HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 16-07; MARJA ACRES; STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MARJA ARCES; 2022-01-20CITY OF CARLSBAD
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)
STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR
MARJA ACRES
PROJECT ID
CT 16-07/PUD 16-09/SDP 2018-0001/CDP
16-33/HDP 16-02/SUP 16-02/EIR 2017-0001
GR 2021-0006/ DWG 529-9A, DWG 529-B,
DWG 529-C, ROW2021-0371, ROW2021-0370
ENGINEER OF WORK:
Mel Landy, PE 81085
PREPARED FOR:
NUWI Carlsbad, LLC
1733 Ocean Avenue, Suite 350
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
(310) 864 - 2427
PREPARED BY:
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST, SUITE 217 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 (760) 929-2288
DATE: 01/20/2022
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 1a: DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations
Attachment 1c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable)
Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable)
Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations
Attachment 1f: Existing Offsite Biofiltration Capacity Analysis by alternative
minimum Biofiltration Footprint Ratio Sizing
Attachment 1g: Retention Compensation Analysis
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
CERTIFICATION
PAGE
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water
BMPs for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the
project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the
design is consistent with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is
based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the
current Order.
I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for
managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described
in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this SWQMP has been completed to the best of my
ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and
site design BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land
development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check
review of this SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me,
as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my
responsibilities for project design.
Engineer of Work's Signature PE Number: 81085 Expiration Date: 9/30/23
Mel Landy
HOWES WEILER AND ASSOCIATES
Company
1/21/22
Date
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the city requires that 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
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: Marja Acres PROJECT ID: C.T. 16-07 PUD 2018-0007
ADDRESS: 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 APN: 207-101-35 & 37
The project is (check one): New Development ✔ Redevelopment
The total proposed disturbed area is: 907,355 ft2 ( 20.83 ) acres
The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 544,845 ft2 ( 12.51 ) 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 N/A SWQMP #: N/A
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
Development Services
Land Development
Engineering
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602‐2750
STORM WATER STANDARDS
QUESTIONNAIRE
E-34
INSTRUCTIONS:
STEP 1
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
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):
N/A
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 new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria:
a) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-
erodible permeable areas;
b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads;
c) 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? ✔
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):
The project's proposed slight widening of the ex. El Camino Real is designed and will be constructed in
accordance with the USEPA Green Street guidance: The runoff from the additional paved areas will discharge
into a series of ex. bio-filtration planters located in the central median of El Camino Real. The ex. bio-filtration
planters will provide source control of stormwater, limit its transport and pollutant conveyance to the downstream
MS4.
If you answered “no” to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, go to Step 3.
STEP 3
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1)):
YES NO
1. 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 public development projects on public or private land.
✔
2. 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.
✔
3. 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
refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code 5812).
✔
4. 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
development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater.
✔
5. 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
land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for
business or for commerce.
✔
6. 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 street, road, highway freeway
or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface
used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles.
✔
7. 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
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).*
✔
8. 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.
✔
9. 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
RGO’s that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily
Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day.
✔
10. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land
and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? ✔
11. 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
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.
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) = 117,612 sq. ft.
Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = 544,845 sq. ft.
Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)*100 = 463.25 %
✔
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 project is a PDP …” 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.
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.
My Project is NOT a ‘development project’ and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual.
Applicant Information and Signature Box
Howes Weiler Planning and Engineering
Applicant Name: Alex Parra Applicant Title: Senior Engineer
Applicant Signature: Date: 12/21/21
* Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water 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.
This Box for City Use Only
City Concurrence:
YES NO
By:
Date:
Project ID:
SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Project Summary Information
Project Name Marja Acres
Project ID CT 16-07/PUD 16-09/SDP 2018-0001/CDP 16-
33/HDP 16-02/SUP 16-02/EIR 2017-0001
(DEV16038)
Project Address The site is located on the south side of El Camino
Real, between Kelly Drive to the west and Lisa
Street to the east.
Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) APN 207-101-35, 207-101-37, and 207-290-10
Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904
Parcel Area
20.83 Acres
(907,355 Square Feet)
Existing Impervious Area
(subset of Parcel Area)
2.70 Acres
(117,612 Square Feet)
Area to be disturbed by the project
(Project Area)
20.83 Acres
(907,355 Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
12.51 Acres
(544,845 Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area)
8.32 Acres
(362,510 Square Feet)
Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the
Project.
This may be less than the Parcel Area.
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:
Marja Acres project is located on the south side of El Camino Real, between Kelly Drive to the
west and Lisa Street to the east. Currently the site is partially developed with nursery, mini
market store with asphalt parking area and a pottery shop are located along the north portion
of the project parallel to El Camino Real, there is an access road to the southern portion of the
project site which contains agricultural area, along with a shed. The undeveloped areas are
located along the east and the west property lines.
Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply):
Vegetative Cover
Non-Vegetated Pervious
Areas Impervious Areas
Description / Additional Information:
The site has two existing driveway access points, located along El Camino Real which are
meant for access to the Mini Marked, the nursery and the pottery store, and additional
paved access driveway which is located on the southwest corner of the parking lot is the
access point for the southern portion of the site which is an agricultural area.
Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply):
NRCS Type A
NRCS Type B
NRCS Type C
NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW):
GW Depth < 5 feet
5 feet < GW Depth < 10
feet 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet
GW Depth > 20 feet
Per Geotechnical Report, GW discovered at 14 to 17 below ex. grades
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercourses
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
None
Description / Additional Information: None known
A segment of Kelly Creek runs north-south to the west of the project site.
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]:
On-site storm water drains towards the west of the site with two discharge locations on the westerly
property line, the first discharge point is located approximately 200 feet of the southwesterly property
corner which conveys roughly 25% of the site flow via surface flow through a natural low point, the
second point is approximately 350 feet south of the northwesterly property corner with flows going
through an existing on-site storm drain conveyance system that conveys on-site storm water to an
off-site storm drain channel that collects storm water from several upstream and downstream
properties. Flows from both discharge points ultimately enter the adjacent Agua Hedionda Creek.
(See project Drainage Report)
Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:
The Marja Acres development plan proposes a total number of 299 dwelling units consisting of
237 townhomes within the R-15 General Plan designated area, and 46 age restricted affordable
house units, 16 Townhomes, a 4,000 square foot restaurant pad and a 5,700 retail pad area
within the GC General Plan designated area. The proposed project has been designed to
emphasize superior architecture, views, privacy, walkability, internal connectivity and
recreational amenities. See Attachment 1a.
List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking
lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):
The proposed will construct multiple types of impermeable surfaces such as roof tops,
roadways, sidewalks, walkways, parking lots and trash enclosures.
List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):
The site proposes landscape areas exceeding minimum requirements and multiple bio-
filtration areas for storm water treatment. See Attachment 1a.
Does the project include grading and changes to site topography?
Yes
No
Description / Additional Information:
The current land elevations range from approximately 58 feet to 67 feet MSL along El Camino
Real raising up to 112 feet at the highest point along the southern border. The current slope
alignment is generally in an east to west direction. The proposed design of the site maintains
the slope alignment in an east to west direction yet decreases the extent of the slope heights
which ultimately enhances the view of the site from El Camino Real.
Additionally, to maximize the privacy of the existing adjacent homes, the upper levels of the
site were lowered significantly. By lowering the site to accommodate the privacy concerns, the
volume of the grading increases. The design of the site warrants this increase to create a
better project for the new residents as well as the existing adjacent residents.
Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water
conveyance systems)?
Yes
No
Description / Additional Information:
The project includes the installations of a new storm water conveyance system that will
collect, treat, and release storm water from the project site to an existing natural creek
offsite to the west.
Once in this existing system, the flows connect to public conveyance systems and then
enter Agua Hedionda Creek, then Agua Hedionda lagoon, and finally the Pacific Ocean.
Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be
present (select all that apply):
On-site storm drain inlets
Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest control
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features
Food service
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
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):
The project site drains into the branch of Agua Hedionda creek that drains to Agua Hedionda
lagoon. The Agua Hedionda lagoon discharges directly to the Pacific Ocean.
List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the
Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the
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
Agua Hedionda Creek Enterococcus, Fecal Coliform,
Manganese, phosphorus,
selenium, Total Nitrogen as N,
TDS, Aquatic Toxicity
Eutrophic, Indicator Bacteria
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 X
Organic Compounds X
Trash & Debris X
Oxygen Demanding
Substances X
Oil & Grease X
Bacteria & Viruses X X
Pesticides X
Hydromodification Management Requirements
Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design
Manual)?
Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required.
No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains
discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific
Ocean.
No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank
are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes,
enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean.
No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an
exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides.
Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above):
The project is a redevelopment project that discharge directly to an existing storm drain system
that already has outlet protection to prevent hydromodification.
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
6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas onsite
No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas
identified based on WMAA maps
If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result?
No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite
Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that
protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 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:
A Deposition Analysis of this project site has been done, per guidance from “Appendix H
Guidance for Investigating Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas” more specific
H.1.2 Refinement Option and H.7.1 Depositional Analysis. This has been done to
determine whether the Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas CCSYAs that are
located within the project area at the mid-east section are required to be preserved.
Per the Deposition Analysis Memorandum located under Attachment 2B within this report,
it has been determined that the velocity for the 2 year – 24 hour storm event, the
velocities are 2.90 ft/s in the first case and 1.00 ft/s in the second case, downstream of
the Potential CCSYAs, which is less than the 3.0 ft/s stated in appendix H.1.2.1:
Depositional Analysis detailed in section H.7.1 Depositional Analysis. consequently, no
measure for protection of CCSYA on-site are necessary.
Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply
List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification
management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number
correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number
correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit.
There are three (3) points of compliance (POC 1-POC 3) located on the westerly property line,
approximately 360 feet south of El Camino Real for hydromodification management see HMP
Exhibit Attachment 2a.
Regarding POC 2 in developed conditions most of the flow was diverted to POC 1 (except for
DMA-11D which remains in the same in pre and post development conditions.
Regarding POC 3, in developed conditions all offsite runoff from newly created impervious
areas due to the proposed street widening will discharge into the existing BMPs located in the
median of El Camino Real. There areas will be exempt as part of the City green design
standards and guidelines. Hydromodification compliance for off-site areas along El Camino
Real, the following assumption based in two design conditions has been made: (a) the
receiving creek is low
susceptibility and (b) the existing BMPs were designed with the conservative sizing tables, see
attachment 1F.
Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)?
No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold)
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer:
The low-flow threshold for hydromodification analysis for this project is 50% of Q2 based on a
study prepared by Wayne Chang (2018) in terms of the susceptibility for erosion.
Refer to attachment 2c
Discussion / Additional Information: (optional)
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.
The soil engineer's recommendation is to provide impervious liner
underneath the biofilters due to both the very limited infiltration rate and the proximity to
buildings and slopes.
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.
STANDARD PROJECT
REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST
E-36
Development Services
Land Development Engineering
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602‐2750
www.carlsbadca.gov
Project Information
Project Name: Marja Acres
Project ID: GR 2021-0006; PUD2018-0007; CT16-07
DWG No. or Building Permit No.: DWG 529-6A
Source Control BMPs
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See
Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 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 E.1 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 Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented:
All proposed impervious areas drain to Biofiltration BMPs, thus mitigating non-storm water discharge
to the MS4. Efficient irrigation will also be proposed.
SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented:
・ Locations of inlets are shown on exhibits.
・ All inlets will be marked with the words “No dumping! Flows to Bay” or similar. ・ Maintain and periodically repaint or replace inlet markings.
・ Provide storm water pollution prevention information to new owners, lessees, or operations.
SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind
Dispersal Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented:
There are no proposed Outdoor Material Storage Areas.
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 Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented:
There are no proposed Outdoor Work Areas.
SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented:
This project does not propose outdoor Trash Storage Areas.
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).
On-site storm drain inlets Yes No N/A
Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Yes No N/A
Interior parking garages Yes No N/A
Need for future indoor & structural pest control Yes No N/A
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Yes No N/A
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Yes No N/A
Food service Yes No N/A
Refuse areas Yes No N/A
Industrial processes Yes No N/A
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Yes No N/A
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Yes No N/A
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Yes No N/A
Fuel Dispensing Areas Yes No N/A
Loading Docks Yes No N/A
Fire Sprinkler Test Water Yes No N/A
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Yes No N/A
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots Yes No N/A
For “Yes” answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for “No” answers.
Go to next page.
E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09/16
For on-site storm drain inlets
• Location of inlets is shown in exhibits.
• All inlets will be marked with the words “No dumping! Flows to Bay” or similar.
• Maintain and periodically repaint or replace inlet markings.
• Provide storm water pollution prevention information to new owners, lessees, or operations.
For need for future indoor & structural pest control
• Building shall integrate features that discourage entry of pests.
• Provide integrated pest management information to owners, lessees, and operators.
For landscape/outdoor pesticide use, final landscape plans will accomplish all of the following:
• Design landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where
appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm
water pollution.
• Where landscaped areas are used to retain or detain storm water, specify plants that are
tolerant of periodic saturated soil conditions.
• Consider using pest‐resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape.
• To ensure successful establishment, 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.
For fire sprinkler test water
• Fire sprinkler test water will be plumbed to sanitary sewer
For plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots:
• Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of
litter and debris
• Debris from pressure washing shall be collected to prevent entry into the storm drain
system. Wash-water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser shall be collected and
discharged to the sanitary sewer and not discharged to a storm drain.
For pools spas and decorative fountains
• Location of water feature and sanitary sewer cleanout will be shown on plans.
• Water feature will be plumbed to the sanitary sewer.
• See applicable operational BMP’s in Fact Sheet SC-72, “Fountain and Pool Maintenance” in
the CASQA Storm Water Quality Handbooks.
Proposed project is a multi-family apartment complex. There will be no outdoor material storage
and/or outdoor work areas. This project does not propose food service areas, refuse areas,
industrial processes and fuel dispensing areas are not proposed for this project.
Vehicle/equipment repair, maintenance and cleaning are discouraged.
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 Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented:
There are no Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features on-site
SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented:
There are no Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation to conserve on-site
SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented:
Streets, sidewalks & parking aisles were designed with widths minimized as much as possible. Proposed building
is multi-story in an effort to reduce the building footprint.
SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented:
SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented:
Pervious areas are included where project design allows in order to disperse impervious areas; however, dispersion is not
implemented such that the DCV can be confidently reduced. The roof, parking structure, drive aisle, driveways and
hardscaping are routed through landscaped areas where possible.
E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16
Site Design Requirement (continued) Applied?
SD-6 Runoff Collection Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented:
All runoff will be directed towards Bio-filtration Basins, which ultimately drain to the POC
SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented:
Native and drought tolerant species will be included in landscape design.
SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation Yes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented:
Harvest and reuse was deemed infeasible per Form I-7: Harvest and use Feasibility Checklist.
E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16
SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS
PDP Structural BMPs
All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of
the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control
must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to
hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow
control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both
storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be
achieved within the same structural BMP(s).
PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may
include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of
the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must
be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the
BMP Design Manual).
Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP
implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP
summary information sheet for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary
information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual
structural BMP).
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.
The selection of the proposed pollutant control and flow control (hydromodification) BMPs was
based on section 5.2 of the BMP Design Manual. From Form I-7 (harvest and Use Feasibility
Checklist), Harvest has been deemed infeasible. Per the proposed development’s
Geotechnical Report prepared by Geo Soils, Inc., partial infiltration is infeasible due to high
probability of groundwater mounding which would potentially cause adverse effects to
proposed improvements and future adjacent improvements. For the same reason the
infiltration rate has been limited to 0.01 in/hr or less. Bio-filtration basins with lined sides and
bottoms are recommended.
Seven (7) Biofiltration basins denoted as BMP-1 through BMP-7, have been proposed to
meet storm water pollutant control requirements and hydromodification management. BMPs
3 and 4 work in conjunction to manage flows for hydromodification and flood control.
An underground storage vault (UG1) is proposed to handle hydromodification and 100-yr
peak flow attenuation. Discharge is managed by a system of orifices and weirs. UG1
discharges to POC
Regarding the entrance areas, and considering only WQ treatment, modular wetland
devices will be placed upstream of all four proposed inlets of (DMAs 8C and 9C.1), flows
collected from the modular wetland will be conveyed through underground pipes to the the
downstream curb inlets. The remainder area (9C.2) which consist of a portion of the
entrance improvements and portion of the turn pocket improvements will continue sheet
flowing on a westerly direction, these flows will be treated by a proposed tree well located in
the ROW of El Camino Real.
The on-site and public turn pocket improvements located west of the relocated curb inlet
have a super elevated condition consistent with El Camino Real vertical design conditions,
the newly impervious areas will naturally want to sheet flow on a northwesterly direction to
the road median where they enter an existing biofiltration facility (BMP 14) which was design
to treat flows consistent with the road widening. (Approved Analysis prepared by O’Day +
Chang). Although BMP 14 is under sized by 35-s.f. to treat additional flows, further
downstream existing biofiltration facilities (BMPs 15 & 16) have the capacity to treat the
additional flows. (See attachment 1F for analysis of offsite conditions)
The west entrance will have a modular wetland located behind the curb on the west side of the
proposed driveway. This facility will treat DMA 8C for water quality only; it should be noted that
is unfeasible to treat on-site the portion of project site area north of (DMA 8C) and the newly
created impervious areas created along El Camino Real to allow for the turn pocket. Therefor
these areas will be allowed to comingle with existing flows from El Camino Real and sheet flow
on a north westerly direction where they will confluence and then be treated by at the existing
biofiltration facilities (BMP 15 & 16) located on the road median and constructed for the road
widening project of El Camino Real (Approved Analysis prepared by O’Day + Chang). (See
exhibits provided on attachment 1F for delineation of additional area being treated by existing
BMP 15 and 16 as-well as calculation demonstrating capacity of said basins to treat additional
area). A De-minimis area exists at the north west corner of the project site, said area is within
El Camino Real improvements and bypasses existing BMP facilities in el Camino Real
Regarding the hydromodification compliance of the entrances, these impervious areas will be
considered untreated for the hydromodification point of view, and that extra runoff will be
compensated by oversizing the BMPs inside the development. The HMP post-development
model will consider the entrances with their existing impervious areas and by-passing the
project BMPs but the overall Flow Duration Curve of the project will comply. On regards to the
adjacent new road widening, the existing facilities in El Camino Real median will provide water
pollution control as part of Green Street design criteria. (See for E-24 for justification)
The retention requirements was also considered: an analysis of over-retention by the proposed
onsite biofiltration BMPs will be prepared following these assumptions: (a) no frontage area
draining into El Camino Real is considered complying with retention requirements, so the
impervious area of that frontage (both entrances included) is to be counted, and the 3% of that
effective impervious area becomes a deficit, to be covered by, any excess over 3% from other
BMPs.
As all onsite proposed BMPs are in excess of 3%, there is an excess of retention therefore
the project complies with the retention requirement. (Please refer to Attachment 1G).
There are perimeter isolated self-mitigating areas that will bypass the treatment facilities.
