cc 2022 AR 11/15 camino largo residential development p21-0300 — Vista City Council, November 15, 2022 (part 5 of 8)

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation
P61
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Organization ID:

Organization Name:

Monitor Location:

Description:

Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Aquifer:

Formation Type:

Construction Date:

Well Depth Units:

Well Hole Depth Units:

Database EDR ID Number
FED USGS USGS40000131213

USGS-CA
USGS California Water Science Center
011 SO04W01 P001 S
Type:

Not Reported
HUC:

Not Reported
Drainage Area Units:

Not Reported
Contrib Drainage Area Unts
California Coastal Basin aquifers
Not Reported
Aquifer Type:

Not Reported
Well Depth:
ft
Well Hole Depth:

Not Reported
Ground water Ievels,Number of Measurements:

Feet below surface: 18.00
Note: Not Reported
P62
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Organization ID:

Organization Name:

Monitor Location:

Description:

Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Aquifer:

Formation Type:

Construction Date:

Well Depth Units:

Well Hole Depth Units:

Level reading date
Feet to sea level:

USGS-CA
USGS California Water Science Center
Well
18070303
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
43 Not Reported
1965-11-01
Not Reported
FED USGS USGS40000131214
011 SO04W01 PO02S
Type:

Not Reported
HUC:

Not Reported
Drainage Area Units:

Not Reported
Contrib Drainage Area Unts
California Coastal Basin aquifers
Not Reported
Aquifer Type:

Not Reported
Well Depth:
ft
Well Hole Depth:

Not Reported
Ground water Ievels,Number of Measurements:

Feet below surface: 11.00
Note: Not Reported
63 North
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Organization ID:

Organization Name:

Monitor Location:

Description:

Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Aquifer:

Formation Type:

Construction Date:

Level reading date
Feet to sea level:

Well
18070303
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
26 Not Reported
1965-11-01
Not Reported
FED USGS USGS40000131254

USGS-CA
USGS California Water Science Center
011 SO04W01 JO01 S Type:

Not Reported HUC:

Not Reported Drainage Area Units:

Not Reported Contrib Drainage Area Unts
California Coastal Basin aquifers
Not Reported Aquifer Type:

Not Reported Well Depth:

Well
18070303
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
51 TC6456522.2s Page A-33
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 590 of 1307

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Well Depth Units: ft Well Hole Depth: Not Reported
Well Hole Depth Units: Not Reported
M64
WNW
CA WELLS CADWR8000001246
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
State Well #:
11SO4W12E005S
Station ID:
15247
Well Name:

Not Reported
Well Use:

Unknown
Well Type:

Unknown
Well Depth:
0 Basin Name:

Not Reported
Well Completion Rpt #:

Not Reported
P65
NNW
CA WELLS CADWR8000001380
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
State Well #:
11SO4W01P001S
Station ID:
12961
Well Name:

Not Reported
Well Use:

Unknown
Well Type:

Unknown
Well Depth:
0 Basin Name:

Not Reported
Well Completion Rpt #:

Not Reported
P66
NNW
CA WELLS CADWR8000001381
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
State Well #:
11SO4W01P002S
Station ID:
12962
Well Name:

Not Reported
Well Use:

Unknown
Well Type:

Unknown
Well Depth:
0 Basin Name:

Not Reported
Well Completion Rpt #:

Not Reported
Q67
NW
FED USGS USGS40000131180
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Organization ID:

USGS-CA
Organization Name:

USGS California Water Science Center
Monitor Location:
011 SO04W01 PO03S
Type:

Well
Description:

Not Reported
HUC:
18070303
Drainage Area:

Not Reported
Drainage Area Units:

Not Reported
Contrib Drainage Area:

Not Reported
Contrib Drainage Area Unts: Not Reported
Aquifer:

California Coastal Basin aquifers
Formation Type:

Not Reported
Aquifer Type:

Not Reported
Construction Date:
1946
Well Depth:
50 Well Depth Units:
ft
Well Hole Depth:

Not Reported
Well Hole Depth Units:

Not Reported
Ground water Ievels,Number of Measurements: 1
Level reading date:
1965-11-01
Feet below surface:

29.00 Feet to sea level:

Not Reported
Note:

Not Reported
TC6456522.2s Page A-34
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 591 of 1307

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
068
West CA WELLS CADWR8000001200
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
State Well #:
11SO4W12M001S
Station ID:
33987
Well Name:

Not Reported
Well Use:

Unknown
Well Type:

Unknown
Well Depth:
0 Basin Name:

Not Reported
Well Completion Rpt #:

Not Reported
Q69
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
State Well #:

Well Name:

Well Type:

Basin Name:

R70
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID:

Source:

Other Name:

Groundwater Quality Data
GeoTracker Data:

R71
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Organization ID:

Organization Name:

Monitor Location:

Description:

Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Aquifer:

Formation Type:

Construction Date:

Well Depth Units:

Well Hole Depth Units:
11 SO4W01 P003S
Not Reported
Unknown
Not Reported
Station ID:

Well Use:

Well Depth:

Well Completion Rpt #:

CA WELLS CADWR8000001353
12963
Unknown
0 Not Reported
CA WELLS CAUSGSN00009018
USGS-331450117151101 Well Type: LINK
United States Geological Survey
USGS-331450117151101 GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=USGSNEW&s amp_date=&global_id=&assigned_name=USGS-331450117151101 &store_num= Not Reported
FED USGS USGS40000131285

USGS-CA
USGS California Water Science Center
011 SO04W01 LO02S
Type:

Not Reported
HUC:

Not Reported
Drainage Area Units:

Not Reported
Contrib Drainage Area Unts
California Coastal Basin aquifers
Not Reported
Aquifer Type:

Not Reported
Well Depth:
ft
Well Hole Depth:

Not Reported
Ground water Ievels,Number of Measurements:

Feet below surface: 30.00
Note: Not Reported
1 Level reading date
Feet to sea level:

Well
18070303
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
68 Not Reported
1965-11-01
Not Reported
TC6456522.2s Page A-35
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 592 of 1307

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
R72
NNW CA WELLS CADWR0000001808
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: 11 SO4WO1 L002S Well Type: UNK
Source: Department of Water Resources
Other Name: 11SO4W01 L002S GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=DWR&samp_ date=&global_id=&assigned_name=1 1SO4W01 L002S&store_num= GeoTracker Data: Not Reported
R73
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
CA WELLS CADWR8000001425
State Well #:
11SO4W01L002S
Station ID:
12958
Well Name:

Not Reported
Well Use:

Unknown
Well Type:

Unknown
Well Depth:
0 Basin Name:

Not Reported
Well Completion Rpt #:

Not Reported
11 /15/2022
TC6456522.2s Page A-36
PH1 Page 593 of 1307

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON

AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: CA Radon
Radon Test Results
Zipcode Num Tests
92084 30
> 4 pCi/L
1 Federal EPA Radon Zone for SAN DIEGO County: 3
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.

Zone 2 indoor average level — 2 pCi/L and — 4 pCi/L.

Zone 3 indoor average level 20 pCi/L
Living Area - 1 st Floor

0.677 pCi/L
100%
0%
0%
Living Area - 2nd Floor

0.400 pCi/L
100%
0%
0%
Basement
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
TC6456522.2s Page A-37
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 594 of 1307

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED

TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data with consistent elevation units and projection.

Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey

HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) which incorporates Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL.

Source: FEMA
Telephone: 877-336-2627
Date of Government Version: 2003, 2015
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

State Wetlands Data: Wetland Inventory
Source: Department of Fish and Wildlife
Telephone: 916-44 5-0411

HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOWR Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information.

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).

STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps.

SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Telephone: 800-672-5559
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, mapping scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county natural resource planning and management.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 59 aalf43G7 Page PSGR-1

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED

LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS

FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: 202-564-3750
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.

PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: 202-564-3750
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).

USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS) This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.

OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
Groundwater Ambient Monitoring & Assessment Program
State Water Resources Control Board
Telephone: 916-341-5577
The GAMA Program is Californias comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring program. GAMA collects data by testing the untreated, raw water in different types of wells for naturally -occurring and man-made chemicals. The GAMA data includes Domestic, Monitoring and Municipal well types from the following sources, Department of Water Resources, Department of Heath Services, EDF, Agricultural Lands, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Department of Pesticide Regulation, United States Geological Survey, Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program and Local Groundwater Projects.

Water Well Database
Source: Department of Water Resources
Telephone: 916-651-9648
California Drinking Water Quality Database
Source: Department of Public Health
Telephone: 916 -324- 2 319
The database includes all drinking water compliance and special studies monitoring for the state of California since 1984. It consists of over 3,200,000 individual analyses along with well and water system information.

California Oil and Gas Well Locations
Source: Dept of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division Telephone: 916-323-1779
Oil and Gas well locations in the state.

California Earthquake Fault Lines
Source: California Division of Mines and Geology
The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary fault lines prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information (also from 1975) regarding activity at specific fault lines comes from California's Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology.

RADON
State Database: CA Radon
Source: Department of Public Health
Telephone: 916-210-8558
Radon Database for California
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 5%aalf k367 Page PSGR-2

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: 703-356-4020
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.

The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions.

EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: 703-356-4020
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels.

OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration California Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary fault lines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information (also from 1975) regarding activity at specific fault lines comes from California's Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology.

STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 59Taelf4367 Page PSGR-3

APPENDIX
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 598 of 1307

Camino Largo
N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
Inquiry Number: 6456522.8
April 19, 2021
(rEDP!j!
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 599 of 1307

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 04/19/21
Site Name: Client Name:

Camino Largo
N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
EDR Inquiry # 6456522.8
Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc.
6960 Flanders Drive
San Diego, CA 92121-0000
Contact: Cole Mikesell
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo perdecade.

Search Results:

Year
Scale
Details
2016
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2016
2012
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2012
2009
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2009
2005
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2005
1989
1 "=500'
Flight Date: August 15, 1989
1985
1 "=500'
Flight Date: September 13, 1985
1979
1 "=500'
Flight Date: January 27, 1979
1970
1 "=500'
Flight Date: March 06, 1970
1967
1 "=500'
Flight Date: May 07, 1967
1964
1 "=500'
Flight Date: April 10, 1964
1953
1 "=500'
Flight Date: April 14, 1953
1946
1 "=500'
Flight Date: December 30, 1946
1938
1 "=500'
Flight Date: August 09, 1938
Snurr_a

USDA/NAIP

USDA/NAIP
USDA
USDA
EDR Proprietary Landiscor
EDR Proprietary Landiscor
USGS
USDA
USDA
USGS
USDA
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY

DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,

WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.

Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2021 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 600 o561307 page 2

L4,
GX
V6
C
416 j;rk
it
N� 41
INQUIRY#: 6456522.8
5 YEAR: 2016
L
tk�FDR

/
f l/ r •�
/ • *�'
�' r r
f i f•J J • . r
r' h+
•�
VIL
jr
IP
►r�I�'fib* _ ,' S, ti
I �
�, y r"'�1 � }■ fir' Y_ �, I + , � 1 ' - ��' a
i 1 4� •. �. f .f I�i � 7 -_-r �. A
w
INQUIRY k 6456522.8 °~ .��: ►y - 4 - �
YEAR: 2012
+4 �' �� •�,
FOR y
rP -Flagg 2 Of

40 4;
z N,
147 -' j�A.W —
9 ", fA
OF
do
400
ow
INQUIRY #: 6456522.8
YEAR: 2009 4N
I&
11/1 5/202FDR
2sr--
•
4 F"W4 W�'
4 L 2"

4?
J
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

L4 r
T
7-k -
I NO U I RY k 6456522.8
�N:�YEAR: 1989 IL
4��EDR

�rt • It "
ja
• k

sl.
,
`r,

'�'� •�+ . �� "• Ste_ Y �._ •-- �'.
' � � + }� - ��., ..,�{.�. •�. is
J .i
lk
�riv.. elf
ar
406
= Jam.. �� r, - ;• �
db
'►1 Y -� � ,_ -.'-: "''eke..

INQUIRY M 6456522.8
YEAR: 1967 • '` ' i� " -
r
1 /1 5/202EVR*! _ } �r�i+,ge 69 of 1307

f ..�sa., � l �4L I,�R •a/r
Q
I

INQUIRY k 6456522.8
YEAR: 1946 N
I&
11 / 15/20 2 ze—=- F-DR

Page 612 of 1307 ends

e mi,
INQUIRY k E N
YEAR: 1938 I&FDR
11/15/2022w-- -
PH1
Pro,,
-owXi.

AM•

Page 613 of 1307 ends

APPENDIX
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 614 of 1307

Camino Largo
N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
Inquiry Number: 6456522.4
April 19, 2021
(rEDP!j!
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 615 of 1307

EDR Historical Topo Map Report
04/19/21
Site Name:

Camino Largo
N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
EDR Inquiry # 6456522.4
Client Name:

Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc.
6960 Flanders Drive
San Diego, CA 92121-0000
Contact: Cole Mikesell
(rEDW
EDR Topographic Map Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. were identified for the years listed below. EDR's Historical Topo Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topo Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the late 1800s.

Search Results:

Coordinates:

P.O.# G2721-62-01 Latitude:

Project: Camino Largo Longitude:

UTM Zone:

UTM X Meters
UTM Y Meters
Elevation:

Maps Provided:
2012 1901
1996,1997 1898
1983 1893
1975
1968
1949
1948
1947,1950

33.234354 33' 14' 4" North
-117.248487 -117' 14' 55" West
Zone 11 North
476848.91
3677295.45
341.91' above sea level
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY

Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. 2012 Source Sheets
Morro Hill San Marcos San Luis Rey
2012 2012 2012

7.5-minute, 24000 7.5-minute, 24000 7.5-minute, 24000
1996, 1997 Source Sheets
San Marcos
1996

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1996
1983 Source Sheets
San Marcos
1983

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1980
1975 Source Sheets
Bonsall
1975

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1967
San Luis Rey
1997

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1997
San Luis Rey
1975

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1975
Bonsall
2012

7.5-minute, 24000
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 617 of 1307
6456522 - 4
page 3

Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. 1968 Source Sheets
Morro Hill
1968

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1967
1949 Source Sheets
San Luis Rey
1949

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
1948 Source Sheets
San Luis Rey
1948

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
Bonsall
1968

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1967
Morro Hill
1949

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
i
Bonsall
1948

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
1947, 1950 Source Sheets
San Marcos
1968

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1967
Bonsall
1949

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
San Marcos
1948

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
San Luis Rey
1968

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1967
San Marcos
1949

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
Morro Hill
1948

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1946
Ap
� 4
I

OCEANSIDE

ESCONDIDO

TEMECULA

MARGARITA PEAK
1947
1947
1947
1950
15-minute, 50000
15-minute, 50000
15-minute, 50000
15-minute, 50000
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 618 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 4

Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. 1901 Source Sheets
Oceanside
1901
15-minute, 62500
1898 Source Sheets
Oceanside
1898
15-minute, 62500
1893 Source Sheets
Escondido
1893
15-minute. 62500
Escondido
1901
15-minute, 62500
Oceanside
1893
15-minute. 62500
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 619 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 5

CEDR® Historical Topo Map 2,
HAW H'VfEWH'0
�F`n
1 r--
q9POA AVE S AGUE
�9ANCN
r
3Q0`
111 tier ` � J:1�1 V'
J i 4
300
/
RancFio Guajom`e
C
r
N —LIN
BLS"
N A E—
� ROSE 0
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
TIP, San Marcos, 2012, 7.5-minute
NE, Bonsall, 2012, 7.5-minute
SW, San Luis Rey, 2012, 7.5-minute
W NW, Morro Hill, 2012, 7.5-minute
11111
SW S SE /2022
r E 2..a
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 1
N�
PH1 Page 620 of 1320 4 page 6

(EEDR®
Historical Topo Map
1983
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N
NE
P, San Marcos, 1983, 7.5-minute
022
Q[J'�+'1�IDF+'.. i Olr�� V• •• Y 'i �•
u
i
J s,k
• _ 7-7
I 11 . a.a
`/ •-1 'll
V I• ;n II Rark'__"
"'�� \7//,! � � • - 4,. . • O5@UR.�F :r ,.' •II�_J.S. TjI. • . �_• �4 / • .'�� 1•' •..� `� � ram.

Vt I �e'Ile 5. 1�'� L�� •.
11 k �MSr r •, a ..

Park
x f� ■ ■ a `.� l r
IN Trailer N, I
Trailer
Bobior Ir Dark
13Chti 'a
"n �•�' '�
c a
' 33 - II b
r
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sainte Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 11
N
PH 1 Page 622 o45652320 64 page 8

CEDR' Historical Topo Map 197E
�Azi. .-
1, � �� •`�I
-Ra
.q`sc
d{o Towers,' v .!r J Ran
(K.N1 LiJ) � „ i ..AA me,
ii
Tank
r 1 '
i gp !ER • OR
13 oP
1 c
cos
Water
� ,��i• '� Tank '
NORTH — AVE
O
.-----.-__-_r }
6 h } OF =
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
E, Bonsall, 1975, 7.5-minute
W, San Luis Rey, 1975, 7.5-minute
022
OHANSIDE 2`
_ T 11 5
�76 aging'51
.�_-'.. r
d ;! - L . i._i.i:
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 1
N
PH 1 Page 623 ofs130 a page 9

CEDR' Historical Topo Map 196E
N j Well �' o_ UCEANSI
Ti05\.. Tt05
u + OCEw�SAE T TT 5
n
�� Bin8�5ta'
76 - v t3� ti+
-14
30G
n-� f 'r
j �� fj•XJ � n P I // � o• �• r -J / � _
- � ...` !�'F,tcn � /�200 �� • \ _ i T_ .e �. 1 illy _ �� ' "mil O �•�`�ti I G� ; � �- n :. - _ _ + �; .
1 [-! i t / JJ• 't 0 T pal[- ''le
IL / •�L�� ' oA �� '•• .. •. •OSl3077NE -Lll' S! 'I,4� I) -
o Towers f:f Jr I Rwt 6 eaxs�r I
M LOGu ume
Trailer
Park J_,i ti
Tank• T
R-
0 R Bobrer 13
rn
Sep
�
�O or. <05 F F iat cn u N pL <a3�
Water Chri ti I ',+ •�� i
L aTank
O� N T�• AVf s Dr11 , •• .

Al
- _.. �� _ ' ••� ; �� ^ • .yam
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
P, San Marcos, 1968, 7.5-minute
E, Bonsall, 1968, 7.5-minute
W, San Luis Rey, 1968, 7.5-minute
W, Morro Hill, 1968, 7.5-minute
022
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 1
N•
PH1 Page 624 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 10

CEDR' Historical Topo Map 194
o �� / I ✓� a in St � o � t
/a UY i
, r
01 ;L. N oll:: ro `. I •t r ` - •O NE. )i ii- N • ••8T EET 19 t may. a } i� I \�-, � --�'� • � % I �1 r {% Jf�
n t �r • �; i .-,
.r _ �; �� r .�.r—� �� zee - ; .- �`�� • �-..
0 ^BM 491
371
J� � , Ir• � Ji ` S - 1
4 13• ••1• % :�� a
�I 1 .,,•, s • p�T
40i3
!
�p J { ( � .!-`f',I• •� it e39.Q• -f f� ,q!'• 1 r,;_ •I ;' ' __ �- '� • L � r �- - - --- -�'�r' Pam' �r ay,��t T .

This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
P, San Marcos, 1949, 7.5-minute
E, Bonsall, 1949, 7.5-minute
W, San Luis Rey, 1949, 7.5-minute
W, Morro Hill, 1949, 7.5-minute
022
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 11
N
PH1 Page 625 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 11

CEDR' Historical Topo Map 1
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
TP, San Marcos, 1948, 7.5-minute
NE, Bonsall, 1948, 7.5-minute
SW, San Luis Rey, 1948, 7.5-minute
W NW, Morro Hill, 1948, 7.5-minute
11111
SW S SE /2022
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 1
N
PH1 Page 626 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 12

CEDR® Historical Topo Map 1947, 1950
VI-M 1
0 •,L1�
J�
�OMER
1ILI r�
i.•
�1mpg
PIP
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
P, ESCONDIDO, 1947, 15-minute
E, TEMECULA, 1947, 15-minute
W, OCEANSIDE, 1947, 15-minute
W, MARGARITA PEAK, 1950, 15-minute
022
1 0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
PH1
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc.

Page 627 of 1307 ends

6456522 - 4 page 13

CEDR' Historical Topo Map 1901
O �
O
�
IIre J
n
t.
\
.
/Jr
......r..l
n
Apo
_ Nip 4
rza'`.�
yr-
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
P, Escondido, 1901, 15-minute
W, Oceanside, 1901, 15-minute
022
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 1
N
PH1 Page 628 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 14

CEDR® Historical Topo Map 1 ggE
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
W, Oceanside, 1898, 15-minute
022
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 1
N
PH1 Page 629 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 15

CEDR' Historical Topo Map 1 gg;
This report includes information from the
following map sheet(s).

NW N NE
P, Escondido, 1893, 15-minute
W, Oceanside, 1893, 15-minute
022
0 Miles 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
SITE NAME: Camino Largo
ADDRESS: N. Sante Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
CLIENT: Geocon Env. Consultants, Inc. 1
N
PH1 Page 630 of 1307
6456522 - 4 page 16

APPENDIX
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 631 of 1307

Camino Largo
N Santa Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
Inquiry Number: 6456522.5
April 22, 2021
(rEDW" Environmental Data Resources Inc
6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 632 of 1307

SECTION
Executive Summary
Findings
City Directory Images

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thank you for your business.

Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction orforecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2020 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates.

All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 633 of 1307

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.'s (EDR) City Directory Report is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities.

EDR's City Directory Report includes a search of available city directory data at 5 year intervals.

RECORD SOURCES
EDR's Digital Archive combines historical directory listings from sources such as Cole Information and Dun & Bradstreet. These standard sources of property information complement and enhance each other to provide a more comprehensive report.

EDR is licensed to reproduce certain City Directory works by the copyright holders of those works. The purchaser of this EDR City Directory Report may include it in report(s) delivered to a customer. Reproduction of City Directories without permission of the publisher or licensed vendor may be a violation of copyright.

Data by
infoUSA
C©pyrightC,2408
All Rights Reserved

RESEARCH SUMMARY
The following research sources were consulted in the preparation of this report. A check mark indicates where information was identified in the source and provided in this report.

Year
Target Street
Cross Street
Source
2017
0 ❑
EDR Digital Archive
2014
0 ❑
EDR Digital Archive
2010
0 ❑
EDR Digital Archive
2005
0 ❑
EDR Digital Archive
2000
0 ❑
EDR Digital Archive
1995
0 ❑
EDR Digital Archive
1992
0 ❑
EDR Digital Archive
1986
0 ❑
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1982
0 ❑
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1979
0 ❑
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1975
0 ❑
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1971
0 ❑
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
6456522-5 Pagel
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 634 of 1307

FINDINGS

TARGET PROPERTY STREET
N Santa Fe Ave
Vista, CA 92084
Year CD Image Source

N SANTA FE AVE
2017
pg Al
EDR Digital Archive
2014
pg A2
EDR Digital Archive
2010
pg A3
EDR Digital Archive
2005
pg A4
EDR Digital Archive
2000
pg A5
EDR Digital Archive
1995
pg A6
EDR Digital Archive
1992
pg A7
EDR Digital Archive
1986
pg A8
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1982
pg A9
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1979
pg Al
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1979
pg A11
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1975
pg Al
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1971
pg Al
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
1971
pg A14
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
11 /15/2022 PH 1
6456522-5 Page 2

Page 635 of 1307 ends

CROSS STREETS
No Cross Streets Identified

FINDINGS
11 /15/2022
6456522-5 Page 3
PH1 Page 636 of 1307

City Directory Images
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 637 of 1307

Target Street Cross Street Source
- EDR Digital Archive

N SANTA FE AVE
2017
1609

GONZALEZ, EZEQUIEL E
1621

CORTEZ, JOHN J
1627

WEBB, MICHAEL S
1633

BRILL, MICHAEL
1639

MADRID, DANNY R
1645

CARPENTER, ALFRED B
1651

ALVAREZ, KEVIN
1657

JIMINEZ, ANTONIO N
1701

A CREATIVE BEGINNING PRESCHOOL
1719

ORTIZ, DARLENE
1721

ROBLES, ANDRES G
1755

FRYE, DAN D
1769

JACOBO, JASON L
2133

HERNANDEZ, GUALTERIO
2165

DONAHUE, DAVE
2167

COTTLE, DAVID O
2405
TCBY
2465

RANCHO CHICO
2511

QUESADA, LOUIS D
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;5698gbfA1307

Target Street Cross Street Source
- EDR Digital Archive

N SANTA FE AVE
2014
1609

GONZALEZ, EZEQUIEL E
1615

STACCO, WILLIAM L
1621

MIRANDA, GUADALUPE P
1627

JONES, LESTINE
1633

BRILL, TERRY L
1639

MADRID, DANNY R
1645

CARPENTER, ALFRED B
1657

NUNEZ, ANTONIO O
1701

A CREATIVE BEGINNING PRESCHOOL
1713

CARLOS, PEDRO
1719

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1721

ROBLES, ANDRES G
1769

JACOBO, JASON L
1781

GARY, STEPHAN F
2133

SOLORIO, GUADALUPE
2137

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
2165

DONAHUE, LORAINE A
2167

COTTLE, MARY
2405

NORTH COAST CHURCH
2465

RANCHO CHICO
2511

CARDENAS, ELIAS
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;56999bfAf307

Target Street Cross Street Source
- EDR Digital Archive

N SANTA FE AVE
2010
1609

GONZALEZ, EZEQUIEL E
1615

STACCO, LAWRENCE
1621

MIRANDA, JESS L
1627

CLEVELAND, JOHNNY R
1633

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1639

MADRID, DANNY R
1645

CARPENTER, ALFRED B
1651

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1657

MACEDONIO, BELINDA
1701

CREATIVE BEGINNING PRESCHOOL
1713

CARLOS, PEDRO
1719

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1721

ROBLES, ANDRES G
1755

DELACRUZ, SALOMON
1769

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
2123

CHOICE NURSERY
2133

MESINO, ABRAHAM
2137

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
2163

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
2165

DONAHUE, LORAINE A
2167

COTTLE, MARY
2465

RANCHO CHICO
2511

AQUINO GREEN HOUSE

QUESADA, LOUIS D
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;564@gbfAf307

Target Street Cross Street Source
- EDR Digital Archive

N SANTA FE AVE
2005
1609

GONZALEZ, EZEQUIEL E
1615

STACCO, LAWRENCE
1621

MIRANDA, JESS L
1627

JONES, LESTINE
1639

OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1645

CARPENTER, ALFRED B

KATE KIMBERLY ANNS TYPING SRVC
1651

FLORES, GEORGE F
1657

MACEDONIO, ARACELI

TWISTER HAULING & DEMO
1701

A CREATIVE BEGINNING PRESCHOOL
1713

CARENO, MORGA V
1755

AVINA, ARTURO H
1781

HARO, CRUZ G
2123

CHOICE NURSERY
2133

CASTELLANOS, PATRICIA
2137

KELLEY, SAMANTHA
2163

A & A CAPRET STORE

A & A CARPET STORE

EL MOUNSTRO

PADILLA, HERNANDEZ C
2167

COTTLE, CRYSTAL
2465

RANCHO CHICO INC
2511

CALIFORNIA BIRD FARMS

QUESADA, LOUIS D
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;564jgbfAf307

Target Street Cross Street Source
- EDR Digital Archive

N SANTA FE AVE
2000
1609 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1615 JIMENEZ, F R
1621 MIRANDA, MARK
1627 JONES, LESTINE
1631 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1633 BLEUL, STEVEN
1639 MADRID, DANNY R
1645 CARPENTER, K
1649 TOSTADO, JAMES J
1651 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1657 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1701 A CREATIVE BEGINNING PRE SCHOOL OF VISTA
1713 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1755 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1769 OCCUPANT UNKNOWN,
1781 HARD, CRUZ
2133 HORVATH, ZOLTAN
2511 QUESADA, LOUIS
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;5642gbfAf307

Target Street Cross Street Source
- EDR Digital Archive

N SANTA FE AVE
1995
1609

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
1615

CAMACENA, ABRAM
1627

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
1629

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
1633

BRILL, TERRY
1639

MARQUEZ, MARK
1645

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
1657

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
1713

DOMINGUEZ, TERESA
1721

ZERMENO, JOSE L
1755

OCCUPANT UNKNOWNN
1769

JACOBO, LARRY
1781

HARD, MARIA
2123

CHOICE NURSERY
2133

FALK, E
2511

QUESADA, LOUIS
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;564'p�gbfAf307

Target Street Cross Street Source
- EDR Digital Archive
N SANTA FE AVE 1992
1609

CUEVAS, FRANK R
1627

PRICE, DUANE L
1639

MARQUEZ, MARCOS
1713

HUDDLESON, ROBERT R
1781

BERNARDI, STEPHEN S
2123

CHOICE NURSERY
2165

DONAHUE, ALLAN D
2465

KARINAS FLOWERS
2511

CA BIRD FARM
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;5644gbfAf307

Target Street Cross Street
Source
Haines Criss -Cross Directory

N SANTA FE AVE
16N

CUEVAS FRANK R
1610,,......

