cc 2023 AR 06/27 vista melrose residential project p22-0218 — Vista City Council, June 27, 2023 (part 5 of 6)

Date of Government Version: 10/19/2020
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/12/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/26/2021
Number of Days to Update: 73
Source: Community Health Services
Telephone: 323-890-7806
Last EDR Contact: 04/16/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/26/2021
Data Release Frequency: Annually
UST EL SEGUNDO: City of El Segundo Underground Storage Tank Underground storage tank sites located in El Segundo city.

Date of Government Version: 01/21/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/19/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
Source: City of El Segundo Fire Department
Telephone: 310-524-2236
Last EDR Contact: 04/07/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/26/2021
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
UST LONG BEACH: City of Long Beach Underground Storage Tank Underground storage tank sites located in the city of Long Beach.

Date of Government Version: 04/22/2019
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/23/2019
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/27/2019
Number of Days to Update: 65
Source: City of Long Beach Fire Department
Telephone: 562-570-2 563
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UST TORRANCE: City of Torrance Underground Storage Tank Underground storage tank sites located in the city of Torrance.

Date of Government Version: 09/11/2020
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/07/2020
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/23/2020
Number of Days to Update: 77
MADERA COUNTY:

Source: City of Torrance Fire Department
Telephone: 310-618-2973
Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
CUPA MADERA: CUPA Facility List
A listing of sites included in the county's Certified Unified Program Agency database. California's Secretary for Environmental Protection established the unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste regulatory program as required by chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Unified Program consolidates the administration, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities.

Date of Government Version: 08/10/2020
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/12/2020
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/23/2020
Number of Days to Update: 72
MARIN COUNTY:

Source: Madera County Environmental Health
Telephone: 559-675-7823
Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC6558122.2s Page GR-40

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
UST MARIN: Underground Storage Tank Sites
Currently permitted USTs in Marin County.

Date of Government Version: 09/26/2018
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/04/2018
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/02/2018
Number of Days to Update: 29
MENDOCINO COUNTY:

Source: Public Works Department Waste Management
Telephone: 415-473-664 7
Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/2021
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
UST MENDOCINO: Mendocino County UST Database
A listing of underground storage tank locations in Mendocino County.

Date of Government Version: 03/24/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/24/2021
Number of Days to Update: 78
MERCED COUNTY:

CUPA MERCED: CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility list.

Date of Government Version: 02/04/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/09/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2021
Number of Days to Update: 9
MONO COUNTY:

CUPA MONO: CUPA Facility List
CUPA Facility List
Date of Government Version: 02/22/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2021
Number of Days to Update: 78
MONTEREY COUNTY:

Source: Department of Public Health
Telephone: 707-463-4466
Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/06/2021
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Merced County Environmental Health
Telephone: 209-381-1094
Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Mono County Health Department
Telephone: 760-932-5580
Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/06/3021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
CUPA MONTEREY: CUPA Facility Listing
CUPA Program listing from the Environmental Health Division.

Date of Government Version: 06/23/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/23/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/24/2021
Number of Days to Update: 1
NAPA COUNTY:

Source: Monterey County Health Department
Telephone: 831-796-1297
Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC6558122.2s Page GR-41

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
LUST NAPA: Sites With Reported Contamination
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Napa county.

Date of Government Version: 01/09/2017 Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/11/2017 Telephone: 707-253-4269 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/02/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2021 Number of Days to Update: 50 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/06/2021 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
UST NAPA: Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites Underground storage tank sites located in Napa county.

Date of Government Version: 09/05/2019
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/09/2019
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/31/2019
Number of Days to Update: 52
NEVADA COUNTY:

CUPA NEVADA: CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility list.

Date of Government Version: 02/03/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/04/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/23/2021
Number of Days to Update: 78
ORANGE COUNTY:

IND_SITE ORANGE: List of Industrial Site Cleanups
Petroleum and non -petroleum spills.

Date of Government Version: 02/01/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/04/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/23/2021
Number of Days to Update: 78
Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269
Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/06/2021
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Source: Community Development Agency
Telephone: 530-265-1467
Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/09/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Health Care Agency
Telephone: 714-834-3446
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Annually
LUST ORANGE: List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups
Orange County Underground Storage Tank Cleanups (LUST).

Date of Government Version: 03/01/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/03/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2021
Number of Days to Update: 9
Source: Health Care Agency
Telephone: 714-834-3446
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
UST ORANGE: List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST).

Date of Government Version: 02/01/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/20/2021
Number of Days to Update: 77
PLACER COUNTY:

Source: Health Care Agency
Telephone: 714-834-3446
Last EDR Contact: 04/30/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC6558122.2s Page GR-42

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
MS PLACER: Master List of Facilities
List includes aboveground tanks, underground tanks and cleanup sites.

Date of Government Version: 05/25/2021 Source: Placer County Health and Human Services Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/26/2021 Telephone: 530-745-2363 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/01/2021 Last EDR Contact: 05/25/2021 Number of Days to Update: 6 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/13/2021 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
PLUMAS COUNTY:

CUPA PLUMAS: CUPA Facility List
Plumas County CUPA Program facilities.

Date of Government Version: 03/31/2019 Source: Plumas County Environmental Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/23/2019 Telephone: 530-283-6355 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/26/2019 Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2021 Number of Days to Update: 64 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:

LUST RIVERSIDE: Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST).

Date of Government Version: 01/13/2021 Source: Department of Environmental Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/14/2021 Telephone: 951-358-5055 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/10/2021 Last EDR Contact: 06/08/2021 Number of Days to Update: 55 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/27/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
UST RIVERSIDE: Underground Storage Tank Tank List
Underground storage tank sites located in Riverside county.

Date of Government Version: 01/13/2021 Source: Department of Environmental Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/14/2021 Telephone: 951-358-5055 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/10/2021 Last EDR Contact: 06/07/2021 Number of Days to Update: 55 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/26/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SACRAMENTO COUNTY:

CS SACRAMENTO: Toxic Site Clean -Up List
List of sites where unauthorized releases of potentially hazardous materials have occurred.

Date of Government Version: 03/30/2021 Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/01/2021 Telephone: 916-875-8406 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/23/2021 Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2021 Number of Days to Update: 83 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
ML SACRAMENTO: Master Hazardous Materials Facility List Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators.

TC6558122.2s Page GR-43

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
CUPA SAN BENITO: CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list
Date of Government Version: 04/28/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/29/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/03/2021
Number of Days to Update: 4
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY:

Source: San Benito County Environmental Health
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
PERMITS SAN BERNARDINO: Hazardous Material Permits
This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generators, hazardous materials handlers, hazardous waste generators, and waste oil generators/handlers.

Date of Government Version: 05/19/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/19/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/07/2021
Number of Days to Update: 19
SAN DIEGO COUNTY:

Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909-387-3041
Last EDR Contact: 05/03/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
HMMD SAN DIEGO: Hazardous Materials Management Division Database The database includes: HE58 - This report contains the business name, site address, business phone number, establishment 'H' permit number, type of permit, and the business status. HE17 - In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing, HE17 provides inspection dates, violations received by the establishment, hazardous waste generated, the quantity, method of storage, treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler, and information on underground storage tanks. Unauthorized Release List - Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases in San Diego County (underground tank cases, non -tank cases, groundwater contamination, and soil contamination are included.)
Date of Government Version: 03/02/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/21/2021
Number of Days to Update: 79
LF SAN DIEGO: Solid Waste Facilities
San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities.

Date of Government Version: 10/01/2020
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/23/2020
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/08/2021
Number of Days to Update: 77
Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division
Telephone: 619-338-2268
Last EDR Contact: 05/28/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/13/2021
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Source: Department of Health Services
Telephone: 619-338-2209
Last EDR Contact: 05/21/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SAN DIEGO CO LOP: Local Oversight Program Listing
A listing of all LOP release sites that are or were under the County of San Diego's jurisdiction. Included are closed or transferred cases, open cases, and cases that did not have a case type indicated. The cases without a case type are mostly complaints; however, some of them could be LOP cases.

Date of Government Version: 07/14/2020
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/16/2020
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/29/2020
Number of Days to Update: 75
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: 858-505-6874
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC6558122.2s Page GR-44

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SAN DIEGO CO SAM: Environmental Case Listing
The listing contains all underground tank release cases and projects pertaining to properties contaminated with hazardous substances that are actively under review by the Site Assessment and Mitigation Program.

Date of Government Version: 03/23/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/15/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/09/2010
Number of Days to Update: 24
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY:

CUPA SAN FRANCISCO CO: CUPA Facility Listing
Cupa facilities
Date of Government Version: 02/11/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/11/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2021
Number of Days to Update: 83
Source: San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Telephone: 619-338-2 371
Last EDR Contact: 05/25/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/13/2021
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Source: San Francisco County Department of Environmental Health Telephone: 415-252-3896
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LUST SAN FRANCISCO: Local Oversite Facilities
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in San Francisco county.

Date of Government Version: 09/19/2008 Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/19/2008 Telephone: 415-252-3920 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/29/2008 Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2021 Number of Days to Update: 10 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
UST SAN FRANCISCO: Underground Storage Tank Information Underground storage tank sites located in San Francisco county.

Date of Government Version: 02/11/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/11/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2021
Number of Days to Update: 83
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY:

Source: Department of Public Health
Telephone: 415-252-3920
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
UST SAN JOAQUIN: San Joaquin Co. UST
A listing of underground storage tank locations in San Joaquin county.

Date of Government Version: 06/22/2018
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/26/2018
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/11/2018
Number of Days to Update: 15
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY:

CUPA SAN LUIS OBISPO: CUPA Facility List
Cupa Facility List.

Date of Government Version: 05/07/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/11/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/14/2021
Number of Days to Update: 3
SAN MATEO COUNTY:

Source: Environmental Health Department
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/08/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/27/2021
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
Source: San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department Telephone: 805-781-5596
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC6558122.2s Page GR-45

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
BI SAN MATEO: Business Inventory
List includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks.

Date of Government Version: 02/20/2020 Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/20/2020 Telephone: 650-363-1921 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2020 Last EDR Contact: 06/10/2021 Number of Days to Update: 64 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/20/2021 Data Release Frequency: Annually
LUST SAN MATEO: Fuel Leak List
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in San Mateo county.

Date of Government Version: 03/29/2019 Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/29/2019 Telephone: 650-363-1921 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/29/2019 Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2021 Number of Days to Update: 61 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/20/2021 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY:

CUPA SANTA BARBARA: CUPA Facility Listing
CUPA Program Listing from the Environmental Health Services division.

Date of Government Version: 09/08/2011 Source: Santa Barbara County Public Health Department Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/09/2011 Telephone: 805-686-8167 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/07/2011 Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2021 Number of Days to Update: 28 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SANTA CLARA COUNTY:

CUPA SANTA CLARA: Cupa Facility List
Cupa facility list
Date of Government Version: 02/24/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2021
Number of Days to Update: 82
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: 408-918-1973
Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
HIST LUST SANTA CLARA: HIST LUST - Fuel Leak Site Activity Report A listing of open and closed leaking underground storage tanks. This listing is no longer updated by the county.

Leaking underground storage tanks are now handled by the Department of Environmental Health.

Date of Government Version: 03/29/2005 Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/30/2005 Telephone: 408-265-2600 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/21/2005 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Number of Days to Update: 22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/22/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
LUST SANTA CLARA: LOP Listing
A listing of leaking underground storage tanks located in Santa Clara county.

Date of Government Version: 03/03/2014 Source: Department of Environmental Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/05/2014 Telephone: 408-918-3417 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/18/2014 Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2021 Number of Days to Update: 13 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/06/2021 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC6558122.2s Page GR-46

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SAN JOSE HAZMAT: Hazardous Material Facilities
Hazardous material facilities, including underground storage tank sites.

Date of Government Version: 11/03/2020
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/05/2020
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/26/2021
Number of Days to Update: 82
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY:

CUPA SANTA CRUZ: CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility listing.

Source: City of San Jose Fire Department
Telephone: 408-535-7694
Last EDR Contact: 05/21/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Government Version: 01/21/2017 Source: Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/22/2017 Telephone: 831-464-2761 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/23/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2021 Number of Days to Update: 90 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
SHASTA COUNTY:

CUPA SHASTA: CUPA Facility List
Cupa Facility List.

Date of Government Version: 06/15/2017 Source: Shasta County Department of Resource Management Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/19/2017 Telephone: 530-225-5789 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/09/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2021 Number of Days to Update: 51 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
SOLANO COUNTY:

LUST SOLANO: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Solano county.

Date of Government Version: 06/04/2019 Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/06/2019 Telephone: 707-784-6770 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/13/2019 Last EDR Contact: 05/25/2021 Number of Days to Update: 68 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/13/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
UST SOLANO: Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tank sites located in Solano county.

Date of Government Version: 03/23/2021 Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/25/2021 Telephone: 707-784-6770 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/10/2021 Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2021 Number of Days to Update: 77 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/12/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SONOMA COUNTY:

CUPA SONOMA: Cupa Facility List
Cupa Facility list
TC6558122.2s Page GR-47

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/15/2020 Source: County of Sonoma Fire & Emergency Services Department Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/16/2020 Telephone: 707-565-1174 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/23/2020 Last EDR Contact: 06/15/2021 Number of Days to Update: 7 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/04/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
LUST SONOMA: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
A listing of leaking underground storage tank sites located in Sonoma county.

Date of Government Version: 04/01/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/01/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/23/2021
Number of Days to Update: 83
STANISLAUS COUNTY:

CUPA STANISLAUS: CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list
Source: Department of Health Services
Telephone: 707-565-6 565
Last EDR Contact: 06/15/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/04/2021
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Government Version: 02/09/2021 Source: Stanislaus County Department of Ennvironmental Protection Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/11/2021 Telephone: 209-525-6751 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2021 Last EDR Contact: 04/21/2021 Number of Days to Update: 83 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/26/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
SUTTER COUNTY:

UST SUTTER: Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tank sites located in Sutter county.

Date of Government Version: 03/01/2021 Source: Sutter County Environmental Health Services Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2021 Telephone: 530-822-7500 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2021 Last EDR Contact: 05/25/2021 Number of Days to Update: 78 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/13/2021 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
TEHAMA COUNTY:

CUPA TEHAMA: CUPA Facility List
Cupa facilities
Date of Government Version: 01/13/2021 Source: Tehama County Department of Environmental Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/14/2021 Telephone: 530-527-8020 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/06/2021 Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2021 Number of Days to Update: 82 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
TRINITY COUNTY:

CUPA TRINITY: CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list
Date of Government Version: 01/19/2021 Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/20/2021 Telephone: 760-352-0381 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/08/2021 Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2021 Number of Days to Update: 78 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
TULARE COUNTY:

TC6558122.2s Page GR-48

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
CUPA TULARE: CUPA Facility List
Cupa program facilities
Date of Government Version: 02/02/2021 Source: Tulare County Environmental Health Services Division Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/04/2021 Telephone: 559-624-7400 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/23/2021 Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2021 Number of Days to Update: 78 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
TUOLUMNE COUNTY:

CUPA TUOLUMNE: CUPA Facility List
Cupa facility list
Date of Government Version: 04/23/2018 Source: Divison of Environmental Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/25/2018 Telephone: 209-533-5633 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/25/2018 Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2021 Number of Days to Update: 61 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021 Data Release Frequency: Varies
VENTURA COUNTY:

BWT VENTURA: Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, and Operating Underground Tanks The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan (B), Waste Producer (W), and/or Underground Tank (T) information.

Date of Government Version: 12/28/2020 Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/29/2021 Telephone: 805-654-2813 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/22/2021 Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2021 Number of Days to Update: 83 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LF VENTURA: Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites Ventura County Inventory of Closed, Illegal Abandoned, and Inactive Sites.

Date of Government Version: 12/01/2011 Source: Environmental Health Division Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2011 Telephone: 805-654-2813 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/19/2012 Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2021 Number of Days to Update: 49 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/2021 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
LUST VENTURA: Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST).

Date of Government Version: 05/29/2008 Source: Environmental Health Division Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/24/2008 Telephone: 805-654-2813 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/31/2008 Last EDR Contact: 05/05/2021 Number of Days to Update: 37 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/23/2021 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
MED WASTE VENTURA: Medical Waste Program List
To protect public health and safety and the environment from potential exposure to disease causing agents, the Environmental Health Division Medical Waste Program regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment and disposal of medical waste throughout the County.

Date of Government Version: 03/29/2021 Source: Ventura County Resource Management Agency Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2021 Telephone: 805-654-2813 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/23/2021 Last EDR Contact: 04/19/2021 Number of Days to Update: 2 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/02/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC6558122.2s Page GR-49

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
UST VENTURA: Underground Tank Closed Sites List
Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites (UST)/Underground Tank Closed Sites List.

Date of Government Version: 03/01/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/09/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/31/2021
Number of Days to Update: 22
YOLO COUNTY:

Source: Environmental Health Division
Telephone: 805-654-2813
Last EDR Contact: 06/04/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/20/2021
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
UST YOLO: Underground Storage Tank Comprehensive Facility Report Underground storage tank sites located in Yolo county.

Date of Government Version: 03/26/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/01/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/23/2021
Number of Days to Update: 83
YUBA COUNTY:

CUPA YUBA: CUPA Facility List
CUPA facility listing for Yuba County.

Date of Government Version: 04/21/2021
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2021
Number of Days to Update: 20

OTHER DATABASE(S)
Source: Yolo County Department of Health
Telephone: 530-666-8646
Last EDR Contact: 06/22/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/2021
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: Yuba County Environmental Health Department
Telephone: 530-749-7523
Last EDR Contact: 04/24/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/09/2021
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.

CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a tsd facility.

Date of Government Version: 10/05/2020
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/17/2021
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/10/2021
Number of Days to Update: 82
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.

Date of Government Version: 12/31/2018
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/10/2019
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/16/2019
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Telephone: 860-424-3375
Last EDR Contact: 05/11/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/23/2021
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/09/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19/2021
Data Release Frequency: Annually
TC6558122.2s Page GR-50

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD facility.

Date of Government Version: 01/01/2019 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/29/2020 Telephone: 518-402-8651 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/10/2020 Last EDR Contact: 04/30/2021 Number of Days to Update: 72 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/09/2021 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.

Date of Government Version: 06/30/2018 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/19/2019 Telephone: 717-783-8990 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/10/2019 Last EDR Contact: 04/09/2021 Number of Days to Update: 53 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/26/2021 Data Release Frequency: Annually
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2019 Source: Department of Environmental Management Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/11/2021 Telephone: 401-222-2797 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/24/2021 Last EDR Contact: 05/13/2021 Number of Days to Update: 13 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/30/2021 Data Release Frequency: Annually
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.

Date of Government Version: 05/31/2018
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/19/2019
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/03/2019
Number of Days to Update: 76
Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2021
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/20/2021
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines
Source: Endeavor Business Media
Petroleum Bundle (Crude Oil, Refined Products, Petrochemicals, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty Gases (Miscellaneous)) N = Natural Gas Bundle (Natural Gas, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty Gases (Miscellaneous)). This map includes information copyrighted by Endeavor Business Media. This information is provided on a best effort basis and Endeavor Business Media does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of Endeavor Business Media.

Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: Endeavor Business Media
This map includes information copyrighted by Endeavor Business Media. This information is provided on a best effort basis and Endeavor Business Media does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of Endeavor Business Media.

Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.

AHA Hospitals:

Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.

Telephone: 312-280-5991
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.

Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: 410-786-3000
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

TC6558122.2s Page GR-51

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: 301-594-6248
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.

Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states.

Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States.

Daycare Centers: Licensed Facilities
Source: Department of Social Services
Telephone: 916-657-4041
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
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey

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.

TC6558122.2s Page GR-52

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM

TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
APNS 166-280-60, -61 AND -18

S MELROSE DRIVE/MATAGUAL DRIVE
VISTA, CA 92081

TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North):

Longitude (West):

Universal Tranverse Mercator:

UTM X (Meters):

UTM Y (Meters):

Elevation:

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Target Property Map:

Version Date:

East Map:

Version Date:

33.187338 - 33' 11' 14.42"
117.253 - 117' 15' 10.80"
Zone 11
476415.3
3671892.2
352 ft. above sea level
5641318 SAN LUIS REY, CA
2012
5641320 SAN MARCOS, CA
2012
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.

Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:

1. Groundwater flow direction, and

2. Groundwater flow velocity.

Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata.

TC6558122.2s Page A-1

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site -specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).

TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.

TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
General Topographic Gradient: General NW
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
0 0
0 w
z
C
0 m
w
Target Property Elevation: 352 ft.

TIP
TIP
1/2 1 Miles
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified.

TC6558122.2s Page A-2

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.

Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways and bodies of water).

FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property
06073CO767G
Additional Panels in search area:
06073CO759G
06073CO778G
06073CO786J

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Property

SAN LUIS REY

HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
FEMA Source Type
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA Source Type
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA FIRM Flood data
FEMA FIRM Flood data
NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.

Site -Specific Hydrogeological Data*:

Search Radius: 1.25 miles
Status: Not found
AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.

EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.

LOCATION

MAP ID FROM TP
Not Reported

GENERAL DIRECTION

GROUNDWATER FLOW
' 51996 Site -specific hydrogeologicaI data gathered by CERCLIS Alerts, Inc., Bainbridge Island, WA. All rights reserved. All of the information and opinions presented are those of the cited EPA report(s), which were completed under a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) investigation. TC6558122.2s Page A-3

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes move more quickly through sandy -gravelly types of soils than silty -clayey types of soils.

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
:AZa :F� 1:L1111 0:L1011411 ki 1 I I

GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Era: Mesozoic Category: Plutonic and Intrusive Rocks
System: Cretaceous
Series: Cretaceous granitic rocks
Code: Kg (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
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).

