Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 16-04; HIGHLAND VIEW HOMES; STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2017-10-01
CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR HIGHLAND VIEW HOMES CT 16-04ICDP 16-21/HDP 16-01/PUD 16-03 DWG 504-3A GR 2017-0031 ENGINEER OF WORK: Brian Ardolino, Project Engineer Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 858.259.8212 Brian Ardolino, RCE 71651 PREPARED FOR: CARLSBAD COASTAL VIEWS, LLC 3840 DON LORENZO CARLSBAD, CA 92010 DATE: October 2017 I RECEIVED NOV 16 2017 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGiNEERING PREPARED BY: Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 858.259.8212 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Certification Page Project Vicinity Map FORM E-34 Storm Water Standard Questionnaire Site Information FORM E-36 Standard Project Requirement Checklist Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment la: DMA Exhibit Attachment 1 b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment lc: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment ld: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment le: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets I Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit 1 I I I I Ii 1 Ii CERTIFICATION PAGE I Project Name: HIGHLAND VIEW HOMES Project ID: CT 16-04ICDP 16-2IIHPD 16-01/PUD 16-03 I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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 I Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. I \J f 2-' ThI Engineerbf-kgI's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date Brian Ardolino 1 Print Name III Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Company (L No 7i61 UJio (\ Dat Exp.1?.!fl I PROJECT VICINITY MAP VIIN1TY MAP (T. S. 1147-37) NTS n I I Clity 0f Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov I I I INSTRUCTIONS: I o aaaress post-aevelopment pollutants mat may oe generatea worn aeveiopment projects, tne city requires new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5). This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to 'STANDARD PROJECT' requirements or be subject to 'PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development I I I application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the city. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: HIGLAND VIEW HOMES PROJECT ID: CT 16-04ICDP 16-2IIHDP 16-01/PUD 16-03 ADDRESS: 3794 HIGHLAND DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 APN: 205-220-94 The project is (check one): LiNew Development J Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is:88,379 ft2 (_2.029 ) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 38,381 ft2 (_0.881 ) acres If your project is covered by an approved SWQMP as part of a larger development project, provide the project ID and the SWQMP # of the larger development project: Project ID SWQMP#: Then, go to Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your application to the city. E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16 STEP I TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROJECTS To determine if your project is a "development project", please answer the following question: YES NO Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing building E or structure that do not alter the size (See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance)? If you answered yes" to the above question, provide justification below then go to Step 5, mark the third box stating "my project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant information. Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): If you answered "no" to the above question, the project is a 'development project', go to Step 2. STEP 2 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following: YES NO 1. Constructing newor retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non- erodible permeable areas; El 4 Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets orroads; Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets guidance? 2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance? 3. Ground Mounted Solar Array that meets the criteria provided in section 1.4.2 of the BMP manual? D If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, provide discussion/justification below, then go to Step 5, mark the second box stating "my project is EXEMPT from PDP .....and complete applicant information. Discussion to justify exemption (e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Street guidance): If you answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, go to Step 3. E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 04/17 To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1)): YES NO Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and 0 public development projects on public or private land. Is your project a redevelopment project creating and/or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a restaurant? A restaurant is a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and 0 refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside 0 development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot? A parking lot is a El land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for business or for commerce. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious street, road, highway, freeway or driveway surface collectively over the entire project site? A El street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 0 I feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).* Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious area that supports a retail gasoline outlet (RGO)? This category includes 's RGO that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily Traffic (AD T) of 100 or more vehicles per day. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land 4 El and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? Is your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMC 0 21.203.040) If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment project, go to step 4. If your project is a new project, go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ..." and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT.' Go to step 5, check the second box stating "My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT ...... and complete applicant information. I E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV 04/17 STEP 4 TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (PDP) ONLY Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): YES NO Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A) =2,362 sq. ft. El Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = 38,381 sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (BIA)*100 = 1625% If you answered "yes", the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP .....and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BMP's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating "My projectisaPDP _____and complete applicant information. STEP 5 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. J My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply. El My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Applicant Name:-Tara Goldberg Applicant Title: Project Engineer Applicant Signature: _1/_ Date: (/fto In nvironmeniaiiy sensitive ireas incivae OUT are not limitea to an iean water Act section 3U3(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat Management Plan; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the City. Thk Rr)y fnr (ifv (I. Onli, City Concurrence: YES NO By: Date: Project ID: E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV 04/17 SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Summary Information Project Name HIGHLAND VIEW HOMES Project ID CT 16041CDP 1621/HPD 1601/PUD 16-03 Project Address 3794 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel N umber(s) (APN (s)) 205-220-94 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904.31 Parcel Area 2.029 Acres ( 88,379 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) 0.054 Acres ( 2,362 Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) 2.029 Acres (_88,379Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) 0.881 Acres ( 38,381 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset of Project Area) 1.148 Acres (_49,998Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. E-34 Page 5 of 4 REV 04/17 Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): Existing development ] Previously graded but not built out ] Agricultural or other non-impervious use ] Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description / Additional Information: Existing residence to be demolished Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): ' Vegetative Cover I Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas ' Impervious Areas Description /Additional Information: Existing residence, driveway, hardscape and landscaping Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): i NRCS Type A NRCS Type B i NRCS Type C 'I NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GVV): ] GW Depth < 5 feet ]5 feet <GW Depth <lofeet 10 feet < GW Depth <20 feet ] GW Depth > 20 feet Per Geotechnical Report, groundwater was not encountered to at least 15.5 ft. Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): ] Watercourses ] Seeps ] Springs ] Wetlands None Description /Additional Information: I E-34 Page 6 of 4 REV 04/17 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, there is a ridgeline near the westerly parcel boundary. A small portion of the project site drains westerly from the ridgeline to Highland Drive where it gets collected in the existing storm drain which flows northerly, westerly, then southerly, ultimately discharging to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The majority of storm water runoff from the project site drains easterly from the ridgeline overland toward the back of the parcel. Offsite drainage from the adjacent lots (APNs 205-220-95 and 205-220-87) flows from the ridgeline easterly onto and through the project site. All runoff flows overland to the back of the parcel where it turns and flows southerly and discharges at the southeast corner of the project site. Flow continues southerly to Tamarack Avenue where it gets collected in the existing storm drain which ultimately discharges to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. I E-34 Page 7 of 4 REV 04/17 Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage PatterAs Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The project proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct 8 single-family detached residential units, associated utilities, landscape and hardscape improvements, a permeable paver private access drive, and a storm water infiltration basin to meet pollutant control and hydromodification flow control 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 driveways, sidewalks, buildings and associated hardscape. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): Proposed pervious features include a pervious paver private street, landscape areas and an infiltration basin. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? I Yes I No Description /Additional Information: Site to be fully regraded to accommodate 8 new residences, driveways, BMP basin, hardscape and utilities. Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? Yes ] No Description /Additional Information: The proposed drainage design conveys onsite runoff in proposed storm drain easterly to the proposed Infiltration Basin BMP located in the southeast corner of the project site for storm water pollutant control treatment, hydromodification flow control and mitigation of the 100-year 6-hour storm event peak discharge rate. The offsite drainage will bypass the infiltration basin and be routed around the project site to the southeast discharge point. Storm water runoff not infiltrated will discharge at the southeast corner of the project site as it does in the existing condition. In the proposed condition, the small portion of the parcel that drained westerly to Highland Drive in the existing condition will be conveyed easterly to the infiltration basin for pollutant control and hydromodification management. The infiltration basin is designed to also provide mitigation of the 100-year 6-hour storm event so that the proposed peak discharge rate is detained to the existing condition peak flow rate. E-34 Page 8 of 4 REV 04/17 Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): I On-site storm drain inlets ] Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps ] Interior parking garages I Need for future indoor & structural pest control Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use ] Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features ] Food service I Refuse areas J Industrial processes J Outdoor storage of equipment or materials ] Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning ] Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance ] Fuel Dispensing Areas ] Loading Docks I Fire Sprinkler Test Water I Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water I Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots I E-34 Page 9 of 4 REV 04/17 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): Storm water runoff discharges at the southeast corner of the project site and flows southerly to Tamarack Avenue where it gets collected in the existing storm drain system which ultimately discharges to Agua Hedionda 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)/Stressor(s) TMDLs None 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): Pollutant Not Applicable to the Project Site Anticipated from the Project Site Also a Receiving Water Pollutant of Concern Sediment X Nutrients X X Heavy Metals X Organic Compounds Trash _&_Debris X Oxygen Demanding Substances X Oil _&_Grease X Bacteria _&_Viruses X Pesticides x I E-34 Page 10 of REV 04/17 Hydromodification Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? I Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. ] No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. ] No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. ] No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides. Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas* *ThIs Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? ] Yes ' No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed? ] 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite ] 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment i 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite ] No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? i No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite ] Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP. ] Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion /Additional Information: E-34 Page 11 of REV 04/17 Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff* *This Section only required if hydromodufucatuon 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 is one (1) POC for the project, POC-1, located at the southeastern corner of the project site. Refer to the exhibit located in Attachment 2a for the POC location. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? I No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) j Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2 j Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 ] Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Discussion / Additional Information: (optional) I E-34 Page 12 of REV 04/17 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. 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. E-34 Page 13 of REV 04/17 STANDARD PROJECT Development Services C"City of REQUIREMENT Land Development Engineering Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CHECKLIST 1635 F(760) 602-2750 E36 www.carlsbadca.gov - Project Information Project Name: HIGHLAND VIEW HOMES Project ID: CT 16-04/CDP 16-21/HPD 16-01/PUD 16-03 DWG No. or Building Permit No.: 504-3A Source Control BMPs All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix EA of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix EA of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. "N/A' means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 jl Yes FEI No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage lJ Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind 0 Yes 0 No III N/A Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 09/16 Source Control Requirement (continUed) - Applied?. SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal 0 Yes 0 No l!J N/A Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal El Yes 0 No ll N/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Appendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). C] On-site storm drain inlets ll Yes El No 0 N/A Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps 0 Yes 0 No II N/A El Interior parking garages 0 Yes 0 No l!1 N/A Need for future indoor & structural pest control IJ Yes 0 No 0 N/A El Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use ll Yes 0 No 0 N/A El Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features 0 Yes 0 No l N/A Food service El Yes El No (l N/A El Refuse areas ll Yes El No 0 N/A El Industrial processes 0 Yes 0 No ll N/A El Outdoor storage of equipment or materials 0 Yes 0 No ll N/A El Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning El Yes 0 No ll N/A El Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance 0 Yes 0 No 9 N/A El Fuel Dispensing Areas 0 Yes 0 No l!J N/A E] Loading Docks 0 Yes El No Ill N/A E] Fire Sprinkler Test Water ll Yes 0 No El N/A El Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water 101 Yes El No 0 N/A E) Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots 101 Yes El No El N/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E. 1. Provide justification for "No" answers. Storm water pollution prevention information to be provided to new site owners, lessees, or operators. Per architect, structures to utilize design features that discourage entry of pests. Preserve existing drought tolerant plans to the maximum extent possible. See landscape plans for proposed plant types. Trash cans to be stored in garages. Fire sprinkler test water to drain to sewer system. Condensation lines, roof gutters, etc to drain to landscape area. Plazas, sidewalks and parking areas must be swept regularly. Debris from pressure washing must be collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design BMPs All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. 'Yes' means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion /justification is not required. 'No' means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be provided. Site Design Requirement Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features 0 Yes I 0 No I lii N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation lii Yes 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I l!l Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I ll Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I ll Yes 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: I E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design Requirement (continued) Applied?, SD-6 Runoff Collection I!J Yes El No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I il Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation I 0 Yes I ii No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: Harvesting and using precipitation is not implemented as a BMP because the project proposes an infiltration BMP. E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS PDPStructural 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 POP 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). 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. Step 1A: The DMA is not self-mitigating, de minimus, or self-retaining. Step 1 B: There are no site design BMPs proposed for the project for which the runoff factor was chosen to be adjusted. Step 2: Harvest and use is not applicable because the project proposes infiltration. Step 3: Infiltration is feasible. Refer to Attachment id. Step 3C: Infiltration BMP has been selected and sized per the design criteria to meet both pollutant control and hydromodification management flow control requirements. E-34 Page 15 of REV 04/17 Structural BMP Summary Information (Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. 