These areas will remain natural or be landscaped with non-native / noninvasive drought
tolerant species that do not require application of fertilizers and pesticides, these areas that
drain directly offsite or to the public storm drain system. These areas will not be
hydraulically connected to other impervious areas unless it is a stormwater conveyance
system (such as brow ditches). These areas are hydraulically separate from DMAs that
contain permanent stormwater pollutant control BMPs. The incidental impervious areas are
less than 5 percent of the self-mitigating area
(Continued on next
page…)
PDP Structural BMPs
SUMMARY OF POST-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS
DMA Tributary Area, A
(Ac)
Impervious
Percentage, Ip (%)Drains to
DMA‐1D 1.060 44.62 BMP 1
DMA‐2D 0.901 70.30 BMP 2
DMA‐3D 0.666 75.24 BMP 3
DMA‐3C 0.106 56.18 BMP 3
DMA‐4D 3.304 63.85 BMP 4
DMA‐4C 2.800 63.85 BMP 4
DMA‐5D 0.532 77.15 BMP 5
DMA‐5C 1.135 47.75 BMP 5
DMA‐6D 2.919 66.45 BMP 6
DMA‐6C 1.596 66.75 BMP 6
DMA‐7D 0.455 75.70 BMP7
DMA‐7C 2.747 66.28 BMP7
DMA‐8C 0.299 62.81 Modular Wetland
DMA‐9C 0.437 48.12
Tree well & Modular
Wetland
DMA‐10C 0.418 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐
excluded from HMP
DMA‐11C 0.394 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐
excluded from HMP
DMA‐11D 0.374 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐
excluded from HMP
DMA‐12D 0.044 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐NOT
excluded from HMP
TOTAL 20.19 N/A
The bio-filtration basins were modeled using the biofiltration LID module within SWMM.
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. BMP-1
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 15
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☐ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-1’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Property Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Property Owner
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. BMP-2
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 15
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☐ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-2’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. BMP-3
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 12
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☐ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-3’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows and Q100 (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. BMP-4
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 9
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☐ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-4’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows and Q100 (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. BMP-5
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 12,13
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☐ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-5’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. BMP-6
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 10,13
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☐ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-6’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. BMP-7
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 12,13
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☐ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-7’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No. UG1
DWG 529-9A Sheet No. 9,12, 59, 60
Type of structural BMP:
☐ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
☐ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
☐ Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
☐ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
☒ Biofiltration (BF-1)
☐ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
☒ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
☐ Pollutant control only
☐ Hydromodification control only
☒ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
Purpose discussion: Although BMP-7’s main purpose is pollutant control, a low-flow orifice within
the gravel layer is proposed to help manage flows as well as utilize the storage within the basin
during hydromodification flows (flood control). Flood control is discussed in this project’s
Drainage Report.
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Engineer of Work
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
Owner
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
Owner
ATTACHMENT 1
BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1.
Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 1a DMA Exhibit (Required)
See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back
of this Attachment cover sheet.
(24”x36” Exhibit typically required)
Included
Attachment 1b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing
DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA
Area, and DMA Type (Required)*
*Provide table in this Attachment OR
on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a
Included on DMA Exhibit in
Attachment 1a
Included as Attachment 1b,
separate from DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1c Form I-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility
Screening Checklist (Required unless
the entire project will use infiltration
BMPs)
Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-7.
included because the entire
project will use infiltration BMPs
Attachment 1d Form I-8, Categorization of Infiltration
Feasibility Condition (Required unless
the project will use harvest and use
BMPs)
Refer to Appendices C and D of the
BMP Design Manual to complete Form
I-8.
Not Included
Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design
Worksheets / Calculations (Required)
Refer to Appendices B and E of the
BMP Design Manual for structural
pollutant control BMP design
guidelines
Included
Attachment 1f Technical Memorandum, Existing
Offsite Biofiltration Capacity Analysis
by Alternative Minimum Biofiltration
Footprint Ration sizing
Included
Attachment 1g Structural BMP – Tree Well and
Modular Wetland System maintenance
information attachments
Included
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on
the DMA Exhibit:
The DMA 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 and impervious areas
☒ 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
☒ 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)
☒ Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP)
ATTACHMENT 1A
(EV)(EV)EVEVE(No2). 24" CMP(EV)(EV)FF 83.25PAD 82.50URBANFARMSOIL TYPE
CSOIL TYPE DBMP1BMP2BMP3BMP4BMP7BMP5BMP6DMA-1 DDMA-2 DDMA-3 DDMA-4CDMA-5 CDMA-5 DDMA-6 DDMA-6 CDMA-9C.2DMA-7 DDMA-7 CDMA-3 CDMA-4DDMA-4CDMA-10 CDMA-10 CDMA-11 DDMA-4DSOIL TYPE CSOIL TYPE DSOIL TYPE CSOIL TYPE DDMA-11 CDMA-12 DDMA-9C.1DMA-8 CDMA-8C-1AURBANFARMDMA-8C-1BDMA-9C-1ADMA-9C-1B CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGLEGENDPOC 1SELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)SELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)PROPOSED INLETAND TREE WELL(ADDED TO HMPMANAGEMENT)POC 1PROPOSED ULTIMATEPOINT OF DISCHARGEEXISTINGINLET TO BERELOCATEDEXISTINGINLETEXISTINGCULVERTSEXISTINGNATURALCREEKEXISTINGNATURALCREEKPERMANENT WATER QUALITYTREATMENT FACILITIES ONTHIS SITEKEEPING OUR WATER CLEANMAINTAIN WITH CARENO MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT CITY OF CARLSBAD APPROVALOFFSITE AREA DRAINS TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITY(NOT ADDED TO HMP MANAGEMENT)IMPERVIOUS SURFACESDRAIN TO EX. BIO-FILTRATIONFACILITY IN MEDIANSELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)EXISTING BIO-FILTRATIONFACILITY (SEE ATTACHMENT1F SWQMP)EXISTINGBIO-FILTRATIONFACILITYSELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)IMPERVIOUS SURFACESDRAIN TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITYIN MEDIANMWS-#TW1MWS-3MWS-1OFFSITE AREA DRAINS TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITY(NOT ADDED TO HMP MANAGEMENT)TW DRAINS TOMODULAR WETLANTDRAINS TO TREEWELLDE-MINIMISAREASELF MITIGATINGAREA - (INCLUDED INMANAGEMENT)DMA-9C.1 AND DMA-9C.2BOTH ADDED TO HMPMANAGEMENTMWS-2MWS-4PROPOSEDUNDERGROUNDSTORAGEVAULT (UG1)POC 2POC 3
CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGSECTION VIEWPLAN VIEWTREE TIE NOTE:TREE WELL NOTESSTREET TREES DETAILSECTION B-BPLAN VIEWSECTION A-A TYPICAL TREE WELL DETAILS TYPICAL BIO-FILTRATION BASIN DETAILPVC CAP / ORIFICE DETAILSUMMARY OF DEVELOPED DUAL AND TRIPLE PURPOSE BMPsSUMMARY OF RISER DETAILSPRECAST DRAIN INLET - BIO-FILTRATION OUTLET STRUCTURELINER ATTACHEMENT DETAILOPTIONAL RETAININGWALL AT BASIN
BMP & STORM DRAIN DETAILS TYPICAL BIO-FILTRATION BASIN DETAILPVC CAP / ORIFICE DETAILSUMMARY OF DEVELOPED DUAL AND TRIPLE PURPOSE BMPsSUMMARY OF RISER DETAILSSITE SPECIFIC DATA - MWS #4SITE SPECIFIC DATA - MWS #3SITE SPECIFIC DATA - MWS #2SITE SPECIFIC DATA - MWS #1INSTALLATION NOTEGENERAL NOTESPRECAST DRAIN INLET - BIO-FILTRATION OUTLET STRUCTURELINER ATTACHEMENT DETAILOPTIONAL RETAININGWALL AT BASIN
82S
81S
79S
80S
FF=78.7
5
FP=78.0
0
FF=78.2
5
FP=77.5
0
FF=77.7
5
FP=77.0
0
FF=78.2
5
FP=77.5
0
FF=78.7
5
FP=78.0
0
BMP 2
72.65
F
G
77.5 TW
73.0 BW
78.5 TW
73.0 BW
76.4 TW
73.0 BW
75.0 TW
73.0 BW
B
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 2
B
PLAN VIEW
SECTION B-B
22S
28S
27S
7876FF=78.7
5
FP=78.0
0 FF=79.2
5
FP=78.
5
0
76.6 FS
PROP. INLET
BMP 3
73.85 FG 77.5 TW
73.85 BW
77.5 TW
73.85 BW
77.9 TW
73.85 BW
77.0 TW
73.85BW76.6 TW
73.85 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 3
PLAN VIEW
SECTION C-C
C
C
565860PM 34515%58.4 FG
PM 345166.1 FS
60.2 FS
56.6 FG 64.0 FS
58.0 FS
PROP. INLET
BMP 4
53.50 FG
58.75 TW
55.7 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 4PLAN VIEW
SECTION D-D
D D
58.75 TW
58.75 BW
58.25 TW
55.7 BW
58.75 TW
58.25 BW
58.75 TW
56.0 BW
EMERGENCY
OUTLET
70
66.0 FS
65.5 FS
65.9 FS
PROP.
INLET
BMP 5
63.50 FGEMERGENCY
OUTLET
66.0 TW
65.5 BW
66.5 TW
64.0 BW
66.5 TW
64.0 BW
66.0 TW
65.5 BW
66.5 TW
64.0 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 5PLAN VIEW
SECTION E-E
PROP.
6" CURB
66.6 TC
66.0 TC
E
E
70
76 68664%
66.2 FG
80
74
71.9 FS
72.0 FS 3%3%0.5%0.5%69.8 FG
69.9 FG
BMP 6
71.2 TW
69.1 BW 71.2 TW
68.5 BW
72.5 TW
69.8 BW
71.2 TW
67.5 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 6
PLAN VIEW
SECTION F-F
BMP 6
68.50 FG
68.50 FG
71.20 FG
68.50 FG
PROP. INLET
EMERGENCY
OUTLETF
F
664%66.2 FG
66.3 FG
67.2 FG
69.5 FS
64.0 BW66.2 FG
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 7PLAN VIEW
SECTION G-G
63.00 FG BMP 7
63.0 FG
PROP. INLET
EMERGENCY
OUTLET
63.00 FG
PROP.
RETAINING WALL
66.13 TW
66.13 TW
G
G
MARJA ACRES
UG1 OUTLET DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
SECTION B-B:
INTERIOR WALL W/ ORIFICES
MODIFIED D-09 TYPE A7
SD CLEANOUT
(100yr WSE)
ATTACHMENT 1B
SEE ATTACHMENT 1A - DMA MAP FOR
TABULAR SUMMARY OF DMAs
ATTACHMENT 1C
ATTACHMENT 1D
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
(Marja Carlsbad CA)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 1 of 436677603667850366794036680303668120366821036683003667760366785036679403668030366812036682103668300470860470950471040471130471220471310471400471490471580471670
470860 470950 471040 471130 471220 471310 471400 471490 471580 471670
33° 9' 11'' N 117° 18' 46'' W33° 9' 11'' N117° 18' 11'' W33° 8' 53'' N
117° 18' 46'' W33° 8' 53'' N
117° 18' 11'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/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
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 12, Sep 13, 2017
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.
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
(Marja Carlsbad CA)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 2 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
DaC Diablo clay, 2 to 9
percent slopes
D 3.6 4.7%
DaE2 Diablo clay, 15 to 30
percent slopes,
eroded, warm MAAT,
MLRA 20
C 5.4 7.0%
LeC Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 2 to 9 percent
slopes
D 19.3 25.0%
LeC2 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 5 to 9 percent
slopes, eroded
D 0.1 0.1%
LeD2 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 9 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
D 12.2 15.7%
LeE2 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 15 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded
D 7.0 9.1%
LeE3 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 9 to 30 percent
slopes, severely
eroded
D 4.1 5.3%
SbC Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
C 25.5 33.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 77.3 100.0%
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Marja Carlsbad CA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 3 of 4
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive
precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively
drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well
drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of
water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay
layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in
their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Marja Carlsbad CA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1E
Category # Descriptioni ii iii iv v vi viiUnits1 Drainage Basin ID or Name BMP1 BMP2 BMP3 BMP4 BMP5 BMP6 BMP7 unitless2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 inches3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 21,479 28,368 25,769 176,018 42,286 133,814 96,696 sq-ft4 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft5 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) 26,656 11,983 10,254 97,220 32,010 67,238 46,374 sq-ft6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23)sq-ft9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No No No No yes/no11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft16 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft17 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft18 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A#19 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameterft20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E#21 Average Rain Barrel Sizegal22 Total Tributary Area 48,135 40,351 36,023 273,238 74,296 201,052 143,070 sq-ft23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.46 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.56 0.63 0.64 unitless24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.46 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.56 0.63 0.64 unitless26 Initial Design Capture Volume 1,107 1,332 1,207 8,470 2,080 6,333 4,578 cubic-feet27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface0000000sq-ft28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area0000000sq-ft29 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio30 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.46 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.56 0.63 0.64 unitless32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 1,107 1,332 1,207 8,470 2,080 6,333 4,578 cubic-feet33 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0000000cubic-feet34 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction0000000cubic-feet35 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.46 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.56 0.63 0.64 unitless36 Final Effective Tributary Area 22,142 26,632 24,135 169,408 41,606 126,663 91,565 sq-ft37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements0000000cubic-feet38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,107 1,332 1,207 8,470 2,080 6,333 4,578 cubic-feetFalseFalseAutomated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0)Dispersion Area, Tree Well & Rain Barrel Inputs(Optional)Standard Drainage Basin InputsResultsTree & Barrel AdjustmentsInitial Runoff Factor CalculationDispersion Area AdjustmentsNo Warning Messages
Category # Descriptioni ii iii iv v vi viiUnits1 Drainage Basin ID or Name BMP1 BMP2 BMP3 BMP4 BMP5 BMP6 BMP7 unitless2 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 inches3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP LocationCCCCCCCunitless4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted Restricted unitless5 Nature of Restriction Slopes Structures Structures Fill Depths Fill Depths Structures Structures unitless6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stories Proposed? No No No No No No No yes/no8 Has Geotechnical Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in/hr10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in/hr11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% percentage12 Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ratio13 Required Retention Volume 22 27 24 169 42 127 92 cubic-feetFalseFalseAutomated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0)Advanced AnalysisBasic AnalysisResultNo Warning Messages
Category # Descriptioni ii iii iv v vi viiUnits1 Drainage Basin ID or Name BMP1 BMP2 BMP3 BMP4 BMP5 BMP6 BMP7 sq-ft2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in/hr3 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,107 1,332 1,207 8,470 2,080 6,333 4,578 cubic-feet4 Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated? Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated unitless5 Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined unitless6 Does BMP Have an Underdrain? Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain unitless7 Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media? Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard unitless8 Provided Surface Area 1,949 1,098 2,360 7,724 1,692 4,347 3,567 sq-ft9 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 12 6 12 18 12 12 21 inches10 Provided Soil Media Thickness 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 inches11 Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness) 33 33 36 48 36 36 48 inches12 Underdrain Offset3333333inches13 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 0.80 0.90 0.90 2.30 2.20 2.40 2.00 inches14 Specialized Soil Media Filtration Ratein/hr15 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retentionunitless16 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltrationunitless17 Specialized Gravel Media Pore Spaceunitless18 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm0000000cubic-feet19 Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless20 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless21 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless22 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Below Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless23 Effective Retention Depth 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 inches24 Fraction of DCV Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time) 0.31 0.14 0.34 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.14 ratio25 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Time 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 hours26 Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.32 0.16 0.34 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.16 ratio27 Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time) 349 214 411 1,533 335 892 737 cubic-feet28 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 758 1,118 796 6,937 1,745 5,441 3,841 cubic-feet29 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.0375 0.0449 0.0486 0.3584 0.2887 0.3433 0.2763 cfs30 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 0.83 1.77 0.89 2.00 7.37 3.41 3.35 in/hr31 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr32 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 0.83 1.77 0.89 2.00 5.00 3.41 3.35 in/hr33 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 4.98 10.61 5.33 12.03 30.00 20.47 20.08 inches34 Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitless35 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless36 Gravel Pore Space Available for Biofiltration (Above Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless37 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 27.60 21.60 28.80 39.60 28.80 28.80 42.60 inches38 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 14 3 139246hours39 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 33 12 32 20 6 8 13 hours40 Total Depth Biofiltered 32.58 32.21 34.13 51.63 58.80 49.27 62.68 inches41 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 1,137 1,677 1,194 10,406 2,618 8,161 5,762 cubic-feet42 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 1,137 1,677 1,194 10,406 2,618 8,161 5,762 cubic-feet43 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 569 838 597 5,203 1,309 4,081 2,881 cubic-feet44 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 569 838 597 5,203 1,309 4,081 2,881 cubic-feet45 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio48Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater0000000cubic-feetBiofiltration CalculationsFalseFalseFalseFalseResultFalseFalseNo Warning MessagesRetention CalculationsAutomated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0)FalseFalseBMP Inputs
Category # Description i Units
1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 9C.2 unitless
2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.60 inches
3 Is Hydromodification Control Applicable? No yes/no
4 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 5,959 sq-ft
5 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) sq-ft
6 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) 4,720 sq-ft
7 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) sq-ft
8 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14) sq-ft
9 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23) sq-ft
10 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) sq-ft
11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion and/or Rain Barrels? yes/no
12 Does Tributary Incorporate Tree Wells? Yes yes/no
13 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft
14 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft
15 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft
16 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft
17 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14) sq-ft
18 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23) sq-ft
19 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft
20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E #
21 Average Rain Barrel Size gal
22 Total Tributary Area 10,679 sq-ft
23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.55 unitless
24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 unitless
25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.55 unitless
26 Initial Design Capture Volume 294 cubic-feet
27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 sq-ft
28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 sq-ft
29 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area for DCV Reduction n/a ratio
30 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 ratio
31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.55 unitless
32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 294 cubic-feet
33 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 cubic-feet
34 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.55 unitless
35 Final Effective Tributary Area 5,873 sq-ft
36 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Dispersion Area and Rain Barrel(s) 0 cubic-feet
37 Remaining Design Capture Volume Tributary to Tree Well(s) 294 cubic-feet
False
False
SSD-BMP Automated Worksheet I-1: Step 1. Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V1.0)
Standard
Drainage Basin
Inputs
Results
No Warning Messages
Dispersion Area
Adjustment &
Rain Barrel
Adjustment
SSD-BMPs
Proposed
Dispersion Area
& Rain Barrel
Inputs
(Optional)
Initial Runoff
Factor
Calculation
False
Category # Description i Units
1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 9C.2 unitless
2 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 294 cubic-feet
3 Is Hydromodification Control Applicable? No yes/no
4 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within Tree Well(s) Location C unitless
5 Select a Tree Species for the Tree Well(s) Consistent with SD-A Tree Palette Table
Note: Numbers shown in list are Tree Species Mature Canopy Diameters 30' - White Elder unitless
6 Tree Well(s) Soil Depth (Installation Depth)
Must be 30, 36, 42, or 48 Inches; Select from Standard Depths**48 inches
7 Number of Identical* Tree Wells Proposed for this DMA 1 trees
8 Proposed Width of Tree Well(s) Soil Installation for One (1) Tree 18.0 feet
9 Proposed Length of Tree Well(s) Soil Installation for One (1) Tree 20.0 feet
10 Botanical Name of Tree Species Alnus Rhombifolia unitless
11 Tree Species Mature Height per SD-A 75 feet
12 Tree Species Mature Canopy Diameter per SD-A 30 feet
13 Minimum Soil Volume Required In Tree Well
(2 Cubic Feet Per Square Foot of Mature Tree Canopy Projection Area)1414 cubic-feet
14 Credit Volume Per Tree 420 cubic-feet
15 DCV Multiplier To Meet Flow Control Requirements n/a unitless
16 Required Retention Volume (RRV) To Meet Flow Control Requirements n/a cubic-feet
17 Number of Trees Required 1 trees
18 Total Area of Tree Well Soil Required for Each Tree 353 sq-ft
19 Approximate Required Width of Tree Well Soil Area for Each Tree 19 feet
20 Approximate Required Length of Tree Well Soil Area for Each Tree 19 feet
21 Number of Trees Proposed for this DMA 1 trees
22 Total Area of Tree Well Soil Proposed for Each Tree 360 sq-ft
23 Minimum Spacing Between Multiple Trees To Meet Soil Area Requirements
(when applicable)***n/a feet
24 Are Tree Well Soil Installation Requirements Met? Yes yes/no
25 Is Remaining DCV Requirement Fully Satisfied by Tree Well(s)? Yes yes/no
26 Is Hydromodification Control Requirement Satisfied by Tree Well(s)? n/a yes/no
Notes:
*If using more than one mature canopy diameter within the same DMA, only the smallest mature canopy diameter should be entered. Alternatively, if more than one matur
**If the actual proposed installation depth is not available in the table of standard depths, select the next lower depth.