VILLA DEL NRTE APTS

ACKISS KIMBERLY

ADAMS PATRICIA L

AVILA JEROME
36 BECKTEL RONALD D
45 BLAHA VLADIMIR
CHO YOUND 2D

COYLE ROBEATE

GARLOW DAVID

GARLOW PAULA

GRAHAM BRADLEY

HAAS ERNIE

HAAS PAULA

HUCKABY R

KIRKLAND JEANETTE
LAW79A RICKY

LEMASTER MARTHA

MERRYMAN JAMES C

NGUYEN HUNG V

PARSONS JOHN

PEREZ CARMEN

PEREZ FRANK

RAMEY NELSON

RGSSOVICH EDMOND

SANOOVAL ARMANDO

SANDOVAL MILLIE

SHELBY D A

TALCOTT DAVID C

VELEZ JAIME

VILLA DEL NORTE APT
WALLER CALVIN 0

WIESE TAMARA
IS10 .,....... ................................
1612'
1615
1621
1626.......

APARTMENTS

BACHAND E M

BRUSH JIM

GOGGIH JOHN P

JUSAK PAUL

KIMBROUGH W E

LAURIN ROST A
4 LEONARD THOS D 30

MCDOWELL DENNIS C

SCHNURR VERLE
35 VARRIN A

WILKINSON W
1626....................
......................
1627

ANDERSON BILL

ANDERSON VICKIE
1633

JANE MATT C
1639

MAROUEZ MARCOS
1645
xxxx
1651
xxxx
1657

VAN ANH
17DO
xxxx
1721
HATLAVONGSA $A
1769

DIYON ELIZABETH

MILEY BARBARA
1781

PERKINS KATHY J

PERKINS STEVE
2040

ANTIOUE GSJSTM ENGN

FARM MUSEUM

HAMBERGER D
2133
xxxx
2137
xxxx
2163

SMITH WM
2155
DONAHUE ALLAN0
2167
xxxx
2206

GRAHAM DENNIS

GRAHAM SPAS
2210
xxxx
2403
xxxx
2405
B L x TRCXNG♦tEQUIP

GUAJOME GRANITE

R D CONSTRUCTION CO
2502
xxxx
2511

CA BIRD FARM
2700

OMORIS ROAOSD STAND
2766
xxxx
2168
xxxx
>}
99 BUS 219 RES
724-3259
758-7299 +6
941-6762 4
726.5756 5
726.6042 9
124-7994
726-0356 5
158-Y957 +6
124-6732 +6
724-8732 +6
726-5239 5
758-8269 +6
158-0269 +6
124-2507 5
724-5415 5
940-OA73 +6
940-9146 +6
158-5429 +6
94t-1709 2
9,11-0306 4
726-6493
726 5493 5
941-5013 5
726-9567 +6
758-23fi2
758-23fi2 5
758-9567 $
724-0702 5
941-2450 5
941-6838 3
758-2717 A
941-2450
xxxx DO
xxxx DO
xxxx DO
941-3683
126.9216
941-3215
726-3250
758-3463
758-8580
941-0919
758-5149
]58-164 7
726-1153
726-8702
4 3
+6
5 1
758-0193
758-0193 3
724-0679
724-0181
00 DO
758-5495 3
00 758-5705 4
724-9171 4
124-9171 4
758-204 5
758-2845 3
041-1701 3
941-1701 3
726-2462 7
DO
00 724-72D9
724-3023 4
00 726-7D57 5
w -4122 2
D0
DO
758-2000 5
758-4708 1
75A-4310 4
DO
724-1337 I
724-5500
DO
DO
52 NEW
11 /15/2022 PH 1 64d:65645gbfAf307

Target Street Cross Street

N SANTA FE AVE
Source
Haines Criss -Cross Directory
•: A
1609

CUEVAS FRANK R
724-3259 4;
1610......

APARTMENTS
36 BECKTEL RONALD D
726-6042 9
45 BLAHA VLAOIMIR
724-7994 5

CARTER LAMAR
941-1259 +2
H1LIM WM
726-6368 1

JAGER LINDA
941-0665 +2
21 KVNZ JEFFERY L
768-3045 1
9 LIGHTBOURNE RICHARO
941-0870 1
22 MCCORMICK REFRIGRTN
724-9080 1

MILLER GLENN K
941-2518 +2'
MORTO]N BOB
941-9477 +2I

NGUYEN HUNG V
941-1709 +2

PECK JOHN
758-8860 t2
20 PRE451NG T
726-GIF6 4

RIBERA MIGUEL A
758-5E84 +2

RIVERA GUILLERMO
941-9237 +2

RODRIGUEZ GLORIA
758-4756 +2
SANOERS E0 J JR
941-5418 t2
10 SANOERS .TAMES R
758-5984 C

SCHAUMBURG C Y
726-5016 +2

SCHULTE DONALD R
758-f813 +2
6 STRICKER 8 JUNE
726-0279 6

TAYLOR GINGER K
726-3381 +2

TOMS PAMELA J
94 t,8573 +2

TRUESDILL JOS A
941-0321 +2
161�
1612
xxxx
00 1615
xxxx
00 1621
xxxx
00 1626..

APARTMENTS

ANDERSON VYM S
941 3159 +2

BARCIA M E
94T-3134 +2

COLLEN C
941-4279 1

EOLEBROCK JAS L
941-9335 +2
20 HAGEN DALE
726-1328 1

HANDLON KATHLEEN
758-91E•0 +2

HIL LAN AARON J
941-6737 +2
3 HOUSKA J L
724-9751 1

KAVFANIAN REZA
941-1745 +2

LANCERS T C
126-5240 +2
6 LAURIN ROST A
758-8580 1
4 LEONAA0 THOS D 3D
941-0919 1

PERALTA DOMINGO
724-2949 t
27 RAMIREZ ANTHONY M
758-8708 0'

SUNDEN A C
94 1 -5230 +2
35 YARRIN A
726-1153 C
Y+ MATTHEW
758-2354 +2
1626................
. .... ........
.
1627

MILLER JACOB S
724-0735 1
1633

JANE MATT C
724-CI679 6
1639
MARQUEZ MARCO5
724-0181 3
1646
xxxx
00 1651

CHATHAM LEE
758--8415 9
1657

WRIGHT ROONEY
941-4896 1
1700
xxxx
00 1721

RUPP MIKE
726-9359 +2
1769

CASTANEDAJOE
724-ZI097 4
1781
xxxx
00 2040
HAM8ERGER D
726-2462 +2

SOUTHWSTH ENCN MSN
941-1791+2,
2133
xxxx
00 2137
XXXX
00 2163

SMITH WM
724-7209
2165
O1ONAHUE ALLAN D
724-3023 9
2167
xxxx
00 I
2206

GRAHAM SPAS
941-4122+2
2210

ALOIA PETER
941-4792 +7
2405

GUAJOME GRANITE
758-4708 1
2502
xxxx
00 2511
CALIF BIRO] FARM
724-1337 1

OUESAOA LOUIS
724-1337 G
2700

OMORIS ROADSO STAND
724-5500
2766
xxxx
00 2768
xxxx
00 +
88 BUS 216 RES
63 NEW
11 /15/2022 PH 1 64d:65646gbfAM7

Target Street Cross Street Source
V - Haines Criss -Cross Directory
N SANTA FE AVE 1979
1609

CUEVAS FRANK R
724-3259 4
1610.

APARTMENTS
BATES 8RiAN AM
726-1036+9

BECKTEL RONALD D
726-6042+9
45 8LAHA VLADIMIR
724- 7994 5
BR4GHTwELL STEPH
758-1976 8
BULL $ILL
724-8107+9
CASTANf DA A B
758-26 79 8

CRAFT MIKE
758-0403+9

CRAIN CHARLES T
758-3419+ 9

DIXON JERRV
724-9080+9

HAMYES RONALD
758-4369+ 9

HANCOCK KRIS
758-8575+9

HARRISON TOM
726-5049+9
9 HOLM8ERG MARCELLA
724-2212 7

JEAN ALAN
758-7629+9

LEBLANC LORETTA
758-526B 8

LOPEZ ROSALIE
758-5002+9
5 MACDONALD SCOTT
724-3954 7

MALLOY GIRARD
726-0603+9

MEYERS PANDALL
758-3269 8
'FILLER STEPHEN
758-7754+8
20 PREISING T
726-61 76 4

PYKKONEN ALLEN
726-430'+8

OUINTANIA EFRAIN
724-4099+9
ROMERO YARTI►y
726-9410+9
ROaAS RUDOLPH R
726-51 7'+9

STICE J P
758-7689+9

STICE RANDY
724-8' 974 9
6 STRIC►cER B JUNE
726-0279 6
V11APREN BENNIE
758-8858+9

VVILKINSON MICK
758-7023+0
1610
1612
xxxx
00 1615

STACCO LAWRENCE
758-8992+4
1621

MIRANDA MARK
758-0 746+ 4
1627
MILLER jACOB S
726-6723 3
1633

JANE MATT C
724-0679 6
1639

MAROUEI MARCOS
724-0181 3
1645
CARTER VvAYNE
726-9108 6
1651

CHATHAM LEE
758-8416+0

POULIN ODE
758-873540
1657

KOLLER DALE R
726-026649
1721
RODRIGUEZ L.
726-6944+9
1 755
VIGIL Jf NELL
726-5690 5

VIGIL PAUL
726-5890 5
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6 d:;5647gbfAjM7

Target Street Cross Street Source
V - Haines Criss -Cross Directory

N SANTA FE AVE
1979
ANTI
FE AV N 192083 C NT
1769

NZALE TERRY L
758-1 74+5+ 9
1781

RIGHT K
726-1906+9
2133
xxxx
00 2137

HUAKE R E R
724-4102 0
2163

SMITH BARBARA ANN
758-4644 B

SMITH A-M
7 4- 7 09
2165

D NAHUE ALLAN D
724-3023+9
21 1 *

SC VISTA APPLE
7 303 + 91
2206
CIMARuSTIPOCCO7
4-2719 0
4 5*

ARAIZA PAVNG&EXCVTG
7244595

R BERT LYNCH TRUCK
724-3294 8
2 1 1 *

BIRCH FARM
724-1337

RA RAK E ET FARM
7 4-13 7

UES DA LOINS
724-13 7+
70 F*

OMORIS R AD O STAND
724-5500
27 6*
K M L 0 AAA NORTH CO
72 333

M TEN K M LO AM
724-4333+9
2768
xxx
00 2929

HELMUTH MELVIN
7 8--020 7
86 BUS 197 RES
88 NEW
11 /15/2022 PH 1

Target Street Cross Street Source
- Haines Criss -Cross Directory
N SANTA FE AVE 1975
1609 CUEVAS FRA1.4, R 724-3259
1610.... AOA;TMENTS
ADAKS w 724-571,-+5
BLAr-A VLACIYIR 724-7a94+5
BUROICK w[CL4AEL 724-4736+5
CMIPSER JCS 724-1742+5
DA'rIS D F 726-37lC7+5
GIDLEY JCH% 3 724-1109b5
GIDLEY SUSAN B 724-11C9+5
"AC<NEY V 724-9613+5
24 "ANSEN MAR1SE 726-5315 4-
2 mQLTS A E 724-9B65 6
JCHNSTO% JCHN -1 724-0552+5
LEGER HEReEaT H 726-8367*5
LOPEZ ABAA!-Aw 726-4025+5
LOPEZ VALERIE 726-4025+5
4 wAR I ANC JOSE P►-I NE 724-5818 3
15 ►+UIR J L 724-5055 3
10 NESEL % 724-6SZ3 4
20 PZEISIv; T 726-6176 4
RAIr;ES LELANO L 724-14B7;5
ROEEFTS VINCENT H 726-3733.5
6 SMITH L 8 724-1572 4
STOR4S CAROLY', 726-6440+5
STORMS RAS00% L 726—B44C+5
TOLHURST n RICHA;O 724-33B2+5
TREBBE wARTHA T 726-7527+5
V4RRIN A 726-6322 3
16 mILLIS HARRY C 726-4229 3
■ISEwAN ELVA d 724-0465+51
34 YAwAOA CrUKG CHI 726-4577 4
34 YA"ADA HIRCSr1 H 726—L577 4
I 30 ZELLERS KICHAEL 726-35'2 4
1610.....................
1612 xxxx OC
I 1615 xxxx CO
1621 M RANDA CCNV:E 724-0035 0
4IRL4DA ROSIE 724—CC35 1
1627 wILLIR JACC5 S 726-6723 3
1639 wARCUEZ wARCCS 724—C181 3
1645 xxxx CC
1721 ARzEDCNDO LLmgENCE 724-6896+5
1755 VIGIL JENELL 726-5890+5
VIGIL PAUL 726-559C+5
1769 JAC080 FELIX R 724-6641+5
17B1'BAHAII FAITH 724-7342 4
+CCVTRACT CCCUM_E%vTS 72L-7342 4
NELSCN GO`ALO A 724-7342+5
2133 xxxx CO
2137 SHUMAKER E R 724--.1CZ
2163 SMITH 8AR3ARA A%N 726-7068 4
SMIT -+ -r 724-7209
2165 OGNAHUE ALLAN wSGT 724-3023 3
2167 ABRAHAwSON LEOSARO 724—E506+5
2206 CrmARUSTI ROCCO 724-2713 0
2405*ARAIZA PAV*.GLExCVTG724-8695+5
2511*PARAKEE7 FARM 72L-1337+5
2700*OMORIS RCAOSD STA%D72L-5503
2766'K M L 0 AM 8RDCSTG 724-8333 2
2768 M2ACHA" MARCUS 724-7L39 4
2929 SHIRLEY OORIS E 726-5915 4
• 76 BUS 201 R ES 89 ,NE a
11 /15/2022 P H 1 6 d:;5649gbfAl807

Target Street Cross Street Source
- Haines Criss -Cross Directory

N SANTA FE AVE
1971
1609 CVAS EANI
1612 GOMEZ EP I E AN 1O
L62L MI ANOA CONNI

MIRANDA ROSIE
17 XXXX
1645 GALVEZSAL
1721 ROU H ROND A
1755 CASTER IDA M

CASTER ROT
1781 SAUN OER S VERNON
2133 XXXX
2137 SHUMAKER E R
2163 SMITH WM
2165 OONAHUE ALLAN MST
7724-3259
7 - 1 1
7-3
7 -0 3 +1
} C
7-D1 8
7 4-+ 1
7 4-047 +1
7 4- 4 7 + 1
7-c-D3
00 7 - 1
7 -7 0
7 4- 0 3
11 /15/2022 PH 1 6W6:656Jgage1fMS07

Target Street Cross Street Source
V - Haines Criss -Cross Directory

N SANTA FE AVE
1971
..ABTA FE AV N 92083OTOO
16 7*M 1LDRE DEE STHERT 7�8 1+ 1
2511 QUESADA LD1 133
7*ILO AM 8RDCSTGCO 724-c-8333
*ILO AM 8ROADCASTNG724-8333+1
SANDS ANN 724-5991
SANDS MAURICE724-5991
2929 XX X DO
* 79 8US1
11 /15/2022 PH 1 64PWb:65651gbfAj507

APPENDIX
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 652 of 1307

ENTHALPY
A N A L Y T t C A L
Analytical Report prepared for:

Troy Reist
Geocon Incorporated
6960 Flanders Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
Location: Camino Largo, G2721-62-01
Authorized for release by:

A&,�2 --
Diane Galvan, Project Manager
714-771-9928
diane.galvan(@enthalpy.com
Enthalpy Analytical
931 West Barkley Ave
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 771-6900
enthalpy.com
Lab Job Number: 444757
Report Level: II
Report Date: 05/11 /2021
This data package has been reviewed for technical correctness and completeness. Release of this data has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or the Manager's designee, as verified by the above signature which applies to this PDF file as well as any associated electronic data deliverable files. The results contained in this report meet all requirements of NELAP and pertain only to those samples which were submitted for analysis. This report may be reproduced only in its entirety.

CA ELAP# 1338, NELAP# 4038, SCAQMD LAP# 18LA0518, LACSD ID# 10105, CDC ELITE Member
N.0
1 of 10

&7mOP

ENTHALPY

A N A L Y T I C A L
Sample Summary
Troy Reist Lab Job #: 444757
Geocon Incorporated Location: Camino Largo, G2721-62-01 6960 Flanders Drive Date Received: 04/30/21
San Diego, CA 92121
Sample ID
Lab ID
Collected
Matrix
S1-0'
S1-0.5'
444757-001
444757-002
04/30/21 09:00
04/30/21 09:05
Soil
Soil
F.-Ti[
2of10

&ow

ENTHALPY

ANALYTICAL
Case Narrative
Geocon Incorporated Lab Job Number: 444757
6960 Flanders Drive Location: Camino Largo, G2721-62-01 San Diego, CA 92121 Date Received: 04/30/21
Troy Reist
This data package contains sample and QC results for two soil samples, requested for the above referenced project on 04/30/21. The samples were received cold and intact.

TPH-Extractables by GC (EPA 8015M):

High recovery was observed for diesel C10-C28 in the MS for batch 266510; the parent sample was not a project sample, the LCS was within limits, and the high recovery was not associated with any reported results. High RPD was also observed for diesel C10-C28 in the MS/MSD for batch 266510; the high RPD was not associated with any reported results. S1-0' (lab # 444757-001) was diluted due to the dark color of the sample extract. No other analytical problems were encountered.

PCBs (EPA 8082):

High recoveries were observed for Aroclor-1016 in the MS/MSD for batch 266450; the parent sample was not a project sample, the LCS was within limits, and this analyte was not detected at or above the RL in the associated samples.

Responses exceeding the instrument's linear range were observed for Aroclor-1016 in the MS/MSD for batch 266450; affected data was qualified with "E". S1-0' (lab # 444757-001) was diluted due to the color of the sample extract. No other analytical problems were encountered.
1 of 1 11 /15/2022
PH1

Page 655 of 1307 ends

3 of 10

FL
ar
Z2
0 O
+' �'
a o
m
C
ar
E
L
u
O
CIO
E
a7
a
(0
L
CJ
_
m
>
o
O
V
m
p
EE
F-
\
N
O
w
u
m
U
of
w
N
N
\
•F,
m
O
Z
M
\v
_
w
S O
N
m
Ln
if 11
N m w
H
=p
O
rn
> U
1A
7 m 2 O
G1
m
�
m
if f6
aW N z
II
C
C
41 Ln
H
C
d O a
Ln O
n
3 X
f6
z =
S9Dd ZSOS
x
x
*'
�
U
T
�
Slelaw ZZ DWI0109
3 ~
v
�
oU
v
>
c v

SJOASOLZS
Q
o
N
u Ln
O
o
o
7 SdOO T808
peDI SOT09
Ln cu o_
Oaa + Oa0 + Oa9 Hdl STOS
x
x
SJOA 09Z8
`i' o ¢
a
v
u
(3�
�-
Ln
0 d-
/e._..�
II
O
V
d•
N
V
v f6
V
II
I I
C
O
U,
O
O
w
?
J
Mn
Ln
J 00.

H
LLI
C
E
N
K
a
a
�0
O
u(D
F
'�
cr
c
E
E
a
ar
a E
o
in
E
rn
m
ino
1I]
O
u
al
N
al
p j
N
ru
�
7 2k
it
"CS
i6
fl
O
fl.
m
m
Z
Z
a
Q
C7
in
r
�t
co
tto
C cu
•a
NCN
%
m
O
O
a
i U
O a1 O
m
VI
ItV\
O
O
+'
ITS
C
m Ol
DQ
2 �
v
Z
l/1
O -
O
E
f0 N ^
Q
O
U
z
i >
a `
S;U
'
a, c
a
O
_
E:z
O
� r,■
f0 m
Z
O
aU
0 �
U
0 ,
F�
NJ m
W
C
o
N
.I.,
LL
O
N
'p
Cf
in
D1
Ln
a
E
-
Ol
O
O
p
tD
C
00 00
m
m
m
m
V~7
lO1D
to
W
0Ln
U
L
ca
mai
m
IO
o
in
o
:5
0-
0J
?
•�
0 a)
?
✓3
CL
—
O
N
N
'E
ajwcw
U
'c
U
U
O
O
al
E
"�6
C
L
O'
O'
c, I
N
m
V1
lD
I�
00 al
O
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 656 of 1307
4of10

f
L.
f-
ilv3t�' ENTHALPY.,
.A.