TC6558122.2s Page A-4

SSURGO SOIL MAP - 6558122.2s
Target Property
SSURGO Soil
Water
0 1116 118 14Miles
SITE NAME: APNs 166-280-60, -61 and -18 CLIENT: Geotek
ADDRESS: S Melrose Drive/Matagual Drive CONTACT: Kyle Mchargue Vista CA 92081 INQUIRY #: 6558122.2s
LAT/LONG: 33.187338 / 117.253 DATE: June 29, 2021 7:06 pm Copyright m 2021 EDR, Inc. (c) 2015 TornTom Rel. 2015.

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative 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. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data.

Soil Map ID: 1
Soil Component Name: PLACENTIA
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.

Soil Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Hydric Status: Partially hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1 0 inches
9 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay

FINE-GRAINED
Max: 0.42
Max: 8.4
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 0.01
Min: 7.9
than 35 pct.

Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Silty
50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
2 9 inches
31 inches
sandy clay
Silt -Clay

FINE-GRAINED
Max: 0.42
Max: 8.4
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 0.01
Min: 7.9
than 35 pct.

Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Silty
50%), Lean Clay
Soils.
3 31 inches
62 inches
clay loam
Silt -Clay

FINE-GRAINED
Max: 0.42
Max: 8.4
Materials (more
SOILS, Silts and
Min: 0.01
Min: 7.9
than 35 pct.

Clays (liquid
passing No.
limit less than
200), Silty
50%), Lean Clay
Soils.

TC6558122.2s Page A-6

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 2
Soil Component Name: BOSANKO
Soil Surface Texture: clay
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.

Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1 0 inches
5 inches
clay
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
2 5 inches
22 inches
clay
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
3 22 inches
27 inches
clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
4 27 inches
31 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.

TC6558122.2s Page A-7

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 3
Soil Component Name: BOSANKO
Soil Surface Texture: clay
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
2 5 inches
20 inches
clay
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
3 20 inches
25 inches
clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
4 25 inches
29 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.

TC6558122.2s Page A-8

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 4
Soil Component Name: BONSALL
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.

Soil Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: High
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1 0 inches
7 inches
sandy loam
Granular

COARSE -GRAINED
Max: 4
Max: 7.8
materials (35
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 1.4
Min: 7.4
pct. or less
Sands with fines,
passing No.

Silty Sand.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
2 7 inches
24 inches
clay loam
Granular

COARSE -GRAINED
Max: 4
Max: 7.8
materials (35
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 1.4
Min: 7.4
pct. or less
Sands with fines,
passing No.

Silty Sand.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
3 24 inches
33 inches
clay loam
Granular

COARSE -GRAINED
Max: 4
Max: 7.8
materials (35
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 1.4
Min: 7.4
pct. or less
Sands with fines,
passing No.

Silty Sand.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
4 33 inches
44 inches
sandy loam
Granular

COARSE -GRAINED
Max: 4
Max: 7.8
materials (35
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 1.4
Min: 7.4
pct. or less
Sands with fines,
passing No.

Silty Sand.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.

TC6558122.2s Page A-9

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
5 44 inches
59 inches
sandy loam
Granular

COARSE -GRAINED
Max: 4
Max: 7.8
materials (35
SOILS, Sands,
Min: 1.4
Min: 7.4
pct. or less
Sands with fines,
passing No.

Silty Sand.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.

Soil Map ID: 5
Soil Component Name: FALLBROOK
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.

Soil Drainage Class: Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1 0 inches
1 inches
sandy loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
2 1 inches
24 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

TC6558122.2s Page A-10

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
4 27 inches
31 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

Soil Map ID: 6
Soil Component Name: VISTA
Soil Surface Texture: coarse sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep, moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse textures.

Max: Min:
loam
materials (35
Min:
pct. or less
passing No.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.

TC6558122.2s Page A-11

Max: Min:
loam
materials (35
Min:
pct. or less
passing No.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
3 29 inches
33 inches
weathered
Granular
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:
bedrock
materials (35
Min:
pct. or less
passing No.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.

Soil Map ID: 7
Soil Component Name: DIABLO
Soil Surface Texture: clay
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.

TC6558122.2s Page A-12

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
3 31 inches
35 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.

Soil Map ID: 8
Soil Component Name: STEEP GULLIED LAND
Soil Surface Texture: variable
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.

Soil Drainage Class:

Hydric Status: Partially hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Not Reported
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches
Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity
Soil Reaction
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class
AASHTO Group
Unified Soil
micro m/sec
(pH)
1 0 inches
59 inches
variable
Not reported
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Min:

TC6558122.2s Page A-13

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 9
Soil Component Name: FALLBROOK
Soil Surface Texture: sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep, moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse textures.

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
2 5 inches
11 inches
loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
3 11 inches
27 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
4 27 inches
46 inches
loam
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
5 46 inches
51 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

TC6558122.2s Page A-14

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 10
Soil Component Name: ALTAMONT
Soil Surface Texture: clay
Hydrologic Group: Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
2 20 inches
29 inches
clay
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:

Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
3 29 inches
33 inches
weathered
Silt -Clay
Not reported
Max:

Max: Min:
bedrock
Materials (more
Min:
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.

LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.

TC6558122.2s Page A-15

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS 1.000
Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database 1.000

FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION

LOCATION

MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found

FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION

LOCATION

MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION

LOCATION
MAP ID

WELL ID

FROM TP
Al
CAEDF0000031294
1/8 - 1/4 Mile NW
A2
CAEDF0000058075
1/4 - 1/2 Mile NW
A3
CAEDF0000035077
1/4 - 1/2 Mile NW
A4
CAEDF0000067510
1/4 - 1/2 Mile NW
5 CADWR0000030248
1/4 - 1/2 Mile NNW
6 CADWR0000022963
1/4 - 1/2 Mile WNW
B7
CAEDF0000064529
1/4 - 1/2 Mile North
B8
CAEDF0000134160
1/4 - 1/2 Mile North
C9
CAEDF0000111382
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C10
CAEDF0000109935
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C111
CAEDF0000083041
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C12
CAEDF0000110025
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C13
CAEDF0000069841
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C14
CAEDF0000104794
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C15
CAEDF0000051548
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C16
CAEDF0000058089
1/2 - 1 Mile North
C17
CAEDF0000068637
1/2 - 1 Mile North
18 CADWR0000037507
1/2 - 1 Mile NNE
TC6558122.2s Page A-16

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 6558122.2s
ti
� y06 n'
N
County Boundary
0 114 1/2 1 M files
N
Major Roads
N
Contour Lines
Groundwater Flow Direction
N
Earthquake Fault Lines
ffD
Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location
OO
Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
c v
Groundwater Flow Varies at Location
®
Water Wells
H D
Closest Hydrogeological Data
©
Public Water Supply Wells
•
Oil, gas or related wells
®
Cluster of Multiple Icons
SITE NAME: APNs 166-280-60, -61 and -18 CLIENT: Geotek
ADDRESS: S Melrose Drive/Matagual Drive CONTACT: Kyle Mchargue Vista CA 92081 INQUIRY #: 6558122.2s
LAT/LONG: 33.187338 / 117.253 DATE: June 29, 2021 7:06 pm Copyright cg 2021 EDR, Inc. 0 2015 TomTom Rai. 2015.

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
Al
NW CA WELLS CAEDF0000031294
1/8 -1/4 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0608184748-MW-5 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-5
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0608184748&assigned_name=M W-5&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0608184748&assi gned_name=MW-5
A2
NW CA WELLS CAEDF0000058075
1/4 -1/2 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0608184748-MW-4 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-4
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0608184748&assigned_name=M W-4&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0608184748&assi gned_name=MW-4
A3
NW CA WELLS CAEDF0000035077
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0608184748-MW-6 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-6
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0608184748&assigned_name=M W-6&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0608184748&assi gned_name=MW-6
A4
NW CA WELLS CAEDF0000067510
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0608184748-MW-7 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-7
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0608184748&assigned_name=M W-7&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0608184748&assi gned_name=MW-7
TC6558122.2s Page A-18

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
5 NNW CA WELLS CADWR0000030248
1/4 -1/2 Mile
Higher
Well ID: 11SO4W25C001S Well Type: LINK
Source: Department of Water Resources
Other Name: 11SO4W25C001S 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 1SO4W25C001 S&store_num= GeoTracker Data: Not Reported
6 WNW CA WELLS CADWR0000022963
1/4 -1/2 Mile
Higher
Well ID: 11SO4W25E001S Well Type: UNK
Source: Department of Water Resources
Other Name: 11SO4W25E001S 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=l 1 SO4W25EO01 S&store_num= GeoTracker Data: Not Reported
B7
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000064529
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607300068-MW-14 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-14
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607300068&assigned_name=M W-14&store_n um= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607300068&assi gned_name=MW-14
B8
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000134160
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607300068-EA-13 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: EA-13
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607300068&assigned_name=EA-13&store_n um= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607300068&assi gned_name=EA-13
TC6558122.2s Page A-19

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
C9
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000111382
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-8 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-8
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-8&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-8
C10
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000109935
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-6 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-6
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-6&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-6
C11
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000083041
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-9 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-9
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-9&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-9
C12
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000110025
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-7 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-7
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-7&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-7
TC6558122.2s Page A-20

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
C13
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000069841
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-4 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-4
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-4&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-4
C14
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000104794
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-1 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-1
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&global_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=MW-1 &store_num= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-1
C15
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000051548
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-2 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-2
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-2&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-2
C16
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000058089
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-3 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-3
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-3&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-3
TC6558122.2s Page A-21

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation Database EDR ID Number
C17
North CA WELLS CAEDF0000068637
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: T0607302643-MW-5 Well Type: MONITORING
Source: EDF Other Name: MW-5
GAMA PFAS Testing: Not Reported
Groundwater Quality Data: https://gamagroundwater.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/gamamap/public/GamaDataDisplay.asp?dataset=EDF&samp_ date=&g lobal_id=T0607302643&assigned_name=M W-5&store_nu m= GeoTracker Data: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?cmd=MWEDFResults&global_id=T0607302643&assi gned_name=MW-5
18 NNE CA WELLS CADWR0000037507
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Well ID: 11SO4W24R001S Well Type: UNK
Source: Department of Water Resources
Other Name: 11SO4W24R001S 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 1SO4W24R001 S&store_num= GeoTracker Data: Not Reported
TC6558122.2s Page A-22

GEOCHECK®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON

AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: CA Radon
Radon Test Results
Zipcode Num Tests
92081 3
> 4 pCi/L
0 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 nCi/I
0%
0%
Not Reported
TC6558122.2s Page A-23

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.

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.

TC6558122.2s 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
TC6558122.2s 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.

TC6558122.2s Page PSGR-3

TTLC MANAGEMENT, INC. AN ARIZONA CORPORATION PROJECT NO.3706-SD APNs 166-280-60, -61 AND -18 JULY 20, 2021

VISTA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

APPENDIX F

PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS
GEOTEK'G:�

Edward H. LaMont, CEG, PG
Branch Manager
Areas of Expertise
Geotechnical Field Investigations
Grading and Earthwork Construction
Industry Standard of Care
Hillside, Liquefaction, Seismic Hazard,
Fault Analyses and Forensic Studies.

Education
Bachelor of Science in Geology, Cal
State University, Northridge
Registrations
Registered Geologist, PG 6025
Certified Engineering Geologist, CEG
1892
Certifications
OSHA 40-Hr HAZWOPER Training
OSHA 8-Hour Refresher
First Aid/CPR
Professional Experience
Mr. LaMont has been involved with numerous public works, residen- tial and commercial earthwork projects within the southern Califor- nia area. Many residential and public works projects have been suc- cessfully completed across southern and central California. Projects include fault and subsidence studies, fault evaluations, various com- mercial and residential site developments, FEMA levee certifications and military construction projects. These projects have generally included preliminary geotechnical investigations, slope stability evalu- ations, review and design recommendations, street improvements construction and testing services, and project management.

In addition, Mr. LaMont has performed governmental review of ge- otechnical reports for the County of Orange. Mr. LaMont has also completed geotechnical studies for the Riverside County Flood Con- trol and Cities of Banning, Chino, Corona, Palm Springs, Lancaster and Victorville, to name a few.

Representative Project Experience
Project experience has included residential and commercial develop- ments, for various land developers including Melia Homes, Meritage Homes, Frontier Enterprises, DR Horton, Integral Communities, Taylor -Morrison, Warmington Homes, Shea Homes, etc. Mr. La - Mont has also completed geotechnical investigations and performed project management for numerous residential tracts and commercial facilities all across Southern California.

Professional History
Professional Affiliations Branch Manager/Principal Geologist - Riverside GeoTek, Inc., 2004 to present
Association of Engineering Geologist
South Coast Geological Society
San Diego Association of Geologist
Inland Geological Society
BIA Riverside
BIA San Diego
Vice President, Principal Geologist - GeoSoils, Inc., Santa Ana, 2003 to 2004
Geotechnical Reviewer, Engineering Geologist - County of Orange, 2001 to 2003.

Project Geologist - GeoSoils, Inc., Santa Ana, California, 1994 to 2001.

Staff/Project Geologist - GeoSoils, Inc., Carlsbad, California, 1988 to 1994.

Kyle R. McHargue, PG
Project Geologist
Professional Experience
Registrations Mr, Kyle McHargue has over 7 years of geotechnical experience working on or managed a diverse range of geotechnical projects throughout Southern California through Riverside, San Registered Geologist, PG 9790 Bernardino, Orange, San Diego and Alameda counties. His geotechnical experience has ranged from staff and project geologist. Mr. McHargue's responsibilities include preparation of proposals, project management, preliminary geotechnical investigations, fault hazard investiga- tions, landslide investigations, seismic refraction surveys, settlement monitoring, percolation and infiltration studies, manure and methane evaluations, and field studies as a field and project geologist for a diverse range of grading projects. Mr. McHargue has performed Phase I and Education Phase II Environmental Site Assessments for various property acquisitions and transfers in Riverside, Orange, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Kern, Fresno and Imperial Coun- ties in California and Maricopa County in Arizona. Mr. McHargue also over 5 years field and B.A., Geology, University of Hawaii, office experience in land surveying and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Manoa inspections.

Representative Project Experience -
Corona, Riverside County, California - Project Manager. Directed a geotechnical investiga- Certlffcatlons tion, fault hazard and landslide investigation, slope stability analysis and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Chaudhuri Estates hillside residential development.

OSHA 40-Hr HAZWOPER Training
Wildomar, Riverside County, California — Field Geologist. Supervised rough grading opera - OSHA l0-Hour Construction Safety and tions for 84-lot residential subdivision. In field challenges included stabilization fill design, fault Health Training hazard mapping, and high groundwater mitigation design.

Nuclear Gauge Certified
APNGA Radiation Safety Officer Certified Temecula, Riverside County, California — Project Geologist. Performed AP Fault Zone investi- First Aid/CPR gation, geotechnical and infiltration investigations for two adjacent commercial projects.

Ontario, San Bernardino County, California — Project and Field Geologist. Performed ge- Professional Affiliations otechnical, infiltration and manure/methane investigations for 121-acre development. Also supervised rough grading operations for a residential development included field mapping, field recommendations for remedial grading and preparation of reports and geologic maps.

BIA Riverside
BIA Leaders of Tomorrow Temecula, Riverside County, California — Field Geologist. Forensic distress investigation for religious center's structural & wall failures.

Anaheim Hills, Orange County, California — Project Geologist. Planned and performed ge- otechnical, infiltration investigations including all report preparation and slope stability analysis.

Employment History
GeoTek, Inc., Riverside -Project Geologist Jan. 2019 — Present LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc., Temecula-Staff/Project Geologist Feb. 2015 —Jan. 2019 LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc., Temecula -Staff Geologist Dec. 2013 — Feb. 2015

1. MICHAEL BATTEN, CAC, CEM, REPA
Principal/Environmental Services Manager
Education
BS in Geology, California State
University, Fresno 1988
Registrations
■ Certified Asbestos Consultant
(CA #95-1721)
■ Licensed Asbestos Abatement
Consultant (NV #IJPM0655)
■ Certified Environmental Manager
(NV # 1782)
■ Asbestos Professional Inspector
(I L # 100-1 1092)
■ Registered Environmental
Property Assessor
(#1 13162))
■ Certified Lead Inspector Assessor
(CA #4358)
■ Certified Lead Inspector
(EPA #LBP-1-1 162326- 1)
■ Certified Lead Risk Assessor
(EPA #LBP-R-I 162326-1)
Certifications
■ AHERA Certified Asbestos
Building Inspector, Management
Planner, Project Designer, &
Contractor/Supervisor
■ EPA Accredited Lead -based Paint
Inspector & Risk Assessor
■ OSHA HAZWOPER certified
worker & supervisor
■ OSHA Construction Safety &
Health (I 0-Hour)
Affiliations
■ American Society of Testing and
Materials
■ National Registry of
Environmental Professionals

G E O T E K
Professional Experience
Mr. Batten has over 30 years of environmental experience, throughout which he has conducted and managed
numerous environmental investigations, assessments, and remediations. He has prepared several NEPA assessments, USEPA EIS, and CEQA EIR reports. In addition, Mr. Batten has extensive experience in conducting asbestos and lead - based paint surveys and preparing management plans,
including remediation design, for asbestos and lead present in buildings.

Project Experience
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments: Mr. Batten
has conducted more than 2,000 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments in 27 states, including Brownfield studies under USEPA grants.
• Phase II Environmental Site Assessments: Mr. Batten
has conducted more than 150 Phase 11 Environmental
Assessments, including Brownfield studies under USEPA
grants.
• Site Characterizations and Remediations: Mr. Batten
has experience conducting numerous site characterizations and remediations, including obtaining regulatory closure. • NEPA Studies: Mr. Batten has conducted more than 200
NEPA studies, including Environmental Assessments,
Environmental Impact Reports/Environmental Impact Studies, in eight states. The agencies involved include USEPA, FCC, BLM, National Park Service, and California EPA.
• Asbestos Services: Mr. Batten has conducted over 600
asbestos surveys in several states. He has also prepared numerous Asbestos Management Plans, prepared design plans, and monitored numerous abatement projects.
• Lead -Based Paint Services: Mr. Batten has conducted
numerous Lead -Based Paint surveys.
• Landfills: Mr. Batten has conducted investigations and overseen remediations on landfills in Fresno, California and Henderson, Nevada.
• Other Services: Mr. Batten has been called upon to
conduct less usual services on occasion, including mold consultation and investigation, radon studies, vapor intrusion studies, and indoor air quality studies.

J. MICHAEL BATTEN, continued...

GEOTEK
Professional History
Environmental Services Manager. GeoTek, Inc., 2001 to
present.

Director of Environmental Services. ATC Associates,
Inc., 1999 to 2001.

Director of Operations. Hygienetics Environmental
Services, Inc., 1997 to 1999.

Project Manager. AIIWest Environmental, Inc., 1996 to
1997.

Project Manager. Citadel Environmental Services, Inc.,
2/ 1996 to 9/ 1996.

Project Manager. Boelter Environmental consultants,
3/ 1995 to 9/ 1995.

Senior Staff Geologist. Converse Consultants, 1992 to
1995.

Staff Geologist. Converse Environmental West, 1991 to
1992.

Project Geologist. Krazan and Associates, 1990 to 1991.

Environmental Technician. Krazan and Associates, 1989
to 1990.

Pattonat Regt5trP of (Enbirutttnentat
rote.5,5 ionat.5
_for
eubironmentat Certifications
Tbig tg to Certifp tl)at
Alftbacl I fatten
babing guceggfullp bemongtrateb to the Rcabemtc JBoarb of tbtg organt3atton the requtreb Jebel of bnoWlebge anb abilitp, tg bere by amarbeb the btgtinction of Regi.5telLeb (Enbironlllentar J)ropertp Z(gge!55Or
together tuttb all rights, benefits anb prtbtlegeg attacljeb thereto anb that the name anb title of the aforementtoneb registrant tg tobap placeb upon the register of the organt3ation. giben unber our baubg on tbtg 15 bap of 3fune, 2013.

united #tatrs 1"enutruttmentat 11ratertion Agrnrij
t�4ists to cjertifIl t4ttt
J M Batten
has fulfilled the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 402, and has received certification to conduct lead -based paint activities pursuant.to 40 CFR Part 745.226 as:

Inspector
1wIri JUxi8�tt#i`nIt Qt
All EPA Administered Lead -based Paint Activities Program States, Tribes and Territories LBP-1-1162326-2
Certification #
December 08, 2018
Issued On
This certification is valid from the date of issuance and expires March 14, 2022 Adrienne Priselac, Manager, Toxics Office
Land Division

Uniteb #tatrs lEnuironmentat Protertion Agrnrlj
T 4is is to. rjer#i#y t4tt#
J M Batten.
has fulfilled the requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 402, and has received certification to conduct leas! -based paint activities pursuant;to 4o CFR Part 745.226 as:

Risk Assessor
AW
+Irt Or 3junsbirtiou of
All EPA Administered Lead -based Paint Activities Program States, Tribes and Territories LBP-R-1162326-2
Certification #
December 08, 2018
Issued On
This certification is valid from the date of issuance and expires March 14, 2022 Adrienne Priselac, Manager, Toxics Office
Land Division

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Division of Occupational Safety and Health ,.

