERLND

GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***
19 C,NatVeg,Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0

END GEN-INFO
*** Section PWATER***
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 32

ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

END ACTIVITY

PRINT-INFO
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 19 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9

MON-LZETPARM
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 19 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4

END MON-LZETPARM

MON-INTERCEP
<PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 19 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.1

END PERLND
IMPLND

GEN-INFO
<PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer ***
# - # User t-series Engl Metr ***
in out ***
1 IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1 1 1 27 0

END GEN-INFO
*** Section IWATER***

ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ***
1 0 0 1 0 0 0

END ACTIVITY
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 33

PRINT-INFO
<ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR
# - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *********
1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9

END PRINT-INFO
IWAT-PARM1
<PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI ***
1 0 0 0 0 1
END IWAT-PARM1
IWAT-PARM2
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 ***
# - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC
1 100 0.05 0.011 0.1
END IWAT-PARM2
IWAT-PARM3
<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 ***
# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN
1 0 0
END IWAT-PARM3
IWAT-STATE1
<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation
# - # *** RETS SURS
1 0 0
END IWAT-STATE1

END IMPLND

SCHEMATIC
<-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK ***
<Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# ***
Prop Basin 2***
PERLND 19 0.34 RCHRES 1 2
PERLND 19 0.34 RCHRES 1 3
IMPLND 1 1.05 RCHRES 1 5
Prop Basin 1***
PERLND 19 0.33 RCHRES 3 2
PERLND 19 0.33 RCHRES 3 3
IMPLND 1 1.46 RCHRES 3 5
******Routing******
PERLND 19 0.34 COPY 2 12
IMPLND 1 1.05 COPY 2 15
PERLND 19 0.34 COPY 2 13
RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 8
PERLND 19 0.33 COPY 1 12
IMPLND 1 1.46 COPY 1 15
PERLND 19 0.33 COPY 1 13
RCHRES 3 1 RCHRES 4 8
RCHRES 2 1 COPY 502 16
RCHRES 1 1 COPY 502 17
RCHRES 4 1 COPY 501 16
RCHRES 3 1 COPY 501 17

END SCHEMATIC

NETWORK
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1
COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ***

END NETWORK
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 34
RCHRES

GEN-INFO
RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer ***
# - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out ***
1 Surface rtial Re-029 2 1 1 1 28 0 1
2 Bio Partial Ret -028 1 1 1 1 28 0 1
3 Surface rtial Re-040 2 1 1 1 28 0 1
4 Bio Partial Ret -039 1 1 1 1 28 0 1

END GEN-INFO
*** Section RCHRES***

ACTIVITY
<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

END ACTIVITY

PRINT-INFO
<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9

END PRINT-INFO
HYDR-PARM1
RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section ***
# - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***
1 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
3 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
4 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
END HYDR-PARM1
HYDR-PARM2
# - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 ***
<------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 2 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 3 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 4 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
END HYDR-PARM2

HYDR-INIT
RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section ***
# - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

END HYDR-INIT

END RCHRES

SPEC-ACTIONS

END SPEC-ACTIONS

FTABLES
FTABLE 2
71 4
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time***
(ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***

0.000000 0.601944 0.000000 0.000000
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 35

0.046703 0.601944 0.008434 0.000000

0.093407 0.601944 0.016868 0.000000

0.140110 0.601944 0.025301 0.000000

0.186813 0.601944 0.033735 0.000000

0.233516 0.601944 0.042169 0.000000

0.280220 0.601944 0.050603 0.000000

0.326923 0.601944 0.059037 0.000000

0.373626 0.601944 0.067471 0.000000

0.420330 0.601944 0.075904 0.000000

0.467033 0.601944 0.084338 0.000000

0.513736 0.601944 0.092772 0.000000

0.560440 0.601944 0.101206 0.000000

0.607143 0.601944 0.109640 0.000000

0.653846 0.601944 0.118074 0.000000

0.700549 0.601944 0.126507 0.000000

0.747253 0.601944 0.134941 0.000000

0.793956 0.601944 0.143375 0.000000

0.840659 0.601944 0.151809 0.000000

0.887363 0.601944 0.160243 0.000000

0.934066 0.601944 0.168677 0.000000

0.980769 0.601944 0.177110 0.000000

1.027473 0.601944 0.185544 0.000000

1.074176 0.601944 0.193978 0.000000

1.120879 0.601944 0.202412 0.000000

1.167582 0.601944 0.210846 0.000000

1.214286 0.601944 0.219280 0.000937

1.260989 0.601944 0.227713 0.001406

1.307692 0.601944 0.236147 0.002206

1.354396 0.601944 0.244581 0.002606

1.401099 0.601944 0.253015 0.003210

1.447802 0.601944 0.261449 0.003512

1.494505 0.601944 0.269883 0.003995

1.541209 0.601944 0.278316 0.004237

1.587912 0.601944 0.286750 0.004646

1.634615 0.601944 0.295184 0.004851

1.681319 0.601944 0.303618 0.005212

1.728022 0.601944 0.312052 0.005393

1.774725 0.601944 0.323718 0.005719

1.821429 0.601944 0.335385 0.005883

1.868132 0.601944 0.347052 0.006184

1.914835 0.601944 0.358719 0.006334

1.961538 0.601944 0.370386 0.006615

2.008242 0.601944 0.382052 0.006755

2.054945 0.601944 0.393719 0.007019

2.101648 0.601944 0.405386 0.007151

2.148352 0.601944 0.417053 0.007401

2.195055 0.601944 0.428720 0.007525

2.241758 0.601944 0.440386 0.007763

2.288462 0.601944 0.452053 0.007763

2.335165 0.601944 0.463720 0.008060

2.381868 0.601944 0.475387 0.008524

2.428571 0.601944 0.487054 0.009051

2.475275 0.601944 0.498720 0.009593

2.521978 0.601944 0.510387 0.010128

2.568681 0.601944 0.522054 0.010646

2.615385 0.601944 0.533721 0.011145

2.662088 0.601944 0.545388 0.011625

2.708791 0.601944 0.557054 0.012088

2.755495 0.601944 0.568721 0.012534

2.802198 0.601944 0.580388 0.012965

2.848901 0.601944 0.592055 0.013382

2.895604 0.601944 0.603722 0.013786

2.942308 0.601944 0.615388 0.014180

2.989011 0.601944 0.627055 0.014562

3.035714 0.601944 0.638722 0.014936

3.082418 0.601944 0.650389 0.015301

3.129121 0.601944 0.662056 0.015658

3.175824 0.601944 0.673722 0.016009

3.222527 0.601944 0.685389 0.016358

3.250000 0.601944 0.694435 0.026411
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 36
END FTABLE 2
FTABLE 1
23 5
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***

0.000000 0.601944 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

0.046703 0.601944 0.028113 0.000000 0.026411

0.093407 0.601944 0.056226 0.000000 0.026411

0.140110 0.601944 0.084338 0.000000 0.026411

0.186813 0.601944 0.112451 0.000000 0.026411

0.233516 0.601944 0.140564 0.000000 0.026411

0.280220 0.601944 0.168677 0.000000 0.026411

0.326923 0.601944 0.196789 0.000000 0.026411

0.373626 0.601944 0.224902 0.000000 0.026411

0.420330 0.601944 0.253015 0.000000 0.026411

0.467033 0.601944 0.281128 0.000000 0.026411

0.513736 0.601944 0.309240 0.017087 0.026411

0.560440 0.601944 0.337353 0.157374 0.026411

0.607143 0.601944 0.365466 0.369426 0.026411

0.653846 0.601944 0.393579 0.627270 0.026411

0.700549 0.601944 0.421691 0.911089 0.026411

0.747253 0.601944 0.449804 1.200769 0.026411

0.793956 0.601944 0.477917 1.476083 0.026411

0.840659 0.601944 0.506030 1.718754 0.026411

0.887363 0.601944 0.534143 1.915531 0.026411

0.934066 0.601944 0.562255 2.061968 0.026411

0.980769 0.601944 0.590368 2.166777 0.026411

1.000000 0.601944 0.601944 2.287491 0.026411
END FTABLE 1
FTABLE 4
64 4
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time***
(ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***

0.000000 0.893566 0.000000 0.000000

0.052198 0.893566 0.013993 0.000000

0.104396 0.893566 0.027985 0.000000

0.156593 0.893566 0.041978 0.000000

0.208791 0.893566 0.055971 0.000000

0.260989 0.893566 0.069963 0.000000

0.313187 0.893566 0.083956 0.000000

0.365385 0.893566 0.097949 0.000000

0.417582 0.893566 0.111941 0.000000

0.469780 0.893566 0.125934 0.000000

0.521978 0.893566 0.139927 0.000000

0.574176 0.893566 0.153919 0.000000

0.626374 0.893566 0.167912 0.000000

0.678571 0.893566 0.181905 0.000000

0.730769 0.893566 0.195897 0.000000

0.782967 0.893566 0.209890 0.000000

0.835165 0.893566 0.223882 0.000000

0.887363 0.893566 0.237875 0.000000

0.939560 0.893566 0.251868 0.000000

0.991758 0.893566 0.265860 0.000000

1.043956 0.893566 0.279853 0.000000

1.096154 0.893566 0.293846 0.000000

1.148352 0.893566 0.307838 0.000000

1.200549 0.893566 0.321831 0.000000

1.252747 0.893566 0.335824 0.000000

1.304945 0.893566 0.349816 0.000000

1.357143 0.893566 0.363809 0.000000

1.409341 0.893566 0.377802 0.001476

1.461538 0.893566 0.391794 0.002214

1.513736 0.893566 0.405787 0.003228

1.565934 0.893566 0.419780 0.003735

1.618132 0.893566 0.433772 0.004479

1.670330 0.893566 0.447765 0.004851

1.722527 0.893566 0.461758 0.005448

1.774725 0.893566 0.481114 0.005746

1.826923 0.893566 0.500471 0.006257

1.879121 0.893566 0.519827 0.006512
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 37

1.931319 0.893566 0.539184 0.006966

1.983516 0.893566 0.558540 0.007193

2.035714 0.893566 0.577897 0.007606

2.087912 0.893566 0.597253 0.007812

2.140110 0.893566 0.616610 0.008194

2.192308 0.893566 0.635966 0.008385

2.244505 0.893566 0.655323 0.008593

2.296703 0.893566 0.674679 0.009080

2.348901 0.893566 0.694036 0.009784

2.401099 0.893566 0.713392 0.010559

2.453297 0.893566 0.732749 0.011340

2.505495 0.893566 0.752105 0.012100

2.557692 0.893566 0.771462 0.012829

2.609890 0.893566 0.790818 0.013525

2.662088 0.893566 0.810175 0.014190

2.714286 0.893566 0.829531 0.014827

2.766484 0.893566 0.848888 0.015438

2.818681 0.893566 0.868244 0.016027

2.870879 0.893566 0.887601 0.016594

2.923077 0.893566 0.906957 0.017143

2.975275 0.893566 0.926314 0.017675

3.027473 0.893566 0.945670 0.018192

3.079670 0.893566 0.965027 0.018695

3.131868 0.893566 0.984383 0.019187

3.184066 0.893566 1.003740 0.019669

3.236264 0.893566 1.023096 0.020150

3.250000 0.893566 1.030869 0.032411
END FTABLE 4
FTABLE 3
30 5
Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)***

0.000000 0.893566 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

0.052198 0.893566 0.046642 0.000000 0.032411

0.104396 0.893566 0.093284 0.000000 0.032411

0.156593 0.893566 0.139927 0.000000 0.032411

0.208791 0.893566 0.186569 0.000000 0.032411

0.260989 0.893566 0.233211 0.000000 0.032411

0.313187 0.893566 0.279853 0.000000 0.032411

0.365385 0.893566 0.326495 0.000000 0.032411

0.417582 0.893566 0.373137 0.000000 0.032411

0.469780 0.893566 0.419780 0.000000 0.032411

0.521978 0.893566 0.466422 0.034569 0.032411

0.574176 0.893566 0.513064 0.213745 0.032411

0.626374 0.893566 0.559706 0.471194 0.032411

0.678571 0.893566 0.606348 0.775552 0.032411

0.730769 0.893566 0.652991 1.099144 0.032411

0.782967 0.893566 0.699633 1.413620 0.032411

0.835165 0.893566 0.746275 1.692395 0.032411

0.887363 0.893566 0.792917 1.915531 0.032411

0.939560 0.893566 0.839559 2.076126 0.032411

0.991758 0.893566 0.886202 2.187838 0.032411

1.043956 0.893566 0.932844 2.322958 0.032411

1.096154 0.893566 0.979486 2.431861 0.032411

1.148352 0.893566 1.026128 2.536091 0.032411

1.200549 0.893566 1.072770 2.636204 0.032411

1.252747 0.893566 1.119412 2.732651 0.032411

1.304945 0.893566 1.166055 2.825808 0.032411

1.357143 0.893566 1.212697 2.915991 0.032411

1.409341 0.893566 1.259339 3.003467 0.032411

1.461538 0.893566 1.305981 3.088466 0.032411

1.500000 0.893566 1.340349 3.171188 0.032411
END FTABLE 3

END FTABLES

EXT SOURCES
<-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC
WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 38
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP
WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 1 EXTNL PREC
WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 3 EXTNL PREC
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.7 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 3 EXTNL POTEV
WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.7 RCHRES 4 EXTNL POTEV

END EXT SOURCES

EXT TARGETS
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1004 FLOW ENGL REPL
RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1005 STAG ENGL REPL
RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1006 STAG ENGL REPL
RCHRES 1 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1007 FLOW ENGL REPL
COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 702 FLOW ENGL REPL
COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL
RCHRES 4 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1008 FLOW ENGL REPL
RCHRES 4 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1009 STAG ENGL REPL
RCHRES 3 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1010 STAG ENGL REPL
RCHRES 3 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1011 FLOW ENGL REPL
COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL
COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL

END EXT TARGETS

MASS-LINK
<Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #***
MASS-LINK 2
PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 2
MASS-LINK 3
PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 3
MASS-LINK 5
IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 5
MASS-LINK 8
RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL
END MASS-LINK 8
MASS-LINK 12
PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 12
MASS-LINK 13
PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 13
MASS-LINK 15
IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 15
MASS-LINK 16

RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 16
MASS-LINK 17
RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN
END MASS-LINK 17

END MASS-LINK
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:41 AM Page 39

END RUN
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:42 AM Page 40
Predeveloped HSPF Message File
DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:42 AM Page 41
Mitigated HSPF Message File
ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1
The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered high.

Did you specify any "special actions"? If so, they could account for it.

Relevant data are:

DATE/TIME: 1976/ 7/31 24: 0
RCHRES : 1

RELERR STORS STOR MATIN MATDIF
-1.0000 0.00000 0.0000E+00 0.00000 8.9960E-12
Where:

RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL).

ERROR is (STOR-STORS) - MATDIF.

REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN).

STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval.

STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period.

MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period.

MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period.

ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1
The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered high.

Did you specify any "special actions"? If so, they could account for it.

Relevant data are:

DATE/TIME: 1976/ 7/31 24: 0
RCHRES : 3

RELERR STORS STOR MATIN MATDIF
-1.000E+00 0.00000 0.0000E+00 0.00000 8.7314E-12
Where:

RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL).

ERROR is (STOR-STORS) - MATDIF.

REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN).

STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval.

STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period.

MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period.

MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period.

DRAFT
2025_SCC 2/24/2025 11:10:42 AM Page 42
Disclaimer
Legal Notice
This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2025; All Rights Reserved.