N A L Y T i C i'

SAMPLE ACCEPTANCE CHECKLIST
Section 1
Client: Geocon Inc. Project: Camino Largo G2721-62-01
Date Received:4/30/2021 Sampler's Name Present: W- Yes nNo Section 2
Sample(s) received in a cooler? ✓ Yes, How many? 1 Sample Temp (°C) Y • NO (skip section 2) (No Cooler)
Sample Temp (°C), One from each cooler: #1: 5.6 42:
#3: #4: _
(Acceptance range is www.enthalpy.com/socal
Sample Acceptance Checklist — Rev 4, 8/8/2017
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 657 of 1307
f
5 of 10

�� ENTHALPY

A N A L Y T I C A JL
Analysis Results for 444757
Troy Reist
Geocon Incorporated
6960 Flanders Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
Lab Job #: 444757
Location: Camino Largo, G2721-62-01
Date Received: 04/30/21
444757-001 Analyte
Result Qual
Units
RL
DF
Batch
Prepared
Analyzed
Chemist
Method: EPA 8015M
Prep Method: EPA 3580
GRO C6-C10
ND
mg/Kg
250
25 266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
DRO C10-C28
13,000
mg/Kg
250
25 266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
ORO C28-C44
13,000
mg/Kg
500
25 266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
Surrogates
Limits
n-Triacontane
DO
%REC
70-130
25 266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
Method: EPA 8082
Prep Method: EPA 3546
Aroclor-1016
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1221
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1232
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1242
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1248
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1254
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1260
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1262
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Aroclor-1268
ND
ug/Kg
100
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
Surrogates
Limits
Decachlorobiphenyl (PCB)
43%
%REC
19-121
2 266450
05/04/21
05/10/21
KTD
of z 11 /15/2022 Q-gResults for any subcontracted arfal�Js are not included in this sedti&. 658 of 1307 6 of 10

�� ENTHALPY

A N A L Y T I C A JL
Analysis Results for 444757
Sample ID: S1-0.5' Lab ID: 444757-002 Collected: 04/30/21 09:05 Matrix: Soil
444757-002 Analyte
Result Qual
Units
RL
DF
Batch
Prepared
Analyzed
Chemist
Method: EPA 8015M
Prep Method: EPA 3580
GRO C6-C10
ND
mg/Kg
10 1
266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
DRO C10-C28
490
mg/Kg
10 1
266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
ORO C28-C44
370
mg/Kg
20 1
266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
Surrogates
Limits
n-Triacontane
76%
%REC
70-130
1 266510
05/04/21
05/05/21
MES
Method: EPA 8082
Prep Method: EPA 3546
Aroclor-1016
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1221
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1232
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1242
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1248
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1254
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1260
57 ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1262
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Aroclor-1268
ND
ug/Kg
50 1
266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
Surrogates
Limits
Decachlorobiphenyl (PCB)
36%
%REC
19-121
1 266450
05/04/21
05/05/21
KTD
DO Diluted Out
ND Not Detected
2 of 2 11 /15/2022 Q-gResults for any subcontracted arfal�Js are not included in this sedti&. 659 of 1307 7 of 10

�� ENTHALPY

ANALYTICAL
Batch QC
Type: Blank Lab ID: QC923056 Batch: 266450
Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 8082 Prep Method: EPA 3546
QC923056 Analyte
Result Qual Units
RL
Prepared
Analyzed
Aroclor-1016
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1221
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1232
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1242
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1248
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1254
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1260
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1262
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Aroclor-1268
ND
ug/Kg
51 05/04/21
05/05/21
Surrogates
Limits
Decachlorobiphenyl (PCB)
67%
%REC
19-121
05/04/21
05/05/21
Type: Lab Control Sample
Matrix: Soil
Lab ID: OC923060
Method: EPA 8082
Batch: 266450
Prep Method: EPA 3546
QC923060 Analyte
Result
Spiked Units
Recovery Qual
Limits
Aroclor-1016
302.4
500.0 ug/Kg
60%
14-150
Aroclor-1260
423.5
500.0 ug/Kg
85%
10-150
Surrogates
Decachlorobiphenyl (PCB)

27.52 50.00 ug/Kg
55%
19-121
Type:

Matrix (Source ID):

Matrix Spike
Soil (444642-001)
Lab ID: OC923061
Method: EPA 8082
Batch:

Prep Method:
266450
EPA 3546
OC923061 Analyte
Result
Source
Sample
Result
Spiked Units
Recovery Qual
Limits DF
Aroclor-1016
1,105
ND
500.0 ug/Kg
221 % E,'
42-127 1
Aroclor-1260
98,090
38720
500.0 ug/Kg
11761% E,NM
38-130 1
Surrogates
Decachlorobiphenyl (PCB)

52.28 50.00 ug/Kg
105%
19-121 1
1 of 3 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 660 of 1307
8 of 10

�� ENTHALPY

ANALYTICAL
Batch QC
Type: Matrix Spike Duplicate Lab ID: QC923062 Batch: 266450 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (444642-001) Method: EPA 8082 Prep Method: EPA 3546 QC923062 Analyte
Source
Sample
Result Result
Spiked Units Recovery
Qual Limits
RPD
RPD Lim
DF
Aroclor-1016
1,179 ND
500.0 ug/Kg 236%
E,` 42-127
30 1
Aroclor-1260
81,400 38720
500.0 ug/Kg 8422%
E,NM 38-130
30 1
Surrogates
Decachlorobiphenyl (PCB)

48.74 50.00 ug/Kg 97%
19-121
1 Type: Blank
Matrix: Soil
Lab ID: QC923227
Method: EPA 8015M
Batch: 266510
Prep Method: EPA 3580
QC923227 Analyte
Result Qual
Units RL
Prepared
Analyzed
GRO C6-Cl0
ND
mg/Kg 10
05/04/21
05/05/21
DROC10-C28
ND
mg/Kg 10
05/04/21
05/05/21
ORO C28-C44
ND
mg/Kg 20
05/04/21
05/05/21
Surrogates
Limits
n-Triacontane
101 %
%REC 70-130
05/04/21
05/05/21
Type: Lab Control Sample Lab ID: QC923228
Matrix: Soil Method: EPA 8015M
Batch:

Prep Method:
266510
EPA 3580
QC923228 Analyte
Result
Spiked Units
Recovery Qual
Limits
Diesel C10-C28
213.9
250.0 mg/Kg
86%
76-122
Surrogates
n-Triacontane

10.27 10.00 mg/Kg
103%
70-130
Type:

Matrix (Source ID):

Matrix Spike
Soil (444740-016)
Lab ID: QC923229
Method: EPA 8015M
Batch:

Prep Method:
266510
EPA 3580
QC923229 Analyte
Source
Sample
Result Result
Spiked Units Recovery Qual
Limits
DF
Diesel C10-C28
619.3 112.3
250.0 mg/Kg
203%
62-126
5 Surrogates
n-Triacontane

11.15 10.00 mg/Kg
111 %
70-130
5 2 of 3 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 661 of 1307
9 of 10

�� ENTHALPY

ANALYTICAL
Batch QC
Type: Matrix Spike Duplicate Lab ID: QC923230 Batch: 266510 Matrix (Source ID): Soil (444740-016) Method: EPA 8015M Prep Method: EPA 3580 Source
Sample RPD
QC923230 Analyte Result Result Spiked Units Recovery Qual Limits RPD Lim DF Diesel C10-C28 422.4 112.3 250.0 mg/Kg 124% 62-126 38* 35 5 Surrogates
n-Triacontane 10.39 10.00 mg/Kg 104% 70-130
Value is outside QC l i m its
E Response exceeds instrument's linear range
ND Not Detected
NM Not Meaningful: Sample concentration > 4X spike concentration 5 3 of 3 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 662 of 1307
10 of 10

IS/MND Appendix F
Hydrology Reports
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 663 of 1307

PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND

HYDRAULIC REPORT

CAMINO LARGO
2123 N. Santa Fe Avenue
APN 159-240-07
City of Vista
Prepared for:

Kyun Tae Kim
Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family Trust
2359 Pio Pico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 420-1267
Prepared by:
bhA. Inc
land planning, civil engineering, surveying
5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387
(760)931-8700
August 13, 2021
W.O. 864-1154-400

CAMM LARGO
PREliMINARji1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH 1 Page 664I&A13-07

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter1 — Discussion..................................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Vicinity Map..............................................................................................................................................3

1.2 Purpose and Scope...................................................................................................................................4

1.3 Project Description...................................................................................................................................4

1.4 Pre -Development Conditions..................................................................................................................4

1.5 Post -Development Conditions................................................................................................................5

1.6 Study Method............................................................................................................................................9

1.7 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................11

1.8 Declaration of Responsible Charge......................................................................................................13 Chapter 2 — Existing & Proposed Hydrology Exhibits.............................................................................................14 Chapter3 — Calculations.............................................................................................................................................16

3.1 Pre -Developed Condition Hydrology Calculations.............................................................................16 100-Year Storm.................................................................................................................................17

3.2 Post-Devlopment Condition Hydrology Calculations - Undetained.................................................23 100-Year Storm.................................................................................................................................24

3.3 Post -Development Condition Hydrology Calculations - Detained....................................................36 100-Year Storm.................................................................................................................................37 Chapter 4 — Modified-Puls Detention Routing..........................................................................................................49

4.1 Rational Method Hydrographs.............................................................................................................50

4.2 Basin Storage & Stage -Discharge Relationships.................................................................................54

4.3 Basin Outlet Detail.................................................................................................................................58

4.4 HEC-HMS Modified-Puls Routing Results.........................................................................................61 Chapter 5 — Hydraulic Elements Calculations..........................................................................................................75

5.1 Curb Inlet Calculations..........................................................................................................................76 Chapter6 — References................................................................................................................................................78

6.1 Methodology- Rational Method Peak Flow Determination..............................................................80

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARJi1YJQ5J2Y2P0RT PH 1 Page 665 ld A13-07

1.1 VICINITY MAP

CHAPTER I - DISCUSSION
0 GP R�GO
o z ��

TA YL OR ST

VICINITYMAP
No SCALE

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 666ld A13-07

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this report is to publish the results of hydrology and hydraulic computer analysis for the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map of Camino Largo Project in the City of Vista. The scope of this study is to analyze the results of pre -developed and post -developed condition hydrology calculations and provide recommendations as to the design and size of various hydraulic systems considered as mitigation of any potential adverse effects of the proposed project. The mitigation measures proposed will include runoff interception ditches, specific routing and bypassing of runoff from areas that will remain in their natural condition, and detention calculations and sizing to attenuate the effects of development on storm water discharge. The 100-year storm frequency will be analyzed. Information contained in this report will be referred to for the purpose of sizing treatment facilities as proposed in the associated Storm Water Quality Management Plan.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Camino Largo project is located in the County of San Diego (APN 159-240-07) on the east side of North Santa Fe Avenue and north of Camino Largo at the intersection of North Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo. The property consists of approximately 9.30 acres.

The project site drains to two (2) Points of Compliance located near the southwest and southeast corners of the project site.

Treatment of storm water runoff from the site has been addressed in a separate report- "Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Camino Largo' by BHA. Hydromodificaiton (HMP) analysis has also been presented within the SWQMP.

Per County of San Diego drainage criteria, the Modified Rational Method should be used to determine peak flowrates when the contributing drainage area is less than 1.0 square mile.

Hydraulic Modified-Puls detention basin routing of the aforementioned modified rational method hydrology was performed using the Army Corps of Engineers HEC-HMS 4.8 software.

1.4 PRE -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
The project site is a hillside property dominated by an east -west trending ridge that rises approximately 66 feet above the lowest site terrain along North Santa Fe Avenue. The steepest project slopes descend to the north at 3:1(H:V) gradients. Site terrain continues to support a modest growth of native grass. Currently there is a nursery on the site, including greenhouse facilities, dirt roadways, and various storage structures. Less than 5% of the property site is impervious. The site is surrounded by undeveloped lands and single family residential homes.

CAMM LARGO
PREliMINARJMYJR5J22QP0RT PH 1 Page 667IAA 7 4

The existing drainage area is divided to three (3) basins. Areas draining towards POC-1 sheet flows from the top of the ridge southerly, and then westerly along Camino Largo until discharging to the south side of Camino Largo just before North Santa Fe Ave at POC-1. Areas draining towards POC-2 sheet flows westerly off the ridge until discharging southerly over the top of the decomposed granite private road, and into a natural swale at POC-2. In Additional offsite areas northeast of the easterly boundary flows to POC-2. All drainage enters an existing stream bed to the south of Camino Largo, eventually joining at an existing culvert crossing below North Santa Fe Avenue approximately 100 feet south of the project site Table 1 summarizes the pre -developed condition runoff information from the site. Please refer to the Pre -Developed Hydrology Exhibit for drainage patterns and areas.

1.5 TABLE 1—Summary of Pre -Developed Peak Flows
POC-ID
Drainage Area (ac)
100-Year Peak Flow
(cfs)
POC-1

4.95 7.05
POC-2

4.16 6.23
Total

9.11 13.28

POST -DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
The Camino Largo Project proposes the development of a forty six (46) lot residential subdivision, with individual level building pads on 9.3 gross acres. The project also proposes the minor widening and improvement of the Camino Largo private drive, which will include paving, sidewalks with curb and gutter.

The graded site will include forty six (46) new residential lots with driveways and landscaping areas along five (5) streets north of Camino Largo. Approximately 59% of the property will be impervious. Biofiltration basins are proposed for the two main drainage basins for POC-1 and POC-2 that increases in the drainage discharge rate and velocity will be mitigated up to the 100- year runoff. Proposed grading has been minimized as much as possible to maintain existing slope and drainage patterns.

POC-1
There is one (1) biofiltration basin which will outlet into an existing storm drain along -side North Santa Fe Avenue south of Camino Largo and discharge from the site at POC-1.

POC-2
There is one (1) biofiltration basin, which outlets via a storm drain into a natural swale at POC-2.

Additional offsite areas along the easterly boundary and towards the northeast is diverted around the development via drainage channels and rip rap, to discharge as historically over Camino Largo and sheet flow into a natural swale.

CAMiNO LARGO p�
PREI MINARJI'1YJF5�2y2PORT PH 1 Page 668 IdfAI 307

Rip rap energy dissipaters are proposed at storm drain outlets to reduce flow velocities. Post - development site flow will mimic existing drainage conditions, and will discharge from the site at below historical flow rates. The Homeowners Association will maintain the private road, storm drain system, and biofiltration basins.

Per 2003 County of San Diego criteria, runoff coefficients were assumed respectively for the developed project site dependent upon hydrologic soil class and surface land use.

Table 2 summarizes the expected cumulative 100-year peak flow rates from POC-1 and POC-2.

TABLE 2—Summary of Developed Conditions Peak Flows
Undetained 100-
POC-ID
Drainage Area (ac)
Year Peak Flow (cfs)
P O C-1

4.83 17.17
POC-2

5.06 17.99
Prior to discharging from the site, first flush runoff will be treated via the biofiltration based BMPs in accordance with standards set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the 2016 Vista BMP Design Manual (see "Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Camino Largo" by BHA).

Two (2) LID biofiltration basins are located within the project site and are responsible for handling hydromodificaiton requirements for the project site. In post -developed conditions, the basins will have surface ponding and a riser spillway structure (see dimensions in Table 3). Flows will then discharge from the basins via the outlet structure or infiltrate through the bio-filtration layers of the facilities to the low flow orifice. The riser structures will act as a spillway such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system.

Beneath the basins' invert lies the LID biofiltration portion of the drainage facilities. Biofiltration basins in 1 and 2 are responsible for handling hydromodification requirements for POC-1 and POC-2. Basins 1 and Basin 2 will have a ponding depth of 6 inches. BMPs are comprised of an 18-inch layer of amended soil (a highly sandy, organic rich compost with an infiltration capacity of at least 5 in/hr), and a 7-inch reservoir layer of gravel for additional detention, and to accommodate the French drain system. Below the reservoir layer, the basins will include 3 inches of saturated storage. Flows will discharge from the basin via a low -flow orifice outlet within the gravel layer to the receiving storm drain system. A riser structure will be constructed within the BMP with multiple low -flow orifices and an emergency overflow, such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the storm drain system. A typical cross section of the basins is provided in Chapter

4.3. CAMM LARGO
PREliMiNARJI' yJ15t2OaPORT PH 1 Page 669 WA1 6

TABLE 3—Summary Of BMP Dimensions
Dimensions
Biofiltration
Tributary
BMP
Underdrain
Total
Riser
Min.

BMP
Area (Ac)
AreaM
Orifice, D(2)
Gravel
Invert
Total
ft2
in
Depth (3)
Elev,
Surface
BMP 1

4.548
6,132

3.00 7
18 12
BMP 2

3.121
8,300

3.00 7
18 12
Notes: (1): Area of amended soil = area of gravel = area of BMP. (2): Diameter of the orifice in gravel layer with invert at bottom of layer; tied with hydromod min threshold (50%Q2).
(3): Total depth of gravel including 3" of saturated storage located below (4): Depth from bottom of pond to invert of emergency overflow weir.

TABLE 4—Summary Of BMP Dimensions
Lower Slot Dimensions
Upper Slot Dimensions
Emergency Weir
Biofiltration
Invert
Invert
(#) -
Riser
Weir
Outlet
(#) - Width x
Outlet
BMP
Elev HL(2)
(3)
Elev HL(2)
Width x
Invert
Perimeter
Type(1)
in
Height (in)
Type(1)
in
Height (in)
Elev,
Length (s)
BMP 1
Slot
6 (1) - 58x 3
Slot
7 (1) - 10x 3
18 11.83
BMP 2
Slot
6 (1) - 32 x 3
I Slot
7 (1) - 6x 2
18 111.83
Notes: (1): Shape of orifice opening in riser structure. (2): Depth from bottom of pond to invert of lower slot or weir. (3): Number of slots and slot dimensions: For example for BMP 1: One 57-inch wide by 3-inch high slotat 6-inches above bottom of basin and one 9-inch wide by 3-inch high slot at 7-inches above bottom of basin.
(4): Depth from bottom of pont to invert of emergency overflow weir. (5): Overflow length, the internal perimeter of the riser.

Rainfall
Precipitation has been obtained from NOAA website at the coordinates of the project (Chapter 6- References).

Rainfall was developed using the SDCHM, where the duration "t" is made equal to the time of concentration to maximize peak flow. However, longer durations up to 360 minutes are used to build the complete hyetograph (precipitation distribution for the 100-year, 6-hour storm event).

The 6-hour storm is distributed according to the methodology explained in the SDCHM, where the peak precipitation starts four hours after the beginning of the storm (see intensity tables in Chapter 5 - References).

CAMiNO LARGO
PREIiMiNARJi YJQ5�22Qp0RT PH 1 Page 670I8fAa 3-07

BMP 1 and BMP 2 are designed as a conjunctive use facilities. Conjunctive use facilities are designed to serve two or more purposes. BMP 1 and BMP 2 will meet both storm water management objective (pollutant & hydromodification control) and flood control objective (detention of the 100-year storm event).

HEC-HMS allows for hydrology input time steps of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15 & 20 minutes. Rational Method analysis input was used to determine an inflow hydrograph using the 2/3's 1/3 distribution as detailed on pages 4-2 and 4-3 of the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual. The time of concentration (Tc) used for the construction of these hydrographs was rounded to the nearest time interval that HEC-HMS could accept. The peak flow remains as per the modified rational method analysis and is not reduced (or increased) from this hydrograph development accordingly.

HEC-HMS uses an elevation -storage -discharge function to model the basin volume (stage - storage) and basin discharge (stage -discharge) relationships, the available storage volume provided by WQ units.

Rational method hydrographs, stage -storage, stage -discharge relationships and HEC-HMS model output is provided in Chapter 4 of this report.

Post -Developed Hydrograph Determination
For the post -developed condition, runoff hydrographs were generated using the Rational Method Hydrograph Procedure discussed in the Section 6 — Rational Method Hydrograph Procedure of the SDCHM. These hydrographs were then entered into the developed condition HEC-HMS model.

Model Results
The biofiltration facilities, BMP 1 and BMP 2, are sized for treatment and hydromodification of storm water runoff, resulting in decreasing the post -development 100-year peak flows. BMP 1 and BMP 2 satisfies hydromodification criteria and maintain the post -development peak flows below pre -development levels for the 6hr-100yr synthetic storm event, as shown in Table 5.

The post -developed condition peak flows calculated using modified rational method were then routed through the detention facilities on the project site in HEC-HMS. The HMS Modified- Puls results are summarized in Table 5.

CAMM LARGO
PREliMINARJHYJ15t2OaPORT PH 1 Page 671 WA1307

TABLE 5—Summary Of Detention Basin Routing
Undetained 100-
Detained 100-Year
POC-ID
Drainage Area (ac)
Year Peak Flow (cfs)
Peak Flow (cfs)
P O C-1

4.83 17.17

6.70 P O C- 2

5.06 17.99

6.17 Rational method hydrographs, stage -storage, stage -discharge relationships and HEC-HMS model output is provided in Chapter 4 of this report.

1.6 STUDY METHOD
The method of analysis was based on the Rational Method according to the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (SD HM). The Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis were done on Hydro Soft by Advanced Engineering Software 2013. The study considers the runoff for a 100-year storm frequency.

Methodology used for the computation of design rainfall events, runoff coefficients, and rainfall intensity values are consistent with criteria set forth in the "2003 County of San Diego Drainage Design Manual." A more detailed explanation of methodology used for this analysis is listed in Chapter 6 — References of this report.

Drainage basin areas were determined from the aerial topography, City of Vista 200-scale topography Map 2030-6256, and proposed grades shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map. For the proposed condition, all pad areas were considered to include roof areas, driveways and 500 square feet for future homeowner installed hardscape such as patio areas.

The Rational Method provided the following variable coefficients:

Rainfall Intensity — Initial time of concentration (Tc) values based on Table 3-2 of the SD HM.

Rainfall Isopluvial Maps from the SD HM were used to determine P6 for 100-year storm, see References.

Rainfall Intensity = I = 7.44x(P6)x(Tc)- 0.641
P6 for 100 year storm =3.1-inches
Soil Type — The site consists of soils in hydrologic soil groups of Type-C and Type-D, see Web Soil Survey in the References section of this report. The line depicting the Type-C and Type-D soils has been transposed from the Web Soil Survey and included in the Existing and Proposed Hydrology Maps.

CAMiNO LARGO
PREI MINARJHYJR5�20apORT PH 1 Page 672 IAA )7 9

Runoff Coefficient - In accordance with the County of San Diego standards, runoff coefficients were based on land use and soil type. The soil conditions used in this study are consistent with Type-C and Type-D soil qualities. An appropriate runoff coefficient (C) for each type of land use in the subarea was selected from Table 3-1 of SD HM and multiplied by the percentage of total area (A) included in that class. The sum of the products for all land uses is the weighted runoff coefficient (�,[CA]).

For all of the landscaped areas, a runoff coefficient assuming 0% impervious was used based on the under -lying soil type, 0.30 for Type-C and 0.35 for Type-D soils. All streets and driveways were considered 95% impervious, and assigned a runoff coefficient of 0.87. All pad areas were considered 10% impervious, or 1.0 DU/acre, due to the preliminary nature of this report. At Final Grading, pad areas will also be calculated with a weighted runoff coefficient based on building footprints and final driveway areas.

The Post -Development Hydrology Exhibit shows the offsite area, proposed on -site drainage system, on -site subareas, and nodal points. Table 5 summarizes the Weighted Runoff Coefficient Calculations calculated in the existing and proposed conditions.

TABLE 5 - Weighted Runoff Coefficient Calculations by Node Pre -Developed
Up Node
Down Node
Total Acreage
C1
Al (ac)
C2
A2 (ac)
C3
A3 (ac)
Ccomp
100
110

0.14 0.35

0.00 0.30

0.14 0.87

0.00 0.30
110
120

0.11 0.35

0.00 0.30

0.11 0.87

0.00 0.30
120
130

4.70 0.35

2.08 0.30

2.62 0.87

0.00 0.32
200
210

0.06 0.35

0.00 0.30

0.06 0.87

0.00 0.30
210
220

3.06 0.35

1.71 0.30

1.35 0.87

0.00 0.33
230
240

0.08 0.35

0.08 0.30

0.00 0.87

0.00 0.35
240
250

0.96 0.35

0.96 0.30

0.00 0.87

0.00 0.35
Note: C-values taken from Table 3-1 of San Diego County Hydrology Manual, consistent with on -site existing soil types. See References.

CAMiNO LARGO
PREliMINARJl" yJR5�22QPORT PH1 Page 673ldfA13-07

Post
-Developed
Up Node
Down Node
Total Acreage
C1
Al (ac)
C2
A2 (ac)
C3
A3 (ac)
Ccomp
100
110

0.130

0.35 0.00

0.30 0.07

0.87 0.06

0.57 110
120

2.967

0.35 0.31

0.30 0.85

0.87 1.80

0.65 140
150

0.118

0.35 0.00

0.30 0.07

0.87 0.05

0.55 150
160

1.307

0.35 0.41

0.30 0.08

0.87 0.81

0.67 170
170

0.305

0.35 0.31

0.30 0.00

0.87 0.00

0.35 200
210

0.167

0.35 0.00

0.30 0.05

0.87 0.12

0.71 210
240

2.261

0.35 0.10

0.30 1.36

0.87 1.46

0.76 220
230

0.123

0.35 0.00

0.30 0.07

0.87 0.05

0.54 230
240

0.536

0.35 0.24

0.30 0.00

0.87 0.29

0.64 250
250

0.271

0.35 0.27

0.30 0.00

0.87 0.00

0.35 260
270

0.081

0.35 0.08

0.30 0.00

0.87 0.00

0.35 270
280

1.619

0.35 1.62

0.30 0.00

0.87 0.00

0.35 Note: C-values taken from Table 3-1 of San Diego County Hydrology Manual, consistent with on -site existing soil types. See References.

1.7 CONCLUSION
Table 6 below summarizes predeveloped and post -developed condition drainage areas and resultant 100-year peak flow rates at the POC discharge locations from the Camino Largo Project.

TABLE 6 - Summary of Peak Flows
100-Year Peak Flow
Condition
Drainage Area (ac)
(cfs)
POC-1
Pre -Developed

4.95 7.05
Post -Developed

4.83 17.17
Undetained
Post -Developed

4.83 6.70
Detained
POC-2
Pre -Developed

4.16 6.23
Post -Developed

5.06 17.99
Undetained
Post -Developed

5.06 6.17
Detained
As shown in the above table, the development of the proposed Camino Largo project site will result in a net decrease of peak flow discharged from the project site at POC-1 and POC-2.

CAMiNO LARGO
PRE[iMINARJHyJR5�2`QPORT PH 1 Page 674IdfA13-07

All developed runoff will receive water quality treatment in accordance with the site specific SWQMP. Additionally, POC-1 and POC-2 are HMP compliant as analyzed in the SWQMP.

Peak flow rates listed above were generated based on criteria set forth in "San Diego County Hydrology Manual" (methodology presented in Chapter 6 of this report). Rational method output is located in Chapter 3 and 4. The hydraulic calculations show that the proposed storm drain facilities can sufficiently convey the anticipated Q100 flowrate without any adverse effects.

Based on this conclusion, runoff released from the proposed project site will be unlikely to cause any adverse impact to downstream water bodies or existing habitat integrity. Sediment will likely be reduced upon site development.

Final storm drain and inlet design details will be provided at the final engineering phase of the development.

CAMM LARGO
PREIIMINARJi'1YJr5�NT2PORT PH1 Page 675WA1307

1.9 DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project, that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project 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 Vista is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of my responsibilities for project design.

Bruce Rice bate
R.C.E. 60676 Expires 12/31/22
QEipFESSION
h�� JG�C L. Rjc F2c
F
a
C 60676
a
* EXP.
�S� CIV1L a�Q
rFOF C A_�F��/

CAMM LARGO
PREIMNARy14�AS) :F2PORr PH 1 Page 676 �YA 307

II. EXHIBITS

PRE -DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBITS

POST -DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY EXHIBITS

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 677ldfA13-07

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 678ldfA13-07

WaII -
�340.6 /z/o/ � x x
x J7 J79 9 34 .X
o �
m
e5 4-
x `3 �
2 \
x
o � �
2 4. ,5
o s
x 295.4 eenhous x ,305.5 s
\ r
r 2994 ,30 3. J
x xx r, ee� s x
®\
o � oo
x 29�.4 env
\32 \Sign
x 292.2 �\ Sn
9`3. 2�\
\\ 2 2
\ H
x
x J02, 9
�- x o �+Gc e
32O x ,309.4 �O
Q
Q I
Cr- (f)
TO. �3
x 335. =XJO-9� 9 \ �,
3 DASHED CONTOURS W
AREAL APPROXIMATE x 3�0 o
aII 35. �33 x
/ S �
100 o
ex-- J/ /. 9 v 393
200
4 eIEL-357.60 4
x W �� EL=359.50 Pa I m Tre �� 3�3 3�� 2 / X
,0 3176x 6,� x
xQ I 0 0
ID
x 309 4
6 O0.060

0.139
C= 0.30 C= 0.30
5, - ----- 210

10.10 W
355 ------------ - - , 3.063
EL=355.50 C- 0.33
110 _ 346.6 33� ��

0.24 0 /-- ) x ,308.4
EL=353. DO x 308.4 � � >
x J4 1.7 2. $' x
309.5
x Shed AS�
o C= 0.32
s�
Q� 3195 Palm
Trees
x s
X
2917
Pipe e>
\ x 302.2 � e� � e '� 05
i 300
296.1 <�
X 295.5 \
\ I
X 29 . x
e ' '
2 i 295
X 29 .6
130 X 291.3
\ 7.05 e
x EL=294.00 -2g0 5 / x
P
X 289. � I
STING CU E 1 e DENSE BRUSH AND Tom_
� x
293.
\ \ 91. Q289.4
�y
285
x
x
6 6 240 ----
n 6.23
5 0.109 EL = 308.50
C= 0.30 5 ---
C3
I
I
325 x 31-c2 �x 3
J� 22.6
LEGEND
� SURFACE NODE
70 SURFACE RUNOFF (CFS)
\
8•83

ELEVATION
EL=347.00

CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA
L=572.00

BASIN AREA (ACRES)

2.868

RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
C=0.47

POINT OF COMPLIANCE (POC)
POC-1

BASIN BOUNDARY/SUB-BOUNDARY

PROJECT BOUNDARY
- -

FLOWLINE

FLOW DIRECTION
OFF -SITE DRAINAGE DETAIL X Inc.
band p0annhgo dvH enghc erhgo surveyhg
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
SCALE: 1 " = 80' (760) 931-8700
40' 20' 0' 40' 80' 120'
SCALE: 1 " = 40'
K:\Ci jl fft61,n�G\HYDRO\1154-EX HYDRO.dwg, 8/23/2021 3:12:49 PM PH1 Page 679 of 1307

I'mm-wo-anow
IOWA
go
I I Mo ft
'",I

III. CALCULATIONS

3.1 PRE-DEVELOPVED CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 681 ldfA13-07

100 YEAR STORM
****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1459
Analysis prepared by:

BHA INC.
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * PRE -DEVELOPED 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY
* *
* *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: K:\HYDRO\1154\BR-2021\1154E100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:34 08/13/2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
--- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3000
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 357.60
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 353.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.60
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 8.659
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.732
CAMM LARGO PREIMINARIi' YJR5�2y2PORT PH1 Page 682 WA1307

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 322.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 294.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 600.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.74 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.47
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.49
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.41
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.23 Tc(MIN.) = 12.74
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.468
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3200
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.319
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.72
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.05
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

CAMM LARGO
PREI MINARII' YJR5�2`2P0RT PH 1 Page 683 WA1307

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.52 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.11 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.88 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 890.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjHyj15t2oap0RT PH 1 Page 684 WA1307

*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 397.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 385.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 12.90
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.267
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.0,
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.061
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20
IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.22
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.36
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.04
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.59
** CONFLUENCE DATA
**
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 4.80

11.91 4.668

3.12 2

1.59 13.22

4.362

1.04 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
CAMINO LARGO PREliMINARII' YJR5�2`2P0RT PH 1 Page 685 WA1 30 -- 0

1 6.23 11.91 4.668
2 6.07 13.22 4.362
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.23 Tc(MIN.) = 11.91
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 240.00 =
---------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.2 TC(MIN.) = 11.91
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.23

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
785.00 FEET.

