Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PD 2021-0043; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP); 2021-08-01
CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR CROSS REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, 2908-2924 HIGHLAND AVE GRADING PERMIT ENGINEER OF WORK: BRIAN M. ARDOLINO, PE QSD, RCE #71651 EXP: 12-31-21 PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SO LANA BEACH, CA 92075 Cross Real Estate Investors P.O. Box 231077 Encinitas, CA 92023 PREPARED BY: PASCO LARET SWTE IRD I I & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PLANNING -s- LAND SURVEYING 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 PH: 858-259-8212 DATE: August 2021 ECvEr) t'OV 10 2021 LAND DEVELOP/T \G STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2021 If :11 4.JI.i.1i-I irt ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION PROJECT VICINITY MAP STORM WATER STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE SITE INFORMATION SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPs ATTACHMENT I - Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment Ia ............................................................................................... DMA Exhibit Attachment I b ....... Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment Ic .......................................................Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Attachment ld .......................................Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Attachment le..........................Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets! Calculations ATTACHMENT 2— Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a.....................................................Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b ..............................Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Exhibit Attachment 2c .......................................................................Flow Control Facility Design ATTACHMENT 3— Structural BMP Maintenance Plan Attachment 3a ......................................................................Structural BMP Maintenance ATTACHMENT 4— City of Carlsbad Standard Single Sheet BMP Exhibits Attachment 4a.............................................................Single Sheet BMP Exhibit HIGHLAND 2 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTPLAN A UGUST 2021 CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: RAF Pacifica Group Fusion - Outdoor Amenity Area Project ID: DWG 523-3A (PUD 2019-0007 I SDP 2019-0012) I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the current Order. 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 SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and site design 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 SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. 08/26/2021 Brian M. Ardolino, PE RCE 71651 Exp: 12-31-21 Date Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 0ESSI0 AEL No. 71651 tt Exp. 12/31/21 C10- IF CP'L HIGHLAND 3 , 4 : .i I4 + !4 fF I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 1 - Vicinity Map HIGHLAND 4 A UGUST 22I STORM WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENTPLAN AUGUST2021 SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST -Project Summary Information Project Name Highland Project ID Project Address 2908-2924 Highland Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 156-200-28-00, 156-200-29-00, 156-200-30-00, 156-200-31-00, 156-200-32-00 Hydrologic Unit: Carlsbad Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Hydrologic Area: Buena Vista Creek Hydrologic Sub-Area: El Salto #904.21 Parcel Area 1.362 Acres (59,318 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) 0.226 Acres (9,860 Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) 1.362 Acres (59,318 Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) 0.673 Acres. (29,307 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (including D.G., Deminirnus, and Self- 0.689 Acres (30,011 Square Feet) Mitigating Area) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. HIGHLAND STORM WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENTPLAN A UGUST 2021 Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): lI Existing development Eli Previously graded but not built out Agricultural or other non-impervious use li Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description /Additional Information: The existing site consists of two single-family residences, an access road, and associated hardscape and landscape Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): tEl Vegetative Cover LI Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas tEl Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: See description above. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): [II NRCS Type A IEINRCS Type B LI NRCS Type C LI NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): LI GW Depth <5 feet LI5 feet <GW Depth < 10 feet LI 10 feet < GW Depth <20 feet IEIGW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): LI Watercourses LI Seeps LI Springs LI Wetlands tEl None Description / Additional Information: N/A HIGHLAND STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2021 Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage [How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer (1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) describe existing constructed storm water conveyance systems, if applicable; and (3) is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if so, describe]: In the existing condition, the western 75% of the property generates onsite stormwater runoff that flows overland southwest to Highland Drive and continues along Highland to the northwest. In the remainder of the site, runoff flows overland northeast onto the adjacent property. There are no offsite flows conveyed through the site and no existing constructed stormwater conveyance systems. For detailed hydrologic calculations, refer to the report titled "Hydrology Study for 2908-2924 Highland Drive" dated August 26, 2021, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates. Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns HIGHLAND STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTPLAN AUGUST2021 Project Description I Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The project proposes demolishing the existing two single-family residences and associated hardscape, and constructing five single-family residences, five ADUs, associated hardscape, landscape, an access road, retaining walls, and stormwater collection and conveyance The project includes construction of two Biofiltration BMPs and two underground HMP storage tanks which provide stormwater treatment, detention, and hydromodification management to meet all local, state, and federal stormwater requirements. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): Proposed impervious features include an access road, single-family residences, ADUs, driveways, and hardscaping List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): Proposed pervious areas include landscape areas and the biofiltration BMP basins. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? Yes 0 N Description I Additional Information: Grading will be performed to create pads for the residences and ADUs, construct the amenities, surface improvements, drainage pathways and the biofiltration BMPs. After grading the drainage patterns will be substantially conforming to the existing condition. HIGHLAND STORM WATER QUALITY MA NA GEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? 19 Yes 0 N Description /Additional Information: In the proposed condition, storm water runoff from the majority of the proposed improvements will be collected and conveyed to biofiltration basins BMP-I and BMP-2. Due to existing grades, it is not feasible to drain a portion of the proposed access easement (Lot 6) along the western PL (Area SR-I) nor the pervious area along the eastern PL (Area SM-I) to one of the biofiltration basins. Area SR-1 is proposing a combination of pervious payers and pervious landscape to function as a self-retaining area. Area SM-I is entirely pervious landscape and is designated a self-mitigating area. Flow from the project will discharge to the existing storm drain and continue downstream as it does in the existing condition. The proposed drainage pattern mimics the existing condition. Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): tEl On-site storm drain inlets O Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps O Interior parking garages lEt Need for future indoor & structural pest control tEl Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features O Food service O Refuse areas O Industrial processes O Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Fuel Dispensing Areas O Loading Docks O Fire Sprinkler Test Water O Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water lEt Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots HIGHLAND STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTPLAN AUGUST2021 Identification of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): Runoff from the site discharges to Highland Drive and continues in the gutter to Elmwood Street where it flows south until it enters a catchbasin on the corner of Elmwood and Laguna Drive. The water continues in the Carlsbad MS4 until it discharges to Buena Vista Creek which flows into Buena Vista Lagoon and ultimately discharges the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the lagoon. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)IStressor(s) TMDLs Buena Vista Creek Benthic Community Effects N/A Buena Vista Creek Bifenthrin N/A Buena Vista Creek Selenium N/A Buena Vista Creek Toxicity N/A Buena Vista Lagoon Indicator Bacteria N/A S Buena Vista Lagoon Nutrients N/A Buena Vista Lagoon Sedimentation/Siltation N/A Buena Vista Lagoon Toxicity N/A Identification of Project Site Pollutants Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Also a Receiving Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern Sediment X Yes HIGHLAND 10 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 Nutrients X Yes Heavy Metals X N/A Organic Compounds X N/A Trash & Debris X N/A Oxygen Demanding Substances X N/A Oil& Grease X N/A Bacteria & Viruses X Yes Pesticides X Yes Hydromodification Management Requirements HIGHLAND 11 STORM WA TER QUALITYMANAGEMENTPLAN AUG UST 2021 Hydromodufication Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? Il Yes. hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. 11 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. 1 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. II No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides. Description I Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas* *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply HIGHLAND 12 STORM WA TER QUALITYMANAGEMENTPLAN A UGUST 2021 Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? Yes (See discussion below) ll 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? El 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite El 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment L 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite tEl 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 E Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2B of the SWQMP. E Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion I Additional Information: Refer to Attachment 2b for a Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield GIS overlay of the project area and surrounding areas. HIGHLAND 13 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTPLAN AUGUST2021 Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff* *This Section only required if hydromod if! cation management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit. There are two POCs for the project: POC-1 is located along the western boundary of the site and POC-2 is along the eastern boundary of the site Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? tEl No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) Li Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 Li Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 Li Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Discussion I Additional Information: (optional) HIGHLAND 14 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 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 City codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. In the proposed condition, storm water runoff from the majority of the proposed improvements will be collected and conveyed to biofiltration basins BMP-I and BMP-2. Due to existing grades, it is not feasible to drain a portion of the proposed access easement (Lot 6) along the western PL (Area SR-I) nor the pervious area along the eastern PL (Area SM-I) to one of the biofiltration basins. Area SR-1 is proposing a combination of pervious payers and pervious landscape to function as a self-retaining area. Area SM-1 is entirely pervious landscape and is designated a self-mitigating area. Flow from the project will discharge to the existing storm drain and continue downstream as it does in the existing condition. The proposed drainage pattern mimics the existing condition. 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. HIGHLAND 15 STORM WA TER QUALITY MANA GEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 [Insert City's Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36 (here)] HIGHLAND 16 STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 SUMMARY OF POP STRUCTURAL BMPS - 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 City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative 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 City 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 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). HIGHLAND 17 STORM WA TER QUALITYMANAGEMENTPLAN A UGUST 2021 Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated together or separate. DMA I and 2 Step 1A: DMAs 1,2 are not self-mitigating, de minimis, or self-retaining. Step I B: 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 Ic. Step 3: Infiltration is not feasible. Refer to Attachment I d (Form 1-8). Step 3C: Biofiltration BMPs (BMP-1, BMP-2) have been selected and sized per the design criteria to meet both pollutant control and hydromodification management flow control requirements. SR-1 Step 1A: Drainage area SR-1 is self-retaining SM-I Step IA: Drainage area SM-i is self-mitigating BIOFIL TRA TION (BF-1) Biofiltration systems are effective at removing sediments and pollutants which are associated with fine particles by filtration through surface vegetation and underlying engineered soil media. These systems can also delay runoff peaks by providing detention and/or retention capacity in the media layer and ponding area through the controlled release of treated runoff. The addition of vegetation not only increases the aesthetic value of these areas, but also enhances the filtration component of the system through plant uptake and helps maintain the porosity of the engineered soil layer. Biofiltration systems can be constructed as either large or small scale devices with native or amended soils. Biofiltration systems, like the system designed for this project, collect storm water from impervious areas (roof areas and other impervious surfaces) through the site's grading design. Biofiltration systems function by allowing ponded runoff to infiltrate down through the mulch layer, amended soil layer, and the gravel layer; ultimately discharging to the onsite storm drain system through the system's perforated under drain. The biofiltration basin area will be landscaped with a combination of ground covers, shrubs and/or trees as selected by the project's landscape architect. Rip rap energy dissipaters will be located at points where concentrated flow enters the biofiltration basin to minimize erosion from occurring. The biofiltration system for this project has been integrated into the drainage design to meet pollutant control and hydromodification flow control requirements for the site. Storm water runoff from the majority of the proposed improvements will be collected and conveyed to the biofiltration basin for treatment. Due to existing grades, it is not feasible to drain a portion of the proposed impervious area to the biofiltration basin, therefore, storm water runoff from an equivalent area consisting of existing impervious area will be directed to the biofiltration basin HIGHLAND 18 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 for treatment. The total area draining to the biofiltration basin and receiving treatment is equal to or greater than the actual area requiring treatment. HIGHLAND 19 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 Structural BMP Summary Information Structural BMP ID No.: I (DMA-1) Sheet No. Type of structural BMP: L Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Li Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) El Retention by bioretention (INF-2) L Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) El Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) lI Biofiltration (BF-1) ii Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Li Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management 1 Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: 1 Pollutant control only 11 Hydromodification control only FJ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control El Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP El Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): HIGHLAND 20 STORM WATER QUALITY MA NA GEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 Structural BMP Summary Information Structural BMP ID No.: 2 (DMA-2) Sheet No. Type of structural BMP: 11 Retention by harvest and use (HU-I) LI Retention by infiltration basin (lNF-l) El Retention by bioretention (INF-2) El Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) LI Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) FI Biofiltration (BF-1) ii Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) LI Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management LI Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: LI Pollutant control only Li Hydromodification control only tEl Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control LI Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP LI Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): ATTACHMENT I HIGHLAND 21 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTPLAN A UGUST 2021 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment la DMA Exhibit (Required) 9 Included See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24"x36" Exhibit typically required) Attachment 1 b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA u Included as Attachment lb Area, and DMA Type (Required)* separate from DMA Exhibit *Provide table in this Attachment OR on DMA Exhibit in Attachment la Attachment lc Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility FI Included Screening Checklist (Required unless Li Not included because the entire the entire project will use infiltration project will use infi.tration BMPs BMPs) Refer to Appendix 13.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. Attachment 1 Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration E1 Included Feasibility Condition (Required Li Not included because the entire unless the project will use harvest and project will use harvest and use use BMPs) BMPs Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-8. Attachment le Pollutant Control BMP Design lI Included Worksheets / Calculations (Required) I eRefer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines HIGHLAND 22 ATTACHMENT la ATTACHMENT lc by @ii4 1IMI ij ? Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? Toilet and urinal flushing Landscape irrigation IllOther: If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. [Provide a summary of calculations here] (9.3gal/person*day)*(0.13368 cf/gal) =(1.24cf/person*day)*(1. 