Asbestos Certification & Training Unit
1750 Howe Avenue, Suite 460
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 574-2993 Office http:/ .dir.ca._qov/dosh/asbestos htmi ecru ci dir,c . 505011721C 109 115
October 08, 2020
J. Michael Batten
8240 Edmond Street
Las Vegas NV 89139
Dear Certified Asbestos Consultant or Technician:

Enclosed is your certification card. To maintain your certification, you must abide by the rules printed on the back of the certification card.

Your certification is valid for a period of one year. If you wish to renew your certification, you must apply for renewal at least 60 days before the expiration date shown on your card. [8 CCR 341.15(h)(1)].

Please hold and do not send copies of your required AHERA refresher renewal certificates to our office until you apply for renewal of your certification.

Certificates must be kept current if you are actively working as a CAC or CSST. The grace period is only for those who are not actively working as an asbestos consultant or site surveillance technician.

Please notify our office via U.S. Postal Service or other carrier of any changes in your mailing or work address within 15 days of the change.

Sicerely,
J Ferrell
Senior Safety Engineer
Attachment: Certification Card
cc: File
Renewal — Card Attached (Revised 06/2020)
State of California
Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Certified Asbestos Consultant
This cerI Ca�-- s:-
�:, ivision of
Occupatiai �iti, 'authorized
by Sections rft Business and
Professions Code.

J
STATE OF CALIFORNIA s-
California Dcpartmetit of DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH o P u b l l c H ea It �gcrFoaN�P

LEAD -RELATED CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE
INDIVIDUAL: CERTIFICATE TYPE: NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE:

Lead Inspector/Assessor LRC-00002629 11/17/2021
WL
Michael Batten
Disclaimer: This document alone should not be relied upon to confirm certification status. Compare the individual's photo and name to another valid form of government issued photo identification. Verify the individual's certification status by searching for Lead -Related Construction Professionals at www.cdph.ca.gov/pro rag ms/clppb or calling (800) 597-LEAD.

91DP11
ttl,` 01s }tPkR1MI`N1'0 ,1'U8f IC 111AIIH
fat 5-535 �efferson Street . spr ngfiel , f1linois 62764-0001 NUCHAEL BATTEN 8/19/2020
8240 EDMOND STREET
LAS VEGAS, NV 89139
ASBESTOS PROFESSIONAL LICENSE ID NUMBER: 11092
t
Enclosed is your Asbestos Professional License. Please note the expiration date on the card and in the image depicted below.

COPY OF THE ASBESTOS PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
Front of License ` Back of License
jILlli'L111111111111""I'31 ASBESTOS ENDORSEMENTS TC EXPIRES

IDPH PROFESSIONAL
LICENSE INSPECTOR 8/10/2021

ID NUMBER ISSUED EXPIRES
100 - 11092 8/19/2020 05/15/2021
MICHAEL BATTEN f
8240 EDMOND STREET Alteration of this license shall result in legal action LAS VEGAS, NV 89139 This license issued under authority of the State of Illinois Department of Public Health
Environmental Health This license is valid only when accompanied by a valid training course certificate.

If you have any questions or need further assistance, contact the Asbestos Program at (217)782-3517 or fax (217)785-5897.

Our WEB address is: dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/environmental-health-protection/asbestos EMAIL Address: dnh.asbestos(a,illinois.aov
Vkoncrmc; HI.ALI-H, IMPROVING LIVES

c;avpmmnent f6memufion and c�Cawral G�esaurces
This is to certify that
Michael J Batten
having given satisfactory evidence of the necessary qualifications as required by the Nevada Revised Statute 459,400 to 459.600, inclusive, and Nevada Administrative Code 459.970 to 459.9729, inclusive, has been granted certification as a Environmental Manager
in the State of Nevada
In testimony whereof, witness the signature of the Administrator and the Seal of the State of Nevada. 1782
Certification Number
I
8/31 /2021
Expiration Date
Greg Lovato, Administrator

State of Nevada Department of Business & ndustry
Industrial Relations (DIR)

STATE OF NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
\ DNISION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Jfl3ccupational Safety and Health Administration
` Asbestos Control Program
Certifies That J. Michael Batten
Geotek Insite Inc.
is Licensed As Asbestos Abatement Consultant
License No. IJPM-655 E iration Date 03/05/2021
Signature Of Licensee_

M & C Environmental Trammg
Asbestos lmpector
Refresher Training Course
I Michael Batten
r � w•nona n®e..: csmsue
m�°" enwf.mm maw.: asmes.mv —
o-mnurc nomar ,t' tkfi'011tn�i9l . e,ayuing;.
itAsbestos Project Designer
Refresher Tre,mg Course
"069t
e" �W m�krtamesAeu e.epu udpv a.nm..mm� •emus, m. ovn..>w"aa:w �nV.r�S.M>4�brcslulV�a��mr'r�ses�4nem��C�we�a Awn rtM 2f��N'(aprv.esnw en•hamannl i..migl.eism Be.erppyve ge.eelp�ryyran�i in.iplolsv_rw hw•x ��-assWFaWMm.,e R.P4.ev'�9.wk..um l4 mm
srewmp:'n:mV
.r1'r.sgsUMv'�
OSHA 002340551 ep
U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
m ic,kc"I 6 0 -4c'n
has successfully completed a 10-hour Occupational Safety and Health Training Coursv in
Construction Safety & Health
Kenner Costen 1 i
(Trainer) (Date)

Appendix G
Hydrology Study

HYDROLOGY STUDY
FOR
Melrose and Matagual
APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
P22-0218

CITY OF VISTA, CA
PREPARED FOR:

TTLC VISTA MELROSE, LLC
CONTACT: GORDON JONES
4350 VON KARMAN AVENUE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
ra -I'M '_C -
PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
27127 Calle Arroyo, Suite 1904
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949-661-6695
Prepared: May 2022
Revised: September 2022
Revised: November 2022
3/15/2023
Suiter, RCE 68964 DATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Existing Conditions

1.2 Proposed Project

1.3 Conclusions

1.4 References

1.5 Methodology 2.0
Rational Method 2.1
County of San Diego Criteria 2.2
AES Rational Method Computer Model 2.3
Hydrologic Analysis

3.0 Existing Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event)

3.1 Proposed Condition Hydrologic Model Output

3.2 (100-Year Event Undetained)
Detention Analysis

3.3 Proposed Condition Hydrologic Model Output

3.4 (100-Year Event Detained)
Hydromodification Management

3.5 Storm Water Pollutant Control

3.6 Appendices
Appendix A: Hydrology Support Material
Appendix B: Detention Support Material
Appendix C: Existing and Proposed Hydrology Maps

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
This Hydrology Study for the proposed development has been prepared to analyze the hydrologic characteristics of the existing and proposed project site. This report presents both the methodology and the calculations used for determining the storm water runoff from the project site in the pre -developed (existing) conditions and the post -developed (proposed) conditions produced by the 100-year, 6-hour storm event.

1.2 Existing Conditions
The subject property is located at the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Matagual Drive in the City of Vista. The site is east of S. Melrose Drive, south of Matagual Drive, and north of Las Palmas Drive, approximately 0.5 miles south of the CA-78 freeway.

Vicinity Map

O F Y ,

The site is surrounded by residential homes to the south and east, commercial buildings to the west, and a church to the north. In the existing condition APN 166-280-18 consists of a single- family home, gravel driveway, and vacant undeveloped area; APN 166-280-60 consists of a church building and asphalt paved parking lot; and APN 166-280-61 consists of a vacant undeveloped parcel with gentle to moderate slopes. Elevations across the site range from a high of approximately 415 feet in the south-east central corner of the property to a low of approximately 337 feet in the north-west corner of the property.

The site area within the project boundaries is a total of 5.27 acres and the total hydrologic area analyzed in the existing condition, including offsite areas, is approximately 7.95 acres. The existing site consists of two drainage basins. Each drainage basin's storm water runoff flows overland to the north-west corner of the property. Existing Drainage Basin 1 flows overland from the southeast corner of the property through an adjacent property to the west then into S. Melrose Drive's curb and gutter then flows northerly towards a curb inlet at the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Matagual Drive. Existing Drainage Basin 2 flows overland from the southeast corner of the property through and adjacent property to the north then into Matagual Drive's curb and gutter then flows westerly towards a separate curb inlet at the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Matagual Drive. Runoff captured by each curb inlet then flows through separate storm drain pipe laterals and into an existing 36-inch RCP pipe within S.

Melrose Drive that drains to the north. Refer to Appendix C for existing condition drainage exhibit.

Per the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain with Hydrologic Soil Group D. Refer to Appendix A for soil information.

Area weighted runoff coefficients were calculated using the methodology described in section

Summary of Existing Condition 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates Discharge Node
Area (ac)
Q100 (cfs)
115 & 215

7.95 25.07
Refer to the existing condition hydrologic calculations included in Section 3.1 for detailed analysis.

1.3 Proposed Project
The project proposes to demolish the existing single-family residence, church building, parking lot, and associated hardscape improvements. The project will consist of 34 single-family detached homes, a new private street, curb & gutter, sidewalk, graded pads, drainage appurtenances, landscape, associated utilities, StormGarden Biofiltration Systems (BMPs) to meet the requirements for pollutant control, and Rtank underground storage facility (BMP) to meet the requirements for hydromodification management flow control and to mitigate for the 100-year 6-hour storm event.

Offsite improvements on Matagual Drive include constructing sidewalk, curb and gutter along the southerly side. Offsite improvements on S. Melrose Drive include half street full pavement section reconstruction, street widening, curb and gutter, sidewalk, parkway, curb inlet relocation, and storm drain lateral reconnection. Offsite improvements on Matagual Drive include half street full pavement section reconstruction, curb and gutter, sidewalk, parkway, curb inlet relocation, and storm drain lateral reconnection. The offsite improvements proposed require additional site design BMPs to satisfy pollutant control treatment, hydromodification management, and volume retention requirements, therefore tree wells are being proposed along the frontage of both Matagual Drive and S. Melrose Drive to meet the requirements. Two tree wells are proposed on S. Melrose Drive and seven tree wells are proposed on Matagual Drive.

In the proposed condition, onsite storm water runoff will flow northwesterly & be collected and conveyed into the proposed curb inlet type Stormgarden Biofiltration Systems (BMPs) which have been designed for pollutant control. A total of six StormGarden systems are proposed to treat the on -site runoff. Subsequently the runoff will discharge into a proposed Rtank underground storage facility (BMP) which has been designed to provide hydromodification management flow control and mitigation for the 100-year 6-hour storm event. The Rtank will discharge via proposed storm drain into the new proposed curb inlet on Matagual Drive.

The proposed site consists of five (5) drainage basins. Storm water runoff will be conveyed overland and within proposed storm drain pipes to two (2) Stormgarden Biofiltration Systems (BMPs) and one (1) proposed Rtank underground storage facility to meet the requirements for pollutant control, hydromodification management flow control and to mitigate for the 100-year 6-hour storm event. Refer to Appendix C for proposed condition drainage exhibit.

Drainage Basin 1 consists of an offsite area to the west of the project site. Runoff begins at the central south end of the project site within an adjacent property then surface flows westerly and into S. Melrose Drive's curb and gutter then continues to surface flow northerly towards and into the proposed relocated curb inlet at the corner of S. Melrose Drive and Matagual Drive. There are Green Street improvements proposed along this S. Melrose Drive frontage.

Drainage Basin 2 consists of the westerly half portion of the project site. Runoff begins at the most southerly point of the project boundary where an area of offsite runoff from an existing slope surface flows onto our project site. Runoff then surface flows into the proposed private

street's curb and gutter and heads northwesterly then enters a curb inlet type StormGarden Biofiltration System (1 of 2). Treated flows and high flows outlet into an underground storm drain pipe that flows easterly into a manhole where it confluences with stormwater from Drainage Basin 3 described in the following section. Combined flows then flow northerly towards an underground Rtank detention system located at the northwest corner of the project site. All outlet flows from the underground Rtank detention system will discharge via underground storm drain pipe to the north where it will confluence with offsite runoff from Drainage Basin 4 as described below. Combined flows then leave the site at the northwest corner of the project site and drain into the proposed Matagual Drive curb inlet then confluence with street runoff captured from Matagual Drive before flowing westerly through a new storm drain lateral and into the existing 36-inch RCP storm drain main line in S. Melrose Drive then continue to flow northerly. In the event the Rtank detention system and/or curb inlet outlet pipes clog, surface grading has been designed to allow storm water to pond on the surface of the private street, crest over the private street's back of sidewalk then into the HOA lot at the NE corner of the site and maintain a minimum of 1-foot separation between top of ponding crest level and lowest adjacent building finish floor elevation. This emergency overflow that enters the HOA lot then surface flows to the north and into Matagual Drive.

Drainage Basin 3 consists of the easterly half portion of the project site. Runoff begins at the most easterly point of the project boundary where an area of offsite runoff from an existing slope surface flows onto our project site. Runoff then surface flows into the proposed private street's curb and gutter and heads northwesterly then enters a curb inlet type StormGarden Biofiltration System (2 of 2). Treated flows and high flows outlet into an underground storm drain pipe that flows westerly into a manhole where it confluences with stormwater from Drainage Basin 2 and continues downstream as described in the Drainage Basin 2 section above.

Drainage Basin 4 consists of an offsite area to the east of the project site. Runoff begins near the project boundary's most easterly point. Runoff surface flows northerly through the existing residential property then enters a proposed concrete drainage ditch that drains to a proposed inlet at the central point of the project's easterly boundary. Captured runoff enters an underground storm drainage pipe that directs runoff to the property's northwesterly corner then confluences with combined flows from Drainage Basins 2 and 3 and continues downstream as described in the Drainage Basin 2 section above.

Drainage Basin 5 consists of a small portion of offsite area to the east of the project site and southerly half of Matagual Drive along the project's northerly street frontage. Runoff begins at a point east of the property boundary's central easterly boundary within an existing asphalt driveway. Runoff surface flows northerly along the driveway surface then enters a proposed concrete drainage ditch that drains captured runoff northerly along the project site's easterly boundary then outlets via a new curb outlet structure into Matagual Drive's curb and gutter.

Surface runoff continues to drain westerly through the curb and gutter then into the proposed relocated curb inlet at the intersection of S. Melrose Drive and Matagual Drive where it confluences with combined flows from Drainage Basins 2, 3 and 4 then continues downstream as described in the Drainage Basin 2 section above.

The BMPs will provide hydromodification management flow control and storm water pollutant control to meet the requirements the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region municipal storm water permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, referred to as MS4 Permit). For detailed pollutant control and HMP calculations refer to the report titled "Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for "Melrose and Matagual" dated November 2022, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.

Area weighted runoff coefficients were calculated using the methodology described in Section

3.2.1 of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual and Table 3-1 Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas. Using the Rational Method Procedure outlined in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual, a peak flow rate was calculated for the proposed condition 100-year, 6-hour storm event. The Rtank underground storm water storage facility provides mitigation for the 100-year 6-hour storm event. A detention analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of the storage facility on the 100-year, 6-hour storm event peak discharge rates. The table below summarizes the proposed condition hydrologic data.

Summary of Proposed Condition 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates Discharge Node
Area (ac)
Q100 (cfs) Undetained
Q100 (cfs) Detained
115/180/200

7.95 29.89

24.70 Refer to the proposed undetained and detained hydrologic calculations and detention analysis included in Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and Appendix B for detailed analysis.

1.4 Conclusions
Based upon the analyses included in this report, the proposed Stormgarden Biofiltration Systems are sized to provide pollutant control and the proposed Rtank underground storage facility is sized to accommodate the increase in peak runoff in the proposed condition and are designed to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit for hydromodification management.

1.5 References
"San Diego County Hydrology Manual"; revised June 2003, County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurveV.nres.usda.gov .

2.0 METHODOLOGY
Pursuant to the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (SDCHM) dated June 2003, the Rational Method is recommended for analyzing the runoff response from drainage areas up to approximately 1 square mile in size. The proposed project and associated watershed basins are less than 1 square mile, therefore the Rational Method was used to analyze the project's hydrologic characteristics in the existing and proposed conditions.

2.1 Rational Method
The Rational Method (RM) formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (1) is equal to:

Where:
= 7.44 x P6 x D-0.645
I = Intensity (in/hr)
P6 = 6-hour precipitation (in)
D = duration (minutes — use Tc)
Using the Time of Concentration (Tc) which is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed, the RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow, typically in cubic feet per second (cfs). The RM equation is as follows:

Where:

Q = CIA
Q= flow (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff (runoff vs. infiltration/evaporation/absorption/etc) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area (in/hr)
A = drainage area contributing to the basin (ac)
The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient, C, is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number.

2.2 County of San Diego Criteria
The County of San Diego has developed its own tables, nomographs, and methodologies for analyzing storm water runoff for areas within the County. The County has also developed precipitation isopluvial contour maps that show even lines of rainfall anticipated from a given storm event (i.e. 100-year, 6-hour storm). The 100-year 6-hour storm event rainfall isopluvial map is included in Appendix A.

One of the variables of the RM equation is the runoff coefficient, C, which is dependent upon land use and soil type. Table 3-1 Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas in the SDCHM categorizes the land use, the associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of impervious area. Each of the categories listed has an associated runoff coefficient for each soil type class. A composite runoff coefficient can also be calculated for an area based on soil type and impervious percentage using the following equation from Section 3.1.2 of the SDCHM:

C = 0.90 x (/ Impervious) + Cp x (1 - % Impervious)
Where: Cp = Pervious Coefficient Runoff Value for the soil type (shown in Table 3-1 as Undisturbed Natural Terrain/Permanent Open Space, 0% Impervious)
The onsite hydrologic calculations contained herein figure a composite runoff coefficient for the onsite project areas based on the percentage of impervious area and the percentage of pervious or landscape area. Refer to Appendix A for runoff coefficient calculations.

The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time of concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has adopted the Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA) overland time of flow equation. This equation essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of concentration to lengths of 100 feet or less, and is dependent on land use and slope.

2.3 AES Rational Method Computer Model
The Rational Method computer program developed by Advanced Engineering Software (AES) satisfies the County of San Diego design criteria, therefore it is the computer model used for this study. The AES hydrologic model is capable of creating independent node -link models of each interior drainage basin and linking these sub -models together at confluence points to determine peak flow rates. The program utilizes base information input by the user to perform calculations for up to 15 hydrologic processes. The required base information includes drainage basin area, storm water facility locations and sizes, land uses, flow patterns, and topographic elevations. The hydrologic conditions were analyzed in accordance with the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual criteria as follows:

Design Storm 100-year, 6-hour
100-year, 6-hour Precipitation 3.1 inches

Rainfall Intensity Based on the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual criteria
Runoff Coefficient* Pervious D soil CP = 0.35
Impervious C = 0.90
Soil Type D
*Weighted runoff coefficients were calculated where appropriate. Refer to Appendix A.

3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
Table 1 below compares and summarizes the hydrologic calculations provided in Sections 3.1,

3.2 and 3.4.

Table 1: Summary of 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates
Existing
Proposed
Proposed Detained
Discharge
Node
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
Discharge
Node
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
Discharge
Node
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
115 & 215

7.95 25.07
115/180/200

7.95 29.89
115/180/200

7.95 24.70

3.1 Existing Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event)

****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1452
Analysis prepared by:

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
949-661-6695
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 3684 Melrose and Matagual
* EXISTING CONDITION
* 100-YR
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 3684E100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:09 03/09/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
--- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ --- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ 1 47.0 23.5 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 2 20.0 10.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 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 105.00 IS CODE = 21 ►33337:film to] : Film 412::W]IlaI:IIswil=111 fi1:0riwi1:FilM3.�sffi� *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 75.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 417.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 401.30
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 16.10
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.427
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.747
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.57
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.57
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 110.00 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) = 352.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 338.40 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 402.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 47.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 23.50 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) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.58 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.29
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.66
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.73
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.44 Tc(MIN.) = 9.35
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.453
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.653
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.01
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.54 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.74 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.79 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 115.00 = 925.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 115.00 TO NODE 115.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 35.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 418.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 408.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 10.20
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.707
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10 A, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.168
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.19 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE = 22 ►33337 :film to] : Film 412::[0MI:IIswil =1111 1-fi1:0riwi1:Fil%v&.11sffi� *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.168
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.19 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW >>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 408.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 343.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 747.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0869 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.760
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.66
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.47 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.59 Tc(MIN.) = 8.59
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 5.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.51
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.543
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.89
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 210.00 = 882.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 215.00 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.) = 9.01
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.59
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.70
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.35
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 8.01

9.35 5.453

2.25 2

17.35 9.01

5.586

5.70 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 25.07 9.01 5.586
2 24.95 9.35 5.453
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.07 Tc(MIN.) = 9.01
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.0
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 115.00 = 1017.00 FEET. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.0 TC(MIN.) = 9.01
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.07
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
T

3.2 Proposed Undetained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event)

****************************************************************************

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
949-661-6695
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL
* PROPOSED CONDITION
* 100-YR
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 3684P100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:37 11/21/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
--- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ --- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ 1 47.0 23.5 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 2 21.0 10.5 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 3 20.0 10.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 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 105.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW >>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) >>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<<

>> >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) >>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4800
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 97.00

UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 416.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 398.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 17.80
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.102
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10 A, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.062
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 398.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 337.57 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 685.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 21.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.81 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.92
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.36
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.94
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.80 Tc(MIN.) = 6.90
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.637
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.650
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.42 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.60
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.05
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.77 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.35 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 782.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 135.00 IS CODE = 31

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) >>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 398.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 337.57

STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 704.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 21.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.22 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.57
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.12
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.82
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.92 Tc(MIN.) = 7.94
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.060
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6300
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.618
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.19
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 11.44 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.14 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 2.53 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 150.00 = 799.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 150.00 TO NODE 135.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 335.07 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 334.92 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.5 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.83
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.19
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 8.02
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 135.00 = 829.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 135.00 IS CODE = 1

>> >>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« > >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES >>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) >>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<< <<<

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 329.54 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 329.52 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.2 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.92
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 20.23
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 8.27
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 953.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000

100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.168
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW >>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) >>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE 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.) = 7.75
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.16
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.29
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.04
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 20.23

8.27 5.903

5.28 2

5.04 7.75

6.157

1.29 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 24.44 7.75 6.157
2 25.06 8.27 5.903
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 25.06 Tc(MIN.) = 8.27
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 1226.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) >>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.29
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.89
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.57
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 25.06
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 185.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW >>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 366.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 355.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 242.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0446 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.507
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200

S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.32
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.91 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.11 Tc(MIN.) = 7.11
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.722
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.52
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.05 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.96
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 185.00 TO NODE 195.00 = 377.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 195.00 TO NODE 200.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 3 USED)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 355.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 337.11 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 446.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 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) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.20 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.85
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.39
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.76
STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.19 Tc(MIN.) = 9.31
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.471
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8300
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.801
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.36
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.80
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.12
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.65 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.91

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 185.00 TO NODE 200.00 = 823.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« > >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES >>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY<< <<< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 26.66

8.29 5.895

6.98 LONGEST

FLOWPATH

FROM NODE
165.00 TO NODE
200.00 = 1235.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK #
1 CONFLUENCE
DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

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

1 3.75 9.56 5.377 0.95
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 200.00 = 643.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **

STREAM RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY

NUMBER (CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
1 29.91

8.29 5.895
2 28.07

9.56 5.377

COMPUTED CONFLUENCE

ESTIMATES
ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
=

29.91 Tc(MIN.) = 8.29
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES)
=

7.9 TC(MIN.) = 8.29

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =

29.91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
T

3.3 Detention Analysis (100-Year Event)
The underground storm water storage facilities (BMPs) provide hydromodification management flow control and mitigation of the 100-year storm event peak flow rate. The 100- year storm event detention analysis was performed using HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling software. The inflow runoff hydrographs to the BMPs were modeled using RatHydro which is a Rational Method Design Storm Hydrograph software that creates a hydrograph using the results of the Rational Method calculations. HydroCAD has the ability to route the 100-year 6- hour storm event inflow hydrograph through the BMPs. Based on the BMP cross sectional geometry, stage storage and outlet structure data, HydroCAD calculates the detained peak flow rate and detained time to peak.