Clear Creek Solutions, Inc.
6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F
Olympia, WA. 98501
Toll Free 1(866)943-0304
Local (360)943-0304
www.clearcreeksolutions.com
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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

!"#$%&'"$%()*(+,-.,()/$
0 111111112345673891:;<=1>6<??6158=123@581AB?8C?D1>581E7?@3D1F5G7H3<8751 IJKLMNOPNQR0 STUVTWXYZXTU[\STUY]X][XTU[^TX_`[a]YaYZT[bVZcTWTXT]dZY]e]f]XZX]ad`YVZc]^ZX]YdgdX]hdX_ZXVTWX]Y ^ZX]YX_YU`f_e]f]XZXTU[iZ[adUTWUY][fT[]]Y]ah]aTZjYTUYXUaTdc_ZYf]eTZ`[a]YaYZT[UY Ue]YVWU^XUX_]aU^[dXY]ZhcU[e]gZ[c]dgdX]hkSTUY]X][XTU[^TX_`[a]YaYZT[VZcTWTXT]dZY] cUhhU[WgT[cUYjUYZX]aT[XUX_]dTX]^TX_T[jZYlT[fWUXWZ[adcZjT[fiZWU[fYUZadTa]diZ[aT[Uj][ djZc]dkS]cZ`d]X_]d]Xgj]dUVVZcTWTXT]d_Ze]WThTX]aUY[UT[VTWXYZXTU[iX_]gZY]XgjTcZWWga]dTf[]aXU jYUeTa]][U`f__gaYZ`WTc_]ZaXUhUe]VWU^dX_YU`f_X_]`[a]YaYZT[cU[[]cXTU[XUX_]dXUYhaYZT[ dgdX]hkmY]ZXh][XTdZc_T]e]aX_YU`f_VTWXYZXTU[id]aTh][XZXTU[idUYjXTU[inTUc_]hTcZWjYUc]dd]dZ[a jWZ[X`jXZl]k mgjTcZWnTUY]X][XTU[^TX_`[a]YaYZT[cUhjU[][XdT[cW`a]o pqr[VWU^aTdXYTn`XTU[h]c_Z[Tdhd\]kfij]YTh]X]YVWU^djY]Za]YUYVTWX]YdXYTjdb pqs[]YfgaTddTjZXTU[h]c_Z[TdhVUYcU[c][XYZX]aT[VWU^d\]kfkidjWZd_nWUcldUYYTjYZjb pqt_ZWWU^d`YVZc]jU[aT[fVUYcZjX`Y]aVWU^d pqtTa]dWUj]Z[anZdT[nUXXUhe]f]XZXTU[d]W]cX]anZd]aU[]uj]cX]acWThZX]Z[ajU[aT[f a]jX_ pqvU[wVWUZXT[fh`Wc_WZg]Y\xjXTU[ZWb pqy]aTZWZg]Y\jWZ[XT[fhTuUY][fT[]]Y]ah]aTZbcZjZnW]UVd`jjUYXT[fe]f]XZXTU[fYU^X_ pqzTWX]YcU`Yd]WZg]YcU[dTdXT[fUVZffY]fZX]XUjY]e][XX_]hTfYZXTU[UVVT[]dT[XU `[cUhjZcX]a[ZXTe]dUTWdUYX_]ZffY]fZX]dXUYZf]WZg]Y pq{ffY]fZX]dXUYZf]WZg]Y^TX_`[a]YaYZT[\db

|
}~
STUVTWXYZXTU[

~
STUVTWXYZXTU[

} UWW`XZ[XU[XYUW zWU^U[XYUW

}

mY]ZXh][X UW`h]
]a`cXTU[\r[cTa][XZWb ]ZlzWU^{XX][`ZXTU[\xjXTU[ZWb
Attachment 3a

!"#$%"$&'($()*$%+%,*-+"#&-.$/*&.)0$1+)(1&..2$'+..+"+3.2$3&-)().4 50$%3(+61.%,-.,%$

!!"#$"%
"%!"

&'()*+,-./01/1)2+(,324,5426'71,82/9(,
"%!" :

%"":$"!!""!;<=>?@?A>BC?DCE>FGHIEJDCE>F AGKHGLCF>CEMCF>EANDCEOCDAHNACGEPNEFNEIEF>HFHNCEC?KHGLCF>FNAA=>QGAAGBAGMNHH@NRN@OCDA>H>F HIEGOOS<=C?MGEOCTIHNACGEC?MGE?CF>H>FAGKHGLCF>QCGOCDAHNACGEAH>NAB>EALCNODGRA=HGIT=A=> B>FCNDN@>HSUAGHNT>KHGLCF>FNQGL>A=>IEF>HFHNCERCA=CE?IHONM>KGEFCETPB>FCNPNEFNTTH>TNA> ?AGHNT>C?MGE?CF>H>FCEMDIF>FCEA=>QCGOCDAHNACGEAH>NAB>EALGDIB>SUNAIHNA>F?AGHNT>RCA=CEA=> NTTH>TNA>?AGHNT>DN@>HMNEQ>NFF>FAGA=C?F>?CTEQ@HNC?CETA=>IEF>HFHNCENQGL>A=>QGAAGBGO A=>NTTH>TNA>?AGHNT>DN@>HGHLCNNECEA>HENDR>CH?AHIMAIH>F>?CTE>FAGBNCEANCEN?K>MCOCMRNA>HD>L>D >D>LNACGES V":$%!"$""!"!!""!"%";<=>?@?A>BMNEQ> F>?CTE>FAGKHGLCF>ODGRHNA>NEFFIHNACGEMGEAHGDQ@KHCBNHCD@KHGLCFCETCEMH>N?>F?IHONM>KGEFCET NEFWGH=NLCETNF>>K>HNTTH>TNA>?AGHNT>DN@>HNQGL>A=>IEF>HFHNCES<=C?RCDDNDDGROGH?CTECOCMNEA F>A>EACGE?AGHNT>PR=CM=MNEQ>MGEAHGDD>FLCNCEMDI?CGEGONEGIAD>A?AHIMAIH>NAA=>FGRE?AH>NB >EFGOA=>IEF>HFHNCES &'()*+,X4)1'4)/,/+.,X2+().'4/1)2+(, YCGH>A>EACGERCA=IEF>HFHNCEBI?AB>>AA=>OGDDGRCETF>?CTEMHCA>HCNSZ>LCNACGE?OHGBA=>Q>DGR MHCA>HCNBN@Q>NKKHGL>FNAA=>FC?MH>ACGEGOA=>[CA@\ETCE>>HCOCAC?F>A>HBCE>FAGQ>NKKHGKHCNA>] V^_"!
`a
bDNM>B>EAGQ?>HL>?T>GA>M=ECMND H>MGBB>EFNACGE?H>TNHFCETKGA>EACND=NcNHF? d>STSP?DGK>?ANQCDCA@PDNEF?DCF>?PDCeI>ONMACGE cGE>?fNEF?>AQNMg?d>STSP?DGK>?POGIEFNACGE?P IACDCAC>?fS hI?AEGAE>TNACL>D@CBKNMA>iC?ACET?CA> T>GA>M=ECMNDMGEM>HE?S `ajECBK>HB>NQD>DCE>HGHGA=>H=@FHNIDCM H>?AHCMACGEDN@>HC?CEMDIF>FCO?CA>MGE?AHNCEA? CEFCMNA>A=NACEOCDAHNACGEGHDNA>HNDODGR??=GIDF EGAQ>NDDGR>FS kCECETKH>L>EA??AGHBRNA>HOHGB CBKNMACETTHGIEFRNA>HNEFWGH?>E?CACL> >ELCHGEB>EANDGHT>GA>M=ECMNDO>NAIH>?S lEMCF>EANDCEOCDAHNACGEPR=>ENDDGRNQD>P MNENCFCEKGDDIANEAH>BGLNDNEF THGIEFRNA>HH>M=NHT>S

!"#$
%&'()*+,-.*,)/*+,-.*0+10+20345667897:7;75<=937>:7 ?0@+2A+2B2++2CDE F,//2+FGHIJ01+2K.,+20CC,*,()0L C2I,/)B20*.+2IB(+A+(A2+A2+B(+J0)@2E '()*+,-.*,)/*+,-.*0+10+20/+20*2+*M0)N 0@+2IJ01-20LL(O2C0**M2C,I@+2*,()(B *M2',*1P)/,)22+,B*M2B(LL(O,)/ @()C,*,()I0+2J2*Q?D,)@(+A(+0*2C2I,/) B20*.+2IR2E/EBL(OIA+20C2+ID*( J,),J,S,)/IM(+*@,+@.,*,)/(BBL(OI,)*M2 FGH0)CTD,)@(+A(+0*20CC,*,()0LC2I,/) B20*.+2I+2K.2I*2C-1*M2',*1P)/,)22+ B(+A+(A2+A2+B(+J0)@2(B*M2+2/,()0L FGHE %&UVWV347X=5Y97Z[7\497[5<V6V\]7V37:7^_` aL0**2+I.+B0@2I+2C.@22+(I,()0)C @M0))2L,S0*,()O,*M,)*M2B0@,L,*1E b #
c.+B0@2A()C,)/,IL,J,*2C*(0TdeM(.+ C+0OC(O)*,J2E c.+B0@2A()C,)/L,J,*2C*(TdM(.+B(+ AL0)*M20L*ME %&fg=[5<97hZWYVWX7Y9h\47V37i7j75WY7:7k^7VW<493`7 c.+B0@2A()C,)/@0A0@,*1L(O2+I I.-I.+B0@2I*(+0/2+2K.,+2J2)*IEl22A I.+B0@2A()C,)/+0,I2II0B2*1@()@2+)IE c.+B0@2A()C,)/C2A*M/+20*2+*M0)?T ,)@M2IRB(+0CC,*,()0LA(LL.*0)*@()*+(L(+ I.+B0@2(.*L2*I*+.@*.+2I(+BL(Oe@()*+(L (+,B,@2IDJ01-20LL(O2C0**M2C,I@+2*,() (B*M2',*1P)/,)22+,B*M2B(LL(O,)/ @()C,*,()I0+2J2*Q?DI.+B0@2A()C,)/ C2A*MC+0OC(O)*,J2,IL2II*M0)Td M(.+Im0)CTDI0B2*1,II.2I0)CB2)@,)/ +2K.,+2J2)*I0+2@()I,C2+2CR*1A,@0LL1 hZWYVWX7X=95\9=7\45W7kno7pV667=9qgV=9757 B2)@20)Cr(+BL0**2+I,C2IL(A2ID0)CsD A(*2)*,0LB(+2L2t0*2C@L(//,)/+,Iu,I @()I,C2+2CE %&vJ,),J.J(BT,)@M2I(BB+22-(0+C,I A+(t,C2CE a+22-(0+CA+(t,C2I+((JB(+M20C(t2+ (t2+BL(OI*+.@*.+2I0)CJ,),J,S2I+,Iu(B .)@()*+(LL2CI.+B0@2C,I@M0+/2E

!"#$
%&
'()*+,-.*+/0*+1/2(,(3*)4(156*7*1/1(-8/8) /0*9:;<=>-0+5/,,-4*0?

@*81,*0+()*+,-.*+/0*+/A*0B,*++.0-8*1- *0-+(-8B/2,*1-*+1/2,(+56*7*1/1(-8C-0* DE(FG,H/8)*/+(*01-C/(81/(8? I#
%&
J,/81(87+/0*+E(1/2,*A-015*F,(C/1*/8) *K.*F1*).-8)(87)*.15?L.,/81,(+11-/()(8 +*,*F1(-8F/82*A-E8)(8L..*8)(KM?NO?

J,/81++E(1*)1-15*F,(C/1*/8).-8)(87 )*.15/0*C-0*,(G*,H1-+E06(6*? %&
L8(00(7/1(-8+H+1*C4(15/F-88*F1(-81-4/1*0 +E..,H+5-E,)2*.0-6()*)/+8**)*)?

'*/+-8/,(00(7/1(-8C(7512*8**)*)1- G**..,/81+5*/,15H?

$P
#
Q
%&
LC(8(CEC-A:(8F5*+-A4*,,R/7*)B+50*))*) 5/0)4--)CE,F515/15/+2**8+1-FG.(,*)-0 +1-0*)A-0/1,*/+1=NC-815+(+.0-6()*)?

SE,F54(,,+E..0*++4**)+/8)C/(81/(8 C-(+1E0*A-0.,/8170-415?L7(87CE,F5 G(,,+./15-7*8+/8)4**)+**)+/8)/,,-4+ 15*2*8*A(F(/,C(F0-2*+1-CE,1(.,H?

T

%&S*)(/C/(81/(8+/C(8(CECA(,10/1(-80/1*-AU (8V50-6*0,(A*1(C*-AA/F(,(1H?L8(8(1(/,A(,10/1(-8 0/1*-AW1-=N(8V50(+0*F-CC*8)*)1-/,,-4 A-0F,-77(87-6*01(C*X15*(8(1(/,A(,10/1(-80/1* +5-E,)8-1*KF**)=N(8F5*+.*05-E0? LA(,10/1(-80/1*-A/1,*/+1U(8F5*+.*0 5-E0/,,-4++-(,1-)0/(82*14**8*6*81+? Y5*(8(1(/,0/1*+5-E,)2*5(75*015/8,-87 1*0C1/07*10/1*1-/FF-E81A-0F,-77(87 -6*01(C*?;-4*6*0/8*KF*++(6*,H5(75 (8(1(/,0/1*F/85/6*/8*7/1(6*(C./F1-8 10*/1C*81.*0A-0C/8F*B15*0*A-0*/8 E..*0,(C(1(+8**)*)?