5 days) = 1.86 cf/36hr*person [(4 residents/house)*(5 houses) + (2 residents/ADU)*(5 ADUs)] * 1.86 cf/36hr*person = 55.8 cf Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. DCV = 1,281 (cubic feet) [Provide a summary of calculations here] DMA-1 DCV = 157 cf DMA-2 DCV = 1,124 cf See calculations in Attachment le for more information. 3a. Is the 36-hour 3b. Is the 36-hour demand greater 3c. Is the 36- demand greater than or than 0.25DCV but less than the full hour demand equal to the DCV? DCV? less than EYes /JNo R Yes / No 25DCV? Yes Harvest and use appears to Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct Harvest and be feasible. Conduct more more detailed evaluation and sizing use is detailed evaluation and calculations to determine feasibility, considered to sizing calculations to Harvest and use may only be able to be be infeasible. confirm that DCV can be used for a portion of the site, or used at an adequate rate to (optionally) the storage may need to be meet drawdown criteria. upsized to meet long term capture targets I while draining in longer than 36 hours. I Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? U Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. LI No, select alternate BMPs. The City of Sari Diego I Storm Water Standards Worksheet B.3-1 : Form 1-7 1 January 2018 Edition ATTACHMENT id I I Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Categorizationiof iInfiltration Condition Form 5 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? I - - Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater 1 than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on X a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes. Testing demonstrates that the estimated reliable infiltration rate is 0.87 in/hr, which is greater than 0.5 in/hr 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 increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or 2 other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this No Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: No. This is a 5-lot project. Given the nature of the bedrock, there is a high potential for mounding, nad lateral migration of groundwater, onsite and offsite, to adversely affect existing and proposed improvements, causing distress. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Storm Water Standards February 2016 Edition Appendices: BMP Design Manual 1-3 Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants 3 or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensible evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: No response required. See Criteria No. 2. 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 a change of seasonality of ephemeral streams 4 or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: No response required. See Criteria No. 2. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Part 1 In the answers to rows 1-4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility Proceed Result* screening category is Full Infiltration to Part 2 If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration maybe 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 judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by [City Engineer] to substantiate findings. Storm Water Standards February 2016 Edition Appendices: BMP Design Manual '-4 Part 2 - Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in an 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 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Testing and analyses show the near-surface earth materials have an estimated reliable infiltration rate of roughly 0.87 in/hr in the general vicinity of the proposed BMP. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater 6 mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an X acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensiv'e evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: If storm water infiltration into the onsite soils were to occur, there would be an increased potential for shallow perched groundwater conditions (i.e., groundwater mounding) to develop, owing to the collection of water upon the indurated and less permeable unweathered old paralic deposits, which occur at depths ranging between approximately 2 feet and 3 feet below the existing grades, within the project area. Perched groundwater conditions which would adversely affect the performance of the existing and proposed improvements, onsite and offsite, as well as the public right-of-way, and cuase distress, has a high potential to occur. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Storm Water Standards February 2016 Edition Appendices: BMP Design Manual '-5 Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, 7 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: See criteria No. 6 Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? 8 The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Downstream water rights are a legal matter that do not fall under the purview of geotechnical engineering. However, there are no water courses traversing the subject site. See criteria No. 6 Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Part 2 If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The Result* feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. No If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be Infiltration infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. * To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings. Storm Water Standards February 2016 Edition Appendices: BMP Design Manual 1-6 Appendix I: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Factor of Safety Factor Criteria InfiltrationIRate Worksheet u1-9 Factor Description Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p) p = w x v A Suitability Soil assessment methods 0.25 1 0.25 Predominant soil texture 0.25 1 0.25 Assessment Site soil variability 0.25 1 0.25 Depth to groundwater/impervious layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p Min = 2.0 B Design Level of pretreatment/expected sediment loads 0.5 Redundancy/resiliency 0.25 Compaction during construction 0.25 Design Safety Factor, S = Ep Combined Safety Factor, Stwal=SA x SB 2.0 mm Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kb d (corrected for test-specific bias) 1.74 in /hr Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, 'dsgn = Kobscrved / Stotal 0.87 in/hr Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: See Appendix E of Geotechnical Report by GeoSoils, Inc. (2021). D-19 February 26, 2016 ATTACHMENT le The City of le A WhN DIEG&J Project Name HIGHLAND BMP ID BMP-1 1 1Are3 draining to the BMP 6267 sq. ft. 2 Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B. 1 and B.2) 0.51 85 th percentile 24-hour rainfall depth 0.59 inches 4 Design capture volume [Line 1 x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)) 157 cu. ft. DMA TABLE - TREATMENT (BMP-1) SURFACE AREA* DMA/BMP AREA (SF) P OST-PROJECT RUNOFF ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTED SURFACE TYPE FACTOR FACTOR RUNOFF (SF) 1 6297 HARDSCAPE 0.9 1 5667 1 500 BMP BASIN 0.1 1 50 1 5496 LANDSCAPE 0.1 1 550 TOTAL 6267 The City of SAN D1EG Project Name HIGHLAND BMP ID BMP-2 1 Area draining to the BMP 44810 sq. ft. 2 Adjusted runoff factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix 8.1 and 13.2) 0.51 8th percentile 24-hour rainfali depth 0.59 inches 4 Design capture volume [Line I x Line 2 x (Line 3/12)] 1124 Cu. ft. DMA TABLE - TREATMENT (BMP-2) SURFACE AREA* DMA/BMP AREA (SF) POST-PROJECT RUNOFF ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTED SURFACE TYPE FACTOR FACTOR RUNOFF (SF) 2 23010 HARDSCAPE 1 0.9 1 1 20709 2 1600 BMP BASIN 0.1 1 160 2 20200 LANDSCAPE 0.1 1 2020 TOTAL 22889 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.12 BF-1 Biofiltration #: t~ - H jai .4 MS4 Permit Category Biofiltration Manual Category Bic-filtration Applicable Performance Standard Pollutant Control Flow Control Primary Benefits Treatment Voume Reduccic a (Incitiental Peak Flow Attenuation (Optional) Location: 43rd Street and Logan Avenue, San Diego, California Description Biofiltration (Bioretention with underdrain) facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via unde:drain or overflow to the downstream conveyance system. Bioretention with underdrain facilities are commonly incorporated into the site within parking lot landscaping, along roadsides, and in open spaces. Because these types of facilities have limited or no infiltration, they are typically designed to provide enough hydraulic head to move flows through the underdrain connection to the sto:m drain system. Treatment is achieved through filtration, sedimentation, sorption, biochemical processes and plant uptake. Typical bioretention with underdrain components include: Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g, perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap) Shallow surface ponding for captured flows Side slope and basin bottom vegetation selected based on expected climate and ponding depth Non-floating mulch layer (Optional) Media layer (planting mix or engineered media) capable of suporting vegetation growth Filter course layer consisting of aggregate to prevent the migration of fines into uncompacted native soils or the aggregate storage layer Aggregate storage layer with underdrain(s) :mpermeable liner or uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility E-66 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Overflow structure CURB In A' CURB CUT-' 12" MIN. VEGETATED SIDE SLOPE PLAN NOT TO SCALE CURB CUT 4-6 DROP FROM CURB CUT TO APRON r APRON FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION r 6" MIN. TO 12' MAX. \ SURFACE PONDING \ CLEANOUT EXCAVATED SLOPE (SHOWN AT 1H:1V)_/7 MIN. 18" MEDIA WITH MIN. 5 IN/HR FILTRATION RATE SATURATED STORAGE (OPTIONAL) FILTER COURSE - AGGREGATE STORAGE LAYER NOT TO SCALE MEDIA SURFACE AREA [ 2" MIN. FREEBOARD 3" WELL-AGED, SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH / (OPTIONAL) MAINTENANCE ACCESS (AS NEEDED) F1'~;~OVE FLOW