The underground storm water storage facility has a low -flow orifice to comply with HMP requirements and an overflow weir for larger storm events. Refer to the plans for facility details.

The proposed underground Rtank detention system will discharge via proposed storm drain to a proposed curb inlet on Matagual Drive at the northwestern corner of the site where it will confluence with surface flow from Matagual Drive. The combined flow will then discharge via proposed storm drain into the existing public storm drain system in S. Melrose Drive.

For the proposed detained hydrologic analysis, the effects of the detention provided by the 1 underground storage facility was incorporated into the AES analysis. This was done by inserting the results from the HydroCAD analysis, detained peak flow rate and detained time to peak, into the proposed undetained condition AES model to create the proposed detained condition model. Refer to Section 3.4 for the detained AES output.

Based on the results of the HydroCAD analysis, mitigation for the 100-year storm event peak flow rate is provided. Refer to Appendix B for the HydroCAD detention detailed output.

3.4 Proposed Detained Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100-Year Event)

****************************************************************************

PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
27127 CALLE ARROYO, SUITE 1904
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
949-661-6695
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL
* PROPOSED CONDITION DETAINED
* 100-YR
************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 3684PD00.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:49 11/21/2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.100
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
--- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ --- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ 1 47.0 23.5 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 2 21.0 10.5 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 3 20.0 10.0 0.020/0.020/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 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 105.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW >>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 361.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 350.75 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 143.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0773 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.242
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6700
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.02
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.85 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.08 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.29 Tc(MIN.) = 7.59
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.51
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.595
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.75
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.11
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 = 218.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 115.00 IS CODE = 62

>> >>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) >>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4800
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0

INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 97.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 416.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 398.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 17.80
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.102
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10 A, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.062
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.54
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 398.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 337.57 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 685.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 21.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.81 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 135.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) >>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 2 USED)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 398.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 337.57 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 704.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 21.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.22 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« > >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES >>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) >>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<< <<<

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

TC(MIN) = 10.76 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.98
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 15.53
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 155.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) >>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 85.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 403.80
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 386.40
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 17.40
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.930
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.168
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68

**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 22 --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW >>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) >>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 354.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 329.52 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 442.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.9 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.82

ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.04
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.53 Tc(MIN.) = 7.75
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 160.00 = 1226.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 160.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« > >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES >>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 329.52 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 329.48 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 9.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.7 INCHES
PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.48
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 19.61

PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 10.79
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 180.00 = 1235.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 5.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 8.168
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.11
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.11
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 195.00 IS CODE = 51

>> >>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW >>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) > >>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA > >>>(STREET TABLE SECTION # 3 USED)<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 355.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 337.11 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 446.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.00 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) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.20 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW:

*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):

USER -SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA -AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4
..,

0.801
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.36
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.80
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.12
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.65 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.91 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 185.00 TO NODE 200.00 = 823.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 180.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« > >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES >>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN -STREAM MEMORY<< <<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 21.24

10.79 4.974

6.99 LONGEST

FLOWPATH

FROM NODE
165.00 TO NODE
200.00 = 1235.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM
RUNOFF
Tc

INTENSITY
AREA
NUMBER
(CFS)
(MIN.)
(INCH/HOUR)
(ACRE)
1 3.75

9.56 5.377

0.95 LONGEST

FLOWPATH FROM
NODE
100.00 TO NODE
200.00 = 643.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 22.57 9.56 5.377
2 24.71 10.79 4.974
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.71 Tc(MIN.) = 10.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.9 TC(MIN.) = 10.79
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
T

3.5 Hydromodification Management
To satisfy the requirements of the MS4 Permit, a hydromodification management strategy has been developed for the project based on the Final Hydromodification Management Plan dated March 2011, (Final HMP). A continuous simulation model, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) version 5.1, was selected to size mitigation measures. The SWMM model is capable of modeling hydromodification management facilities to mitigate the effects of increased runoff from the post -development conditions and use changes that may cause negative impacts (i.e. erosion) to downstream channels. For HMP calculations refer to the report titled "Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for "Melrose and Matagual" dated November 2022, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.

3.6 Storm Water Pollutant Control
To meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit, the Storm Gardens are designed to treat onsite storm water pollutants for the 24-hour, 85t" percentile storm event. For detailed pollutant control calculations refer to the report "Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for "Melrose and Matagual" dated November 2022, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.

APPENDIX A
Hydrology Support Material

Melrose and Matagual
3684
11/22/2022
Existing Condition
Basin ID
Total
Area
(ac)
Impervious
Area
(Soil C)
(sq-ft)
Pervious
Area (Soil
C) (sq-
ft)
% Impervious
% Pervious
Weighted
Runoff Coef
C:

1.0 0.21
0 9,001
0%
100%

0.35 1.1

1.58 35,168
33,813
51%
49%

0.63 1.2

0.46 19,207
968
95%
5%

0.87 2.0

0.19 0
8,182
0%
100%

0.35 2.1

5.21 81,119
145,666
36%
64%

0.55 2.2

0.30 5,476
7,680
42%
58%

0.58 Total
1 7.951
140,970
205,310
Runoff Coefficient Table
Soil Type
D
Impervious

0.90 Pervious

0.35 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\Appendix A - Hydrology Support\3684_d rn_calcs

Melrose and Matagual
3684
11/22/2022
Proposed Condition
Basin ID
Total
Area
(ac)
Impervious
Area
(Soil C)
(sq-ft)
Pervious
Area (Soil
C) (sq-
ft)
% Impervious
% Pervious
Weighted
Runoff Coef
C:

1.0 0.11
0 4,757
0%
100%

0.35 1.1

0.36 9,062
6,425
59%
41%

0.67 1.2

0.50 20,798
1,108
95 %
5 %

0.87 2.0

0.14 1,490
4,732
24%
76%

0.48 2.1

2.42 59,287
46,099
56%
44%

0.66 3.0

0.12 57
5,130
1%
99%

0.36 3.1

2.60 57,632
55,744
51%
49%

0.63 4.0

0.18 1,623
6,238
21%
79%

0.46 4.1

1.11 24,344
24,147
50%
50%

0.63 5.0

0.03 227
869
21%
79%

0.46 5.1

0.07 2,783
455
86%
14%

0.82 5.2

0.30 11,516
1,756
87%
13%

0.83 Total

7.95 188,819
157,460
Total
Onsite (2.0,

2.1, 3.0,

3.1)

5.28 118,466
111,705
51%
49%

0.633
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\HYDROLOGY\Appendix A - Hydrology Support\3684_drn_calcs

0111M
■■.■■■■■I■■�I�■■■■■�_■■��■■�■■urLii�ICLL'9�
� oIIPJIIII�IIII��IIIIQIII�III�III�m
■■!■■■■itiiiii!■i�r!! !!i!■■■■a■■ra■o■e�■lmW�!!■i■I�■■■■■■n■■ ■i�■■■u■H■■■�■■i!1 ■■■■er■■■■■■■!■■■!'■
u■n■■■■■■■u■■■■■p
Na
MEN
El
i■■■■�i■■■■■■ull■■
___
■!■■■!m!■■1
■
■■■■■I�■u�i■
■■■■■®!■■■M1
■
e■■■■�■■
■
■■■■�■■■■■■®
■■
■i��1■■■■�ul�i■■!INN
Sol
■■■
■;m■■u■■■■■■u■911177111
■■■�l■■■■■!■■
■■■■■■�■■■l
■Ian■!■nl■■n■■■■1
11 ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■l
■!
■oll■■mi!■■■■■
oil ■■■mammon
mom!
County of San Diego
Hydrology Manual
■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■�■■a■■�■■■a�■■■ ■■■■� {:
!■'■■■■■■■■■I7■■■■■■®�■■■■■■■■■!■■■Rainfall Isopluvials -- DPW

GIS SMGIS
eaaV Wb-affm&.1 We Have• San Diego C ov,2rcd!
c .ate + m.: r sc ,t
N THIS MAP IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY IOND. EITHER EXPRESS

This products may contain inlomiation from the SANDAG Regional EInformation Sysbm which cannot ba raproduced without the wrdten permission of SANDAG.

Thie product may contain infornation which h. been reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Brothers Maps.

S
3 0 3 Miles

USDA United States
Department of
Agriculture
N RCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
San Diego County
Area, California
January 26, 2022

Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

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

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

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

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

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments ( http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center ( https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist ( http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/ ? cid=nres142p2_053951).

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

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

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Information for All Uses.................................................................................8 Soil Properties and Qualities................................................................................ 8 Soil Qualities and Features
...............................................................................8 HydrologicSoil Group................................................................................... 8 References............................................................................................................13 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

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

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

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

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

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 0 Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.

Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil.

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

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

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

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
0 Custom Soil Resource Report
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

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

These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. 0 a;
q 476360
33° 11' 18" N
g
N
chi
33° 11' 8" N
476360 476400 476440 476480 476520
3 in
Map Scale: 1:1,610 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Meters N
0 20 40 80 120
, Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WG684 10 Custom Soil Resource Report
Map —Hydrologic Soil Group
476400 476440 476480 476520
476560
476560
3 M
a;
476600
33° 11' 18" N
chi
g
N
r
33° 11' 8" N
476600
3 in

MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
0 A
0 A/D
0 B
0 B/D
0 C
0 C/D
0 D
0 Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
r r A
r r A/D
r B
B/D
r r C
0 C/D
r r D
r r Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
0 A
0 A/D
■ B
■ B/D
Custom Soil Resource Report

MAP INFORMATION
p
C
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
0 C/D
0 D
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
0 Not rated or not available
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Water Features
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Streams and Canals
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Transportation
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Rails
scale.

Interstate Highways
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
US Routes
measurements.

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

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

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

Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Sep 13, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 24, 2020—Feb 12, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
11 Custom Soil Resource Report
Table —Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
BsD
BsE
Bosanko clay, 9 to 15
percent slopes
D
D

0.4 1.4

7.9%

25.8%
Bosanko clay, 15 to 30
percent slopes
PeC2
Placentia sandy loam, 5
to 9 percent slopes,
eroded
D

3.6 66.2%
Totals for Area of Interest

5.5 100.0%
Rating Options —Hydrologic Soil Group
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff.- None Specified
Tie -break Rule: Higher
12 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 13 Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/ ? cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE— DOCUMENTS/nrcsl 42p2_052290.pdf 14 0 m.

Detention Support Material

1L P
" 6
Inflow to Vault-1
Subcat Reach Pon Link
Vault-1 100-yr

3684
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 3/9/2022 HydroCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Link 1 L: Inflow to Vault-1
Inflow = 20.22 cfs @ 4.13 hrs, Volume= 0.859 of
Primary = 20.22 cfs @ 4.13 hrs, Volume= 0.859 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Pond 6P : Vault-1 100-yr
Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs DISCHARGE Imported from RatHydro adj.csv
Link 1 L: Inflow to Vault-1
Hydrograph
■ Inflow
■ Primary
Time (hours)

3684
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 3/9/2022 HydroCADO 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Pond 6P: Vault-1 100-yr
Inflow = 20.22 cfs @ 4.13 hrs, Volume= 0.859 of
Outflow = 15.53 cfs @ 4.17 hrs, Volume= 0.859 af, Atten= 23%, Lag= 2.5 min
Primary = 15.53 cfs @ 4.17 hrs, Volume= 0.859 of
Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 106.55' @ 4.17 hrs Surf.Area= 3,200 sf Storage= 19,898 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 231.1 min calculated for 0.859 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 231.1 min ( 445.5 - 214.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1 100.00, 20,520 cf Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area
(feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet)
(sq-ft)
100.00 3,200 0.0 0 0
3,200
101.00 3,200 95.0 3,040 3,040
3,401
102.00 3,200 95.0 3,040 6,080
3,601
103.00 3,200 95.0 3,040 9,120
3,802
104.00 3,200 95.0 3,040 12,160
4,002
105.00 3,200 95.0 3,040 15,200
4,203
106.00 3,200 95.0 3,040 18,240
4,403
106.75 3,200 95.0 2,280 20,520
4,554
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Primary 100.00' 24.00" Round Culvert
L= 10.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 100.00' / 99.90' S= 0.0100
T Cc= 0.900
n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
#2 Device 1 100.00' 2.50" Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
#3 Device 1 104.00' 18.00" W x 5.00" H Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4 Device 1 106.25' Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 0.50
Width (feet) 20.00 20.00 0.00
Primary OutFlow Max=15.41 cfs @ 4.17 hrs HW=106.54' (Free Discharge) L1=Culvert
(Passes 15.41 cfs of 44.52 cfs potential flow)
2=Orifice (Orifice Controls 0.42 cfs @ 12.22 fps)
3=Orifice (Orifice Controls 4.60 cfs @ 7.35 fps)
4=Custom Weir (Weir Controls 10.39 cfs @ 1.77 fps)

3684
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 3/9/2022 HydroCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 N
V
Pond 6P: Vault-1 100-yr
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
■ Inflow
■ Primary

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM
COPYRIGHT 1992, 2001 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
RUN DATE 3/8/2022
HYDROGRAPH FILE NAME Text1
TIME OF CONCENTRATION 8 MIN.
6 HOUR RAINFALL 3.1 INCHES
BASIN AREA 5.29 ACRES
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.633
PEAK DISCHARGE 20.23 CFS
TIME (MIN) =
0 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0
TIME (MIN) =
8 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.6
TIME (MIN) =
16 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.6
TIME (MIN) =
24 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.6
TIME (MIN) =
32 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
40 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
48 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
56 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
64 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
72 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.8
TIME (MIN) =
80 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.8
TIME (MIN) =
88 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.8
TIME (MIN) =
96 DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.8
TIME (MIN) =
104

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.9
TIME (MIN) =
112

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.9
TIME (MIN) =
120

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.9
TIME (MIN) =
128

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1
TIME (MIN) =
136

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1
TIME (MIN) =
144

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.1
TIME (MIN) =
152

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.1
TIME (MIN) =
160

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.2
TIME (MIN) =
168

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.3
TIME (MIN) =
176

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.3
TIME (MIN) =
184

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.5
TIME (MIN) =
192

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.6
TIME (MIN) =
200

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.8
TIME (MIN) =
208

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 2
TIME (MIN) =
216

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 2.4
TIME (MIN) =
224

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 2.7
TIME (MIN) =
232

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 4
TIME (MIN) =
240

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 5.6
TIME (MIN) =
248

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 20.23
TIME (MIN) =
256

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 3.2
TIME (MIN) =
264

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 2.1
TIME (MIN) =
272

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.7
TIME (MIN) =
280

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.4
TIME (MIN) =
288

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.2
TIME (MIN) =
296

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1.1
TIME (MIN) =
304

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 1
TIME (MIN) =
312

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.9
TIME (MIN) =
320

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.8
TIME (MIN) =
328

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.8
TIME (MIN) =
336

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
344

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
352

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.7
TIME (MIN) =
360

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0.6
TIME (MIN) =
368

DISCHARGE (CFS)
= 0

APPENDIX C
Existing and Proposed Hydrology Maps

PRE -PROJECT HYDROLOGY MAP

MELROSE & MATAGUAL
VI r L I I ,R9s 12156 L �_.�.— OE
PM APNi 168-250-21 0 l\ = = 4T E
APN: 1ss-1s0-s7�
NODEZTS - - _
so / LOT n
1 1

2.2B©t71i�'
/1000
c �• / MAP 2131
-(,ELEV�(337.1) 135 0.30 �pKOJ�� / l o I I / 1
_ _ .. .. 1 L� - -r >
ram 1� Ex y �� / lei ) APN:166-280-06
//1 / I��_�/1 I / 10
NODE 210 o I /
>? ELEV=±(343.2) I / / / V� /
_ -- �.--- PROP. BNDY � r I / /�
_ �1 -^" - yl r PM'8,2
NODE 115 j /Tl APN. 1ss--s1
( ELEV=±(338. / vT
EX. R/W
PM 21324
APN: 166-150 97
\ \ PM 18360Zoo
p�F'�'
APN: i66-280.60 f r( / / / / Qe`
PMAPORTlb
LO2131

1.2 APN: 166-28073

0.46�
;,�-� ,
1 /I LOT 17
m MAP 2131
/ p /
/ 7
FOR LOT 18 APN: 166.280-06
(PROD. BNDY - II /� / / //// MAP 2131 ,II�11 c
PN1 2011 ( EX. RNV � / / / / '� ' 168-2 =04 -
APN: 150-89
y
I
i � r
PR _T BQINiARY � � 7aT --L PR�I�
�NODE110 I A/ //� / /// ///////// / /// 2)7.0
6� / I ELEV=±0352.3) 1 l� „pK 1/
�P
MAP 13
_
APN: 166-280 D%tQT PM 8977
MA, /, /,/ / r of % \
�.. 11, APN: 168-880-04
APN 186256,1E
X I J c ORRL TIi9l
1 o c PN: 6Q11ai
�
AIM)�2�a2 1 - }l�l�l/� ✓�!@�l�///i /1/ 1 (c - NODE 205
ELEV=±(4081){,'�
\ �� I�I� /�'`�` _ / // // III I I I / •�_ •,� /A—
NODE 200
1 /
ELEV=±(41$3)
ly
I I II 475
APN: 166-280-39, 408-41 / / / _l l �i �/ 1 ! I i/ l / Q.21 NODE 10a /� PM 8977 APN:1e6-6eo-93
PR
_ •� / / / / A�N: s 8¢ 3 /
9- 3. www.plsaengineering.com

POST -PROJECT HYDROLOGY MAP

MELROSE & MATAGUAL
DRIVE _ - -
,ROS 12156 ° _ ND� = S
� OE
�PW166-250-21 _
PM 18463 I '
APN: i66-150-67 I �L-f�PR03EC1 BOUNDARY �� I

5. - ) i 0.30
1 v
� 4II�9E-
s i / r / / W �. LsAAG w LOT 17
i
-; EV- 3711 '� � � �,-- W MAP 2131
W IN: 168-280 O(i
_ � I
----
s- L 337.72 '! NODE 1
=394
Ni7D�
_ \\ II
IIIN IE=329. 5.1
I NODE l - 0.07
1 I III I PR
\IIIII A .42IW I I IE= 29.E I-✓♦-�//LF 7'/ll
/ I
213N
AP 66-150. IhlliNl\ w I' F20'
I� VI
0 III �I 1 10' I NOD a
as Vti AVI ILE_LE=- �.5=7
30 I-33V5
L- I
NE1E 190 E3/
±(365.7)
so so :.��0 / FOR LOT 18 5.0
1`� r MAP 2131 - 0.03
.2 NO 35 K L II - aPN: 166-286-03 I
i 0.48 v _ 34.92 I 3'1 NODE 1 5
I � I I 2.60 ELEV=356.80 / /i // / /lp E 185
'.�• I N i IE=3540,E{7�=±(379.0)
k \
I / \
41 i i A IiI l NODE 170
PM-10141 � I PROP. BNDY _ II \1 ,� , 111 ! / _ A _ ELEV=±(386.4) APN 166 150•S9 1 _ � � I j /lll / / /i FOR LOT 18 A�
LOT 17
EX. RAVMAP 2131
' PROP. IW - i�� I �I/ / � / / ti�MAF z131-' \V ). � NODE 165 APN: 186-280

2.1 � II � 9� / /�; � ,/il I IIgFfla6c2� �-ELEV=±(403.8) L 24J v
BO'[�ND
�UW
s ,
�I� NODE140
�- NODE110 FOR LOT
I9 0.36 ill ///i l r
ELEV=+ 350.75 MAP 2131 / 1.0 / / / /, i AVI A ELEV=±(419.5) / ! vy i
1 - APN:166-280-t2 -NODE 105/// AIIIVII 3.0 i/
- - - - - - 1
ELEV=±(361.8) \ / / / 1�, 0.12
L=1� J 1 . L,
L=75'
EX. CONC. DITCH
\ \\ I I I� / \ \
NbDE I yi
II -I -II -I II L _- rs-91' // // /riVA LEV=
i I r�APz131� I III 111�11+� � I � � � �� ✓4 /r v�v err J
/ PM 8977 \\
APN. 166-680-03
No
125 - -
I / / ELEV=398.50 ✓>�
l2\v¢
28PM 475 0
APN: 188-\\
.\
� > r v AEI n1 / i
LAW lI
/ � IIIII/ III /llll A ss-G60-oz
I I r Aq2 1 / / 7!//djl/ / \ Yll l DE 120
PN�:IYl.!IIIII��I��EL 4�6.3)
\N\ / /� //// \P97\
AI'Pk'Mf6& 7 -01
DITCH
IV
LEGEND

MAJOR BASIN BOUNDARY

MINOR BASIN BOUNDARY

FLOW PATH

UNDERGROUND PIPE DRAINAGE PATH
HYDROLOGIC NODE NODE #

ELEVATION AT NODE ELEV
HYDROLOGIC SUB -BASIN NUMBER 1.O
HYDROLOGICAREA(ACRES) 0.23
IMPERVIOUS AREA 4.33 AC(188,819 SF)
PERVIOUS AREA 3.61 AC (157,460 SF)
TOTAL AREA 7.95 AC (346,279 SF)
✓V'
0 50 100 150
SCALE: 1' = 50'

POST -PROJECT HYDROLOGY MAP

MELROSE& MATAGUAL

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

PASCO LARET SUITER
San Diego I Encinitas I Orange County
Phone 949.661.6695 I www.plsaengineering.com

Appendix H
Stormwater Quality Management Plan

Project Number(s): PC P22-0218 LID GP

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

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWAMP)
FOR

MELROSE AND MATAGUAL
APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
PREPARED FOR:

TTLC VISTA MELROSE, LLC
CONTACT: GORDON JONES
4350 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
IVJtM l tIVIHILJ
PREPARED: MAY 2022
REVISED: SEPTEMBER 2022
REVISED: NOVEMBER 2022
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.