1 DWG 504-3A Sheet No. 2 & 6 Type of structural BMP: ] Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) I Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) ] Retention by bioretention (INF-2) ] Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) ] Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) ] Biofiltration (BF-1) ] Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention a biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) ] Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management ] Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: i Pollutant control only i Hydromodification control only ' Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control i Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP ] Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): E-34 Page 16 of REV 04/17 ATTACHMENT I BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment la DMA Exhibit (Required) 1 Included See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24"x36" Exhibit typically required) Attachment I b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing I Included on DMA Exhibit h DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA Attachment la Area, and DMA Type (Required)* ] Included as Attachment I separate from DMA Exhibit *Provide table in this Attachment OR on DMA Exhibit in Attachment la Attachment 1 Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility ] Included Screening Checklist (Required unless I Not included because the entire the entire project will use infiltration project will use infiltration BMPs BMPs) Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. Attachment id Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration Included Feasibility Condition (Required unless ] Not included because the entire the project will use harvest and use project will use harvest and 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 I Included Worksheets / Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines E-34 Page 17 of REV 04/17 I I Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The DMA Exhibit must identify: i Underlying hydrologic soil group ] Approximate depth to groundwater j Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) i Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) i Existing topography and impervious areas i Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite ] Proposed grading i Proposed impervious features ] Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness ] Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) J Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP) E-34 Page 18 of REV 04/17 ATTACHMENT la L H H fflq,~~ V1EWHOMES IAIGVSIZINS - - I DMA DMA DMA p * TYPE IMP NAME - NAME AFZEA PPST RF AREA B f3MPI IMP MIN PROP SF AREA AREA 620 PGC 0.1 558 2 205 pcc oq 185 3 31 PG 0.1 25 4 151 Poo o.q 143 5 14 PGC o.q 13 6 2562 5L 0.1 2306 1 3826 L 03 1148 S 214 L 0.3 88 I- Cl 164 PGC. 0.1 148 10 16 PGC. 0.1 14 II 1044 PGG 0.1 140 12 44 Poo OA 40 IS 12 PGG 0.1 II 14 3151 BLD6 0A 2836 IS 1651 L 03 417 lb 212 L 03 52 Il 1514 L. 0.3 412 - rn - IS 425 PGG 0.1 353 ICI II PGc o.q 10 20 121 PGG 0.1 101 21 115 PC..G O-q Iss 22 3300 BLP& o.q 2110 23 3050 L 0.3 q15 24 15 L 03 23 - - -J 25 444 PGG 0.1 400 26 II PGG 0.1 10 21 113 PGC. 0.1 156 28 121 PGG 0.1 101 21 3301 BLP& 0.dl 2118 30 3q41 L 0.3 1184 SI 62 L 0.3 II - ' 32 45 Pcc. °.i 41 33 SI PGG O.cI 25 34 151 PCG o.q 141 35 115 PGG os 36 432 PGG 0.1 351 31 21I 3L176 0.1 2612 38 3022 L 03 101 31 1251 L 03 311 40 211 L 03 sq 41 50 L 03 24 - 42 110 PC,G 0.q ill 43 212 PGG 0.1 263 44 24 PCG O.cf 22 45 42 pc,c. 0.1 35 46 2154 BLP& o.q 2651 47 2214 L 0.3 682 48 665 L 0.3 200 41 II L 0.3 5 - 50 661 PGC. 0.1 602 51 226 PGG O.q 203 52 31 PGG o.q 33 53 151 pw O.cI 143 54 14 pc 0.q 13 55 2613 BLP& 0.1 2352 56 331 L 0.3 lOt 5.7 3435 L 0.3 1031 - 55 555 PGG 0.q 502 51 152 pc,c, o.q 131 60 Cl pcc, 0.1 S 61 II pcc 0.1 10 62 2355 BLP' o.q 2120 63 5510 L 0.3 1611 '1 64 1143 L 0.3 583 - 65 1d5 pc..c. .q 116 66 lOSS PGG o. qjq 854 PGG 0.1 761 68 241 pc..c. O-q 224 61 648 PGG 0.1 553 10 4565 PP 0.1 451 11 244 L 03 13 12 3211 Pc.c. 0.1 2161 13 1617 PP 0.1 170 14 1216 PP 1 0.1 1 122 - TOTAL 145,416 0.03 1 1,36511,500 1 IMP AREAI r Ir I PROPOSED PCC E( EARThEN U N CSAINAGE CH4W'ELL DRAINAGE C11ANEL 4 iHV1&J(Jb AHLA 4jj,jj2 5t B10FILTRATION BASIN 1,500 SF I c c u 0 u u CO3 BIDIFETENTION TMR4ERED SOIL* LAYER SHALL BE KINKM 18" DEEP MAAVY LOAN" SOIL MD( WITH AV WE THAN 5% aAY CWrENT. ThE KD( SH4LL CONTAIN 6 MIN mucK - 50-&)% SAM2 20-30% CCWOST OR WR7MD) MLQI. AM) 20-30% TOPSOIL. FTEE OF 3/40 CFW€D ROcK ST1fE5 STLff7a ROOTS. Cl SIMILAR C8..ECTS AM) ALSO FFEE OF NOXIOUS NEEDS. GROUNDWATER INFORMATION ..: :U XN 3/4 QW€O ROCK LAYER SHALL BE A MINThU4 OF 12 BUT MAY BE [EEPEED ini wnarr/ TO 1WWA5E ThE 11FB.TRATIChV AM) STORAGE ABILITY OF ThE DETAIL THE EFFECTIVE AFEA OF 11€ BASIN .9i4LL BE LEVEL AND S14LL BE SIZED 545EV ON GROUNDWATER DEPTH> 15 FT . C4LC1LATI0W. GRAPHIC SCALE 1=20 . PERMEABLE PAVERS DETAIL NTS BIORETENTION BASIN DETAIL wrs 0 20 40 60 .._- ATTACHMENT id I I I U U U U I INFILTRATION TESTING I Proposed Bioretention Basin 3758 -3794 Highland Drive Carlsbad, California U U U I U I I I U I . HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. I • HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY September 30, 2016 I Project No. 8047.1 Log No. 18544 Carlsbad Coastal Views, LLC 3758 Highland Drive I Carlsbad, California 92008 I Attention: Mr. Brian Sullivan Subject: INFILTRATION TESTING Proposed Bioretention Basin I 3758 - 3794 Highland Drive Carlsbad, California I References: "Preli1inary 1. Grading Plan, 3758 - 3794 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California," by Coastal Land Solutions, Inc., dated April 28, 2016. I 2 "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Bight-Lot Residential Subdivision, 3758 - 3794 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California," by I Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated September 30, 2016. Dear Mr. Sullivan: I In response to your request, we have performed infiltration testing of existing terrace deposits in the area of the proposed bioretention basin at the subject site No I groundwater was encountered to the maximum depth explored of 15.5-feet in borings excavated at the site (see Reference 2). I Infiltration testing was performed by this office on September 23 and 26, 2016 in accordance with the Open Pit Falling Head test method. The approximate locations of the infiltration tests are shown on the attached Plot Plan, Figure 1 and the test results are I shown on the attached Infiltration Data Sheets, Figures 2 and 3. The infiltration rates based on the infiltration testing are 7.6-inches/hour and 4.4-inches/hour (without considering safety factors). I Completed 1-8 and 1-9 Forms are attached to this report. 1 I I I 333 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 Third Street, Suite 2 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2306 • (949) 715-5440 • Fax (760) 931-0545 www.hetheringtonengineering.com I INFILTRATION TESTING Project No. 8047.1 I Log No. 18544 September 30, 2016 I Page The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, I please call this office. Sincerely, I HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. ONAL Civil Engineer 3048 Professional Geologist 3772 RIN Geotechnical Engine V\O _j Certified Engineering Geo (expires 3/31/18) Certified Hydiogeologist (expires 3/31/18) va. 116S STA Plot Plan Figure 1 I Infiltration Data Sheets Figures 2 and 3 1-8 and 1-9 Forms OF Distribution: 1-via e-mail (bsu1ly59@hotmai1.com) 1-via e-mail (sean@coastal-land-solutions.com) 5-Addressee I I I I I I I HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. -------------------- 4 L \ \ \ O\72 I, 1 148 O0TV WT it PAD 154 00 PAD 148 00 MAIN LOT 1 LOT 166 W 165.3m, MTW VE1 03'J_ LOT PROTE 1-17 PA , LEGEND : IT-26W9 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF INFILTRATION TEST 13 163-04BW 161.81l A 1, 146 Old MIR CEW6, VAN _j 58-0 q— AP 46.3413W PER 147.49 j3 it /l ) %AP NO 16811' 5)J /,i /1/ ( 1 j. PLOT PLAN 3758-3794HighlandDrive L,H I _-; I\ HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC Carlsbad California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 8047.1 FIGURE NO. INFILTRATION DATA SHEET Project: 3794 Highland Drive Job No.: 8047.1 Test Hole No.: 2 Soil Classification: SM Excavation by: Mansolf Date Excavated: 9/23/2016 Pre-soak by: CF Pre-soak Date: 9/23/2016 Infiltration Testing by: CF Infiltration Date: 9/26/2016 Excavation and Pre-soak Data Trench Width (ft) Trench Length (ft) Trench Depth (ft) Pre-soak Start Time Pre-soak Water Level (inches) 2 4 1.75 1500 12.0 Infiltration Testing Time Time Interval (mm) Initial Water Level (inches) Final Water Level (inches) A in Water Level (inches) Infiltration Rate (mm/inch) % Change from Previous 0820 60 12.12 6.48 0920 5.64 10.64 0923 60 12.12 7.56 1023 4.56 13.16 23.7 1026 60 12.12 7.68 1126 4.44 13.51 2.7 Figure 3 Project No. 8047.1 Log No. 18544 INFILTRATION DATA SHEET Project: 3794 Highland Drive Job No.: 8047.1 Test Hole No.: 1 Soil Classification: SM Excavation by: Mansolf Date Excavated: 9/23/2016 Pre-soak by: CF Pre-soak Date: 9/23/2016 Infiltration Testing by: CF Infiltration Date: 9/26/2016 Excavation and Pre-soak Data Trench Width (ft) Trench Length (ft) Trench Depth (ii) Pre-soak Start Time Pre-soak Water Level (inches) 2 4 1.5 1550 12.0 Infiltration Testing Time Time Interval (mm) Initial Water Level (inches) Final Water Level (inches) A in Water Level (inches) Infiltration Rate (min/inch) % Change from Previous 0752 60 12.0 3.25 8.75 6.86 0852 0856 60 12.0 4.125 7.875 7.62 11.1 0956 1001 60 12.125 4.5 7.652 7.87 3.3 1101 Figure 2 Project No. 8047.1 Log No. 18544 I Project 8047.1 Log No. 18544 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? It ( orttukw 13, ai ____ Lb ktth iLn.ie3i wtf swifb tn Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility 1 locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this x Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Two infiltration tests using Open Pit Falling Head test method were performed in the terrace deposits in the area of the proposed bioretention basin. The test results were 7.6 in/hr and 4.4 in/hr (without considering safety factors). See 'Infiltration Testing...," by Hetherington Engineering, In., dated September 30, 2016. 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, 2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be x mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Infiltration in the area of the proposed bioretention basin is considered acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the geotechnical recommendations included in the "Geotechnical Investigation..." (Reference 2) are implemented during design and construction. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. II I 11 I I I I I 1-1 I II 11 Ii II I I Project 8047.1 Log No. 18544 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 or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Storm water pollutant concerns in the area of the proposed bioretention basin are unknow at this time. Borings at the site with a maximum depth of 15.5-feet did not encounter groundwater. Infiltrated water will migrate at least 15.5-feet before reaching groundwater. In addition we are not aware of any known soil contamination present at the site. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: No ephemeral streams are present at the site. Groundwater was not encountered to a depth of at least 15.5-feet and we are not aware of any contaminated groundwater in the site vicinity. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The Part 1 feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration Result * If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 'Io be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings Project 8047.1 Log No. 18544 Form 1-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2— Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any 5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening x Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Due to providing a 'Full Infiltration" result to Part 1, this criteria need not be answered. See response to Criteria 1. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, 6 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Due to providing a "Full Infiltration" result to Part 1, this criteria need not be answered. See response to Criteria 2. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Project 8047.1 Log No. 18544 Form 1-8 Page 4-of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns 7 (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? X The response to this Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Due to providing a "Full Infiltration' results to Part 1, this criteria need not be answered. See response to Criteria 3. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water 8 rights? The response to this Screening Question must be based on a X comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: This question requires the expertise of water-rights lawyers to determine if any violation can be expected downstream by reducing the runoff via infiltration of the water into the bioretention basin. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. Result* . i If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume s considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. LL 10 be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings Project 8047.1 Log No. 18544 Factorts) Safety Eand UDesign Infiltration Rate Worksheet Factor Category Factor Description Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p) p = w x A Suitability Assessment Soil assessment methods 0.25 1 0.25 Predominant soil texture 0.25 1 0.25 Site soil variability 0.25 1 0.25 Depth to groundwater / Impervious layer 0.25 . 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p 1.00 B Design Level of pretreatment/ expected sediment loads 0.5 . 2 1.00 Redundancy/resiliency 0.25 2 0.50 Compaction during construction 0.25 2 0.50 Design Safety Factor, SB = Ep 2.00 Combined Safety Factor, S,.t i= SAX SB 2.00 Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobserved (corrected for test-specific bias) 7.6 & 4.4 Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Kdesim, = Kobs ,ed / Stow 3.8 & 2.2 use 3.0 (aye) Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: Two Open Pit Falling Head tests were performed. See 'Infiltration Testing..." by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated September 30, 2016. "MIMMIDI"KIN Worksheets per County of San Diego Automated Worksheet B.3-1: Project-Scale BMP Feasibility Analysis (V1.3' Category 0 bescription Design Capture Volume for Entire Project Site value 2,314 cubic-feet I Proposed Development Type Residential unitless Number of Residents or Employees at Proposed Development 24 # 3 Total Planted Area within Development 35,938 sq-ft 4 Water Use Category for Proposed Planted Areas Moderate unitless 5 Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate 150.500 Inches per Hour? No yes/no . 6 Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate 50.010 Inches per Hour? No yes/no 7 8 Is Infiltration of the Full DCV Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts? Is Infiltration of Any Volume Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts? No yes/no No yes/no 9 36-Flour Toilet Use Per Resident or Employee 1.86 cubic-feet 10 Subtotal: Anticipated 36 Hour Toilet Use 45 cubic-feet 11 Anticipated I Acre Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 196.52 cubic-feet 12 Subtotal: Anticipated Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 162 cubic-feet ii 13 Total Anticipated Use Over 36 Hours 207 cubic-feet 14 Total Anticipated Use / Design Capture Volume 0.09 cubic-feet 15 Are Full Capture and Use Techniques Feasible for this Project? No unitless 16 Is Full Retention Feasible for this Project? Yes yes/no 17 Is Partial Retention Feasible for this Project? Yes yes/no 18 Feasibility Category 3 1, 2,3,4, 5 Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V1.3) -I o Drainage Basin ID or Name I unitless 1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Retention unitless 2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.59 inches 3 4 5 6 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 3.000 in/hr Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C0.90) 38,479 sq-ft 0.30) Semi-PerviousN Surfaces ot Serving as Dispersion Area (C sion sq-ft Area Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Disper (C0.10) sq-ft 7 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C0.10) sq-ft 8 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C0.14) sq-ft 9 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C0.23) sq-ft 10 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C0.30) 41,298 sq-ft 11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No yes/no Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.90) sq-ft t 14 12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.30) sq-ft __ Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.10) sq-ft Dispersion 15 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.10) sq-ft 'iArea, Tree Well — - 16 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.14) sq-ft Inputs 17 (Optional) 18 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.23) sq-ft Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.30) sq-ft 19 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per_SD-A 20 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter ft 21 Number of Rain Barrels SD-E _Proposed _per # 22 Average Rain Barrel Size gal 23 24 Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in Downstream Drainage? No unitless Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series unitless a 25 Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas percent Calculations H26 ~7 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area (Ci0.90) Upstream Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C0.90) 0 0 cubic-feet cubic-feet 28 Total Tributary Area 79,777 sq-ft 29 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.59 unitless Factor 30 Calculation 31 32 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas Initial Weighted Runoff Factor Initial Design Capture Volume 0.00 unitless 0.59 unitless 2,314 cubic-feet 33 34 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 sq-ft Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 sq-ft - I Dispersion 35 36 Adjustments I 37 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a ratio Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 ratio Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.59 unitless 38 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 2,314 cubic-feet • 39 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 cubic-feet 40 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 cubic-feet 41 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.59 unitless 42 Final Effective Tributary Area 47,068 sq-ft 43 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 cubic-feet 44 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 2,314 cubic-feet Automated Worksheet B.4-1: Sizing Retention BMPs (V1.3) category Description -I Unit, 1! 0 Drainage Basin ID or Name I unitless I Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 3.000 in/hr 2 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 2,314 cubic-feet 3 Is Retention BMP Vegetated or Non-Vegetated? Vegetated unitless 4 Provided Surface Area 1,500 sq-ft 5 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 12 inches 6 Provided Soil Media Thickness 18 inches - 7 Provided Gravel Storage Thickness 12 inches 8 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 2,250 cubic-feet 9 Soil Media Pore Space 0.25 unitless 10 Gravel Pore Space 0.40 unitless 11 Effective Depth of Retention Storage 21.3 inches 12 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding (Post-Storm) 4 hours 13 Drawdown Time for Entire Basin (Including 6 Hour Storm) 13 hours 14 Volume Retained by BMP 4,913 cubic-feet 15 Fraction of DCV Retained 2.12 ratio 16 Percentage of Performance Requirement Satisfied 1.00 ratio 17 Fraction of DCV Retained (normalized to 36-hr drawdown) 1.00 ratio 18 This BMP Overflows to the Following Drainage Basin - unitless 19 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 0 cubic-feet I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I Summary of Stormwater Pollutant Control Calculations (V1. 