***Tree Canopy or Agency Requirements May Also Influence the Minimum Spacing of Trees.
Standard Tree
Well Inputs
No Warning Messages
Tree Data
Tree Well Sizing
Calculations
Results
False
False
False
False
SSD-BMP Automated Worksheet I-3: Step 3. Tree Well Sizing (V1.0)
False
False
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods
B-8 February 26, 2016
Figure B.1-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour Isopluvial Map
P85 = 0.60-inches
DMA-9C-1a
1 85th Percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d=0.6 inches
2 Areas tributary to BMP(s)A=0.177 acres
3 Runoff Factor C=0.66 unitless
4 Street Trees Reduction Volume TCV=0 cubic-feet
5 Rain Barrels Reduction Volume RCV=0 cubic-feet
6 Calculated DCV DCV=254 cubic-feet
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
DMA-9C-1a
1 DCV DCV 254 cubic-feet
2 DCV retained DCVretained 0 cubic-feet
3 DCV biofiltered DCVbiofiltered 0 cubic-feet
4
DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*Line 3)DCVflow-thru 254 cubic-feet
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)AF= 1 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity i=0.2 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A=0.177 acres
8 Runoff Factor C=0.66 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = 1.5 AF x (C x i x A)Q=0.035 cfs
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Modular Wetlands System 4'x4' has a flow treatment rate of
0.052 cfs which exceeds the treatment flow rate calculated
above.
DMA-9C-1b
1 85th Percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d=0.6 inches
2 Areas tributary to BMP(s)A=0.10 acres
3 Runoff Factor C=0.67 unitless
4 Street Trees Reduction Volume TCV=0 cubic-feet
5 Rain Barrels Reduction Volume RCV=0 cubic-feet
6 Calculated DCV DCV=218 cubic-feet
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
DMA-9C-1b
1 DCV DCV 218 cubic-feet
2 DCV retained DCVretained 0 cubic-feet
3 DCV biofiltered DCVbiofiltered 0 cubic-feet
4
DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*Line 3)DCVflow-thru 218 cubic-feet
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)AF= 1 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity i=0.2 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A=0.10 acres
8 Runoff Factor C=0.67 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = 1.5 AF x (C x i x A)Q=0.020 cfs
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Modular Wetlands System 4'x4' has a flow treatment rate of
0.052 cfs which exceeds the treatment flow rate calculated
above.
DMA-8C-1a
1 85th Percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d=0.6 inches
2 Areas tributary to BMP(s)A=0.169 acres
3 Runoff Factor C=0.65 unitless
4 Street Trees Reduction Volume TCV=0 cubic-feet
5 Rain Barrels Reduction Volume RCV=0 cubic-feet
6 Calculated DCV DCV=239 cubic-feet
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
DMA-8C-1a
1 DCV DCV 239 cubic-feet
2 DCV retained DCVretained 0 cubic-feet
3 DCV biofiltered DCVbiofiltered 0 cubic-feet
4
DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*Line 3)DCVflow-thru 239 cubic-feet
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)AF= 1 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity i=0.2 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A=0.169 acres
8 Runoff Factor C=0.67 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = 1.5 AF x (C x i x A)Q=0.034 cfs
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Modular Wetlands System 4'x4' has a flow treatment rate of
0.052 cfs which exceeds the treatment flow rate calculated
above.
DMA-8C-1b
1 85th Percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d=0.6 inches
2 Areas tributary to BMP(s)A=0.130 acres
3 Runoff Factor C=0.66 unitless
4 Street Trees Reduction Volume TCV=0 cubic-feet
5 Rain Barrels Reduction Volume RCV=0 cubic-feet
6 Calculated DCV DCV=187 cubic-feet
Design Capture Volume Worksheet B-2.1
DMA-8C-1b
1 DCV DCV 187 cubic-feet
2 DCV retained DCVretained 0 cubic-feet
3 DCV biofiltered DCVbiofiltered 0 cubic-feet
4
DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 - Line 2 - 0.67*Line 3)DCVflow-thru 187 cubic-feet
5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)AF= 1 unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity i=0.2 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A=0.130 acres
8 Runoff Factor C=0.67 unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = 1.5 AF x (C x i x A)Q=0.026 cfs
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
Modular Wetlands System 4'x4' has a flow treatment rate of
0.052 cfs which exceeds the treatment flow rate calculated
above.
ATTACHMENT 1F
1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Existing Offsite Biofiltration Capacity Analysis by Alternative Minimum
Biofiltration Footprint Ratio sizing
Marja Acres
CT 16-07, PUD 16-08, CDP 16-33, HDP 16-02, SUP 16-02, SDP 2018-0001
Camino Del Norte, Carlsbad CA 92008
PREPARE BY:
Jose Sanchez, Civil Engineer
Prepared : January, 2019
Introduction
This memorandum is to determine if the existing bio-filtration facilities areas at El Camino Real median
have the capacity for treatment of the additional paved and landscape areas associated with the
widening of El Camino Real. (See Storm Water Management Plan for El Camino Real Widening Rancho
Costera CDP 11-10, CT 13-03, SWMP 13-03 By O’DAY Consultants Dated February 15, 2013 – A copy can
be obtained from the City’s Public Record Access Website)
Site Condition
The existing BMPs in El Camino Real were designed using a low susceptibility approach and the tables.
Therefore, they are very small. However, all flows can be considered as low susceptibility as it is clear
that a susceptibility analysis was made. (See Hydromodification Screening for Rancho Costera and El
Camino Real by Chang Consultants Dated June 19, 2013)
Methodology
The method of analysis was based on the guidance provided by the County Wide BMP Manual for
Alternative Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Ratio and the County of San Diego Automated Worksheets.
2
The below are biofiltration clogging inputs:
Land Use: Low Traffic & Vacant/Open Space
Load to Clog: 4.0 (Based on a dense vegetated bio-filtration basin and permeable media with outlet
control)
Time allowed to accumulate clogging: 10 years (Default)
Summary
A total of 6,015-sf on new impervious areas and a total of 1,416-sf of pervious areas has been added to
the existing facilities. It should be noted that some existing impervious surfaces will be landscaped areas
after development. The automated worksheets combined all areas existing and proposed for the
purpose of the overall watershed area analysis. See attachment A for area exhibits, tables and charts.
Conclusion
The findings show that existing BMP 14 (numbering per said O’DAY report) does not have the required
treatment facility as it is short by approximately 35-sf. However, existing biofiltration facilities 15 and 16
have the treatment capacity to treat all new impervious and pervious areas and can compensate for the
said deficit in BMP 14.
BMP ID
EXISTING
BIORETENTION AREA
(SF)
BIORETENTION AREA
REQUIRED (SF)
DEFICIT
(SF)
14 410 445 -35
15 260 210 +50
16 300 195 +110
It should be noted that the existing facilities do not meet the minimum annual retention criteria due to
the lack of depth of gravel (minimum 3 inches) below the underdrain. A separate retention analysis will
show that retention requirements by new offsite impervious surfaces along with onsite impervious
surfaces within DMAs 8C & 9C will be compensated by excess of retention onsite.
3
Attachment A
Category #Description Value Units
0 Design Capture Volume for Entire Project Site 2,489 cubic-feet
1 Proposed Development Type Residential unitless
2 Number of Residents or Employees at Proposed Development 0 #
3 Total Planted Area within Development 18,405 sq-ft
4 Water Use Category for Proposed Planted Areas Low unitless
5 Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate ≤0.500 Inches per Hour?Yes yes/no
6 Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate ≤0.010 Inches per Hour?Yes yes/no
7 Is Infiltration of the Full DCV Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts?No yes/no
8 Is Infiltration of Any Volume Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts?No yes/no
9 36-Hour Toilet Use Per Resident or Employee 1.86 cubic-feet
10 Subtotal: Anticipated 36 Hour Toilet Use 0 cubic-feet
11 Anticipated 1 Acre Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 52.14 cubic-feet
12 Subtotal: Anticipated Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 22 cubic-feet
13 Total Anticipated Use Over 36 Hours 22 cubic-feet
14 Total Anticipated Use / Design Capture Volume 0.01 cubic-feet
15 Are Full Capture and Use Techniques Feasible for this Project?No unitless
16 Is Full Retention Feasible for this Project?No yes/no
17 Is Partial Retention Feasible for this Project?No yes/no
Result 18 Feasibility Category 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Worksheet B.3-1 General Notes:
H. PDPs participating in an offsite alternative compliance program are not held to the feasibility categories presented herein.
Capture & Use
Inputs
Automated Worksheet B.3-1: Project-Scale BMP Feasibility Analysis (V1.3)
C. Feasibility Category 1: Applicant must implement capture & use, retention, and/or infiltration elements for the entire DCV.
D. Feasibility Category 2: Applicant must implement capture & use elements for the entire DCV.
E. Feasibility Category 3: Applicant must implement retention and/or infiltration elements for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates greater
than 0.50 in/hr.
B. Negative impacts associated with retention may include geotechnical, groundwater, water balance, or other issues identified by a geotechnical
engineer and substantiated through completion of Form I-8.
Infiltration
Inputs
G. Feasibility Category 5: Applicant must implement standard lined biofiltration BMPs sized at ≥3% of the effective impervious tributary area
for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates of 0.010 in/hr or less. Applicants may also be permitted to implement reduced size and/or
specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria identified in "Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Biofiltration BMPs"
are satisfied.
A. Applicants may use this worksheet to determine the types of structural BMPs that are acceptable for implementation at their project site (as
required in Section 5 of the BMPDM). User input should be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for all other cells will be automatically
generated. Projects demonstrating feasibility or potential feasibility via this worksheet are encouraged to incorporate capture and use features in
their project.
F. Feasibility Category 4: Applicant must implement standard unlined biofiltration BMPs sized at ≥3% of the effective impervious tributary area
for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates of 0.011 to 0.50 in/hr. Applicants may be permitted to implement lined BMPs, reduced size BMPs,
and/or specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria identified in "Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Biofiltration
BMPs" are satisfied.
Calculations
Category #Description i ii iii Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name BMP14 BMP15 BMP16 unitless
1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration unitless
2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.60 0.60 0.60 inches
3 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.000 0.000 0.000 in/hr
4 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 27,940 13,246 12,310 sq-ft
5 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft
6 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)7,922 4,685 5,798 sq-ft
7 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft
8 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft
9 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23)sq-ft
10 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft
11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels?No No No yes/no
12 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft
13 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft
14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
15 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
16 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft
17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft
18 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft
19 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A #
20 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter ft
21 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E #
22 Average Rain Barrel Size gal
23 Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in Downstream Drainage?No No No unitless
24 Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series unitless
25 Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas percent
26 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area (Ci=0.90)0 0 0 cubic-feet
27 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90)0 0 0 cubic-feet
28 Total Tributary Area 35,862 17,931 18,108 sq-ft
29 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.72 0.69 0.64 unitless
30 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
31 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.72 0.69 0.64 unitless
32 Initial Design Capture Volume 1,291 619 579 cubic-feet
33 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 sq-ft
34 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 sq-ft
35 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a ratio
36 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio
37 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.72 0.69 0.64 unitless
38 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 1,291 619 579 cubic-feet
39 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 0 0 cubic-feet
40 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 cubic-feet
41 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.72 0.69 0.64 unitless
42 Final Effective Tributary Area 25,821 12,372 11,589 sq-ft
43 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 cubic-feet
44 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,291 619 579 cubic-feet
Worksheet B.1-1 General Notes:
Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V1.3)
A. Applicants may use this worksheet to calculate design capture volumes for up to 10 drainage areas User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for all
other cells will be automatically generated, errors/notifications will be highlighted in red and summarized below. Upon completion of this worksheet, proceed to the
appropriate BMP Sizing worksheet(s)
Dispersion
Area, Tree Well
& Rain Barrel
Inputs
(Optional)
Standard
Drainage Basin
Inputs
Results
Tree & Barrel
Adjustments
Initial Runoff
Factor
Calculation
Dispersion
Area
Adjustments
Treatment
Train Inputs &
Calculations
Category #Description i ii iii Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name BMP14 BMP15 BMP16 sq-ft
1 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.000 0.000 0.000 in/hr
2 Effective Tributary Area 25,821 12,372 11,589 sq-ft
3 Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Sizing Factor 0.012 0.009 0.010 ratio
4 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,291 619 579 cubic-feet
5 Is Biofiltration Basin Impermeably Lined or Unlined?Lined Lined Lined unitless
6 Provided Biofiltration BMP Surface Area 445 210 195 sq-ft
7 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 10 10 10 inches
8 Provided Soil Media Thickness 18 18 18 inches
9 Provided Depth of Gravel Above Underdrain Invert 18 18 18 inches
10 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest)2.00 2.00 1.00 inches
11 Provided Depth of Gravel Below the Underdrain 3 3 3 inches
12 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 cubic-feet
13 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless
14 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
15 Effective Retention Depth 0.90 0.90 0.90 inches
16 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown (Including 6 Hr Storm)120 120 120 hours
17 Volume Retained by BMP 33 16 15 cubic-feet
18 Fraction of DCV Retained 0.03 0.03 0.03 ratio
19 Portion of Retention Performance Standard Satisfied 0.04 0.04 0.04 ratio
20 Fraction of DCV Retained (normalized to 36-hr drawdown)0.01 0.01 0.01 ratio
21 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 1,278 613 573 cubic-feet
22 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.2034 0.2034 0.0511 CFS
23 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 19.75 41.85 11.33 in/hr
24 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr
25 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr
26 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches
27 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless
28 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 20.80 20.80 20.80 inches
29 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 2 2 2 hours
30 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 4 4 4 hours
31 Total Depth Biofiltered 50.80 50.80 50.80 inches
32 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 1,917 920 860 cubic-feet
33 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 1,884 889 826 cubic-feet
34 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 959 460 430 cubic-feet
35 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 771 364 338 cubic-feet
36 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 0.98 0.97 0.96 ratio
37 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements?No No No yes/no
38 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio
39 This BMP Overflows to the Following Drainage Basin ---unitless
40 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 0 0 0 cubic-feet
Worksheet B.5-1 General Notes:
Retention Calculations
Automated Worksheet B.5-1: Sizing Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (V1.3)
BMP Inputs
Biofiltration
Calculations
A. Applicants may use this worksheet to size Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (BF-1, PR-1) for up to 10 basins. User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells,
values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets, values for all other cells will be automatically generated,
errors/notifications will be highlighted in red/orange and summarized below. BMPs fully satisfying the pollutant control performance standards will have a deficit treated
Result
Category #i ii iii Units
0 BMP14 BMP15 BMP16 unitless
1 Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration unitless
2 25,821 12,372 11,589 sq-ft
3 Yes Yes Yes yes/no
4 11.9 11.9 11.9 inches
5 3.0 4.0 4.0 lb/sq-ft
6 10 10 10 years
7 No No No yes/no
8 Commercial: TSS=128 mg/L, C=0.80 sq-ft
9 Education: TSS=132 mg/L, C=0.50 sq-ft
10 Industrial: TSS=125 mg/L, C=0.90 sq-ft
11 Low Traffic Areas: TSS=50 mg/L, C=0.50 20,117 9,140 7,878 sq-ft
12 Multi-Family Residential: TSS=40 mg/L, C=0.60 sq-ft
13 Roof Areas: TSS=14 mg/L, C=0.90 sq-ft
14 Single Family Residential: TSS=123 mg/L, C=0.40 sq-ft
15 Transportation: TSS=78 mg/L, C=0.90 sq-ft
16 Vacant/Open Space: TSS=216 mg/L, C=0.10 5,704 3,232 3,711 sq-ft
17 10,629 4,893 4,310 sq-ft
18 59 61 64 mg/L
19 25,606 12,217 11,444 cubic-feet
20 94 47 46 lb/yr
21 94 47 46 lb/yr
22 0.012 0.009 0.010 ratio
Worksheet B.5-3 General Notes:
Automated Worksheet B.5-3: Alternate Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Ratio (V1.3)
Description
Drainage Basin ID or Name
Average Annual Precipitation
Is Proposed Biofiltration BMP <3% of Effective Tributary Area Desired?
Drainage Basin Info Drains to following BMP Type
A. Applicants may use this worksheet to calculate Alternate Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Ratios for up to 10 basins. User input must be provided for yellow shaded
cells, values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets, values for all other cells will be automatically generated, errors/notifications will be highlighted in red and summarized below. Inputs for Lines 4-7 (precipitation, load to clog, clogging period, and pretreatment measures) must be
Final Effective Tributary Area
Load to Clog (default =2.0)
Average Annual TSS Load After Pretreatment Measures
Average Annual Runoff
Average Annual TSS Load
Minimum Allowable Biofiltration Footprint Ratio
Average TSS Concentration for Tributary
Allowable Period to Accumulate Clogging Load (default =10)
Pretreatment Measures Included?
Effective-Area Based on Specified Land Use Coefficients
Minimum
Footprint
Calculations
Biofiltration
Clogging Inputs
Category #Description i ii iii Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name BMP14 BMP15 BMP16 unitless
1 85th Percentile Storm Depth 0.60 0.60 0.60 inches
2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical
Engineer 0.000 0.000 0.000 in/hr
3 Total Tributary Area 35,862 17,931 18,108 sq-ft
4 85th Percentile Storm Volume (Rainfall Volume)1,793 897 905 cubic-feet
5 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.72 0.69 0.64 unitless
6 Initial Design Capture Volume 1,291 619 579 cubic-feet
7 Dispersion Area Reductions 0 0 0 cubic-feet
8 Tree Well and Rain Barrel Reductions 0 0 0 cubic-feet
9 Effective Area Tributary to BMP 25,821 12,372 11,589 square feet
10 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,291 619 579 cubic-feet
11 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration unitless
12 Volume Retained by BMP
(normalized to 36 hour drawdown)13 6 6 cubic-feet
13 Total Fraction of Initial DCV Retained within DMA 0.01 0.01 0.01 fraction
14 Percent of Average Annual Runoff Retention Provided 1.5%1.5%1.5%%
15 Percent of Average Annual Runoff Retention Required 4.5%4.5%4.5%%
Performance
Standard 16 Percent of Pollution Control Standard Satisfied 100.0%100.0%100.0%%
17 Discharges to Secondary Treatment in Drainage Basin ---unitless
18 Impervious Surface Area Still Requiring Treatment 0 0 0 square feet
19 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Downstream Dispersion
Area ---square feet
20 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Downstream
Dispersion Area ---square feet
Result 21 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 0 0 0 cubic-feet
Total Volume
Reductions
Summary of Stormwater Pollutant Control Calculations (V1.3)
Initial DCV
Site Design
Volume
Reductions
General Info
BMP Volume
Reductions
Treatment
Train
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 highlighted in orange and summairzed in the red text below. If all drainage basins
hi f ll li i h d f l l i f i ill b l
Summary Notes:
5868
58
62
666866 68
3CL
13CL12CL11CL10CL9CL
4CLADA
56
PARKING
EXISTING OFF SITE BMP 14
MARJA ACRES
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
EL CAMINO REAL
58
6262
68 6656
58
60
5410+0011+00EXISTING OFF SITE BMP 15
MARJA ACRES
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
EL CAMI
N
O
R
E
A
L
BENCHBENCHBENCHBENCH
BENCH
BENCH10+0011+00EXISTING OFF SITE BMP 16
MARJA ACRES
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and
Sizing Methods
B-59 The City of San Diego | Storm Water Standards | October 2018 Edition
Part 1: BMP Design Manual
B.5.2.1 Alternative Minimum Sizing factor for Clogging Risk
Worksheet B.5-4 below must be used to support a request for an alternative minimum footprint
sizing factor (for clogging) in Worksheet B.5-1. Based on a review of the submitted worksheet and
supporting documentation, the use of a smaller footprint sizing factor may be approved at the
discretion of the City Engineer. If approved, the estimated footprint from the worksheet below can be
used in line 20 of Worksheet B.5-1 in lieu of the 3 percent minimum footprint value.