STRUCTURE IMPERMEABLE LINER (OPTIONAL) MIN. 3" AGGREGATE BELOW UNDERDRAIN MIN. 6" DIAMETER UNDERDRAIN EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS SECTION A-A' Typical plan and Section view of a Biofiltration BMP E-67 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Design Adaptations for Project Goals I Biofiltration Treatment BMP for storm water pollutant control. The system is lined or un-lined to provide incidental infiltration, and an underdrain is provided at the bottom to carry away filtered runoff. This configuration is considered to provide biofiltration treatment via flow through the media I layer. Storage provided above the underdrain within surface ponding, media, and aggregate storage is considered included in the biofiltration treatment volume. Saturated storage within the aggregate I storage layer can be added to this design by raising the underdrain above the bottom of the aggregate storage layer or via an internal weir structure designed to maintain a specific water level elevation. Integrated storm water flow control and pollutant control configuration. The system can be designed to provide flow rate and duration control by primarily providing increased surface ponding and/or having a deeper aggregate storage layer above the underdrain. This will allow for significant detention storage, which can be controlled via inclusion of an outlet structure at the downstream end of the underdrain. I Design Criteria and Considerations Bioretention with underdrain must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below 1 criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: I Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Placement observes geotechnical recommendations regarding potential hazards Must not negatively impact existing site I [ (e.g., slope stability, landslides, liquefaction geotechnical concerns. zones) and setbacks (e.g., slopes, foundations, I utilities). Lining prevents storm water from An impermeable liner or other hydraulic impacting groundwater and/or sensitive I restriction layer is included if site constraints E environmental or geotechnical features. indicate that infiltration or lateral flows should Incidental infiltration, when allowable, not be allowed, can aid in pollutant removal and I groundwater recharge. Bigger BMPs require additional design I features for proper performance. El Contributing tributary area shall be 5 acres ( 1 acre preferred). Contributing tributary area greater than 5 acres may be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) incorporate design features (e.g. flow spreaders) to minimizing short circuiting of flows in I E-68 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale the BMP and 2) incorporate additional design features requested by the City Engineer for proper performance of the regional BMP. [ Finish grade of the facility is 2%. Flatter surfaces reduce erosion and channelization within the facility. Surface Pon ding Surface ponding limited to 24 hours for plant health. Surface ponding drawdown Surface ponding is limited to a 24-hour time greater than 24-hours but less than drawdown time. 96 hours may be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer if certified by a landscape architect or agronomist. Surface ponding capacity lowers subsurface storage requirements. Deep surface ponding raises safety concerns. Surface ponding depth greater than 12 inches (for additional pollutant control or surface outlet structures or flow- control orifices) may be allowed at the [ Surface. ponding depth is 2 6 and 12 inches. discretion of the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) surface ponding depth drawdown time is less than 24 hours; and 2) safety issues and fencing requirements are considered (typically ponding greater than 18" will require a fence and/or flatter side slopes) and 3) potential for elevated clogging risk is considered. A minimum of 2 inches of freeboard is Freeboard provides room for head over [1 provided, overflow structures and minimizes risk of uncontrolled surface discharge. Side slopes are stabilized with vegetation and Gentler side slopes are safer, less prone El are = 3H:1V or shallower, to erosion, able to establish vegetation more quickly and easier to maintain. Vegetation E-69 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Plantings are suitable for the climate and Plants suited to the climate and ponding LI expected ponding depth. A plant list to aid in depth are more likely to survive. selection can be found in Appendix E.20. An irrigation system with a connection to Seasonal irrigation might be needed to LI water supply should be provided as needed. keep plants healthy. Mulch (Optional) Mulch will suppress weeds and maintain A minimum of 3 inches of well-aged, shredded moisture for plant growth. Aging mulch [j hardwood mulch that has been stockpiled or kills pathogens and weed seeds and stored for at least 12 months is provided, allows the beneficial microbes to multiply. Media Layer A filtration rate of at least 5 inches per hour allows soil to drain between events. The initial rate should be higher than long term target rate to account for clogging over time. However an excessively high initial rate can have a negative impact on treatment performance, therefore an upper limit is needed. 101 Media maintains a minimum filtration rate of 5 in/hr over lifetime of facility. An initial filtration rate of 8 to 12 in/hr is recommended to allow for clogging over time; the initial filtration rate should not exceed 12 inches per hour. Media is a minimum 18 inches deep, meeting either of these two media specifications: City of San Diego Storm Water Standards Appendix F (February 2016, unless superseded by more recent edition) or County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook: Appendix G -Bioretention Soil Specification (June 2014, unless superseded by more recent edition). Alternatively, for proprietary designs and custom media mixes not meeting the media specifications contained in the 2016 City of San Diego Storm Water Standards or County LID Manual, the media meets the pollutant treatment performance criteria in Section P.1. A deep media layer provides additional filtration and supports plants with deeper roots. Standard specifications shall be followed. For non-standard or proprietary designs, compliance with F.1 ensures that adequate treatment performance will be provided. E-70 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Greater surface area to tributary area ratios: a) maximizes volume retention as required by the MS4 Permit and b) decrease loading rates per square foot and therefore increase longevity. Media surface area is 3% of contributing area Adjusted runoff factor is to account for 0 times adjusted runoff factor or greater. site design BMPs implemented upstream of the BMP (such as rain barrels, impervious area dispersion, etc.). Refer to Appendix B.2 guidance. Use Worksheet B.5-1 Line 26 to estimate the minimum surface area required per this criteria. Potential for pollutant export is partly a Where receiving waters are impaired or have a function of media composition; media 0 TMDL for nutrients, the system is designed design must minimize potential for with nutrient sensitive media design (see fact export of nutrients, particularly where sheet BF-2). receiving waters are impaired for nutrients. Filter Course Layer A filter course is used to prevent migration of Migration of media can cause clogging of 0 fines through layers of the facility. Filter fabric the aggregate storage layer void spaces or is not used. subgrade. Filter fabric is more likely to clog. Washing aggregate will help eliminate 0 Filter course is washed and free of fines, fines that could clog the facility and impede infiltration. Gradation relationship between layers Filter course calculations assessing suitability can evaluate factors (e.g., bridging, 0 for particle migration prevention have been permeability, and uniformity) to completed. determine if particle sizing is appropriate or if an intermediate layer is needed. Aggregate Storage Layer Class 2 Permeable per Caltrans specification Washing aggregate will help eliminate 0 68-1.025 is recommended for the storage layer. fines that could clog the aggregate Washed, open-graded crushed rock may be storage layer void spaces or subgrade. used, however a 4-6 inch washed pea gravel E-71 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale filter course layer at the top of the crushed rock is required. The depth of aggregate provided (12-inch Proper storage layer configuration and typical) and storage layer configuration is underdrain placement will minimize adequate for providing conveyance for facility drawdown time. underdrain flows to the outlet structure. Inflow, Underdrain, and Outflow Structures Inflow, underdrains and outflow structures are Maintenance will prevent clogging and El accessible for inspection and maintenance, ensure proper operation of the flow control structures. Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or High inflow velocities can cause erosion, use energy dissipation methods. (e.g., riprap, scour and/or channeling. level spreader) for concentrated inflows. Curb cut inlets are at least 12 inches wide, have Inlets must not restrict flow and apron a 4-6 inch reveal (drop) and an apron and prevents blockage from vegetation as it energy dissipation as needed. grows in. Energy dissipation prevents erosion. A minimal separation from subgrade or Underdrain outlet elevation should be a the liner lessens the risk of fines entering El minimum of 3 inches above the bottom the underdrain and can improve elevation of the aggregate storage layer. hydraulic performance by allowing perforations to remain unblocked. Minimum underdrain diameter is 6 inches. Smaller diameter underdrains are prone to clogging. Underdrains are made of slotted, PVC pipe Slotted underdrains provide greater conforming to ASTM D 3034 or equivalent or intake capacity, clog resistant drainage, El corrugated, HDPE pipe conforming to and reduced entrance velocity into the AASHTO 252M or equivalent. pipe, thereby reducing the chances of solids migration. An underdrain cleanout with a minimum 6- E inch diameter and lockable cap is placed every Properly spaced cleanouts will facilitate 250 to 300 feet as required based on underdrain maintenance. underdrain length. Overflow is safely conveyed to a downstream Planning for overflow lessens the risk of El storm drain system or discharge point Size property damage due to flooding. overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow E-72 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale for on-line infiltration basins and water quality peak flow for off-line basins. Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Storm Water Pollutant Control Only To des:gn bioretention with underdrain for storm water pollutant control only (no flow control required), the following steps should be taken: Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Calculate the DCV per Appendix B based on expected site design runoff for tributary areas. Use the sizing worksheet presented in Appendix B.5 to size biofiltration BMPs. Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach when Storm Water Flow Control is Applicable Control of flow rates and/or durations will typically require significant surface ponding and/or aggregate storage volumes, and therefore the following steps should be taken prior to determination of storm water pollutant control design. Pre-development and allowable post-project flow rates and durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Iteratively determine the facility footprint area, surface ponding and/or aggregate storage layer depth required to provide detention storage to reduce flow rates and durations to allowable limits. Flow rates and durations can be controlled from detention storage by altering outlet structure orifice size(s) and/or water control levels. Multi-level orifices can be used within an outlet structure to control the full range of flows. if bioretention with underdrain cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control required by this manual, an upstream or downstream structure with significant storage volume such as an underground vault can be used to provide remaining controls. After bioretention with underdrain has been designed to meet flow control requirements, calculations must be completed to verify if storm water pollutant control requirements to treat the DCV have been met. E-73 February 2016 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTPLAN AUGUST2021 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management El Included Exhibit (Required) Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse IEI Exhibit showing project Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA drainage boundaries marked Exhibit is required, additional on WMAA Critical Coarse analyses are optional) Sediment Yield Area Map See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design (Required) Manual. Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Determination El 6.2.1 Verification cf 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 IEI Not performed Receiving Channels (Optional) El Included See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and IEI Included Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual HIGHLAND 23 ATTACHMENT 2a ATTACHMENT 2b -- iciunoo o6oi ueS rl 1'O1 ATTACHMENT 2d 3661 Drakos 7/21/2021 SWMM MODEL SCHEMATICS I PRE-PROJECT MODEL I POST-PROJECT MODEL - I Oceanside Oansie LZJ DMA-2 DMA4 DMA-i I Tank I : I S Outlet-Tank I I I I MP-2 DU 12 'POc-1 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWM M\Output\3661_SWM MSchematics.xlsx — — = — — — — MOMM — — — — - — — 3661 Drakos 7/21/2021 PRE-PROJECT Width Weighted. Weighted Weighted (Area/Flow % % "C" Conductivity Suction Initial DMA Area (ac) Length) (ft) % Slope Impervious % "B" Soils Soils (in/hr): Head (in): Deficit: N-pery 1 1.000 316 10.0% 0% 100% 0% 0.200 3.000 0.310 0.055 Total: 1.00 POST-PROJECT DMA Area (ac) Width (Area/Flow Length) (ft) % Impervious % Slope % "B" Soils % "C" Soils Weighted Conductivity (in/hr): Weighted Suction Head (in): Weighted Initial Deficit: N-pery 1 0.271 337 53% 1.5% 100% 0% 0.150 3.000 0.310 0.06 2 1.029 760 51% 5.0% 100% 0% 0.150 3.000 0.310 0.06 BMP-1 0.01148 14 0% 0.0% 100% 0% 0.200 3.000 0.310 0.06 DM 0.01900 30 88% 12.0% 100% 0% 0.150 3.000 0.310 0.06 Total: 1.33 Conductivity: Suction Head: Initial Deficit B:J 0.21in/hr B:I 31in 6:1 0.31 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWM M\3661_SWM M_l nputAlt5.xlsx [TITLE] ;Project Title/Notes 3661 Drakos Pre-Prnj pci- ('.oncli ti on [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW UNITS CFS INFILTRATION GREEN ABIPT 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 .11 DRY-ONLY NO [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF 15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 Source Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Siope CurbLen SnowPack DNA-i Oceanside POC-i 1 0 316 10 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery S-Pery PctZero RouteTo PctRouted DMA-i 0.012 0.055 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD DMA-i 3 0.2 .31 [OUT FALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;Basin 1 P00-1 0 FREE NO [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value Oceanside FILE "J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 ORAKOS\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\SWMM\Rainfall\oceanside.dat" [REPORT] ;Reporting Options SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [NAP] DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-000rd Y-Coord P00-i 1000.000 2500.000 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-000rd Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord DMA-i 1060.948 4977.427 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord Oceanside 747.985 6731.113 [TITLE] ;Project Title/Notes 3661 Drakos Pnt-Prnjer.t flnnditthn [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW UNITS CFS INFILTRATION GREEN AI4PT 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 .11 DRY ONLY NO [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF 15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 Source I Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Siope CurbLen SnowPack DMA-i Oceanside BMP-i 0.271 53 337 1.5 0 DM Oceanside POC-1 0.019 88 30 12 0 BMP-i Oceanside POC-i 0.01148 0 14 0 0 DMA-2 Oceanside Tank 1.029 51 760 5 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery S-Pery PctZero RouteTo PctRouted DMA-i 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DM 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET BMP-1 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-2 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IWO DMA-i 3 0.15 .31 DM 3 0.15 .31 BMP-i 3 0.2 .31 DMA-2 3 0.15 .31 [LID CONTROLS] ;;Name Type/Layer Parameters BMP-i BC BMP-i SURFACE 12 0 0 0 5 BMP-1 SOIL 18 0.4 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 BMP-1 STORAGE 12 0.67 0 0 BMP-1 DRAIN 0.1638 0.5 0 6 0 0 [LID USAGE] ;;Subcatchment LID Process Number Area Width InitSat Fromlmp ToPery RptFiie DrainTo FromPery F r BMP-1 BMP-1 1 500.07 0 0 100 0 * * U [OUTFALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;Basin 1 POC-i 0 FREE NO [STORAGE] ;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Tank 0 4 0 TABULAR Tank 0 0 BMP-2 0 3 7 0 TORtITAP RMP-2 0 0 [OUTLETS] ;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated Outlet-Tank Tank BMP-2 0 TABULAR/DEPTH TANKOUTLET NO Outlet-BNP-2 BMP-2 POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH BMPOUTLET NO [CURVES] ;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value BMPOUTLET Rating 0 0 BMPOUTLET 0.1 0 BMPOUTLET 0.2 0.01 BMPOUTLET 0.3 0.01 BMPOUTLET 0.4 0.01 BMPOUTLET 0.5 0.01 BMPOUTLET 0.6 0.01 BMPOUTLET 0.7 0.01 BMPOUTLET 0.8 0.01 BMPOUTLET 0.9 0.01 BMPOUTLET 1 0.01 BMPOUTLET 1.1 0.01 BMPOUTLET 1.2 0.01 BMPOUTLET 1.3 0.01 BMPOUTLET 1.4 0.02 BMPOUTLET 1.5 0.02 BMPOUTLET 1.6 0.02 BMPOUTLET 1.7 0.02 BMPOUTLET 1.8 0.02 BMPOUTLET 1.9 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.1 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.2 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.3 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.4 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.5 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.6 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.7 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.8 0.02 BMPOUTLET 2.9 0.02 BMPOUTLET 3 0.02 BMPOUTLET 3.1 0.02 BMPOUTLET 3.2 0.02 BMPOUTLET 3.3 0.02 BMPOUTLET 3.4 0.75 BMPOUTLET 3.5 2.77 BMPOUTLET 3.6 3.8 Ksat IMD BMPOUTLET 3.7 3.85 TANKOUTLET Rating 0 0 TANKOUTLET (1 1 (1 TANKOUTLET 0.2 0 TANKOUTLET 0.3 0 TANKOUTLET 0.4 0.01 TANKOUTLET 0.5 0.01 TANKOUTLET 0.6 0.01 TANKOUTLET 0.7 0.01 TANKOUTLET 0.8 0.01 TANKOUTLET 0.9 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.1 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.2 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.3 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.4 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.5 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.6 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.7 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.8 0.01 TANKOUTLET 1.9 0.01 TANKOUTLET 2 0.01 TANKOUTLET 2.1 0.01 TANKOUTLET 2.2 0.01 TANKOUTLET 2.3 0.01 TANKOUTLET 2.4 0.01 TANKOUTLET 2.5 0.01 TANKOUTLET 2.6 0.02 TANKOUTLET 2.7 0.02 TANKOUTLET 2.8 0.02 TANKOUTLET 2.9 0.02 TANKOUTLET 3 0.02 TANKOUTLET 3.1 0.02 TANKOUTLET 3.2 0.02 TANKOUTLET 3.3 0.02 TANKOUTLET 3.4 0.02 TANKOUTLET 3.5 0.02 TANKOUTLET 3.6 0.43 TANKOUTLET 3.7 1.19 TANKOUTLET 3.8 2.17 TANKOUTLET 3.9 3.33 TANKOUTLET 4 4.65 Tank Storage 0 900 Tank 4 900 BNP-2 Storage 0 640 BNP-2 1 640 BMP-2 1.01 320 BMP-2 2.51 320 BMP-2 2.52 1600 BNP-2 3.72 1600 [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value Oceanside FILE "J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQNP\SWMM\Rainfall\oceanside.dat" [REPORT] ;Reporting Options SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [NAP] DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord POC-1 426.829 1514.228 Tank 485.638 4970.316 BNP-2 485.638 3876.854 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord DMA-1 -862.965 5480.599 DM 2052.934 3390.871 BMP-1 -935.863 3864.705 DMA-2 485.638 5796.488 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord Oceanside 747.985 6731.113 SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) -------------------------------------------------------------- 3661 Drakos Pre-Project 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 ........... Water Quality .......... Infiltration Method ...... Starting Date ............ Ending Date .............. Antecedent Dry Days ...... Report Time Step ......... Wet Time Step ............ Dry Time Step ............ * *** * ** * ****** *** *** *** ** * Runoff Quantity Continuity ************************** Total Precipitation ...... Evaporation Loss ......... Infiltration Loss ........ Surface Runoff ........... Final Storage ............ Continuity Error (%) ..... ** *** *** * * * ****** *** ** *** * Flow Routing Continuity ************************** Dry Weather Inflow ....... Wet Weather Inflow ....... Groundwater Inflow ....... RDII Inflow .............. External Inflow .......... External Outflow ......... Flooding Loss ............ CFS YES NO NO NO NO NO GREEN AM PT 08/28/1951 05:00:00 05/23/2008 23:00:00 0.0 01:00:00 00:15:00 04:00:00 Volume Depth acre-feet inches 56.257 675.090 0.169 2.031 54.311 651.729 2.003 24.037 0.000 0.000 -0.401 Volume Volume acre-feet 106 gal 0.000 0.000 2.003 0.653 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.003 0.653 0.000 0.000 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWM M\Output\3661_PreProject_SWM M_resu Its. docx SWMM OUTPUT REPORT Evaporation Loss ......... Exfiltration Loss ........ Initial Stored Volume .... Final Stored Volume ...... Continuity Error (%) ..... PRE-PROJECT CONDITION 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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-i 675.09 0.00 2.03 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 651.73 0.00 24.04 24.04 0.65 1.00 0.036 Analysis begun on: Tue Jul 20 13:23:59 2021 Analysis ended on: Tue Jul 20 13:24:34 2021 Total elapsed time: 00:00:35 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWM M\Output\3661_PreProject_SWM M_results.docx SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) -------------------------------------------------------------- 3661 Drakos Post-Project 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 * *** * ** * *** ** ** * ** * ** * * ** * Initial LID Storage ...... Total Precipitation ...... Evaporation Loss ......... Infiltration Loss ........ SuLfae Runoff ........... LID Drainage ............. Final Storage ............ Continuity Error (%) * ** * * *** ******* ** ** * * * ** ** Flow Routing Continuity **** ** * ****** *** ** ** ** * ** * Dry Weather Inflow ....... Wet Weather Inflow ....... CFS YES NO NO NO YES NO NO GREEN AM PT KIN WAVE 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 0.002 0.016 74.849 675.090 6.597 59.497 33.614 303.179 20.409 256.947 7.055 63.630 0.005 0.041 -1.213 Volume Volume acre-feet 106 gal 0.000 0.000 35.543 11.582 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWMM\Output\3661 PostProject SWM M_results.docx SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION Groundwater Inflow 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow ..............0.000 0.000 External Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Outflow 35.527 11.577 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 0.008 0.003 Continuity Error (%) 0.021 **** *** ***** * ** * ** * * *** *** *** * * * 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 *************************** 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-i 675.09 0.00 53.81 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 299.12 311.63 18.83 330.46 2.43 0.31 0.489 DM 675.09 0.00 86.68 . 76.18 518.86 5.18 524.04 0.27 0.02 0.776 BMP-1 675.09 7800.73 838.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 7636.26 2.38 0.32 0.901 DMA-2 675.09 0.00 51.80 311.82 299.96 19.67 319.63 8.93 1.16 0.473 *********************** LID Performance Summary ***** ** ** ** *** * * * * * * *** Total Evap -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infil Surface Drain Initial Final Continuity Inflow Loss Loss Outflow Outflow Storage Storage Error Subcatchment LID Control in in in in in in in BMP-1 BMP-1 8475.82 838.93 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.00 261.79 7374.73 1.80 2.32 -0.00 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWM M\Output\3661 PostProject SWM M_resu Its.docx SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION * ** * ** * * *** * ***** * Node Depth Summary ** *** * * *** * * * ** * * * Average --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feet Feet days hr:min Feet POC-1 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 Tank STORAGE 0.35 3.70 3.70 18857 11:22 3.70 BMP-2 STORAGE 0.13 3.42 3.42 18857 11:54 3.42 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ** ** * **** * *** * * * ** * Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CFS days hr:min 10"6 gal 10"6 gal Percent POC-1 OUTFALL 0.34 1.52 18857 11:54 2.65 11.6 0.000 Tank STORAGE 1.16 1.16 18857 11:31 8.93 8.93 0.018 BMP-2 STORAGE 0.00 1.17 18857 11:22 0 8.93 0.009 ** **** * ** * ** ** * * * ** * Node Flooding Summary *** *** * *** * ** ** * * *** * No nodes were flooded. **** *** ** *** * * * * * Storage Volume Summary **** **** * *** ***** * * ** * Average Avg Evap -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS Tank 0.316 9 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 3.328 92 18857 11:21 1.17 BMP-2 0.082 3 0 0 2.577 85 18857 11:53 1.18 ******** ** * ** ** * * * ** ** * Outfall Loading Summary ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWM M\Output\3661 PostProject SWMM_results.docx SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 106 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 7.42 0.01 1.52 11.576 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 7.42 0.01 1.52 11.576 * ** ** *** *** ** ** * * * ** Link Flow Summary * **** ** * ** * ** ** * * * ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ IFlowl Occurrence IVeloci Full Full Link Type CFS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth Outlet-Tank DUMMY 1.17 18857 11:22 Outlet-BMP-2 DUMMY 1.18 18857 11:54 ***** ** *** * ** **** * ** * *** * Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Tue Jul 20 13:31:38 2021 Analysis ended on: Tue Jul 20 13:32:31 2021 Total elapsed time: 00:00:53 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWQM P\SWM M\Output\3661 PostProject SWM M_results.docx I 1 Poc-' Peak Flow Frequency Summary Return Period Pre-project Qpeak (cfs) Post-project - Mitigated Q (cfs) LF = 0.1xQ2 0.034 0.004 2-year 0.339 0.037 Permavoid Layer 0.509 0.290 10-year 0.646 0.535 I I I [1 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3661 DRAKOS\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP\SWMM\3661 SWM M_PostProcessing_AIt5.xlsx I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Return Period in Years LA 0.400 0.300 0.100 0.000 0 0.500 0.200 POC-' Peak Flow Frequency Curves 0.700 — low mm — — — — — — — — — — — — —m Low-flow Threshold:Ij 10% 0.1xQ2 (Pre): 0.034 cfs Q10 (Pre): 0.646 cfs Ordinate #: 100 Incremental Q (Pre): 0.00612 cfs Total Hourly Data:II 497370 Ihours I POc-1 I The proposed BMP:I PASSED I Permavoid Layer Pre-project Flow (cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project % Time Exceeding Post-project % Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail 0 0.034 138 2.77E-04 148 2.98E-04 107% Pass 1 0.040 129 2.59E-04 98 1.97E-04 76% Pass 2 0.046 127 2.55E-04 89 1.79E-04 70% Pass 3 0.052 126 2.53E-04 86 1.73E-04 68% Pass 4 0.058 126 2.53E-04 75 1.51E-04 60% Pass 5 0.065 123 2.47E-04 65 1.31E-04 53% Pass 6 0.071 120 2.41E-04 47 9.45E-05 39% Pass 7 0.077 119 2.39E-04 44 8.85E-05 37% Pass 8 0.083 117 2.35E-04 42 8.44E-05 36% Pass 9 0.089 117 2.35E-04 40 8.04E-05 34% Pass 10 0.095 116 2.33E-04 39 7.84E-05 34% Pass 11 0.101 102 2.05E-04 37 7.44E-05 36% Pass 12 0.107 102 2.05E-04 36 7.24E-05 35% Pass 13 0.114 99 1.99E-04 34 6.84E-05 34% Pass 14 0.120 97 1.95E-04 33 6.63E-05 34% Pass 15 0.126 97 1.95E-04 29 5.83E-05 30% Pass 16 0.132 95 1.91E-04 29 5.83E-05 31% Pass 17 0.138 93 1.87E-04 28 5.63E-05 30% Pass 18 0.144 91 1.83E-04 27 5.43E-05 30% Pass 19 0.150 88 1.77E-04 25 5.03E-05 28% Pass 20 0.156 86 1.73E-04 22 4.42E-05 26% Pass 21 0.162 86 1.73E-04 22 4.42E-05 26% Pass 22 0.169 85 1.71E-04 20 4.02E-05 24% Pass 23 0.175 82 1.65E-04 19 3.82E-05 23% Pass 24 0.181 81 1.63E-04 18 3.62E-05 22% Pass 25 0.187 71 1.43E-04 16 3.22E-05 23% Pass 26 0.193 64 1.29E-04 16 3.22E-05 25% Pass 27 0.199 57 1.15E-04 16 3.22E-05 28% Pass 28 0.205 57 1.15E-04 16 3.22E-05 28% Pass 29 0.211 57 1.15E-04 16 3.22E-05 28% Pass 30 0.218 57 1.15E-04 16 3.22E-05 28% Pass 31 0.224 53 1.07E-04 15 3.02E-05 28% Pass 32 0.230 52 1.05E-04 14 2.81E-05 27% Pass 33 0.236 51 1.03E-04 14 2.81E-05 27% Pass 34 0.242 51 1.03E-04 14 2.81E-05 27% Pass 35 0.248 51 1.03E-04 14 2.81E-05 27% Pass 36 0.254 50 1.01E-04 14 2.81E-05 28% Pass 37 0.260 49 9.85E-05 14 2.81E-05 29% Pass 38 0.267 48 9.65E-05 14 2.81E-05 29% Pass 39 0.273 48 9.65E-05 14 2.81E-05 29% Pass 40 0.279 46 9.25E-05 13 2.61E-05 28% Pass 41 0.285 44 8.85E-05 13 2.61E-05 30% Pass 42 0.291 43 8.65E-05 12 2.41E-05 28% Pass 43 0.297 38 7.64E-05 11 2.21E-05 29% Pass 44 0.303 36 7.24E-05 11 2.21E-05 31% Pass 45 0.309 35 7.04E-05 11 2.21E-05 31% Pass 46 0.316 35 7.04E-05 11 2.21E-05 31% Pass 47 0.322 34 6.84E-05 10 2.01E-05 29% Pass 48 0.328 34 6.84E-05 10 2.01E-05 29% Pass 49 0.334 33 6.63E-05 9 1.81E-05 27% Pass 50 0.340 32 6.43E-05 9 1.81E-05 28% Pass 51 0.346 32 6.43E-05 9 1.81E-05 28% Pass 52 0.352 32 6.43E-05 9 1.81E-05 28% Pass 53 . 