!"#$
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`'@A:98./68*(.6,563(,>,6(-*,)(,*7.() ;*63./68*(.6,(.,*6*C(-()*+)(,*7.E,((:+26 ,3((6FTGJHS Z96(.6*+D:9849DD/6+.6(P4986*,4+86D>+ :/.26*9.9:-()*+29-49,*6*9.a-()*+ )(,*7.-/,6-*.*-*Y(496(.6*+D:98(P4986 9:./68*(.6,54+86*2/D+8D>;3(8(8(2(*C*.7 ;+6(8,+8(*-4+*8():98./68*(.6,S $b#c
%&O:*D6(829/8,(*,/,()6948(C(.6-*78+6*9.9: :*.(,6389/73D+>(8,9:63(:+2*D*6>ST*D6(8:+L8*2 *,.96/,()S '*78+6*9.9:-()*+2+.2+/,(2D977*.79: 63(+778(7+6(,698+7(D+>(8C9*),4+2(,98 ,/L78+)(ST*D6(8:+L8*2*,-98(D*N(D>69 2D97S

!"#$
%&'()*+,-./,0+(01203+42546,++.66(5+07 8203(59299,+92*+1())3+):+)(;(52*+ 6(5+0*32*-./)4-).9*3+62-()(*<254 (;:+4+(56()*,2*(.57 %&'()*+,-./,0+-2)-/)2*(.50200+00(590/(*2=()(*<6., :2,*(-)+;(9,2*(.5:,+>+5*(.532>+=++5 -.;:)+*+47 ?,242*(.5,+)2*(.503(:=+*1++5)2<+,0-25 +>2)/2*+62-*.,0@+797A=,(49(59A :+,;+2=()(*<A254/5(6.,;(*<B*. 4+*+,;(5+(6:2,*(-)+0(C(59(02::,.:,(2*+ .,(625(5*+,;+4(2*+)2<+,(05++4+47 #D
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

!"#$
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`YabcW_]Wd_ebfbWc_gZZhV]Xi_jVh_e[Vhk_l][Yh_mV^^\[]W[_UVW[hV^_nW^o_ =0)*.-:(O-0+*3*(3-0(P-3ND()*+)+,-(10+.30+/P,3*+8022D3,(390(3+020(2Mp(0120P90(3+02 +*CD-+*)q43N*10220P-(:.3*8..N0D2)O*3,L*(r TK&6*+-1M3N,3.-3-(:,())*.-:(9+-3*+-,N,E*O**(/*34-(92D)-(:82,9*/*(3+*CD-+*/*(3.4 90(3+-OD3-(:3+-OD3,+M,+*,4/,s-/D/.-)*,()1-(-.N:+,)*.208*.4,()3N*+*90//*()*) /*)-,.D+1,9*,+*,3+-OD3,+M+,3-0K IK&7,29D2,3*3N*?768*+;88*()-stO,.*)0(*s8*93*).-3*)*.-:(+D(01110+3+-OD3,+M,+*,.K @K&'.*3N*.-S-(:P0+L.N**38+*.*(3*)-(;88*()-stKJ30.-S*O-01-23+,3-0(t>5.K UVWXYZ[\]^_`YabcW_]Wd_ebfbWc_gZZhV]Xi_uiYW_e[Vhk_l][Yh_v^Vu_UVW[hV^_ba_gZZ^bX]w^Y_ 70(3+0201120P+,3*.,()x0+)D+,3-0(.P-223M8-9,22M+*CD-+*.-:(-1-9,(3.D+1,9*80()-(:,()x0+ ,::+*:,3*.30+,:*E02D/*.4,()3N*+*10+*3N*10220P-(:.3*8..N0D2)O*3,L*(8+-0+30)*3*+/-(,3-0( 01.30+/P,3*+8022D3,(390(3+02)*.-:(K5+*R)*E*208/*(3,(),220P,O2*80.3R8+0y*93120P+,3*.,() )D+,3-0(..N0D2)O*)*3*+/-(*),.)-.9D..*)-(7N,83*+Q013N*/,(D,2K TK&6*+-1M3N,3.-3-(:,())*.-:(9+-3*+-,N,E*O**(/*34-(92D)-(:82,9*/*(3+*CD-+*/*(3.4 90(3+-OD3-(:3+-OD3,+M,+*,4/,s-/D/.-)*,()1-(-.N:+,)*.208*.4,()3N*+*90//*()*) /*)-,.D+1,9*,+*,3+-OD3,+M+,3-0K

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

!"#$%&'()*+,(%-+,.*(*/+%0+1*2%3+.*4,%

56789:;<=896>?=6@8:8A:=6AB=:C;A<8@<@D=A9CDE86?98@E8<8FG6@:6>A;:@=8A:9HGD@:=I;JD@JK =A6@LDA=IA=:@6L8AMA=:@D:8DA<A=:@=:8NDA<<=996JE8<GC69GC6@;9OPC=9CD9?88A6?98@E8<:6?8D 9C6@:QJ=E8<GC8A678A6A=A96789:;<=896@DJ6AL:8@7=99;8=A96789:;<=89OPC8I67G69=:=6A6> :C896=J78<=DH=AIJ;<=AL:C8IC87=9:@K6>=A<=E=<;DJ8J878A:9=9?8J=8E8<:6?8DA=7G6@:DA:>DI:6@=A :C8G6:8A:=DJ>6@A;:@=8A:8FG6@:OR@LDA=ID78A<78A:9H6>:8AI67G69:HCDE8?88A=<8A:=>=8<D9:C8 769:J=S8JK96;@I86>A;:@=8A:8FG6@:OPC8T;DJ=:KDA<9:D?=J=:K6>6@LDA=ID78A<78A:9IDAED@K B=<8JKO PC8?=6>=J:@D:=6A78<=D9G8I=>=ID:=6A9I6A:D=A8<=A:C8U6;A:K6>5DAV=8L6W6BX7GDI: V8E8J6G78A:YDA<?66SZ[GG8A<=F\Q]=6@8:8A:=6A56=J5G8I=>=ID:=6AM^;A8_`abH;AJ899 9;G8@98<8<?K76@8@8I8A:8<=:=6ANDA<:C8U=:K6>5DAV=8L6W6BX7GDI:V8E8J6G78A:V89=LA cDA;DJMGDL8]QadNM^;JK_`aaH;AJ8999;G8@98<8<?K76@8@8I8A:8<=:=6ANB8@8<8E8J6G8<B=:C I6A9=<8@D:=6A6>:C8G6:8A:=DJ>6@A;:@=8A:8FG6@:OPC8989G8I=>=ID:=6A9=AIJ;<8I@=:8@=D>6@=A<=E=<;DJ I67G6A8A:ICD@DI:8@=9:=I9DA<T;DJ=:K=A6@<8@:6I6A:@6J:C86E8@DJJT;DJ=:K6>:C8?J8A<8<7=F89O [96>:C8G;?J=ID:=6A6>:C=97DA;DJH:C8^;A8_`abU6;A:K6>5DAV=8L69G8I=>=ID:=6A9G@6E=<8 76@8<8:D=J@8LD@<=AL7=F<89=LADA<T;DJ=:KI6A:@6JO PC8U=:KDA<U6;A:K9G8I=>=ID:=6A9A6:8<D?6E8B8@8<8E8J6G8<>6@L8A8@DJG;@G6989:6788: G8@78D?=J=:KDA<:@8D:78A:L6DJ9OXAID989BC8@8:C8]ce<=9ICD@L89:6@8I8=E=ALBD:8@9B=:C A;:@=8A:=7GD=@78A:96@A;:@=8A:PcVW9H:C8?=6>=J:@D:=6A78<=D9C6;J<?8<89=LA8<B=:C:C8 9G8I=>=IL6DJ6>7=A=7=f=AL:C8G6:8A:=DJ>6@8FG6@:6>A;:@=8A:9>@67:C878<=DOPC8@8>6@8H=A D<<=:=6A:6D<C8@=AL:6:C8U=:K6@U6;A:K78<=D9G8I=>=ID:=6A9H:C8>6JJ6B=ALL;=<8J=A899C6;J<?8 >6JJ6B8<Z ghiiijkkli [JDA<9IDG8D@IC=:8I:6@DL@6A67=9:9C6;J<?8I6A9;J:8<:698J8I:DGJDA:GDJ8::8:CD:7=A=7=f89 A;:@=8A:A88<9Om:=J=f=ALGJDA:9B=:CJ6BA;:@=8A:A88<9@89;J:9=AJ899A88<:68A@=IC:C8?=6>=J:@D:=6A 96=J7=FOX>A;:@=8A:T;DA:=:K=9:C8A:D=J6@8<:6GJDA:9B=:CJ6B8@A;:@=8A:A88<9H:C898GJDA:9B=JJ L8A8@DJJKCDE8J899I67G8:=:=6A>@67B88<9HBC=IC:KG=IDJJKA88<C=LC8@A;:@=8A:I6A:8A:OPC8 >6JJ6B=ALG@DI:=I89D@8@8I6778A<8<:67=A=7=f8A;:@=8A:A88<96>:C8GJDA:GDJ8::8Z nopilqrjsjiitjiguD:=E8GJDA:9 L8A8@DJJKCDE8D?@6D<8@:6J8@DAI8>6@A;:@=8A:I6A:8A:HDA<IDA?8J6AL8@J=E8<=A J8DA8@vJ6B8@A;:@=8A:96=J9O noiwjkkiijgx6;AL8@GJDA:9D@8L8A8@DJJK76@8:6J8@DA:6> J6B8@A;:@=8A:J8E8J9DA<:8A<:6C8JG<8E8J6G96=J9:@;I:;@8D9:C8KL@6BO\=E8A:C8J6B8@ I69:6>97DJJ8@GJDA:9H:C8G@6y8I:9C6;J<?8D?J8:6DII8G:DGJDA:76@:DJ=:K@D:8:CD:=9 9678BCD:C=LC8@:CDA9:D@:=AL>@67JD@L8@GJDA:9DA<G@6E=<=ALC=LC6@LDA=II6A:8A:O

!"
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

!"#$%##&#'()*+),-./012-345.6,2*2-54627-82-6,9)1-6132770 5:)7:61;21<<592061;=>-921/59827751;61;-)<5-54*615?85-854-5,-,+45:6)3,70<)15)12 ;6:519)*+),-,-)9@245,-67745+45,51-2-6:5=>-92127,)/59827751;61;-)<5-54*6158)?-85 +4)+54-65,)A-859)*+),-?6779821;5)195+7295<61-85*5<62/5<=B)45,-2/75*2-54627, ,3982,2;5<9)9)9)64+6-8.+52-./6)9824.,845<<5</[email protected]<C)4)-8542*51<*51-,,8)37< /59)1,6<545<= D6-8-85,59)1,6<542-6)1,.6-6,21-696+2-5<-82-75,,-821EF+54951-)4;21692*51<*51-/0:)73*5 9)37</53,5<.?8675,-677/2721961;+721-,34:6:2/676-021<?2-5445-51-6)1=>A9)*+),-6,3,5<. <5,6;154,,8)37<,-4)1;709)1,6<543-676G61;75,,-821EF+54951-/0:)73*5= H'IJ$#K#$J# L161-54127?2-54,-)42;5G)15.2,<5,946/5<61M29-N855-OPQE6,/5765:5<-)6*+4):545-51-6)1)A 13-4651-,=M)47615<,0,-5*,.2161-54127?2-54,-)42;5G)15?)4@5</0+4):6<61;2G)15-82- A739-32-5,/5-?551254)/6921<21254)/699)1<6-6)1,.45,37-61;6116-46A692-6)1C<516-46A692-6)1=>1 ,)67,-82-?677277)?61A67-42-6)1.2+24-62745-51-6)1<5,6;1ROPQES277)?,,6;16A6921-:)73*545<39-6)1 21<92127,)+4)*)-516-46A692-6)1C<516-46A692-6)1= TUVWXYZ[\]^[W_`abcdeafgU_aec[[_acgeah[[Wag\gi_[\afjX^a_c[akjgW][alXmW_nab[UcWdUgZaomd\gWU[apXUm^[W_aqrgna stuuvwax_aYgeaXjd]dWgZZna\[y[ZXi[\ahge[\aXWadWim_afjX^`ap[hXjgcap[[_ezald_naXfa{XeaTW][Z[ea|mj[gmaXfa}gWd_g_dXWza pj[Ya~[g\nzal[W_[jafXjag_[jec[\a[gZ_cza~dUVadec[jzaT}{Tzald_naXfa{XeaTW][Z[ea|mj[gmaXfaW]dW[[jdW]zapjwa ogjWagZZgU[zagZZgU[a{ghXjg_Xjd[ezaoZ[WapgV[zaopr{zagW\ageXWa}Uc^d\_zabj[[a[XiZ[wabc[a]md\gWU[aijXyd\[\a c[j[dWa\X[eaWX_aj[fZ[U_a_c[adW\dyd\mgZaXidWdXWeaXfagWnadW\dyd\mgZaZde_[\aghXy[agW\aecXmZ\aWX_ah[aUd_[\aXjaX_c[jYde[a g__jdhm_[\a_Xa_cXe[aZde_[\waa

!"#$%&'($)*+,*-./0*1$%-+2-3/*0/-+4$ 516/.76$$
89:;<=;>?:>@A9B?@CDA?9::AB?A>9:E;:F;ECBGA9:;>A:GABCE=>E:>@;=>;=B:AC=HIJK?BGL::ABGM NB>@BEA=CAB>G=:O<B=:L:GA?PQ9:G@<EE=:A:GAB>G>@A9:RSTB?G>A@:C?BNE:U89:@CDA?9::AV>:?G>A V:?D=BN:V:?BMGD=BA:=BCEBW:A9:>A9:=@CDA?9::A?BGA9B?C;;:GVBFN:DC<?:A9B?BG@>=LCAB>GXC=B:?NH IJK;=>V<DAL>V:EU YZ[\]Z[^_`aZ_bc]_a`_^_dZaeZ[]\^Zf_ghd_^c_^_g[a`[i\Z^\[aj_ghd_ k;=>;=B:AC=HIJKLCHN:CDD:lmnopqrnsrnrtouvwupmxnmuvyrz{|}r~yqxrmqrwvppvuyrvyumuvys 89:IJKL::A?A9:LBGBL<LV:?BMGD=BA:=BCEB?A:VBGk;;:GVBFPBGDE<VBGMA9: ;>EE<ACGAA=:CAL:GA;:=@>=LCGD:?ACGVC=VBGk;;:GVBFU 89:IJKB?V:?BMG:VCGVLCBGACBG:VBGCLCGG:=D>G?B?A:GAQBA9BA?;:=@>=LCGD: D:=AB@BDCAB>G? :::F;ECGCAB>GBGk;;:GVBFUCGV
89:IJKB?CDD:;ACNE:CAA9:VB?D=:AB>G>@A9:SBAHGMBG::=U89:SBAHGMBG::=9C?G> >NEBMCAB>GA>CDD:;ACGH;=>;=B:AC=HNB>@BEA=CAB>GIJKU [^j]_`aZ_[[j_^_dZaeZ[]\^Zf_ghd_^c_^_g[a`[i\Z^\[aj_ghd_ K=>;=B:AC=HNB>@BEA=CAB>GIJK?L<?AL::AA9:?CL:?BBGMM<BVCGD:C?G>G;=>;=B:AC=HIJK?UBBGM B?AH;BDCEEHNC?:V>GDC;A<=BGMCGVA=:CABGMUABL:?A9:RSTG>A=:EBCNEH=:ACBG:VU<BVCGD:@>= ?BBGMNB>@BEA=CAB>GIJK?A>D>L;EHQBA9=:O<B=:L:GA?>@A9B?LCG<CEB?;=>XBV:VBGk;;:GVBFUU

!"#$%&
'(("#$''
"#)**
$" +' ,
((%
"-
./"01(
1'&$"2
).3'( 45%&' 6
'

%!"#)**
$"7(/'$"8"91
' :
$'"&!"7(%&";<=">;95?@A@ B

CDE FG9
' "

!"
H"&I"'J%($%&K"!'1 %("1I"3&!"
"L.))+ MG?&.
%*"&!" '+
L'"$3'"N
((%
"O
./"*
).3'("H
+"$3'"%&(%!'"P%&' QG5%H$"$3'"

!"H
+"$3'".$.3"1(%&R SG?(%&K""(

$$'!"(. 'T"! %L' U". 'H)

I"* I"
*'&"$3'"+'$
"$1("3

!%&K"$3'V
'

%!"&!"91
'"%&"*
.'"#'* $'"$3'"
'

%!"&!"5%&' "H
+"$3'V

!"W +' XG?&.
%*"$3'"5%&' "H
+"$3'"%&(%!'"
H"$3'"
'

%!"">H"I
)" '" ')(%&K"$3'"5%&' UV %&('"$3

)K3
I"T%$3"T$' "&!"%&(*'.$"H
"$' ("Y>H"$
&U"+'&!"T%$3V ($%&
'(("($''
"T% '"
" '*
.'"$3'"5%&' ZR [G-%&('"&!"%&(*'.$"$3'"
'

%!"7(/'$"&!"$3'" '%&H
.%&K".1
'"Y>H $
&U"+'&!"T%$3"($%&
'(("($''
"T% '"
" '*
.'"$3'"
'

%!ZR \G-%&('"&!"%&(*'.$"$3'"#$%&
'(("#$''
"

!"H +'"

CDE ]^)

I"'J*&!"$3'"
'

%!"7(/'$"&!"
%'&$"$
"$3'"

!"H +' _

/".1
'"&!"
'

%!"$
"$3'"

!"H +'"+'$
"$1("&!".

('"$3' $1(")(%&K"(

$$'!"(. 'T! %L' "`
L'"
)&!"$3'"

!")&$%
"

"$1( '".

('!"&!"
'

%!"%("('.) '!"$
"$3'" +' a^AJ*&!"&!"
%'&$"$3'"5%&' U"

.$%&K"$3'".
%*("$"'.3".
&' "&!"(%!' 2)(3"$3'"5%&' "$3
)K3"$3'".'&$' "
H"$3'"

!"H +'"&!"('.) '"$3'".
%*( $
"$3'"
'

%!"7(/'$".