This worksheet includes the following general steps to calculate the minimum footprint sizing factor:
• Select a “load to clog” that is representative of the type of BMP proposed
• Select a target life span (i.e., frequency of major maintenance) that is acceptable to the City
Engineer. A default value of 10 years is recommended.
• Compile information about the DMA from other parts of the SWQMP development process.
• Determine the event mean concentration (EMC) of TSS that is appropriate for the DMA
• Perform calculations to determine the minimum footprint to provide the target lifespan.
Table B.5-3: Typical land use total suspended solids (TSS) event mean concentration (EMC) values.
Land Use TSS EMC4, mg/L
Single Family Residential 123
Commercial 128
Industrial 125
Education (Municipal) 132
Transportation5 78
Multi-family Residential 40
Roof Runoff6 14
Low Traffic Areas7 50
Open Space 216
4 EMCs are from SBPAT datasets for SLR and SDR Watersheds – Arithmetic Estimates of the Lognormal Summary
Statistics for San Diego, unless otherwise noted.
5 EMCs are based on Los Angeles region default SBPAT datasets due to lack of available San Diego data.
6 Value represents the average first flush concentration for roof runoff (Charters et al., 2015).
7 Davis and McCuen (2005)
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and
Sizing Methods
B-60 The City of San Diego | Storm Water Standards | October 2018 Edition
Part 1: BMP Design Manual
TableB.5-4: Guidance for Selecting Load to Clog (LC)
BMP Configuration Load to Clog, Lc,
lb/sq-ft
Baseline: Approximately 50 percent vegetative cover;
typical fine sand and compost blend 2
Baseline + increase vegetative cover to at least 75 percent 3
Baseline + include coarser sand to increase initial permeability to 20 to 30
in/hr; control flowrate with outlet control 3
Baseline + increase vegetative cover and include more permeable media
with outlet control, per above 4
References
Charters, F.J., Cochrane, T.A., and O’Sullivan, A.D., (2015). Particle Size Distribution Variance in
Untreated Urban Runoff and its implication on treatment selection. Water Research, 85 (2015), pg.
337-345.
Davis, A.P. and McCuen, R.H., (2005). Stormwater Management for Smart Growth. Springer Science &
Business Media, pg. 155.
Maniquiz-Redillas, M.C., Geronimo, F.K.F, and Kim, L-H. Investigation on the Effectiveness of
Pretreatment in Stormwater Management Technologies. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 26
(2014), pg. 1824-1830.
Pitt, R. and Clark, S.E., (2010). Evaluation of Biofiltration Media for Engineered Natural Treatment
Systems. Geosyntec Consultants and The Boeing Company.
RECORj) COPY
irutial
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
For
EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING
RANCHO COSTERA
CDP 11-10
CT 13-03
SWMP 13-03
Revised: April 21, 2015
Revised: October 31, 2014
Revised: May 6,2014
Revised: December 10, 2013
Prepared: February 15, 2013
J.N. 10-1307-5
Prepared By:
O'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC.
2710 Loker Avenue West, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92010-6609
(760) 931-7700
Date
X
George O'Daf; RCE 32014^xp. 12/31/16 / Date
?.n/.<r
FILE COPY
HYDROMODIFICATION SCREENING
FOR
RANCHO COSTERA
(ROBERTSON RANCH PLANNING AREAS 1-11,13, & 23A-C)
AND
EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING
June 19, 2013
Wayne W, Chang.
ClianBSDaMJMDiS
Civil Engineering ° Hydrology ° Hydraulics»Sedimentation
P.O. Box 9496
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
(858) 692-0760
ATTACHMENT 1G
ATTACHMENT 2A
1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Retention Compensation Analysis for
Marja Acres
CT 16-07, PUD 16-08, CDP 16-33, HDP 16-02, SUP 16-02, SDP 2018-0001
Camino Del Norte, Carlsbad CA 92008
PREPARE BY:
Alex Parra, Civil Engineer
Introduction
This memorandum is to determine the retention compensation requirements for new offsite impervious
surfaces, onsite DMAs 8C and 9C. Proposed on‐site biofiltration facilities provide over‐retention due to a
larger sizing that the minimum 3% requirement.
Proposed Site Condition
The retention requirements is being considered: an analysis of over‐retention by the proposed BMPs will
be prepared following these assumptions: (a) no frontage area draining into El Camino Real is
considered complying with retention requirements, so the impervious area of that frontage (both
entrances included) is to be counted, and the 3% of that effective impervious area becomes a deficit.
As all onsite proposed BMPs are in excess of 3%, there is an excess of retention therefore the project
complies with the retention requirement.
BMP1 BMP2 BMP3 BMP4 BMP5 BMP6 BMP7
Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration Biofiltration
DMA Impervious Surfaces (C=0.90) 21479 28368 25769 176018 42286 133814 96696 sq-ft
DMA Engineered Pervious Surfaces
(C=0.10)26656 11983 10254 97220 32010 67238 46374 sq-ft
Total Tributary Area 48135 40351 36023 273238 74296 201052 143070 sq-ft
Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage
Areas 0.46 0.66 0.67 0.62 0.56 0.63 0.64
Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Sizing
Factor 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Effective Tributary Area 22142 26632 24135 169408 41606 126663 91565 sq-ft
3% footprint requirement 664 799 724 5082 1248 3800 2747 sq-ft
Provided Biofiltration BMP Surface Area 1949 1098 2360 7554 1692 4347 3567 sq-ft
Excess Footprint Area 1285 299 1636 2472 444 547 820 sq-ft
TOTAL Required 15065 sq-ft
TOTAL Provided 22567 sq-ft
TOTAL Excess Footprint Area 7502 sq-ft
TOTAL Non Retained AreasEffective DMA Impervious Surfaces
(C=0.90) (OFFSITE NEW, DMA 8C &
DMA 9C)
20997 sq-ft
Effective DMA Engineered Pervious
Surfaces (C=0.10) (OFFSITE NEW, DMA
8C & DMA 9C)
1616 sq-ft
TOTAL Footprint Area Required 678 sq-ft
SUMMARY TABLE
ATTACHMENT 2
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
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management
Exhibit (Required) Included YES
See HMP Exhibit Checklist on the
back of this Attachment cover sheet.
(24”x36” Exhibit typically required)
Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse
Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit
is required, additional analyses are
optional)
Exhibit showing project drainage
boundaries marked on WMAA
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield
Area Map Included, Deposition
Analysis exhibit is provided.
Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving
Channels
Included
Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and
Structural BMP Drawdown
Calculations (Required)
See Hydromodification Drawing
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 and impervious areas
☒ 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
☒ 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)
☒ Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP)
ATTACHMENT 2A
891012131415161718676869707172737475767778PM 3451MAP7292MAP8033MAP10558PM 3451PM 3451MAP8033MAP7292EL CAMINO REALN65°22
'26
"E
1291
.68
'
N02°23'45"E 315.88'S87°53'49"W 397.21'N18°57'34"E 977.24'PARK
DR
IVE
KELLY DRIVE
SOIL TYPE
CSOIL TYPE D CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGLEGENDPOC 1DMA1DDMA1CEXISTINGINLETEXISTINGBIO-FILTRATIONFACILITIESEXISTINGINLETEXISTINGCULVERTSEXISTINGNATURALCREEKEXISTINGNATURALCREEKEXISTING BLDG ANDPARKING LOTEXISTINGBLDG.EXISTINGBLDG.EXISTINGPAVEDROADEXISTINGBLDG.AREA NOT INCLUDEDAS PART OF THE HMPMODEL IN PREDEVELOPMENTCONDITIONSAREA NOT INCLUDED AS PART OFTHE HMP MODEL IN PRE ANDPOST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONSAS IS CONSIDERED NATURALAREA NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE HMPMODEL IN PRE AND POST DEVELOPMENTCONDITIONS AS ARE EITHER UN CHANGEDOR HYDROMODIFIED BY EXISTING FACILITIESON EL CAMINO REALEXISTINGBIO-FILTRATIONFACILITYPOC 1POC 2POC 3
(EV)(EV)EVEVE(No2). 24" CMP(EV)(EV)FF 83.25PAD 82.50URBANFARMSOIL TYPE
CSOIL TYPE DBMP1BMP2BMP3BMP4BMP7BMP5BMP6DMA-1 DDMA-2 DDMA-3 DDMA-4CDMA-5 CDMA-5 DDMA-6 DDMA-6 CDMA-9C.2DMA-7 DDMA-7 CDMA-3 CDMA-4DDMA-4CDMA-10 CDMA-10 CDMA-11 DDMA-4DSOIL TYPE CSOIL TYPE DSOIL TYPE CSOIL TYPE DDMA-11 CDMA-12 DDMA-9C.1DMA-8 CDMA-8C-1AURBANFARMDMA-8C-1BDMA-9C-1ADMA-9C-1B CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGLEGENDPOC 1SELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)SELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)PROPOSED INLETAND TREE WELL(ADDED TO HMPMANAGEMENT)POC 1PROPOSED ULTIMATEPOINT OF DISCHARGEEXISTINGINLET TO BERELOCATEDEXISTINGINLETEXISTINGCULVERTSEXISTINGNATURALCREEKEXISTINGNATURALCREEKPERMANENT WATER QUALITYTREATMENT FACILITIES ONTHIS SITEKEEPING OUR WATER CLEANMAINTAIN WITH CARENO MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT CITY OF CARLSBAD APPROVALOFFSITE AREA DRAINS TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITY(NOT ADDED TO HMP MANAGEMENT)IMPERVIOUS SURFACESDRAIN TO EX. BIO-FILTRATIONFACILITY IN MEDIANSELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)EXISTING BIO-FILTRATIONFACILITY (SEE ATTACHMENT1F SWQMP)EXISTINGBIO-FILTRATIONFACILITYSELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)IMPERVIOUS SURFACESDRAIN TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITYIN MEDIANMWS-#TW1MWS-3MWS-1OFFSITE AREA DRAINS TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITY(NOT ADDED TO HMP MANAGEMENT)TW DRAINS TOMODULAR WETLANTDRAINS TO TREEWELLDE-MINIMISAREASELF MITIGATINGAREA - (INCLUDED INMANAGEMENT)DMA-9C.1 AND DMA-9C.2BOTH ADDED TO HMPMANAGEMENTMWS-2MWS-4PROPOSEDUNDERGROUNDSTORAGEVAULT (UG1)POC 2POC 3
CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGSECTION VIEWPLAN VIEWTREE TIE NOTE:TREE WELL NOTESSTREET TREES DETAILSECTION B-BPLAN VIEWSECTION A-A TYPICAL TREE WELL DETAILS TYPICAL BIO-FILTRATION BASIN DETAILPVC CAP / ORIFICE DETAILSUMMARY OF DEVELOPED DUAL AND TRIPLE PURPOSE BMPsSUMMARY OF RISER DETAILSPRECAST DRAIN INLET - BIO-FILTRATION OUTLET STRUCTURELINER ATTACHEMENT DETAILOPTIONAL RETAININGWALL AT BASIN
ATTACHMENT 2B
1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DEPOSITION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
Marja Acres
CT 16-07, PUD 16-08, CDP 16-33, HDP 16-02, SUP 16-02, SDP 2018-0001
Camino Del Norte, Carlsbad CA 92008
PREPARE BY:
Jose Sanchez, Civil Engineer
Introduction
This memorandum is to determine if the CCSYA identified within the project site needs to be preserved,
based on the BMP Design manual requirements. Our determination is based on the guidance from
“Appendix H Guidance for Investigating Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas” more specific
H.1.2 Refinement Option and H.7.1 Depositional Analysis.
Site Condition
The site is located on the south side of El Camino Real, between Kelly Drive to the west and Lisa Street
to the east. The subject site consists of three parcels totaling 20.85 acres (APN 207-101-35, 207-101-37,
and 207-290-10). Two small areas located on the north east portion of the site and identified as part of
Basin A.3 on the Deposition Analysis Exhibit included within this memorandum, have been identified as
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area (CCSYA) per the WMAA map.
Velocity Determination
The method of analysis was based on the Rational Method according to the San Diego County Design
manual. The Rational Method is a physically-based numerical method where runoff is assumed to be
directly proportional to rainfall and area, less losses for infiltration and depression storage. CivilDesign
software was utilized in calculating runoff for all basins smaller than 0.5 square miles in size. The outputs
provided by said software include the velocity at each reach. See Attachment A for results.
2
Summary
A sensitivity analysis has been made for a typical value of the Manning’s coefficient. Per Appendix G of
the BMP Design Manual, a Manning’s Coefficient of n=0.10 is acceptable for pervious overland flows.
Based on said determination the calculated 2 year – 24 hour storm event, the velocity at Node 20 has
been determined to be 0.72 ft/s, this location represents the immediate downstream point of the
Potential CCSYAs. Flows enter a concrete brow ditch which convey flow on a westerly direction between
node 20 and 25 at which point the velocity increases to 2.90 ft/s. At the last reach of channel before
flows leave the site, between node 25 and 30 the velocity is reduced to 1.00 ft/s. Consequently, and
following Appendix H of the BMP Manual, the system is depositional and coarse sediments will never
reach the first unlined water of the state downstream (the refinement option H.1.2.1: Depositional
Analysis detailed in section H.7.1 shows the system is depositional).
Conclusion
The PCCSYA identified in the WMAA Map (red area) is a Non-CCSYA and there is no requirement to
preserve such area. For channel cross sections varication see Deposition Analysis exhibit under
attachment A and Field Verification Photos included under attachment B.
3
Attachment A
Calculations & Deposition Analysis Exhibit
891012131415161718676869707172737475767778PM 3451MAP 7292MAP 8033MAP 10558EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REALPARK DR
.PARK DR
.R/WR/WPLPL
PLPLPLPL CLCLR/WR/WR/WCLCLR/WR/WPM 3451PM 3451(PUBLIC)(PUBLIC)MAP 8033MAP 7292
(PUBL
IC
)
(PUBL
IC
)107.8 EG41.4 EGQ2= 5.31 CFSV2= 1.00 FPS150' EASEMENT TO SDG&E PERDEED REC. JUNE 1, 1953 IN BOOK4874, PAGE 143 AND 148 O.R.EXISTINGHOUSEEXISTINGWAREHOUSEEXISTING SHOPSEXIST. DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
EXISTING SHOPSS18°57'34"W 977.24' (S18°32'12"W 976.88')TO BE REMOVEDTO BE REMOVEDTO BE REMOVEDTO BE REMOVEDEXIST. DRIVEWAYL = 1125'L = 532'L = 100'L =
283
'18" RCP SD PERDWG 477-6, SHT 20.18" RCP SD PERDWG 477-6EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYP/LP/LP/LP/LP/LP/L
P/L EX. R/WC/LEX. R/WEX. R/WC/LEX. R/WEL CAMINO REALN65°22
'26
"E
1291
.68
'
N02°23'45"E 315.88'
N18°57'34"E 977.24'126'63'63'44'44'18'POC1PARK
DRIVE
KELLY DRIVE
89.9 EGL = 184'L = 346'L = 385'54.8 EG45.3 EGQ2= 4.07 CFSV2= 2.90 FPS50.3 EGQ2= 1.57 CFSV2= 0.72 FPS54.8 EGQ2= 0.35 CFSV2= 0.93 FPS54.8 EGPRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONMARJA ACRESDEPOSITION ANALYSIS EXHIBITAssociatesHoWesweiler&L A N D U S E P L A N N I N G A N D E N G I N E E R I N GTel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@hwplanning.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.hwplanning.com3'3'6.5' ±EX. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER5' ±
4
San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c)1991-2009 Version 7.8
Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 2003 hydrology manual
Rational Hydrology Study Date: 12/24/18 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information **********
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Program License Serial Number 6290 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational hydrology study storm event year is 2.0 English (in-lb) input data Units used
Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) = 1.300 24 hour precipitation(inches) = 2.000
P6/P24 = 65.0% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 5.000 to Point/Station 10.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** A.1___________________________________________________________________
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [UNDISTURBED NATURAL TERRAIN ] (Permanent Open Space ) Impervious value, Ai = 0.000 Sub-Area C Value = 0.350 Initial subarea total flow distance = 100.000(Ft.) Highest elevation = 107.800(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 89.900(Ft.) Elevation difference = 17.900(Ft.) Slope = 17.900 % INITIAL AREA TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: The maximum overland flow distance is 100.00 (Ft) for the top area slope value of 17.90 %, in a development type of
Permanent Open Space In Accordance With Table 3-2 Initial Area Time of Concentration = 6.90 minutes (for slope value of 10.00 %) Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.783(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.350 Subarea runoff = 0.097(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.100(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** A.2____________________________________________________________________
Upstream point elevation = 89.900(Ft.) Downstream point elevation = 54.800(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 184.000(Ft.) Channel base width = 6.500(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 4.000
5
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 4.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 0.270(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.100
Maximum depth of channel = 3.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 0.270(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.048(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.840(Ft/s)
Channel flow top width = 6.884(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 0.84(Ft/s) Travel time = 3.65 min.
Time of concentration = 10.55 min. Critical depth = 0.038(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel
Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.116(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm User specified 'C' value of 0.300 given for subarea Rainfall intensity = 2.116(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for total area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.309 CA = 0.167 Subarea runoff = 0.256(CFS) for 0.440(Ac.)
Total runoff = 0.353(CFS) Total area = 0.540(Ac.) Depth of flow = 0.056(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.932(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.045(Ft.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 20.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** A.3___________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 54.800(Ft.) Downstream point elevation = 50.300(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 346.000(Ft.) Channel base width = 5.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 4.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 4.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 1.001(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.100 Maximum depth of channel = 3.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 1.001(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.265(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.624(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 7.118(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 0.62(Ft/s)
Travel time = 9.24 min. Time of concentration = 19.80 min. Critical depth = 0.104(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Rainfall intensity (I) = 1.410(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm User specified 'C' value of 0.350 given for subarea Rainfall intensity = 1.410(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for total area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.343 CA = 1.112 Subarea runoff = 1.215(CFS) for 2.700(Ac.) Total runoff = 1.568(CFS) Total area = 3.240(Ac.) Depth of flow = 0.341(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.722(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.140(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 25.000 **** IRREGULAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME **** A.4____________________________________________________________________
6
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 2.788(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.249(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.661(Ft/s) ******* Irregular Channel Data ***********
----------------------------------------------------------------- Information entered for subchannel number 1 : Point number 'X' coordinate 'Y' coordinate
1 0.00 3.38 2 5.00 0.38 3 10.00 0.13
4 11.50 0.00 5 13.00 0.13 6 23.00 0.33
Manning's 'N' friction factor = 0.013 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-Channel flow = 2.788(CFS)
' ' flow top width = 11.330(Ft.) ' ' velocity= 2.661(Ft/s) ' ' area = 1.048(Sq.Ft)
' ' Froude number = 1.542 Upstream point elevation = 50.300(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 45.300(Ft.) Flow length = 385.000(Ft.) Travel time = 2.41 min.