0.358 32 6.43E-05 9 1.81E-05 28% Pass 54 0.365 1 31 6.23E-05 1 9 1.81E-05 29% Pass I I Ei I I I I Peirmavoid Layer Pre-project Flow (cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project % Time Exceeding Post-project % Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail 55 0.371 31 6.23E-05 9 1.81E-05 29% Pass 56 0.377 31 6.23E-05 9 1.81E-05 29% Pass 57 0.383 29 5.83E-05 9 1.81E-05 31% Pass 58 0.389 27 5.43E-05 9 1.81E-05 33% Pass 59 0.395 26 5.23E-05 9 1.81E-05 35% Pass 60 0.401 22 4.42E-05 9 1.81E-05 41% Pass 61 0.407 22 4.42E-05 9 1.81E-05 41% Pass 62 0.414 21 4.22E-05 9 1.81E-05 43% Pass 63 0.420 21 4.22E-05 9 1.81E-05 43% Pass 64 0.426 20 4.02E-05 9 1.81E-05 45% Pass 65 0.432 19 3.82E-05 8 1.61E-05 42% Pass 66 0.438 19 3.82E-05 8 1.61E-05 42% Pass 67 0.444 19 3.82E-05 8 1.61E-05 42% Pass 68 0.450 18 3.62E-05 8 1.61E-05 44% Pass 69 0.456 18 3.62E-05 7 1.41E-05 39% Pass 70 0.463 18 3.62E-05 7 1.41E-05 39% Pass 71 0.469 18 3.62E-05 7 1.41E-05 39% Pass 72 0.475 18 3.62E-05 7 1.41E-05 39% Pass 73 0.481 17 3.42E-05 7 1.41E-05 41% Pass 74 0.487 16 3.22E-05 7 1.41E-05 44% Pass 75 0.493 16 3.22E-05 7 1.41E-05 44% Pass 76 0.499 13 2.61E-05 7 1.41E-05 54% Pass 77 0.505 12 2.41E-05 7 1.41E-05 58% Pass 78 0.512 12 2.41E-05 7 1.41E-05 58% Pass 79 0.518 12 2.41E-05 7 1.41E-05 58% Pass 80 0.524 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 81 0.530 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 82 0.536 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 83 0.542 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 84 0.548 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 85 0.554 8 1.61E-05 6 1.21E-05 75% Pass 86 0.561 8 1.61E-05 6 1.21E-05 75% Pass 87 0.567 8 1.61E-05 6 1.21E-05 75% Pass 88 0.573 7 1.41E-05 5 1.01E-05 71% Pass 89 0.579 7 1.41E-05 5 1.01E-05 71% Pass 90 0.585 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 91 0.591 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 92 0.597 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 93 0.603 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 94 0.610 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 95 0.616 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 96 0.622 5 1.01E-05 5 1.01E-05 100% Pass 97 0.628 5 1.01E-05 5 1.01E-05 100% Pass 98 0.634 5 1.01E-05 5 1.01E-05 100% Pass 99 0.640 5 1.01E-05 5 1.01E-05 100% Pass 100 0.646 5 1.01E-05 5 1.01E-05 100% Pass I U I I I I I I 1 I Pre-projectQ -a-- Post-project (Mitigated) Q [IJ9IS] 0.500 0.100 0.300 0.200 0.100 poc-1 Flow Duration Curve [Pre vs. Post (Mitigated)] 0.000 LOE-06 1,OF-05 1.0E-04 1.0C 03 1.OE 02 % Time Exceeding me" — — mm — — — mm — — — — —1111101 — poc-1 SWMM Model Flow Coefficient Calculation and Effective Ponding Depth Calculation BMP-1 Bio-Retention Cell PARAMETER ABBREV. LID BMP Ponding Depth Bioretention Soil Layer Gravel Layer PD S G 12 18 12 in in in 3.5 ft TOTAL 42 in Orifice Coefficient cg 0.6 -- Low Flow Orifice Diameter D - 0.5 in Drain exponent n 0.5 -- Flow Rate (volumetric) 0 0.012 cfs Ponding Depth Surface Area APD 500 ft' As,AG 500 ft2 Bioretention Surface Area - As, AG 0.0115 ac Porosity of Bioretention Soil n 1.00 - Flow Rate (per unit area) q 1.058 in/hr Effective Ponding Depth PDeff 12.00 in Flow Coefficient C 0.1638 -- Drawdown Calculation for BMP-1 Project Name Drakos Project No 3661 Surface Drawdown Time: 11.3 hr Surface Area 500 sq ft Underdrain Orifice Diameter: In 0.5 in C: 0.6 Surface Ponding (to invert of lowest surface discharge opening in outlet structure): 1 ft Amended Soil Depth: 1.5 ft Gravel Depth: 1 ft Orifice Q = 0.012 cfs Effective Depth 20.4 in Infiltration controlled by orifice 1.058 in/hr I I I I I I I Drawdown Calculation for BMP-2 Project Name Drakos Project No 3661 Surface Drawdown Time:: 15.8 hr Surface Area 1600 sqft Underdrain Orifice Diameter: In 0.7 in C: 0.6 Surface Ponding (to invert of lowest surface discharge opening in outlet structure): 0.83 ft Amended Soil Depth: 1.5 ft Gravel Depth: 1 ft Orifice Q = 0.023 cfs Effective Depth 18.36 in Infiltration controlled by orifice 0.631 in/hr I I FJ I I P-i I I I I Vault Drawdown Calculation Project Name Drakos Project No 3661 Date 7/21/2021 Vault Drawdown 102.4 hrs I Note: Drawdown time is calculated assuming an initial water surface depth equal to the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening in the vault outlet struc Underdrain Orifice Diameter: 0.6 in C: 0.6 Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qorifice (cfs) AT (hr) Total Time (hr) 3.5 3150.00 0.017 0.000 0.0 3 2700.00 0.016 7.440 7.44 2 1800.00 0.013 17.112 24.55 1 900.00 0.009 22.595 47.15 0 0.00 0.000 55.266 102.41 I 3661 Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 7/21/2021 HydroCAD® 10.10-6a sIn 10097 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Pond 13P: Tank Alt 5 1 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 100.70' 3,600 cf Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Voids lnc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sg-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sg-ft) 100.70 900 0.0 0 0 900 101.70 900 100.0 900 900 1,006 102.70 900 100.0 900 1,800 1,113 103.70 900 100.0 900 2,700 1,219 104.20 104.70 900 100.0 450 3,150 900 100.0 450 3,600 1,272 1,325 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 100.70' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 27.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet! Outlet Invert= 100.70'/ 100.00' S=0.0259 '/' Cc= 0.900 n=0.013, Flow Area= 0.35sf #2 Device 1 100.70' 0.6" Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Primary 104.20' Custom Weir, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 0.50 Width (feet) 4.00 4.00 0.00 1 I I I I I 3661 Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 7/21/2021 HydroCAD® 10.10-6a sIn 10097 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Stage-Discharge for Pond 13P: Tank Alt 5 Elevation Primary (feet) (cis) 100.70 0.00 100.80 0.00 100.90 000 101.00 0.00 101.10 0.01 101.20 0.01 101.30 0.01 101.40 0.01 101.50 0.01 101.60 0.01 101.70 0.01 101.80 0.01 101.90 0.01 102.00 0.01 102.10 0.01 102.20 0.01 102.30 0.01 102.40 0.01 102.50 0.01 102.60 0.01 102.70 0.01 102.80 0.01 102.90 0.01 103.00 0.01 103.10 0.01 103.20 0.01 103.30 0.02 103.40 0.02 103.50 0.02 103.60 0.02 103.70 0.02 103.80 0.02 103.90 002 104.00 0.02 104.10 0.02 104.20 0.02 104.30 0.43 104.40 1.19 104.50 2.17 104.60 3.33 104.70 4.65 Li I Li I I I I I I .1 I I 3661 Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 7/21/2021 HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 10097 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond 19P: BMP-2 Alt 5 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description I #1 97.50' 3,040 cf Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Voids lnc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sg-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sg-ft) 97.50 1,600 0.0 0 0 1,600 98.50 1,600 40.0 640 640 1,742 100.00 1,600 20.0 480 1,120 1,954 101.20 1,600 100.0 1,920 3,040 2,125 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices I #1 Primary 97.50' 8.0" Round Culvert L= 5.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 97.50'/ 97.20' S= 0.06007' Cc= 0.900 n=0.013, Flow Area= 0.35sf #2 Device 1 97.50' 0.7' Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 100.83' 36.0" x 36.0" Horiz. Grate C= 0.600 in 36.0" x 36.0" Grate (100% open area) Limited to weir flow at low heads U [1 I I I I I I 3661 Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Printed 7/21/2021 1 HydroCAD® 10.10-6a sIn 10097 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Stage-Discharge for Pond 19P: BMP-2 Alt 5 1 Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 97.30 0.00 97.601 0.00 97.70 0.01 97.20 0.01 97.90 0.01 98.00 0.01 98.10 0.01 98.20 0.01 98.30 0.01 98.40 0.01 98.50 0.01 98.60 0.01 98.70 0.01 98.80 0.01 98.90 0.02 99.00 0.02 99.10 0.02 99.20 0.02 99.30 0.02 99.40 0.02 99.50 0.02 99.60 0.02 99.70 0.02 99.80 0.02 99.90 0.02 100.00 100.10 0.02 0.02 100.20 0.02 100.30 100.40 0.02 0.02 100.50 0.02 100.60 100.70 0.02 0.02 100.80 0.02 100.90 0.75 101.00 2.77 101.10 3.80 101.20 3.85 I I TORY R.WALKER ENGINEERING RELIABLE SOLUTIONS IN WATER RESOURCES I I 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 Coperrrittees 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 'Content 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 6 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RIVER RESTORATION FLOOD FACILITIES DESIGN SEDIMENT 6 EROSION 122 Civic CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 206, VISTA CA 92084 . 760-414-9212 . TRWENGINEERING.COM U I LI I I 1 I I I I I I I I Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California 4370 1380 4J 4400 4410 4420 44O 46WO 468450 4460 4470 468480 468460 4688)) 468510 468520 4685)) 468540 33° 10'3' N r 33° 103 N IT 41 46B , 370 46MBO 468390 468400 468410 468420 468439 468440 468450 468468 468470 468468 468490 468500 468510 46853) 468533 468540 C C Map 1:818ifprintIonAIandspe(11"x8.5°)ieet -o bers A Feet : 210 Map jn: Web Mr Comercoordinates: W84 Edge ti: UTM Zone uN WGS84 USD Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/8/2021 _ IU im jj rvatrvic NW Cooe Soje1 - - - 1 ___ Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOl) Aped ul liiteiest (Aol) Soils Soil Rating Polygons ND JD BID CID Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A ...... AID , B — BID C , CID D , Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points • A • ND • B • BID C The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1.24,000. CID D Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. o Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Water Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Transportation Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Interstate Highways measurements. - . US Routes Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Background projection which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area such as the Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 15, May 27, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 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 Uuiit (JUUIIdduiS lildY IJU tWidt-1iL. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/8/2021 _ U1 rvat"irviceim _ Njjnj Cooie Sojey qe 2 ___ Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOl Percent of AOl MIC Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes B 0.7 60.4% MIE Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes B 0.5 39.6% Totals for Area of Interest 1.2 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (AID, BID, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervicus material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, 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. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/8/2021 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Appendix G: Guidance far Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing Factors I -'-' .... ... 4 SAN BERNARDINO . ... LOS ANGELES It RIVERSIDE 17 18 1 SANT RIVERSIDE 2 . ORANGE 16 . -- SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL 18 16 tTR0 , SAN DIEGO ........ 117J Figure G.1-2: California Irrigation Management Information System "Reference Evapotranspiration Zones" G-5 February 2016 Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing Factors Table G.1-1: Monthly Average Reference Evapotranspiration by ETo Zone (inches/month and inches/day) for use in SWMM Models for Hydromodification Management Studies in San Diego County CIMIS Zones 1, 4, 6, 9, and 16 (See CIMIS ETo Zone Map) in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month Zone in/month in/month in/month in/month in/month t-in/montdh 1 0.93 1.4 2.48 3.3 4.03 4.5 '1.65 '1.03 3.3 2.48 1.2 0.62 4 1.86 2.24 3.41 4.5 5.27 5.7 5.89 5.58 4.5 3.41 2.4 1.86 6 1.86 2.24 3.41 4.8 5.58 6.3 6.51 6.2 4.8 3.72 2.4 1.86 9 2.17 2.8 4.03 5.1 5.89 6.6 7.44 6.82 5.7 4.03 2.7 1.86 16 1.55 2.52 4.03 5.7 7.75 8.7 9.3 8.37 6.3 4.34 2.4 1.55 28 Days 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 Zone in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day in/day 1 0.030 0.050 0.080 0.110 0.130 0.150 0.150 0.130 0.110 0.080 0.040 0.020 4 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.150 0.170 0.190 0.190 0.180 0.150 0.110 0.080 0.060 6 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.160 0.180 0.210 0.210 0.200 0.160 0.120 0.080 0.060 9 0.070 0.100 0.130 0.170 0.190 0.220 0.240 0.220 0.190 0.130 0.090 0.060 16 0.050 0.090 0.130 0.190 0.250 0.290 0.300 0.270 0.210 0.140 0.080 1 0.050 G-6 February 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 I ATTACHMENT 3 I Structural BMP Maintenance Information Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Preliminary Design/Planning/CEQA level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: I ] Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual I Final IDesign level submittal: I Attachment 3 must identify: Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This I shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable I Maintenance thresholds for BMPs subject to siltation or heavy trash(e.g., silt level posts or other markings shall be included in all BMP components that will trap and store sediment, trash, and/or debris, so that the inspector may determine how full the BMP is, and the maintenance personnel may determine where the bottom of the BMP. is. If required, posts or other markings shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.) Recommended equipment to perform maintenance When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management I I HIGHLAND 24 1 I STORM WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENTPLAN A UGUST 2021 I OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE FOR STRUCTURAL BMPs I The operations and maintenance of the treatment control BMPs will be the responsibility of the owner. The current contact information for the responsible party is: I Cross Real Estate Investors P.O. Box 231077 I Encinitas, CA 92023 (858)525-2195 1 A training program will be administered and implemented by Cross Real Estate Investment and shall occur at a minimum of once annually. The training program shall consist of, at a minimum: the disbursement of the brochures and flyers included in this SWQMP and a copy of the maintenance plan to all operation and maintenance staff associated with the project. A training log shall be filled out at each training session and kept for a minimum of five (5) years. I Cross Real Estate Investment will complete and maintain operation and maintenance forms to adequately document all maintenance performed on the project's treatment control BMPs. These records should be kept on file for a minimum of five (5) years and shall be made accessible to the City of Carlsbad, the State Water Resources Control Board or any other authority regulating storm water discharges for inspection upon request at any time. All waste generated from the project site is ultimately the responsibility of Cross Real Estate Investment. Disposal of sediment, debris, and trash will comply with applicable local, county, state, and federal waste control programs. Suspected hazardous waste will be analyzed to determine proper disposal methods. The following Operation and Maintenance Plan has been developed for each type of pollutant I control i3MP used on this project. These are minimum requirements only. The frequency and/or scope may be increased, if necessary, to meet and/or maintain the level of storm water quality treatment required of this project. All costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the pollutant control BMPs will be funded by Cross Real Estate Investment in perpetuity or until the project is sold to another entity where the responsibility would transfer with the sale of the property or an individual parcel. The project's owner, Cross Real Estate Investment, will enter into a Stormwater Facility I Maintenance Agreement as required by the City of Carlsbad, which will be executed prior to grading permit issuance. I HIGHLAND 25 1 I STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENTPLAN AUGUST2021 I Biofiltration System Inspection Activities Recommended Frequency Inspect biofiltration system - Before/after rainy season - Bi-weekly during the rainy season - After a rainfall event of 0.5" or more Inspect soil and repair eroded areas Monthly Inspect for erosion or damage to vegetation, preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule dry season maintenance and before major wet season Prior to rainy season runoff to be sure the areas are ready for the wet season. However, additional & every other month inspection after periods of heavy runoff is recommended. Inspect to ensure grasses, ground covers, vegetation is well established. If not, either prepare soil and reseed or replant with appropriate alternative species. Every other month Install erosion control blankets if necessary. Check for debris and litter, areas of sediment accumulation Every other month Inspect health of trees and shrubs and vegetation Every other month Inspect system cleanouts and outfall structures Every other month Inspect for standing water and vectors Every other month Biofiltration System Maintenance Activities Recommended Frequency Remove litter and debris in conjunction with regularly scheduled landscape maintenance As part of routine, regular landscape maintenance Irrigate biofiltration area(s) during dry season (April through October) and as necessary to maintain vegetation during the rainy season. Physically remove weeds Remove sediment Apply mulch to areas devoid of mulch, especially prior to the wet season Replace damaged or diseased trees and shrubs Mow turf areas, if any Repair erosion at inflow points Unclog under drain system Remove and replace dead and diseased vegetation Replace tree stakes and wires, if any Mulch should be replaced every 2 to 3 years or when bare spots appear Every 2-3 years, or as needed Rototill or cultivate the surface if the system does not draw down in 48 hours As needed HIGHLAND 26 1 TREATMENT CONTROL BMP VERIFICATION FORM Pursuant to CMC 15 12 100 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner Name Owner Address City and Zip Contact Name Contact Phone New Contact New Phone BMP INFORMATION BMP Type I BMP ID# I I Priority I BMP Description Manufacturer BMP Location BMP Address BMP Approval Date I Last Inspection Date Maintenance Frequency I Comments BMP VERIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE BMP ACTIVITY - - - COMMENTS Has the BMP been installed? Has the BMP been removed? Is the BMP operating properly? Has the BMP been replaced? If so when? Is BMP covered under a maintenance agreement? _a Is the BMP on regular maintenance schedule? Has trash or other debris accumulated in or around BMP? Has the BMP been inspected during the last year? Has the BMP been maintained or cleaned during the last year? Are discharge points free of litter and debris? Has it rained since the last time the BMP was maintained? 1 Leaking Vehicles 11 Trash and Debris Li Erosion/Sediments What are the sources of pollution that could impact the BMP? LI Over Irrigation LI Improvement Projects (paint, concrete wash, landscaping, etc.) U Pet/Animal Waste Li Lawn clippings and yard waste LI Other Certification Statement "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system to assure that the responsible party gathered and evaluated the information submitted. BaseI that my inquiry of the person or person who managed the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate and complete, I am awa there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fines and other enforcement act PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE DATE Please return the completed and signed form to the City of Carlsbad CMI - Storm Water Compliance 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-2780 or FAX 760-438-7178 I I STORM VIA TER QUALITY MANA GEMENT PLAN I AUGUST2021 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HIGHLAND 27 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUGUST2021 ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit HIGHLAND 28