('"$
"$3'"$
*"()**
$".1
'"2)(3"$3'"b%&' "$
"'J*&!"%&(%!'V
H"$3'"1(/'$ c^9
%*"&'T"
((%
d-
./"-)11' %e' "*
).3'("$
"$3'"%&(%!'"
H"$3'"5%&' f^5
T' "

!"1./"%&$
"$3'"1(%&U" '*
.'"K $'"
g hij

!"#$!%&'(

)*+
)+ ,)

-
+..
)+
/01234567809:;
<=> ?@

?A
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Santee, CA
AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO:

City Clerk
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071-1266

ABOVE SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE

AGREEMENT TO PERFORM STORM WATER

FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
NO RECORDATION FEE REQUIRED; THIS DOCUMENT IS

EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT
TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 27383
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX DUE $ 0
Assessor's Parcel No. Project No.

This AGREEMENT for the maintenance and repair of certain Storm Water Management Facilities is entered into between
(hereinafter referred to as “Owner”) and the City of Santee (hereinafter referred to as “City”) for the benefit of the City, the successors in interest to the City, and the public generally.

RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Santee, California, more particularly described in Exhibit “A” hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”), and has proposed that the Property be developed as (insert brief description of type of project, e.g., “a 100 unit residential subdivision”) in accordance with applications for Tentative Map No.

Attachment 3b
, Development Review No. , Conditional Use
Permit No. , Grading Permit No. which are
on file with the City. This Agreement is required as a condition of approval for such development as set forth in Resolution Nos.
.

B. In accordance with the City of Santee’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, (Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 9.06), the City of Santee Subdivision Ordinance, the City of Santee Zoning Ordinance, the City of Santee Grading Ordinance and/or other ordinances or regulations of the City which regulate land development and urban runoff, Owner has prepared and submitted to the City, a site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (hereinafter the SWQMP), prepared by and dated
as it currently exists or may hereafter be amended and which is on file with the City’s Department of Development Services. The SWQMP proposes that storm water runoff from the Property be treated by the use of various storm water management facilities which are identified in the SWQMP as “Best Management Practices” or “BMP’s”:

The precise location and extent of the BMP’s are described and shown in the SWQMP. The SWQMP specifies the frequency, manner, and standards by which the BMP’s must be repaired and maintained in order to retain their effectiveness, as set forth in the Operation and Maintenance Section included in the SWMP.

C. The information contained in the SWQMP and the Owner’s representation that the BMP’s will be maintained pursuant to the SWQMP have been relied upon by City in approving Owner’s development applications. It is the purpose of this Agreement to assure that the BMP’s are maintained in perpetuity, by creating obligations which are enforceable against the Owner and the Owner’s successors in interest in the Property. It is intended that these obligations be enforceable notwithstanding other provisions related to BMP maintenance which are provided by law.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for consideration of City’s approval of the above development applications and the mutual covenants set forth herein, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Maintenance of Storm Water Management Facilities. Owner agrees, for itself and its successors in interest, to all or any portion of the Property, to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance and the SWQMP with regard to the maintenance of all BMP’s as designated in the SWQMP, and in particular agrees to perform, at its sole cost, expense and liability, the following “Maintenance Activities”: all inspections, cleaning, repairs, servicing, maintenance and other actions specified in the SWQMP, with respect to all of the BMP’s listed at Recital “B” above, at the times and in the manner specified in the SWQMP as it currently exists or may be amended or modified as provided herein. Owner shall initiate, perform and complete all Maintenance Activities at the required time, without request or demand from City or any other agency. Owner further agrees that “Maintenance Activities” shall include replacement or modification of the BMP’s in the event that the BMP fails to provide the necessary water quality treatment, it is found that the BMP was not installed correctly, or in the event that the BMP is not functioning as intended. Replacement shall be with an identical type, size and model of BMP, except that:
(a) The City Engineer may authorize substitution of an alternative BMP if he or she determines that it will function as good or better than the failed BMP. The City requires that proposed modifications be submitted for review and approval prior to making any changes in the field, and that the Storm Water Quality Management Plan be revised or amended and resubmitted for approval; and
(b) Pursuant to Section 9.06.200 of the Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of the City's NPDES Permit and any amendment, revision or re-issuance thereof, either separately considered or when combined with other discharges, is prohibited. Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the owner(s) causing or responsible for the discharge. Owner agrees that if the BMP, in the judgment of the Director of Development Services, is inappropriate or inadequate to the circumstances and has or may result in a violation of water quality standards, the BMP must be modified or replaced with an upgraded BMP to prevent any actual or potential violation.

2. Annual Inspection and Certification by Owner
Owner agrees to provide documentation of BMP maintenance as required for the City to ensure that all storm water BMPs are properly maintained and are functioning as intended, in compliance with the site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan. Owner shall provide annual certification that BMPs have been properly maintained for the time period of September 1 to August 31, each year.

This documentation is due to the City prior to September 15th of each year.

Structural BMPs for which annual certification is required includes, but is not limited to: drainage inserts; detention basins; hydrodynamic separators; swales; filters; bioretention facilities; and Low Impact Development Integrated Management Practices (LID IMPs).

3. Notices. Owner further agrees that it shall, prior to transferring ownership of any land on which any of the above BMP’s are located, and also prior to transferring ownership of any such BMP, provide clear written notice of the above maintenance obligations associated with that BMP to the transferee. The Storm Water Quality Management Plan and all associated records must also be provided to all subsequent owners upon transfer of property title.

4. City’s Right to Perform Maintenance. It is agreed that City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to elect to perform any or all of the Maintenance Activities if, in the City’s sole judgment, Owner has failed to perform the same. It is recognized and understood that the City makes no representation that it intends to or will perform any of the Maintenance Activities, and any election by the City to perform any of the Maintenance Activities, shall in no way relieve Owner of its continuing maintenance obligations under this agreement. If the City elects to perform any of the Maintenance Activities, it is understood that the City shall be deemed to be acting as the agent of the Owner and said work shall be without warranty or representation by City as to safety or effectiveness, shall be deemed to be accepted by Owner “as is”, and shall be covered by Owner’s indemnity provisions below.

If the City performs any of the Maintenance Activities, after City has served written notice to the Owner to perform the same, and the Owner has failed to do so within a reasonable time stated in the City’s written notice, then Owner shall pay all of the City’s costs incurred in performing the Maintenance Activities within sixty days of receipt of an invoice for those costs.

5. Right of Entry and Inspection by City. Owner hereby grants to City a perpetual right of entry over, under and across Owner’s Property, for purposes of accessing the BMP’s and performing inspection of the BMP’s or any of the Maintenance Activities related to maintenance of the BMP’s. City shall have the right, at any time and without prior notice to Owner, to enter upon any part of said area as may be necessary or convenient for such purposes. Owner shall at all times maintain the Property so as to make the City’s access clear and unobstructed. City is required to perform periodic inspection of Structural BMPs.

Owner agrees to pay reasonable fees levied by the City on Owners of BMPs for the costs of managing the BMP inspection and maintenance tracking program.

6. Administration of Agreement for City. City hereby designates its Department of Development Services with responsibility and authority to administer this Agreement on behalf of City. Any notice or communication related to the implementation of this Agreement desired or required to be delivered to City shall be addressed to:

Director of Development Services
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
The City Engineer is also granted authority to enter into appropriate amendments to this Agreement on behalf of City, provided that the amendment is consistent with the purposes of this Agreement as set forth above.

7. Defense and Indemnity. City shall not be liable for, and Owner and its successors in interest shall defend and indemnify City and the employees and agents of City, against any and all claims, demands, liability, judgments, awards, fines, mechanic’s liens or other liens, labor disputes, losses, damages, expenses, charges or costs of any kind or character, including attorneys’ fees and court costs (hereinafter collectively referred to as “CLAIMS”), related to this Agreement and arising either directly or indirectly from any act, error, omission or negligence of Owner, Owner’s successors, or their contractors, licensees, agents, servants or employees, including, without limitation, claims caused by the concurrent negligent act, error or omission, whether active or passive of City. Owner shall have no obligation, however, to defend or indemnify City from a claim if it is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that such claim was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City. Nothing in this Agreement, in the City’s approval of the subdivision or other applications or plans and specifications, or inspection of the work, is intended to acknowledge responsibility for any such matter, and City shall have absolutely no responsibility or liability therefore unless otherwise provided by applicable law.

8. Common Interest Developments. If the Property is developed as a “Common Interest Development” as defined in Civil Code section 4100 which will include membership in or ownership of an “Association” as defined in Civil Code section 4080, then the following provisions of this Paragraph 7 shall apply during such time as the Property is encumbered by a “Declaration” as defined in Civil Code section 4135, and the Common Area, as “Common Area” is defined in Civil Code section 4095, of the Property is managed and controlled by the Association:
(a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall assume full responsibility to perform the MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES pursuant to this Agreement, and shall undertake all actions and efforts necessary to accomplish the MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, including but not limited to, levying regular or special assessments against each member of the Association sufficient to provide funding for the MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, conducting a vote of the membership related to such assessments if required by law. In the event insufficient votes have been obtained to authorize an assessment, the Association shall seek authority from a court of competent jurisdiction for a reduced percentage of affirmative votes necessary to authorize the assessment, re-conducting the vote of the membership in order to obtain the votes necessary to authorize an assessment, and the Association shall take all action authorized by the Declaration or California law to collect delinquent assessments, including but not limited to, the recording and foreclosure of assessment liens. (b) No provision of the Declaration, nor any other governing document of the Association or grant of authority to its members, shall grant or recognize a right of any member or other person to alter, improve, maintain or repair any of the Property in any manner which would impair the functioning of the BMP’s to manage drainage or storm water runoff as described in the SWQMP. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Declaration or other Association governing documents, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.

9. Agreement Binds Successors and Runs With the Property. It is understood and agreed that the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Owner and City, shall be deemed to be for the benefit of all persons owning any interest in the Property (including the interest of City or its successors in the easement granted herein). It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement shall be recorded and shall be binding upon all persons purchasing or otherwise acquiring all or any lot, unit or other portion of the Property, who shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by all the provisions hereof.

10. Owner’s Continuing Responsibilities Where Work Commenced or Permit Obtained. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no transfer or conveyance of the Property or any portion thereof shall in any way relieve Owner of or otherwise affect Owner’s responsibilities for installation or maintenance of BMP’s which may have arisen under the ordinances or regulations of City referred to in Recital B above, or other federal, state or local laws, on account of Owner having obtained a permit which creates such obligations or having commenced grading, construction or other land disturbance work.

11. Amendment and Release. The terms of this Agreement may be modified only by a written amendment approved and signed by the Director of Development Services and by the Owner or Owner’s successor(s) in interest. This Agreement may be terminated and Owner and the Property released from the covenants set forth herein, by a Release which City may execute if it determines that another mechanism will assure the ongoing maintenance of the BMP’s or that it is no longer necessary to assure such maintenance.

12. Agreement is Intended to Supplement Not Supercede. This Agreement is intended to supplement and not supercede the requirements of the Chapter 9.06 of the Santee Municipal Code – Storm Water Management and Discharge Control. The requirements listed herein are in addition to the requirements set forth in the Code including Civil Actions and Enforcement Powers established under the Code.

13. Governing Law and Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue in any action related to this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, East County Division. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day of , 201 .

CITY OF SANTEE:

By:

Melanie Kush
Director of Development Services
OWNERS:

By: By:
(sign here) (sign here)

(print name here) (print name here)

(title of signatory) (title of signatory)
(All OWNERS must sign)
(Proper notary acknowledgment of execution by OWNER must be attached.) (President or vice-president and secretary or assistant secretary must sign for corporations. If only one officer signs, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering that officer to bind the corporation.)

CITY OF SANTEE

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
FOR

AGREEMENT TO PERFORM STORM WATER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE This AGREEMENT by and between the City of Santee, a municipal corporation, and is accepted for recording by the
undersigned officers on behalf of the City of Santee pursuant to authority granted by Resolution No. 148-89 of the Santee City Council adopted on August 9, 1989.

Date: By:

Melanie Kush
Director of Development Services

Patsy Bell
Exhibit “A”

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California }
County of San Diego }
On
(date), before me, Patsy Bell, Santee City Clerk (name and title of the officer) , personally appeared

(Name(s) of Signer(s)), who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
[Seal]
Patsy Bell, City Clerk
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

EXHIBIT ‘A’
S:\Engineering Forms\600 Agreements\Form 615 - Storm Water Maintenance Agreement rev 2016.docx PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2025
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. l

GENERAL NOTES

1. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO UTILITY CONNECTIONS OR GRADING.

2. ACCEPTANCE OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF ANY CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE THE PROJECT BOUNDARY.

3. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED,

TESTED AND CONNECTED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF BERMS, CURBS, CROSS-GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, RETAINING WALLS OR FINAL PAVING.

4. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORD DATA AND FIELD SURVEYS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, EXISTING FACILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS

REQUIRED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT ANY EXISTING FACILITIES SHOWN

HEREON AND TO MAKE A REASONABLE AND DILIGENT SEARCH TO DETERMINE ANY OTHER WHICH ARE NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND TO PROTECT THE SAME. ANY

FACILITIES SO LOCATED SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER AND INCLUDED ON THE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS FOR THIS PROJECT.

5. LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MET BY WORK TO BE DONE SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY FIELD MEASUREMENTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WORK. CONTRACTOR

SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS AND LOCATING EXISTING

UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SUFFICIENTLY AHEAD OF CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW FOR REVISIONS

TO PLANS IF REVISIONS ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN LINE OR GRADE DUE TO THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES.

6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PRIOR TO STARTING WORK NEAR S.D.G & E. FACILITIES AND SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES.

NOTICE: FOR LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL CABLES AND GAS PIPING AND APPURTENANCES CONTACT THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY. TELEPHONE: 811.

7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE SBC PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY PRIOR TO

STARTING WORK NEAR PACIFIC BELL FACILITIES AND SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES.

NOTICE: FOR LOCATION OF CABLES AND APPURTENANCES CONTACT AT&T.

8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 48 HRS. PRIOR TO

STARTING WORK NEAR PADRE DAM FACILITIES AND SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES.

NOTICE: FOR LOCATION OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES CONTACT PADRE DAM. TELEPHONE: 811.

9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY COX CABLE TV PRIOR TO STARTING WORK NEAR COX CABLE FACILITIES AND SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES.

NOTICE: FOR LOCATION OF CABLES AND APPURTENANCES CONTACT COX CABLE. TELEPHONE: 811.

10. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT THE UTILITY AGENCIES, ADVISE THEM OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, AND COORDINATE RELOCATION'S, IF NEEDED.

11. POWER SOURCES AND RUNS SERVING STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE "AS-BUILT" IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS. ALL SOURCES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR WITHIN EASEMENTS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF SANTEE.

12. CITY OF SANTEE - INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS:

A. CONTRACTOR SHALL INFORM THE CITY PROJECT ENGINEER 48 HRS. IN ADVANCE OF COMMENCING WORK. PHONE (619) 258-4100 EXT 168.

B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE A MINIMUM OF 24 HRS. NOTICE ON REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION.

CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE ALL INSPECTIONS THROUGH SANTEEPORTAL.ORG.

C. ANY WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF INSPECTION IS SUBJECT TO REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.

13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RELOCATE STREET SIGNS WHEN CONDITIONS SO DICTATE.

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT AND ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE TRAFFIC STRIPING, STREET MARKINGS, AND CURB MARKINGS REMOVED OR DAMAGED BY HIS WORK.