1MJD Description 0 Drainage Basin ID or Name I unitless I i 85th Percentile Storm Depth 0.59 inches Info 2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by GeotechnicalGeneral Engineer 3.000 in/hr 3 Total Tributary Area 79,777 sq-ft 4 85th Percentile Storm Volume (Rainfall Volume) 3,922 cubic-feet 5 rnrinu1w 6 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.59 unitless Initial Design Capture Volume 2,314 cubic-feet -, - 7 8 Dispersion Area Reductions 0 cubic-feet Tree Well and Rain Barrel Reductions 0 cubic-feet 9 Effective Area Tributary to BMP 47,068 square feet 10 Reductions 11 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 2,314 cubic-feet Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Retention unitless 12 Volume Retained by BMP (normalized to 36 hour drawdown) 2,314 cubic-feet 13 Ol'ot L 14 Reductions Total Fraction of Initial DCV Retained within DMA 1.00 fraction Percent of Average Annual Runoff Retention Provided 80.4% % rl5 Percent of Average Annual Runoff Retention Required 80.0% % 16 Percent of Pollution Control Standard Satisfied 100.0% % 17 Discharges to Secondary Treatment in Drainage Basin - unitless Fl 8 Treatment Impervious Surface Area Still Requiring Treatment 0 square feet Train 11 19 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Downstream Dispersion Area - square feet 20 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Downstream Dispersion Area - square feet 21 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 0 cubic-feet I Summary Notes: All fields in this summary worksheet are populated based on previous user inputs. If applicable, drainage basin elements that require revisions and/or supplemental information outside the scope of these worksheets are highli I I I I ghted in orange -Congratulations, all specified drainage basins and BMPs arc in compliance with stormwater pollutant control ,requirem nts Include 11x17 color prints of this summary sheet and supporting worksheet calculations as part of the - ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES [This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.] Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management I Included Exhibit (Required) See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse I Exhibit showing project drainage Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit boundaries marked on WMAA is required, additional analyses are Critical Coarse Sediment Yield optional) Area Map (Required) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Manual. Sediment Yield Area Determination ] 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite ] 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment ] 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Not performed Channels (Optional) ] Included See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and ' Included Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual E-34 Page 19 of REV 04/17 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify: Underlying hydrologic soil group Approximate depth to groundwater Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) Existing topography Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite Proposed grading Proposed impervious features Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) E-34 Page 200f REV 04/17 I ATTACHMENT 2a I 1 p :33 LIE!IHXE1 dIkH ~1J -Ak1IA NV7J ~Mlow N /li it 71 " IF I i", N I 11 7-7 / 3 ; 3 ; I N I '11 . N ; I L \ .1 1~1 - i ~ ~ ' I N - __ N 3 1 31 If 3 3 ! ~l : N \\/3 / I I : I : t .;,!", ., 1 : ~ I :: ~ , . : I t 8=V[n (3 . 11 t : . ~ . ; I .! ~ I ; / i ~ 1 ~ I I ,: t ~ , ~ I I ; ~ : : . I ~~ .1 :: . ' I . ~ . I It ~ .." .1 I ~ I 11 /I P ! ; t 4 1 : 11 I ~ I . : I i ~ : ? ~ ~ . ~ . ;;, ; .. ~ 1. 1~ ~ \ ,~ ;, : :::... i ,1~11. ~. I, I N i :t ; 1 , , ~ 11 .1 . . . \ W " I I . I ~ ~ : ~ I ~ . : ~~ i ": I : t : . : 4 1: t ~;~ i "I .. ~ i ; I ~ : ~ . ~ I i . : ~ ; - I d: ~ 1; . ~ ,I . ~ . I / 1 ~ I ~ I . . .I \-l_.._.,..r_ . I i . I ~ : . . I i ~: ! ", I ; I ~ ~ I I / / ~ I ~ ~ ~ 11 ; . I I z I . z 11 . __ ...... , I ., I ~ I ... . ....... ; 1j . ~ . I . j \ I , T :1 k -, I , !~,,~, . ii ~~ " ~:O :; : I I : % :'~ I / : I _~ : 3 / I $ 3 / I / / I 11 3 3 ( I 3 5, 3 1 3 S N $ ll ... ............................... I.N:... I 11 I I I . $ ~ 3 If P"(3 ~ ! w , i I ~ I I \ ~: ;~ i :~ ~ i ~ ; : t : ~/ .1 : : I I :, : . : ~. % : ~ . ~; I : : ~ I I ; ~ t.', ~ ~ : : % 4 : I I : I ~ 1:~ i : ~ ~ I : ~ 4 t .I : ; ~ ~ I I . I ~ I ! . . : W, ./ / ,. i ~ I ", ,. ...I., ~ .- ,. ,._-...,.l. 11 I : :~ I t ~ ........ __ .", I ~ . ~i .. \ , i ,I \ I ~ :% : : : I : : : ~ I . ! !% : I : :: "I : ,; ~, . : I ~d i ; ~ ,I- I ~ I . I : ~ ~~ t : ~ - . , : I l4i : . . I ~ ,. ~ i / ~ . ~ i I : I . : i ; . I I ,I 11 I : ~ : $ $ f .1 . . : . ~ ~ : i I , . . :1 ~ : -, ~ .,. . : ;, I ~ . - - ~ ~ . . , t ~ ~ ~ ; . 11 I ~ : : I ; : . ~ I ; I ; i ~ I : ; I i . ~ .11 , $ 1 ~: % . I I ; I 1, I ~ I , 11 I 3 I . I 1 31 1 N. .1 $ $ 3 % t : m . ~ I I , ~ _V [N Cl i N I ~ \ : ~ 11 .1 I ~ ; I 11 i I i m , - : I - 3 / N $ N - / ~ / 3 ,'I I 'I / N N 3 3 I N I / $ 3 "N 3 $3 3 I ~ ~ N N N S.) 5 5' H '. . . 5 .. 3. :3 $ N 3 N 4 :5:: 5 5 ., I 5. 5' 5 :i 5 5 3 N I 1 3 $ 11 5 I 3 I I N 1 1 1 3 N .S- N 3 :~ H 5' I 5 5 3 3 .3; .5 t5'. S.. 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 I 3 3 3 3 % 33 3 3 3 5" 3 1 1 1 . S N $ .3. .5 5 : 1: 5 5 5 : / ....S. / S / N N / ' ~ i .:. I ,; ; 1 , *: ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ . :~ ~ I __ -_ .1 , 11 I.. - 3 , . 1 1, . 1\ 1\ \, \ \ I ~ . ~ ; z 11 ~ , c ~ ~, I : - ~ , I ~ ,~ ~ , :~~ I J , ~ ~ q L -~ . ~ ,: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "., I., "I i 11 I : ,-, ~ : , I ..... I-.~ ,~, ., ,~ . ; I ~ I 11 4 11 ..., I ~ I , . I I ~ I ~ I ~ 11, ~ , 1, ,_ ; 4 I , i ~ ......... _._,.:~ ...... 4: -4 .. .... i ,,, ,.,., c , , \ , I I ~ I , \ ~ 1, ~ , , . , , - I 1, ,. I I i : I : " I '. : . .1 11 ~: e~ : : : ~ i I I i~ ; ~ I , : ...... . .... .. ~-l l , ....... .1:', ~, ~4,_. .. --l"i * ... .... - ~ . : : ~ I . i : I : , I : : I : . . . ~ / ~ ~ ~ I I j I ~ ~ ::, , I I i t, I i ~j ,I l . I ~ I ~ I 1 : ~, I ~ ;~ ~ ; ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ : I --- ,-.- ~ 1, 1 o , I I I : I I , ~ ~, : I 11 . A I . . ! $ ~ ~ I I I , - , , I . .. ~ . 3 I , , ~ , . ,: .l.. ,,,,~. / ". .,.. I ...., /. , , , - . ,,,,, ; " -~ z 3 11, , .............................................................. 5', N ,, . .. . ~ : ~ ~ 5 1, ................ I :tt :. ..... 1. .... I...... . I 5 N~. $ i : i :~: $ .:': : ::~Tl ,:~ ., . : , : ~:. :: t , , : ~ : , ~ 1 i .1 --- ------- ~ Il I .... - ~ .... 1-- .......... _,/ , ... : I ; I " : ,, 11, ~,, ., ~ i ~ ; . ,,, ,~ ~ ~ ; i . ~ . . : ~ ,~ I j ~ 3 . .1 , 0 I. i I I., ~: -- .1 .... : : : 1~ .I 1 I ~ : I _ ,. I I : : : ; _____ I I/ _-1111, ~ I I I - ,,,,PH:,., " __ ... ... I-— _.Z~.,,,, - ~ ,~~,~,, .,-,.,.-- : _4 , -.-.-.,,,,;I.1,t..l. ':"I , - ? 11 - 1. 5 — I I I . 11I . ~ ,.. I 1 .., ___ - ~ , I 1 --- - " ... ; I" i . ~ I ... _ :i : -.- _- ..... 1-1-11- ...... ~,~--_., ; 1 ~\ ~ , ::c N -- ~ ~ I I-.~, ,~~:, . .~I ~ I .............. I.- -1 ................ ~ . . ............ - . I , N 11 i I I - i I ~ ! 3 : . : ~, / ~ , . ........ i ~ ~ I . ~, ~ ; . : I z ~ ~ 3 . . ~ : : I : $ : : ~ " I ; ~ :1 ~: ; . .1 : . ............ _.,.,.~l,,l,--l__.. 11 : .I . 3 1 i ! ~ ~ t ~ I 'N : i.~ ~ : : ~ 4 . _1 ~ I .5' 'N I $ 3 4 N :3 / GRAPHIC SCALE 1=20 C 20 40 60 ATTACHMENT 2b I Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Regional San Diego County Watersheds Source: 2015 Regional Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Mapping Google Earth kmz file from www.projectcleanwater.org ATTACHMENT 2d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2713 Highland View Homes 5/8/2017 SWMM MODEL SCHEMATICS PRE-PROJECT MODEL POST-PROJECT MODEL Oceanside Oceanside OS-1 I - SM-i U' DMA-1 DMA-3 ------------------2 ---------------•oci DMA-I STORI BMP - I I----.-------- -- --- ------------------- OUTIETSTRUCTRE - -' OS-3 - - OS-2- J :\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWMM\Output\2713_SWM M_Schematics.xlsx Total: 2.46 Infiltration: B: 0.2 in/hr D: 0.025 in/hr Suction Head: B: I 3m D: I 9in Initial Deficit B: 0.31 D: 0.33 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2713 Highland View Homes SWMM INPUT PRE-PROJECT DMA Area (ac) Width (Area/Flow Length) (ft) % Impervious % Slope % "B" Soils % "C" Soils % "D" Soils Weighted Infiltration (in/hr): Weighted Suction Head (in): Weighted Initial Deficit: 0.77 1 305 1 29% 1 5.0% 1 100% 0% 0% 0.200 3.000 0.310 1.02 296 1 0% 1 20.0% 1 0% 0% 100% 0.025 9.000 0.330 0.55 428 1 0% 1 1.0% 1 100% 0% 0% 0.200 3.000 0.310 Total: 2.34 POST-PROJECT DMA BMP Area (ac) Width (Area/Flow Length) (ft) % Impervious % Slope % "B" Soils % "C" Soils % "0" Soils Weighted Infiltration (in/hr): Weighted Suction Head (in): Weighted Initial Deficit: 1 1 1.81 447 48.9% 10% 0% 0.0% 100% 0.025 9.000 0.330 OS-1 NA 0.17 106 43.0% 10% 100% 0.0% 0% 0.200 3.000 0.310 OS-2 NA 0.21 74 47.0% 1.5% 100% 0.0% 0% 0.200 3.000 0.310 OS-3 NA 0.06 75 0.0% 23% 0% 0.0% 100% 0.025 9.000 0.330 SM-1 NA 1 0.18 1 490 1 0.0% 1 50% 1 0% 1 0.0% 1 100% 1 0.025 1 9.000 1 0.330 BMP-1 1 1 0.03444 1 37 1 0% 1 0.0% 1 100% 1 0.0% 1 0% 1 0.200 1 3.000 1 0.310 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — [TITLE] Project Title/Notes 2713 Sullivan Pre-Project Condition POC-1 [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW UNITS CFS INFILTRATION GREEN AI'4PT FLOW ROUTING KINWAVE LINK OFFSETS DEPTH WIN 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 TINE 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 INERTIAL DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL FLOW LIMITED BOTH FORCE MAIN EQUATION H-W VARIABLE STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING STEP 0 WIN 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 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 DRY_ONLY NO [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside [SUBCATCHMENTS I ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack DMA-1 Oceanside DMA-2 0.77 29 305 5 0 DMA-2 Oceanside DMA-3 1.02 0 296 20 0 DMA-3 Oceanside POC1 0.55 0 428 1 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery S-Pery PctZero RouteTo PctRouted DMA-i 0.012 0.04 0.05 0.1 25 PERVIOUS 100 DMA-2 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-3 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatcbment Suction Ksat IMD DMA-i 3 0.2 0.31 DMA-2 9 0.025 0.33 DMA-3 3 0.2 0.31 [OUT FALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;Basin 1 Pod 0 FREE NO [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value Oceanside FILE "J: \Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWMM\Rainfalldata\oceanside.txt" [REPORT] ;Reporting Options — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — INPUT NO CONTROLS NO SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord POC1 3055.968 4625.363 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord DMA-i -688.862 4733.461 DMA-2 608.317 4617.641 DMA-3 1851.446 4733.461 