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 686WA1307

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 687ldfA13-07

3.2 POST -DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS -

UNDETAINED

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 688ldfA13-07

100 YEAR STORM
****************************************************************************

BHA INC.
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * PRE -DEVELOPED 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY WITHOUT DETENTION
* *
* *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: K:\HYDRO\1154\BR-2021\1154U100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:27 08/20/2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ POC 1
I I
I I
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700

CAMM LARGO
PREI MINARJI'1YJF5�2y2PORT PH 1 Page 689 IF 24

S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 347.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 345.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.40
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.797
WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 91.00
(Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual)
THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.700
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 295.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 291.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 93.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.7 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.60
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1

CAMM LARGO
PRE1iMINARjMyjf5j222P0RT PH 1 Page 690 WA1307

PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.31
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 8.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 944.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 318.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 294.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 436.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 14.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0130 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.64 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.28
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.56
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.27
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.46
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.38 Tc(MIN.) = 6.19
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.116
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0

CAMM LARGO
PREI MINARIi1YJR5�2y2PORT PH 1 Page 691 WA1307

AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.660
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.31 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.69
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.99
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.00 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.96 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 536.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.23
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.09
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.73
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.42
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 11.31

8.99 5.595

3.10 2

7.42 6.23

7.089

1.73 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 15.26 6.23 7.089

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjHyj15t2oap0RT PH 1 Page 692 WA1307

2 17.17 8.99 5.595
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.17 Tc(MIN.) = 8.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.8
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 944.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 185.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 347.10
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 342.30
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.80
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.162
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.168

CAMINO LARGO
PREIMNARJHYJF5�20y2PORT PH 1 Page 693 WAa vvIF 28

NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.97
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.97
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5400
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00

CAMM LARGO
PREI MINARIMYJR5�2aP0RT PH 1 Page 694 "'A NIF29

UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 320.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 313.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.20
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.487
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.692
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.51
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.51
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) =

6.91 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) =

6.63 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) =

0.66 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.71
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc

INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 12.95 6.28

7.050 2.43

CAMM LARGO
PRE1iMINARjHyj15t20ap0RT PH 1 Page 695 WA137 30

2 2.71 6.91 6.627 0.66

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 15.42 6.28 7.050
2 14.89 6.91 6.627
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.42 Tc(MIN.) = 6.28
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 250.00 = 820.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«« COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 304.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 303.86 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 108.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013

ASSUME FULL -FLOWING PIPELINE
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.47
PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 2
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 16.45
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.17 Tc(MIN.) = 6.48
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 270.00 = 946.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 270.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjHyjR t2oap0RT PH 1 Page 696 WA1307

»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.81
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.69
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.70

CAMINO LARGO
PREliMINARII' YJR5�2`2PORT PH 1 Page 697 WA1307

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.79
** CONFLUENCE DATA
**
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 16.45

6.48 6.907

3.36 2

2.79 11.81

4.692

1.70 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 17.99 6.48 6.907
2 13.97 11.81 4.692
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.99 Tc(MIN.) = 6.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 300.00 = 946.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ END POC 2 I
I I
I I
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.1 TC(MIN.) = 6.48
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.99
--------------------------------------

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 698WA1307

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 699ldfA13-07

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 700ldfA13-07

3.3 POST -DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS -

DETAINED

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 701 ldfA13-07

100 YEAR STORM
****************************************************************************

BHA INC.
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * POST -DEVELOPED 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY WITH DETENTION
* *
* *
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: K:\HYDRO\1154\BR-2021\1154P100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:53 08/20/2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING

1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
CAMM LARGO PREIMI{�
NARII' YJR5�2`2PORT PH 1 Page 702 WA1307

S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 347.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 345.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.40
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.797
WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 91.00
(Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual)
THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.700
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< --------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 295.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 93.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.7 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 11.60
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
291.50

CAMM LARGO
PREI MINARIi' YJR5�2y2PORT PH1 Page 703 WA1307

PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.31
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 8.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 944.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 318.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 294.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 436.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 14.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020
Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0130 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.64 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
CAMM LARGO PREIMI{�
NARII' YJR5�2`2PORT PH 1 Page 704 WA1307

AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.660
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.31 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.69
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.23
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.09
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.73
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.42
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 11.31

8.99 5.595

3.10 2

7.42 6.23

7.089

1.73 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK

FLOW RATE
TABLE **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
1 15.26

6.23 7.089

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjHyjR5t2aP0RT PH 1 Page 705 WAI 3QZF-
4L

2 17.17 8.99 5.595
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.17 Tc(MIN.) = 8.99
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.8
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 944.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE«« COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

CAMINO LARGO
PRE[IMINARJi1YJQS�2,K2PORT PH 1 Page 706 WA1307

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.97
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.97
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 7.05
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 12.95
****************************************************************************

CAMM LARGO
PREI MINARIi' YJR5�2y2PORT PH 1 Page 707 WA1 IF 42

FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 240.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.91
CAMM LARGO PREIMINARIi' YJR5�2y2P0RT PH 1 Page 708 WA1307

RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.63
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.66
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.71
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 12.95

6.28 7.050

2.43 2

2.71 6.91

6.627

0.66 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 15.42 6.28 7.050
2 14.89 6.91 6.627
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 15.42 Tc(MIN.) = 6.28
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 250.00 = 820.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 260.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«« USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE««< USER -SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TC(MIN) = 12.00 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.64
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.36 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.48
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 260.00 TO NODE 270.00 IS CODE = 41

CAMINO LARGO
PREI MINARJI'1YJF5�2y2PORT PH 1 Page 709 IF 44

»»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«« USING USER -SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) «« DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS«« COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 385.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 685.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.692
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.58
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.06 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.54 Tc(MIN.) = 11.81
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.62 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.350
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _
309.60

0.1101
M-1-

2.79 CAMINO LARGO PREliMINARIi' YJR5�2y2PORT PH 1 Page 710 IdfAI 307

END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.48
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 280.00 TO NODE 300.00 = 785.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 300.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«« AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.81
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.69
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.70
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.79
** CONFLUENCE DATA
**

STREAM RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA

NUMBER (CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 3.48

12.53 4.516

3.36 2 2.79

11.81 4.692

1.70 RAINFALL INTENSITY

AND TIME

OF CONCENTRATION RATIO

CONFLUENCE FORMULA

USED FOR
2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
**

STREAM RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY

NUMBER (CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
1 6.07

11.81 4.692
2 6.17

12.53 4.516

COMPUTED CONFLUENCE

ESTIMATES
ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
=

6.17 Tc(MIN.) =

12.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =

5.1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
200.00 TO NODE
300.00 = 946.00 FEET.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ END POC 2
I I
I I
+----------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.1 TC(MIN.) = 12.53
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 711 ld AI307

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2PORT PH1 Page 712ldfA13-07

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2PORT PH 1 Page 713 IdfAa 3�48

CHAPTER 4

MODIFIED-PULS DETENTION ROUTING

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH 1 Page 714IdfAa 7 49

4.1 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPHS
BMP1
Q100yr =

17.17 cfs
Tc=
6min
P6100yr=

3.1 in
C =

0.63 A =

4.827
1 =

7.44*P6*D 0.645
VOL=
I*D/60
AVOL=
VZ-V0
I (incr) _
AVOL/T
Q =
CIA
VOL =
C*P6 *A
N
D
VOL
OVOL
I (incr)
Q
VOL
I
(Re -Ordered)
(min)
(in/hr)
in
(in)
(in\hr)
(cfs)
(cf)
Ordinate Sum =
0 0
0 0

0.73 7.26

17.1700
6181

0.0000
1 6

7.26 0.73

0.20 2.03

6.1607
2218

0.5620
2 12

4.64 0.93

0.14 1.44

4.3724
1574

0.5682
3 18

3.58 1.07

0.12 1.15

3.5069
1263

0.5810
4 24

2.97 1.19

0.10 0.98

2.9779
1072

0.5878
5 30

2.57 1.29

0.09 0.86

2.6144
941

0.6019
6 36

2.29 1.37

0.08 0.77

2.3464
845

0.6092
7 42

2.07 1.45

0.07 0.70

2.1390
770

0.6247
8 48

1.90 1.52

0.06 0.65

1.9727
710

0.6328
9 54

1.76 1.58

0.06 0.60

1.8359
661

0.6499
10 60

1.64 1.64

0.06 0.57

1.7210
620

0.6588
11 66

1.55 1.70

0.05 0.53

1.6228
584

0.6778
12 72

1.46 1.75

0.05 0.51

1.5378
554

0.6878
13 78

1.39 1.80

0.05 0.48

1.4632
527

0.7090
14 84

1.32 1.85

0.05 0.46

1.3973
503

0.7202
15 90

1.27 1.90

0.04 0.44

1.3384
482

0.7442
16 96

1.21 1.94

0.04 0.42

1.2855
463

0.7569
17 102

1.17 1.99

0.04 0.41

1.2376
446

0.7841
18 108

1.13 2.03

0.04 0.39

1.1940
430

0.7987
19 114

1.09 2.07

0.04 0.38

1.1541
415

0.8301
20 120

1.05 2.10

0.04 0.37

1.1175
402

0.8470
21 126

1.02 2.14

0.04 0.36

1.0837
390

0.8836
22 132

0.99 2.18

0.03 0.35

1.0523
379

0.9035
23 138

0.96 2.21

0.03 0.34

1.0232
368

0.9469
CAMiNO LARGO �p�
PRE[iMINARJI' yJR5�22QPORT PH 1 Page 715 [dfA,l 3

24 144

0.93 2.24

0.03 0.33

0.9961
359

0.9707
25 150

0.91 2.28

0.03 0.32

0.9707
349

1.0232
26 156

0.89 2.31

0.03 0.31

0.9469
341

1.0523
27 162

0.87 2.34

0.03 0.30

0.9245
333

1.1175
28 168

0.85 2.37

0.03 0.30

0.9035
325

1.1541
29 174

0.83 2.40

0.03 0.29

0.8836
318

1.2376
30 180

0.81 2.43

0.03 0.28

0.8648
311

1.2855
31 186

0.79 2.46

0.03 0.28

0.8470
305

1.3973
32 192

0.78 2.49

0.03 0.27

0.8301
299

1.4632
33 198

0.76 2.51

0.03 0.27

0.8140
293

1.6228
34 204

0.75 2.54

0.03 0.26

0.7987
288

1.7210
35 210

0.73 2.57

0.03 0.26

0.7841
282

1.9727
36 216

0.72 2.59

0.03 0.25

0.7702
277

2.1390
37 222

0.71 2.62

0.02 0.25

0.7569
272

2.6144
38 228

0.70 2.64

0.02 0.24

0.7442
268

2.9779
39 234

0.68 2.67

0.02 0.24

0.7319
264

4.3724
40 240

0.67 2.69

0.02 0.24

0.7202
259

6.1607
41 246

0.66 2.71

0.02 0.23

0.7090
255

17.1700
42 252

0.65 2.74

0.02 0.23

0.6982
251

3.5069
43 258

0.64 2.76

0.02 0.23

0.6878
248

2.3464
44 264

0.63 2.78

0.02 0.22

0.6778
244

1.8359
45 270

0.62 2.80

0.02 0.22

0.6681
241

1.5378
46 276

0.61 2.83

0.02 0.22

0.6588
237

1.3384
47 282

0.61 2.85

0.02 0.21

0.6499
234

1.1940
48 288

0.60 2.87

0.02 0.21

0.6412
231

1.0837
49 294

0.59 2.89

0.02 0.21

0.6328
228

0.9961
50 300

0.58 2.91

0.02 0.21

0.6247
225

0.9245
51 306

0.57 2.93

0.02 0.20

0.6168
222

0.8648
52 312

0.57 2.95

0.02 0.20

0.6092
219

0.8140
53 318

0.56 2.97

0.02 0.20

0.6019
217

0.7702
54 324

0.55 2.99

0.02 0.20

0.5947
214

0.7319
55 330

0.55 3.01

0.02 0.19

0.5878
212

0.6982
56 336

0.54 3.03

0.02 0.19

0.5810
209

0.6681
57 342

0.54 3.05

0.02 0.19

0.5745
207

0.6412
58 348

0.53 3.07

0.02 0.19

0.5682
205

0.6168
59 354

0.52 3.09

0.02 0.18

0.5620
202

0.5947
60 360

0.52 3.11

0.00 0.00

0.0000
0 0.0000

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2PORT PH1 Page 716ldfAI3-07

BMP2
Q100yr = 16.45 cfs
Tc= 6min
P6100Yr= 3.1 in
C = 0.64
A = 3.359
I =

7.44*P6*D- 0.645
VOL=
I*D/60
AVOL =
V1-V0
I (incr) =
AVOL/T
Q =
CIA
VOL=
C*P6*A
N
D
(min)
I
(in/hr)
VOL
in
AVOL
(in)
I (incr)
(in\hr)
Q
(cfs)
VOL
(cf)
(Re -Ordered)
Ordinate Sum =
0 0
0 0

0.73 7.26

16.4500
5922

0.0000
1 6

7.26 0.73

0.20 2.03

4.3551
1568

0.3973
2 12

4.64 0.93

0.14 1.44

3.0910
1113

0.4016
3 18

3.58 1.07

0.12 1.15

2.4791
892

0.4108
4 24

2.97 1.19

0.10 0.98

2.1051
758

0.4155
5 30

2.57 1.29

0.09 0.86

1.8482
665

0.4255
6 36

2.29 1.37

0.08 0.77

1.6587
597

0.4307
7 42

2.07 1.45

0.07 0.70

1.5121
544

0.4416
8 48

1.90 1.52

0.06 0.65

1.3946
502

0.4473
9 54

1.76 1.58

0.06 0.60

1.2979
467

0.4594
10 60

1.64 1.64

0.06 0.57

1.2166
438

0.4657
11 66

1.55 1.70

0.05 0.53

1.1472
413

0.4791
12 72

1.46 1.75

0.05 0.51

1.0871
391

0.4862
13 78

1.39 1.80

0.05 0.48

1.0344
372

0.5012
14 84

1.32 1.85

0.05 0.46

0.9878
356

0.5092
15 90

1.27 1.90

0.04 0.44

0.9462
341

0.5261
16 96

1.21 1.94

0.04 0.42

0.9087
327

0.5351
17 102

1.17 1.99

0.04 0.41

0.8749
315

0.5543
18 108

1.13 2.03

0.04 0.39

0.8441
304

0.5646
19 114

1.09 2.07

0.04 0.38

0.8159
294

0.5868
20 120

1.05 2.10

0.04 0.37

0.7900
284

0.5988
21 126

1.02 2.14

0.04 0.36

0.7661
276

0.6246
22 132

0.99 2.18

0.03 0.35

0.7439
268

0.6387
23 138

0.96 2.21

0.03 0.34

0.7233
260

0.6694
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' YjQ5�22QPORT PH1 Page 717ldfA13-07

24 144

0.93 2.24

0.03 0.33

0.7042
253

0.6862
25 150

0.91 2.28

0.03 0.32

0.6862
247

0.7233
26 156

0.89 2.31

0.03 0.31

0.6694
241

0.7439
27 162

0.87 2.34

0.03 0.30

0.6536
235

0.7900
28 168

0.85 2.37

0.03 0.30

0.6387
230

0.8159
29 174

0.83 2.40

0.03 0.29

0.6246
225

0.8749
30 180

0.81 2.43

0.03 0.28

0.6114
220

0.9087
31 186

0.79 2.46

0.03 0.28

0.5988
216

0.9878
32 192

0.78 2.49

0.03 0.27

0.5868
211

1.0344
33 198

0.76 2.51

0.03 0.27

0.5755
207

1.1472
34 204

0.75 2.54

0.03 0.26

0.5646
203

1.2166
35 210

0.73 2.57

0.03 0.26

0.5543
200

1.3946
36 216

0.72 2.59

0.03 0.25

0.5445
196

1.5121
37 222

0.71 2.62

0.02 0.25

0.5351
193

1.8482
38 228

0.70 2.64

0.02 0.24

0.5261
189

2.1051
39 234

0.68 2.67

0.02 0.24

0.5174
186

3.0910
40 240

0.67 2.69

0.02 0.24

0.5092
183

4.3551
41 246

0.66 2.71

0.02 0.23

0.5012
180

16.4500
42 252

0.65 2.74

0.02 0.23

0.4936
178

2.4791
43 258

0.64 2.76

0.02 0.23

0.4862
175

1.6587
44 264

0.63 2.78

0.02 0.22

0.4791
172

1.2979
45 270

0.62 2.80

0.02 0.22

0.4723
170

1.0871
46 276

0.61 2.83

0.02 0.22

0.4657
168

0.9462
47 282

0.61 2.85

0.02 0.21

0.4594
165

0.8441
48 288

0.60 2.87

0.02 0.21

0.4533
163

0.7661
49 294

0.59 2.89

0.02 0.21

0.4473
161

0.7042
50 300

0.58 2.91

0.02 0.21

0.4416
159

0.6536
51 306

0.57 2.93

0.02 0.20

0.4361
157

0.6114
52 312

0.57 2.95

0.02 0.20

0.4307
155

0.5755
53 318

0.56 2.97

0.02 0.20

0.4255
153

0.5445
54 324

0.55 2.99

0.02 0.20

0.4204
151

0.5174
55 330

0.55 3.01

0.02 0.19

0.4155
150

0.4936
56 336

0.54 3.03

0.02 0.19

0.4108
148

0.4723
57 342

0.54 3.05

0.02 0.19

0.4061
146

0.4533
58 348

0.53 3.07

0.02 0.19

0.4016
145

0.4361
59 354

0.52 3.09

0.02 0.18

0.3973
143

0.4204
60 360

0.52 3.11

0.00 0.00

0.0000
0 0.0000

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2PORT PH 1 Page 718 [dfAI 3-07

4.2 BASIN STORAGE AND STAGE -DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIPS
Outlet Structure for Discharge of BMP 1
Discharge vs. Elevation Table
Lower orifice
Lower Slot
No. of orif:
0 No. of slots:
1 Di a:
3 in
I nvert:

0.000 ft
Invert:

0.000 ft
B (width):

4.830 ft
Area:

0.049 sf
Area:

1.208 sf
Cg-low:

0.62 h,ict(height):

0.250 ft
Cg-I ow:

0.62 Middle orifice
Upper slot
No. of orif:
0 No. of slots:
1 Di a:
4 in
Invert:

0.583 ft
Invert:

0.417 ft
B (width):

0.833 ft
Area:

0.000 sf
Area:

0.208 sf
Cg-I ow:

0.62 h5iot (height):

0.250 ft
Cg-I ow:

0.62 *Note: h = head above the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening.

USE
Emergency Weir
I nvert: 1.000 ft
B: 20.000 ft
6 V-Notch Angle 0
H
(ft)
h*
(ft)
Qorifice-low
(cfs)
Qorifice-upper
(cfs)
Qslot-low
(cfs)
Qslot-upper
(cfs)
Qemerg
(cfs)
Qtot
(cfs)

0.500

0.000

0.583

0.083

0.000

1.220

0.000

1.220

0.667

0.167

0.000

1.725

0.210

0.000

1.936

0.750

0.250

0.000

2.113

0.298

0.000

2.411

0.833

0.333

0.000

2.742

0.365

0.000

3.107

0.917

0.417

0.000

3.245

0.473

0.000

3.718

1.000

0.500

0.000

3.679

0.560

0.000

4.239

1.083

0.583

0.000

4.067

0.635

0.000

4.702

1.167

0.667

0.000

4.422

0.702

0.000

5.123

1.250

0.750

0.000

4.750

0.763

0.000

5.513

1.333

0.833

0.000

5.056

0.819

0.000

5.876

1.417

0.917

0.000

5.346

0.872

0.000

6.218

1.500

1.000

0.000

5.620

0.922

0.000

6.542

1.583

1.083

0.000

5.881

0.970

1.491

8.342

1.667

1.167

0.000

6.132

1.015

4.219

11.365

1.750

1.250

0.000

6.372

1.058

7.750

15.180

1.833

1.333

0.000

6.604

1.099

11.932

19.635

1.917

1.417

0.000

6.828

1.139

16.675

24.643

2.000

1.500

0.000

7.045

1.178

21.920

30.143

2.083

1.583

0.000

7.255

1.215

27.623

36.093

2.167

1.667

0.000

7.460

1.252

33.749

42.460

2.250
1 1.750
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 7.659

1.287
1 40.270
1 49.216
CAMiNO LARGO ��pp-��
PRE1iMINARjI'1YjQ5�22QPORT PH 1 Page 719 �fAI J-

Stage -Storage & Stage -Discharge Relationship for BMP 1 Discharge vs. Elevation Table
HMP orifice
Basin Dimensions
No. of orif:
0 Area:

Di a:

4.00 Peri meter
Area:

0.0873 ftz
Gravel Depth
Cg-I ow:

0.62 Soil Depth
Mulch Depth
Total Subsurface Depth
Gravel Porosity 0.4
Soil Porosity 0.2
6,135 ftz
321 ft

0.58 ft

1.50 ft

0.25 ft

2.33 ft
Basin Depth
(ft)
QHMP orifice
(cfs)
Stage Area
(ft')
Basin Elev.

Volume
(ft)
Basin Depth
(ft)
Volume
(acre-ft)
Qtotai
(cfs)

0.000

0.000
6,135
328.500
3,272

0.000

0.075

0.000

0.083

0.000
6,189
328.583
3,785

0.083

0.087

0.000

0.167
1 0.000
6,242
328.667
4,303

0.167

0.099

0.000

0.250

0.000
6,296
328.750
4,826

0.250

0.111

0.000

0.333

0.000
6,349
328.833
5,353

0.333

0.123

0.000

0.417

0.000
6,403
328.917
5,884

0.417

0.135

0.000

0.500

0.000
6,456
329.000
6,420

0.500

0.147

0.000

0.583

0.000
6,510
329.083
6,960

0.583

0.160

1.220

0.667

0.000
6,563
329.167
7,505

0.667

0.172

1.936

0.750

0.000
6,617
329.250
8,054

0.750

0.185

2.411

0.833

0.000
6,670
329.333
8,607

0.833

0.198

3.107

0.917

0.000
6,724
329.417
9,165

0.917

0.210

3.718

1.000

0.000
6,777
329.500
9,728

1.000

0.223

4.239

1.083

0.000
6,831
329.583
10,295

1.083

0.236

4.702

1.167

0.000
6,884
329.667
10,866

1.167

0.249

5.123

1.250

0.000
6,938
329.750
11,442

1.250

0.263

5.513

1.333

0.000
6,991
329.833
12,023

1.333

0.276

5.876

1.417

0.000
7,045
329.917
12,607

1.417

0.289

6.218

1.500

0.000
7,098
330.000
13,197

1.500

0.303

6.542

1.583

0.000
7,152
330.083
13,790

1.583

0.317

8.342

1.667

0.000
7,205
330.167
14,389

1.667

0.330

11.365

1.750

0.000
7,259
330.250
14,991

1.750

0.344

15.180
CAMiNO LARGO {�
PRE(IMINARjI'1YjQ5j2Y2PORT PH 1 Page 720 WA1307

Outlet Structure for Discharge of BMP 2
Discharge vs. Elevation Table
Lower orifice
Lower Slot
No. of orif:
0 No. of slots:
1 Di a:
3 in
I nvert:

0.000 ft
Invert:

0.000 ft
B (width):

2.670 ft
Area:

0.049 sf
Area:

0.668 sf
Cg-low:

0.62 hsiot(height):

0.250 ft
Cg-I ow:

0.62 Middle orifice
Upper slot
No. of orif:
0 No. of slots:
1 Di a:
4 in
Invert:

0.583 ft
Invert:

0.417 ft
B (width):

0.500 ft
Area:

0.000 sf
Area:

0.083 sf
Cg-low:

0.62 hslot(height):

0.167 ft
Cg-I ow:

0.62 *Note: h = head above the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening.