14. SIDEWALK JOINT LOCATIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING NO. G-9. CURB OR CURB AND GUTTER JOINT LOCATIONS SHALL INCLUDE EXPANSION JOINTS AT CURB RETURNS, ADJACENT TO WALLS AND STRUCTURES AND AT 45 FOOT INTERVALS.

WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED EVERY 15' AND GROOVED JOINTS PLACED EVERY 5'.

ALL CONCRETE JOINTS SHALL CONFORM TO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING NO. G-10. SIDEWALKS SHALL BE REMOVED TO THE NEAREST JOINT. REFER TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 32 13 13 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

15. SIDEWALKS AND BIKEPATHS ARE DESIGNED TO HAVE CLEAR UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS. THESE

FACILITIES SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF STREET LIGHTS, FIRE HYDRANTS, METER BOXES,

TRANSFORMERS, ELECTRICAL PULL BOXES, BLOWOFFS, AIR VENTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OBSTRUCTIONS AT ALL TIMES AND SHALL MAINTAIN 4' MINIMUM CLEARANCE.

16. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING ADEQUACY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIED GENERAL STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTION LISTED HEREON, AND TO PROTECT THE WORK AT ALL TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. FAILED OR

DAMAGED WORK SUCH AS CRACKED SIDEWALKS, CURB AND GUTTER, CROSS GUTTERS, DRIVEWAY

APRONS AND SO FORTH, SHALL BE REPLACED TO THE NEAREST JOINT OR SCORE LINE IN EACH DIRECTION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE FINAL PAVEMENT COURSE.

17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENFORCE SAFETY MEASURES AND REGULATIONS INCLUDING THE

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS AND REGULATIONS.

18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL, DISPOSAL, AND COORDINATION OF

ALL PRIVATE FACILITIES, FENCES, WALLS, DEBRIS, LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY WHICH REQUIRES REMOVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. EACH INDIVIDUAL OWNER EFFECTED SHALL BE NOTIFIED 5 DAYS IN ADVANCE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

19. NO WORK OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY.

20. SOME UTILITIES MAY BE RELOCATED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT ALL UTILITIES ARE RELOCATED PRIOR TO START OF WORK BY CONTACTING THE CITY.

21. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE PROPERLY LICENSED BY THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS AWARDED, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE 20103.5.

ABBREVIATIONS:

AC ASPHALT CONCRETE

C&G CURB AND GUTTER

CB CATCH BASIN

CBM CONSTRUCTION BENCH MARK

EX EXISTING

FG FINISH GRADE

FL FLOW LINE

LT LEFT

MH MANHOLE

OHE OVER HEAD ELECTRIC

PCC PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

PP POWER POLE

RCB REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX

RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE

RT RIGHT

ROW RIGHT OF WAY

RW RECYCLED WATER

SDRSD SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS

SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

SL STREET LIGHT

TC TOP OF CURB

TF TOP OF FOOTING

X-ING CROSSING
RIGHT-OF-WAY ..........................................................

EXIST TELEPHONE ...................................................

EXIST CABLE TV........................................................

EXIST ELECTRIC........................................................

EXIST SANITARY SEWER..........................................

EXIST WATER.............................................................

EXIST GAS..................................................................

EXIST RECYCLED WATER........................................

EXIST CHAIN LINK FENCE........................................

EXIST SIDEWALK ......................................................

EXIST CATCH BASIN.................................................

EXIST POWER POLE..................................................

EXIST CURB AND GUTTER ......................................

EXIST STORM DRAIN.................................................

EXIST SEWER SERVICE ...........................................

EXIST WATER SERVICE ...........................................

EXIST BLOWOFF .......................................................

EXIST RECYCLED WATER SERVICE ......................

CURB AND GUTTER (G-2).........................................

LODGE POLE FENCE (2 RAIL)..................................

CHAIN LINK FENCE (M-6).........................................

REMOVABLE BOLLARD............................................

DG SURFACE............................................................. 6" CONCRETE MOW CURB.......................................

CONSTRUCTION NOTE..............................................

SHEET INDEX:

SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
C1.0 TITLE SHEET AND GENERAL NOTES
C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
C1.2 DEMOLITION PLAN
C1.3 GRADING AND PAVING PLAN
C1.4 PARKING LOT GRADING AND PAVING PLAN
C1.5 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
C1.6 PARKING LOT HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
C1.7 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN TABLES
C1.8 TRAFFIC SIGNAGE AND STRIPING PLAN
C1.9 CIVIL UTILITY PLAN
C1.10 CIVIL DETAILS
C1.11 CIVIL DETAILS
C1.12 EROSION CONTROL PLAN
LEGEND

ITEM (RSD)
PP
RW
G
W
SS
E
SYMBOL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS:

1. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ("GREENBOOK") 2021 EDITION.

2. CITY OF SANTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STANDARDS, LATEST EDITION.

3. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, "MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES" 2014 REVISION 6 EDITION.

4. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WATER AGENCY STANDARDS, W.A.S.

STANDARD DRAWINGS:

1. CITY OF SANTEE STANDARD DRAWINGS.

2. SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS (R.S.D.) AS RECOMMENDED BY THE REGIONAL

STANDARDS COMMITTEE, MAINTAINED AND PUBLISHED BY THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, 2018 EDITION.

3. STANDARD DRAWINGS OF THE PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, WATER AGENCY STANDARDS, W.A.S.

4. STANDARD PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 2021 EDITION.

PROJECT

LOCATION
HALBERNS BLVD.

FANITA
WOODSIDE AVE.

VICINITY MAP

NO SCALE
CARLTON OAKS DR.

N.T.S.

PROSPECT AVE. FANITA DR.

MAST BLVD.

Hills
Carlton
Blvd. CUYAMACA ST. MAGNOLIA AVE.

MISSION GORGE RD.

CITY OF SANTEE
EL NOPAL DR.

SANTEE CITY HALL
10601 MAGNOLIA AVENUE
SANTEE, CA 92071
* ALL DIMENSIONS IN FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN
MH

SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER
(CIP 2018-31)
X X X

ENGINEER OF WORK'S DESIGN CERTIFICATION

I, SARAH CURRAN, HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS.

I, UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF SANTEE IS

CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME AS THE ENGINEER OF WORK OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN.

I FURTHER UNDERSTAND THAT UPON APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER, THE PLANS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF SANTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS. AS SUCH,

I HEREBY RELINQUISH RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP TO THE CITY TO USE THESE PLANS AS THEY MAY DEEM

NECESSARY
SIGNED: DATE: .

R.C.E. # C69620, MY REGISTRATION EXPIRES ON 06/30/26.

T
SD SD
CATV
S
W
B
ROW
X X X
CB
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

SITE ADDRESS: 10129 RIVERWALK DRIVE
SANTEE, CA 92071
APN: 381-051-14-00
ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 2 AND 3 OF THE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS "H" AND "O", PER MAP NO. 817, RECORDED APRIL 2, 1896.

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES:

1. APPROPRIATE EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AT ALL TIMES.

2. THE TOPS OF ALL SLOPES SHALL HAVE A DIKE OR TRENCH TO PREVENT WATER FROM FLOWING OVER THE CRESTS OF SLOPES.

3. CLEAN GRAVEL ONLY WILL BE USED IN GRAVEL BAGS.

4. CATCH BASINS, DESILTING BASINS, GRAVEL BAGS, CHECK DAMS AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. THESE FACILITIES SHALL BE CLEANED ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND KEPT FREE OF SOIL ACCUMULATION.

5. GRAVEL BAG CHECK DAMS SHALL BE PLACED IN UNPAVED AREAS WITH GRADIENTS IN EXCESS OF 2%, IN OTHER GRADED OR EXCAVATED AREAS AS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AND AT OR NEAR EVERY POINT WHERE CONCENTRATED FLOWS LEAVE THE DEVELOPMENT.

6. GRAVEL BAGS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF ALL DRAINAGE INLETS TO MINIMIZE SILT BUILDUP IN THE INLETS AND PIPES.

7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPAIR ANY ERODED SLOPES.

8. ROADWAYS AND ENTRANCES TO AND FROM THE SITE SHALL BE SWEPT ON A REGULAR BASIS TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SOIL ACCUMULATION.

9. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE WATER TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE TO MINIMIZE AIRBORNE DUST CREATED FROM GRADING AND HAULING OPERATIONS OR EXCESSIVE WIND CONDITIONS.

WATERING SHALL BE PERFORMED ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS ANY TIME THESE CONDITIONS ARE PRESENT AND AT ALL OTHER TIMES AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AS NEEDED.

10. STOCKPILES SHALL BE COVERED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY AND PRIOR TO PREDICTED RAIN EVENTS. ASPHALT SHALL BE STORED ON A LAYER OF PLASTIC SHEETING, OR EQUIVALENT.

11. ALL PORTABLE TOILETS SHALL HAVE A SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AND NOT BE LOCATED NEAR A STORM DRAIN (I.E. CATCH BASIN OR STREET).

12. INACTIVE SLOPES SHALL BE PROTECTED AND STABILIZED WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS OF LAST BEING WORKED, OR ON THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY. ACTIVE SLOPES SHALL BE STABILIZED DURING RAIN.

13. EROSION CONTROL ON SLOPES SHALL BE MITIGATED BY INSTALLING LANDSCAPING AS PER APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CONDITIONS..

14. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND STORAGE BMPS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED INCLUDING: USE OF DRIP PANS OR EQUIVALENT UNDER VEHICLE STORED OVERNIGHT; DAILY INSPECTION FOR LEAKS AND SPILLS; PROMPT REMOVAL OF SPILLS; AVAILABILITY OF OIL-ABSORBENT SPILL REMOVAL MATERIALS ON SITE.

15. HEAVY EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE STORED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

16. TRASH SHALL BE PLACED IN DUMPSTERS. OFFCUTS FROM FRAMING WILL BE STORED APPROPRIATLY AND NOT ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE IN STOCKPILES AROUND THE SITE.

17. TRASH DUMPSTERS WILL HAVE LIDS. THE LIDS WILL REMAIN CLOSED AND THE DUMPSTERS WILL NOT BE OVERFILLED. ADDITIONAL TRASH PICK UPS SHALL BE MADE AS NECESSARY.

18. LIQUID MATERIALS WILL BE STORED IN CLOSED CONTAINERS IN SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AND UNDER COVER. SOLID MATERIALS WILL BE STORED ON PALLETS AND BE COVERED DURING RAIN.

19. A MATERIALS WASHOUT WILL BE AVAILABLE ONSITE WHENEVER LIQUID MATERIALS ARE USED. THE

WASHOUT WILL FULLY CONTAIN THOSE MATERIALS AND THE SURROUNDING AREA SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF SPILLS.

20. DISCHARGE OF POTABLE WATER (SUCH AS FROM POWERWASHING OR FILLING WATER TRUCKS) WILL BE PREVENTED.

21. 125 PERCENT OF THE MATERIALS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN STORM WATER BMPS SHALL BE PRESENT ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES.

22. STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES SHOWN HEREON ARE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THIS SITE BASED ON THE ANTICIPATED PROGRESS OF THE WORK. ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AT ANY TIME AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER AS THE WORK PROGRESSES.

IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE PROTECTION IS IN PLACE AT ALL

TIMES TO PREVENT ANY DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING SEDIMENT, FROM THE EXPOSED SITE AREAS. BMPS WILL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL REMOVAL.

23. SILT FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF ALL GRADING WORK AND THE PERIMETER OF THE IMPROVEMENT AREA.
1 SEWER & WATER AGENCY FIRE DEPARTMENT

CITY OF SANTEE

DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF DATE

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

PUBLIC SERVICES MANAGER DATE

ENGINEERING DIVISION

CITY ENGINEER DATE

PLANNING DIVISION

PROJECT PLANNER DATE

TRAFFIC SECTION

PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE
RCE NO: 60112 EXPIRES: 06/30/2026
811
MESA RD.

PKWY.

GILLESPIE
FIELD
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED

PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

GPY SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER
EH
X/XX/20XX
SARAH CURRAN X/XX/20XX 100% CD SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCT THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88

RIVERWALK
DR.

PARK
CENTER
DR.

TITLE SHEET AND GENERAL NOTES
100% CD SUBMITTAL
2024-01-12
C1.0

NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOD STATEMENT
I, SARAH CURRAN, A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:

1. THE PAD ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS AS-BUILT GRADING PLAN HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY ME AND THAT

SAID ELEVATIONS ARE AT A MINIMUM OF ONE FOOT ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED

BY THE BASE FLOOD DISCHARGE RATES SET FORTH IN THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 11.36 OF THE SANTEE MUNICIPAL CODE, OR

2. THE STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN FLOOD PROOFED TO OR ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD

ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE BASE FLOOD DISCHARGE RATES SET FORTH IN THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 15.52 OF THE SANTEE MUNICIPAL CODE.

SIGNED: DATE: .

R.C.E. # C69620, MY REGISTRATION EXPIRES ON 06/30/26.

APPROVED BY:

DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING & PLANNING DATE
RCE NO. EXP
PDMWD PROJECT/FILE NAME PDMWD JOB NO. SERVICE AREA
VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SIGNATURE.

SIGNATURE OF THESE PLANS IS NOT A COMMITMENT TO SERVE. ACTUAL FIELD

CONDITIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES TO THE WATER, SEWER, AND/OR RECYCLED WATER PLANS. THE DEVELOPER AND/OR ITS ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING ANY NECESSARY CHANGES AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE DISTRICT.

BENCHMARK:

THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10, WITH PUNCH ONLY. LOCATED ON A 5.00' OFFSET SOUTH ALONG THE

CENTERLINE OF COTTONWOOD AVENUE FROM THE CENTERLINE

INTERSECTION OF PALM GLEN DRIVE AND COTTONWOOD AVENUE AS DERIVED FROM MAP NO. 7349.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM SAID RECORD OF SURVEY 20986. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88

CITY RESUBMITTAL
03/05/2025
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
04/04/2025
04/04/2025

RIVERWALK DRIVE PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
R/W

C/L R/W R/W C/L WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 NORTH 1" = 40'

EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN

LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL NOTES

1. BASE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON AS EXISTING
CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON A SURVEY DATED MARCH 23,
2022, PREPARED BY PSOMAS, AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
RECORD AS-BUILT DRAWINGS.

2. SEE THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT,
SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, DATED MARCH 18, 2022,
PREPARED BY GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC..

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW AND

COMPLY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED IN THE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

APPROXIMATE

LIMITS OF WORK
(TYP)

APPROXIMATE

LIMITS OF WORK
(TYP)
C1.1

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026

RIVERWALK DRIVE PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
R/W

C/L R/W R/W C/L

WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 NORTH 1" = 40'

DEMOLITION PLAN
REMOVE AND DISPOSE GATE AND GATE POSTS.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE CONCRETE CURB OR CURB &
GUTTER.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE AC PAVEMENT AND BASE, FULL DEPTH, WHEEL STOPS, AND ADA PARKING SIGNAGE.

PROTECT CURB & GUTTER IN PLACE.

PROTECT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE IN PLACE.

PROTECT SEWER MANHOLE IN PLACE.

PROTECT SEWER LINE IN PLACE.

PROTECT FENCE IN PLACE.

PROTECT STORM DRAIN PIPE IN PLACE.

REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT & SIDEWALK.

NOT USED.

REFER TO LANDSCAPE SHEETS L2.10 AND L2.11 FOR
IRRIGATION DEMOLITION AND DISPOSE.

PROTECT IN PLACE BACK FLOW PREVENTER AND FIRE
PIPE CONNECTION.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE TREE AND TRUNKS.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF TRASH ENCLOSURE AND
FOOTINGS.