Time of concentration = 22.21 min. Depth of flow = 0.249(Ft.) Average velocity = 2.661(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 2.788(CFS) Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 0.249(Ft.) Average velocity of channel(s) = 2.661(Ft/s)
Adding area flow to channel Rainfall intensity (I) = 1.309(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm User specified 'C' value of 0.470 given for subarea
Rainfall intensity = 1.309(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for total area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.415 CA = 3.105
Subarea runoff = 2.497(CFS) for 4.240(Ac.) Total runoff = 4.065(CFS) Total area = 7.480(Ac.) Depth of flow = 0.278(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.899(Ft/s) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 25.000 to Point/Station 30.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** A.5___________________________________________________________________ Covered channel Upstream point elevation = 45.300(Ft.) Downstream point elevation = 41.400(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 532.000(Ft.) Channel base width = 3.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 2.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 2.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 4.711(CFS)
Manning's 'N' = 0.100 Maximum depth of channel = 3.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 4.711(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.983(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.965(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 6.933(Ft.)
7
Flow Velocity = 0.96(Ft/s) Travel time = 9.19 min. Time of concentration = 31.40 min.
Critical depth = 0.387(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Rainfall intensity (I) = 1.047(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm
User specified 'C' value of 0.390 given for subarea Rainfall intensity = 1.047(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.405 CA = 5.067 Subarea runoff = 1.240(CFS) for 5.030(Ac.) Total runoff = 5.305(CFS) Total area = 12.510(Ac.)
Depth of flow = 1.045(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.997(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.418(Ft.) End of computations, total study area = 12.510 (Ac.)
San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c)1991-2009 Version 7.8 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 2003 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 12/24/18 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Program License Serial Number 6290 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rational hydrology study storm event year is 10.0
English (in-lb) input data Units used Map data precipitation entered:
6 hour, precipitation(inches) = 1.800 24 hour precipitation(inches) = 3.050 P6/P24 = 59.0% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 5.000 to Point/Station 10.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** A.1___________________________________________________________________ Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [UNDISTURBED NATURAL TERRAIN ] (Permanent Open Space ) Impervious value, Ai = 0.000 Sub-Area C Value = 0.350 Initial subarea total flow distance = 100.000(Ft.) Highest elevation = 107.800(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 89.900(Ft.) Elevation difference = 17.900(Ft.) Slope = 17.900 % INITIAL AREA TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: The maximum overland flow distance is 100.00 (Ft) for the top area slope value of 17.90 %, in a development type of Permanent Open Space
8
In Accordance With Table 3-2 Initial Area Time of Concentration = 6.90 minutes (for slope value of 10.00 %)
Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.853(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.350 Subarea runoff = 0.135(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.100(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** A.2___________________________________________________________________
Upstream point elevation = 89.900(Ft.) Downstream point elevation = 54.800(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 184.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 6.500(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 4.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 4.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 0.348(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.100 Maximum depth of channel = 3.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 0.348(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.056(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.926(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 6.947(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 0.93(Ft/s) Travel time = 3.31 min. Time of concentration = 10.21 min.
Critical depth = 0.044(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.992(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm
User specified 'C' value of 0.300 given for subarea Rainfall intensity = 2.992(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.309 CA = 0.167 Subarea runoff = 0.365(CFS) for 0.440(Ac.) Total runoff = 0.500(CFS) Total area = 0.540(Ac.) Depth of flow = 0.069(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.064(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.056(Ft.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 20.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** A.3____________________________________________________________________ Upstream point elevation = 54.800(Ft.) Downstream point elevation = 50.300(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 346.000(Ft.) Channel base width = 5.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 4.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 4.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 1.413(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.100 Maximum depth of channel = 3.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 1.413(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.322(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.698(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 7.575(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 0.70(Ft/s) Travel time = 8.26 min.
9
Time of concentration = 18.47 min. Critical depth = 0.131(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel
Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.042(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm User specified 'C' value of 0.350 given for subarea Rainfall intensity = 2.042(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for total area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.343 CA = 1.112 Subarea runoff = 1.771(CFS) for 2.700(Ac.)
Total runoff = 2.270(CFS) Total area = 3.240(Ac.) Depth of flow = 0.419(Ft.), Average velocity = 0.811(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.176(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 25.000
**** IRREGULAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME **** A.4___________________________________________________________________ Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 4.039(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.277(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.894(Ft/s) ******* Irregular Channel Data *********** ----------------------------------------------------------------- Information entered for subchannel number 1 : Point number 'X' coordinate 'Y' coordinate 1 0.00 3.38
2 5.00 0.38 3 10.00 0.13 4 11.50 0.00
5 13.00 0.13 6 23.00 0.33 Manning's 'N' friction factor = 0.013
----------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-Channel flow = 4.039(CFS) ' ' flow top width = 13.307(Ft.) ' ' velocity= 2.895(Ft/s) ' ' area = 1.396(Sq.Ft) ' ' Froude number = 1.575 Upstream point elevation = 50.300(Ft.) Downstream point elevation = 45.300(Ft.)
Flow length = 385.000(Ft.) Travel time = 2.22 min. Time of concentration = 20.69 min.
Depth of flow = 0.277(Ft.) Average velocity = 2.894(Ft/s) Total irregular channel flow = 4.039(CFS) Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 0.277(Ft.) Average velocity of channel(s) = 2.894(Ft/s) Adding area flow to channel Rainfall intensity (I) = 1.898(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm User specified 'C' value of 0.470 given for subarea Rainfall intensity = 1.898(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for total area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.415 CA = 3.105 Subarea runoff = 3.622(CFS) for 4.240(Ac.)
Total runoff = 5.892(CFS) Total area = 7.480(Ac.) Depth of flow = 0.310(Ft.), Average velocity = 3.161(Ft/s)
10
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 25.000 to Point/Station 30.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** A.5___________________________________________________________________ Covered channel
Upstream point elevation = 45.300(Ft.) Downstream point elevation = 41.400(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 532.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 3.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 2.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 2.000
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 6.850(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.100 Maximum depth of channel = 3.000(Ft.)
Flow(q) thru subarea = 6.850(CFS) Depth of flow = 1.191(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.069(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 7.764(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 1.07(Ft/s) Travel time = 8.30 min. Time of concentration = 28.98 min.
Critical depth = 0.484(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Rainfall intensity (I) = 1.527(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm
User specified 'C' value of 0.390 given for subarea Rainfall intensity = 1.527(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.405 CA = 5.067 Subarea runoff = 1.843(CFS) for 5.030(Ac.) Total runoff = 7.735(CFS) Total area = 12.510(Ac.) Depth of flow = 1.266(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.104(Ft/s) Critical depth = 0.523(Ft.) End of computations, total study area = 12.510 (Ac.)
11
Attachment B
Field Verification Photos
12
Photo #1 - at Node 15 looking West (Channel Bottom width Approx. 6.5’)
Photo #2 - at Node 15 looking South East
13
Photo #3 – Looking West
Photo #4 – Looking East (Channel Bottom Width Approx. 5’)
14
Photo #5 – Looking West
Photo #6 – Looking East
15
Photo #7 – Looking West
Photo #8 – Looking East
16
Photo #9 – Looking South West (Channel Bottom Width Approx. 7’)
Photo #10 – Looking East
17
Photo #8 – Looking West
Photo #9 – Looking East (Channel Bottom Width Appox. 3’)
18
Attachment C
Reference Material
Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
H-4 February 26, 2016
H.1.1.2 WMAA Mapping Method
It is anticipated that most applicants will elect to identify critical coarse sediment yield areas through
the RPO Method presented in the section above; however, applicants are not expressly forbidden
from utilizing the Watershed Management Area Analysis PCCSYA maps that were developed
through previous regional analysis. Applicants electing to pursue this alternate method must identify
onsite and/or upstream sources of critical coarse sediment through examination of the PCCSYA
maps provided in Appendix H.6.
H.1.2 Refinement Options
After identifying PCCSYAs using one of the methods above, the applicant may either accept the
PCCSYA mapping as final, or may elect to further refine the results of the mapping through
consideration of one or more of the refinement methods outlined below.
H.1.2.1 Depositional Analysis
Areas identified as PCCSYAs may be removed from consideration if it is demonstrated that these
sources are deposited into existing systems prior to reaching the first downstream unlined water of
the state. Systems resulting in deposition may include existing natural sinks, existing structural
BMPs, existing hardened MS4 systems, or other existing similar features that produce a peak velocity
from the discrete 2-year, 24 hour runoff event of less than three feet per second in the system being
analyzed. Applicants electing to perform depositional analysis to refine PCCSYA mapping must
refer to the detailed guidance provided in Appendix H.7.1.
H.1.2.2 Threshold Channel Analysis
Areas identified as PCCSYAs may be removed from consideration if they discharge to a “threshold
channel” that does not exhibit characteristics associated with significant bed load movement during
design flows. Applicants electing to perform threshold channel analysis to refine PCCSYA mapping
must refer to the detailed guidance provided in Appendix H.7.2.
H.1.2.3 Coarse Sediment Source Area Verification
Areas identified as PCCSYAs may be removed from consideration if an applicant demonstrates that
these areas actually consist of fine grained sediment. Applicants electing to perform coarse sediment
source area verification to refine PCCSYA mapping must refer to the detailed guidance provided in
Appendix H.7.3.
H.1.2.4 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs)
If an applicant has identified sources of critical coarse sediment via the alternate WMAA Method
discussed in Appendix H.1.1, PCCSYAs mapping may be refined through verification of GLUs. If
this method is used, applicants must refer to detailed guidance provided in Appendix H.6.1.
Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
H-35 February 26, 2016
H.7 PCCSYAs: Refinement Options
If an applicant has identified onsite and/or upstream PCCSYAs and elects to perform additional
optional analyses to refine the PCCSYA designation, the guidance presented below should be
followed. Protection of critical coarse sediment yield areas is a necessary element of
hydromodification management because coarse sediment supply is as much an issue for causing
erosive conditions to receiving streams as are accelerated flows. However, not all downstream
systems warrant preservation of coarse sediment supply nor all source areas need to be protected.
The following guidance shall be used to refine PCCSYA designations:
• Depositional Analysis (Appendix H.7.1)
• Threshold Channel Analysis (Appendix H.7.2)
• Coarse Sediment Source Area Verification (Appendix H.7.3)
H.7.1 Depositional Analysis
Areas identified as PCCSYAs may be removed from consideration if it is demonstrated that these
sources are deposited into existing systems prior to reaching the first downstream unlined water of
the state. Systems resulting in deposition may include existing natural sinks, existing structural
BMPs, existing hardened MS4 systems, or other existing similar features. Applicants electing to
perform depositional analysis to refine PCCSYA mapping must meet the following criteria to qualify
for exemption from CCSYA designation:
• The existing hardened MS4 system that is being analyzed should be upstream of the first
downstream unlined waters of the state; and
• The peak velocity from the discrete 2-year, 24-hour runoff event for the existing hardened
MS4 system that is being analyzed is less than three feet per second.
The three feet per second criteria is consistent with the recommended minimum velocity for storm
and sanitary sewers in ASCE Manual of Engineering Practice No. 37 (ASCE, 1970).
In limited scenarios, applicant may have the option to establish site specific minimum self-cleansing
velocity using Equation H.7-1 or other appropriate equations instead of using the default three feet
per second criteria. This site specific analysis must be documented in the SWQMP and the County
has the discretion to request additional analysis prior to approving a site specific minimum self-
cleansing velocity. If an applicant chooses to establish a site specific minimum self-cleansing velocity
for refinement, then the applicant must design any new bypass hardened conveyance systems
proposed by the project to meet the site specific criteria.
Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
H-36 February 26, 2016
Equation H.7-1: Minimum Self Cleansing Velocity 𝐷𝐷=1.486𝑖𝑖𝑅𝑅1 6��𝐵𝐵�𝑠𝑠𝑔𝑔−1�𝐷𝐷𝑔𝑔�1 2�
Where:
V = minimum self-cleansing velocity (ft/sec)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient (unitless)
B = constant equal to 0.04 for clean granular particles (unitless)
sg = specific gravity of sediment particle (unitless): Use 2.65
Dg = sediment particle diameter (inches): Use 0.20 in
H.7.2 Threshold Channel Analysis
A threshold channel is a stream channel in which channel boundary material has no significant
movement during the design flow. If there is no movement of bed load in the stream channel, then
it is not anticipated that reductions in sediment supply will be detrimental to stream stability because
the channel bed consists of the parent material and not coarse sediment supplied from upstream. In
such a situation, changes in sediment supply are not considered a geomorphic condition of concern.
SCCWRP Technical Report 562 (2008) states the following in regards to sand vs. gravel bed
behavior/threshold vs. live-bed contrasts:
“Sand and gravel systems are quite varied in their transport of sediment and their sensitivity to
sediment supply. On the former, sand-bed channels typically have live beds, which transport
sediment continuously even at relatively low flows. Conversely, gravel/cobble-bed channels
generally transport the bulk of their bed sediment load more episodically, requiring higher flow
events for bed mobility (i.e., threshold behavior).”
“Sand-bed streams without vertical control are much more sensitive to perturbations in flow and
sediment regimes than coarse-grain (gravel/cobble) threshold channels. This has clear
implications in their respective management regarding hydromodification (i.e., sand systems
being relatively more susceptible than coarser systems). This also has direct implications for the
issue of sediment trapping by storm water practices in watersheds draining to sand-bed streams,
as well as general loss of sediment supply following the conversion from undeveloped sparsely-
vegetated to developed well-vegetated via irrigation.”
The following provides guidance for evaluating whether a stream channel is a threshold channel or
not. This determination is important because while accounting for changes in bed sediment supply is
appropriate for quantifying geomorphic impacts in non-threshold stream channels, it is not
considered appropriate for threshold channels. The domain of analysis for this evaluation shall be
the same as that used to evaluate susceptibility, per SCCWRP Technical Report 606, Field Manual
PCCSYA MAP
MARJA ACRES
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT 2C
HYDROMODIFICATION SCREENING
FOR
RANCHO COSTERA
(ROBERTSON RANCH PLANNING AREAS 1-11,13, & 23A-C)
AND
EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING
June 19, 2013
Wayne W, Chang.
ClianBSDaMJMDiS
Civil Engineering ° Hydrology ° Hydraulics»Sedimentation
P.O. Box 9496
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
(858) 692-0760
I
I
i
I
I
-TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Introduction 1
Domain of Analysis 3
Initial Desktop Analysis 6
Field Screening 7
Conclusion 12
Figures 13
APPENDICES
A. SCCWRP Initial Desktop Analysis
B. SCCWRP Field Screening Data
MAP POCKET
Study Area Exhibit
Rancho Costera Drainage Study - Proposed Condition Work Map
I
Plan) and the adjacent El Camino Real widening project. Both projects are being designed by
O'Day Consultants, Inc. (O'Day). Rancho Costera is located south of Calavera Hills Unit 1 (CT
76-12), west of Tamarack Avenue, and north of El Camino Real (see the Vicinity Map and the
Study Area Exhibit in the map pocket). The El Camino Real widening is along the soudi side of
Rancho Costera and will extend from Tamarack Avenue on the west to Cannon Road on the east.
The Rancho Costera site is currently undeveloped and supports agricultural uses. The proposed
site development varies by plarming area (PA): PA 1 and 23A-C are designated as open space;
PA 2 is a community facility site; PA 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are single-family residential
developments; PA 4 is for community recreation, PA 7 and 8 are multi-family residential; and
PA 11 is designated village center/commercial. Both projects are subject to hydromodification
requirements because they are priority development projects. A variety of best management
practices (bioretention basins, bioswales, etc.) wdll be incorporated throughout the projects to
treat runoff from the development areas.
Under pre-project conditions, storm runoff from the Rancho Costera site generally flows towards
the south and occurs as sheet flow over die natural ground or as surface flow within natural
drainage courses. Tlie majority of tiiis runoff is conveyed to an existing double 8-foot by 4-foot
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCB) under El Camino Real east of Kelly Drive or to an
existing 8-foot by 8-foot RCB under El Camino Real west of Cannon Road. Some of the runoff
will also flow onto El Caraino Real where it will be collected by public storm drain systems
along with the roadway runoff The runoff from all of these areas is ultimately conveyed to Agua
Hedionda Creek, which outlets into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and then the Pacific Ocean.
Under post-project conditions, proposed storm drain systems will be constructed to serve Rancho
Costera and the existing El Camino Real storm drain system will be altered to accommodate the
widening. However, the storm runoff will continue to be conveyed to Agua Hedionda
Creek/Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean.
The SCCWRP screening tool requires both office and field work to establish the vertical and
lateral susceptibility of a natural downstream receiving channel to erosion. In this case, there are
multiple natural downstream receiving channels near the easterly portion of the site and one
natural receiving channel along the westerly portion of the site (see the Study Area Exhibit in the
map pocket). The easterly natural charmels confluence then flow to Agua Hedionda Creek, while
the westerly natural chaimel flows into the Kelly Drive concrete-lined trapezoidal chaimel, which
discharges to Agua Hedionda Creek. The vertical and lateral assessments are performed
independently of each other although the lateral results can be affected by the vertical rating. A
screening analysis was performed to assess the low flow threshold for the project's points of
compliance, which are at each of the storm drain outlets into the natural channels.
The initial step in performing the SCCWRP screening analysis is to establish the domain of
analysis and the study reaches within the domain. This is followed by office and field
components of the screening tool along with the associated analyses and results. The following
sections cover these procedures in sequence.
I
I
DOMAIN OF ANALYSIS
SCCWRP defines an upstream and downstream domain of analysis, which establish the study
limits. The County of San Diego's HMP specifies the downstream domain of analysis based on
the SCCWRP criteria. The HMP indicates tliat the dovrastream domain is the flrst point where
one of these is reached:
• at least one reach downstream of the first grade control point
• tidal backwater/lentic waterbody
• equal order tributary
• accumulation of 50 percent drainage area for stream systems or 100 percent drainage area
for urban conveyance systems (storm drains, hardened channels, etc.)
The upstream limit is defined as:
• proceed upstream for 20 channel top widths or to the first grade control point, whichever
comes first. Identify hard points that can check headward migration and evidence of
active headcutting.
SCCWRP defines the maximum spatial unit, or reach (a reach is circa 20 channel widths), for
assigning a susceptibility rating within the domaui of analysis to be 200 meters (656 feet). If tiie
domain of analysis is greater than 200 meters, the study area should be subdivided into smaller
reaches of less than 200 meters for analysis. Most of the units in the HMP's SCCWRP analysis
are metric. Metric units are used in this report only where given so in the HMP. Otherwise
English units are used.
Downstream Domain of Analvsis
The downstream domain of analysis for a study area is determined by assessing and comparing
the four bullet items above. As discussed in tiie Introduction, the project has a point of
compliance (POC) at each of the storm drain outlets into a natural channel. In this case, there are
natural channels along the easterly and westerly portions of the site. Tiierefore, a downstream
domain of analysis location will be selected below the downstream-most POC in both the
easterly and the westerly channels.
The Study Area Exhibit shows several proposed storm drain outfalls into natural channels along
the easterly portion of the site. These channels ultimately confluence upstream of El Camino
Real and flow to Agua Hedionda Creek south of El Camino Real. Some of tiie outfalls discharge
at essentially the same location along a natural channel, so these fomi a single POC. The total
number of POCs into the easterly charmels is twelve (labeled A through L on the Study Area
Exhibit). The downstream-most POC within the easterly channels is POC L.