USE

2.25 IR
Emergency Weir
I nvert: 1.000 ft
B: 11.830 ft
V-Notch Angle 0
H
(ft)
h*
(ft)
Qorifice-low
(cfs)
Qorifice-upper
(cfs)
Qslot-low
(cfs)
Qslot-upper
(cfs)
Qemerg
(cfs)
Qtot
(cfs)

0.500

0.000

0.583

0.083

0.000

0.674

0.000

0.674

0.667

0.167

0.000

0.954

0.084

0.000

1.038

0.750

0.250

0.000

1.168

0.119

0.000

1.287

0.833

0.333

0.000

1.516

0.204

0.000

1.720

0.917

0.417

0.000

1.794

0.207

0.000

2.001

1.000

0.500

0.000

2.034

0.239

0.000

2.273

1.083

0.583

0.000

2.248

0.268

0.000

2.516

1.167

0.667

0.000

2.444

0.293

0.000

2.737

1.250

0.750

0.000

2.626

0.317

0.000

2.942

1.333

0.833

0.000

2.795

0.339

0.000

3.134

1.417

0.917

0.000

2.955

0.359

0.000

3.314

1.500

1.000

0.000

3.107

0.378

0.000

3.485

1.583

1.083

0.000

3.251

0.397

0.882

4.530

1.667

1.167

0.000

3.390

0.415

2.495

6.300

1.750

1.250

0.000

3.523

0.432

4.584

8.538

1.833

1.333

0.000

3.651

0.448

7.058

11.156

1.917

1.417

0.000

3.775

0.464

9.863

14.102

2.000

1.500

0.000

3.894

0.479

12.966

17.339

2.083

1.583

0.000

4.011

0.494

16.339

20.843

2.167

1.667

0.000

4.124

0.508

19.962

24.594

2.250

1.750

0.000

4.234

0.522

23.820

28.575
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2P0RT PH 1 Page 721 I&A13-07

Stage -Storage & Stage -Discharge Relationship for BMP 2 Discharge vs. Elevation Table
HMP orifice
Basin Dimensions
No. of orif:
0 Area:

Di a:

3.00 Perimeter
Area:

0.0491 ft2
Gravel Depth
Cg-low:

0.62 Soil Depth
Mulch Depth
Total Subsurface Depth
Gravel Porosity 0.4
Soil Porositiy 0.2
8,300 ft2
340 ft

0.58 ft

1.50 ft

0.25 ft

2.33 ft
Basin Depth
(ft)
QHMP orifice
(cfs)
Stage Area
(ft2)
Basin Elev.

Volume
(ft)
Basin Depth
(ft)
Volume
(acre-ft)
Qtotai
(cfs)

0.000

0.000
8,300
328.500
4,427

0.000

0.102

0.000

0.083

0.000
8,357
328.583
5,118

0.083

0.118

0.000

0.167

0.000
8,413
328.667
5,810

0.167

0.133

0.000

0.250

0.000
8,470
328.750
6,502

0.250

0.149

0.000

0.333

0.000
8,527
328.833
7,193

0.333

0.165

0.000

0.417

0.000
8,583
328.917
7,885

0.417

0.181

0.000

0.500

0.000
8,640
329.000
8,577

0.500

0.197

0.000

0.583

0.000
8,697
329.083
9,268

0.583

0.213

0.674

0.667

0.000
8,753
329.167
9,960

0.667

0.229

1.038

0.750

0.000
8,810
329.250
10,652

0.750

0.245

1.287

0.833

0.000
8,867
329.333
11,343

0.833

0.260

1.720

0.917

0.000
8,923
329.417
12,035

0.917

0.276

2.001

1.000

0.000
8,980
329.500
12,727

1.000

0.292

2.273

1.083

0.000
9,037
329.583
13,418

1.083

0.308

2.516

1.167

0.000
9,093
329.667
14,110

1.167

0.324

2.737

1.250

0.000
9,150
329.750
14,802

1.250

0.340

2.942

1.333

0.000
9,207
329.833
15,493

1.333

0.356

3.134

1.417

0.000
9,263
329.917
16,185

1.417

0.372

3.314

1.500

0.000
9,320
330.000
16,877

1.500

0.387

3.485

1.583

0.000
9,377
330.083
17,568

1.583

0.403

4.530

1.667

0.000
9,433
330.167
18,260

1.667

0.419

6.300

1.750

0.000
9,490
330.250
18,952

1.750

0.435

8.538
CAMM LARGO PRE1iMINARjI'1YjQ5j2Y2PORT PH 1 Page 722 WAa30�{� 7 43 BASIN OUTLET DETAILS
{
� � §
k
� � • ) k ' / , )
� B �
URAgSgA227�
BK
§§
)�
w�
{ §�§
■pi #
�\7�}
e$ �-
§
.��g �
L
FBk��
��\$f®.
§7�E�
§K« :
��§F
$§�:
■AMN,
CA+NoLao
PREh¥NAR/Hy R5j2oy2po» PHq Page 723 WAI M7

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 724 WA1307

MALE NATIONAL PIPE THREAD

PVC ADAPTER CAST

IN SIDE OF RISER WALL

UNDERDRAIN ORIFICE

THREADED FEMALE NATIONAL

PIPE THREAD PVC CAP

WITH DRILLED ORIFICE

RISER WAIL
GIRAVR SWRAGE LA jfR
6'1 ` FRENCH DRAIN,

PERFORATED P PV PIPE
BOTMW OF BASIN —
6' PERFORATED PVC PIPE

UNDERDRAIN ORIFICE
THREADED FEMALE NATIONAL a

PIPE THREAD PVC CAP

WITH DRILLED ORIFICE
RESTRICTOR GAP DETAIL BMP 1 & 2

NOT TO SCALE

OUTLET STRUCTURE I
r ~�
UPPER
INVERT

LOWER SLOT
INVERT

PONDING DEPTI

BASIN BOTTOM
RISER
INVERT
_E V

UPPER SLOT OPENING IN

RISER STRUCTURE
P

LOWER SLOT OPENING IN

RISER STRUCTURE
OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL BMP 1 & 2

NOT TO SCALE
CAMINO LARGO �p�
PRE1IMINARjI'1yjQ5j2y2PORT PH 1 Page 725 [#fAa W 60

4.4 HEC-HMS MODIFIED-PULS ROUTING RESULTS
BMP1
Project: Bmp i
Simulation Run: Qloo
Simulation Start: 31 December 1999, 24:00
Simulation End: i January 2000, o6:oo
HMS Version: 4.8
Executed: 20 August 2021, 23:09
Global Results Summary
Hydrologic Element Drainage Area (Mla) Peak Discharge (CFS) Time of Pear Volume () Dma r
Basin I
Not specified rT r7 01]2n2000, o4:o6
Not specified 6.54 ❑r]anxvvo, v4:rr
Not specified
Not specified

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1IMINARJI'1YJQ5J2Y2P0RT PH1 Page 726ldfA13-07

Source: DMA i
Downstream -- Basin 1
Flow Method: Gage Flow
Flow Gage : PGC - i
Results: DMA i
Peak Discharge (CF5)
Time of Peak Discharge
1717
oi]ana000, 04:o6
CAMINO LARGO �{�
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 727 WAa 307

Cumulative Outflow

0. 0.

U
Q 0.

W
S 0.
01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
Outflow
1 00.00 01.00 02.00 03.00 04.00
]an 1, 2000
Time
05:00 06:00
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMiNARjI'1yjR5j2y2PORT PH 1

Page 728 ends

Reservoir: Basin i
Results: Basin i
Peak Discharge (CFS)
Time of Peak Discharge
Peak Inflow (CFS)
Time of Peak Inflow
Inflow Volume (AC - FT)
Maximum Storage (AC - FT)
Peak Elevation (FT)
Discharge Volume (AC - FT)

6.54 olJana000, 04:11
1717
oijana000, 04:06

0.74 0•3

1.5 0.66

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1yjQ5j2y2PORT PH 1 Page 729 WAa 307

04:00 05:00 06:00
Storage

0.3 0.2 5

0.1 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
Combined Inflow
1 00.00 01.00 02.00 03.00 04.00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMiNARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 730 WAI M7
65 Cumulative Outflow

0. T 0.

U
Q
01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
Pool Elevation
0 0.
a

0. W

0. 0.

00.00 01.00 02.00 03.00 04.00 05:00 06.00
]an 1, 2000
Time
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2PORT PH1 Page 731 ldfA13-07

Outflow
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 732 [dfAa N7
67 BMP2
Project: BMP2
Simulation Run: Qioo
Simulation Start: 31 December 1999, 24:00
Simulation End: i January 2000, o5:oo
HMS Version: 4.8
Executed: 20 August 2021, 23:14
Global Results Summary
Hydrologic Element
Dma i
Basin t
Drainage Area (M12) Peak Discharge (C175)
Not specified 16.45
Not specified 3.48
Time of Peak 'Volume ()
01]a=000, 04:o6 Not specified
ot]a=000, 04:t2 Not specified

CAMINO LARGO
PRE(IMINARJF'1YJr5�MT2PORT PH 1 Page 733 WAI M.. (i8

Source: DMA i
Downstream -- Basin I
Flow Method: Gage Flow
Flow Gage : PGC - i
Results: DMA i
Peak Discharge (CF5)
Time of Peak Discharge

16.45 oi]ana000, 04:o6

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 734 WAa 307

Cumulative Outflow

0. Q 0.

W
g 0.
01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
Outflow
1 Ln 1
9 LL

00.00 01.00 02.00 03.00 04.00
]an 1, 2000
Time
05:00 06:00
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2PORT PH 1

Page 735 ends

Reservoir: Basin i
Results: Basin Y
Peak Discharge(CFS)
lime of Peak Discharge
Peak Inflow (CFS)
Time of Peak Inflow
Inflow Volume (AC - FT)
Maximum Storage (AC - FT)
Peak Elevation (FT)
Discharge Volume (AC - FT)

3.48 ❑iJanxooa, 0432

16.45 oijanaaoo, O4:o6
o.5t

0.39 1.5

0.54 CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1yjQ5j2y2PORT PH1 Page 736ldfA13-07

Storage
0 f=
LL
U
Q
W
Ld7
C2
H
� 0
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
Combined Inflow
1 00.00 01.00 02.00 03.00 04.00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMiNARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 737ldfA13-07

Cumulative Outflow

0. U 0.

Q
W

0. 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
Pool Elevation

1.4 0.6

00.00 01.00 02.00 03.00 04.00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 738ldfA13-07

Outflow
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00
]an 1, 2000
Time

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 739IdfAa 307
74 CHAPTER 5

HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS CALCULATIONS

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjQ5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 740ldfA13-07

5.1 CURB INLET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
CURB INLET SIZING PER 2005SAN DIEGO COUNTY DRAINAGE MANUAL

CURB INLET ON GRADE
EQUATION 2-2
QAT = 0.7(a+y)"'
Q= interception capacity of the curb inlet (cfs)
Y= depth off I ow appoaching the curb inlet (ft)
a = depth of depression of curb at inlet (ft) = 0.33 ft LT = length of clear opening of inlet fortotal interception (ft) Solve for Lam,
Q
LT = 312

0.7(a+y)

TOTAL Q
a
y
LT
LwUsed
NODE
(CFS)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
120

11.31 0.33

0.50 21.2

24.0 160

6.69 0.33

0.34 17.3

20.0 CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI'1yjR5j2y2P0RT PH1 Page 741 ldfA13-07

CURB INLET IN SAG
EQUATION 2-8
Q = CwLwd3/z
Q= inlet capacity (cfs)
Cw= weir discharge coefficient = 3.00
Lw= weir length (ft)
d = depth of flow (ft)
Solve for Lw
_ Q
Lw — C w*d3/2

TOTAL Q
d
Lw
LwUsed
NODE
C w
(CFS)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
240

15.42 3

0.83 6.8

10.0 CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' YjR5j2`2pORT PH1 Page 742ldfA13-07

CHAPTER 6

REFERENCES

6.1— Methodology — Rational Method Peak Flow Determination

CAMM LARGO
PRE1iMINARji1YjQ5j2Y2PORT PH1 Page 743ldfA13-07

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 744ldfA13-07

b c,
a
IroperiaTCounty

51.91[
. - -i-_., •�r_ ' r'-;-_ • _; � -f - -� r � . _.._.._ _.�rr T �'�' Sri . �I '-l-�• -_" I - � i _ i_C I "I-i- _r'`. v.- - _ --� _ Y •r --1' " i ' I-.S-.J_ I _�_ -- I• , - i r ' r -
-- r
•i 5l.LLl-I --r 7-• � = LIFT .d- .-� _� _ _-. ..
o-.. _f..

CAMINO LARGO
PRFliMINARji-1yjr5�NT2PORT PH 1 Page 745 WAIN 8o

e
ly
_ 1 .Lr-_ __ 1. r. '. _ _.. ! i :�' f •• i 1 J`ti ' 4�if ` i - -r . '.'Sj• .. f:- rl 44 �i-• _ __
' ,.ems: - may:: � _ f�.�-�: t::. �—,.... •� -
I _i �._. i -; _ ; . .• I��y-:� Yeti' � f f - - ,: '- � . . __�:.� : „¢ _ 0 -i'k' t.'�i • -- - ••,y ::-%•ram' -- rl fi• I - . �_ �-- . ,so-.9tL i '4• .''3 _ - - Z _ •--�.9::;_ yam.=fi-L' t' _ ,�'.;_ _ _ . C.7 B?{L,o- i✓_, ,, - - •Orr _ "_r_ _r � .r _S�:-1 e � ' •-1-- - - _ - �:� r - •-, - E .. �•_ • g • _I . �- ; '�_ ' f .ems +� :� =n�:: - � E A0 LLl
�Y.: "- . �k=ram=- �., k ^I�,�•'� i � � `t, ~� .r I' • 11- - el

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI. yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 746 WA1307

m1
0 1a
9 W
P
v, a ❑ rwl n a 1p a ry n ellIt�a �n sr � �o n n n co m ea � a a o o c o 0 o a o a o o a a
❑_ nq
b0 ti
4 O C G G 4 C m 4 O C O C 4 0 N m
� C
C C
v�
ry ;?
rri
It rn 3
Lq e n n o0 oa oo co ❑ m
o
k _
� F
A C
o n v oa oo CV v +D W �o V j
m A
❑
O C'+1 ri M V V rr'1 +O Oa o0 hi Lti 04
ti
n a.
m �
H y H y � 7•
0 0 0 0 N
o � h
n Q A R Q A R R 4 Q o 73 wkA
o?
❑ fl,c 4 M a
c6 d td W iC D [V t6 p N
� G C C C C ❑ C C ¢C� � rL� A+ b A .�
'd � O :d •dam b 'G '-O 'O � d] [_�] '.' � T r' V
a CG c4 04 F4 P6 9 w a Z 0 ❑ � C7 � � �n
o � �
q
e o o
a a o •'s m
h :2 ,a ,C •. - r '°jtl '�tl .�+ C C ,i yam- rC '� � 7 FC ei c- d D
4� P' P& F4 a�
,o A A a ci ci i c d v Z
i]
1 3 3
rn
CAMINO LARGO p�
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 747IdfAa 307 82

San Dicgo County HydroIogy Manual
Dale: June 2003
C = 0.90 x (% Impervious) f Cl, x (1 - ON Impervious)
seelion: 3
Page: 5 of 26
Where: C, = Pervious Coefficient Runoff Value for the soil type (shown in Table 3-1 as Undisturbed Natural Terrain/Permanent Open Space, 6% Impervious). Soil type can be determined from the soil type map provided in Appendix A.

The values in Table 3-1 are typical for most urban areas. However, if the basin contains rural or agricultural land use, parks, golf courses, or other types of nonurban land use that are expected to be permanent, the appropriate value should be selected based upon the soil and cover and approved by the local agency.

3.5 CAMINO LARGO �pQ
PRE1iMINARjI'1YjQ5j2Y2PORT PH 1 Page 748IdfA1 JF83

z
Q
d
LL.
2 1nML
4 LL
E
K
W
N
N
C pp C
�
� m�
N
V
�
�
V
N
�5 ti
❑f d
Y7
Ua
� y W N 6
f0
m
L
y N
Lu,
awW
Z—
�
I9y��
`m
n arm
T
� da
$
aNttl
V
-O d
O 'C
In
m
m 00
a�
o
�7 E,
p �¢
8- 9
c..
(10,
..

Z.
m
m
m
S N �n
• a
%
m
as
� �+mm
m.

N�a
a
m
y�
m8�
E
c
❑ LmSc
Q
lJNT�
V L l6
�i O
P
00ff
a E
W
as a a Q m
F d
W W
W
❑ r
F e°i £ H
a
9 m
T
U
v
o❑moo; �� ;��
3 � m
a a
W A
g
u s s
d = a
� m
a d w Z. 1111 El El El 1111 ❑ 1 1 ] ■ 1 1 1 1 t ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d G N OD Q!
a m
gm

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 750IdfAa 307

Hydrdogic So Group —San Diego County Area, California
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres In AOI
Percent of AOI
Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to
BIC2
❑

1.7 f 7.8%
9 percent slopes,
eroded
FaD2
Fall brock sandy loam, 9

4.8 52.1%
C
to 15 percent slopes,
eroded
Pee
Placentia sandy loam, 2
C

2.3 24.4%
to 9 percent slopes,
warm MAAT, MLRA
19 SbC
Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9
C

9.5 5.7%
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
9,3
1 tt0.U4o
tjSDA Natural Resources
� Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
7/27/2021

Page 3 of 4 ends

CAMINO LARCIO
PRE1IMINARji YjQ5j2'2Z2PORT PH1 Page 751 WA1307 ,y

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

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

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

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

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or CID), the f rst letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Rating Options
Aggregation Method. Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
LJSDA Natural Resources
� Conservation Service
Web Sole Survey
National cooperative Soil Survey
7/27/2021

Page 4 of 4 ends

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1IMINARji' YjQ5j2'2Z2PORT PH 1 Page 752 *Al � g

sunNmmdml«o1=1uNV-lZJ3AO
W
q
7 0
\
�
$U
\
� ■
V
■
�
Q
.
�
Q
■
�
a.
�
■
�
� o
�
Lf)
a
LL \
\
}
. 6
§ 7e
J
a E
q
_
®2{P
�
b>a�
«
■
�
&
■
�
[m5T
\
00 �ww ■
# Rik
)4mJo
/
|
> a
»
■
§\
/
S
�
3 �
#
1333
¥ 3ONVI go 2SunO�JIVM
<
d
�
.
/
�
�
�
0 E
0 2
k
U-
%
@
E
�
�
§
k
0 2
/
0 LL
§
3 ■
■
CA+NoLao
PREh¥NAR/Hy R5j2oy2po» PH1 Page 753 ldfA M7 g

EQuAWN
©E 1190 0.385
Feet
SRQQ Tc = Time of concentrativn (hours)
t_ a Watercourse BiStan ce (iriles)
4000 ❑E = Change in elevation along
effective slope tine (See Figure 3-5)(*0
3400 Te
Hoursl Minutes
IN
9R0
II4D
2 120
T.DU
IN
60 \
s0
—soo \
00 —400 \
TO
\}d
1 fi0
--- 300 \fie
\
54 \
— 244 \
dD
\ L
\ Miles Feet
30 - 140
400
20 \
18 3QOR
1s

0.5 \
SD
\
14 `\
_ 40
2000
12 100 \
15t \
10 30
1400 \
9 1200
8 .20
100
7 800
800
6 700
5 sao
• 10
500
4 300
S
200
❑F 1_ Tc
California Division of Flighways (1941) and Kirpich (1940)

F T G U R F
Nomograph for Determination of
Time of Concentraflon (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds 3.4

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1IMINARjHyjR5j2y2P0RT PH 1 Page 754 ld A13-07

='W6
Now
-m
��AMMWI
101
on
MIME
ME

SUBIRIN
ME
NAM
�•MONS1121
Gutter and Roadway Discharge -Velocity Chart
r I c: U R E
3-6

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1IMINARji1YjQ5j2OY2PORT PH 1 Page 755 WAa M7 90

0.10 0.09
f1.OR

0.fl7
Q.06

0.05 O 04

0.03 0.02
0 a

0.01 0.009
� 0.008
W 0.007
a
p 0.006
rQ 0005

0.002

0.001
Q.Qua9

0.0008

0.WO7

0.0006
O.000S
o.000a

0.♦)003
EQUATION: V = 1.49 Wl-s"R
n
r 0.2
M
Y
T
:0.3
-OA
- 0.5
O.B
. 0��
.o.a
• 0.9 '�
3�
4 20
SOURCE: USF]OT, FHWA, HD" (1961 )

GENERAL SOLUTION
Manning's Equation Nomograph
20 1.0

9.01 C

0.03 C
07 •U

0.04 U
ur
2 2
(7 0.06
D
ff o.Q2

0.00 0.09
O.N]

0.2 P Y /�G U� fR E
3s f

CAMINO LARGO
PRF1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 756ldfA13-07

w
I
j
�
��c_r..-.�..�rre.�:.`::,`.��=ems
��
ii111C�
��«.�.......
. `' �
i
�
CWlrffAI
=i7iilml►.��aiCrg
•..r[r.[....r��,............--
ii
ii
s
FUMAOFAMMA::

I.E.

W WArrj
iIl,=�sF;=rM-MMMINUM.wr:y.i�ri.NnIn
Mf
MEN
,=®M
J��l�CZ�=T�MMEVOMAAMRMMtlM=
s�AlFAwA►A'
rla
r1l1101�
.�
��
.«�C•`�®►��.n.��
11 .
►I
r "11481150�wr�wr�
=rir�r�MAIALw�
�=�I
1 I— �
��I�
��If1i111��■��@�
��1t///.�i��`%I1�►�e��lUlllllllll■�■■■1�
mom
■_�_�_
��1rJIJJEJIJ■'J�J
�J■1
Illilllllll■■■■!Ft
■111■WANIF
lWw
AM�i_I�
�FAMI
11111111111©■■S■S
Ms
s_��
��=
EirssoaT
�
�•.ra.`L��rr
��rr.r�
�..rr...r..rrr
�
�p'd
r.�r.
�
iiia•
fiif•�,�.
■
>r�
c
cMz
r
AAR'..

M
�. .9�."'tl�C.4J.

M
r
SiFjCE
�ry.�MrMIE�AIAI�t�
__
I.CCU.fffi.ff�.ffff.ffifi�;fC�®�l•�2Cl�1
WAN
ArA,A.�
�AtAfrA■lf�lflflif�f�i
i
l�
C41.I�1315
.
ii�J�I��
��
�i•�if�i
�L;EHIE�E
0 111
HEa
E>1RH�S��pfffE
ro
Sam,
i�■/,VAN
®®
S
W�
�r1r1M
M
�rin
��1♦��Ii�11iI1�11[IIV■■■
�I�>l/�
��I�
�J��
�1
�
VA
FMaFA
�M�■■
��
i1111111111111E■
■�■
111
M
RAFA

CAMINO LARGO
PREI MINARJHYJR5�20apORT PH 1 Page 757 WA1307

San Diego County Hydrology Manual
Date: June 2003

3.2 DEVEr,OPINC INPirr DA'rA FOR THE RATIONAL METtroD
Section: 3
Page: 20 of 26
This section describes the development of the necessary data to perform RM calculations.

Section 3.3 describes the RM calculation process_ Input data for calculating peak flows and T,'s with the RM should be developed as follows:

I. On a topographic base trap, outline the overall drainage area boundary, showing aeajacent drains, existing and proposed drains, and overland flow paths. 1 'Verify the accuracy of the drainage reap in the field.

3. Divide the drainage area into subareas by locating significant points of interest. Thesc divisions should be based on topography, soil type, and land use. Ensure that an appropriate first subarea is delineated. For natural areas, the first subarea flow path length should be less than or equal to 4,004 feet plus the overland flow length (Table 3-2). For developed areas, the initial subarea flow path length should be consistent with Table 3-2. The topography and sIope within the initial subarea should be generally uniform.

4. Working from upstrearn to downstream, assign a number representing each subarea in the drainage system to each point of interest. Figure 3-8 provides guidelines for node numbers for geographic information system (GIS)-based studies. 5 6.

7. Measure each subarea in the drainage area to determine its size in acres (A).

Determine the Iength and effective slope of the flow path in each subarea.

Identify the soil type for each subarea.
3-20
CAMiNO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' YjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 758 WAa 307

❑
V7 N
C N
Q ers
m W W
{o a
A
in a=
� O �
—�J 2
4 i!c � ai ik
N O
I? L
a
T
a
d
O � N
L 6f C a J
�C a
•••t CL _ _ L1 ❑
o ro m� m 0.
3 G N W V
C �
-T_.- ❑ t4
ram.. G
Xzo
�4
to -�
v
n

N O C N
� N N
d7 CO W
J y
[�!? N a p
d �
w o
T y J CL
n to
3 N � $ � O W
°1 � a
a� m,
❑ c
❑
Q
y � Y
n y
O w n
Gs
U � �
O c
6 a N �
W
07 W
Y 0
W 2

CAMINO LARGO
PRE1iMINARjI' yjR5j2`2PORT PH 1 Page 759IdfAa M7 94

San Diego County Hydrology Manual
1]ate: June 2003
Section: 3
Page_ 22 cf 26

8. Dctermine the runoff coefficient (C) for each subarea based on `fable 3-1. If the subarea contains more than one type of development classification, use a proportionate average for C. In determining C for the subarea, use future land use taken from the applicable community plan, Multiple Species Conservation PIan, National Forest land use plan, etc.

9. Cal eulate tltc CA value for the subarea.

10. Calculate the Z(CA) value(s) for the subareas upstream of the point(s) of interest. 1I. Determine P,5 and P24 for the study using the isop] uvia] reaps provided in Appendix R.

If necessary, adjust the value for P6 to he within 4 5 % to 6 5 % of the value for Pea.

See Section 3.3 for a description of the RM calculation process.

3.3 PERFORNt[I ; RATIONAL METHOD CALCLA ATiONS
This section describes the RM calculation process. Using the input data, calculation of peak flows and T.'s should be performed as follows:

1. Determine T; for the first subarea. Use Table 3-2 or Figure 3-3 as discussed in Section

3.1.4. tf the watershed is natural, the travel time to the downstream end of the first subarea can be added to Ti to obtain the T,. Refer to paragraph 3.1.4.2 (a).

2. Determine f for the subarea using Figure 3-1. If T; was less than 5 minutes, use the 5 minute time to determine intensity for calculating the flow.

3. Calculate the peak discharge flaw rate for the subarea, where: Qr, = E(CA) 1.

In case that the downstream flow rate is less than the upstream flow rate, due to the long travel time that is not offset by the additional subarea runoff, use the upstream peak flow for design purposes until downstream flows increase again. 3-22

CAMINO LARGO
PRE[WiNARJHYJ15�20aPORT PH 1 Page 760 WA1307

San Diego Cuunty Hydrology Manual Souliun: 3
Pate: June 2003 Page: 23 of 26

4. Estimate the Tt to the next point of interest.

5. Add the Tt to the previous T, to obtain a new 'f,

6. Continue with step 2, above, until the final point of interest is reached.

Note: 1be MltM should he used to calculate the peak discharge when there is a junction from independent subareas into the drainage system.

3.4 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD (FOR JUNCTION ANALYSIS)
The purpose of this section is to describe the steps necessary to develop a hydrology report for a small watershed using the MRM. It is necessary to use the MRM if the watershed contains junctions of indcpcndent drainage systems. The process is based on the design manuals of the CitylCounty of San Diego. The general process description for using this method, including an example of the application of this method, is described below.

The engineer should only use the MItM for drainage areas up to approximately I square mile in size. If the watershed will significantly exceed 1 square mile then the NRCS mothod described in Section 4 should be used. The engineer may choose to use either the RM or the MRM for calculations for up to an approximately 1-square-mile area and then transition the study to the NRCS method for additional downstream areas that exceed approximately 1 square mile. The transition process is described in Section 4.