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord Oceanside 1056.152 6864.539 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — [TITLE] ;Project Title/Notes 2713 Sullivan Post-Project Condition POC-1 [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW UNITS CFS INFILTRATION - GREEN ANPT FLOW ROUTING KINWAVE LINK OFFSETS DEPTH MIN SLOPE 0 ALLOW PONDING NO SKI P_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 INERTIAL DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL FLOW LIMITED BOTH FORCE MAIN EQUATION H-W VARIABLE STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING STEP 0 WIN 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 .15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 DRY-ONLY NO [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside [SUBCATCHMENTS ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack DMA-i Oceanside BMP-i 1.81 48.9 447 10 0 BMP-1 Oceanside STOR1 0.03444 0 37 0 0 OS-1 Oceanside POC1 0.17 43 106 10 0 OS-2 Oceanside OS-3 0.21 47 74 1.5 0 OS-3 Oceanside POC1 0.06 0 75 23 0 SM-i Oceanside FOCi 0.18 0 490 50 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 BMP-i 0.012 0.06 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET OS-1 0.012 0.04 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET OS-2 0.012 0.04 0.05 0.1 25 PERVIOUS 100 OS-3 .012 0.06 0.05 .1 25 OUTLET SM-i .012 0.08 0.05 .1 25 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD DMA-i 9 0.025 0.33 BMP-i 3 0.2 0.31 OS-1 3 0.2 0.31 OS-2 3 0.2 0.31 OS-3 9 0.025 0.33 SM-i 9 0.025 0.33 [LID CONTROLS] ;;Name Type/Layer Parameters BMP-1 BC BMP-i SURFACE 13.68 0 0 0 5 BMP-i SOIL 18 0.4 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BNP-1 STORAGE 12 0.67 3.0 0 BNP-1 DRAIN 0 0 0 6 [LID USAGE] ;;Subcatchment LID Process Number Area Width InitSat Fromlmp ToPery RptFile DrainTo BNP-1 BHP-1 1 1500.21 0 0 100 0 [OUT FALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;3asin 1 POC1 0 FREE NO [STORAGE] ;;Name Elev. NaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Ksat IND STOR1 0 2 0 TABULAR STOR1 0 0 [OUTLETS] ;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated OUTLETSTRUCTRE STOR1 POC1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLETSTRUCTURE NO [CURVES] ;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value OUTLETSTRUCTURE Rating 0 0 OUTLETSTRUCTURE .2 .149 OUTLETSTRUCTURE .4 .421 OUTLETSTRUCTURE .6 .774 OUTLETSTRUCTURE .8 1.191 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1 1.665 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.2 2.189 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.4 2.758 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.6 4.633 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.8 7.323 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 2 7.613 STOR1 Storage 0 1929 STOR1 2 2876 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value Oceanside FILE "J: \Active Jobs\2713 Suilivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWMM\Rainfail data\oceanside.txt" [REPORT] ;Reporting Options INPUT NO CONTROLS NO SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord POC1 3055.968 4625.363 STOR1 1823.774 4654.967 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatcbment X-Coord Y-Coord DMA-i -339.312 4656.990 BMP-i 972.835 4620.470 05-1 1213.942 5737.796 OS-2 948.595 3809.172 OS-3 1738.166 4016.272 SM-1 2657.175 5595.414 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord Oceanside 1056.152 6864.539 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.010) -------------------------------------------------------------- 2713 Sullivan Pre-Project Condition POC-1 NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. *** * * * ** * * * Analysis Options * ** ** * ** * * ***** * Flow Units ...............CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........YES RDII ...................NO Snowmelt ...............NO Groundwater ............NO Flow Routing ...........NO Water Quality ..........NO Infiltration Method ......GREEN ANPT Starting Date ............AUG-28-1951 05:00:00 Ending Date ..............MAY-23-2008 23:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ......0.0 Report Time Step .........01:00:00 Wet Time Step ............00:15:00 Dry Time Step ............04:00:00 ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity ** ** ** ** *** ** *** **** * * ** * * acre-feet inches Total Precipitation 131.643 675.090 Evaporation Loss 4.075 20.896 Infiltration Loss 117.268 601.373 Surface Runoff 12.234 62.738 Final Storage 0.001 0.004 Continuity Error (%) -1.470 Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10"6 gal ************************** Dry Weather Inflow 0.000 0.000 J:\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWMM\Output\2713jreProject_SWMM_results.docx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION Wet Weather Inflow 12.234 3.987 Groundwater Inflow 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow ..............0.000 0.000 External Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Outflow 12.234 3.987 Flooding Loss 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) 0.000 * **** ** ** **** * * * * * Subcatchment Runoff Summary * ****** * * **** ** **** * ** * * Total Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatcbment in in in in in 106 gal CFS DMA-i 675.09 0.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31.07 601.97 48.90 1.02 0.82 0.072 DMA-2 675.09 36.91 21.83 515.34 188.04 5.21 1.96 0.264 DMA-3 675.09 348.73 4.91 760.08 266.92 3.99 2.51 0.261 Analysis begun on: Mon May 08 10:35:54 2017 Analysis ended on: Mon May 08 10:36:06 2017 Total elapsed time: 00:00:12 J:\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWM M\Output\2713_PreProject_SWM M_results.docx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.010) -------------------------------------------------------------- 2713 Sullivan Post-Project Condition POC-' NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ** * ** * *** * * * Analysis Options ** *** * * ** * *** * * * Flow Units ...............CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........YES RDII ...................NO Snowmelt ...............NO Groundwater ............NO Flow Routing ...........YES Ponding Allowed ........NO Water Quality ..........NO Infiltration Method ......GREEN AMPT Flow Routing Method ......KINWAVE Starting Date ............AUG-28-1951 05:00:00 Ending Date ..............MAY -23-2008 23:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ......0.0 Report Time Step .........01:00:00 Wet Time Step ............00:15:00 Dry Time Step ............04:00:00 Routing Time Step ........60.00 sec Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * **** * * * acre-feet inches Initial LID Storage 0.005 0.025 Total Precipitation 138.643 675.090 Evaporation Loss 13.136 63.963 Infiltration Loss 112.598 548.270 Surface Runoff 14.786 71.998 Final Storage 0.012 0.056 Continuity Error (%) -1.359 J:\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWM M\Output\2713jostProject_SWMM_resu Its.docx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity ** ** * * *** * * ** * * ** * ** *** * ** acre-feet 10"6 gal Dry Weather Inflow 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow 14.786 4.818 Groundwater Inflow 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow ..............0.000 0.000 External Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Outflow 14.778 4.816 Flooding Loss 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) 0.056 ******************************** 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 Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in 10"6 gal CFS DMA-1 675.09 0.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57.75 261.29 365.27 17.95 2.10 0.541 BNP-1 675.09 19196.55 902.41 16753.87 2214.17 2.07 2.04 0.111 OS-1 675.09 0.00 43.17 370.72 268.24 1.24 0.19 0.397 OS-2 675.09 0.00 50.20 553.11 81.09 0.46 0.23 0.120 OS-3 675.09 283.83 17.55 511.37 440.13 0.72 0.30 0.459 SM-1 675.09 0.00 17.13 507.72 162.05 0.79 0.20 0.240 J:\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWMM\Output\2713_PostProject_SWMM_results.docx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION ** * * ***** * ** ** * ** * * 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 19871.64 902.44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16754.45 2214.24 0.00 1.80 2.76 -0.00 ****************** 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 POCl OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 STOR1 STORAGE 0.00 1.10 1.10 18857 12:17 1.03 * *** * * * * *** ** * * * * ** 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 106 gal 106 gal Percent POCl OUTFALL 0.68 2.44 18857 12:01 2.75 4.82 0.000 STOR1 STORAGE 2.04 2.04 18857 12:01 2.07 2.07 0.131 ** ****** ** ** ** * *** * ** * Node Surcharge Summary * *** * * * * ** ** *** ** * * * * * Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Mm. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet J:\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWM M\Output\2713_PostProjectSWMM_resu Its. docx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- STORl STORAGE 497370.00 1.099 0.901 * ** * * * ** * * * * ** * ** * * * * 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 STORl 0.001 0 0 0 2.409 50 18857 12:17 1.92 ** ** * * ** **** * ** ** ** * * * * Outfall Loading Summary ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 106 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- POd 1.32 0.03 2.44 4.815 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 1.32 0.03 2.44 4.815 *** ** * * ** * * * * * * * *** * Link Flow Summary ****** ** *** * * * * *** ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max! Flowl Occurrence IVeloci Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTLETSTRUCTRE DUMMY 1.92 18857 12:17 J:\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWM M\Output\2713_PostProject_SWM M_results.docx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION ** **** ** * * * ** * * ** *** * ** * * Conduit Surcharge Summary ******** ** ** * * * **** ** *** * No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Thu Jul 06 10:00:26 2017 Analysis ended on: Thu Jul 06 10:00:56 2017 Total elapsed time: 00:00:28 J:\Active Jobs\2713 Sullivan\CIVI L\REPORTS\SWMM\Output\2713_PostProject_SWM M_results.docx L I Peak Flow Frequency Curves 3.000 -,-,-,~---,--,-.---r--r---r---.-~-r-r-----r~-r-.---.,..........,---,-~~-,-~--.--,--.--,--,-,---,--,-~~.