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61

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.............................................................................................8 FORM2 — PROJECT OVERVIEW...........................................................................................................................................9 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................10 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS........................................................................................................12 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................................................13 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS.....................................................................................................15 POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS..............................................................................................................................17 IDENTIFICATION AND NARRATIVE OF RECEIVING WATER AND POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN...............................................18 HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................20 CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS.......................................................................................................................... 21 FLOW CONTROL FOR POST -PROJECT RUNOFF.....................................................................................................................22 OTHER SITE REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS................................................................................................................23 FORM 3 — SOURCE CONTROL BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS...........................................................................24 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION & SOURCE CONTROLS................................................................................................................24 FORM 4 — SITE DESIGN BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS....................................................................................28 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................28 FORM 5 — STRUCTURAL POLLUTANT CONTROL AND HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT BMPS................................30 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION....................................................................................................................................................30 PDPStructural BMPs............................................................................................................................................................30 FORM 6 — STORMWATER BMP MAINTENANCE MECHANISM...........................................................................................31 PROJECTI DENTI FI CATION.................................................................................................................................................... 31 MaintenanceRequirements.................................................................................................................................................31 attachment 1— POLLUTANT CONTROLS: SUPPORT DOCUMENT AND CHECKLIST.............................................................32 attachment 1a — DMA EXHIBIT CHECKLIST........................................................................................................................33 attachment 2 — hydromodification management CONTROLS: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION & CHECKLIST .......................34 attachment 2a — hydromodification management exhibit...............................................................................................35 ATTACHMENT 3 - BMP MAINTENANCE information.........................................................................................................36 Attachment 3a — maintenance plan requirements...........................................................................................................37 attachment 3b — Maintenance agreement.......................................................................................................................38 ATTACHMENT 4 - REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS.......................................................................................39

Page 2 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61

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 SWAMP 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 SWAMP 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.

SWAMP PREPARED BY:

William J. Suiter
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates
27127 Calle Arroyo, Suite 1904
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949-661-6695
[email protected]
RCE68964
V v
Signatur PE License Number & Expiration Date
William Justin Suiter
Print Name
3/15/2023
Date
12-31-23

Page 3 of 39 ends

No. 68964
Exp. 12/31/23

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61

PROJECT OWNER CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
Owners Certification
This PDP SWAMP has been prepared for Greg Perrine by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates. The PDP SWAMP 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.

Project Owner's Signature
Gordon Jones
Print Name
Date
OWNER DETAILS:

TTLC VISTA MELROSE, LLC
CONTACT: GORDON JONES
4350 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 200
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660

Page 4 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18,166-280 60,165-280-61

PROJECT OWNER CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
Owners Certlfi{at Dn
This 1-10P SWOOP has been prepared for Greg Perrin by Pasco Laret Swtef & A&Sociates_ The POP SWAMP is I nterided to comply with the POP r-equirements of the City of Vista 8MP U,esign Manual, which is a design Man ual for rom pl i a qce with local City and regional MA Permit lCalifurnia Regional Wate r Quality Control Boa rd San Cego Region Ord-r Ng, 119-2015-0100) T`NtAireMlEnt for storm water management.

The un dersigned, whIle it awns the subject pro pertw, Is re pon s ible for the Implementatlon of the prowls ions of th=s plan.Once the undersigned trarrsferL its inter-ests In the property: Its successor -in -interest shall bear the aforemantion ad responsi brlity to i rnpJe mmrti t t Ixe best rri a nagervien t pro ev ces [81YINJ described wahin th Is plan, i nd kid ing ertSuri ng on-g-oing, operation a nd rnai Rtenance of structural LAW Ps. A signed Gio pyr of this docurner«t shall 1;ie awaila W a on the subject property into perW uity, Corchn Jorez ih17 „Y023 ]5.'}] PDT
Prood Owners *ngature
Aordgn Jo+l es
Prir}t Name
Mar22,2023
Date
OWNER DETAI I. ,
1TLC VI STA MELROSE, LLC
-CO NTACT-. GORDON JONfS
4550 VON KAPMAN AVENLIE, SUITE 200
NEWPORT BEACH, -CA 92660
Page A & M

WP VM
Final Audh Report
CraE ted= 202a-03-22
By: Mirhael Tonesirr.,orrEsgthez:.ellreconpwie&rj3fn)
SIMM: Signed
TransacGan ID_ C&JCHBCAABA xgHRC4_ngTgdwXnWLXCN h9Buha
"SWQMP VM " History
Document crested by Michael Torres (m orres(othetruelifecompanies-com) 2023-03-22- 10 3BPM GMT -IF address:72.197.149.1GI
2023-03-22
Document emailed to Gordon Jones (GJones4thetruelifecompanies.com) tor signature 2023-0-22- ICb 7_15 PM GMT
k
. Ernai I viewed by Gordon Jo Res {GJones thetrue life-zompan ies.oam) 2023-05-22 - 11.00:16 PM. G-MT- IF address: 76.i£9.236.51 Document a -sign ed by Gordan Jones { Gdones thetruel ifecompanies.com) Signat,re Date: 202343-22 - 11:01 ffT PM GMT - ime SD rce: seD-er- IP address: 76.1652236.51 Agreement completed.
2723-03-22 -11 j01�7 PM GMT
Mimes end er-ai alcre5se3 we enrcrd IRIS the arrba Sigr serAce bir fc3r--bQl sign users and are Lrnuffiec unless Dffiemise rW.ec.

N A&W ArroWt Sign

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61

CITY OF VISTA STAFF REVIEW
Reviewed and Approved:

City Staff Signature: Date:

Page 5 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Page 6 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Project Name: Melrose and Matagual
Permit Application Number: P22-0218
Insert Project Vicinity Map Below:

Page 7 of 39 ends

ECT SITE

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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.cityofvista.com/services/city-departments/community-development/building-planning- permits-applications/land-development-autocad-templates/storm-water-forms

Page 8 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
FORM 2 - PROJECT OVERVIEW

Page 1 of 11 ends

Project Name

MELROSE AND MATAGUAL
Project Address
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s))
APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Permit Application Number
P22-0218
Watershed (select one checkbox; use webpage below to determine watershed) http://www.citvofvista.com/services/city-departments/community-development/building-planning- permits-applications/land-development-autocad-templates/storm-water-forms San Luis Rey
❑ Lower San Luis Rey —Mission, 903.11
Carlsbad
❑ Loma Alta — Loma Alta, 904.10
❑ Buena Vista — El Salto, 904.21
❑X 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
1 5.55 Acres ( 241,689
Square Feet)
with the project)
Area to be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area)
1 5.67 Acres (5246,871
Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
1 3.12* Acres ( 135,819*
Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
1 2.56* Acres ( 111,052**
Square Feet)
Undisturbed Offsite Area Draining to BMPs

0.10* 4,497
Acres (
Square Feet)
NOTE: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious
Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.

This may be less than the Parcel Area.
*120,572 SF Impervious Area On -Site + 15,247 SF Impervious Are Off -Site = 135,819 SF Impervious Area **107,180 SF Proposed Pervious Area On -Site + 3,872 SF Pervious Area Off -Site = 111,052 SF Pervious Area

Page 9 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Form 2, Page 2 of 11

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply and describe below):

X❑ Existing development
❑ Previously graded but not built out
❑ Demolition completed without new construction
❑ Agricultural or other non -impervious use
X Vacant, undeveloped/natural
Describe:

In the existing condition APN 166-280-18 consists of a single-family home and vacant undeveloped area, APN 166-280-60 consists of a church building and parking lot, and APN 166-280-61 consists of a vacant undeveloped parcel.

Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply and describe below):

Z Vegetative Cover 1 2.60 Acres ( 113,462 Square Feet)
❑ Non -Vegetated Pervious Areas I Acres ( Square Feet)
0 Impervious Areas 1 2.67 Acres ( 116,287 Square Feet)
Describe:

Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply):
❑ NRCS Type A
❑ NRCS Type B
❑ NRCS Type C
0 NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW):
❑ GW Depth 20 feet

Page 10 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply and describe in next section):
❑ Drainage ditch/Swale/Waterway
❑ Seeps
❑ Springs
❑ Wetlands
0 None

Page 11 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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:

In the existing condition APN 166-280-18 consists of a single-family home with an asphalt paved driveway and vacant undeveloped area, APN 166-280-60 consists of a church building and parking lot, and APN 166-280-61 consists of a vacant undeveloped parcel.

Storm water runoff flows overland from the Southeast to the Northwest in the existing drainage pattern. The table below summarizes the existing condition hydrologic data.

Summary of Existing Condition 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates Discharge Node
Area (ac)
Q100 (cfs)
115 & 215

7.95 25.07
For detailed calculations refer to the drainage report for the project titled "Hydrology Study for Melrose & Matagual" prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated November 2022.

Page 12 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Form 2, Page 4 of 11

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:

The project proposes to demolish the existing single-family residence, church building, parking lot, and associated hardscape improvements. The project will consist of 34 single-family detached homes, a new private street, curb & gutter, sidewalk, graded pads, drainage appurtenances, landscape, associated utilities, StormGarden Biofiltration Systems (BMPs) to meet the requirements for pollutant control, and Rtank underground storage facility (BMP) to meet the requirements for hydromodification management flow control and to mitigate for the 100-year 6-hour storm event.

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

Proposed impervious features include residential structures, driveways, sidewalk and private street.

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

Proposed pervious features include landscape areas.

Page 13 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? ❑X Yes
❑ No
Describe:

Grading is proposed to accommodate the proposed lots, private street and storm drain system.

Page 14 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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)?
❑X 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 proposes to demolish the existing single-family residence, church building, parking lot, and associated hardscape improvements. The project will consist of 34 single-family detached homes, a new private street, curb & gutter, sidewalk, graded pads, drainage appurtenances, landscape, associated utilities, and Stormgarden Biofiltration Systems & underground Rtank storage facility design for stormwater treatment, hydromodification management, and to mitigate for the 100-year 6-hour storm event.

In the proposed condition, onsite storm water runoff will flow northwesterly & be collected and conveyed into the proposed curb inlet type Stormgarden Biofiltration Systems (BMPs) which have been designed for pollutant control. Subsequently the runoff will discharge into a proposed Rtank underground storage facility (BMP) which has been designed to provide hydromodification management flow control and mitigation for the 100-year 6-hour storm event. The Rtank will discharge via proposed storm drain into the curb inlet on Matagual Drive.

The underground storm water storage facilities provide hydromodification management flow control.

Refer to the continuous simulation analysis located in Attachment 2d. The storage facilities also provide mitigation for the 100-year 6-hour storm event. A detention analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of the storage facilities on the 100-year, 6-hour storm event peak discharge rates. The table below summarizes the proposed condition hydrologic data.

Summary of Proposed Condition 100-yr Peak Discharge Rates Discharge Node
Area (ac)
Q100 (cfs) Undetained
Q100 (cfs) Detained
115/180/200

7.95 29.89

24.70

Page 15 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
For detailed calculations refer to the drainage report for the project titled "Hydrology Study for Melrose & Matagual" prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates dated November 2022.

Page 16 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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
❑ 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:

Page 17 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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):

Storm water that discharges the project site at the northwest corner flows northerly to the Buena Vista Creek.

The Buena Vista Creek flows westerly and ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean.

List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the poll utant(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
Buena Vista Creek
Benthic Community Effects,
Bifenthrin, Selenium, Toxicity
TMDL required 2014-2016 per 303(d)
list report
Identification of Project Site Pollutants*
*Identification of project site pollutants is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs (note the project must also participate in an alternative compliance program unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated) Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):

Pollutant
Not Applicable to the
Project Site
Expected from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving Water
Pollutant of Concern
Sediment
❑
❑
❑
Nutrients
❑
❑
❑
Heavy Metals
Organic Compounds
Trash & Debris

Page 18 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Oxygen Demanding
Substances
Oil & Grease
Bacteria & Viruses
Pesticides

Page 19 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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:

Page 20 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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? ❑ 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 SWQMP. ❑Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.

Describe:

Refer to the exhibit located in Attachment 2b.

Page 21 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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)? ❑X No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) ❑ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
❑ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
❑ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide the report.

Discussion / Additional Information: (optional)

Page 22 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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.

Storm water runoff from the offsite improvements to Melrose Drive and Matagual Drive will be directed to tree wells located within the public right-of-way. Proposed tree well BMPs per County of San Diego Department of Public Works Green Streets Design Criteria and Standard Drawings.

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 23 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
FORM 3 - SOURCE CONTROL BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Page 1 of 4 ends

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION & SOURCE CONTROLS
Project Name MELROSE AND MATAGUAL
Permit Application Number P22-0218
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
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Provide effective irrigation, dispersion of non -storm water discharges into landscape SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage
I ❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Provide prohibitive dumping placards and/or signage
-Post signage at public access points to deter prohibitive dumping -Maintain legibility of placards and signage
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:
-No outdoor storage areas proposed
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:
-No outdoor work areas proposed

Page 24 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Form 3, Page 2 of 4
Source Control Requirement
Applied?
SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run -On, Runoff, and ❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Wind Dispersal
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:

Trashcans will be stored in garages
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:
-Provide prohibitive dumping placards and/or signage
-Post signage at public access points to deter prohibitive dumping -Maintain legibility of placards and signage
b. Sump pumps or French drains
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No sump pumps or French drains proposed
c. Interior or sub -surface parking garages
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No parking garages proposed
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:
-Provide integrated pest management information to owners, lessees and operators. e. Landscape/outdoor pesticide use
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-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.

Page 25 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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:
-No water features proposed
g. Food preparation and/or service
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No food preparation proposed
h. Refuse/trash collection areas
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
- Trashcans will be stored in garages
i. Industrial processes
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No industrial processes proposed
j. Outdoor storage of equipment, chemicals, or materials ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑X N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No outdoor storage proposed
k. Vehicle and equipment cleaning
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No vehicle cleaning proposed
I. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No vehicle maintenance proposed
m. Fuel dispensing areas
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-No fuel dispensing areas proposed

Page 26 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
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:
-No loading docks proposed
o. Fire sprinkler test water and relief point
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Drain fire sprinkler test water to the sanitary sewer
p. Miscellaneous drain or wash down areas
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Condensate drain lines and roofing to drain to landscaped areas q. Plaza, sidewalks, parking lots
I ❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how source control will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Sidewalks shall be swept regularly to prevent accumulation of debris which shall be collected to prevent entry into the storm drain.
-Wash water containing cleaning agent or degreaser shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer.

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 27 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
FORM 4 - SITE DESIGN BMPS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Page 1 of 2 ends

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project Name Melrose and Matagual
Permit Application Number P22-0218
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:
-Existing drainage discharge points will be maintained
SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation
❑ Yes
I ❑ No
❑X N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Landscaping is proposed where feasible throughout the site and along the perimeter slopes SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area
I ❑X Yes
I ❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
- Landscaping is proposed where feasible throughout the site and along the perimeter slopes 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 proposed landscaped areas

Page 28 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
Form 4, Page 2 of 2
SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion
❑X Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Roof runoff designed to discharge to pervious areas
SD-6 Runoff Collection
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Onsite runoff will be effectively collected, conveyed and discharged via proposed storm drain -StormGarden Biofiltration Systems will effectively receive and treat runoff from impervious areas prior to discharge to the public storm drainage system
SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species ❑X Yes
I ❑ No
❑ N/A
Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Landscaping design shall consist of native and drought tolerant species SD-8 Harvest and Use of Precipitation
❑Yes
❑X No
❑ N/A
Note: Worksheet 8.3-1, "Harvest and Use Feasibility" must be included in this section of the SWAMP.

Describe how site design will be implemented, or justify if not feasible:
-Harvesting and using precipitation is not a feasible BMP to implement. Refer to Attachment 1c.

Page 29 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
FORM 5 - STRUCTURAL POLLUTANT CONTROL AND

HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT BMPS

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project Name Melrose and Matagual
Permit Application Number P22-0218
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.

Step 1A: The DMAs draining to the structural BMPs are not self -mitigating, de minimis, or self -retaining.

Step 113: There are no site design BMPs proposed for the project for which the runoff factor can be adjusted.

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

Step 3: Infiltration is not feasible. Refer to Attachment 1d.

Step 3C: Stormgarden Biofiltration Systems and the Rtank underground storage have been selected and sized per the design criteria to meet pollutant control and hydromodification management flow control requirements.

Page 30 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
FORM 6 - STORMWATER BMP MAINTENANCE MECHANISM

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Project Name Melrose and Matagual
Permit Application Number P22-0218
Maintenance Requirements
A stormwater structural BMP operations and maintenance plan must be prepared for PDPs. A template plan is available at:
http://www.citvofvista.com/services/city-departments/community-development/building-planning- permits-applications/land-development-autocad-templates/storm-water-forms Has a stormwater structural BMP operations and maintenance plan been prepared? ❑ Yes, included with Attachment 3A
❑M No, but will provide on future Final Design report
All projects are required to maintain designed functionality of structural BMPs in perpetuity. Privately - owned projects must record a Storm Drain Maintenance Agreement with the County of San Diego Assessor's Office. A template Storm Drain Maintenance Agreement is available at:
http://www.citVofvista.com/services/city-departments/community-development/building-planning- permits-applications/land-development-autocad-templates/storm-water-forms Has a Storm Drain Maintenance Agreement been submitted to the County? ❑ Yes, copy included with Attachment 3B
❑X No, but will provide on future Final Design report
❑ Not Applicable (e.g., city -owned property/project)

Page 31 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
ATTACHMENT 1- POLLUTANT CONTROLS: SUPPORT DOCUMENT AND

CHECKLIST
Each of the attachments indicated below should be considered for inclusion with the SWAMP. Use this checklist to indicate which attachments are included behind this coversheet.

Attachment
Contents
Checklist
Sequence
Attachment 1A
Drainage Management Area (DMA)
❑X Included
Exhibit
See DMA Exhibit Checklist on next page.

Attachment 1B
Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing
❑X Included on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1A
DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA
Area, DMA Type, and BMPs*
❑ Included as Attachment 1B
*Provide table in this Attachment OR on
DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1A
Attachment 1C
Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening
❑X Included
Checklist (Worksheet B.3-1)
❑ Not included because the entire project
Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP
will use Infiltration BMPs
Design Manual.

Attachment 1D
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility
❑X Included
Condition (Worksheet C.4-1)
❑ Not included because the entire project
Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP
will use Harvest and Use BMPs
Design Manual.