The Study Area Exhibit shows four POCs (labeled M through P) within the natural channel
along the westerly portion of the site. The downstream-most POC along this channel is POC P.
Therefore, dovrastream domain of analysis locations will be determined below POC L to the east
and POC P to the west, and were assessed as follows.
Per the first bullet item, the first permanent grade control point was located below POC L and
POC P through a site investigation and review of aerial photographs. The waterbodies below
POC L are Agua Hedionda Creek, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Pacific Ocean. There are no
permanent grade controls within these waterbodies below POL L, so tiiis first criteria does not
apply for POCL.
For POC P, tiie natural receiving watercourse continues for over 1,000 feet, where it becomes the
concrete-lined Kelly Drive trapezoidal channel. The Kelly Drive channel was recently repaired
by the City of Carlsbad. Chang Consultants was under contract witii Clayton Dobbs and Sherri
Howard at the City and assisted in obtaining the resource agency permits for the repairs. Since
the channel is concrete and a primary public drainage facility, it is considered a permanent grade
control. Therefore, the upper end of tiie Kelly Drive channel is the first permanent grade control
below POC P.
The second bullet item is the tidal backwater or lentic (standing or still water such as ponds,
pools, marshes, lakes, etc.) waterbody location. The nearest significant tidal backwater or lentic
waterbody is for POC L and P is Agua Hedionda Lagoon. From Google Earth, the upstream
extent of the lagoon is over 4,500 feet dovrastream of POC P. For POC L, the lagoon is
downstream ofthe Kelly Drive channel permanent grade control, so the lagoon will not govem
for establishing tiie downstream domain of analysis location.
The final two bullet items are based on 50 and 100 percent tributary drainage areas (in this case,
the charmels are in urban areas, so the 100 percent criteria will be used). The natural channel
below POC L confluences with Agua Hedionda Creek approximately 220 feet below POC L.
The overall area tributary to POC L covers approximately 5.11 square miles according to a 2008
Letter of Map Revision Request for Robertson's Ranch by Chang Consultants. In comparison,
FEMA's May 16, 2012, Flood Insurance Study indicates tiiat tiie Agua Hedionda Creek
watershed covers 23.8 square miles at El Camino Real (see Appendix A for excerpts from botii
reports). Tliis infomiation shows that the Aqua Hedionda Creek tributary drainage area is much
greater than 100 percent of the POC L drainage area. In addition, for POC P, a 100 percent larger
drainage area occurs where the Kelly Drive channel confluences with Agua Hedionda Creek.
Therefore, for both POCs the tributary area criteria is met where their downstream channels
confluence vnth Agua Hedionda Creek.
Based on the above information, the dovrastream domain of analysis below POC L occurs at the
confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek, which is approximately 220 feet downstream of POC L.
There is no permanent grade control associated with POC L and the tidal backwater is several
thousand feet fiirtiier downstream of the confluence.
The dovrastream domain of analysis for the natural channel tributary to POC P is at the
permanent grade control created at the upper end ofthe Kelly Drive concrete-lined channel. The
tidal backwater and 100 percent tributary area are fiirther downstream of tiie Kelly Drive
channel. Per die first bullet item, the downstream domain of analysis is one reach below the
grade control point. As outlined above, a reach is not to exceed 200 meters (656 feet). The
concrete-lined channel is longer tiian 656 feet, so the reach will be within the non-erodible
channel. Therefore, the dovrastream domain of analysis for the study reach associated with POC
P occurs at the upper end of the Kelly Drive channel.
Upstream Domain of Analvsis
The upstream domain of analysis must be established for the easteriy and westerly natural
channels. Along the easterly side, there are three upstream-most POCs: POC A, POC B, and
POC H (see the Study Area Exhibit). The outlet of each of these is essentially at the upstream
end of the receiving natural channel. Since the area upstream of tiiese three POCs is not an
erodible channel, each POC establishes an upstream domain of analysis location.
Along tiie westeriy side, the upstream-most POC is POC M, and tiie watercourse above POC M
begins at the southerly edge of Tamarack Avenue approximately 290 feet above POC M.
Therefore, the upstream domain of analysis location for the westerly natural channel is at the
southerly edge of Tamarack Avenue.
Studv Reaches within Domain of Analvsis
The total domain of analysis (or overall study reach) within the easterly area extends from the
three upstream POCs to Agua Hedionda Creek south of El Camino Real. The total domain of
analysis for the various natural channels within the westerly area covers approximately 6,241
feet (1,902 meters). The domain of analysis was subdivided into eight natural study reaches witii
similar characteristics (see the Study Area Exhibit). Reach El extends 2,700 feet (823 meters)
from the upstream domain of analysis location at POC A dovra to POC F, which is at a channel
confluence. Reach E2 extends 1,253 feet (382 meters) from the upstream domain of analysis
location at POC B to POC C. Reach E3 extends 244 feet (74 meters) from POC C to POC D.
POC D and E are at the upstream and downstream ends ofthe proposed Street E culvert crossing
ofthe channel. Reach E4 extends 687 feet (209 meters) from POC E to the channel confluence at
POC F. Reach E5 extends 250 feet (76 meters) from POC F to an existing concrete-lined access
road crossing the natural channel. Reach E6 extends 284 feet (87 meters) from the access road to
POC G, which is located at tiie upstream end of the existing 8-foot by 8-foot RCBs under El
Camino Real. Reach E7 extends 603 feet (184 meters) from the upstream domain of analysis
location at POC H to POC G. Reach E8 extends 220 feet (67 meters) from POC L at the
dovrastream end oftiie 8-foot by 8-foot RCBs under El Camino Real to the downstream domain
of analysis location at the confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek.
The total domain of analysis for the westerly area covers approximately 2,546 feet (776 meters).
Reach Wl begins at tiie upstream domain of analysis location on the south side of Tamarack
Avenue and extends 290 feet (88 meters) to the upstream end of the proposed Street J access
road from Tamarack Avenue. Street J crosses the stream channel and will contain a culvert to
convey the stream flow through the roadway embankment. Reach W2 extends 309 feet (94
meters) from POC M at the lower end of the proposed Street J culvert to POC N. Reach W3
extends 940 feet (287 meters) from POC N to POC O, which is located at the upstream end of
the existing double 8-foot by 4-foot RCBs under El Camino Real. POC P is at the downstream
end of the existing double 8-foot by 4-foot RCBs under El Camino Real. Reach W4 extends
1,007 feet (307 meters) from POC P to tiie downstream domain of analysis location at the upper
end of the concrete-lined Kelly Drive channel.
Several of the study reaches are longer than the 656 feet (200 meters) maximum reach length
specified by SCCWRP. Review of topographic mapping, aerial photographs, and field conditions
reveals that the physical (channel geometry and longitudinal slope), vegetative, hydraulic, and
soil conditions within each of the reaches are relatively uniform. Subdividing tiie reaches into
smaller subreaches of less than 656 feet will not yield significantly varying results within a
reach. Although the screening tool was applied across the entire length of each study reach, the
results will be similar for shorter subreaches within each reach.
INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS
After the domain of analysis is established, SCCWRP requires an "initial desktop analysis" that
involves office work. The initial desktop analysis establishes the watershed area, mean annual
precipitation, valley slope, and valley width. These terms are defmed in Form 1, which is
included in Appendix A. SCCWRP reconimends the use of National Elevation Data (NED) to
detemiine the watershed area, valley slope, and valley width. The NED data is similar to USGS
mapping. For this report, O'Day's proposed condition hydrology tiata was used, where available,
to identify the drainage areas, which is more accurate than using NED data. The relevant pages
frora O'Day's hydrology analyses are included in Appendix A and their workmap is included in
the map pocket. O'Day's analyses do not provide drainage areas for Reach E7, E8, or W4, so
these were obtained as follows. Chang Consultants prepared a 2008 Letter of Map Revision
Request for Robertson's Ranch that delineated the tributary drainage areas to Reach E7 and E8,
so the LOMR data was used (see Appendix A for excerpts). For Reach W4, O'Day's analyses
determined the tributary area at the upper end of tiie reach. The additional area tributary to the
lower end of Reach W4 was delineated from tiie project's topographic mapping to determine the
total drainage area tributary to Reach W4. The delineation is included on the Study Area Exhibit.
The mean annual precipitation is provided by tiie County of San Diego's BMP Sizing Calculator
(see Appendix A) and is 13.3 inches.
The valley slopes of each smdy reach were determined from the 2-foot contour interval mapping
prepared for the project, where available, and the City's 2-foot contour interval topographic
mapping for a small area at the east. The valley slope is the longitudinal slope of tiie channel bed
along the flow line, so it is determined by dividing the elevation difference within a reach by the
flow path. The 2-foot contour mapping sources were used because they will provide more
precise results tiian NED data.
The valley width is the bottom widtii ofthe raain creek channel. The average valley width within
each reach was estimated from the 2-foot contour interval topographic mapping, field
observations, and review of aerial photographs. The valley slope and valley width for each reach
are summarized in Table 1.
These values were input to a spreadsheet to calculate the simulated peak flow, screening index,
and valley width index outiined in Form 1. The input data and results are tabulated in Appendix
A. This completes the initial desktop analysis.
I
Reach Tributary Area, sq. mL VaUey Slope, m/m Valley Width, m
El 0.2400 0.0289 6.1
E2 0.0731 0.0551 1.5
E3 0.0732 0.0369 1.5
E4 0.1272 0.0247 8.5
E5 0.3963 0.0092 11.0
E6 0.3964 0.0088 4.6
E7 4.6800 0.0060 16.8
E8 5.1100 0.0091 25.9
Wl 0.0054 0.0448 2.4
W2 0.8078 0.0191 6.1
W3 1.1157 0.0127 17.7
W4 1.2688 0.0183 4.9
Tabie 1. Summary of Valley Slope and Valley Width
FIELD SCREENING
After the initial desktop analysis is complete, a field assessment must be performed. The field
assessment is used to establish a natural channel's vertical and lateral susceptibility to erosion.
SCCWRP states that although they are admittedly linked, vertical and lateral susceptibility are
assessed separately for several reasons. First, vertical and lateral responses are primarily
controlled by different types of resistance, which, when assessed separately, may improve ease
of use and lead to increased repeatability compared to an integrated, cross-dimensional
assessment. Second, the mechanistic differences between vertical and lateral responses point to
different modeling tools and potentially different management strategies. Having separate
screening ratings may better direct users and managers to the most appropriate tools for
subsequent analyses.
The field screening tool uses combinations of decision trees and checklists. Decision trees are
typically used when a question can be answered fairly definitively and/or quantitatively (e.g., dso
< 16 mm). Checklists are used where answers are relatively qualitative (e.g., the condition of a
grade control). Low, medium, high, and very high ratings are applied separately to the vertical
and lateral analyses. When the vertical and lateral analyses return divergent values, the most
conservative value shall be selected as the flow threshold for the hydromodification analyses.
Visual observation reveals that most of the study reaches contain a moderate to densely
vegetated channel (see the figures following the report text). The vegetative density extends
relatively uniformly across the channel bottom and sides. Due to the vegetative cover, riprap
energy dissipaters at each POC, and lack of significant erosion noted during the site
investigation, the vertical and lateral stability was anticipated to have a limited susceptibility to
erosion.
Veriical Stabilin>
The purpose ofthe vertical stability decision tree (Figure 6-4 in the County of San Diego HMP)
is to assess the state of the channel bed with a particular focus on the risk of incision (i.e., down
cutting). The decision tree is included in Figure 30. The first step is to assess tiie channel bed
resistance. There are three categories defined as follows:
1. Labile Bed - sand-dominated bed, little resistant substrate.
2. Transitional/Intermediate Bed - bed typically characterized by gravel/small cobble.
Intermediate level of resistance of the substrate and uncertain potential for armoring.
3. Threshold Bed (Coarse/Armored Bed) - armored witii large cobbles or larger bed
material or highly-resistant bed substrate (i.e., bedrock).
Channel bed resistance is a fijnction of the bed material and vegetation. The figures after this
report text contain photographs of the natural channels in each study reach. A site investigation
and the figures indicate that the vegetative cover throughout each natural channel within Reaches
El through E4, E8, and Wl through W4 is mature, dense, and fairly uniform (see Figures 1
through 10 and 17 through 26). The vegetation in some areas is so dense diat tiie channel was
either difficult to access or not possible to access at all unless the vegetation is trimmed. The
vegetation consists of a variety of mature grasses, reeds, shrubs, and trees. Vegetation prevents
bed incision because its root stracture binds soil and because the aboveground vegetative growtii
reduces flow velocities. Table 5-13 from the County of San Diego's Drainage Design Manual
outiines maximum permissible velocities for various channel linings (see Table 5-13 in
Appendix B). Maxiraum pennissible velocity is defined in the raanual as the velocity below
which a channel section will remain stable, i.e., not erode. Table 5-13 indicates tiiat a fiilly-lined
channel witii unreinforced vegetation has a maxiraum permissible velocity of 5 feet per second
(fps). Due to the dense cover and mature vegetation, the permissible velocity when erosion can
initiate is likely greater than 5 fps in most of the natural channel areas. Table 5-13 indicates that
5 fps is equivalent to an unvegetated channel containing cobbles (grain size from 64 to 256 mm)
and shingles (rounded cobbles). In coraparison, coarse gravel (19 to 75 mm) has a maximum
pennissible velocity of 4 fps. Based on this information, the uniformly vegetated natural canyons
in Reaches El through E4, E8, and Wl through W4 has an equivalent grain size of at least 64
mm, which is comparable to a transitional/intermediate bed.
Figures 11 through 16 show that Reaches E5 through E7 contain sparser vegetation than the
otiier reaches. Therefore, a relationship between vegetative cover and grain size is not apphcable,
and pebble count must be performed. Figures 15 through 17 contain photographs of the typical
bed material within these three study reaches. A gravelometer is included in the photographs for
reference. Each square on tiie gravelometer indicates grain size in millimeters (the squares range
from 2 mm to 180 mm). A pebble count was performed (see results in Appendix A) that
determined the median (dso) bed material size to be 11 millimeters (mm) in Reaches E5, E6, and
E7.
In addition to the material size, there are several factors that establish the erodibility of a channel
such as the flow rate (i.e., size of the tributary area), grade controls, channel slope, vegetative
cover, channel planfonn, etc. The Introduction of the SCCWRP Hydromodification Screening
Tools: Field Manual identifies several of these factors. When multiple factors influence
erodibility, it is appropriate to perform the more detailed SCCWRP analysis, which is to analyze
a channel according to SCCWRP's transitional/intermediate bed procedure. This requires the
most rigorous steps and will generate the appropriate results given the range of factors tiiat
define erodibility. The transitional/ intermediate bed procedure takes into account that bed
material may fall within the labile category (the bed material size is used in SCCWRP's Form 3
Figure 4), but other factors may trend towards a less erodible condition. Dr. Eric Stein from
SCCWRP, who co-authored the Hydromodification Screening Tools: Field Manual in the Final
Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP), indicated that it would be appropriate to analyze
channels with multiple factors that impact erodibility using the transitional/intermediate bed
procedure. Consequently, this procedure was used to produce more accurate results for each
study reach.
Transitional/intermediate beds cover a wide susceptibility/potential response range and need to
be assessed in greater detail to develop a weight of evidence for the appropriate screening rating.
The three primary risk factors used to assess vertical susceptibiUty for channels witii
transitional/intermediate bed materials are:
1. Armoring potential - three states (Checklist 1)
2. Grade control - three states (Checklist 2)
3. Proximity to regionally-calibrated incision^raiding threshold (Mobility Index Threshold
- Probability Diagram)
These three risk factors are assessed using checklists and a diagram (see Appendix B), and the
results of each are combined to provide a final vertical susceptibility rating for the
intermediate/transitional bed-material group. Each checklist and diagram contains a Category A,
B, or C rating. Category A is the most resistant to vertical changes while Category C is the raost
susceptible.
Checklist 1 determines armoring potential of the chamiel bed. The channel bed along each ofthe
twelve reaches is within category B, which represents intermediate bed material within unknown
armoring potential due to a surface veneer and dense vegetation. The soil was probed and
penetration was relatively difficult through the underlying layer of each reach. Due to the dense
vegetative growth in some reaches, the armoring potential could have been rated higher in those
reaches, but Category B was conservatively (i.e., more potential for channel incision) chosen.
Checklist 2 determines grade control characteristics of the channel bed. SCCWRP states that
grade controls can be natural. Examples are vegetation or confluences with a larger waterbody.
As indicated above and verified witii photographs, Reaches El through E4, E8, and Wl through
W4 contain dense vegetation (see tiie figures). The plant roots and tree trunks serve as a natural
grade control. The spacing of these is much closer than die 50 meters or 2/Sv values identified in
the checklist. Further evidence of the effectiveness of the natural grade controls is the absence of
headcutting and mass wasting (large vertical erosion of a channel bank). Based on this
information, Reaches El through E4, E8, and Wl through W4 are within Category A on
Checklist 2.
Reaches E5 tiirough E7 do not contain dense vegetation. However, each of these reaches has a
grade control at their downstream end. For Reach E5, the existing concrete-lined access road
crossing ofthe natural channel (see Figure 13) is a permanent grade control. For Reaches E6 and
E7, the existing 8-foot by 8-foot RCB under El Camino Real is a pemianent grade control (see
Study Area Exhibit). Table 2 summarizes'the length, 2/Sv, and 4/Sv values for each of these
reaches. Table 2 shows tiiat for each reach, the reach length is less tiian the 2/Sv value (and
naturally also less than 4/Sv). Therefore, the grade control spacing in each of tiie tiiree reaches is
less dian 2/Sv and each reach is witiiin Category A on Checklist 2.
Study Reach Reach Length, ft 2/Sv, ft 4/Sv, ft
E5 250 713 1,426
E6 284 745 1,491
E7 603 1,099 2,198
Tabie 2. Grade Control Spacing Data
The Screening Index Threshold is a probability diagram tiiat depicts tiie risk of incising or
braiding based on the potential stream power of die valley relative to the median particle
diameter. The threshold is based on regional data from Dr. Howard Chang of Chang Consultants
and others. The probability diagram is based on dso as well as the Screening Index determined in
the initial desktop analysis (see Appendix A), dso is derived from field conditions. As discussed
above, the equivalent grain size for the densely-vegetated channels in Reaches El through E4,
E8, and Wl through W4 is at least 64 mm. The Screening Index Threshold diagram shows that
the 50 percent probability of incising or braiding for a dso of 64 mm has an index of at least
0.101 (in red rectangle on diagram). The Screening Index for these nine reaches calculated in
Appendix A varies from 0.009 to 0.039. Since each reach's Screening Index value is less than
the 50 percent value. Reaches El through E4, E8, and Wl through W4 fall witiiin Category A.
For Reaches E5 through E7, their Dso value was entered onto the Screening Index Threshold
graph. As mentioned above, a pebble count determined that the Dso for each of these reaches is
11 ram. Plotting 11 mm on tiie graph corresponds to a 50 percent Screening Index value of
0.038. The Screening Index calculated in Appendix A for the three reaches varies from 0.011 to
0.023. Since each reach's Screening Index value is less than the 50 percent value, Reaches E5,
E6, and E7 fall wdthin Category A.