----,-~~~~-,--,--.-~ 2.500 I I I I I i I i I ! I i I i t i I ! \ i i ! : i i -0-Pre-project Qpeak 2.000 .... -ti-Post-project Mitigated Qpeak I i 11 .!!! u C ~ 1.500 j I I I I I I I i I ; I ~ , 1.000 I I I ! I I I I I ~I I I I I i I.lb-~ i F l I , ' 1 1 I . 0.500 ---- 0.000 0 1 I I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Return Period in Years Low-f low Threshold:II 10% I 0.1xQ2 (Pre): 0.102 cfs Q10 (Pre): 1.684 cfs Ordinate U: 100 I Incremental Q (Pre): 0.01582 cfs Total Hourly Data:II_49737011hours The proposed BMP:I_PASSED Interval Pre-project Flow (cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project % Time Exceeding Post-project Hours Post-project % Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail 0 0.102 375 7.54E-04 390 7.84E-04 104% Pass 1 0.117 352 7.08E-04 340 6.84E-04 97% Pass 2 0.133 338 6.80E-04 278 5.59E-04 82% Pass 3 0.149 320 6.43E-04 248 4.99E-04 78% Pass 4 0.165 288 5.79E-04 230 4.62E-04 80% Pass 5 0.181 277 5.57E-04 204 4.10E-04 74% Pass 6 0.197 260 5.23E-04 178 3.58E-04 68% Pass 7 0.212 241 4.85E-04 166 3.34E-04 69% Pass 8 0.228 222 4.46E-04 153 3.08E-04 69% Pass 9 0.244 207 4.16E-04 141 2.83E-04 68% Pass 10 0.260 198 3.98E-04 130 2.61E-04 66% Pass 11 0.276 194 3.90E-04 116 2.33E-04 60% Pass 12 0.291 186 3.74E-04 112 2.25E-04 60% Pass 13 0.307 171 3.44E-04 100 2.01E-04 58% Pass 14 0.323 164 3.30E-04 93 1.87E-04 57% Pass 15 0.339 159 3.20E-04 85 1.71E-04 53% Pass 16 0.355 154 3.10E-04 79 1.59E-04 51% Pass 17 0.371 146 2.94E-04 75 1.51E-04 51% Pass 18 0.386 140 2.81E-04 69 1.39E-04 49% Pass 19 0.402 133 2.67E-04 68 1.37E-04 51% Pass 20 0.418 120 2.41E-04 62 1.25E-04 52% Pass 21 0.434 115 2.31E-04 61 1.23E-04 53% Pass 22 0.450 106 2.13E-04 54 1.09E-04 51% Pass 23 0.466 105 2.11E-04 54 1.09E-04 51% Pass 24 0.481 100 2.01E-04 51 1.03E-04 51% Pass 25 0.497 98 1.97E-04 48 9.65E-05 49% Pass 26 0.513 98 1.97E-04 46 9.25E-05 47% Pass 27 0.529 94 1.89E-04 44 8.85E-05 47% Pass 28 0.545 92 1.85E-04 42 8.44E-05 46% Pass 29 0.560 90 1.81E-04 41 8.24E-05 46% Pass 30 0.576 86 1.73E-04 39 7.84E-05 45% Pass 31 0.592 82 1.65E-04 35 7.04E-05 43% Pass 32 0.608 76 1.53E-04 34 6.84E-05 45% Pass 33 0.624 72 1.45E-04 34 6.84E-05 47% Pass 34 0.640 70 1.41E-04 34 6.84E-05 49% Pass 35 0.655 65 1.31E-04 34 6.84E-05 52% Pass 36 0.671 63 1.27E-04 31 6.23E-05 49% Pass 37 0.687 57 1.15E-04 30 6.03E-05 53% Pass 38 0.703 55 1.11E-04 30 6.03E-05 55% Pass 39 0.719 54 1.09E-04 27 5.43E-05 50% Pass 40 0.734 54 1.09E-04 26 5.23E-05 48% Pass 41 0.750 53 1.07E-04 25 5.03E-05 47% Pass 42 0.766 50 1.01E-04 25 5.03E-05 50% Pass 43 0.782 48 9.65E-05 24 4.83E-05 50% Pass 44 0.798 47 9.45E-05 24 4.83E-05 51% Pass 45 0.814 45 9.05E-05 23 4.62E-05 51% Pass 46 0.829 44 8.85E-05 23 4.62E-05 52% Pass 47 0.845 42 8.44E-05 21 4.22E-05 50% Pass 48 0.861 42 8.44E-05 20 4.02E-05 48% Pass 49 0.877 41 8.24E-05 18 3.62E-05 44% Pass 50 0.893 37 7.44E-05 18 3.62E-05 49% Pass 51 0.909 36 7.24E-05 18 3.62E-05 50% Pass 52 0.924 36 7.24E-05 18 3.62E-05 50% Pass 53 0.940 36 7.24E-05 t 17 3.42E-05 47% Pass Interval Pre-project Flow (cfs) Pre-project Hours Pre-project % Time Exceeding Post-project Hours Post-project % lime Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail 54 0.956 35 7.04E-05 17 3.42E-05 49% Pass 55 0.972 33 6.63E-05 16 3.22E-05 48% Pass 56 0.988 33 6.63E-05 16 3.22E-05 48% Pass 57 1.003 33 6.63E-05 15 3.02E-05 45% Pass 58 1.019 32 6.43E-05 14 2.81E-05 44% Pass 59 1.035 30 6.03E-05 14 2.81E-05 47% Pass 60 1.051 29 5.83E-05 14 2.81E-05 48% Pass 61 1.067 29 5.83E-05 14 2.81E-05 48% Pass 62 1.083 27 5.43E-05 12 2.41E-05 44% Pass 63 1.098 26 5.23E-05 12 2.41E-05 46% Pass 64 1.114 25 5.03E-05 12 2.41E-05 48% Pass 65 1.130 23 4.62E-05 12 2.41E-05 52% Pass 66 1.146 22 4.42E-05 11 2.21E-05 50% Pass 67 1.162 21 4.22E-05 11 2.21E-05 52% Pass 68 1.178 21 4.22E-05 10 2.01E-05 48% Pass 69 1.193 21 4.22E-05 9 1.81E-05 43% Pass 70 1.209 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 71 1.225 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 72 1.241 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 73 1.257 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 74 1.272 20 4.02E-05 8 1.61E-05 40% Pass 75 1.288 19 3.82E-05 8 1.61E-05 42% Pass 76 1.304 17 3.42E-05 8 1.61E-05 47% Pass 77 1.320 16 3.22E-05 7 1.41E-05 44% Pass 78 1.336 16 3.22E-05 7 1.41E-05 44% Pass 79 1.352 15 3.02E-05 7 1.41E-05 47% Pass 80 1.367 14 2.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 50% Pass 81 1.383 13 2.61E-05 7 1.41E-05 54% Pass 82 1.399 10 2.01E-05 7 1.41E-05 70% Pass 83 1.415 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 84 1.431 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 85 1.447 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 86 1.462 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 87 1.478 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 88 1.494 8 1.61E-05 7 1.41E-05 88% Pass 89 1.510 7 1.41E-05 6 1.21E-05 86% Pass 90 1.526 7 1.41E-05 5 1.01E-05 71% Pass 91 1.541 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 92 1.557 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 93 1.573 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 94 1.589 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 95 1.605 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 96 1.621 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 97 1.636 5 1.01E-05 5 1.01E-05 100% Pass 98 1.652 5 1.01E-05 4 8.04E-06 80% Pass 99 1.668 5 1.01E-05 4 8.04E-06 80% Pass 100 1.684 5 1.01E-05 4 8.04E-06 80% Pass ~ 3: 0 u: 1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 Flow Duration Curve [Pre vs. Post (Mitigated)] 1.0E-04 % Time Exceeding ~ Pre-project Q ~ Post-project (Mitigated) Q 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 SWMM Model Flow Coefficient Calculation PARAMETER ABBREV. Ponding Depth PD Bioretention Soil Layer s Gravel Layer G TOTAL Orifice Coefficient Cg Low Flow Orifice Diameter D Drain exponent n Flow Rate (volumetric) Q Ponding Depth Surface Area Apo Bioretention Surface Area As.AG As.AG Porosity of Bioretention Soil n Flow Rate (per unit area) q Effective Ponding Depth PDetf Flow Coefficient C ,_ Bio-Retention Cell LID BMP 12 in 18 in 12 in 3.5 ft 42 in 0.6 -- in 0.5 -- 0.000 cfs 1929 ft2 1500 ft2 0.0344 ac 1.00 - 0.000 in/hr 13.68 in Qlal;'' -- Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Thursday, 07/6 / 2017 Pond No.6 - Alt 2 STOR BMP I Pond Data Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 101.00 ft Stage I Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft) 0.00 101.00 1,929 0 0 2.00 103.00 2,876 4,773 4,773 Culvert I Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in) = 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len (ft) = 12.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Span (in) = 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft) = 102.50 101.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 Invert El. (ft) = 98.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = 1 Rect Length (ft) = 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = Yes Yes No No Slope (%) = 3.00 0.00 0.00 n/a N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Exfil.(in/hr) = 0.000 (by Contour) Multi-Stage = n/a No No No TW Elev. (ft) = 0.00 Note Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s). Stage I Storage / Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.00 0 101.00 0.00 --- --- --- 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- 0.000 0.20 477 101.20 5.48 ic --- --- --- 0.00 0.15 --- --- --- --- 0.149 0.40 955 101.40 5.48 ic --- --- --- 0.00 0.42 --- --- --- --- 0.421 0.60 1,432 101.60 5.48 ic --- --- --- 0.00 0.77 --- --- --- --- 0.774 0.80 1,909 101.80 5.48 ic --- --- --- 0.00 1.19 --- --- --- --- 1.191 1.00 2,387 102.00 5.48 ic --- --- --- 0.00 1.66 --- --- --- --- 1.665 1.20 2,864 102.20 5.48 ic --- --- --- 0.00 2.19 --- --- --- --- 2.189 1.40 3,341 102.40 5.48 ic --- --- --- 0.00 2.76 --- --- --- --- 2.758 1.60 3,818 102.60 5.48 ic --- --- 1.26 3.37 --- --- --- --- 4.633 1.80 4,296 102.80 7.32 ic --- --- --- 5.54s 1.79s --- --- --- --- 7.323 2.00 4,773 103.00 7.62 ic --- --- --- 6.36 s 1.25s --- --- --- --- 7.613 PASCO LARET SUITER 8, I\:,!, 0 C I Al f '-, Date t j v j I ] J I+ u P l d1 Ll·oJi o vi -S... s-'" 12,1,,l P -I Ii-ind, Wei I' A :.. lpVO . . . • I I \~ ) ~ vi : tt,vl /1.. \h ., AN I hwv1,( < Job 11 ]J __ I_ j 535 North Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, CA 92075 I plsaengineering.com Drawdown Calculation for BMP-1 Project Name Highland View Homes Project No 2713 ISurface Drawdown Time: I 4.0 1hr I Surface Area 1500 sgft Underdrain Orifice Diameter: N/A 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 = N/A cfs Effective Depth 20.4 in Infiltration rate of soil with safety factor per geotech report 3.000 in/hr •••• • • . I . • • . • ··!·" ·•!1;1 .;!tr.I . ;!l!I ... I ·•! I ·•! -, ·•! I ·•!'-• ,;!,: I .. -\~I • .. . : \ ,. . .. ~ . ... /, r~,,, ' : .... r ~'-,(. -,. . •" -4 ,. i er-\ .. ~·t ., ,,V V \ -,. • -t ~ • ~ ). / " -a -~ ,,. ~- ~· " ~·· ~<> ·i • ,.· .. ::-.. ·· . :) /. ~ ,, ~ ... ., ~/ ~ \ / .. ,.t~ .. ~ -/ . • /. ,. // " . ' . \ ',.; \ ,. ..... I -.. " ,. ,. ; • =-~ ~ . ~ ' \ < -~~ ~--~t"'----~:... ~ ~ / ,;!tU ,;!1., ·•!t. ·•! I ·•! I ·•! • ·•! •• ·•!'. ·•!'"'' ·•!'-• ·•!,.. r. I . 1:.1 I • • 1.:-r.. - ·1:. I I ., II c-::• II ~ -, . ~ I :.r.ie • I 1 1 ;.11 t •· -. . -. . I . . . .... . . -.. • Hydrologic Soil Group-San Diego County Area, California MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons D A D ND OB 0 BID oc D C/D D D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines .-A -ND -B -B/D C -CID -D .. ti Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points • A • ND • B • BID USDA Natural Resources -Conservation Service [J C • CID • D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails -Interstate Highways -US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background • Aerial Photography Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required . This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 12, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014-Nov 22,2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 512/2017 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit - San Diego County Area, California (CA638) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOl Percent of AOl CgC Chesterton-Urban land D 1.2 42.6% complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes MIC Marina loamy coarse B 0.4 15.4% sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes MIE Marina loamy coarse B 1.2 42.0% sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 2.9 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/2/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California I I 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 I 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 I three dual classes (ND, BID, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: I 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. I 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. I These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. I 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. I 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 I layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. I If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (ND, BID, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options I Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher 1 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/2/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 I Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing Factors 9 17 R V E R S D I E G 0 16 117/ 18 D E 16 MPERIAL 18 El CEN'IIIO t 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 in/month in/month in/month in/month Zone in/month in/month 1 0.93 1.4 2.48 3.3 4.03 4.5 4.65 4.03 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 L16 1.55 2.52 iiui 1 4.03 - 5.7 7.75 1 8.7 -- JLJ 9.3 8.37 6.3 4.34 2.4 1.55 L::j Days 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 Zone F31 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 1 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 0.050 G-6 February 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 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: ] Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual Final Design level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable Maintenance thresholds 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 E-34 I Page 21 of REV 04/17 BMP Maintenance Information Long-term performance of storm water BMPs requires routine maintenance of BMPs including structural, site design and source control BMPs. A maintenance plan consists of determining BMP ownership, funding source, maintenance indicators, actions and frequencies. The following discusses the maintenance plan for the proposed project. Access to BMP for maintenance provided by easement across lot 5. Structural BMPs I The structural treatment control BMP for the proposed project consists of one (1) infiltration basin. The proposed infiltration basin is a vegetated BMP. Table 1 below from the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, has been modified to summarize the applicable maintenance indicators and actions for the infiltration basin. I Table 1: Maintenance Indicators and Actions for Vegetated BMPs Typical Maintenance I ndicator(s) for Vegetated BMPs 1 IiT [.]i. Accumulation of sediment, litter, or Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, without debris damage to the vegetation. Poor vegetation establishment Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans. Overgrown vegetation Mow or trim as appropriate, but not less than the design height of the vegetation per original plans when applicable Erosion due to concentrated irrigation Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation flow system. Erosion due to concentrated storm Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate water runoff flow corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Standing water in or biofiltration basin Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation for longer than 96 hours following a system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, storm event* clearing underdrains (where applicable), or repairing/replacing clogged or compacted soils. Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear obstructions. Damage to structural components Repair or replace as applicable. such as weirs, inlet or outlet structures *These BMPs typically include a surface ponding layer as part of their function which may take 96 hours to drain following a storm event. Site Design and Source Control BMPs Site design and source control BMPs are intended to prevent impacts to storm water quality by reducing runoff and controlling the pollutant at the source. Permeable payers are proposed for the project as a site design BMP. Table 2 below from the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, has been modified to summarize the applicable maintenance indicators and actions for permeable payers. Table 2: Maintenance Indicators and Actions for Non-Vegetated BMPs Typical Maintenance Indicator(s) for Non-Vegetated BMPs Maintenance Actions -- Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris on permeable pavement surface Remove and properly dispose accumulated materials. Standing water in permeable paving Flush fine sediment from paving and subsurface gravel. Provide area routine vacuuming of permeable paving areas to prevent clogging. Damage to permeable paving surface Repair or replace damaged surface as appropriate. Note: When inspection or maintenance indicates sediment is accumulating in a BMP, the DMA draining to the BMP should be examined to determine the source of the sediment, and corrective measures should be made as applicable to minimize the sediment supply. BMP Inspection and Maintenance Frequency The frequency of BMP inspection and maintenance is BMP and site specific. Minimally, BMPs should be inspected annually. Biannual evaluation of vegetation is recommended. Inspection of BMPs during and after major storm events is recommended. Table 3 below summarizes recommended inspection and maintenance frequency of storm water BMPs. Table 3: Inspection and Maintenance Frequency :h'I Maintenance Frequency Minimally once per year. Minimally once per year prior to August 31. Infiltration During and after major Periodically as required based on maintenance indicators. Basin storm events. Biannual evaluation of vegetation. Permeable Payers Minimally once per year. During and after major Minimally once per year prior to August 31. Periodically as required based on maintenance indicators. storm events. II I I 11 I II Table 4 below summarizes the potential pollutant source and associated source control practice applicable to the proposed project. Table 4: Summary of Source Control BMPs Potential Pollutant Sourc Source iaControl ------ Onsite storm drain inlets Mark all inlets with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay" or similar. Maintain and periodically repaint or replace inlet markings. Final landscape plans shall: Preserve existing drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground cover to the maximum extent possible. Be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where Landscape/outdoor appropriate, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides. pesticide use Specify plants that are tolerant of periodic saturated soil conditions for areas used to retain or detain stormwater. Consider the use of pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape. Select plants appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency, and plant interactions. Maintain landscaping using minimum or no pesticides. Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the Plazas, sidewalks, and accumulation of litter and debris. Debris from pressure washing shall be collected to parking lots prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser shall be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer and not discharged to a storm drain. Responsible Party The party responsible for long-term maintenance and funding is: Carlsbad Coastal Views, LLC 3840 Don Lorenzo Carlsbad, CA 92010 Long-term Maintenance Documentation The responsible party is required to provide documentation of BMP maintenance. Documentation may include information including but not limited to inspection dates, results, maintenance activities, and photos. Maintenance documentation must be kept for a minimum of 5 years. ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit [Use the City's standard Single Sheet BMP Plan.] I E-34 Page 22 of REV 04/17 SWMP NO. PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE t'WE CARLSBAD COASTAL I4EWS. LLC AWRESS 3840 DON LORENZO CONTACT BRIAN SULLIVAN CARLSBAD, CA 92010 A-UNE NO. (760) 402-5021 PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME BRIAN ARDOLINO C0IPANY PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES. INC. SIGNATURE ESS ADDRESS 535 N HWY 101 STE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 ii€ NO. (858) 259-8212 w No. 71651 Exp.12/31/i7 BMP NOTES CERTIFICATION ________ civ 11ESE BP4S ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERS RECOt4.EM?ATIONS OR ThESE PLANS. NO CHANGES To THE PROPOSED BIPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRICI? APPROVAL FROM THE crry ENGiNEER. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL F1?OId THE CITY ENGINEER. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE C4?4NTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE B90 COMSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. REFER TO ?t4INTENAN(E AGFEEIENT DOCLIENT. SEE PROJECT SWt4' FOR ADDITIONAL IWOF1t44TION. BMP TABLE BMP ID# BMP TYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. J QUANTITY DRAWiNG NO. I SHEETNO.(S) INSPECTION I FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY TREATMENT CONTROL PERVIOUS _______ _________ _________ ________ __________ __________ ®-® VfAIENT TC-10 Z380 SF 504-3A APA AIJALLY 2-8 SEMI-AMAJALLY HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL 8I0FETENTI(I4 1,OO F. 2, 6AFEA 504-3A JJQJFJ[Y 41-A IWALLY HYDROMODIFICAflON LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.I.D.) -' '- M4m'T9wcE IF ORAIN4GE CCflI1W 8 64 - 3A 3-6 SOURCE CONTROL © 7AASH FROTECTIM Fxl -32 8 EA 504-3A 3-6 GRAPHIC SCALE 1=201 0 20 40 60 SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEETS 1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1 SINGLE SHEET BMP SITE PLAN HIGHLAND VIEW HOMES RECORD COPY INITIAL DATE JECT NO. C °-4 _ DATE INITIAL REVISION DESCRIPTiON DATE INITIAL DATE INITiAL DRAWiNG NO. GR 2017-0031 ENGINEER OF WORK OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL WdWd(Jil ft dlii ______ :. ••-: ..