Attachment 1E
Pollutant Control BMP Design
❑X Included
Worksheets and Calculations
Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP
Design Manual for structural pollutant
control BMP design guidelines

Page 32 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
ATTACHMENT 1A - DMA EXHIBIT CHECKLIST
For Attachment 1A, provide map(s) for the project site, titled "DMA Exhibit." The checklist below identifies minimum elements that must be included with the DMA Exhibit. ❑X Underlying hydrologic soil group
0 Approximate depth to groundwater
0 Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands, etc.) Z Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
0 Existing topography and impervious areas
Existing and proposed site drainage network and storm drain structures 0 Proposed connections to offsite drainage
H Proposed demolition
0 Proposed grading
Z Proposed impervious features
Z Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Z Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries
Z DMA identification numbers (DMA ID)
0 DMA areas (square footage or acreage)
0 DMA type (Drains to BMP, Self -mitigating, De Minimis, or Self -retaining) 0 Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source controls (see Form 2 and Form 3 of SWAMP, BMP Design Manual Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1) 0 Proposed Structural BMPs (see Form 5 of SWAMP)

Page 33 of 39 ends

ATTACHMENT 1c

Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist
Melrose and Matagual
arvest and Use Feasibility Screening Worsksheet B.3-1
EL

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

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

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

Toilet/Urinal Flushing
(9.3 gal/person-day) x (0.13368 cuft/gal) x (1.5 days) = 1.86 cuft/person-36hr Assume (3 people per house x 34 houses) x (1.86 cuft/person-36 hr) = 190 cuft/36hr Landscape Irrigation
(2.47 ac irrigated) x (1470 gal/ac-36hr) x (0.13368 cuft/gal) = 486 cuft/36hr Total = 190 cuft + 503 cuft = 676 cuft

3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1.

DCV = 7,566 tuft
3a. Is the 36-hour demand greater than
3b. Is the 36-hour demand greater than
3c. Is the 36-hour demand less
or equal to the DCV?

0.25DCV but less than the full DCV?
than 0.25DCV?
Yes / V No
Yes / V No
V Yes
Harvest and use appears to be feasible.

Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct
V Harvest and use is
Conduct more detailed evaluation and
more detailed evaluation and sizing
considered to be infeasible.
sizing calculations to confirm that DCV
calculations to determine feasibility. Harvest
can be used at an adequate rate to meet
and use may only be able to be used for a
drawdown criteria.
portion of the site, or (optionally) the storage
may need to be upsized to meet long term
capture targets while draining in longer than
36 hours.

ATTACHMENT 1d

Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Part 1- Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteri
Screening Question
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.

Provide basis:
n �F: (�c-Q.+• o�n ��.-�s of o.oS -
Yes I No
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.

Canfiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed withouint increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, / 2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this gfcadnC� Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of fr►o�n i! �� the factors presented in Appendix C.2. d `Y ^�
F� ��t c� •a n
C-11 February 2016

Appendix Q Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Provide basis: l t
S� wed-�rec�nn . I nc. --�A f-cPcZ'�-f�-T,a�
`f- 41
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.

Criteri
a
Screening Question
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow 3 water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Yes I No
Provide basis: `` 11
sw snoiez',^ n o c,—� c.nc� �. ��It'� :d� �vo, �v •� on Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.

Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change 4 of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
1/L
MOJrl q r
SG}� org4c�
s f
C-12 February 2016

Appendix Q Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Provide basis:

Goro jG Glhn .tom.
8"k is d Au4r sal' 3 , zaa I
-Tn -F. j fvG,i- en E Itiqi. on
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.

I£ all answers to rows 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.

The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration Part 1
Result* If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings.

Ili rt Jz.OWL,
C-13 February 2016

Appendix Q Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Part 2 - Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibi li m Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any 5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the 5 i►a i,o� factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. be roa� i MPor M►Qq,
Provide basis: 1 So s
Sc� Gxo-6t=,hn &a^)
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.

Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope
6 stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) ✓ that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive trlouna n� evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.

Provide basis:

SGe <;,O 4eAn --t.I a, � �n T. t�� j. or EVG luc.-1
t d`11
A1V5+ 3' zo2, l , F.*-, #
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.

C-14 February 2016

Appendix Q Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Criteria Screening Question
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related 7 concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

Provide basis:

Yes I No
an �n Fj �.c� • cvEvc I cr%
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.

Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream 8 water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be " based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in v R �c.r�o r% Appendix C.3.

Provide basis: 4 now R
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.

If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.

Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.

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

I
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required lziy A v GE ZZtys"
C-15
sl�FpTECN��o��
9TEOF CA
3-1 - tot L
the definition of MEP in
substantiate findings
February 2016

e
A
A
rep
Ir
it
tw
0 1-2
S F
AP&
Li

APPENDIX C

PERCOLATION DATA SHEETS & PORCHET CALCULATIONS
Proposed 45-Lot Residential Development
South Melrose Drive and Matagual Drive
Vista, San Diego County, California
Project No. 3706-SD
'G:�

G E O T E K

Client: The True Life Companies
Project: 45-Lot Residential Development
Project No: 3706-SD
Date: 7/9/2021
Boring No. 1-1
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Time Interval, At =
Final Depth to Water, DF =
Test Hole Radius, r =
Initial Depth to Water, Do =
Total Test Hole Depth, DT =
Equation -
Ho = DT - Do =
HF = DT - DF =
AH=AD= Ho- HF=
Havg = (Ho+HF)/2 =
It =
It =
30 40.25
4 40
60 OH (60r)
At (r+2Havg)
20 19.75

0.25 19.875

0.05 "'C�

G E O T E K
Inches per Hour

Client: The True Life Companies
Project: 45-Lot Residential Development
Project No: 3706-SD
Date: 7/9/2021
Boring No. 1-2
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)
Time Interval, At =
Final Depth to Water, DF =
Test Hole Radius, r =
Initial Depth to Water, Do =
Total Test Hole Depth, DT =
Equation -
Ho = DT - Do =
HF = DT - DF =
AH=AD= Ho- HF=
Havg = (Ho+HF)/2 =
It =
It =
30 40.25
4 40
60 OH (60r)
At (r+2Havg)
20 19.75

0.25 19.875

0.05 "'C�

G E O T E K
Inches per Hour

PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: APNs 166-280-60, -61, -18
Test Hole No.: I -I
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 60 inches
Tested by: JD
Before Test: 60 inches
Job No.: 3706-SD
Date: 7/9/21
After Test: 60 inches
Total
Initial
Final
Time
Reading
Depth of
Water
Water
4 In Water
Time
Interval
Comments
No.

Hole
Level
Level
Level
(Min)
(Inches)
(Inches)
(Inches)
(Inches)
8:17AM -
1 25
60 20

19.75 0.25
8:42AM
8:44AM -
2 25
60 20

19.75 0.25
9:09AM
9:1IAM-
3 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
9:41 AM
9:43AM -
4 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
10:13AM
10:15AM -
5 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
10:45AM
10:47AM -
6 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
11:17AM
11:19AM-
7 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
1 1:49AM
1 1:51AM -
8 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
12:21 PM
12:23PM -
9 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
12:53PM
12:55PM -
10 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
1:25PM
1:27PM -
1 1
30 60
20 19.75

0.25 1:57PM
1:59PM -
12 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
2:29PM
2:31 PM -
13 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
3:01 PM
3:03PM -
14 30
60 20

19.75 0.25
3:33PM
,r�

G E O T E K

PERCOLATION DATA SHEET
Project: APNs 166-280-60, -61, -18
Test Hole No.: 1-2
Depth of Hole As Drilled: 60 inches
Tested by: JD
Before Test: 60 inches
Job No.: 3706-SD
Date: 7/9/21
After Test: 60 inches
Total
Initial
Final
Time
Reading
Depth of
Water
Water
4 In Water
Time
Interval
Comments
No.

Hole
Level
Level
Level
(Min)
(Inches)
(Inches)
(Inches)
(Inches)
8:1 OAM -
1 25
60 20

20.25 0.75
8:35AM
8:37AM -
2 25
60 20

20.5 0.50
9:02AM
9:04AM -
3 30
60 20

20.5 0.50
9:34AM
9:36AM -
4 30
60 20

20.5 0.50
10:06AM
10:08AM -
5 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
10:38AM
10:40AM -
6 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
I I:IOAM
11:12AM-
7 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
1 1:42AM
11:44AM -
8 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
12:14PM
12:16PM -
9 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
12:46PM
12:48PM -
10 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
1:18PM
1:20PM -
1 1
30 60
20 20.75

0.25 1:50PM
1:52PM -
12 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
2:22PM
2:24PM -
13 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
2:54PM
2:56PM -
14 30
60 20

20.75 0.25
3:26PM
,r�

G E O T E K

ATTACHMENT 1e

Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods °� os
o�
08 p9/ g S in
o
�g �9
C , f
p8
�o
c!-auwc t .s r.

San Diego County ,k
85 th Percentile Isopluvials
QB
Legend
I.i51h PEeCENTfLE ISOPLUVIAL r G?
_ f
L.._ INCORPORATED CITY
h 6
O ?
NOTE' b
The 55th percentile u a 24 111
It represetns a value such char 85% of the
oCserved 24 hour ramrall totals, will be less
than thatvalue
ArN
3 N m )
0,55
_ O
0 r,4l,R A vls _.
i y
I
E� yE1a'.uur �Po �� MnFBI�WrtM p,� a "' t f' LUE�
• xr.n inx u.s Y
�emr� �^n4M+nii x•.n xw'o?.ArAxll9M•+�m _- f IF k',•-
GIS
o.a�wurva;,w�� s.cw rne�.s. z - n ^.
�-
r.aw.ra�inmwars�r A +�•r..w xraw-n, +�l � 6� ��t.l..•.s..t..- r-.eneuro�t�irc:� mw�xn.z�a
Figure B.1-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour Isopluvial Map
www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater B-6 Effective January 1, 2019

3684 Melrose & Matagual
11/22/2022
Appendix B: Stormwater Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV
DMA-1
1 85tm percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d= 0.65
inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

0.97 acres
Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and 3 C=

0.62 unitless
B.2.1) * See calculation below
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
360
cubic -feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic -feet
Calculate DCV =
6 (3630 x C x d x A) — TCV - RCV
DCV=
1068
cubic -feet
Impervious
Pervious
Tota I
DMA-2
Area (sq ft)
Runoff Factor
A x RF
Weighted RF
22838

0.9 20,554
19383

0.3 5,815
42221
26,369

0.62 1
85tm percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d=

0.65 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

1.14 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below
C=

0.62 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
360
cubic -feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic -feet
d6Calculate
DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) — TCV - RCV
DCV=
1312
cubic feet
Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF Weighted RF
Impervious 26704 0.9 24,034
Pervious 22809 0.3 6,843
Total 49513 30,876 0.62
Tree Well Volume Credit
Number of Tree Wells =
2 Mature Tree Canopy Diameter =
20 ft
Tree Well Volume Credit =
360
cf
Tree Well Volume Credit
Number of Tree Wells =
2 Mature Tree Canopy Diameter =
20 ft
Tree Well Volume Credit =
360
cf

3684 Melrose & Matagual
11/22/2022
Appendix B: Stormwater Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV
DMA-3
Design Capture Volume
1 1
85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d=

0.65 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

1.60 acres
3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) * See calculation below
C=

0.63 unitless
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
540
cubic -feet
Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) 0 cubic -feet
r65
JDCV=CV=
Calculate DCV =
(3630 x C x d x A) —TCV - RCV
1835
cubic -feet
Impervious
Pervious
Total
DMA-4
Area (sq ft)
Runoff Factor
A x RF
Weighted RF
38140

0.9 34,326
31724

0.3 9,517
69864
43,843

0.63 Design Capture Volume
1 85m percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d=

0.65 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

1.59 acres
Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and 3 C=

0.57 unitless
B.2.1) * See calculation below
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
540
cubic -feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic -feet
Calculate DCV =
6 DCV=
1592
cubic feet
(3630 x C x d x A) —TCV - RCV
Area (sq ft) Runoff Factor A x RF Weighted RF
Impervious 31079 0.9 27,971
Pervious 37971 0.3 11,391
Total 69050 39,362 0.57
Tree Well Volume Credit
Number of Tree Wells =
3 Mature Tree Canopy Diameter =
20 ft
Tree Well Volume Credit =
540
cf
Tree Well Volume Credit
Number of Tree Wells =
3 Mature Tree Canopy Diameter =
20 ft
Tree Well Volume Credit =
540
cf

3684 Melrose & Matagual
11/22/2022
Appendix B: Stormwater Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV
DMA-S - Tree Wells
Worksheet B-2.1
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d= 0.65 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

0.21 acres
Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and 3 C=

0.69 unitless
B.2.1) * See calculation below
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
0 cubic -feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic -feet
Calculate DCV =
6 (3630 x C x d x A) — TCV - RCV
DCV=
348
cubic -feet
Impervious
Pervious
Total
Area (sq ft)
Runoff Factor
A x RF
Weighted RF
6048

0.9 5,443
3275

0.3 983
9323
6,426

0.69 HMP Tree Well Multiplier per County BMPDM (D soil, 36" soil depth)

3.17 RRV(Required Retention Volume)=DCV x Tree Well Multiplier 1103
cf
Credit Volume per Tree (20-foot Mature Canopy Diameter) 180
cf
Number of 20-ft Diameter Mature Canopy Trees proposed
7 ea
Total Volume Credit Provided
1 1260
jcf
DMA-6
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1
d=

0.65 inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

0.06 acres
Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and 3 C=

0.67 unitless
B.2.1) * See calculation below
4 Street trees volume reduction
TCV=
0 cubic -feet
5 Rain barrels volume reduction (1 cubic foot=7.48 gallons) RCV=
0 cubic -feet
Calculate DCV =
6 DCV=
95 cubic -feet
(3630 x C x d x A) — TCV - RCV
Impervious
Pervious
Total
Area (sq ft)
Runoff Factor
A x RF
Weighted RF
1605

0.9 1,445
1015

0.3 305
2620
1,749

0.67 HMP Tree Well Multiplier per County BMPDM (D soil, 36" soil depth)

3.17 RRV(Required Retention Volume)=DCV x Tree Well Multiplier 300
cf
Credit Volume per Tree (20-foot Mature Canopy Diameter) 180
cf
Number of 20-ft Diameter Mature Canopy Trees proposed
2 ea
Total Volume Credit Provided
1 360
jcf

3684 Melrose & Matagual
11/22/2022
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows
DMA-1
ow-thru Design Flows
t B.6-1
12DCV
DCV
DCV
1428
cubic -feet
retained
DCVretained360
cubic -feet
3 DCV biofiltered
DCVbiofilteredcubic-feet
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*Line 3
DCV
flow -dim
1068
cubic -feet
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)*
AF=

0.75 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity
i=

0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

0.97 acres
8 Area -weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C=

0.62 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A)
Q=

0.09 cfs

1.5Q=

0.136
cfs
DMA-2
Flow-thr
1 DCV
orksheet B.6-1
DCV 1672
cubic -feet
2 DCV retained
DCVretained
360
cubic -feet
3 DCV biofiltered
DCVbiofilteredcubic-feet
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*1.ine 3
DCVflow-thrucubic-feet
1312
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)*
AF=

0.78 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity
i=

0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

1.14 acres
8 Area -weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C=

0.62 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A)
Q=

0.11 cfs

1.5Q=

0.167
cfs

3684 Melrose & Matagual
11 /22/2022
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows
DMA-3
ow-thru Design Flows
Worksheet B.6-1
1 DCV
DCV
2375
cubic-fcct
2 DCV retained
DCVretained540
cubic -feet
3 DCV biofiltered
Dcvbioflkerea
cubic -feet
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*Line 3
DCV floW the
1835
cubic -feet
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)*
AF=

0.77 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity
i=

0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

1.60 acres
8 Area -weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C=

0.63 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A)
Q=

0.16 cfs

1.5Q=

0.233
cfs
DMA-4
Flow-tipsign Flows
1 DCV
DCV
2132 cubic -feet
2 DCV retained
DCVretained540
cubic -feet
3 DCV biofiltered
DCVbiofilteredcubic-feet
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*Line 3
DCV flow the
1592
cubic -feet
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)*
AF=

0.75 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity
i=

0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s)
A=

1.59 acres
8 Area -weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C=

0.57 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = (C x i x A)
Q=

0.13 cfs

1.5Q=

0.202
cfs

WASH IN G T 0 N STATE
0 EPANTME NT OF

ECOLOGY
August 2019

GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS) AND

PHOSPHORUS
For
Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC's
StormGarden Modular Stormwater Bio-filtration System
Standard Box Filter
Ecology's Decision:

T
Based on Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC application submissions for the StormGarden Modular Stormwater Bio-filtration System (StormGarden System) standard box filter, Ecology hereby issues the following use level designation:

General Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic and Phosphorus Treatment. • Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1.45 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of media surface area.
• Constructed with a minimum media thickness of 21-inches (1.75-feet).

2. Ecology approves the StormGarden System at the hydraulic loading rates listed above, to achieve the maximum water quality design flow rate. The water quality design flow rates are calculated using the following procedures:
• Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology - approved continuous runoff model.
• Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual. • Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility.

3. The GULD has no expiration date, but may be amended or revoked by Ecology.

Ecology's Conditions of Use:

The StormGarden System shall comply with these conditions:
1) Applicants shall design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the StormGarden System in accordance with Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC's applicable manuals and the Ecology Decision.
2) The minimum size filter surface -area for use in Washington is determined by using the design water quality flow rate (as determined in Ecology Decision, Item 3, above) and the Infiltration Rate (as identified in Ecology Decision, Item 1, above). Calculate the required area by dividing the water quality design flow rate (cu-ft/sec) by the Infiltration Rate (converted to ft/sec) to obtain required surface area (sq ft) of the StormTree unit.
3) Applicants must evaluate site characterization and suitability, as outlined in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume III or Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington Chapter 6, before installing any StormGarden Systems that infiltrate a portion or all of the treated now. 4) StormGarden media shall conform to the specifications submitted to and approved by Ecology.
5) Maintenance: The required inspection/maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent on the efficiency of the device and the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefor Ecology does not endorse or recommend a "one size fits all" maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device.
• The StormGarden is designed for a target maintenance interval of 6- to 12-months.

Maintenance includes inspecting the unit structure and media, removing trash, and silt from the filter surface, replacing the surface mulch layer, and assessing the health of the vegetation.
• A StormGarden System tested at the Lake Union Ship Canal Test Facility in Seattle, WA required maintenance after 2.75 months or 20% of a water year. Monitoring personnel observed similar cases of early blinding with other systems evaluated at the Test Facility. The runoff from the Test Facility may be unusual and service needs of the systems installed at the Test Facility may not be indicative of other, more typical, sites.
• Owners/operators must inspect StormGarden systems for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post -construction operation to determine site -specific inspection/maintenance schedules and requirements. Owners/operators must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to the SWMMEW, the set season for eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30.) After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections.

Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer's guidelines, use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flow rate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability.
6) Install the StormGarden System in such a manner that you bypass flows exceeding the maximum operating rate and you will not resuspend captured sediment. 7) Discharges from the StormGarden System shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters.

Applicant: Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC
Applicant's Address: 4950-C Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22304
Application Documents:

Application for Pilot Use Level Designation, StormGarden (BioPod) High -Flow Media Bioretention System, Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC, January 2016 Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Application for Certification: StornGarden (BioPod) Modular Stormwater Bio-filtration System, Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC, January 2016
Quality Assurance Project Plan, StormGarden (BioPod) Modular Stormwater Bio-Filtration System Performance Certification Project, Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC, March 2016 Addendum #1 StormGarden (BioPod) Pollutant Removal Efficiency Test, Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC, May 2016
Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, StormGardenTM Biofilter System Performance Certification Project, Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC, May 2018 Technical Evaluation Report, StormGardenTM BioFilter System Performance Certification Project, Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC, June 2019 Applicant's Use Level Request:
• General Use Level Designation as a Basic and Phosphorus Treatment device in accordance with Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington

Applicant's Performance Claims:

Based on results from laboratory and field-testing, the applicant claims the StormGarden System operating at a hydraulic loading rate of 140 inches per hour is able to remove:
• 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for influent concentrations greater than 100 mg/L and achieve a 20 mg/L effluent for influent concentrations less than 100 mg/L • 50% or greater total phosphorus for influent concentrations 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L.

Ecology's Recommendations:

Ecology finds that:
• Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC has shown Ecology, through laboratory and field testing, that the StormGarden System can attain Ecology's Basic and Phosphorus Treatment goals.

Findings of Fact:

Field Testing

1. Herrera Environmental Consultants conducted field-testing between May 2017 — November 2018 at the Lake Union Ship Canal Test Facility in Seattle, WA. Herrera tested a 4'x6' unit with a treatment flow rate of 0.078 cfs (35 gpm). The unit contained the standard StormGarden System media composition: a 3-inch layer of shredded wooden mulch; 21- inches of specially engineered soil media; and a 6-inch layer of bridging gravel. • The D50 of the influent PSD ranged from 3 microns to I I I microns, with an average D50 of 33 microns.
• TSS removal efficiency was evaluated over 15 qualifying storm events. Influent TSS concentrations during these events ranged from 20 mg/L to 289 mg/L with a mean concentration of 55 mg/L. The bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL95) of the mean TSS reduction was 85.1% and the bootstrap estimate of the upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL95) of the mean TSS effluent concentration was

5.4 mg/L. A regression analysis of sampled flow rate versus TSS removal indicated the system can achieve >80 percent removal at the design flow rate of 35 gallons per minute (140 inches per hour).
• Total phosphorus removal efficiency was evaluated over 19 qualifying storm events.

Influent total phosphorus concentrations during these events ranged from 0.03 mg/L to

0.346 mg/L, with a mean concentration of 0.099 mg/L. The bootstrap estimate of the LCL95 of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 53.4%. A regression analysis of sampled flow rate versus phosphorus removal indicated the system can achieve >50 percent removal at the design flow rate of 35 gallons per minute (140 inches per hour). • The system needed to have the mulch replaced 5 times during the 19-month monitoring period. The longest maintenance cycle lasted 2.75 months, or 20% of the water year.