The overall vertical rating is determined from the Checklist 1, Checklist 2, and Mobility Index
Threshold results. Tlie scoring is based on the following values:
Category A = 3, Category B = 6, Category C = 9
The vertical rating score for each of the twelve reaches is based on these values and tiie equation:
10
Vertical Rating = [(armoring x grade control)"^ x screening index score]^'^
= [(6 X 3)"^ X 3f'^ (Note: each of the twelve reaches has similar values)
= 3.6
Since the vertical rating is less than 4.5, each reach has a low vertical susceptibility to erosion.
Lateral Stability
The purpose of the lateral decision tree (Figure 6-5 from County of San Diego HMP included in
Figure 31) is to assess the state of the channel banks with a focus on the risk of widening.
Channels can widen frora either bank failure or through fluvial processes such as chute cutoffs,
avulsions, and braiding. Widening through fluvial avulsions/active braiding is a relatively
straightforward observation. If braiding is not already occurring, the next logical step is to assess
the condition of the banks. Banks fail through a variety of mechanisms; however, one of the most
important distinctions is whether they fail in mass (as many particles) or by fluvial detachment of
individual particles. Although much research is dedicated to the combined effects of weakening,
fluvial erosion, and mass failure, SCCWRP found it valuable to segregate bank types based on
the inference of the dominant failure mechanism (as the management approach may vary based
on the dominant failure mechanism). A decision tree (Form 4 in Appendix B) is used in
conducting die lateral susceptibility assessment. Definitions and photographic examples are also
provided below for terms used in the lateral susceptibility assessment.
The first step in the decision tree is to detemiine if lateral adjustraents are occurring. The
adjustments can take the form of extensive mass wasting (greater than 50 percent of the banks
are exhibiting planar, slab, or rotational failures and/or scalloping, undermining, and/or tension
cracks). The adjustraents can also involve extensive fluvial erosion (significant and frequent
bank cuts on over 50 percent of the banks). Neither mass wasting nor extensive fluvial erosion
was evident within any of the reaches during a field investigation. The banks are intact in the
photographs included in the figures. Due to the dense vegetation in most areas, photographs
representative of the banks were difficult to take. Nonetheless, the dense vegetation supports the
absence of large lateral adjustments.
The next step in the Form 4 decision tree is to assess the consolidation of tiie bank material. The
banks were moderate to well-consolidated. This determination was raade because the banks were
difficult to penetrate with a probe. In addition, the banks showed limited evidence of crumbling
and were composed of well-packed particles.
Forra 6 (see Appendix B) is used to assess the probability of raass wasting. Form 6 identifies a
10, 50, and 90 percent probability based on the bank angle and bank height. The 2-foot contour
interval topographic mapping indicates that the average natural bank angle is no greater than 2 to
1 (horizontal to vertical) or 26.6 degrees in any of the reaches. Form 6 shows that the probably of
mass wasting and bank failine has less than 10 percent risk for a 26.6 degree bank angle or less
regardless of the bank height.
The fmal two steps in the Form 4 decision tree are based on the braiding risk determined frora
the vertical rating as well as the Valley Width Index (VWI) calculated in Appendix A. If the
11
vertical rating is high, the braiding risk is considered to be greater than 50 percent. Excessive
braiding can lead to lateral bank failure. For all 12 study reaches, the vertical rating is low, so the
braiding risk is less than 50 percent. Furthermore, a VWI greater than 2 represents channels
unconfined by bedrock or hillslope and, hence, subject to lateral migration. The VWI
calculations in the spreadsheet in Appendix A show that the VWI for each reach is less than 2.
From the above steps, the lateral susceptibility rating is low for each of the twelve study reaches
(red circles are included on the Form 4: Lateral Susceptibility Field Sheet decision tree in
Appendix B showing the decision path). A review of aerial photographs confirms a lack of
braiding or lateral migration throughout the natural channels.
CONCLUSION
The SCCWRP chaimel screening tools were used to assess the downstreara channel
susceptibility for the Rancho Costera and associated El Camino Real Widening projects being
designed by O'Day Consultants, Inc. The project runoff will ultimately be collected by a series
of proposed and/or existing storm drain systems that outlet into unnamed natural channels at
various locations along the easterly and westerly portions of the developments. Each outlet is a
point of compliance. Based on die points of compliance, the unnamed natural channels were
assessed from the upstream-most POCs to either the confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek or
the concrete-lined Kelly Drive trapezoidal channel (domain of analysis). The assessment was
performed based on office analyses and field work. The resuhs indicate a low susceptibility for
vertical and lateral chaimel erosion for the entire study area.
The HMP requires tiiat these results be compared with the critical stress calculator results
incorporated in tiie County of San Diego's BMP Sizing Calculator. The BMP Sizing Calculator
critical stress results are included in Appendix B for all twelve reaches. Based on these values,
the critical stress results retumed a low susceptibility to erosion. Therefore, the SCCWRP
analyses and critical stress calculator demonstrate that the project can be designed assuming a
low susceptibility, i.e., O.5Q2.
The SCCWRP results are consistent with the physical condition of the natural channel within the
domain of analysis, which is moderately to densely-vegetated throughout. None of tiie twelve
study reaches exhibit signs of extensive, ongoing erosion.
12
Figure 1. Looking Downstmim lowariU Reach Kl ftom I'pper End
Figure 2. Looking Upsd eam towsrJs Reach Fl from Midpoint
13
!'ignrt Looking Downstream cowards Reach El frora Midpoinl
Figure 4, Loolujiie lipstream towards Reach El from Lower End
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 5- Looking Downstream towards Rcuch EZ from Lpper End
F^ure fi. Looking IJpsfreHm (owards Reach E2 fmm Midponil
15
Figure 9. Looking Easterly towards Reach E4
Figure 10. Looking Upstream towards Reacli E4rroni Lower End
17
L:
lignrc 11. Looking Downstream towards Reach E5 from Upper Fnd
Figure 12. Looking Upstream towards Reach E5 from Lowtr End
IS
Figure 13. Looking Southeasterly towards Reaches E5, E6, and L7
11 pJIOVyHIIVff
Figure 14. Looking Upstroam towards Reach E6 from El Camino Real
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 15. Looking Downslream towards Reach E7 from Upper End
Figure 16, Looking Westerly towards Reach E7
20
Figure 17. Looking Southeasterly towards Reach ES and Agua Hedionda Creek
Figure IS. Looking Downstream towards Reach W'l frnm Upper End
21
Figure 19. Looking Upstream tovyards Reach Wl from Lower End
Figure 20. Looking Downstream towards Reach W2 from Upper End
22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
y
I
g
H
Figure 21. Looking Upstream towards Reach W2 from Lower End
Figure 22- Looking Downstream towards Keach WJ from flpper End
23
I
I
APPENDIX A
SCCWRP INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS
SCCWRP FORM 1 ANALYSES
Area Mean Annual Precip. Valley Slope Valley Width 10-Year Flow 10-Year Flow
Reach A, sq. mi. P, inches Sv, m/m Wv, m QlOcfs, cfs QIC, cms
El 0.2400 13.3 0.0289 6.1 39 1.1
E2 0.0731 13.3 0.0551 1.5 14 0.4
E3 0.0732 13.3 0.0369 1.5 14 0.4
E4 0.1272 13.3 0.0247 8.5 22 0.6
E5 0.3963 13.3 0.0092 11.0 60 1.7
E6 0.3964 13.3 0.0088 4.6 60 1.7
E7 4.6800 13.3 0.0060 16.8 511 14.5
E8 5.1100 13.3 0.0091 25.9 552 15.6
Wl 0.0054 13.3 0.0448 2.4 1 0.04
W2 0.8078 13.3 0.0191 6.1 111 3.1
W3 1.1157 13.3 0.0127 17.7 147 4.2
W4 1.2688 13.3 0.0183 4.9 164 4.6
10-Year Screening Index Reference Width Vailey Width Index
Reach INDEX Wref, m VWI, m/m
El 0.030 7.3 0.84
E2 0.034 4.6 0.33
E3 0.023 4.6 0.33
E4 0.020 5.7 1.50
E5 0.012 8.8 1.25
E6 0.011 8.8 0.52
E7 0.023 22.5 0.74
E8 0.036 23.3 1.11
Wl 0.009 1.7 1.42
W2 0.034 11.5 0.53
WB 0.026 13.0 1.36
W4 0.039 13.7 0.36
PRECIPITATION
FROM COONTV BMP
SIZING CAUCUtATOR
Figure 25. Dense Vegeiation within Middle uf Reach W4
Figure 26. Looking Upstream toivards Reach W4 from Lower End al Conerete-Lined Kelly Dr- Channel
25
Figure 27. Gravelometer within Reach ES
Figure 2S. Gravelometer within Reach E6
26
LOW
tFtitf mmtdi) Dedioct tmk
iMAiMon ifl ifioi ccnd*gn
< No mdenM cf etwitt
tarmMIIKI / <Wl*IW)«
*F>iiyeaifliiM.ili(se«)r
connKM ID NIMte MUt-t
lAt£FlAUV*OJUeTABUE? >
VES <A(«LA1ER*l \
ADJUSTMEffTB >
OOCURBIWST /
VE8
1
MO
Nooe. or Durad oifir faniad ID iMMxIt md ooMttlaloni
1
MASS WASTING OR
EXTEKSrVE Furm.
CUTCFFFORKKnON
r
MED
vmst
FigiavS-S. Ln^KntChmndSusceptMiSify
Figure 31. SCCWRP Lateral Channel Susceptibility Matrix
29
I
I
I APPENDIXA
I SCCWRP INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS
FORM 1: INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS
Complete all shaded sections.
IF required at muitipie locations, circle one of the following site types:
Applicant Site / Upstream Extent / Downstream Extent
Location: Latitude: 33.154 Longitude: -117.3040
Description (river name, crossing streets, etc.): RanchO Costera (north Of El CamlnO
Real between Tamarack Ave, and Cannon Rd.) and El Camino Real widening.
GIS Parameters: The international System of Units (SI) is used throughout the assessment as the field
standard and for consistency with the broader sdentific community. However, as the singular exception, US
Customary units are used for contributing drainage area (A) and mean annual precipitation (P) to apply regional flow
equations after the USGS. See SCCWRP Technical Report 607 for example measurements and "Screening Tool
Data Entry.xls" for automated calculations.
Form 1 Table 1. Initial desktop analysis in GIS.
Symbol Variable Description and Source Value
a> 0} c
-F e % x: 0) Q. m
2 "a
5 Q. c
in
I?
Wv
Area
(mi=)
Mean annual
precipitation
(in)
Contributing drainage area to screening location via published
Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) and/or i 30 m National Elevation Data
(NED), USGS seamless server
Area-weighted annual precipitation via USGS delineated polygons using
records from 1900 to 1960 (which was more significant in hydrologic
models than polygons delineated from shorter record lengths)
Valley slope
(m/m)
Valley width
(m)
Valley slope at site via NED, measured over a relatively homogenous
valley segment as dictated by hillslope configuration, tributary
confluences, etc, over a distance of up to ~500 m or 10% of the main-
channel length from site to drainage divide
Valley bottom width at site between natural valley walls as dictated by
dear breaks in hillslope on NED raster, irrespective of potential
armoring from floodplain encroachment, levees, etc. (imprecise
measurements have negligible effect on rating in wide valleys where
VWI is » 2, as defined in lateral decision tree)
See attached
Form 1 table
on next page
for calculated
values for each
reach.
Form 1 TabI e 2. Simptif ied peak flo w, screening index, and valley width index. Values for this
table should be calculated in the sequence shown in this table, using values from Form 1 Table 1.
Symbol Dependent Variable Equation Required Units Value
QlOcfs 10-yr peak flow (ft'/s) Qiocts=18.2*A'""*P''" A (mi^)
P (in)
Qio* (ft'/s) Qio 10-yr peak flow (m'/s) Qio = 0.0283 * Qiocfs
A (mi^)
P (in)
Qio* (ft'/s) See attached
Fonm 1 table
INDEX
w„,
10-yr screening index (m^^/s°^)
Reference width (m)
INDEX = Sv*Qio ° ^
Wref =6.99 •Qio"'"*
Sv (m/m)
Qio (m'/s)
Qio (m'/s)
on next page
for calculated
values for each
VWI Valley width index (m/m) VWI = WvWref Wv(m)
W,e( (m) reach.
(Sheet 1 of 1)
B-3
SCCWRP FORM 1 ANALYSES
Area Mean Annual Precip. Valley Slope Valley Width 10-Year Flow 10-Year Flow
Reach A, sq. mi. P, inches Sv, m/m Wv, m QlOcfs, cfs QIO, cms
El 0.2400 13.3 0.0289 6.1 39 1.1
E2 0.0731 13.3 0.0551 1.5 14 0.4
E3 0.0732 13.3 0.0369 1.5 14 0.4
E4 0.1272 13.3 0.0247 8.5 22 0.6
E5 0.3963 13.3 0.0092 11.0 60 1.7
E6 0.3964 13.3 0.0088 4.6 60 1.7
E7 4.6800 13.3 0.0060 16.8 511 14.5
E8 5.1100 13.3 0.0091 25.9 552 15.6
Wl 0.0054 13.3 0.0448 2.4 1 0.04
W2 0.8078 13.3 0.0191 6.1 111 3.1
W3 1.1157 13.3 0.0127 17.7 147 4.2
W4 1.2688 13.3 0.0183 4.9 164 4.6
10-Year Screening Index Reference Width Valley Width Index
Reach INDEX Wref, m VWI, m/m
El 0.030 7.3 0.84
E2 0.034 4.6 0.33
E3 0.023 4.6 0.33
E4 0.020 5.7 1.50
E5 0.012 8.8 1.25
E6 0.011 8.8 0.52
E7 0.023 22.5 0.74
E8 0.036 23.3 1.11
Wl 0.009 1.7 1.42
W2 0.034 11.5 0.53
W3 0.026 13.0 1.36
W4 0.039 13.7 0.36
- Sizing Calculator
Define Drainage Basins
r.f- Cnn'nrl
Map data provided by OpenStreetMap
Map Details
Basm Agua Hedionda Watershed Project Ranch Costera & El Camino Real Widening
Manage Your Basins
Create a new Basin by clicking the New Ixjtton and scrol down lo view
er«ry. /ytematively, select an exisfing Basin from tabte and view
properties t>etow. Click Edft button to change Basin prop«ties then
press Save to commit changes.
Agua Heiionda Waterahad
Dssign Goal:
Point of Compliancs:
Projact Basin Arsa (ac): j<4i^^«)%i ^^vs. J
RainfollBasin: |OMpBSani',i»vft4,.\'. vj I Msan Annual PrsclpMon (In): tjf A j
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION FROM COUNTY BMP SIZING CALCULATOR
PEBBLE COUNT
# Reach E5 Diameter, mm Reach E6 Diameter, mm Reach E7 Diar
1 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
3 2 2 2
4 2 2 2
5 2 2 2
6 2.8 2 2
7 2.8 2 2
8 2.8 2 2
9 2.8 2 2.8
10 2.8 2.8 2.8
11 4 2.8 2.8
12 4 2.8 2.8
13 4 2.8 2.8
14 4 2.8 2.8
15 4 2.8 2.8
16 4 2.8 2.8
17 4 2.8 4
18 4 2.8 4
19 4 4 4
20 4 4 4
21 4 4 4
22 4 4 4
23 4 4 4
24 5.6 4 4
25 5.6 4 4
26 5.6 4 4
27 5.6 4 4
28 5.6 4 4
29 5.6 5.6 5.6
30 5.6 5.6 5.6
31 5.6 5.6 5.6
32 5.6 5.6 5.6
33 5.6 5.6 5.6
34 5.6 5.6 5.6
35 8 5.6 5.6
36 8 5.6 8
37 8 5.6 8
38 8 5.6 8
39 8 5.6 8
40 8 5.6 8
41 8 5.6 8
42 8 5.6 8
43 8 8 8
44 8 8 8
I
i # Reach E5 Diameter, mm Reach E6 Diameter, mm Reach E7 Dian
45 8 8 11
46 8 8 11
47 8 8 11
48 11 8 11
49 11 11 11
SO 11 11 11
51 11 11 11
52 11 11 11
53 11 11 11
54 11 11 11
55 11 11 11
56 11 11 11
57 11 11 16
58 11 11 16
59 11 11 16
60 11 11 16
61 11 11 16
62 11 11 16
63 11 11 16
64 11 11 16
65 11 16 16
66 11 16 16
67 16 16 16
68 16 16 16
69 16 16 16
70 16 16 16
71 16 16 16
72 16 16 16
73 16 16 16
74 16 16 16
75 16 16 16
76 16 16 16
77 16 16 16
78 16 16 16
79 16 16 16
80 16 16 16
81 16 16 16
82 16 16 16
83 16 16 16
84 16 16 16
85 16 16 22.6
86 16 16 22.6
87 16 16 22.6
88 16 16 22.6
89 16 22.6 22.6
90 16 22.6 22.6
# Reach E5 Diameter, mm Reach E6 Diameter, mm Reach E7 Dianr
91 22.6 22.6 22.6
92 22.6 22.6 22.6
93 22.6 22.6 22.6
94 22.6 22.6 22.6
95 22.6 22.6 32
96 22.6 22.6 32
97 22.6 22.6 32
98 22.6 32 32
99 32 32 32
100 32 32 64
EXCERPT FROM FEMA' MAY 16, 2012, "FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY, SAN DIEGO, COUNTY"
SHOWING AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK DRAINAGE AREA
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF PEAK DISCHARGES
Flooding Source and Location '
Adobe Creek
2,200 Feet Upstream of Peet Lane
Agua Hedionda Creek
0.67
At Confluence with Buena Creek
2,200 Feet Upstream of Rancho Carlsbad Drive
Upstream of Calavera Creek
At El Camino Real
Alvarado Creek
At Lake Shore Drive
At Interstate 8, Near Trailer Park
At Interstate 8, Near Murray Boulevard
Upstream of Murray Creek
Downstream of Murray Creek
At Downstream Side of College Avenue
Upstream of Tributary Channel
Downstream of Tributary Channel
6.3
16.5
17.3
23.8
4.6
5.3
5.7
6.3
10.1
11.4
12.1
13.4
Peak Discharges (cubic feet per second)
10% Annual-
375
2% Annual-
., Chance
1% Annual-
1,600
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,600
1,700
2,100
2,300
2,600
485
4,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,900
3,400
3,700
4,300
560
7,000
7,810
8,080
9,850
2,300
2,500
2,700
3,000
3,300
3,900
4,300
4,800
0.2% Annnal-
;,Cl4ance
710
15,500
3,000
3,200
3,500
3,800
4,200
5,000
5,400
6,100
• Data Not Available
68
EXCERPTS FROM O'DAY CONSULTANTS'
"RANCHO COSTERA DRAINAGE STUDY".
SEE MAP POCKET FOR WORK MAP.
APPENDIX 6
100 Yr. Proposed Hydrologic Calculations
Basin <H'
(See Exhibit 'K')
11
IVIaximum flow rates at confluence using above data:
37.976 22.996 40.432 49.662
Area of streams before confluence:
5.550 1.210 2.000 26.600
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 49.662(CFS)
Time of concentration = 20.000 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 35.360(Ac.)
++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 210.000 to Point/Station 214.000
**** IRREGtJIiAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME ****
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 53.019(CFS)
Depth of flow = 1.519(Ft.), Average velocity = 7.657(Ft/s)
******* Irregular Channel Data ***********
Information entered for subchannel number 1 :
Point number 'X' coordinate 'Y' coordinate
1 0.00 10.00
2 30.00 0.00
3 60.00 10.00
Manning's 'N' friction factor - 0.035
Sub-Channel flow = 53.019(CFS)
• • flow top width = 9.115(Ft.)