PROTECT SIGN.

PROTECT REMOVABLE BOLLARD IN PLACE.

PROTECT TREE.

REMOVE & DISPOSE SIGN.

PROTECT MOW CURB AND DG WALK.

EXISTING YMCA WATER METERS (2) TO BE REMOVED BY

PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AFTER
RELOCATION INSTALL (SEE UTILITIES PLAN). BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS (2) TO BE REMOVED BY CONTRACTOR
AFTER RELOCATION INSTALL (SEE UTILITIES PLAN).

REMOVE AND DISPOSE WOOD STAIRS.

PROTECT IN PLACE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.

REMOVE GRASS FIELD AND AGGREGATE BASE.

REMOVE LIGHT STANDARD POLE FOOTING AND PULL BOX.

PROTECT FIRE HYDRANT IN PLACE.

PROTECT UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL PULL BOX.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE MOW CURB.

PROTECT EXIST CURBS, STRIPES, ASPHALT CONCRETE, PLANTERS, IRRIGATION, LANDSCAPING, ELECTRICAL AND LIGHTING IN PLACE.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE EXISTING CATCH BASIN.

PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING MAIL BOX.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE EXISTING TREES AND ROOT
BARRIERS IN ISLAND PLANTERS.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE PVC STORM DRAIN.

REMOVE EXIST ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND

AGGREGATE BASE

REMOVE EXIST CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND

PERIMETER CURB/GUTTER/SIDEWALK (WHERE

OCCURS)

REMOVE EXIST LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION

REMOVE EXIST CONCRETE MOW CURB

SAWCUT LINE

REMOVE EXIST FENCE/GATE

EXISTING NATURAL SWALE

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF WORK
LEGEND

DEMOLITION NOTES

1. PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION FOR THIS

CONTRACT CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF
ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE EXISTENCE AND

LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES OR

STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS HAS BEEN

OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS ONLY AND MAY
NOT REFLECT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES.

2. LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE

CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION OF WORK. ACCURATE VERIFICATION AS

TO SIZE, LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING

UNDERGROUND SERVICES SHALL BE THE CONTRACTORS
RESPONSIBILITY.

3. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARY

MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN

HEREON AND ANY OTHER EXISTING LINES NOT OF
RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.

4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED UTILITY

AGENCIES PRIOR TO STARTING HIS WORK WITH UTILITY
REPRESENTATIVES. FOR LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND

UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES, CONTACT
"UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT": AT 811

5. EXIST ABANDONED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE
REMOVED AND DISPOSED.

6. WITHIN DEMOLITION AREA, REMOVE ALL TREES,

ROOTS,SHRUBS, STRUCTURES, FENCING, STRUCTURAL

FOUNDATIONS, PAVED PATHS AND STAIRS, CONCRETE

PAVEMENT, ASPHALT PAVEMENT, CURBS, GUTTERS,

GROUND COVER, AND ANY EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED TO REMAIN. REMOVE ALL
MISCELLANEOUS TRASH FROM SITE.

7. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL EXISTING

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND ASSOCIATED
STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE.

8. REFERENCE MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND

TELECOMMUNICATION PLANS FOR DEMOLITION AND
INSTALLATION OF M, E, & T UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES.

9. REFERENCE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR TREE PROTECTION
AND REMOVALS.

10. REFERENCE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DEMOLITION AND
INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION LINES.

11. SHOULD ANY EXISTING UTILITY NOT SHOWN HEREON BE

ENCOUNTERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE

OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OF SUCH
UTILITY.

12. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE A 3RD PARTY UNDERGROUND

LOCATION SERVICE TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF

ALL ELECTRICAL, WATER, SEWER, AND IRRIGATION
LINES.

GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES
CURB 2
CURB 2
CURB 2
CURB 2
AC 3
AC 3
5 SWALE
5 5 SWALE
8 FENCE
8 FENCE
25 LIGHT
25 LIGHT
22STAIRS
27 SIGN19
28 MOW
20 MOW & DG WALK
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
SD 9
TREE14
IRRIGATION12
CURB & GUTTER 2
LIGHT & PB 25
IRRIGATION12
TREE14
SIDEWALK 10
TREE18
19 SIGN
IRRIGATION12
12 IRRIGATION
2 CURB & GUTTER
SIGN19
FENCE 8
10 SIDEWALK
CURB 2
CURB 2
CURB 2
CURB 2
CURB 2
23PED BRIDGE
SIGN16
RWV 12
CURB 2
LIGHT 25
SIDEWALK 10
TREE18
IRRIGATION12
4 CURB & GUTTER
3 AC
AC 3
CURB 2
33 30
14 TREE
IRRIGATION12
4 CURB & GUTTER
SIGN19
TREE14
WV & METER 21
MOW CURB 28
10 SIDEWALK
MOW & DG 20
GATE & POST 1
TREE18
18 TREE
10 CONC D/W
2 CURB & GUTTER
10 CONC S/W
24 24DIRT
C1.2
SIDEWALK 10
25 LIGHT FH 26
12 CURB 2 CURB 2 CURB 2
CURB 2
CURB 2 CURB 2 CURB 2
LIGHT 25
LIGHT 25
LIGHT 25
27 17
SEWER 7
SEWER 7
SMH 6
SMH 6
28 TREE18
25 LIGHT
2 CURB
TRASH15 10
2 CURB
TREE18
SIGN19
2 CURB
25 LIGHT
25 LIGHT
30 TREE18
BFP13
TREE14
19 SIGN
LIGHT 25
25 LIGHT
29 29
30 31
30 MAILBOX 31
32 PLANTERS 32 PLANTERS 32
PLANTERS 32
PLANTERS 32
PLANTERS 32
PLANTERS 32
PLANTERS 32 PLANTERS 32
33 33
BEGIN33
END 33

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026

WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK
12 15
5 13
13 6
1 2
2 9
1 1
1 5
13 13
14 9
7 13
6 7
7 3
3 19
5 6
6 5
6 5
1 1
1 2
2 2
7 21
23 23
5 6
1 1
1 1
25 14
14 14
14 DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 NORTH 1" = 20'

GRADING AND PAVING PLAN
LEGEND

GRADING NOTES

GENERAL GRADING NOTES

CURB RAMP

CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER/RIBBON GUTTER

CATCH BASIN

CLEANOUT

SLOPE ARROW

NEW CONTOUR

NEW SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR (PER AERIAL SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

EXISTING ELEVATION (PER FIELD SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.1')

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (PER AERIAL
SURVEY, ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

NEW CONTOUR LINE

DAYLIGHT LINE

SAWCUT LINE

RIDGE LINE

GRADE BREAK

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

LIMITS OF WORK

CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVEMENT

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK
X%
500
x 505.50
000.00
500.0

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT IN PLACE OR ADJUST

WHERE NECESSARY ALL EXISTING UTILITY LINES,

WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS,

THAT LAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE NEW

CONSTRUCTION, AND ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MARKED
TO BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED.

2. FINAL MANHOLE, VALVE BOXES AND VAULTS RIM

ELEVATIONS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET FINAL
GRADES.

3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT

ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROJECT PRIOR TO THE

START OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER
OF RECORD OF ANY FOUND CONFLICTS. CONTRACTOR
SHALL USE A 3RD PARTY UNDERGROUND UTILITY

SERVICE TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ALL
ELECTRICAL, WATER, SEWER, AND IRRIGATION LINES.

4. THE LOCATION AND PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES IS
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

5. JOIN ELEVATIONS SHOW APPROXIMATE. NEW CONCRETE
JOINS SHALL MATCH EXISTING ELEVATIONS.

6. BUILDING PAD PREPARATION REFERENCE SHEET S0.01
FOR SOIL (GROUND) IMPROVEMENTS AND SHEET S3.02

FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIRED EXCAVATION AND CERTIFIED
FILL BENEATH BUILDING.
500
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB PER SDRSD G-01 6" CURB
FACE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER SDRSD
G-02 6" CURB FACE,TYPE H
CONSTRUCT TYPE A CURB RAMP PER SDRSD G-27.

CONSTRUCT CROSS GUTTER PER SDRSD G-12 WIDTH PER
PLANS.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER DETAIL 4 SHEET
C1.10.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVEMENT PER
DETAIL 3 SHEET C1.10.

CONSTRUCT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER DETAIL
2 SHEET C1.10.

CONSTRUCT FENCE PER LANDSCAPE PLAN.

CONSTRUCT CURB CUT WITH RIP RAP APRON PER DETAIL
2 SHEET C1.11.

NOT USED

CONSTRUCT CURBSIDE GRATED CATCH BASIN PER
SPPWC STD 303-4 (SINGLE GRATE, V=2.77', t=6") WITH CASE

F LOCAL DEPRESSION AT CATCH BASIN PER SPPWC STD
313-4.

CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCHITECT PLAN.

CONSTRUCT SEAT WALL PER LANDSCAPE PLAN.

CONSTRUCT BIOFILTRATION BASIN PER DETAIL 1 SHEET
C1.11.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO REMAIN.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY (ALLEY TYPE) PER
SDRSD G-14E.

CONSTRUCT 8" CURB WITH SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER
SDRSD D-27.

CONSTRUCT 12" CURB CUT PER DETAIL 2 ON SHEET 1
SHEET C1.11.

CONSTRUCT TYPE A 6" ROLLED CURB ALONG CONCRETE
PAVEMENT ACCESS PER SDRSD G-4A WITH 5'-LONG CURB
TRANSITION ON EACH END PER SDRSD G-04B.

INSTALL DEMOUNTABLE POST PER SDRSD M-16.

CONSTRUCT TYPE D-3 CURB RAMP PER SRDSD G-31.

CONSTRUCT TYPE D-2 CURB PAMP PER SDRSD G-31.

CONSTRUCT COBBLE ENERGY DISSIPATION PER DETAIL 4
ON SHEET C1.11.

CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER DETAIL 5 ON
SHEET C1.11.

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. SEE MEP PLANS FOR
EQUIPMENT AND PAD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.
740
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 SPECIAL GEOTECHNICAL NOTES

1. GROUND IMPROVEMENT SPECIALTY CONTRACTOR

SHALL SUBMIT PLANS AND DESIGN CALCULATIONS
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR APPROVAL. THE PLANS

SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

OR RECORD FOR CONCURRENCE THAT THEY MEET THE

DESIGN INTENT NOTED IN THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT. THE GROUND IMPROVEMENT DESIGN PACKAGE

SHALL INCLUDE QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES TO

CONFIRM THE DESIGN BEARING CAPACITY AND
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL MEET THE DESIGN INTENT.

THE QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES SHALL INCLUDE

AN INDICATOR MODULUS TEST (MT) PROGRAM AND A

GROUND IMPROVEMENT TEST SECTION TO INDICATE

PRE- AND POST- IMPROVEMENT BORINGS AND/OR CPTS

ALONG WITH LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS TO INDICATE

THAT THE POST-GROUND IMPROVEMENT MEETS THE
DESIGN INTENT.

2. ALL GRADING WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT

SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, PROJECT NUMBER
IR786, BY GROUP DELTA, DATED JUNE 15, 2022.

C1.3
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C1.4

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 2
1 1
1 21
5 5
5 6
5 7
7 7
5 16
14 5
18 14
14 1
2 2
2 2
18 3
5 3
12 19
21 22
21 1
2 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 24
1 1
1 DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 PARKING LOT GRADING AND PAVING PLAN
LEGEND

GRADING NOTES

GENERAL GRADING NOTES

CURB RAMP

CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER/RIBBON GUTTER

CATCH BASIN

CLEANOUT

SLOPE ARROW

NEW CONTOUR

NEW SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR (PER AERIAL SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

EXISTING ELEVATION (PER FIELD SURVEY,
ACCURACY OF ± 0.1')

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION (PER AERIAL
SURVEY, ACCURACY OF ± 0.5')

NEW CONTOUR LINE

DAYLIGHT LINE

SAWCUT LINE

RIDGE LINE

GRADE BREAK

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

LIMITS OF WORK

CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVEMENT

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK
X%
500
x 505.50
000.00
500.0

1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT IN PLACE OR ADJUST

WHERE NECESSARY ALL EXISTING UTILITY LINES,

WHETHER SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS,

THAT LAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE NEW

CONSTRUCTION, AND ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MARKED
TO BE REMOVED OR ABANDONED.

2. FINAL MANHOLE, VALVE BOXES AND VAULTS RIM

ELEVATIONS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO MEET FINAL
GRADES.

3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT

ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROJECT PRIOR TO THE

START OF CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEER
OF RECORD OF ANY FOUND CONFLICTS. CONTRACTOR
SHALL USE A 3RD PARTY UNDERGROUND UTILITY

SERVICE TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ALL
ELECTRICAL, WATER, SEWER, AND IRRIGATION LINES.

4. THE LOCATION AND PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES IS
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

5. JOIN ELEVATIONS SHOW APPROXIMATE. NEW CONCRETE
JOINS SHALL MATCH EXISTING ELEVATIONS.

6. BUILDING PAD PREPARATION REFERENCE SHEET S0.01
FOR SOIL (GROUND) IMPROVEMENTS AND SHEET S3.02

FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIRED EXCAVATION AND CERTIFIED
FILL BENEATH BUILDING.
500
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB PER SDRSD G-01 6" CURB
FACE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER PER SDRSD
G-02 6" CURB FACE,TYPE H
CONSTRUCT TYPE A CURB RAMP PER SDRSD G-27.

CONSTRUCT CROSS GUTTER PER SDRSD G-12 WIDTH PER
PLANS.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER DETAIL 4 SHEET
C1.10.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVEMENT PER
DETAIL 3 SHEET C1.10.

CONSTRUCT ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER DETAIL
2 SHEET C1.10.

CONSTRUCT FENCE PER LANDSCAPE PLAN.

CONSTRUCT CURB CUT WITH RIP RAP APRON PER DETAIL
2 SHEET C1.11.

NOT USED

CONSTRUCT CURBSIDE GRATED CATCH BASIN PER
SPPWC STD 303-4 (SINGLE GRATE, V=2.77', t=6") WITH CASE

F LOCAL DEPRESSION AT CATCH BASIN PER SPPWC STD
313-4.

CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE PER ARCHITECT PLAN.

CONSTRUCT SEAT WALL PER LANDSCAPE PLAN.

CONSTRUCT BIOFILTRATION BASIN PER DETAIL 1 SHEET
C1.11.

EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO REMAIN.

CONSTRUCT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY (ALLEY TYPE) PER
SDRSD G-14E.

CONSTRUCT 8" CURB WITH SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER
SDRSD D-27.

CONSTRUCT 12" CURB CUT PER DETAIL 2 ON SHEET 1
SHEET C1.11.

CONSTRUCT TYPE A 6" ROLLED CURB ALONG CONCRETE
PAVEMENT ACCESS PER SDRSD G-4A WITH 5'-LONG CURB
TRANSITION ON EACH END PER SDRSD G-04B.

INSTALL DEMOUNTABLE POST PER SDRSD M-16.

CONSTRUCT TYPE D-3 CURB RAMP PER SRDSD G-31.

CONSTRUCT TYPE D-2 CURB PAMP PER SDRSD G-31.

CONSTRUCT COBBLE ENERGY DISSIPATION PER DETAIL 4
ON SHEET C1.11.

CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER DETAIL 5 ON
SHEET C1.11.