3.4.1 Modified Rational Method General Proms Description The general process for the MRM differs from the RM only when a junction of indepcndcnt drainage systems is reached. The peak Q, T., and I for each of the independent drainage systems at the point of the junction are calculated by the RM. The independent drainage systems are then combined using the MRM procedure described below. The peak Q, T,, and I for each of the independent drainage systems at the point of the junction must be calculated prior to using the MRM procedure to combine the independent drainage systems, as these 3-23

CAMM LARGO
PREI MINARIi YJR9�20apORT
PH1

Page 761 ends

San Diego County Ilydroiogy Manual section: 3
Date: June 2003 Page: 24 of 25
values will be used for the MRM calculations. After the independent drainage systems have been combined, R11+1; calculations arc continued to the next point of interest.

3.4.2 Procedure for Combining Independent Drainage Systems at a Junction Calculate the peak Q, T., and I for each of the independent draitage systems at the point of the junction. '['here values will be used for the MRM calculations.

At the junction of two or more independent drainage systems, the respective peak flows are combined to obtain the maximum flow out of the junction at T,. Based on the approximation that total runoff increases directly in proportion to time, a general equation may be written to determine the maximum Q and its corresponding Tc using the peak Q, T,, and I for each of the independent drainage systems at the point immediately before the junction. The general equation requires that contributing Q's be numbered in order of increasing T..

Let Q, Ti, and Ii correspond to the tributary area with the shortest T, Likewise, let Q2, T2, and 12 correspond to the tributary area with the next longer T,; Q3, T3, and 13 correspond to the tributary area with the next longer T,; and so on. When Only two independent drainage systems are combined leave Q3, 'I'3, and 13 out of the equation. Combine the independent drainage systems using the junction equation below:
]unction Equation: Ti < T2 c T3
QTl = Q, + L1 Q2 + T'1 Q3
T2 T3
Qn = Q2+11 Q,+Z'Qg
11 T3
QT3-Q3+].3 Ql+I3Q2
1:1 Iz
3-24
CAMiNO LARgO
PRE1iMiNARjI' YjR5j2`2PORT PH1 Page 762 WA1307

San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3
Date: June 2003 Page: 25 of 26
Calculate Qrl, QT2, and QT3. Select the largest Q and use the T, associated with that Q for further calculations (see the three Notes for options). if the largest calculated Q's are equal (e.g., QTI = Q-r2 -- Q-r3), use the shorter of the T,'s associated with that Q.

This equation may be expanded for a junction of more than three independent drainage systems using the same concept. The concept is that when Q from a selected subarea (e.g., Qz) is combined with Q from another subarea with a shorter T� (e.g., QI), the Q from the subarea with the shorter T� is reduced by the tatio of the 1's (12111); and when Q from a selected subarea (e.g., Q2) is combined with Q from another subarea with a longer "T, (e.g., Q3), the Q from the subarea with the longer Tc is reduced by the ratio of the Tc's (T2/T3)_ Note dtl: At a junction of two independent drainage systems that have the salve Te, the tributary flows may be added to obtain the Q1,.

Qr=QI+Q2; whcnTI=T2; andT,=T1=T2
This can be verified by using the junction equation above. Let Q3, T3f and 13 = 0. When T1 and Tr are the same, 11 and 12 are also the same, and TI/T2 and 12A, = 1. T11T2 and 12/11 are cancelled from the equations. At this point, QT1 = QT2 = QI + Q2.

Note #2: In the upstream part of a watershed, a conservative computation is acceptable.

When the times of concentration Cl'c's) are relatively close in magnitude (within 10%), use the shorter T. for the intensity and the equation Q = E(CA)l.

Note #3 - . An optional method of determining the T, is to use the equation Tc = [(Y— (CA)7.44116)/Q] 1ss
This equation is from Q = Z(CA)l = Y—(CA)(7A4 P6rl`,64' ) and solving for 7'.. The advantage in. this option is that the 'ITS is consistent with the peak flow Q, and avoids inappropriate fluctuation in downstream flows in some cases. 3-25
CAMINO LARGO �p�A
PRFhMINARjr'�F'1YJr5�MT2PORT PH 1 Page 763 WAI 8

PLAN
SECTION B—B
uMAM
Design Veloci
Rock
T (min)
m/sec (it/se'
Classification
1 (6-10)
10 No. 2 Backing
320mm (1.1 ft)
3-3.7
(10-12)
220 k4
(1/4 ton)
823mm (2.7ft)
(12-14)
(1//22 ton)

1.1m (3.5ft)

4.3-4.9
(14-1fij
900
(1 tan
1 3m (4.4ft)

4.9-5.5
(15-18)

1.8 tonne
(2 tan)
l.Bm [5.4ft}
'over 5.5 mps (10 fps) requires special design
D = Pipe 0iometer
W = Bottom Width of Channel
(14) Bars Flow
Blanket
152mm (fi-) N SM. pass
249kg/0—C-13Mpa (420—C-20D0)
Concrete
SECTION A —A
NOTES

1. Plans shall specify:

A Rack Class and thickness (T).

B Filter moterlal, number of layers and thickness.

2. Ip rap shall be either quarry stone or broken
concrete (if shown an the plans.) Cobbles
are not acceptable.

3. Rip rap shall be placed over filter blanket which may be either gronular material or filter fchdc (woven filter Ad film fabric shall not be used).

4. See Regional Supplement Amendments for selection
of filter blanket.

5. fiiyppera eneror Tgy
e dissipatpores shall be des*gnoted as either
Type 2 shol be withoirt si 1. moll he wlth aonarete sill; Revision l Byl Approved J Dote I SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING Add Metric I I T. Stanton

RIP RAP

ENERGY QISSIPATQR

RECOMMDM BY THE SAN DIEGO
REGIONAL STANDARDS OaMMITIEE
c Gparsm R.C.E. 19946 Data
DRAWNG D-4�
NUMBER

CAMINO LARGO
PRE(IMINARjI' yjQ5�22QPORT PH1 Page 764ldfA13-07

HYDROMODIFICATION SCREENING
FOR

CAMINO LARGO
September 14, 2021
Will sign and stamp upon approval
Wayne W. Chang, MS, PE 46548
changwaullhilm
Civil Engineering - Hydrology - Hydraulics - Sedimentation P.O. Box 9496
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
(858) 692-0760
11/15/2022 FOR REV►I ONLY Page 765 of 1307

-TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Domainof Analysis...................................................................................................................2 InitialDesktop Analysis.............................................................................................................5 FieldScreening..........................................................................................................................6 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................10 Figures......................................................................................................................................11

APPENDICES
A. SCCWRP Initial Desktop Analysis
B. SCCWRP Field Screening Data

MAP POCKET
Study Area Exhibit
11/15/2022 FOR REV►I ONLY Page 766 of 1307

INTRODUCTION
The city of Vista's June 2016, BMP Design Manual, outlines low flow thresholds for hydromodification analyses. The thresholds are based on a percentage of the pre -project 2-year flow (Q2), i.e., 0.1Q2 (low flow threshold and high susceptibility to erosion), 0.3Q2 (medium flow threshold and medium susceptibility to erosion), or 0.5Q2 (high flow threshold and low susceptibility to erosion). A flow threshold of O.1Q2 represents a natural downstream receiving conveyance system with a high susceptibility to bed and/or bank erosion. This is the default value used for hydromodification analyses and will result in the most conservative (largest) on -site facility sizing. A flow threshold of 0.3Q2 or 0.5Q2 represents downstream receiving conveyance systems with a medium or low susceptibility to erosion, respectively. In order to qualify for a medium or low erosion susceptibility rating, a project must perform a channel screening analysis based on the March 2010, Hydromodification Screening Tools: Field Manual for Assessing Channel Susceptibility, developed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). The SCCWRP results are compared with the critical shear stress calculator results from the County of San Diego's Critical Flow Calculator spreadsheet to establish the appropriate erosion susceptibility threshold of low, medium, or high.

T
This report provides a hydromodification screening analysis for the Camino Largo single-family residential project being designed by BHA, Inc. The 9.3-acre site currently supports a nursery and is located northeast of the intersection of North Santa Fe Avenue and Camino Largo in the city of Vista (see the Vicinity Map). The nursery will be redeveloped with 46 homes and private streets.

Under pre -project conditions, storm runoff within the project footprint generally sheet flows in a southerly direction towards Camino Largo, which is an unpaved private street. The runoff continues a short distance (100+ feet) south and enters an unnamed natural drainage course that 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 767 of 1307

flows in a westerly direction along the south side of Camino Largo (see the Study Area Exhibit in the map pocket). The unnamed natural drainage course crosses North Santa Fe Avenue in an arch culvert then continues northwest over 2.3 miles to a confluence with the San Luis Rey River.

Under post -project conditions, the project runoff will be treated by one of two biofiltration basins.

Runoff from the easterly half of the project will enter a biofiltration basin at the southeast corner of the site. A proposed storm drain will convey the treated runoff out of the biofiltration basin and discharge towards the unnamed natural drainage course. Runoff from the westerly half of the project will enter a biofiltration basin at the southwest corner of the site. A proposed storm drain will convey the treated runoff out of the biofiltration basin and to the North Santa Fe Avenue culvert. The post -project runoff from both halves of the project will ultimately be conveyed away from the site by the unnamed natural drainage course similar to existing conditions.

The SCCWRP screening tool requires both office and field work to establish the vertical and lateral susceptibility of a downstream receiving channel to erosion. The vertical and lateral assessments are performed independently of each other although the lateral results can be affected by the vertical rating. A screening analysis was performed to assess the low flow threshold for the project's two points of compliance (POC), which are the first locations where the project's runoff discharges to natural conveyances. The first POC, labeled POC A, is at the outlet of the proposed storm drain from the southeast biofiltration basin. The second POC, labeled POC B, is at the outlet of the North Santa Fe Avenue culvert.

The initial step in performing the SCCWRP screening analysis is to establish the domain of analysis and the study reaches within the domain. This is followed by office and field components of the screening tool along with the associated analyses and results. The following sections cover these procedures in sequence.

DOMAIN OF ANALYSIS
SCCWRP defines an upstream and downstream domain of analysis, which establish the study limits. The County of San Diego's HMP specifies the downstream domain of analysis based on the SCCWRP criteria. The HMP indicates that the downstream domain is the first point where one of these is reached:
• at least one reach downstream of the first grade control point • tidal backwater/lentic waterbody
• equal order tributary
• accumulation of 50 percent drainage area for stream systems or 100 percent drainage area for urban conveyance systems (storm drains, hardened channels, etc.).

The upstream limit is defined as:
2 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 768 of 1307

• proceed upstream for 20 channel top widths or to the first grade control point, whichever comes first. Identify hard points that can check headward migration and evidence of active headcutting.

SCCWRP defines the maximum spatial unit, or reach (a reach is circa 20 channel widths), for assigning a susceptibility rating within the domain of analysis to be 200 meters (656 feet). If the domain of analysis is greater than 200 meters, the study area can be subdivided into smaller reaches of less than 200 meters for analysis. Most of the units in the HMP's SCCWRP analysis are metric.

Metric units are used in this report only where given so in the HMP. Otherwise English units are used.

Downstream Domain o Analysis
The downstream domain of analysis location for each point of compliance (POC) was determined by assessing and comparing the four bullet items above. A POC represents the point below which a channel is natural and subject to hydromodification impacts. As discussed in the Introduction, storm runoff from the project will be treated by one of two biofiltration basins and then conveyed below the project by hardened, non -erodible storm drain pipes to natural conveyances. The two outlets into the natural conveyances are labeled POC A and POC B, respectively. A downstream domain of analysis location was selected below each POC as follows.

Per the first bullet item, the first permanent grade controls below POC A and POC B were identified during a site visit. The storm runoff from POC A flows a short distance to the unnamed natural drainage course and then continues west in the unnamed natural drainage course. The runoff reaches the North Santa Fe Avenue culvert approximately 1,000 feet downstream of POC A. The culvert is a non -erodible facility that provides a grade control for the upstream channel bed. i.e., it will prevent erosion of the upstream channel bed. This is the first permanent grade control below POC A.

The storm runoff from POC B discharges directly into the unnamed natural drainage course from the North Santa Fe Avenue culvert outlet. The runoff continues west in the unnamed natural drainage course a distance of 516 feet before reaching a road crossing with a culvert (see Figure 6). This culvert is the first permanent grade control reached below POC B.

The second bullet item criteria are based on reaching a lentic (standing or still water such as ponds, pools, marshes, lakes, lagoons, etc.) or tidal waterbody. The nearest such waterbody below POC A and POC B is the Upper Pond within Guajome Regional Park. The unnamed natural drainage course flows into the Upper Pond over 1.1 miles downstream of North Santa Fe Avenue. This lentic waterbody is further downstream from POC A and POC B than their first permanent grade controls, so the second bullet item will not govern over the first bullet item in establishing the downstream domain of analysis location for either POC.

The third bullet item is met when the natural watercourse below a POC confluences with a stream with an equal order or larger tributary area. The runoff from POC A flows 90 feet within a natural swale before confluencing with the unnamed natural drainage course. Topographic mapping indicates that the unnamed natural drainage course's watershed area at the confluence is much larger than the natural swale's watershed area. Therefore, the third bullet item criteria for POC A 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 769 of 1307

is met where the natural swale below POC A confluences with the unnamed natural drainage course. The confluence is closer to POC A than its downstream permanent grade control, so the third bullet item governs over the first in establishing the downstream domain of analysis location for POC A.

POC B is within the unnamed natural drainage course. Google Earth and a site visit reveal that the unnamed natural drainage course does not confluence with a larger stream between POC B and its first permanent grade control located 516 feet below POC B. Therefore, the third bullet item will not govern over the first in establishing the downstream domain of analysis location for POC B.

The fourth bullet item is met when the natural stream below a POC accumulates 50 or 100 percent drainage area for natural or urban drainage systems, respectively. Both streams below each POC are natural systems, so 50 percent applies. The Study Area Exhibit shows that the stream below POC A accumulates minor area (0.35 acres) between POC A and the confluence with the unnamed natural drainage course. The accumulated area is much less than 50 percent of the area tributary to POC A (3.29 acres). Therefore, fourth bullet item will not govern over the third in establishing the downstream domain of analysis location for POC A.

The Study Area Exhibit indicates that the unnamed natural drainage course below POC B accumulates minor area between POC B and its downstream permanent grade control. The accumulated area is much less than 50 percent of the area tributary to POC B. Therefore, the fourth bullet item will not govern over the first in establishing the downstream domain of analysis location for POC A.

Based on the above information, the downstream domain of analysis location is established by separate criteria for POC A and POC B. For POC A, the location is based on the third bullet item.

The natural swale below POC A confluences with the much larger unnamed natural drainage course 90 feet downstream of POC A. This location is closer to POC A than the locations determined by the other bullet item criteria.

For POC B, the downstream domain of analysis location is based on the first bullet item. A permanent grade control occurs where the unnamed natural drainage course enters a roadway culvert below POC B. This is the first downstream domain of analysis point reached from the four bullet criteria. Per the first bullet item, the downstream domain of analysis location should be set one reach (656 feet) below the grade control. Therefore, the downstream domain of analysis location for POC B is 650 feet below the grade control.

Upstream Domain ofAnalysis
The hardened, non -erodible drainage facilities leading to the POC A outlet into the uppermost end of the receiving natural swale. Since the natural swale does not extend upstream of POC A, the upstream domain of analysis location for POC A is at POC A.

The North Santa Fe Avenue culvert extends upstream of POC B. In addition, the project's topographic mapping shows a rock outcropping in the unnamed natural drainage course immediately upstream of the culvert. These culvert and rocks are hard points that check headward 4 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 770 of 1307

migration in the unnamed natural drainage course. Therefore, the upstream domain of analysis location for POC B is at POC B.

Study Reaches within Domain ofAnalysis
After the upstream and downstream domain of analysis locations are established for POC A and POC B, the study reaches associated with each POC are identified (see the Study Area Exhibit in the map pocket). For POC A, the entire domain of analysis extends from the upstream domain of analysis location at POC A to the downstream domain of analysis location at the confluence of the natural swale below POC A with the unnamed natural drainage course. This reach extends over 90 feet and is labeled Reach 1.

For POC B, the entire domain of analysis extends from the upstream domain of analysis location at POC B to the downstream domain of analysis location 656 feet below the permanent grade control created by a roadway culvert. The domain of analysis was analyzed as two study reaches, Reach 2 and Reach 3. Reach 2 extends 516 feet from the upstream domain of analysis location at POC B to the first permanent grade control below POC B. Reach 2 extends from the first permanent grade control to a point 656 feet below the grade control. All three study reaches are within the 656 foot (200 meters) maximum reach length recommended by SCCWRP.

INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS
After the domain of analysis is established, SCCWRP requires an "initial desktop analysis" that involves office work. The initial desktop analysis establishes the watershed area, mean annual precipitation, valley slope, and valley width. These terms are defined in Form 1, which is included in Appendix A. SCCWRP recommends the use of National Elevation Data (NED) to determine the watershed areas, valley slopes, and valley widths. NED data is similar to USGS quadrangle mapping.

The Reach 1 watershed area is based on BHA, Inc's. proposed condition hydrology, which determined that 3.29 acres is tributary to POC A (see Appendix A for their Post -Development Hydrology exhibit). The Study Area Exhibit shows that an additional 0.35 acres is tributary to the natural swale below POC A, so the total Reach 1 watershed area covers 3.64 acres (0.0057 square miles).

The watershed areas associated with Reach 2 and 3 were delineated from the USGS' StreamStats program, which is based on their Digital Elevation Model and a digital representation of the stream network. The StreamStats results are included in Appendix A. The watershed delineations are consistent with current USGS quadrangle mapping. Streamstats shows that the watershed areas tributary to Reach 2 and 3 are 676.46 and 739.62 acres (1.0570 and 1.1557 square miles), respectively.

The mean annual precipitation was obtained from the rain gage closest to the site. This is the Western Regional Climate Center's Vista 2NNE gage (see Appendix A). The average annual rainfall measured at the Vista 2NNE gage for the period of record is 13.09 inches. 5 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 771 of 1307

The valley slope and valley width for Reach 1, 2, and 3 were obtained from 1-foot contour interval topographic mapping prepared for the project supplemented with SANGIS' 2014 2-foot contour interval topographic mapping. NED data was not used because it is not very accurate for these parameters. The valley slope is the longitudinal slope of the channel bed along the flow line, so it is determined by dividing the elevation difference within a study reach by the length of the flow line. The valley width is the valley bottom width dictated by breaks in the hillslope. The valley slope and valley width within Reach 1, 2, and 3 along with their watershed areas are included in Table 1.

Reach Tributary Watershed Valley Slope, Valley Width,
Area, sq. mi. m/m In
F 1 7 0.0057 0.0722 2.44

1.0570 0.0099 9.14
3 1.1557 0.0136 9.14
Table 1. Summary of Watershed Area, Valley Slope, and Valley Width The above described values were input to a spreadsheet to calculate the simulated peak flow, screening index, and valley width index outlined in Form 1. The input data and results are tabulated in Appendix A. This completes the initial desktop analysis.

FIELD SCREENING
After the initial desktop analysis is complete, a field assessment must be performed. The field assessment is used to establish a natural channel's vertical and lateral susceptibility to erosion.

SCCWRP states that although they are admittedly linked, vertical and lateral susceptibility are assessed separately for several reasons. First, vertical and lateral responses are primarily controlled by different types of resistance, which, when assessed separately, may improve ease of use and lead to increased repeatability compared to an integrated, cross -dimensional assessment. Second, the mechanistic differences between vertical and lateral responses point to different modeling tools and potentially different management strategies. Having separate screening ratings may better direct users and managers to the most appropriate tools for subsequent analyses.

The field screening tool uses combinations of decision trees and checklists. Decision trees are typically used when a question can be answered fairly definitively and/or quantitatively (e.g., d50 < 16 mm). Checklists are used where answers are relatively qualitative (e.g., the condition of a grade control). Low, medium, high, and very high ratings are applied separately to the vertical and lateral analyses. When the vertical and lateral analyses return divergent values, the most conservative value shall be selected as the flow threshold for the hydromodification analyses.

Vertical Stability
The purpose of the vertical stability decision tree (Figure 6-4 in the County of San Diego HMP) is to assess the state of the channel bed with a particular focus on the risk of incision (i.e., down 6 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 772 of 1307

cutting). The decision tree is included in Figure 10. The first step is to assess the channel bed resistance. There are three categories defined as follows:

1. Labile Bed — sand -dominated bed, little resistant substrate.

2. Transitional/Intermediate Bed — bed typically characterized by gravel/small cobble, Intermediate level of resistance of the substrate and uncertain potential for armoring.

3. Threshold Bed (Coarse/Armored Bed) — armored with large cobbles or larger bed material or highly -resistant bed substrate (i.e., bedrock).

Based on the photographs and site investigation, the bed material and resistance is generally within the transitional/intermediate bed category. There was no evidence of a threshold bed condition.

However, some bed areas contained smaller grain sizes typically found in a labile bed.

In addition to the material size and compaction, there are several factors that establish the erodibility of a channel such as the flow rate (i.e., size of the tributary area), grade controls, channel slope, vegetative cover, channel planform, etc. The Introduction of the SCCWRP Hydromodification Screening Tools: Field Manual identifies several of these factors. When multiple factors influence erodibility, it is appropriate to perform the more detailed SCCWRP analysis, which is to analyze a channel according to SCCWRP's transitional/intermediate bed procedure. This requires the most rigorous steps and will generate the appropriate results given the range of factors that define erodibility. The transitional/intermediate bed procedure takes into account that bed material may fall within the labile category (the bed material size is used in SCCWRP's Form 3 Figure 4), but other factors may trend towards a less erodible condition. Dr.

Eric Stein from SCCWRP, who co-authored the Hydromodification Screening Tools: Field Manual in the Final Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP), indicated that it would be appropriate to analyze channels with multiple factors that impact erodibility using the transitional/intermediate bed procedure. Consequently, this procedure was used to produce more accurate results.

Transitional/intermediate beds cover a wide susceptibility/potential response range and need to be assessed in greater detail to develop a weight of evidence for the appropriate screening rating. The three primary risk factors used to assess vertical susceptibility for channels with transitional/intermediate bed materials are:

1. Armoring potential — three states (Checklist 1)

2. Grade control — three states (Checklist 2)

3. Proximity to regionally -calibrated incision/braiding threshold (Mobility Index Threshold — Probability Diagram)
These three risk factors are assessed using checklists and a diagram (see Appendix B), and the results of each are combined to provide a final vertical susceptibility rating for the intermediate/transitional bed -material group. Each checklist and diagram contains a Category A, 7 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 773 of 1307

B, or C rating. Category A is the most resistant to vertical changes while Category C is the most susceptible.

Checklist 1 determines armoring potential of the channel bed. The channel bed along each of the three study reaches is within Category B, which represents intermediate bed material of unknown resistance or unknown armoring potential due to a surface veneer such as vegetation. The soil was probed and penetration was relatively difficult through the underlying layer. The dense, mature vegetative growth along the channel of Reach 1, 2, and 3 serve to armor the channel bed and resist vertical erosion.

Checklist 2 determines grade control characteristics of the channel bed. This is established by the spacing of the grade controls along the channel. Category B on Checklist 2 is based on a spacing of 2/Sv or 4/5,, where Sv is the channel slope. The Sv value of Reach 1, 2, and 3 are included in Form 1 results in Appendix A and summarized in Table 2. Table 2 also summarizes the 2/Sv or 4/Sv of each reach along with the length. Reach 1 and Reach 2 are both shorter than their 2/Sv values, so are in Category A on Checklist 2. On the other hand, Reach 3 is between its 2/Sv and 4/Sv, so is in Category B.

Reach FS,, ft/ft I 2/S,, feet I 4/S,, feet I Length, feet Category

0.0722 1 91 182 1 90

0.0099 1 664 F 1,328 1 516

0.0136
1 484
F 967
1 656
Table 2. Checklist 2 Summary
The Screening Index Threshold is a probability diagram that depicts the risk of incising or braiding based on the potential stream power of the valley relative to the median particle diameter. The threshold is based on regional data from Dr. Howard Chang of Chang Consultants and others. The probability diagram is based on dso as well as the screening index (INDEX) value determined in the initial desktop analysis (see Appendix A). The Form 1 results in Appendix A determined an INDEX of 0.0147 and 0.0196 for Reach 1 and Reach 2, respectively. SCCWRP specifies use of a US SAH-97 half -phi template gravelometer to determine dso in a natural channel. This gravelometer allows a minimum dso measurement of 2 millimeters. The Screening Index Threshold diagram shows that the probability of incising or braiding is less than 50 percent for a dso of 2 millimeters if the INDEX value is 0.022 or less. Since the Reach 1 and Reach 2 Screening Index values are both less than the 50 percent INDEX value, Reach 1 and Reach 2 are both within Category A.

For Reach 3, dso had to be determined to assess the Screening Index Threshold. dso can be derived from a pebble count in which a minimum of 100 particles are obtained along transects at the site.

SCCRWP states that if fines less than 1/2-inch thick are at a sample point, it is appropriate to sample the coarser buried substrate. The dso value is the particle size in which 50 percent of the particles are smaller and 50 percent are larger. The pebble count results for Reach 3 are included in Appendix B. The results show a dso of 8 millimeters. Plotting the dso and screening index value on 8 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 774 of 1307

the Mobility Index Threshold diagram shows Reach 3 has a less than 50 percent probability of incising or braiding, which falls within Category A.

The overall vertical rating is determined from the Checklist 1, Checklist 2, and Mobility Index Threshold results. The scoring is based on the following values:

Category A = 3, Category B = 6, Category C = 9
The vertical rating score is based on these values and the equation:

Vertical Rating = [(armoring X grade control)112 X screening index scoref2 Table 3 summarizes the Checklist 1, 2, and 3 values for each reach as well as their vertical rating.

The results show the vertical rating for all three study reaches is less than 4.5, so these reaches have a low threshold for vertical susceptibility.

Reach Checklist 1 Checklist 2 Checklist 3 Vertical
(armoring) (grade control) (screening index) i Rating
6 3 F-- 3 3.6
2 6 3 3 3.6
3 6 6 3 4.2
Table 3. Overall Vertical Rating
Lateral Stability
The purpose of the lateral decision tree (Figure 6-5 from County of San Diego HMP included in Figure 11) is to assess the state of the channel banks with a focus on the risk of widening. Channels can widen from either bank failure or through fluvial processes such as chute cutoffs, avulsions, and braiding. Widening through fluvial avulsions/active braiding is a relatively straightforward observation. If braiding is not already occurring, the next logical step is to assess the condition of the banks. Banks fail through a variety of mechanisms; however, one of the most important distinctions is whether they fail in mass (as many particles) or by fluvial detachment of individual particles. Although much research is dedicated to the combined effects of weakening, fluvial erosion, and mass failure, SCCWRP found it valuable to segregate bank types based on the inference of the dominant failure mechanism (as the management approach may vary based on the dominant failure mechanism). A decision tree (Form 4 in Appendix B) is used in conducting the lateral susceptibility assessment. Definitions and photographic examples are also provided below for terms used in the lateral susceptibility assessment.