Monitoring personnel observed similar sediment loading and blinding issues with other systems evaluated at the Lake Union Ship Canal Test Facility. The runoff from the Test Facility may induce this early blinding, and maintenance requirements of systems installed at the Test Facility may not be indicative of maintenance requirements for all sites.

Results showed an average TSS removal efficiency of 89.6 percent (LCL95 of 85.3 percent).
o During the 10 events evaluated during the 200 inches per infiltration rate influent TSS concentration ranged from 41 to 160 mg/L (average of 130 mg/L). Results showed an average TSS removal efficiency of 80.6 percent (LCL95 of 75.1 percent). • The StormGarden System was also evaluated for dissolved phosphorus, total copper, and total zinc using synthetic runoff solutions. Ecology does not allow the use of synthetic stormwater in pursuit of a ULD for phosphorus or metals, so the PULD is limited to Basic Treatment.
o Liquid phosphorus (Inorganic Ventures inorganic ion chromatography solution — ICPP041 — Lot No. J2-PDX01109), prepared using ammonium dihydrogen phosphate (NH4H2PO4) at a concentration of 1,000 µg/ml (certified 997±3 µg/ml), was used to produce synthetic stormwater runoff. The StormGarden System showed an average dissolved phosphorus removal efficiency of 6.2 percent (LCL95 2.1 percent) at an average influent concentration of 1.10 mg/L and an infiltration rate of 140 inches per hour. The StormGarden System showed an average dissolved phosphorus removal efficiency of 5.4 percent (LCL95 3.6 percent) at an average influent concentration of

0.78 mg/L and an infiltration rate of 200 inches per hour. o Liquid copper (SCP Science AA standard solution — 140-001-291 — Lot no.

S 150225013), prepared using elemental copper HNO3 to formulate copper solution of 1,000 µg/ml (certified 1002±3 µg/ml) was used to produce synthetic stormwater runoff. The StormGarden System showed an average total copper removal efficiency of 93.2 percent (LCL95 90.3 percent) at an average influent concentration of 0.90 mg/L and an infiltration rate of 140 inches per hour. The StormGarden System showed an average total copper removal efficiency of 85.1 percent (LCL95 84.1 percent) at an average influent concentration of 0.11 mg/L and an infiltration rate of 200 inches per hour.
o Liquid zinc (SCP Science AA standard solution — 140-001-301 — Lot No.

S 150126014), prepared using elemental zinc and HNO3 to formulate a zinc solution of 1,000 µg/ml (certified 996±3 µg/ml), was used to produce synthetic runoff. The StormGarden System showed an average total zinc removal efficiency of 70.7 percent (LCL95 62.4 percent) at an average influent concentration of 0.95 mg/L and an infiltration rate of 140 inches per hour. The StormGarden System showed an average total zinc removal efficiency of 63.6 percent (LCL95 62.6 percent) at an average influent concentration of 0.29 mg/L and an infiltration rate of 200 inches per hour.

Other StormGarden System Related Issues to be Addressed By the Company:

1. Conduct hydraulic testing to obtain information about maintenance requirements on a site with runoff that is more typical of the Pacific Northwest.

Laboratory Testing

1. MicroBAC Laboratories of Baltimore Maryland conducted laboratory testing in September 2015. The laboratory tested four 6-inch diameter columns at an infiltration rate of 46 inches per hour. The columns contained the same media composition as the StormGarden Modular Stormwater Bio-filtration System Standard Box Filter: a 3-inch surface layer of shredded hardwood mulch; 21-inches of Rotondo Environmental Solutions StormGarden High Flow Media; and a 6-inch bed of AASHTO No. 8 stone. Based on the lab test results:
• The StormGarden System was evaluated using Sil-co-sil 106, which is shown to be a silt - sized material with a median (Dso) diameter of about 22 µm. • Removal efficiency was evaluated over 10 events using influent TSS concentration of 20 mg/L, 10 events at 100 mg/L, and 10 events at 200 mg/L. At these influent concentrations, the results showed an average removal efficiency of 93 percent, 94 percent, and 98 percent of TSS, respectively.
• The StormGarden System was also evaluated for total phosphorus, total copper, and total zinc using synthetic runoff solutions. Ecology does not allow the use of synthetic stormwater in pursuit of a ULD for phosphorus or metals, so the PULD is limited to Basic Treatment.
o Liquid phosphorus (Inorganic Ventures inorganic ion chromatography solution — ICPP041 — Lot No. J2-PDX01109), prepared using ammonium dihydrogen phosphate (NH4H2PO4) at a concentration of 1,000 µg/ml (certified 997±3 µg/ml) was used to produce synthetic runoff with a total phosphorus concentration of 0.5 mg/L. Results from 10 events showed an average phosphorus removal efficiency of 17.6 percent. o Liquid copper (SCP Science AA standard solution — 140-001-291 — Lot no. 5150225013), prepared using elemental copper HNO3 to formulate copper solution of 1,000 µg/ml (certified 1002±3 µg/ml), was used to produce synthetic runoff with a total copper concentration of 0.02 mg/L. Results from 10 events showed an average copper removal efficiency of 75 percent.
o Liquid zinc (SCP Science AA standard solution — 140-001-301 — Lot No.

S 150126014), prepared using elemental zinc and HNO3 to formulate a zinc solution of 1,000 µg/ml (certified 996±3 µg/ml), was used to produce synthetic runoff with a total zinc concentration of 0.3 mg/L. Results from 10 events showed an average zinc removal efficiency of 93 percent.

2. MicroBAC Laboratories of Baltimore Maryland conducted laboratory testing in April and May 2016. The laboratory tested a 6-inch diameter column at infiltration rates of 140 inches per hour and 200 inches per hour. For both tests, the column contained the same media composition as the StormGarden Modular Stormwater Bio-filtration System Standard Box Filter: a 3-inch surface layer of shredded hardwood mulch; 21-inches of Rotondo Environmental Solutions StormGarden High Flow Media; and a 6-inch bed of AASHTO No. 8 stone. Based on the lab test results:
• The system was evaluated using Sil-co-sil 106, which is shown to be a silt -sized material with a median (D50) diameter of about 22 µm.
• Removal efficiency was evaluated over 10 events at an infiltration rate of 140 inches per hour and 10 events at an infiltration rate of 200 inches per hour. o During the 10 events evaluated during the 140 inches per hour infiltration rate influent TSS concentration ranged from 86 to 180 mg/L (average of 130 mg/L).

Technology Description:

Contact Information:

Applicant:

Applicant website:

Download at http://www.rotondo-es.com/
John Rotondo
Rotondo Environmental Solutions, LLC
(703) 212-4830
[email protected]
hiip:// www.rotondo-es.com/
Ecology web link: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stonnwater/newtech/index.html Ecology: Douglas C. Howie, P.E.

Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
(360) 407-6444
douglas.howiegecy.wa. gov
Revision History
Date
Revision
June 2016
PULD Granted
August 2017
Changed Device Name from BioPod to StormGarden
July 2018
CULD Granted
July 2019
GULD Granted
August 2019
Added sizing guidance based on infiltration rate and water quality design flow rate.

August 2019
Added requirement for installations that infiltrate all or part of the treated flow.

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
ATTACHMENT 2 - HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT CONTROLS:

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION & CHECKLIST
❑ Check this box if this attachment is empty because the project is exempt from PDP hydromodification management requirements.

Each of the attachments indicated below should be considered for inclusion with the SWAMP. Use this checklist to indicate which attachments are included behind this coversheet.

Attachment
Contents
Checklist
Sequence
Attachment 2A
Hydromodification
❑X Included
Management Exhibit
See Hydromodification Management Exhibit
Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover
sheet.

Attachment 2B
Management of Critical Coarse
0 Exhibit showing project drainage boundaries
Sediment Yield Areas
marked on WMAA Critical Coarse Sediment Yield
See Section 6.2 of the BMP
Area Map
Design Manual.

Analyses, as applicable, for Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Area Determination, per BMP Design Manual:
❑ 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape
Units Onsite
❑ 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse
Sediment
❑ 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite
Attachment 2C
Geomorphic Assessment of
0 Not performed
Receiving Channels
❑ Included
See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP
❑ Submitted as separate stand-alone document
Design Manual.

Attachment 2D
Flow Control Facility Design,
0 Included
including Structural BMP
❑ Submitted as separate stand-alone document
Drawdown Calculations and
Overflow Design Summary
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G
of the BMP Design Manual
Attachment 2E
Vector Control Plan
❑ Included
0 Not required because BMPs will drain in less
than 96 hours

Page 34 of 39 ends

APN 166-280-18, 166-280-60, 166-280-61
ATTACHMENT 2A - HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT
For Attachment 2A, provide map(s) for the project site, titled "Hydromodification Management Exhibit." The checklist below identifies minimum elements that must be included with the exhibit. ❑ Underlying hydrologic soil group
❑ Approximate depth to groundwater
❑ Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands, etc.) ❑ Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
❑ Existing topography and impervious areas
❑ Existing and proposed site drainage network and storm drain structures ❑ Proposed connections to offsite drainage
❑ Proposed demolition
❑ Proposed grading
❑ Proposed impervious features
❑ Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness ❑ Points of Compliance for hydromodification management ❑X Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each Point of Compliance (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre -development and post -project conditions) ❑ Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (location, type, and size)

Page 35 of 39 ends

HMP EXHIBIT

PRE -PROJECT CONDITIONS

MELROSE & MATAGUAL
12156
' APN: 166-250-211U7/I
—-LEGEND
( I I\I EX18' PSDPERD1111AOE
//
63 I \ EX. 2'1 � SD PER D1917A �l\
:1�'6.150
\�EBASIN
-

BOUNDARY
AP-67 - t I 4f /,,EX,�-`CP1RBINLET/BASINA �s

BASIN ID R
—
Lot
I

IMPERVIOUS AREA
0 —
X�PROJEC BObldb
/� // A
MAP 2131
1 PERVIOUS AREA
I J `/ I PM 161ss-20
APN:/
I aas1
IIIII�\ IEX.R
PM2132 IIII � y�y I / / / 10
N: 168-
it
70 PM16360 / ice'
APN:166-260-60 / ,L---
ti r_
EX. 11" RCP SO PER D1917A I 570 / % I11
_ / i I I /APN: i66-2
LOT17
I/
MAP 2131
APN:1ee-zaao5
.BNDY
APN:11-150-89 IPRO X. RIW
P41 II
—
_r—
/
—E�TOUN�
PRME7 BOUNDARY
/PORLOr19
MAP 2131l�[//i
APN: 166-21, / // //',�/// /////////,6 1 PM 8977
/ ,�i/ APN:166-sao-04
��//:i��ca2�-n�//�il
I e;` MAP 2131 U ✓ / l 1// l I�� .25
l /
/ / 2o
gPN:1ss-2g9-2a, �»�
/ / / // / d/� � / / / / / /
I
ly
I EX.18"RCP SO PER D1917A
II II$ APN: i66-P280-39, 40&
U
2311 IV //
977 PM PN:v www.plsaengineering.com

HMP EXHIBIT

POST -PROJECT CONDITIONS

MELROSE & MATAGUAL
1� I o I 011"ll
14�_
—__- �I-- �UE MATA
o \ �� E pE _ Il I I /? ll f � -

BOUNDARY
X 51�
EXIST"CURB
fA INFE SIBL AREA, TOB1=RELOCATED \
(
TO BG TREATED / I 34
�.. 5,644 SF)
r �z
3 C— aD � 3
4 33
-__�� sd � I Flo � I I � �'r / — `•I / ,
_� DMA 1 - -- ° TE STREET
V 111 A Ex.'CURB , 1 Il o Q% PRIVA�
11 i� INLET TO BE 1 II Y1I �O,V! l��j
11 II II ',RELOCATED 32 1� I / / 1 /
r
111111 -- I II — 30 I I I
rn I I I j F7 I / 28 I 29 1 I L I
III 1 I I I J I-
� � II ��J
� �-'DMA 2 a h r �Ir
- Q II 1 J
so isD_ - SD So
I� 25� 24
9 23 22 rr rr
I � PROPERTY BNDY, L
i

EX R

PROP, R
rl10
DMA 6---
DMA 30.38 AC

1.60 AC__ f�'//
" DMA4
11 L 12 13 14 III 1.58 AC
J
i
20 �x�/�p�
v 4
1 /
IX
I y I I 0 15
T T � I
1 I I I I I `' _ UNDISTURBED OFFSITE AREA
I I

DRAINING TO BMPS
I z /
I r--+ - - - - -------/ / --
i
III I � JI /
I
',lUNDISTDRB '@ �REA
D G\TOB �\
0 40 80 120
SCALE: 1' - 40

HMP EXHIBIT

POST -PROJECT CONDITIONS

MELROSE & MATAGUAL

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

PASCO LARET SUITER
San Diego I Encinitas I Orange County
Phone 949.661.6695 I www.plsaengineering.com

ATTACHMENT 2b

r
i
Legend

1.„
o
• t� :]f
�� -. `. Ill �'I_,�'.,��:�- _ - nI i l i � .. • '.x , ..�. f _ k fir- . 15. ■ ■ �w-`_ _ .. ,'y. 5.� i,i' _ is _ ► . . s. 06073C
Comerica Bank
Creek
Creek
Pol]'o Loco t - -
x CvS
Feature I
�Ava anllista y� f�~ - t
- _ 1 4 �- tFeature
Feature 3
T s
I.-
.. Bank ° Feature ,
- * ;�. F i
Feature 5
Lake
San
San
• - x ti ti
�r !"
PLICV5 a ' r -
�Aguiie a s.8aokkeeping x
P L - r _ .p.- i -
Vista Farm's Market
aamtif ,Motiit
Breeze HH Park
t
100
�
Breeze H�Eiementary 5chco. PTR "� a��r�as . _ �. �. '.� j•_ Vista Samoan 5evenfh"-Day yen i t... ,
FtOfA
r:

MC
Google Earth. _ I Aw- 700 {�
C'niirrh nF f'hncl

ATTACHMENT 2d

3684 Melrose and Matagual
9/20/2022
POC-1

SWMM MODEL SCHEMATICS

PRE -DEVELOPMENT MODEL

POST -PROJECT MODEL
4 1
DMA.-
VAULT-1
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\Output\3684_SWMM_Schematics.xlsx

3684 Melrose and Matagual
9/20/2022
POC-1

PRE -DEVELOPMENT
Width
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
(Area/Flow
% D
Infiltration
Suction
Initial
DMA
N-pery
Area (ac)
Length) (ft)
% Slope
% Impervious
% C Soils
Soils
(in/hr):

Head (in):

Deficit:

DMA-1

0.08 5.29
829

7.0%
0%
0%
100%

0.025

9.000

0.330
Total: 5.29

POST -PROJECT
Width
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
(Area/Flow
% D
Infiltration
Suction
Initial
DMA
N-pery
Area (ac)
Length) (ft)
% Slope
% Impervious
% C Soils
Soils
(in/hr):

Head (in):

Deficit:

DMA-1

0.06 5.29
5121

10.0%
51%
0%
100%

0.01875

9.000

0.330
Total: 5.29
Infiltration:

D 0.025 in/hr
Suction Head: Initial Deficit:

D 9 in D 1 0.33
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\3684 SWMMlnput_POC-1.xlsx

[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
3684 Melrose and
Matagual
Pre -Development
Condition
POC-1
[OPTIONS]
;;Option
Value

FLOW UNITS
CFS

INFILTRATION

GREEN AMPT

FLOW ROUTING

KINWAVE

LINK OFFSETS
DEPTH

MIN SLOPE
0 ALLOW_PONDING
NO

SKIP STEADY STATE
NO

START DATE
08/28/1951

START TIME
05:00:00

REPORT START DATE
08/28/1951

REPORT START TIME
05:00:00

END DATE
05/23/2008

END TIME
23:00:00

SWEEP START
01/01

SWEEP END
12/31

DRY DAYS
0 REPORT STEP
01:00:00

WET STEP
00:15:00

DRY STEP
04:00:00

ROUTING STEP
0:01:00

RULE STEP
00:00:00

INERTIAL DAMPING

PARTIAL

NORMAL FLOW LIMITED
BOTH

FORCE MAIN EQUATION
H-W

VARIABLE STEP

0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP
0 MIN SURFAREA

12.557

MAX TRIALS
8 HEAD TOLERANCE

0.005

SYS FLOW TOL
5 LAT FLOW TOL
5 MINIMUM STEP

0.5 THREADS
1 [EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
MONTHLY .06 .08

DRY ONLY NO
[RAINGAGES]
POC-1
11 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06

POC-1
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source
..----------------------- ------ ------ ----------
Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack ..-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- DMA-1 Oceanside poc-1 5.29 0 829 7 0
[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery S-Pery PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ..------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DMA-1 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD
..--------------------------------------------
DMA-1 9 0.025 0.33
[OUTFALLS]
;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To
;Basin 1
POC-1 0 FREE NO
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
Oceanside FILE "J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\SWMM\Rain Data\oceanside.dat" [REPORT]
;;Reporting Options

SUBCATCHMENTS ALL

NODES ALL

LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None
[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
..-------------------------------- ------------------
POC-1 995.831 5101.735
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
..--------------------------------------------------

POC-1
[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
..----------------------------------------
DMA-1 1006.431 6977.959
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
..-------------- ------------------ --------
Oceanside 1053.922 8357.843

[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
3684 Melrose and Matagual
Proposed Condition
[OPTIONS]
;;Option
Value

FLOW UNITS
CFS

INFILTRATION

GREEN AMPT

FLOW ROUTING

KINWAVE

LINK OFFSETS
DEPTH

MIN SLOPE
0 ALLOW PONDING
NO

SKIP STEADY STATE
NO

START DATE
08/28/1951

START TIME
05:00:00

REPORT START DATE
08/28/1951

REPORT START TIME
05:00:00

END DATE
05/23/2008

END TIME
23:00:00

SWEEP START
01/01

SWEEP END
12/31

DRY DAYS
0 REPORT STEP
01:00:00

WET STEP
00:15:00

DRY STEP
04:00:00

ROUTING STEP
0:01:00

RULE STEP
00:00:00

INERTIAL DAMPING

PARTIAL

NORMAL FLOW LIMITED
BOTH

FORCE MAIN EQUATION
H-W

VARIABLE STEP

0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP
0 MIN SURFAREA

12.557

MAX TRIALS
8 HEAD TOLERANCE

0.005

SYS FLOW TOL
5 LAT FLOW TOL
5 MINIMUM STEP

0.5 THREADS
1 [EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
..-------------- ----------
MONTHLY .06 .08

DRY ONLY NO
POC-1
11 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06
[RAINGAGES]
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source

POC-1
Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width
..-------------------------------------------------------------- ----- DMA-1 Oceanside VAULT-1 5.29 51 5121
[SUBAREAS]
%Slope CurbLen SnowPack
------------------------
10 0
;;Subcatchment
..--------------
N-Impery
----------
N-Pery
----------
S-Impery
----------
S-Pery
----------
PctZero RouteTo PctRouted
------------------------------
DMA-1

0.012

0.06 0.05

0.1 25 OUTLET
[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment
..--------------
Suction
----------
Ksat
----------
IMD
----------
DMA-1
9 .01875

0.33 [OUTFALLS]
;;Name
..--------------
Elevation
----------
Type
----------
Stage Data Gated Route To
------------------------ ----------------
POC-1
0 FREE
NO
[STORAGE]
;;Name
..--------------
Elev.
--------
MaxDepth
----------
InitDepth
-----------
Shape
----------
Curve Name/Params N/A
------------------------------------
Fevap Psi Ksat IMD
------------------------
VAULT-1
0 6.75
0 TABULAR
VAULT-1 0
0 [OUTLETS]
;;Name
From Node
To
Node
Offset
Type QTable/Qcoeff
Qexpon Gated
OUTLET-1
VAULT-1
POC-1
0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-1
NO
[CURVES]
;;Name
Type
X-Value
Y-Value
OUTLET-1
Rating
0 0
OUTLET-1

0.2 0.05
OUTLET-1

0.4 0.09
OUTLET-1

0.6 0.12
OUTLET-1

0.8 0.14
OUTLET-1
1 0.16
OUTLET-1

1.2 0.17
OUTLET-1

1.4 0.19
OUTLET-1

1.6 0.2
OUTLET-1

1.8 0.21
OUTLET-1
2 0.23
OUTLET-1

2.2 0.24
OUTLET-1

2.4 0.25
OUTLET-1

2.6 0.26
OUTLET-1

2.8 0.27

POC-1
OUTLET-1
3 0.28
OUTLET-1

3.2 0.29
OUTLET-1

3.4 0.3
OUTLET-1

3.6 0.31
OUTLET-1

3.8 0.32
OUTLET-1
4 0.32
OUTLET-1

4.2 0.76
OUTLET-1

4.4 1.56
OUTLET-1

4.6 2.21
OUTLET-1

4.8 2.66
OUTLET-1
5 3.03
OUTLET-1

5.2 3.36
OUTLET-1

5.4 3.66
OUTLET-1

5.6 3.93
OUTLET-1

5.8 4.19
OUTLET-1
6 4.42
OUTLET-1

6.2 4.65
OUTLET-1

6.4 8.67
OUTLET-1

6.6 18.63
OUTLET-1

6.75 28.38
VAULT-1
Storage 0
3040
VAULT-1

6.75 3040
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
Oceanside FILE "J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\SWMM\Rain Data\oceanside.dat" [REPORT]
;;Reporting Options

SUBCATCHMENTS ALL

NODES ALL

LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000

0.000 10000.000
10000.000
Units None
[COORDINATES]
;;Node
X-Coord
Y-Coord
POC-1
948.454
1927.835
VAULT-1
982.801
5024.570
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
..---------------------------------------

POC-1
[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
..----------------------------------------
DMA-1 1031.941 6965.602
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
..-------------- ------------------ --------
Oceanside 1130.221 8759.214

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT

PRE -PROJECT CONDITION
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) 3684 Melrose and Matagual
Pre -Development Condition
POC-1
********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step.
********************************************************* ****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ...............