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. SEE MEP PLANS FOR
EQUIPMENT AND PAD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.
740
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 SPECIAL GEOTECHNICAL NOTES

1. GROUND IMPROVEMENT SPECIALTY CONTRACTOR

SHALL SUBMIT PLANS AND DESIGN CALCULATIONS
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR APPROVAL. THE PLANS

SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

OR RECORD FOR CONCURRENCE THAT THEY MEET THE

DESIGN INTENT NOTED IN THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL
REPORT. THE GROUND IMPROVEMENT DESIGN PACKAGE

SHALL INCLUDE QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES TO

CONFIRM THE DESIGN BEARING CAPACITY AND
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL MEET THE DESIGN INTENT.

THE QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES SHALL INCLUDE

AN INDICATOR MODULUS TEST (MT) PROGRAM AND A

GROUND IMPROVEMENT TEST SECTION TO INDICATE

PRE- AND POST- IMPROVEMENT BORINGS AND/OR CPTS

ALONG WITH LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS TO INDICATE

THAT THE POST-GROUND IMPROVEMENT MEETS THE
DESIGN INTENT.

2. ALL GRADING WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT

SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, PROJECT NUMBER
IR786, BY GROUP DELTA, DATED JUNE 15, 2022.

C1.4
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C1.3 NORTH 1" = 20'

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK 12.0' 5.0' 9.0'

38.5' 18.0' 18.0' 9.0'26.0' 18.0' 18.0' 25.0' 9.0'18.0' 26.0' 18.0' 9.0' 9.0' 28.5'18.0' 9.0' (TYP) (TYP) (TYP)
(TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP) (TYP)

18.0' 3.0' 8.0' (TYP)
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88
20' 0' 20' 40' 60'

GRAPHIC SCALE
1 INCH = 20 FEET NORTH 1" = 20'

HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
811
LEGEND

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

SAWCUT LINE

PROPERTY LINE

LIMITS OF WORK

LANDSCAPE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS

CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVEMENT

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK
C1.5
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C1.6

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
6 9.0'
(TYP) 18.0' (TYP) 24.0' (TYP) 18.0' (TYP) 18.0' (TYP) 24.0' 18.0' (TYP) 18.0' (TYP) 24.0' 18.0'

9.0'
(TYP)

9.0'
(TYP) (TYP)
(TYP)

24.0' (TYP) 10.0' (TYP) 5.0' (TYP)

9.0' (TYP) (TYP)

12.0' 9.0' 5.0'
(TYP)

5.0'

24.0'

RIVERWALK DRIVE
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 NORTH 1" = 20'

PARKING LOT HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
LEGEND

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER

SAWCUT LINE

PROPERTY LINE

LIMITS OF WORK

LANDSCAPE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS

CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVEMENT

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK
C1.6
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C1.5

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
811
C1.7
SHEET C1.5 POINT TABLES
SHEET C1.6 POINT TABLES

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026

RIVERWALK DRIVE PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
R/W

C/L R/W R/W C/L
WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK ADA STALLS PER NOTE 2
ADA STALLS PER NOTE 2
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 NORTH 1" = 20'

TRAFFIC SIGNAGE AND STRIPING PLAN
LEGEND

STRIPING NOTES

SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES

CONCRETE CURB

CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
25 FT FIRE ACCESS

PROPERTY LINE

LIMITS OF WORK

LANDSCAPE PER LANDSCAPE PLANS

CONCRETE VEHICULAR PAVEMENT

AC PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

SAWCUT LINE

PAINTED STRIPE PER CONSTRUCTION NOTE

SIGN PER CONSTRUCTION NOTE

PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK

1. ALL STRIPING, MARKINGS AND LEGENDS SHALL BE

REFLECTORIZED THERMOPLASTIC UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED.

2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL SHEET A1.22 FOR ACCESSIBLE

PARKING STRIPING, SIGNAGE, TRUNCATED DOMES, AND

WHEEL STOPS

3. SIGNS TO BE INSTALLED ON BREAK-AWAY SIGN POSTS
PER SDRSD M-45.

PAINT TYPE 1 PAVEMENT ARROW PER CALTRANS STD
PLAN A24A.

PAINT 12" WHITE STOP LINE PER 2018 CALTRANS STD
PLAN A24E.

PAINT 10' WIDE YELLOW CROSS WALK CENTER ON RAMPS
PER 2018 CALTRANS STD PLAN A24F.

PAINT 4" WHITE STRIPE.

INSTALL STOP SIGN & POST.

PAINT 8' TALL "STOP" PAVEMENT MARKING PER CALTRANS
STD PLAN A24E.

INSTALL TOW AWAY SIGN, REFER TO DETAIL 5/A10.01

INSTALL FIRE LANE NO PARKING SIGN, REFER TO DETAIL
15/A10.01
INSTALL "ONE WAY" SIGN & POST.

CALIFORNIA MUTCD R6-1.

PAINT TYPE 4 PAVEMENT ARROW PER CALTRANS STD
PLAN A24A.

PAINT TYPE 7 PAVEMENT ARROW PER CALTRANS STD
PLAN A24A.

PAINT 12" WHITE "NO PARKING" PER CALTRANS STD PLAN
A24E
PAINT TOP AND FACE OF CURB RED FOR NO PARKING.
= PAINT TOP & FACE OF CURB RED FOR NO PARKING.
= PAINT TOP & FACE OF CURB BLUE AT ADA STALLS.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 NOTE:

CRACK SEAL, SEALCOAT, AND RESTRIPE EXISTING

PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY STRIPING TO MATCH
EXISTING.

C1.8
5 13
6 2
12 4 (TYP)
3 3
5 6 (TYP)
(TYP) 2
(TYP) 6 5
(TYP) 2
13 13
13 7 8
7 8
1 (TYP)
1 (TYP)
1 (TYP)
1 (TYP)
13 BEGIN
8 8
9 8
4 70 LF
10 11
6 2
4 (TYP)
7 8
7 7
13 END
13 7

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026

RIVERWALK DRIVE

PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
R/W
C/L
R/W
R/W
C/L

WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK
2 2
16 16
16 6
1 10
11 10
14 14
1 10
1 19
8 4
18 24
23 22
22 30
7 7
7 14
14 25
26 26
26 17
14 13
13 9
13 7
5 14
25 29 29
4 23
24 4
18 25
15 25
25 17
25 17
25 32 26
26 15
15 26
15 15
17 17
5 3
31 32
28 15
33 15
6 13 20
21 2
26 25
17 17
25 26
15 15
32 28
28 31
15 32
5 7
17 25
5 17
32 5
5 5
8 29
17 17
34 22
13 32
3 2
3 9
1 DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED

PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 NORTH 1" = 40'

CIVIL UTILITY PLAN
LEGEND

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
NOTES
CONSTRUCT 4" PVC (SDR 35) SEWER LINE, SLOPE PER
PLAN. PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH PER WAS SP-02.

CONSTRUCT 6" PVC (SDR 35) SEWER LINE, SLOPE PER
PLAN. PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH PER WAS SP-02.

CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT PER WAS
SC-01, TYPE A WITH SCREW CAP
CONSTRUCT 2.5" COPPER WATER LINE, PIPE BEDDING
AND TRENCH PER WAS WP-02
CONSTRUCT HDPE STORM DRAIN LINE, SIZE, LENGTH, AND SLOPE PER PLAN. PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH PER DETAIL SDRSD D-60
CONNECT TO EXISTING UTILITY. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD

VERIFY LOCATION, DEPTH, SIZE AND CONDITION PRIOR

TO CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCT 4" PVC STORM DRAIN LINE, LENGTH AND
SLOPE PER PLAN. STUB OUT FOR CONNECTION TO BULD
DRAIN PER DETAIL SEE STRUCTURAL/PLUMBING PLANS. PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH PER DETAIL SDRSD D-60.

CONSTRUCT GATE VALVE PER WAS WV-02
CONSTRUCT 24"X24" CATCH BASIN, PER DETAIL 5 SHEET
C1.10. INCLUDE FLOGARD CATCH BASIN INSERT FILTER
BY OLD CASTLE (MODEL NO. FGP-24F8)
FOR TRASH CAPTURE OR EQUAL. SEE DETAIL 6, SHEET C1.11. INCLUDE STORM DRAIN SIGNAGE PER CASQA SD-13. SEE EXAMPLE DETAIL 7, SHEET C1.11

REFER TO PLUMBING SITE PLAN FOR CONNECTION, LOCATION AND ELEVATION

REFER TO FIRE PLANS FOR CONNECTION, LOCATION AND

ELEVATION

INSTALL AND FURNISH (AS NOTED)
CONSTRUCT THRUST BLOCK, CLASS 350 RATED WORKING PRESSURE, PER AWWA C110 WITH RESTRAINED JOINTS (U.N.O). SIZE PER ADJOINING PIPE, ANGLE PER PLAN. SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET C1.11 CONSTRUCT BIOFILTRATION BASIN PER DETAIL 1 SHEET
C1.11
CONSTRUCT 12" PVC STORM DRAIN. PIPE BEDDING AND
TRENCH PER DETAIL SDRSD D-60.

CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PER WAS SM-01
CONSTRUCT STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT PER WAS SC-01, TYPE A WITH SCREW CAP CONSTRUCT 6" FIRE WATER SERVICE PER WAS WF-05
CONSTRUCT NEW FIRE HYDRANT PER WAS WF-02
INSTALL FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION SEE DETAIL 7
ON SHEET C1.10
CONSTRUCT POST INDICATOR VALVE SEE DETAIL 7 ON
SHEET C1.10

CONNECTION TO PADRE DAM MAIN TO BE PERFORMED
BY THE DISTRICT AT THE OWNERS EXPENSE.

CONSTRUCT 2-INCH DOMESTIC WATER BACKFLOW
PREVENTOR ASSEMBLY PER WAS WR-01, WITH

STAINLESS STEEL PROTECTION CAGE AND FOUNDATION
PDMWD TO INSTALL INSTALL 2" DOMESTIC WATER
SERVICE PER WAS WS-02

CONSTRUCT UNDERDRAIN AS REQUIRED BY BIO
RETENTION BASIN DETAIL 1 SHEET C1.11
CONSTRUCT BROOKS 24"X24" CATCH BASIN WITH
GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE, OR APPROVED EQUAL.

INSTALL 3
4 " ORIFICE AT AN ELEVATION 3" ABOVE THE
BASIN FINISH FLOOR. INCLUDE FLOGARD CATCH BASIN
INSERT FILTER BY OLD CASTLE (MODEL NO. FGP-24F8)
FOR TRASH CAPTURE OR EQUAL. SEE DETAIL 6, SHEET
C1.11
CONSTRUCT 6" PVC STORM DRAIN LINE
CONSTRUCT 8" PVC STORM DRAIN LINE
CONSTRUCT C900 PVC FIRE WATER LINE. PIPE BEDDING
AND TRENCH PER WAS WP-02
CONSTRUCT 6-INCH REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE
DETECTOR ASSEMBLY PER WAS WR-02, PRIMED AND
PAINTED RED WITH 5
16 " STAINLESS STEEL CHAIN FOR

LOCKING HANDLES

CONSTRUCT CURBSIDE GRATING CATCH BASIN, SEE
GRADING PLAN. INCLUDE FLOGARD CATCH BASIN INSERT
FILTER BY OLD CASTLE (MODEL NO. FGP-24F8)
FOR TRASH CAPTURE OR EQUAL. SEE DETAIL 6, SHEET
C1.11. INCLUDE STORM DRAIN SIGNAGE PER CASQA
SD-13. SEE EXAMPLE DETAIL 7, SHEET C1.11
HEADWALL PER DETAIL 6 SHEET C1.10.

DEEPEN STRUCTURE TO CONFORM INVERT PER PLAN

CONSTRUCT STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER SPPWC STD
PLAN 321-2. SEE DETAIL 8, SHEET C1.10

SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN

FIRE WATER SERVICE & BACKFLOW

DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE,

BACKFLOW, & METER

SEWER LINE

SEWER MANHOLE

STORM DRAIN

UNDERDRAIN PIPE

CATCH BASIN

FIRE HYDRANT

CHAIN LINK FENCE/GATE

LIMITS OF WORK

PROPERTY LINE

1. MAINTAIN 10' CLEARANCE BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND SANITARY SEWER PIPES OUTSIDE DIAMETERS.

2. DEPTH OF COVER BASED ON FINISHED SURFACE.

3. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS, SIZES, AND DEPTHS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

4. PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC RATED RIMS AND COVERS FOR

RELOCATED OR ADJUSTED UTILITY STRUCTURES

5. NEW UTILITY STRUCTURES AND MANHOLES SHALL HOUSE TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN RATED COVERS.

6. REFERENCE MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION PLANS

FOR DEMOLITION AND INSTALLATION OF M, E, & T UTILITIES AND STRUCTURE.

7. REFERENCE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DEMOLITION AND INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION LINES.

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS DESCRIBED IN
GENERAL NOTE 4 ON SHEET C1.0. CONTRACTOR
TO USE 3RD PARTY PRIVATE UNDERGROUND
UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
C1.9
29 30
31 32
33 34

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 CIVIL DETAILS
N.T.S.
12" SUBGRADE
6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REINFORCED WITH NO.4 REBARS
SPACED 18" ON CENTER EACH WAY
6" AGGREGATE BASE
N.T.S.
12" SUBGRADE
4" CONCRETE PAVEMENT WITH 6" x 6"
W2.9/2.9 WELDED WIRE FABRIC
6" AGGREGATE BASE
N.T.S.

C1.10

STANDARD WYE OR REDUCING WYE
2" 6" (TYP)
FLOW LINE ELEV. (FL)

PER PLAN

COMPACT UPPER
12" OF SUBGRADE 95% (TYP)
TYPE PER PLAN.

PIPE SIZE AND

CONCRETE BASE
(560-C-3250) (TYP)
8" PVC RISER

PRE-CAST CONCRETE CATCH

BASIN W/ HOT DIPPED

GALVANIZED STEEL TRAFFIC
RATED GRATE AND FRAME.
6" (TYP) GRATE SHALL BE BOLTED DOWN.

N.T.S.

TO BLDG. 42" MIN. 40"
NTS
NTS 40"

CHECK VALVE, SIZE TO MATCH
FDC STAND PIPE - PROVIDE 8"
DIA. SDR PVC RISER PIPE &
CHRISTY G3 VALVE BOX W/
"FDC CHECK VALVE" WELDED
ON LID

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC),

ELL & STAND PIPE, SIZE PER

MANUFACTURER, LOCATION PER PLAN
(SEE NOTES 1 & 2 )
FDC-30 DEGREE 5" STORZ

CONNECTION W/ CAP
(SEE NOTES 2, 3 & 4)

FINISH GRADE

POST INDICATOR VALVE (PIV)

PROVIDE RELAY & WIRING TO

FIRE ALARM ANNUNCIATOR

PANEL AS REQUIRED BY FIRE

MARSHAL, LOCATION PER PLAN

SUPPLY LINE
(SEE NOTE 4)
FLOW
PLACE 1 CU. FT

DRAIN ROCK
1/2" BRASS BALL DRIP VALVE
W/ 90 DEGREE BRASS FITTING &
1/2"Ø BRASS NIPPLE @ 4"LONG
1/2" BRASS BALL DRIP VALVE
W/ 90 DEGREE BRASS FITTING
& 4" LONG BRASS PIPE
P.I.V.

FLOW

TO BLDG

1. FIRE MARSHAL SHALL SPECIFY LOCATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC). CLEARANCE AROUND FDC SHALL BE 3 FEET RIGHT, LEFT, REAR, AND 20 FEET IN FRONT.

2. A METAL SIGN WITH RAISED LETTERS AT LEAST 1 INCH IN SIZE SHALL BE

MOUNTED ON ALL FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS SERVICING AUTO SPRINKLERS, STANDPIPES OR FIRE PUMPS. SUCH SIGNS SHALL READ "AUTO SPRINKLER", "STANDPIPE", OR "TEST CONNECTION" AS
APPLICABLE. WHERE THE FDC DOES NOT SERVE THE ENTIRE BUILDING A

SIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED INDICATING THE PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING TO BE SERVED.

3. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES ARE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CUSTOMER.

4. ASSEMBLIES AND PIPING ON FIRE LINES SHALL BE FM/UL AND CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE NFPA. THRUST BLOCKING AND/OR MECHANICAL RESTRAINTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS NECESSARY.

5. STANDPIPE MATERIALS AND DEVICES MUST BE OF SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO WITHSTAND A MINIMUM OF 200 PSI.

6. ALL FERROUS MATERIAL PRODUCTS THAT WILL INTERACT WITH THE

SOIL WHEN INSTALLED SHALL BE PROPERLY COATED FOR CORROSION PROTECTION PER GEOTECH REPORT.
30°
CHRISTY G3 BOX & LID
W/ 10" SDR35 RISER PIPE
3" CLEAR (MIN)

1.5" CLEAR (MIN) 1.5" CLEAR

1. OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT 1-FT BELOW PAVEMENT SECTION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

1. AC STRUCTURAL SECTIONS ARE FOR ESTIMATING

PURPOSES ONLY AND SHALL BE BASED ON

SUBGRADE TESTS BY THE GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BASE
MATERIAL.

2. OVER EXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT 1-FT BELOW
PAVEMENT SECTION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED

PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 CIVIL DETAILS
A
6" MIN. TO 12" MAX.

SURFACE PONDING

CLEANOUT WITH COUNTERSUNK PLUG CAP,
RIM ELEVATION TO HAVE 6" FREEBOARD ABOVE

MAX WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
18" MEDIA WITH MIN
5 IN/HR FILTRATION RATE
EXCAVATED SLOPE (1H:1V)
6" MIN DIAMETER UNDERDRAIN. INSTALL 2"

DIAMETER ORIFICE OUTLET CONTROL LOCATED

DOWNSTREAM OF THE UNDERDRAIN

EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS
INFILTRATION STORAGE (MIN 3"

AGGREGATE BELOW UNDERDRAIN)

OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
BROOKS 24"X24" PRECAST GRATED CATCH BASIN WITH
GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE, OR APPROVED EQUAL.

INSTALL 3
4 " ORIFICE AT AN ELEVATION 3" ABOVE THE
BASIN FINISH FLOOR. INCLUDE FLOGARD CATCH BASIN
INSERT FILTER BY OLD CASTLE (MODEL NO. FGP-24F8)
FOR TRASH CAPTURE, OR EQUAL. SEE DETAIL 6

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED)

CURB CUT
4-6" DROP FROM CURB CUT TO APRON

APRON FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION
30 MIL HDPEIMPERMEABLE LINER
6" MIN FILTER COURSE

WASHED PEA GRAVEL
CURB

CURB CUT

VEGETATED

SIDE SLOPE

MEDIA SURFACE
AREA

MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
(AS NEEDED)
A
PLAN

CLEANOUT
3H:1V
(MAX)
3H:1V
(MAX)
2% MAX
FINISH
GRADE

OVERFLOW

STRUCTURE

UNDERDRAIN

APRON FOR
ENERGY

DISSIPATION
BIOFILTRATION PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION:

1. PREVENT OVER-COMPACTION OF NATIVE SOILS IN AREAS OF THE BASIN WHERE INFILTRATION WILL OCCUR.

DELINEATE THE BIOFILTRATION AREA AND KEEP CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OFF. PROTECT SOILS WITH FENCING, PLYWOOD, ETC.

2. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL IN THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS OF THE DESIGNATED BIOFILTRATION AREA.

STABILIZE UPSLOPE AREAS.

3. DRAINAGE SHOULD BE DIRECTED AWAY FROM BIORETENTION FACILITIES UNTIL UPSLOPE AREAS ARE STABILIZED.

THE CONCENTRATION OF FINES COULD PREVENT POST-CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION AND CAUSE DESIGN FAILURE.

5. BIORETENTION FACILITIES SHOULD REMAIN OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO PREVENT SOIL COMPACTION BY HEAVY EQUIPMENT. PROTECT BIORETENTION AREAS WITH SILT FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION FENCING.

6. VERIFY INSTALLATION OF UNDERDRAIN IS CORRECT PRIOR TO PLACING SOIL.

N.T.S.

PER SDRSD G-02

REFER TO GRADING SHEETS FOR
SPOT ELEVATIONS.

N.T.S.

C1.11
12" CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE

MATERIAL (AGGREGATE)

HDPE STORM
DRAIN
N.T.S.

PLACE 6" DEEP, 2' WIDE,
3"-6'" ROUNDED, WASHED,

COBBLE AT PIPE OUTLET
(3:1 MAX SLOPE)

BOTTOM OF BIO

RETENTION BASIN
2:1 MAX

VEGETATED
SLOPE
4" PVC STORM

PIPE PER
PLAN

SEE BIO RETENTION BASIN

DETAIL FOR BASIN

MATERIALS

LENGTH PER PLAN
NOTES:

1. CONCRETE SHALL BE 500-C-3250.

2. SLOPE OF DRAINAGE CHANNEL TO BE SLOPED TOWARDS BIORETENTION BASIN. SLOPES OF FINISHED SIDEWALK PER PLAN.

3. SIDEWALK FINISH TO MATCH ADJACENT SIDEWALK.

4. PROVIDE 1
4 " TOOLED GROOVE IN TOP SLABE IN LINE WITH BACK OF ADJACENT CURB.

5. THIS DETAIL IS A MODIFICATION OF SDRSD D-25A.

BOTTOM OF

BIORETENTION BASIN

EDGE OF

SIDEWALK
3H:1V
(MAX)
PLACE 6" DEEP, 4' WIDE, 3"-6'"

ROUNDED, WASHED, COBBLE

AT UNDERDRAIN OUTLET
(3:1 MAX SLOPE)

BOTTOM OF BIO

RETENTION BASIN

SEE BIO RETENTION BASIN

DETAIL FOR BASIN

MATERIALS
PER SDRSD G-02

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026

RIVERWALK DRIVE PARK CENTER DRIVE
R/W
R/W

C/L R/W R/W C/L

WOODGLEN VISTA CREEK
DRAWING NO.

SHEET X OF X

CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

SCALE
HORIZ: AS SHOW
VERT: AS SHOW

REVISIONS ACPTD BENCH MARK
RCE NO. EXPIRES

CONSTRUCTION RECORD REFERENCES DATE BY

CONTRACTOR

INSPECTOR

DATE COMPLETED

REVIEWED
PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS - SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER, CIP 2018-31 BY

PROJECT ENGINEER XXXXX
CITY W.O. NO.

SKC
CIP 2018-31

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986
DATUM: NAVD88 NORTH 1" = 40'

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
LEGEND
INSTALL CONTINUOUS SILT FENCE PER CALTRANS CONSTRUCTION SITE BMP MANUAL (2017) SC-1

INSTALL CONTINUOUS GRAVEL BAG CHECK DAM ON TOP OF EXISTING PAVEMENT (NO GAPS) (SE-6)

INSTALL GRAVEL BAG INLET PROTECTION AT ALL INLETS EXPOSED TO CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF PER DETAIL THIS SHEET. (SE-10)

LIMITS OF WORK
INSTALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING. MAINTAIN 4' MINIMUM WALKWAY CLEARANCE WHERE FENCE IS INSTALLED ON SIDEWALK. AREAS OF SOIL DISTURBANCE TO BE LIMITED TO WITHIN THE PROPOSED FENCE LINE.

PROPOSED CONTOUR

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION

EXISTING TREE

FLOW ARROW
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER CALTRANS C9ONSTRUCTION SITE BMP MANUAL (2017) (TC-1) PROPOSED DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA). SEE PROPOSED DMA EXHIBIT FOR MORE DETAIL.

1. REFER TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK FOR THE BMP OUTLINED ON THIS PLAN.

2. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION ON ALL EXISTING INLETS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.

3. SAMPLING LOCATIONS SHOWN MAY BE MODIFIED IN THE FIELD DURING STORM EVENTS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE QSP.

4. THE LOCATION AND PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

GENERAL NOTES

INSTALL GRAVEL BAG PROTECTION

AROUND EXISTING CATCH BASIN
(1 BAG HIGH)

SAMPLING

LOCATION

EROSION CONTROL
EC1 SCHEDULING
EC2 PRESERVATION OF EXISTING VEGETATION

TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL
SE6 GRAVEL BAG BERM
SE7 STREET SWEEPING
SE8 SANDBAG BARRIER
SE10 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION

WIND EROSION CONTROL
WE1 WIND EROSION CONTROL

NON-STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
NS1 WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES
NS3 PAVING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS
NS6 ILLICIT CONNECTION/DISCHARGE
NS7 POTABLE WATER/IRRIGATION
NS8 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING
NS9 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FUELING
NS10 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
NS15 DEMOLITION ADJACENT TO WATER

WASTE MANAGEMENT & MATERIAL POLLUTION CONTROL
WM1 MATERIAL DELIVERY AND STORAGE
WM2 MATERIAL USE
WM3 STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT
WM4 SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
WM5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
WM9 SANITARY/SEPTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT
WM10 LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT

EQUIPMENT TRACKING CONTROL
TC1 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:

1. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO ELIMINATE THE DISCHARGE OF NON-STORMWATER FROM THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL TIMES.

2. ERODED SEDIMENTS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS MUST BE RETAINED ON-SITE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE SITE VIA SHEET FLOW, SWALES, AREA DRAINS, NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES OR WIND.

3. STOCKPILES OF EARTH AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED MATERIALS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM BEING TRANSPORTED FROM THE SITE BY THE FORCES OF WIND OR WATER.

4. FUELS, OILS, SOLVENTS, AND OTHER TOXIC MATERIALS MUST BE STORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR LISTING AND ARE NOT TO CONTAMINATE THE SOIL AND SURFACE WATERS. ALL APPROVED STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE WEATHER. SPILLS MUST BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY AND DISPOSED OF IN A PROPER MANNER. SPILLS MAY NOT BE WASHED INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

5. EXCESS OR WASTE CONCRETE MAY NOT BE WASHED INTO THE PUBLIC WAY OR ANY OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE TO RETAIN CONCRETE WASTES ON-SITE UNTIL THEY CAN BE DISPOSED OF AS SOLID WASTE.

6. TRASH AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED SOLID WASTES MUST BE DEPOSITED INTO A COVERED RECEPTACLE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF RAINWATER AND DISPERSAL BY WIND.

7. SEDIMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS MAY NOT BE TRACKED FROM THE SITE BY VEHICLE TRAFFIC. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ROADWAYS MUST BE STABILIZED SO AS TO INHIBIT SEDIMENTS FROM BEING DEPOSITED INTO THE PUBLIC WAY. ACCIDENTAL DEPOSITIONS MUST BE SWEPT UP IMMEDIATELY AND MAY NOT BE WASHED DOWN BY RAIN OR OTHER MEANS.

8. THESE FOLLOWING BMPS AS OUTLINED IN, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CASQA CONSTRUCTION BMP ONLINE HANDBOOK OR CALTRANS

STORM WATER QUALITY HANDBOOKS (CONSTRUCTION SITE BMP MANUAL) MAY APPLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT AND APPLY TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT SITE.

GRAVEL BAGS

OVERLAP ONTO CURB
3 FT (0.9 M) MIN.

THREE LAYERS OF

GRAVEL BAGS WITH ENDS

OVERLAPPED

GAP BETWEEN BAGS

ACTS AS SPILLWAY
RUNOFF
3 FT (0.9 M) MIN.

ONE LAYER OF GRAVEL

BAGS WITH ENDS

OVERLAPPED
RUNOFF

SAMPLING

LOCATION
C1.12

ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION

FENCE TO BE OPENED UPON
REQUEST. ACCESS MUST BE

MAINTAINED THROUGH

CONSTRUCTION FOR POOL

MAINTENANCE AND FIRE
ACCESS.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO

YMCA FACILITIES SHALL

BE MAINTAINED

THROUGHOUT
CONSTRUCTION.

CITY OF SANTEE STORMWATER-SPECIFIC BMP NOTES:

THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF SANTEE AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, SAN DIEGO REGION

1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION.

2. SUFFICIENT BMPs MUST BE INSTALLED TO PREVENT SILT, MUD, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FROM BEING TRACKED INTO THE ADJACENT STREET(S) OR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS DUE TO CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE

FOR CLEANING ANY SUCH DEBRIS THAT MAY BE IN THE STREET OR CONVEYANCE SYSTEM AT THE ENDS OF EACH WORK DAY OR AFTER A STORM EVENT THAT CAUSED A BREECH IN THE INSTALLED CONSTRUCTION BMPs.

3. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION DEVICES AND OR PRACTICES SHALL BE MODIFIED AS NEEDED AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS. IF AT ANY TIME, BMPs ARE FOUND TO BE INTENTIONALLY DISABLED, RUN-OVER, REMOVED, OR OTHERWISE INEFFECTIVE, THEY SHALL BE MODIFIED AND REPLACED IMMEDIATELY.

4. TRASH AND CONSTRUCTION SOLID WASTES SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO A COVERED RECEPTACLE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OR RAINWATER AND DISPERSAL BY WIND. THE STORAGE OF ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION WASTES MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST THE POTENTIAL RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.

5. A CONCRETE WASHOUT SHALL BE PROVIDED ON ALL PROJECTS WHICH PROPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY CONCRETE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE TO BE POURED IN PLACE ON THE SITE.

6. ALL BMPs SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN WORKING ORDER AT ALL TIMES. ALL SLOPES THAT ARE CREATED OR DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST EROSION AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AT ALL TIMES.

7. IF TRENCHING/DIGGING ACTIVITIES ARE NOT COMPLETED WITHIN ONE DAY, PROPER BMPs WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.

8. IF DEBRIS OR MATERIALS WILL BE STORED FOR LONGER THAN ONE DAY, PROPER BMPs WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.

WASTE M&M

POLLUTION CONTROLS
(WM-1,2,4,5,9,10),

INCLUDING VEHICLE

STORAGE AND

MATERIAL STORAGE

STREET SWEEPING AS
NEEDED (SE-7)

SAMPLING

LOCATION

BENCH MARK
THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS SURVEY IS GPS STATION "FP7" PER RECORD OF SURVEY 20986, BEING A STANDARD STREET
SURVEY MONUMENT, M-10 WITH PUNCH ONLY.

ELEVATION: 355.96 FEET FROM ROS 20986, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY IT IS 356.05 FEET.

DATUM: NAVD88
C69620
04/04/2025
06/30/2026
Appendix G
Transportation Analysis

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3519 Santee Community Center
N:\3519\Report\Transportation Analysis.3519 February 23, 2024.docx i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Existing Street Network ...................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Existing Bicycle Network ................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Existing Pedestrian Network............................................................................................... 7

3.5 Existing Transit Network .................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Project Study Area, Analysis Approach and Methodology ................................................. 10

4.1 Project Study Area and Study Scenarios .......................................................................... 10

4.2 Analysis Approach ............................................................................................................ 10

4.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 Substantial Effect Criteria ...................................................................................................... 11

6.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 12

7.0 Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment ............................................................................ 13

7.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 13

7.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................................... 14

8.0 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................. 18

9.0 Analysis of Near-Term Scenarios ........................................................................................... 23

9.1 Exiting + Project Conditions ............................................................................................. 23

9.2 Exiting + Cumulative Projects Conditions ....................................................................... 23

9.3 Exiting + Cumulative Projects + Project Conditions ........................................................ 23

10.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment ........................................................................... 25

Santee City CouncilDecember 10, 2025

Santee City Council
December 10, 2025