The first step in the decision tree is to determine if lateral adjustments are occurring. The adjustments can take the form of extensive mass wasting (greater than 50 percent of the banks are exhibiting planar, slab, or rotational failures and/or scalloping, undermining, and/or tension cracks). The adjustments can also involve extensive fluvial erosion (significant and frequent bank cuts on over 50 percent of the banks). Neither mass wasting nor extensive fluvial erosion was evident within either of the three reaches during a field investigation. As seen in the figures and 9 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 775 of 1307

topographic mapping, the channel banks are mostly gentle and heavily vegetated confirming that mass wasting and extensive fluvial erosion has not occurred.

The next step in the Form 4 decision tree is to assess the consolidation of the bank material. The banks in Reach 1, 2, and 3 were moderate to well -consolidated. This determination was made because the ground surface was difficult to penetrate with a probe. The banks were densely vegetated and/or relatively level and stable as seen in the figures. In addition, the banks showed little evidence of crumbling and were composed of relatively well -packed particles.

Form 6 (see Appendix B) is used to assess the probability of mass wasting. Form 6 identifies a 10, 50, and 90 percent probability based on the bank angle and bank height. From the topographic mapping and site investigation, the average bank angles in all three reaches are 2:1 (26.6 degrees) or flatter. Form 6 shows that the probably of mass wasting and bank failure has less than 10 percent risk for a 26.6 degree bank angle or less regardless of the bank height.

The final two steps in the Form 4 decision tree are based on the braiding risk determined from the vertical rating as well as the Valley Width Index (VWI) calculated in Appendix A. If the vertical rating is high, the braiding risk is considered to be greater than 50 percent. Excessive braiding can lead to lateral bank failure. For Reach 1, 2, and 3 the vertical rating is low, so the braiding risk is less than 50 percent. Furthermore, a VWI greater than 2 represents channels unconfined by bedrock or hillslope and, hence, subject to lateral migration. The VWI calculations in the spreadsheet in Appendix A show that VWI for Reach 1, 2, and 3 are 1.40, 0.72, and 0.70, respectively, which are all less than 2.

From the above steps, the lateral susceptibility rating is low for Reach 1, 2, and 3 (colored circles are included on the Form 4: Lateral Susceptibility Field Sheet decision tree in Appendix B showing the decision path).

CONCLUSION
The SCCWRP channel screening tools were used to assess the downstream channel susceptibility for the Camino Largo single-family residential project being designed by BHA, Inc. Storm runoff from the project will be collected by proposed on -site drainage systems, treated by one of two on - site BMPs, and conveyed off -site by storm drain pipes. A channel assessment was performed for the natural streams below each POC based on office analyses and field work. The results indicate a low threshold for vertical and lateral susceptibilities for Reach 1, 2, and 3.

The HMP requires that these results be compared with the critical stress calculator results outlined in the County of San Diego HMP. The critical stress results are included in Appendix B for the study reach using the spreadsheet provided by the County. The channel dimensions were estimated from topographic mapping and Google Earth. Based on these values, the critical stress results returned a low threshold consistent with the SCCWRP channel screening results. Therefore, the SCCWRP analyses and critical stress calculator demonstrate that a low overall threshold is applicable to the project (i.e., 0.5Q2).
10 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 776 of 1307

Figure 1. Looking Downstream towards Reach 1 from Upper End near Future POC A Figure 2. North Santa Fe Avenue Culvert Outlet at POC B 11 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 777 of 1307

Figure 3. Looking Downstream towards Reach 2 from Upper End at POC B Figure 4. Dense Vegetation within Middle of Reach 2
12 11/15/2022 PH1 Page 778 of 1307

Figure
$-2
LABILE @ED
+ $�nU-pgm�n816d
+ dl� c 1 l mm
• % surface send a 25%
* LOO&Aly
IN: fi212LAW
��

INTERMEDIATE BEG
a MDderstgIy-oG kxmAy-
packed cowle 1 grmal
+ Hardpan of uncarta h
Wpllti, -axiom( alty

CDARSEIARMCIRED BED
■dsa}128mm
. Boulder i large cobble
• tightly -packed
•-E5% sand
* Corldnu-pus bedrock
. CanNnuaus owombe
NIGH

EXAMINE RISK FACTORS
LCW
■ grada Can kril
i armoring potential
■ praximily ho inusion Ihrer#rold
Go to
90 to bed 6PAibiRy
6D ba
F6-5
checklists and Incision
F
diagram check list
Fil out SiCCWRP
crlisrla to detorrnlne it1Ms
Feceving rhmnO hm-a HIQH
h1EDPU M, or LOW susceptibility
IRt ' :IN ■ITFORFUM. ■ 1lRa7i�
Go to
Figure
Cry
figure 6-4. SCCWRP Vertica{Susceptih ty
Figure 10. SCCWRP Vertical Channel Susceptibility Matrix 16 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 782 of 1307

FIQkrg
94 LASER A aw AP
• Fuly snmietl 1 bedrock oenh
10"IEze4on in Q09r1 cchM4on
. Me midnnoe of dwia
rorrnaMn r awlnnnu
WASTIwG OR
+Fu1Vtw5ned,direrdy
ARC LATERALmASS

EXTENSWE FLUVIAL
cor/r9C4Fd to hll4ld& WA-1
ADJUBERb$IbN-bR
CHuiE
4OCUCUTOFF
FORMATX3N
-WO
Nane,arRrrvlvllykw"dID MED HIGH
M'41 and floM1lMOfli 1 VWI s 7 vffi o- 3
€ Go IQ
F yury &3
of U'e
Dm mn
YE3 ALL BANK STRATA ND
Moderately ar well-mnsWrdal ed OOHIDOLIDATEID Pooiy ar uncon sol doled INCLLAING TOE7
Bunk he4hl
Da -S -It!'M
CAdr66 r F r•9 Fi'ig
t0%109shc
-ILP% Dgahc
rmstardl[a,d
unooreofdaled
urconsoldnlyd
hdh wftvm
�orye
r94 mm
AND VYA :�F
AND VWI �-2
al Iibakuod ai
AND VW 7 7
balk filluro
HIGH
HIGH
Gala
Go b
FigUr95-3
Flp4rp 63
01 Lhe
M V*
Da45I9n
D@DsN n
....... ... ....... ..

Bra[i q 6reldln0
risk k rek k
5Q%-; SO4L4
nr prpedmly to
braiding
LzW LOW mm HIGH
&ed a F0 HIGH Brabi NED HIGH 6raKSt Bn0-
nskc[-04► h1a2 Yr%Ir2 rrk54X VWI52 VVllr2 riprtr MJii5016 /C-n b-%
Flg.lro &Z
or dne
Dmpon
Figure6-5. La[era!ChanneiSusceptlifity
Figure 11. SCCWRP Lateral Channel Susceptibility Matrix 17 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 783 of 1307

APPENDIX A

SCCWRP INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 784 of 1307

FORM 1: INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS
Complete all shaded sections.

IF required at multiple locations, circle one of the following site types:

Applicant Site / Upstream Extent / Downstream Extent
Location: Latitude:

Description (river name, crossing streets, etc.):

Longitude:

GIS Parameters: The International System of Units (SI) is used throughout the assessment as the field standard and for consistency with the broader scientific community. However, as the singular exception, US Customary units are used for contributing drainage area (A) and mean annual precipitation (P) to apply regional flow equations after the USGS. See SCCWRP Technical Report 607 for example measurements and "Screening Tool Data Entry.xls" for automated calculations.

Form 1 Table 1. Initial desktop analysis in GIS.

Symbol Variable Description and Source Value
A Area Contributing drainage area to screening location via published (mi) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) and/or <_ 30 m National Elevation Data F (NED), USGS seamless server
m a.
o P Mean annual Area -weighted annual precipitation via USGS delineated polygons using w CL precipitation records from 1900 to 1960 (which was more significant in hydrologic (in) models than polygons delineated from shorter record lengths) S Valley slope Valley slope at site via NED, measured over a relatively homogenous (m/m) valley segment as dictated by hillslope configuration, tributary a confluences, etc., over a distance of up to —500 m or 10% of the main - channel length from site to drainage divide
o
a _ W Valley width Valley bottom width at site between natural valley walls as dictated by a? (m) clear breaks in hillslope on NED raster, irrespective of potential i) armoring from floodplain encroachment, levees, etc. (imprecise measurements have negligible effect on rating in wide valleys where VWI is» 2, as defined in lateral decision tree)
Form 1 Tabl a 2. Simplif ied peak flo w, screening index, and valley width index. Values for this table should be calculated in the sequence shown in this table, using values from Form 1 Table 1.

Symbol Dependent Variable Equation Required Units Value Q10cfs 10-yr peak flow (ft3/s) Qlocfs = 18.2 * A 0.87 * P 0.77 A (mi) P (in)
Q10 10-yr peak flow (m3/S) Q10 = 0.0283 * Q1ocfs Qlocfs (ft3/s) INDEX 10-yr screening index (m1.5/s .5) INDEX = Sv*Q10 0.5 Q1 ( M3/o (m S) Wref Reference width (m) Wref = 6.99 * Q10 0.438 Q10 (m3/s) VWI Valley width index (m/m) VWI = W /Wref W, (m)
Wref (m)
(Sheet 1 of 1)
B - 3
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 785 of 1307

SCCWRP FORM 1 ANALYSES
Reach
1 2
3 Reach
1 2
3 Area
Mean Annual Precip.

Valley Slope
Valley Width
10-Year Flow
10-Year Flow
A, sq. mi.

P, inches
Sv, m/m
Wv, m
Q10cfs, cfs
Q10, cros

0.0057

13.09 0.0722

2.44 1.5

0.04 1.0570

13.09 0.0099

9.14 138.4

3.92 1.1557

13.09 0.0136

9.14 149.5

4.23 10-Year Screening Index
INDEX

0.015

0.020

0.028
Reference Width
Wref, m

1.74 12.71

13.15 Valley Width Index
VWI, m/m

1.40 0.72

0.70 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 786 of 1307

StreamStats Report
Region ID: CA
Workspace ID: CA20210804003918730000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 33.23230, -117.25114 Time: 2021-08-03 17:39:35 -0700
plo
ome
by Pa rk
L - U
St
Basin Characteristics
Parameter Code Parameter Description
DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream
General Disclaimers
Value Unit

1.0570 square miles
11/15/2022 PH Page 788 of 1307

StreamStats Report
Region ID: CA
Workspace ID: CA20210804003221740000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 33.23239,-117.25345 Time: 2021-08-03 17:32:38 -0700
"wAw
1�x
s�
— -I! JL -
FarsLy St
xl C8{I13l'JEI ��Orgo
m
a
Basin Characteristics
Parameter Code Parameter Description
DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream
General Disclaimers
Tr i
AiPCgh1r
Value Unit

1.1557 square miles
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 789 of 1307

? ua )CN17@
Park
1 ,1
� 4000
Vista
AV\ C;4�v 4
H idde n
kleado ws
.i q WIAM
.#AojrN TOA 1N S _

4.�
M
r J / /
e { _A }
r-
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 790 of 1307

VISTA 2 NNE, CALIFORNIA (049378)
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary
Period of Record : 08/01/1957 to 05/12/2016
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Average Max. Temperature (F) 67.4 67.8 68.2 70.8 72.9 76.3 81.3 83.0 82.2 77.9 72.3 67.4 74.0 Average Min. Temperature (F) 44.0 45.0 46.3 48.5 53.5 56.6 60.3 61.6 60.0 55.0 48.3 44.0 51.9 Average Total Precipitation 2.76 2.55 2.24 1.05 0.22 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.25 0.54 1.40 1.83 13.09 (in.)
Average Total SnowFall (in.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Average Snow Depth (in.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent of possible observations for period of record.

Max. Temp.: 86.6% Min. Temp.: 87% Precipitation: 87.6% Snowfall: 87.7% Snow Depth: 87.3% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness.

Western Regional Climate Center, iLrcc@&ri.edu

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0 0 0 0 0
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 791 of 1307

APPENDIX B

SCCWRP FIELD SCREENING DATA
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 792 of 1307

Form 3 Support Materials
Form 3 Checklists 1 and 2, along with information recording in Form 3 Table 1, are intended to support the decisions pathways illustrated in Form 3 Overall Vertical Rating for Intermediate/Transitional Bed.

Form 3 Checklist 1: Armoring Potential
❑ A A mix of coarse gravels and cobbles that are tightly packed with 25% surface material of diameter <2 mm
Form 3 Figure 2. Armoring potential photographic supplement for assessing intermediate beds (16 < d50 < 128 mm) to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Checklist 1. (Sheet 2 of 4)
REACH 1, 29 AND 3 RESULTS
B - 7
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 793 of 1307

Form 3 Checklist 2: Grade Control
❑ A Grade control is present with spacing 30 cm), no
active mass wasting (analyst cannot say grade control sufficient if mass - wasting checklist indicates presence of bank failure), no exposed bridge pilings, no culverts/structures undermined
• Hard points in serviceable condition at decadal time scale, e.g., no apparent undermining, flanking, failing grout
• If geologic grade control, rock should be resistant igneous and/or metamorphic; For sedimentary/hardpan to be classified as `grade control', it should be of demonstrable strength as indicated by field testing such as hammer test/borings and/or inspected by appropriate stakeholder ❑ B Intermediate to A and C — artificial or geologic grade control present but spaced 2/Sv m to 4/Sv m or potential evidence of failure or hardpan of uncertain resistance
❑ C Grade control absent, spaced >100 m or >4/Sv m, or clear evidence of ineffectiveness
Form 3 Figure 3. Grade -control (condition) photographic supplement for assessing intermediate beds (16 < d50 < 128 mm) to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Checklist 2. (Sheet 3 of 4)
B - 8
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 794 of 1307

Regionally -Calibrated Screening Index Threshold for Incising/Braiding For transitional bed channels (d5o between 16 and 128 mm) or labile beds (channel not incised past critical bank height), use Form 3 Figure 3 to determine Screening Index Score and complete Form 3 Table 1.
1 -
o, I
E a' - c128 0.145
Z o 0 96 0.125
o 0.01 � E 80 0.114
UJ m
� 64 0.101
U Al

0.001 y 48 0.087

0.1 1 d5n (mm) 10 100 0 32 0.070
16 0.049
• Stable Braided -F Incising 8 0.031
10% risk 50% risk 90% risk 6 E
� E 4 0.026
-• f • - ••- `L) `9
2 0.022
V
Field -derived: r • 00•-•• - • o 1 0.018

0.5 0.015
Form 3 Figure 4. Probability of incising/braiding based on logistic regression of Screening Index and d5o to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Table 1.

Form 3 Table 1. Values for Screening Index Threshold (probability of incising/braiding) to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Figure 4 (above) to complete Form 3 Overall Vertical Rating for Intermediate/Transitional Bed (below).. Screening Index Score: A = 50% probability of incising/braiding for current Q10, valley slope, and d50- d50 (mm) SV*Q100.5 (m1.5/50.5) o Sv*Q100.5 (m1.5/s0.5) Screening Index Score From Form 2 From Form 1 50/ risk of incising/braiding (A, B, C) from table in Form 3 Figure 3 above
Overall Vertical Rating for Intermediate/Transitional Bed Calculate the overall Vertical Rating for Transitional Bed channels using the formula below.

Numeric values for responses to Form 3 Checklists and Table 1 as follows: A = 3, B = 6, C = 9.

Vertical RtttInarmoring „ grade controi x screening index score Vertical Susceptibility based on Vertical Rating: 7 = HIGH. (Sheet 4 of 4)
B - 9
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 795 of 1307

PEBBLE COUNT
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 Reach 3
Diameter, mm
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2

2.8 2.8

2.8 2.8
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4

5.6 5.6

5.6 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 796 of 1307

44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 Reach 3
Diameter, mm

5.6 5.6

5.6 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11
11 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 797 of 1307

Reach 3
#
Diameter, mm
89 11
90 11
91 11
92 11
93 11
94 16
95 16
96 16
97 16
98 16
99 16
100
16 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 798 of 1307

LATERALLY ADJUSTABLE?
no yes IF
LOW
•Fullyarmored 1 Are lateral adjustments occurring?
bedrock bank no yes
stabilization in good
condition
-No evidence Of None, or fluvial only limited to bends and constrictions Mass wasting or extensive fluvial chute formation ! erosion or chute cutoff formation
avulsions
-Fully confined, directly All bank strata consolidated including toe?

HIGH VERY HIGH
coni ected to hillslope, yes n VUVI 2
D ed
Bank
10% logistic 10% logistic risk Coarse ! Fine Fine
risk for angle risk for angle for angle, AND resistant toe, unconsolidated unconsolidated AND VWI 5 2 VWI > 2 d > 54 mm AND VVVI 5 2 AND VWI > 2
Vertical Vertical MED HIGH HIGH VERY Vertical Vertical MEN HIGH HIGH VERY rating rating Vert. Vertical Vertical HIGH rating rating Vert. Vertical Vertical HIGH _ high _ high high high _ high �! high
LOW 11 MEN AREA HIGH LOW MEG MEN HIGH
VW 5 2 VW > 2 VWI 5 2 VW > 2 VWI 5 2 VW > 2 VW s 2 VW > 2

FORM 6: PROBABILITY OF MASS WASTING BANK FAILURE
If mass wasting is not currently extensive and the banks are moderately- to well -consolidated, measure bank height and angle at several locations (i.e., at least three locations that capture the range of conditions present in the study reach) to estimate representative values for the reach. Use Form 6 Figure 1 below to determine if risk of bank failure is >10% and complete Form 6 Table 1. Support your results with photographs that include a protractor/rod/tape/person for scale.

Bank Angle
Bank Height
Corresponding Bank Height for
Bank Failure Risk
(degrees)
(m)
10% Risk of Mass Wasting (m)
( 10% Risk)
Left Bank
Right Bank
O Stable - 10%Risk 50%Risk
4 1 x
l0
IL
5 x
G
� 4
y 2 0 • it
D0 D XX
o 00 O X
v 0o on
aco 00 o a° v
0 30 40
30 7.6
90% Risk x
Unstable
35 4.7
40 3,7
45 2.1
x
X
so

1.5 x
55 1.1
x
60 0.85
X
65 0.66
�c x
x
70 0.52
� x
X
s0

0.34 90

0.24 50 60 70 80 90
Bank Angle (degrees)
Form 6 Figure 1. Probability Mass Wasting diagram, Bank Angle:Height/% Risk table, and Band Height:Angle schematic.
(Sheet 1 of 1)
B-12
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 800 of 1307

Critical Flow Calculator
enter all values in green cells
and drop down boxes
Inputs
a) Receiving channel width at top of
bank (ft) - see figure on right
b) Channel width at bed (ft)
c) Bank height at top of bank (ft)
Channel gradient (ft/ft)
Receiving channel roughness
Reach 1
a
c
b
Same as above, but more stones and weeds n=0.035
Channel materials (use weakest of unconsolidated sandy loam 0.035 lb/sq ft bed or banks). If materials are varied alluvial silt (non coloidal) 0.045 lb/sq ft use weakest material covering more medium gravel 0.12 lb/sq ft than 20% of channel. alluvial silt/clay 0.26 lb/sq ft
�2.5 inch cobble 1.1 lb/sq ft
enter own d50 (variable)
veqetation bed and banks 0.6 lb/sq ft
Select method of calculating Q2
Input own Q2
[calculate Q2 using
USGS regression
Receiving water watershed annual

13.09 Receiving water watershed

0.0057
precip (inches)
area at PoC (sq mi)
Project watershed annual

13.09 Project watershed area

0.0057
precipitation (inches)
draining to PoC (sq mi)
Outputs - Flow control range
Point of Compliance low
Receiving water Q2 0.2 flow rate (cfs) 0.1
Project site Q2 0.2 Low flow class 0.5Q2
Channel vulnerability
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 801 of 1307

38.0 30.0

2.0 0.0099
Reach 2
a
c
b
Same as above, but more stones and weeds n=0.035
Channel materials (use weakest of unconsolidated sandy loam 0.035 lb/sq ft bed or banks). If materials are varied alluvial silt (non coloidal) 0.045 lb/sq ft use weakest material covering more medium gravel 0.12 lb/sq ft than 20% of channel. alluvial silt/clay 0.26 lb/sq ft
�2.5 inch cobble 1.1 lb/sq ft
enter own d50 (variable)
veqetation bed and banks 0.6 lb/sq ft
Select method of calculating Q2
Input own Q2
[calculate Q2 using
USGS regression
Receiving water watershed annual

13.09 Receiving water watershed

1.0570
precip (inches)
area at PoC (sq mi)
Project watershed annual

13.09 Project watershed area

1.0570
precipitation (inches)
draining to PoC (sq mi)
Outputs - Flow control range
Point of Compliance low
Receiving water Q2 9.4 flow rate (cfs) 4.7
Project site Q2 9.4 Low flow class 0.502
Channel vulnerability •
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 802 of 1307

38.0 30.0

2.0 0.0136
Reach 3
a
c
b
Same as above, but more stones and weeds n=0.035
Channel materials (use weakest of unconsolidated sandy loam 0.035 lb/sq ft bed or banks). If materials are varied alluvial silt (non coloidal) 0.045 lb/sq ft use weakest material covering more medium gravel 0.12 lb/sq ft than 20% of channel. alluvial silt/clay 0.26 lb/sq ft
�2.5 inch cobble 1.1 lb/sq ft
enter own d50 (variable)
veqetation bed and banks 0.6 lb/sq ft
Select method of calculating Q2
Input own Q2
[calculate Q2 using
USGS regression
Receiving water watershed annual

13.09 Receiving water watershed

1.1557
precip (inches)
area at PoC (sq mi)
Project watershed annual

13.09 Project watershed area

1.1557
precipitation (inches)
draining to PoC (sq mi)
Outputs - Flow control range
Point of Compliance low
Receiving water Q2 10.0 flow rate (cfs) 5.0
Project site Q2 10.0 Low flow class 0.5Q2
Channel vulnerability
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 803 of 1307

GRAPHIC SCALE
100 0 50 100 200
1 INCH = 100 FEET
MEN-
7 29i.

PE 334.5
334.E
PE *5
KIM
�� 6
`-'__PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
FROM PROJECT -_. _• �t
PE
LEGEND:

DOWNSTREAM DOMAIN OF ANALYSIS J
��OCATION FOR REACH 1 AT CONFLUEN
vOF NATURAL SWALE WITH UNNAMED
%NATURAL � DRAINAGE COURS it
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY TRIBUTARY TO REACH 1

3.29 AC DRAINAGE BASIN AREA

PROPOSED PROJECT

PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY

EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITY

STUDY REACH

CAMINO LARGO

STUDY AREA EXHIBIT
11/15/2022 PH1 Page 804 of 1307

Project Number(s): PC P21-0300 LD

CITY OF VISTA
C A L I F 0 R N I A
GP

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWAMP)
FOR

CAMINO LARGO

VISTA, CA
PREPARED FOR:

Kyun Tae Kim
Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family Trust
2359 Pio Pico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 420-1267
December 6, 2021
NOTE: This Priority Development Project SWQMP Template and Instructions are offered as a tool to assist users in complying with RWQCB Order No. R9-2015-0001 (Permit), and is not intended to warrant or guarantee Permit compliance, which is the independent and sole responsibility of the user. This template is subject to revision without notice, at any time.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 805 of 1307

CONTENTS
ENGINEER OF WORK CERTIFICATION STATEMENT...........................................................................................................3 PROJECT OWNER CERTIFICATION STATEMENT................................................................................................................4 CITY OF VISTA STAFF REVIEW......................................................................................................................................... 5 PROJECT VICINITY MAP..................................................................................................................................................7 FORM 1— PROJECT CATEGORY DETERMINATION CHECKLIST...........................................................................................9 FORM 2 — PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................10 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................11 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS........................................................................................................13 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................................................14 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS.....................................................................................................15 POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS..............................................................................................................................16 IDENTIFICATION AND NARRATIVE OF RECEIVING WATER AND POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN...............................................17 HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................19 CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS..........................................................................................................................20 FLOW CONTROL FOR POST -PROJECT RUNOFF.....................................................................................................................21 OTHER SITE REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS................................................................................................................22 FORM 3 — SOURCE CONTROL BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS......................................................................... 23 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION & SOURCE CONTROLS................................................................................................................23 FORM 4—SITE DESIGN BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS..................................................................................27 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................27 FORM 5 — STRUCTURAL POLLUTANT CONTROL AND HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT BMPS ............................... 29 PROJECTIDENTIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................29 PDPSTRUCTURAL BMPS.......................................................................................................................................................29 FORM 6—STORMWATER BMP MAINTENANCE MECHANISM........................................................................................31 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................31 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................................................................................31 ATTACHMENT 1— POLLUTANT CONTROLS: SUPPORT DOCUMENT AND CHECKLIST........................................................ 32 ATTACHMENT 1A— DMA EXHIBIT CHECKLIST................................................................................................................33 ATTACHMENT 16 — TEMPLATE TABULAR DMA SUMMARY ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ATTACHMENT 2 — HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT CONTROLS: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION & CHECKLIST ......... 49 ATTACHMENT 2A — HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT.............................................................................. 50 ATTACHMENT 3 - BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ATTACHMENT 3A — MAINTENANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................ 56 ATTACHMENT 3B — MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.......................................................................................................... 69 ATTACHMENT 4 - REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS..................................................................................... 73

Page 2 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 806 of 1307

ENGINEER OF WORK CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
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 Vista BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2015.. 0100) requirements for storm water management.

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

SWQMP PREPARED BY:

BRUCE RICE
bhA, Inc
5115 AVIENDA ENCINAS
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 931--8700
[email protected]
R.C.E. 60676
EXPIRES 12-31-22
60676, Expires 12/31/22
Signature, PE License Number & Expiration Date
Bruce Rice
Print Name
Z,
Date
rage 3 of 73
QROFESSIp�,
� I \� L.
w C 60676 mm
cc
* EXP. ,
sr CIV�+ �P
��EnF CAL1Ffl�P
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 807 of 1307

PROJECT OWNER CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
Owners Certification
This PDP SWAMP has been prepared for Camino Largo by BHA, Inc. The PDP SWQMP is intended to comply with the PDP requirements of the City of Vista BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. 119-2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.