CFS
Process Models:

Rainfall/Runoff ........

YES
RDII ...................

NO
Snowmelt ...............

NO
Groundwater ............

NO
Flow Routing ...........

NO
Water Quality ..........

NO
Infiltration Method ......

GREEN_AMPT
Starting Date ............
08/28/1951 05:00:00
Ending Date ..............
05/23/2008 23:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days ......

0.0 Report Time Step .........
01:00:00
Wet Time Step ............
00:15:00
Dry Time Step ............
04:00:00
**************************
Volume
Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity
**************************
acre-feet
inches
Total Precipitation ......
---------
297.602
-------
675.090
Evaporation Loss .........

10.611

24.071
Infiltration Loss ........
230.036
521.820
Surface Runoff ...........

62.705
142.242
Final Storage ............

0.000

0.000
Continuity Error (o) .....
-1.932
**************************
Volume
Volume
Flow Routing Continuity
**************************
acre-feet
10^6 gal
Dry Weather Inflow .......

0.000

0.000
Wet Weather Inflow .......

62.705

20.433
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\Output\3684_PreProject_SWMM_resultsPOC-1.docx

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT

PRE -PROJECT CONDITION
Groundwater Inflow .......

0.000

0.000
RDII Inflow ..............

0.000

0.000
External Inflow ..........

0.000

0.000
External Outflow .........

62.705

20.433
Flooding Loss ............

0.000

0.000
Evaporation Loss .........

0.000

0.000
Exfiltration Loss ........

0.000

0.000
Initial Stored Volume ....

0.000

0.000
Final Stored Volume ......

0.000

0.000
Continuity Error (%) .....

0.000
***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
***************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total
Total
Total
Total
Impery
Pery
Total
Total
Peak Runoff
Precip
Runon
Evap
Infil
Runoff
Runoff
Runoff
Runoff
Runoff Coeff
Subcatchment in
in
in
in
in
in
in
10^6 gal
CFS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DMA-1 675.09

0.00 24.07
521.82

0.00 142.24
142.24

20.43 5.92 0.211
Analysis begun on: Wed Mar 9 09:21:01 2022
Analysis ended on: Wed Mar 9 09:21:40 2022
Total elapsed time: 00:00:39
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\Output\3684_PreProject_SWMM_resultsPOC-1.docx

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT

POST -PROJECT CONDITION
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) -------------------------------------------------------------- 3684 Melrose and Matagual
Proposed Condition
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step.
****************
Analysis Options
++++++++++++++++
Flow Units ...............

Process Models:

Rainfall/Runoff ........

RDII ...................

Snowmelt ...............

Groundwater ............

Flow Routing ...........

Ponding Allowed ........

Water Quality ..........

Infiltration Method ......

Flow Routing Method ......

Starting Date ............

Ending Date ..............

Antecedent Dry Days ......

Report Time Step .........

Wet Time Step ............

Dry Time Step ............

Routing Time Step ........

Runoff Quantity Continuity
**************************
Total Precipitation ......

Evaporation Loss .........

Infiltration Loss ........

Surface Runoff ...........

Final Storage ............

Continuity Error (o) .....
**************************
Flow Routing Continuity
**************************
Dry Weather Inflow .......

Wet Weather Inflow .......

Groundwater Inflow .......

RDII Inflow ..............

CFS
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
GREEN_AMPT

KINWAVE
08/28/1951 05:00:00
05/23/2008 23:00:00

0.0 01:00:00
00:15:00
04:00:00

60.00 sec
Volume Depth
acre-feet inches
297.602
675.090

28.030

63.583
103.486
234.750
173.502
393.578

0.009

0.020
-2.495
Volume
Volume
acre-feet
10^6 gal
---------

0.000
---------

0.000
173.501

56.538

0.000

0.000
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\Output\3684_PostProject_SWMM_resu Its POC-1.docx

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT
External Inflow ..........

0.000

0.000
External Outflow .........
173.442

56.519
Flooding Loss ............

0.000

0.000
Evaporation Loss .........

0.000

0.000
Exfiltration Loss ........

0.000

0.000
Initial Stored Volume ....

0.000

0.000
Final Stored Volume ......

0.003

0.001
Continuity Error (%) .....

0.032
Highest Flow Instability Indexes
All links are stable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Routing Time Step Summary
*************************
Minimum
Time Step

60.00 sec
Average
Time Step

60.00 sec
Maximum
Time Step

60.00 sec
Percent
in Steady State

0.00 Average
Iterations per Step

1.00 Percent
Not Converging

0.00 ***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
***************************

POST -PROJECT CONDITION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total
Total
Total
Total
Impery
Pery
Total
Total
Peak Runoff
Precip
Runon
Evap
Infil
Runoff
Runoff
Runoff
Runoff
Runoff Coeff
Subcatchment in
in
in
in
in
in
in
10^6 gal
CFS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DMA-1 675.09

0.00 63.58
234.75
300.66

92.92 393.58

56.53 6.20 0.583
******************
Node Depth Summary
******************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported
Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth
Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00
VAULT-1 STORAGE 0.03 6.28 6.28 18857 11:58 6.28
*******************
Node Inflow Summary
*******************
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\Output\3684_PostProject_SWMM_resu Its POC-1.docx

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT

POST -PROJECT CONDITION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum
Maximum
Lateral
Total
Flow
Lateral
Total
Time of Max
Inflow
Inflow
Balance
Inflow
Inflow
Occurrence
Volume
Volume
Error
Node Type CFS
CFS
days hr:min
10^6 gal
10^6 gal
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 OUTFALL 0.00

6.21 18857 11:58
0 56.5

0.000
VAULT-1 STORAGE 6.20

6.20 18857 12:01

56.5 56.5

0.032
+++++++++++++++++++++
Node Flooding Summary
No nodes were flooded.
**********************
Storage Volume Summary
++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average
Avg
Evap
Exfil
Maximum
Max
Time of Max
Maximum
Volume
Pcnt
Pcnt
Pcnt
Volume
Pcnt
Occurrence
Outflow
Storage Unit 1000 ft3
Full
Loss
Loss
1000 ft3
Full
days hr:min
CFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VAULT-1 0.083
0 0
0 19.086
93 18857 11:56

6.21 ***********************
Outfall Loading Summary
***********************
----------------------------------------------------------- Flow
Avg
Max
Total
Freq
Flow
Flow
Volume
Outfall Node Pcnt
CFS
CFS
10^6 gal
----------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 6.77

0.06 6.21

56.514
----------------------------------------------------------- System 6.77

0.06 6.21

56.514
********************
Link Flow Summary
********************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/
IFlowl Occurrence IVelocl Full Full
Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTLET-1 DUMMY 6.21 18857 11:58
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\Output\3684_PostProject_SWMM_resu Its POC-1.docx

SWMM OUTPUT REPORT
*************************
Conduit Surcharge Summary
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
No conduits were surcharged.

Analysis begun on: Tue Sep 20 12:23:22 2022
Analysis ended on: Tue Sep 20 12:24:09 2022
Total elapsed time: 00:00:47

POST -PROJECT CONDITION
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\Output\3684_PostProject_SWMM_resu Its POC-1.docx

POC-1
Peak Flow Frequency Summary
Return Period
Pre -project Qpeak
(cfs)
Post -project - Mitigated Q
(cfs)
LF = 0.1xQ2

0.281

0.182
2-year

2.812

1.822
5-year

3.568

2.888
10-year

4.495

3.477
1:\ACTIVE JOBS\3684 MELROSE AND MATAGUAL\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWAMP\SWMM\3684 SWMM_PostProcessing_POC-1.xlsx

POC-1
Peak Flow Frequency Curves
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Return Period in Years

Low -flow Threshold: 10% POC-1
O.lxQ2 (Pre): 0.281 cfs
Q10 (Pre): 4.495 cfs
Ordinate #: 100
Incremental Q (Pre): 0.04213 cfs
Total Hourly Data:11 497370 hours
The proposed BMP:J PASSED
Interval
Pre -project Flow
(cfs)
Pre -project Hours
Pre -project %
Time Exceeding
Post -project
Hours
Post -project
Time Exceeding
Percentage
Pass/Fail
0 0.281
878

1.77E-03
806

1.62E-03
92%
Pass
1 0.323
788

1.58E-03
229

4.60E-04
29%
Pass
2 0.365
714

1.44E-03
220

4.42E-04
31%
Pass
3 0.408
659

1.32E-03
209

4.20E-04
32%
Pass
4 0.450
618

1.24E-03
187

3.76E-04
30%
Pass
5 0.492
578

1.16E-03
170

3.42E-04
29%
Pass
6 0.534
547

1.10E-03
160

3.22E-04
29%
Pass
7 0.576
509

1.02E-03
154

3.10E-04
30%
Pass
8 0.618
482

9.69E-04
144

2.90E-04
30%
Pass
9 0.660
452

9.09E-04
138

2.77E-04
31%
Pass
10 0.703
427

8.59E-04
134

2.69E-04
31%
Pass
11 0.745
396

7.96E-04
118

2.37E-04
30%
Pass
12 0.787
371

7.46E-04
115

2.31E-04
31%
Pass
13 0.829
347

6.98E-04
ill

2.23E-04
32%
Pass
14 0.871
323

6.49E-04
109

2.19E-04
34%
Pass
15 0.913
288

5.79E-04
106

2.13E-04
37%
Pass
16 0.955
276

5.55E-04
96 1.93E-04
35%
Pass
17 0.997
262

5.27E-04
84 1.69E-04
32%
Pass
18 1.040
251

5.05E-04
77 1.55E-04
31%
Pass
19 1.082
238

4.79E-04
75 1.51E-04
32%
Pass
20 1.124
224

4.50E-04
72 1.45E-04
32%
Pass
21 1.166
209

4.20E-04
70 1.41E-04
33%
Pass
22 1.208
199

4.00E-04
66 1.33E-04
33%
Pass
23 1.250
191

3.84E-04
64 1.29E-04
34%
Pass
24 1.292
175

3.52E-04
60 1.21E-04
34%
Pass
25 1.335
158

3.18E-04
58 1.17E-04
37%
Pass
26 1.377
143

2.88E-04
58 1.17E-04
41%
Pass
27 1.419
134

2.69E-04
52 1.05E-04
39%
Pass
28 1.461
126

2.53E-04
50 1.01E-04
40%
Pass
29 1.503
123

2.47E-04
45 9.05E-05
37%
Pass
30 1.545
118

2.37E-04
44 8.85E-05
37%
Pass
31 1.587
115

2.31E-04
41 8.24E-05
36%
Pass
32 1.629
ill

2.23E-04
39 7.84E-05
35%
Pass
33 1.672
110

2.21E-04
38 7.64E-05
35%
Pass
34 1.714
102

2.05E-04
37 7.44E-05
36%
Pass
35 1.756
92 1.85E-04
37 7.44E-05
40%
Pass
36 1.798
89 1.79E-04
37 7.44E-05
42%
Pass
37 1.840
82 1.65E-04
36 7.24E-05
44%
Pass
38 1.882
75 1.51E-04
35 7.04E-05
47%
Pass
39 1.924
69 1.39E-04
31 6.23E-05
45%
Pass
40 1.967
64 1.29E-04
31 6.23E-05
48%
Pass
41 2.009
62 1.25E-04
26 5.23E-05
42%
Pass
42 2.051
61 1.23E-04
26 5.23E-05
43%
Pass
43 2.093
59 1.19E-04
26 5.23E-05
44%
Pass
44 2.135
57 1.15E-04
26 5.23E-05
46%
Pass
45 2.177
54 1.09E-04
25 5.03E-05
46%
Pass
46 2.219
50 1.01E-04
24 4.83E-05
48%
Pass
47 2.261
49 9.85E-05
22 4.42E-05
45%
Pass
48 2.304
48 9.65E-05
22 4.42E-05
46%
Pass
49 2.346
47 9.45E-05
22 4.42E-05
47%
Pass
50 2.388
44 8.85E-05
20 4.02E-05
45%
Pass
51 2.430
43 8.65E-05
18 3.62E-05
42%
Pass
52 2.472
42 8.44E-05
18 3.62E-05
43%
Pass
53 2.514
42 8.44E-05
17 3.42E-05
40%
Pass
54 2.556
40 8.04E-05
16 3.22E-05
40%
Pass

Interval
Pre -project Flow
(cfs)
Pre -project Hours
Pre -project %
Time Exceeding
Post -project
Hours
Post -project
Time Exceeding
Percentage
Pass/Fail
55 2.599
40 8.04E-05
16 3.22E-05
40%
Pass
56 2.641
37 7.44E-05
16 3.22E-05
43%
Pass
57 2.683
34 6.84E-05
16 3.22E-05
47%
Pass
58 2.725
33 6.63E-05
15 3.02E-05
45%
Pass
59 2.767
33 6.63E-05
15 3.02E-05
45%
Pass
60 2.809
33 6.63E-05
15 3.02E-05
45%
Pass
61 2.851
31 6.23E-05
14 2.81E-05
45%
Pass
62 2.893
29 5.83E-05
13 2.61E-05
45%
Pass
63 2.936
29 5.83E-05
12 2.41E-05
41%
Pass
64 2.978
23 4.62E-05
12 2.41E-05
52%
Pass
65 3.020
22 4.42E-05
12 2.41E-05
55%
Pass
66 3.062
21 4.22E-05
10 2.01E-05
48%
Pass
67 3.104
21 4.22E-05
10 2.01E-05
48%
Pass
68 3.146
21 4.22E-05
10 2.01E-05
48%
Pass
69 3.188
21 4.22E-05
10 2.01E-05
48%
Pass
70 3.231
21 4.22E-05
10 2.01E-05
48%
Pass
71 3.273
21 4.22E-05
10 2.01E-05
48%
Pass
72 3.315
20 4.02E-05
9 1.81E-05
45%
Pass
73 3.357
20 4.02E-05
8 1.61E-05
40%
Pass
74 3.399
19 3.82E-05
7 1.41E-05
37%
Pass
75 3.441
16 3.22E-05
6 1.21E-05
38%
Pass
76 3.483
15 3.02E-05
5 1.01E-05
33%
Pass
77 3.526
13 2.61E-05
5 1.01E-05
38%
Pass
78 3.568
11 2.21E-05
5 1.01E-05
45%
Pass
79 3.610
9 1.81E-05
5 1.01E-05
56%
Pass
80 3.652
9 1.81E-05
5 1.01E-05
56%
Pass
81 3.694
9 1.81E-05
5 1.01E-05
56%
Pass
82 3.736
9 1.81E-05
4 8.04E-06
44%
Pass
83 3.778
9 1.81E-05
4 8.04E-06
44%
Pass
84 3.820
9 1.81E-05
4 8.04E-06
44%
Pass
85 3.863
8 1.61E-05
4 8.04E-06
50%
Pass
86 3.905
8 1.61E-05
4 8.04E-06
50%
Pass
87 3.947
7 1.41E-05
4 8.04E-06
57%
Pass
88 3.989
7 1.41E-05
4 8.04E-06
57%
Pass
89 4.031
6 1.21E-05
4 8.04E-06
67%
Pass
90 4.073
6 1.21E-05
4 8.04E-06
67%
Pass
91 4.115
6 1.21E-05
4 8.04E-06
67%
Pass
92 4.158
6 1.21E-05
4 8.04E-06
67%
Pass
93 4.200
6 1.21E-05
4 8.04E-06
67%
Pass
94 4.242
6 1.21E-05
4 8.04E-06
67%
Pass
95 4.284
6 1.21E-05
3 6.03E-06
50%
Pass
96 4.326
6 1.21E-05
3 6.03E-06
50%
Pass
97 4.368
6 1.21E-05
3 6.03E-06
50%
Pass
98 4.410
6 1.21E-05
3 6.03E-06
50%
Pass
99 4.452
5 1.01E-05
2 4.02E-06
40%
Pass
100

4.495
5 1.01E-05
2 4.02E-06
40%
Pass

5.000

4.500

4.000

3.500

3.000
3 _o
LL

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000

1.0E-06
POC-1
Flow Duration Curve
[Pre vs. Post (Mitigated)]

1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02
Time Exceeding

3684
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 3/9/2022 HydroCADO 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 1 Summary for Pond 6P: Vault-1 100-yr
Volume
Invert Avail.Storage
Storage Description
#1
100.00,
20,520 cf
Custom Stage
Data (Conic) Listed below
Elevation
Surf.Area
Voids
Inc.Store
Cum.Store Wet.Area
(feet)
(sq-ft)
(%)
(cubic -feet)
(cubic -feet)
(sq-ft)
100.00
3,200

0.0 0
0 3,200
101.00
3,200

95.0 3,040
3,040
3,401
102.00
3,200

95.0 3,040
6,080
3,601
103.00
3,200

95.0 3,040
9,120
3,802
104.00
3,200

95.0 3,040
12,160
4,002
105.00
3,200

95.0 3,040
15,200
4,203
106.00
3,200

95.0 3,040
18,240
4,403
106.75
3,200

95.0 2,280
20,520
4,554
Device Routina Invert Outlet Devices
#1
Primary
100.00'

24.00" Round Culvert
L= 10.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200
Inlet / Outlet Invert= 100.00' / 99.90' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf
#2
Device 1
100.00'

2.50" Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3
Device 1
104.00'

18.00" W x 5.00" H Vert. Orifice C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#4
Device 1
106.25'
Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28)
Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 0.50
Width (feet) 20.00 20.00 0.00

3684
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 3/9/2022 HydroCAD® 10.10-7a s/n 10097 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Stage -Discharge for Pond 6P: Vault-1 100-yr
Elevation Primary
(feet)
(cfs)
100.00

0.00 100.20

0.05 100.40

0.09 100.60

0.12 100.80

0.14 101.00

0.16 101.20

0.17 101.40

0.19 101.60

0.20 101.80

0.21 102.00

0.23 102.20

0.24 102.40

0.25 102.60

0.26 102.80

0.27 103.00

0.28 103.20

0.29 103.40

0.30 103.60

0.31 103.80

0.32 104.00

0.32 104.20

0.76 104.40

1.56 104.60

2.21 104.80

2.66 105.00

3.03 10520

3.36 105.40

3.66 105.60

3.93 105.80

4.19 106.00
4A2
106.20

4.65 106.40

8.67 106.60

18.63 10675

28.38 Vault Drawdown Calculation - Vault-1
Project Name Melrose and Matagual
Project No 3684 Date 11/16/2022
Vault Drawdown 26.7 hrs
Underdrain Orifice 2.5 in
Diameter:
c: 0.6
Surface Depth (ft)
Volume (cf)
Qorifice (cfs)
AT (hr)
Total Time (hr)

6.25 19000.00

0.407

0.00 0.00

5.00 15200.00

0.363

2.74 2.74

4.00 12160.00

0.324

2.46 5.20

3.00 9120.00

0.279

2.80 8.00

2.00 1 6080.00
1 0.226

3.34 11.35

1.00 3040.00

0.155

4.43 15.78

0.00 0.00

0.000

10.88 26.65

C
TORY R. WALKER ENGINEERING

RELIABLE SOLUTIONS IN WATER RESOURCES
Manning's n Values for Overland Flow'
The BMP Design Manuals within the County of San Diego allow for a land surface description other than short prairie grass to be used for hydromodification BMP design only if documentation provided is consistent with Table A.6 of the SWMM 5 User's Manual.

In January 2016, the EPA released the SWMM Reference Manual Volume I — Hydrology (SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual). The SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual complements the SWMM 5 User's Manual by providing an in-depth description of the program's hydrologic components. Table 3-5 of the SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual expounds upon Table A.6 of the SWMM 5 User's Manual by providing Manning's n values for additional overland flow surfaces. Therefore, in order to provide SWMM users with a wider range of land surfaces suitable for local application and to provide Copermittees with confidence in the design parameters, we recommend using the values published by Yen and Chow in Table 3-5 of the EPA SWMM Reference Manual Volume I — Hydrology. The values are provided in the table below:

Overland Surface
Manning value (n)
Smooth asphalt pavement

0.010
Smooth impervious surface

0.011
Tar and sand pavement

0.012
Concrete pavement

0.014
Rough impervious surface

0.015
Smooth bare packed soil

0.017
Moderate bare packed soil

0.025
Rough bare packed soil

0.032
Gravel soil

0.025
Mowed poor grass

0.030
Average grass, closely clipped sod

0.040
Pasture

0.040
Timberland

0.060
Dense grass

0.060
Shrubs and bushes

0.080
Land Use
Business

0.014
Semibusiness

0.022
Industrial

0.020
Dense residential

0.025
Suburban residential

0.030
Parks and lawns

0.040
IContent summarized from Improving Accuracy in Continuous Simulation Modeling: Guidance for Selecting Pervious Overland Flow Manning's n Values in the San Diego Region (TRWE, 2016).

WATERSHED, FLOODPLAIN & STORM WATER MANAGEMENT • RIVER RESTORATION • FLOOD FACILITIES DESIGN • SEDIMENT a EROSION 122 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 206, VISTA CA 92084 • 760-414-9212 • TRWENGINEERING.COM