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

OWNER DETAILS:

Kyun Tae Kim
Frank Sohaei, Trustee of the Falor Family Trust
2359 Pio Pico Drive
Carlsbad, CA 9200
(760) 420-1267

Page 4 of 43 ends

11/15/2022 PH1 Page 808 of 1307

CITY OF VISTA STAFF REVIEW
Reviewed and Approved:

City Staff Signature: Date:

Page 5 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 809 of 1307

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Page 6 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 810 of 1307

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Project Name: Camino Largo
Permit Application Number: P21-0300
Insert Project Vicinity Map Below:
� 1
0 rr
IN Go
� JJi
cn
r�
raYLOR sr.

VICINITY MA"

NO SCALE

Page 7 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 811 of 1307

Page 8 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 812 of 1307

FORM 1— PROJECT CATEGORY DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
This form is used to assess stormwater BMP requirements applicable to the proposed project. The form is available as a stand-alone fillable checklist on the City's website and a completed copy must be included with the final SWAMP submitted to the City. The form is available at:
http://www.citVofvista.com/services/city-departments/community-development/building-planning- permits-applications/land-development-autocad-templates/storm-water-forms

Page 9 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 813 of 1307

Project ID:

CHECKLIST

CITY OF VISTA CATEGORY FOR DETERMINATION OF PROJECT
C A L I F 0 R N I A
Project Name:

Project Location:

APPLICABILITY OF PERMANENT, POST -CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMP

REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT TYPE DETERMINATION
Overview and Instructions
The City of Vista's (City's) Stormwater Management Program is regulated by the San Diego regional municipal stormwater permit (referred to as a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit). This permit requires that new development and redevelopment projects incorporate permanent stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design. The City of Vista's BMP Design Manual (formerly SUSMP Manual) discusses BMP requirements applicable to new development and redevelopment projects.

ALL STANDARD AND PRIORITY PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO INCORPORATE SITE DESIGN AND SOURCE CONTROL BMPS. Additional treatment control and hyd romod ifi cation management BMP requirements apply to projects that meet specific criteria or thresholds. This checklist must be completed by the project applicant or proponent, and is used to determine if those additional BMPs are required.

Not all site improvements are considered "development projects" under the MS4 Permit.

Development projects are defined by the MS4 Permit as "construction, rehabilitation, redevelopment, or reconstruction of any public or private projects". Development projects are issued local permits to allow construction activities. To further clarify, this checklist applies only to new development or redevelopment activities and/or projects that have the potential to contact storm water and contribute an anthropogenic source of pollutants, or reduce the natural absorption and infiltration abilities of the land.

A project must be defined consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definitions of "project."
CEQA requires that the project include "the whole of the action". "Whole of the Action" means the project may not be segmented or phased into small parts either onsite or offsite if the effect is to reduce the quantity of impervious area and fall below thresholds for applicability of storm water requirements. This requirement precludes "piece-mealing," which is the improper (and often artificial) separation of a project into smaller parts to avoid preparing Environmental Impact Report level documentation.

As indicated above, for the purposes of the BMP Design Manual, the "project" is the "whole of the action" which has the potential for adding or replacing or resulting in the addition or replacement of, roofs, pavement, or other impervious surfaces, thereby resulting in increased flows and storm water pollutants.

When defining the project, the following questions are considered:
• What are the project activities?
• Do they occur onsite or offsite?
• What are the limits of the project (project boundary)? • What is the whole of the action associated with the project (i.e. what is the total amount of new or 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 814 of 1307

replaced impervious area considering all of the collective project components through all phases of the project)?
• Are any facilities or agreements to build facilities offsite in conjunction with providing service to the project (street -widening, utilities)?
Responses to the checklist represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts.

City staff will confirm this checklist based on assessment of the development application and/or project plans. Results of the checklist will classify a project as one of the following: Priority Development Project, Standard Project, or Non -development Project.

If additional information is needed while completing this checklist, please refer to the City's BMP Design Manual. Alternatively, contact City Land Development staff.

This Form is divided into 4 sections:

1. Post -Construction Stormwater Requirement Exemptions

2. Priority Development Project Determination

3. Special Consideration for Redevelopment Projects (50 Percent Rule)

4. Final Project Determination
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 815 of 1307

CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER
City of
Vista

DMUCIJU C
liiLT
hL BMP Design
This section will determine whether your project is exempt from post - construction BMP requirements and would be classified as a Non -Development YES
NO
Project. See section 1.3 of the City's BMP Design Manual for further discussion. (a) Replacement of impervious surfaces that are part of a routine ❑
❑
maintenance activity, such as (check yes if any apply):
(i) Replacing roof material on an existing building
(ii) Rebuilding a structure to original design after damage from earthquake, fire or similar disaster
(iii) Restoring pavement or other surface materials affected by trenches from utility work
(iv) Resurfacing existing roads and parking lots, including slurry, overlay and restriping
(v) Routine replacement of damaged pavement, including full depth replacement, if the sole purpose is to repair the damage (vi) Constructing new sidewalk, pedestrian ramps or bike lanes on existing roads (within existing street right-of-way)
(vii) Restoring a historic building to its original historic design (viii) Routine replacement of damaged pavement, such as pothole repair
Note: Work that creates impervious surface outside of the existing impervious footprint is not considered routine maintenance.
(b) Repair or improvements to an existing building or structure that do not ❑
❑
alter the size (check yes if any apply):
(i) Plumbing, electrical and HVAC work
(ii) Interior alterations including major interior remodels and tenant build - out within an existing commercial building
(iii) Exterior alterations that do not change the general dimensions and structural framing of the building (does not include building additions or projects where the existing building is demolished)
If you answered YES to either category (a) or (b), your project is considered a Non -Development Project, and post construction BMP requirements do not apply. Please proceed to Section 4 and check the Non - Development Project box.

If you answered NO to category (a) and (b), please proceed to Section 2. 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 816 of 1307

SECTION•' •' "•
02ibmamw 'k
MP Design
Manual
This section determines whether your project is a Priority Development Project (PDP) or a Standard Project. See section 1.4 of the City's BMP YES
NO
Design Manual for further discussion. The following eight (8) types of projects are defined as PDPs:
(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.
(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.
(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.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 817 of 1307

(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 discharge 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; 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 City.

For projects adjacent to an ESA, but not discharging to an ESA, the 2,500 sq-ft threshold does not apply as long as the project does not physically disturb the ESA and the ESA is upstream of the project.

There are no Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) or State Water Quality Protected Areas in the City's jurisdiction. The ESAs within the City's boundaries which include 303(d)-listed impairments and RARE beneficial use designations are listed below:
• Agua Hedionda Creek
• Buena Creek
• Buena Vista Creek
• Loma Alta Creek
(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.
(i i) Retail gasoline outlets. This category includes Retail gasoline outlets that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic of 100 or more vehicles per day. (f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more El
acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction. This means any activity that moves soils or substantially alters the pre-existing vegetated or man-made cover of any land. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
(i) Grading, digging, cutting, scraping, stockpiling, pavement removal, and exterior construction;
(ii) Substantial removal of vegetation where soils are disturbed including but not limited to removal by clearing or grubbing; or
(iii) Any activity which bares soil or rock or involves streambed alterations or the diversion or piping of any watercourse.

If you answered YES to any of the categories above (a-f), your project is considered a PDP. Please proceed to section 3 and check the Priority Development Project Box in Section 4.

If you answer NO to all categories, then your project is considered a Standard Project. Please proceed to Section 4 and check the Standard Project Box.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 818 of 1307

City of
Vista
+ +
This section determines additional considerations required for Redevelopment YES
NO
PDPs. See section 1.7 of the City's BMP Design Manual for further discussion.

Will redevelopment result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in ❑
❑
an amount of more than 50 percent of the surface area of the previously existing development? See clarification on calculation of the ratio of impervious surface below.

These requirements for managing storm water on an entire redevelopment project site are commonly referred to as the "50 Percent Rule". For the purpose of calculating the ratio, the surface area of the previously existing development shall be the area of impervious surface within the previously existing development. The following steps shall be followed to estimate the area that requires treatment to satisfy the MS4 Permit requirements:

1. How much total impervious area currently exists on the site?

2. How much existing impervious area will be replaced with new impervious area?

3. How much new impervious area will be created in areas that are pervious in the existing condition?

4. Total created and/or replaced impervious surface = Step 2 + Step 3.

5. 50 Percent Rule Test: Is step 4 more than 50 Percent of Step 1? If yes, treat all impervious surface on the site (including existing impervious surface not being replaced or added). If no, then treat only Step 4 impervious surface and any area that comingles with created and/or replaced impervious surface area.

Note: Step 2 and Step 3 must not overlap, as it is fundamentally not possible for a given area to be both "replaced" and "created" at the same time. Also activities that occur as routine maintenance (see Section 1 of this form) shall not be included in Step 2 and Step 3 calculation.

For example, a 10,000 square foot development proposes replacement of 4,000 square feet of impervious area. The treated area is less than 50 percent of the total development area and only the 4,000 square foot area is required to be treated.

If you answered YES, then you must implement the PDP requirements for all impervious surfaces across the entire site. Please proceed to Section 4 and check the box under PDP indicating that the Project Is a Redevelopment Project Subject to the 50 Percent Rule.

If you answered NO, then you are only required to treat impervious surfaces that are replaced or created.

Please proceed to section 4 and check the box under PDP indicating this is Not a Redevelopment Project Subject to the 50 Percent Rule.
11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 819 of 1307

BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 1-3, THIS PROJECT IS DETERMINED TO BE A:
❑ PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS APPLY AND A STORM

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWAMP) MUST BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.
❑ THIS IS A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE 50 PERCENT RULE. ❑ THIS IS NOT A REDEVELOPEMNT PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE 50 PERCENT RULE. ❑ STANDARD PROJECT. STANDARD REQUIREMENTS APPLY AND APPLICABLE SECTIONS

OF A STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) MUST BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.
❑ NON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

Applicant Information and Signature Box
Address: APN(s)
Applicant Name:

Applicant Title:

Applicant Sign to
Date:

City use only
Concur: Yes No
By:

Date:

Land Dev #:

Supporting discussion for this checklist, as well as BMP requirements for Priority Development Projects and Standard Projects, is provided in the City of Vista BMP Design Manual. 11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 820 of 1307

FORM 2 — PROJECT OVERVIEW

Page 1 of 11 ends

Project Name
Camino Largo
Project Address
2123 N. Santa Fe Ave, Vista, CA 92084
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s))
159-240-07
Permit Application Number
P21-0300
Watershed (select one checkbox, use webpage
below to determine watershed)
http://www.cityofvista.com/services/city-departments/community-development/building-planning- permits-applications/land-development-autocad-templates/storm-water-forms San Luis Rey
❑X Lower San Luis Rey — Mission, 903.11
Carlsbad
❑ Loma Alta — Loma Alta, 904.10
❑ Buena Vista — El Salto, 904.21
❑ Buena Vista — Vista, 904.22
❑ Agua Hedionda — Los Monos, 904.31
❑ Agua Hedionda — Buena, 904.32
❑ San Marcos — Batiquitos, 904.51
Parcel Area
(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated

9.301 Acres ( 405,137
Square Feet)
with the project)
Area to be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area)

8.864 Acres ( 386,127
Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area)

4.597 Acres ( 200,222
Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area)

4.267 Acres ( 185,905
Square Feet)
NOTE: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious
Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.

This may be less than the Parcel Area.

Page 10 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 821 of 1307

Form 2, Page 2 of 11

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply and describe below):
❑ Existing development
❑ Previously graded but not built out
❑ Demolition completed without new construction
❑X Agricultural or other non -impervious use
❑x Vacant, undeveloped/natural
Describe:

In the existing condition, there is a nursery with greenhouse facilities, including dirt roadways and various storage structures. Less than 5% of the property site is impervious. The remaining existing property is vacant.

The site is surrounded by undeveloped lands and single family residential homes.

Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply and describe below):
❑X Vegetative Cover 9.301 Acres ( 405,137 Square Feet)
❑ Non -Vegetated Pervious Areas Acres ( Square Feet)
❑ Impervious Areas Acres ( Square Feet)
Describe:

In the existing condition, less than 5% of the property site is impervious. Site terrain continues to support a modest growth of native grass. Currently there is a nursery on site.

Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply):
❑ NRCS Type A
❑ NRCS Type B
❑X NRCS Type C
❑X NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW):
❑ GW Depth 20 feet
According to the Percolation Data provided by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. dated August 16, 2016, ground water was not encountered at depths greater than 20 feet in Boring A. Groundwater was encountered at 13.5 feet in Boring B. See References for full infiltration testing report.

Page 11 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 822 of 1307

Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply and describe in next section):
❑X Drainage ditch/Swale/Waterway
❑ Seeps
❑ Springs
❑ Wetlands
❑ None
The existing topography of the project site varies between 8% and 50% in slope, and encompasses a ridge line that tops out at elevation 362.0. The lowest relative elevation within the subject property is 294.0. The existing ridge line divides the site into two separate basins that drain towards POC-1 and POC-2. All existing storm water runoff on the west side of the ridge line flows southerly towards POC-1 on the surface, and ultimately flows south across Camino Largo toward a small stream that feeds Guajome Lake. All existing storm water runoff on the north side of the ridge line, POC-2, flows westerly on the surface until discharging southerly over the top of the paved private road, and into a natural swale. A small amount of ponding occurs before the runoff crests over the road.

Additionally, there is a significant amount of offsite run-on from the hillside to the northeast of the project site.

This run-on flows to the same discharge point as POC-2. All drainage enters an existing stream bed to the south of Camino Largo, eventually joining at the existing culvert crossing below North Santa Fe Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of the project site.

Page 12 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 823 of 1307

Form 2. Page 3 of 11

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS
How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer:

1. Is existing site drainage conveyance natural or improved storm drain (urbanized);

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 project site is a hillside property dominated by an east -west trending ridge that rises approximately 66 feet above the lowest site terrain along North Santa Fe Avenue. The steepest project slopes descend to the north at 3:1(H:V) gradients. Site terrain continues to support a modest growth of native grass. Currently there is a nursery on the site, including greenhouse facilities, dirt roadways, and various storage structures. Less than 5% of the property site is impervious. The site is surrounded by undeveloped lands and single family residential homes.

The existing drainage area is divided into two (2) basins. Areas draining towards POC-1 sheet flows from the top of the southerly ridge and then westerly along Camino Largo until discharging to the south side of Camino Largo just before North Santa Fe Ave at POC-1. Areas draining towards POC-2 sheet flows westerly off the ridge until discharging southerly over the top of the decomposed granite private road and into a natural swale at POC-2. In Additional offsite areas northeast of the easterly boundary flows to POC-2. All drainage enters an existing stream bed to the south of Camino Largo, eventually joining at an existing culvert crossing below North Santa Fe Avenue approximately 100 feet south of the project site See Pre -Developed Condition Hydromodification Management Exhibit for pre -developed site drainage patterns.

POC-ID
Drainage Area (ac)
100-Year Peak Flow
(cfs)
POC-1

4.95 7.05
POC-2

4.16 6.23
Total

9.11 13.28

Page 13 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 824 of 1307

Form 2, Page 4 of 11

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:

The Camino Largo Project proposes the development of a forty six (46) lot residential subdivision with individual level building pads on 9.3 gross acres. The project also proposes the minor widening and improvement of the Camino Largo private drive, which will include paving, sidewalks with curb and gutter.

The graded site will include forty six (46) new residential lots with driveways and landscaping areas along five (5) streets north of Camino Largo. Approximately 53% of the property will be impervious. Biofiltration basins are proposed for the two main drainage basins for POC-1 and POC-2. Proposed grading has been minimized as much as possible to maintain existing slope and drainage patterns.

The disturbed area is 7.86 acres; the existing site is 0% impervious pre -development and 53% impervious post - development. Two (2) Points of Compliance (POC) have been identified in the southwestern and southeastern corner of the project site, as shown on the DMA Exhibit. POC-1 is the existing culvert underneath North Santa Fe Avenue and POC-2 is the existing swale located south of the existing cul-de-sac on Camino Largo.

Drainage patterns reflected on the DMA Exhibit will slightly increase the acreage draining to POC-1 and POC-

2. Both POCs include new impervious contributing area and are subject to Hydromodification Plan (HMP) compliance.

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

The project also proposes the minor widening and improvement of the Camino Largo private drive, which will include paving, sidewalks with curb and gutter. The graded site will include forty six (46) new residential lots with driveways and landscaping areas along five (5) streets north of Camino Largo. Approximately 53% of the property will be impervious.

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

The proposed pervious features of the project will include landscape areas in the parkways of the private streets and around the single family residences and the associated grading of the proposed pads.

Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? ❑X Yes
❑ No
Describe:

Project grading will occur on approximately 8.86 acres of the project. Proposed grading has been minimized as much as possible and avoids the steep slope areas. This maintains existing slope and drainage patterns to the fullest extent possible. Post -development site flow will mimic pre -developed drainage conditions, and will discharge from the site at below historical flow rates (see Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for discussion and calculations). Impervious surfaces have been minimized where feasible. Due to minimized grading, some areas remain undisturbed on the project site.

Page 14 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 825 of 1307

Form 2, Page 5 of 11

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:

The project also proposes drainage improvements consisting of concrete brow ditches, storm drain pipes, catch basins, and biofiltration basins to maintain the pre -developed runoff characteristics.

Proposed grading has been minimized as much as possible and avoids the steep slope areas. This maintains existing slope and drainage patterns to the fullest extent possible.

POC-1
There is one (1) biofiltration basin which will outlet into an existing storm drain along -side North Santa Fe Avenue south of Camino Largo and discharge from the site at POC-1.

POC-2
There is one (1) biofiltration basin which outlets via a storm drain into a natural swale at POC-2.

Undetained 100-
Detained 100-Year
POC-ID
Drainage Area (ac)
Year Peak Flow (cfs)
Peak Flow (cfs)
POC-1

4.85 21.29

6.96 POC-2

5.33 19.17

6.21

Page 15 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 826 of 1307

Form 2, Page 6 of 11

POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS
Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present.

Select all Pollutant Source Areas that apply and include them on the DMA Exhibit. Source control BMPs must be identified for each of these areas in Form 3 of this SWAMP:
❑X On -site storm drain inlets
❑ Sump pumps or French drains
❑ Interior or sub -surface parking garages
❑X Need for future indoor & structural pest control
❑X Landscape/outdoor pesticide use
❑ Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, or other water features ❑ Food preparation and/or service
❑ Refuse/trash collection areas
❑ Industrial processes
❑ Outdoor storage of equipment, chemicals, or materials ❑ Vehicle and equipment cleaning
❑ Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance
❑ Fuel dispensing areas
❑ Loading docks
❑ Fire sprinkler test and relief point
❑ Miscellaneous drain or wash down areas
❑X Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
Describe:

Prohibitive dumping placards and/or signage will be provided at storm drain inlets and catch basins.

Pest -resistant or well -adapted plant varieties such as drought tolerant and/or native plants will be planted in landscape areas.

Flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss will be used in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines.

Sidewalk area along the streets will drain to the curb and gutter and then downstream into biofiltration areas for treatment.

Page 16 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 827 of 1307

Form 2, Page 7 of 11

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):

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
Guajome Lake (903.11)
Eutrophic
Lower San Luis Rey River (903.11
Benthic Community Effects
Chloride
Enterococcus
Fecal Coliform
Phosphorus
Selenium
Sulfates
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Nitrogen as N
Toxicity
Identification of Project Site Pollutants*
*Identification of project site pollutants is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs (note the project must also participate in an alternative compliance program unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated) Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):

Pollutant
Not Applicable to the
Project Site
Expected from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving Water
Pollutant of Concern
Sediment
❑
❑
❑
Nutrients
❑
❑
❑
Heavy Metals
❑
❑
❑
Organic Compounds
❑
❑
❑

Page 17 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 828 of 1307

Trash & Debris
Oxygen Demanding
Substances
❑
❑
❑
Oil & Grease
Bacteria & Viruses
Pesticides

Page 18 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 829 of 1307

Form 2, Page 8 of 11

HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual; select one box and describe below)?
❑X 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.

Describe:

The biofiltration facilities were modeled using EPA SWMM version 5.1. The SWMM model uses continuous simulation modeling to determine the minimum required hydromodification management volumes for each proposed biofiltration basin.

POC-1
There is one (1) biofiltration basin which will outlet into an existing storm drain along -side North Santa Fe Avenue south of Camino Largo and discharge from the site at POC-1.

POC-2
There is one (1) biofiltration basin which outlets via a storm drain into a natural swale at POC-2.

Page 19 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 830 of 1307

Form 2, Page 9 of 11

CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS
*This section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries (select all that apply and describe below)? Additional signed and stamped reports must be provided to document any exemption from coarse sediment yield requirements.
❑ Yes
❑X 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? El 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 2.13 of the SWAMP. ❑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 SWAMP Exhibit.

Describe:

Page 20 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 831 of 1307

Form 2, Page 10 of 11

FLOW CONTROL FOR POST -PROJECT RUNOFF
*This section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance for hydromodification management flow control (see Section

6.3.1). Identify each point of compliance for flow control on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit in Attachment 2A.

Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? ❑ No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) ❑ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
❑ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
❑X Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide the report.

Hydromodification Screening for Camino Largo prepared by Chang Consultants, Date August 6, 2021.

Discussion / Additional Information: (optional)

Page 21 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 832 of 1307

Form 2, Page 11 of 11

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.

The site topography contains natural channels and low points where runoff would historically gather before flowing off -site. The proposed on -site grading follows the same general topography, with storm drain features located in those historically low areas to safely convey runoff off the site.

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.

Page 22 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 833 of 1307

FORM 3 — SOURCE CONTROL BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Page 1 of 4 ends

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION & SOURCE CONTROLS
Project Name: Camino Largo
Permit Application Number: P21-0300
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6, unless justification is provided by qualified design professional 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, and provide description. • "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.
• "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. • "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).

Source Control Requirement
Applied?
SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4
❑X Yes
I ❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Acknowledge that an illicit discharge is any discharge to the MS4 that is not composed entirely of wash water.

Provide educational materials to prevent illicit discharges as a component of the Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan).

SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Prohibitive dumping placards and/or signage will be provided at storm drain inlets and catch basins.

SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run -On, ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Run -On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Page 23 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 834 of 1307

Form 3, Page 2 of 4
Source Control Requirement
Applied?
SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run -On, Runoff, and ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Wind Dispersal
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

SC-6 Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants Applied?
(must answer for each source listed below)
a. On -site storm drain inlets
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Storm drain inlets and catch basins will be labeled with "No Dumping Drains to Waterways". See DMA Exhibit. b. Sump pumps or French drains
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
c. Interior or sub -surface parking garages
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
d. Need for future indoor & structural pest control
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Pest -resistant or well -adapted plant varieties such as drought tolerant and/or native plants will be planted in landscape areas. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) educational materials will be distributed to future occupants as a component of the O&M Plan that address physical pest elimination techniques such as relying on natural enemies to consume pests, weeding, pruning, and etc. e. Landscape/outdoor pesticide use
❑X Yes
I ❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Irrigation systems will be designed for the specific water requirements of each landscape area. Landscaping will be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution. Flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines will be used. Water conservation educational materials will also be provided for future occupants.

Page 24 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 835 of 1307

Form 3, Page 3 of 4
Source Control Requirement
Applied?
f. Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, or other water features ❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
g. Food preparation and/or service
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
h. Refuse/trash collection areas
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
i. Industrial processes
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
j. Outdoor storage of equipment, chemicals, or materials ❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
k. Vehicle and equipment cleaning
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

I. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
m. Fuel dispensing areas
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Page 25 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 836 of 1307

Form 3, Page 4 of 4
n. Loading docks
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
o. Fire sprinkler test water and relief point
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
p. Miscellaneous drain or wash down areas
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
q. Plaza, sidewalks, parking lots
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Sidewalk area along the streets will drain to the curb and gutter and then downstream into biofiltration areas for treatment.

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

Page 26 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 837 of 1307

FORM 4 — SITE DESIGN BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Page 1 of 2 ends

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project Name: Camino Largo
Permit Application Number: P21-0300
All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8, unless justification is provided by qualified design professional. 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, and provide description. • "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.
• "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. • "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).

Site Design Requirement
Applied?
SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features ❑
❑
❑X
Yes
No
N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

A proposed storm drain pipe underneath Camino Largo will be constructed to maintain the drainage stream at POC-2. Additionally, flows draining towards POC-1 will discharge at the historical point of discharge.

SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation
❑X Yes
I ❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Steep natural areas located to the north of the basins draining towards POC-1 and POC-2 will be preserved where feasible. See DMA Exhibit for location of undisturbed areas. Soil disturbance is minimized where feasible.

SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Impervious areas have been reduced where feasible.

SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Soil compaction will be minimized in natural landscape areas. Disturbed slope soils will also be amended and aerated.

Page 27 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 838 of 1307

Form 4, Page 2 of 2
SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion
❑ Yes
I ❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Landscape will effectively receive and infiltrate, and treat runoff from impervious areas. Roof drains will be directed to landscape areas where feasible prior to discharging to storm water conveyance systems.

SD-6 Runoff Collection
❑ Yes
I ❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species ❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Landscape design and plant palette will be selected that minimizes required resources (irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides). Native plants require less fertilizer and pesticide use because they are already adapted to local rainfall patterns and soils conditions.

SD-8 Harvest and Use of Precipitation
❑Yes
❑ No
N/A
Note: Worksheet 8.3-1, "Harvest and Use Feasibility" must be included in this section of the SWQMP.

Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

See Worksheet 8.3-1, "Harvest and Use Feasibility"

Page 28 of 73 ends

11 /15/2022 PH 1 Page 839 of 1307

FORM 5 — STRUCTURAL POLLUTANT CONTROL AND

HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT BMPS

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project Name: Camino Largo
Permit Application Number: P21-0300
PDP Structural BMPs
All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s).

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

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

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

Note: Each structural pollutant control and hydromodification management BMP must be clearly identified on a site map (Attachment 1a), and described in supporting table (Attachment 1B).

A feasibility analysis was then conducted for infiltration and if infiltration is fully or partially feasible for the project's structural BMPs. The negative impacts associated with retention were identified and substantiated through completion of Worksheet C.4-1 (Form 1-8).

Since infiltration is considered infeasible, biofiltration BMPs were chosen as the type of structural BMP for DMA 1 and DMA 2.

The types of structural BMPs chosen were also based on downstream receiving waters and treatment goals. Since POC-1 is located upstream from a receiving water that is 303(d) listed for a nutrient pollutant, Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) was selected for the Biofiltration Basins 1 and 2 to minimize the potential for export of nutrients from the media.

Page 29 of 73 ends

Vista City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Vista City Council
November 15, 2022