' ' velocity= 7.657(Ft/s)
' ' area - 6.924(Sq.Ft)
' ' Froude number = 1.548
Upstream point elevation = 142.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 70.000(Ft.)
Flow length - 1430.000 (Pt.)
Travel time = 3.11 min.
Time of concentration = 23.11 min.
Depth of flow = 1.519(Ft.)
Average velocity = 7.657(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 53.019(CFS)
Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 1.519(Ft.)
Average velocity of channel (s) => 7.657 (Ft/s)
Adding area flow to channel
Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.552(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
[UNDISTURBED NATURAL TERRAIN ]
(Perraanent Open Space )
Impervious value, Ai = 0.000
Sub-Area C Value =• 0.350
Rainfall intensity = 2.552(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
{Q=KCIA) is C = 0.471 CA - 22.060
Subarea runoff = 6.634 (CFS) for 11.500(Ac.)
Total runoff = 56.296 (CFS) Total area = 46.860(Ac.) Reacll E3
Depth of flow = 1.554(Ft.), Average velocity = 7.773(Ft/s)
Note: Reach E2 = 46.86 - 0.1 = 46.76 Acres
++++++++++++++-i-++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-f+++-i-+++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 214.000 to Point/Station 216.000
**** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
Upstream point/station elevation = 70.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 60.000(Ft.)
Pipe length = 250.00(Ft.) Slope = 0.0400 Manning's N = 0.015
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 56.296(CFS)
Given pipe size = 30.00 (In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 56.296(CFS)
Norraal flow depth in pipe = 20.16(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 28.17(In.)
Critical Depth = 28.38(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 16.06(Ft/s)
Travel tirae through pipe = 0.26 min.
Time of concentration (TC) = 23.37 min.
++++++++++++^•+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-^++++++++++^•++++^-++ +
Process from Point/Station 214.000 to Point/Station 216.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 46.860(Ac.)
Runoff frora this stream = 56.296(CFS)
Time of concentration = 23.37 min.
Rainfall intensity = 2.534(Xn/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
+++++++++++++++-!•++++++++++-^++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-^++++
Process from Point/Station 218.000 to Point/Station 222.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Deciraal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
[HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ]
(24.0 DU/A or Less )
Impervious value, Ai = 0.650
Sub-Area C Value = 0.710
Initial subarea total flow distance = 100.000(Ft.)
Highest elevation = 130.500(Ft.)
Lowest elevation = 128.700(Ft.)
Elevation difference = 1.800(Ft.) Slope = 1.800 %
Top of Initial Area Slope adjusted by User to 0.740 %
Bottom of Initial Area Slope adjusted by User to 0.740 %
8
' ' area = 30.066(Sq.Ft)
' ' Froude number = 1.057
Upstream point elevation » 60.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 42.000(Ft.)
Flow length = 600.000(Ft.)
Travel time = 3.07 min.
Time of concentration = 26.44 rain.
Depth of flow = 0.298(Ft.)
Average velocity = 3.260(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 97.999(CFS)
Irregular channel norraal depth above invert elev. = 0.298(Ft.)
Average velocity of channel(s) = 3.260(Ft/s)
+ + + + + + ++4 + ++-h++++++ + + + +++++++ + + ++ +++ + +++ +++-l- +++ ++4 + ++ + + + -l- + + + + + + + + + +
Process frora Point/Station 216.000 to Point/Station 2009.000
**** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ****
Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.340(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
[UNDISTURBED NATURAL TERRAIN ]
(Permanent Open Space )
Impervious value, Ai = 0.000
Sub-Area C Value = 0.350
The area added to the existing streara causes a
a lower flow rate of Q = 93.650(CFS)
therefore the upstream flow rate of Q = 97.999(CFS) is being used
Time of concentration = 26.44 rain.
Rainfall intensity = 2.340(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
{Q=KCIA) is C = 0.492 CA = 40.024
Subarea runoff = 0.000(CFS) for 4.850(Ac.)
Total runoff = 97.999(CFS) Total area = 81.430 (Ac.) Reach E4
+ +++ + + + + + +++ + + + + +++ + + + + +++ +++ + +++ ++++ + + + + +++ + + + + + + + +++ + + 4 + +++ ++-I- + +++ + +
Process from Point/Station 216.000 to Point/Station 2 009.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Streara nuraber: 1
Streara flow area = 81.430(Ac.)
Runoff from this streara = 97.999(CFS)
Time of concentration = 26.44 min.
Rainfall intensity = 2.340(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Streara No. 2
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 254.000 to Point/Station 254,000
20
Area of streams before confluence:
114.250 19.180
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 163.679(CFS)
Time of concentration = 20.880 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 133.430(Ac.)
+ ++-1- + ++++ ++++++++ ++4 + +++++ +++ + + + +++ + ++++ + +++ + ++++++++++ + + +++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 272.000 to Point/Station 2009.000
**** IRREGULAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME ****
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 163.727(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.727(Ft.), Average velocity = 4.344(Ft/s)
******* Irregular Channel Data ***********
Information entered for subcharmel nuraber 1 :
Point nuraber 'X' coordinate 'Y' coordinate
1 0.00 10.00
2 30.00 0.00
3 80.00 0.00
4 100.00 10.00
Manning's 'N' friction factor = 0.035
Sub-Channel flow = 163.728(CFS)
' ' flow top width - 53.637(Ft.)
' ' velocity- 4.344(Ft/s)
• • area = 37.692(Sq.Ft)
' • Froude nuraber = 0.913
Upstreara point elevation = 69.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 42.000(Ft.)
Flow length = 1600.000(Ft.)
Travel time = 6.14 rain.
Time of concentration = 27.02 min.
Depth of flow = 0.727(Ft.)
Average velocity = 4.344(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 163.727(CPS)
Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 0.727(Ft.)
Average velocity of channel(s) = 4.344(Ft/s)
Adding eirea flow to channel
Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.307(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Deciraal fraction soil group D = 1.000
[UNDISTURBED NATXJIRAL TERRAIN ]
(Permanent Open Space )
Irapervious value, Ai - 0.000
Sub-Area C Value = 0.350
The area added to the existing stream causes a
a lower flow rate of Q = 151.902(CFS)
therefore the upstream flow rate of Q = 163.679(CFS) is being used
Rainfall intensity = 2.307(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
36
I
I
i Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.429 CA = 65.833
Subarea runoff = 0.000(CFS) for 20.180(Ac.)
Total runoff = 163.679(CFS) Total area = 153.6lO{Ac.} Reach El
Depth of flow = 0.727(Ft.), Average velocity = 4.343(Ft/s)
+++++-!•++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 272.000 to Point/Station 2009.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 2
Streara flow area = 153.610(Ac.)
Rtmoff from this stream = 163.679(CFS)
Time of concentration = 27.02 min.
Rainfall intensity = 2.307(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:
Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (rain) (In/Hr)
1 97.999 26.44 2.340
2 163.679 27.02 2.307
Qraax (1) =
1.000 * 1.000 * 97.999) +
1.000 * 0.979 * 163.679) + = 258.167
Qraax (2) =
0.986 * 1.000 * 97.999) +
1.000 * 1.000 * 163.679) + = 260.317
Total of 2 main streams to confluence:
Flow rates before confluence point:
97.999 163.679
Maximura flow rates at confluence using above data:
258.167 260.317
Area of streams before confluence:
81.430 153.610
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 260.317(CFS)
Tirae of concentration = 27.019 rain.
Effective stream area after confluence = 235.040(Ac.!
+-i-+++++++++++++++++-t-+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 2009.000 to Point/Station 2010.000
**** IRREGULAR CHANNEL FLOW TRAVEL TIME ****
Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 260.342(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.680(Ft.), Average velocity = 3.738(Ft/s)
******* Irregular Channel Data ***********
37
Nearest computed pipe diameter = 21.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 24.726(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 13.66(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 20.02(In.)
Critical depth could not be calculated.
Pipe flow velocity - 14.92(Ft/s)
Travel tirae through pipe = 0.78 rain.
Time of concentration (TC) = 25.51 min.
Process frora Point/Station 2013.000 to Point/Station 2010.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal streara number 2
Stream flow area = 12.650(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 24.726(CFS)
Time of concentration = 25.51 rain.
Rainfall intensity = 2.394(In/Hr)
Sununary of stream data:
Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 260.317 29.25 2.192
2 24.726 25.51 2.394
Qmax(1) =
1.000 * 1.000 * 260.317) +
0.916 * 1.000 * 24.726) + = 282.955
Qraax(2) =
1.000 * 0.872 * 260.317) +
1.000 * 1.000 * 24.726) + - 251.779
Total of 2 streams to confluence:
Flow rates before confluence point:
260.317 24.726
Maxiraum flow rates at confluence using above data:
282.955 251.779
Area of streams before confluence:
240.950 12.650
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 282.955(CFS)
Time of concentration = 29.249 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 253.600 (Ac.)
Process from Point/Station 2010.000 to Point/Station 2015.000
**** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
Upstream point/station elevation = 35.300(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 34.500(Ft.)
Pipe length = 40.00(Ft.) Slope = 0.0200 Manning's N = 0.013
41
I
I
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 282.955(CFS)
Given pipe size = 30.00(In.)
NOTE: Normal flow is pressure flow in user selected pipe size.
The approximate hydraulic grade line above the pipe invert is
95.622(Ft.) at the headworks or inlet of the pipe(s)
Pipe friction loss = 19.029(Ft.)
Minor friction loss = 77.393(Ft.) K-factor = 1.50
Critical depth could not be calculated.
Pipe flow velocity = 57.64(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.01 min.
Tirae of concentration (TC) = 29.26 min.
End of coraputations, total study area = 253.600 (Ac.) Reach E5
Note: Reach E6 = 253.6 + 0.1 = 253.7 Acres
42
APPENDIX 4
100 Yr. Proposed Hydrologic Calculations
Basin 'E-F'
(See Exhibit 'K')
I
i Process from Point/Station 5000.000 to Point/Station 5000.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream ntimber: 1
Stream flow area = 509.400(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 512.740(CFS)
Time of concentration = 31.46 min.
Rainfall intensity = 2.092(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
+++ +++++++ +++++++ +++-I-++-I- +++ ++++++-I-+ +++ +++++++ + H
Process from Point/Station 5002.000 to Point/Station 5004.000
**** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
[UNDISTURBED NATURAL TERRAIN ]
(Permanent Open Space )
Impervious value, Ai = 0.000
Sub-Area C Value = 0.350
Initial subarea total flow distance = 100.000(Ft.)
Highest elevation = 180.000(Ft.)
Lowest elevation = 130.000(Ft.)
Elevation difference = 50.000(Ft.) Slope = 50.000 %
Top of Initial Area Slope adjusted by User to 30.000 %
INITIAL AREA TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS:
The maximum overland flow distance is 100.00 (Ft)
for the top area slope value of 30.00 %, in a development type of
Permanent Open Space
In Accordance With Figure 3-3
Initial Area Time of Concentration = 4.34 minutes
TC = [1.8*(l.l-C)*distance(Ft.)'^.5)/(% slope"(l/3)]
TC = [1.8*(l.l-0.3500)*( 100.000".5)/( 30.000^(1/3)]= 4.34
Calculated TC of 4.345 minutes is less than 5 minutes,
resetting TC to 5.0 minutes for rainfall intensity calculations
Rainfall intensity (I) = 6.850(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.350
Subarea runoff = 0.240(CFS)
Total initial stream area = 0.100(Ac.)
+++ +++ ++++++ + +++ + +++ + -I-++ +++ + +++ +++++++ ++++++++++-I-+++-H ++++++ + +++++
Process from Point/Station 5004.000 to Point/Station 5006.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
Upstream point elevation = 130.000(Ft.)
Downstreara point elevation = 63.000(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 700.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 1.000 (Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 2.000
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 2.000
Estimated mean flow rat:e at midpoint of channel = 3.659 (CFS)
Manning's 'N' = 0.035
Maximum depth of channel = 2.000(Pt.)
Flow{q) thru subarea = 3.659(CFS)
Depth of flow = 0.391(Ft.), Average velocity = 5.259(Ft/s)
Channel flow top width = 2.563(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 5.26(Ft/s)
Travel time = 2.22 min.
Time of concentration = 6.55 min.
Critical depth = 0,531(Ft.)
Adding area flow to channel
Rainfall intensity (I) = 5.748(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
[UNDISTURBED NATURAL TERRAIN ]
(Permanent Open Space )
Irt¥)ervious value, Ai = 0.000
Sub-Area C Value = 0.350
Rainfall intensity = 5.748(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.350 CA = 1.214
Subarea runoff = 6.741(CFS) for 3.370(Ac.)
Total runoff = 6.981 (CFS) Total area = 3.470(Ac.) Reach W1
Depth of flow = 0.538(Ft.), Average velocity = 6.247(Ft/s)
Critical depth = 0.734(Ft.)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Process from Point/Station 5006.000 to Point/Station 5008.000
**** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
Upstream point/station elevation = 63.000(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 51.800(Ft.)
Pipe length = 68.00(Ft.) Slope = 0.0176 Manning's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Reguired pipe flow = 6.981(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 6.981(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 9.00(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 18.00 (In.)
Critical Depth = 12.28(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 7.90(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.14 min.
Time of concentration (TC) = 6.71 min.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 5008.000 to Point/Station 5000.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ****
Upstream point elevation = 61.800(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 57.000(Ft.)
I
Depth of flow = 0.299(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.911(Ft/s)
Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel:
Halfstreet flow width = 8.129 (Ft.)
Flow velocity = 1.91(Ft/s)
Travel time = 3.14 min. TC = 9.39 min.
Adding area flow to street
Rainfall intensity (I) = 4.562(In/Hr) for a 100,0 year storm
Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000
Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000
[MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ]
(7.3 DU/A or Less )
Inpervious value, Ai = 0.400
Sub-Area C Value = 0.570
Rainfall intensity = 4.562(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
Effective runoff coefficient used for total area
(Q=KCIA) is C = 0.570 CA = 1.180
Svibarea runoff = 5.044 (CFS) for 1.970 (Ac.)
Total rimoff = 5.382 (CFS) Total area = 2.070 (Ac.)
Street flow at end of street = 5.382(CFS)
Half street flow at end of street = 2.691(CPS)
Depth of flow = 0.348(Ft.), Average velocity = 2.200(Ft/s)
Flow widtJi (from curb towards crown)= 10.586(Ft,)
++++-h++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-i-+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 5017.000 to Point/Station 5014.000
**** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
Upstream point/station elevation = 135.500(Ft.)
Downstream point/station elevation = 79.050(Ft.)
Pipe length = 510.00(Ft.) Slope = 0.1107 Mcuining's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 5.382(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 5.382(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 4.78(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 15.89(In.)
Critical Depth = 10.73(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 14.33(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.59 min.
Time of concentration (TC) = 9.98 min.
+ + +++-l- + +-++++++++++++++++4-+ + + +++ +++++++ + ++++++++++++++-t-4-++-t- +++
Process from Point/Station 5017.000 to Point/Station 5014.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ****
Along Main Streara number: 2 in normal stream number 2
Stream flow area = 2.070(Ac.)
Runoff from this streara = 5.382(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.98 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.385(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:
I
stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 4 498 5 .73 6.276
2 5 382 9 98 4.385
Qmax(l) =
1. 000 * 1. 000 * 4. 498) +
1. 000 * 0. 574 * 5. 382) + = 7 .586
Qmax(2) =
0. 699 * 1. 000 * 4. 498) +
1. 000 * 1. 000 * 5. 382) + = 8 .526
Total of 2 streams to confluence:
Flow rates before confluence point:
4.498 5.382
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:
7.586 8.526
Area of streams before confluence:
2.040 2.070
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 8.526(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.984 min. Reach W2
Effective stream area after confluence = 4.110(Ac.)
(easterly subarea)
Total Area of Reach W2 is northerly + easterly subarea.
+++++++++++++-(-+++++++++++++++++++++++-1-+++?+++++++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 5014.000 to Point/Station 5018.000
**** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ****
Upstream point/station elevation = 79.050(Ft.)
Downstrecim point/station elevation = 60.000 (Ft.)
Pipe length = 96.00(Ft.) Slope = 0.1984 Marming's N = 0.013
No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 8.526(CFS)
Given pipe size = 18.00(In.)
Calculated individual pipe flow = 8.525(CFS)
Normal flow depth in pipe = 5.20(In.)
Flow top width inside pipe = 16.32(Xn.)
Critical Depth = 13.57(In.)
Pipe flow velocity = 20.14(Ft/s)
Travel time through pipe = 0.08 min.
Time of concentration (TC) = 10.06 min.
++++++++++++++++-H- + + + +++ + +++ + +-l-++++ + -h + ++++ ++4-++++ + ++H
Process from Point/Station 5018.000 to Point/Station 5010.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME ''""**
Upstream point elevation = 60.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 51.000(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 460.000(Ft.)
Channel base width = 1.000(Ft.)
Slope or 'Z' of left chaimel bank = 2.000
10
I
I
I Sub-Channel flow = 22.805(CFS)
' ' flow top width = 7.226(Ft.)
velocity= 3.494(Ft/s)
area = 6.527(Sq.Ft)
' ' Froude number = 0.648
Instream point elevation = 43.620(Ft.)
Downstrecun point elevation = 42.000(Ft.)
Flow length = 180.000(Ft.)
Travel time = 0.86 min.
Time of concentration = 9.93 min.
Depth of flow = 1.807(Ft.)
Average velocity = 3.494(Ft/s)
Total irregular channel flow = 22.805(CFS)
Irregular channel normal depth above invert elev. = 1.807(Ft.)
Average velocity of channel(s) = 3.494(Ft/s)
++++++^.+^.+++++++++++-^+++++++++++^•+++++++++++++++++++++^-++-^-^+
Process from Point/Station 5050.000 to Point/Station 5034.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STEIEAMS ****
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream nuraber: 2
Stream flow area = 6.610(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 22.805(CFS)
Time of concentration = 9.93 min.
Rainfall intensity = 4.402(In/Hr)
Svunmary of stream data:
Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 719.611 35.74 1.926
2 22.805 9.93 4.402
Qmax(l) =
1.000 * 1.000 * 719.611) +
0.438 * 1.000 * 22.805) + = 729.591
Qmax(2) =
1.000 * 0.278 * 719.611) +
1.000 * 1.000 * 22.805) + = 222.633
Total of 2 raain streams to confluence:
Flow rates before confluence point;
719.611 22.805
Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data:
729.591 222.633
Area of streams before confluence:
707.440 6.610
Results of confluence:
21
I
I
I
Total flow rate = 729.591(CFS)
Time of concentration = 35.742 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 714.050(Ac.) Reach W3
+++++++++++-^-^+++++++++++++++++++-l-+++-^++++++++++-l•++++++++++++++
Process from Point/Station 5034.000 to Point/Station 5052.000
**** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRA'VEL TIME **** EXISTIHQ DOUBXJB B'Xi' RCB
Covered channel
Upstream point elevation = 42.000(Ft.)
Downstream point elevation = 40.000(Ft.)
Channel length thru subarea = 108.000 (Ft.) /-) , 7Z C-fs^
Channel base width = 16.000(Ft.) ^<00
Slope or "Z' of left channel bank = 0.000 ^ _ /7^//?.
Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 0.000 ' iS-'
Manning's 'N' = 0.015 - '^[^.O^ H <^ •
Maximum depth of charmel = 4.000(Ft.)
Flow{q) thru subarea = 729.591(CFS)
Depth of flow = 2.298(Ft.), Average velocity = 19.840(Ft/s)
Channel flow top width = 16.000(Ft.)
Flow Velocity = 19.84(Ft/s)
Travel time = 0.09 min.
Time of concentration = 35.83 min.
Critical depth = 4.000(Ft.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-++++++++^
Process from Point/Station 5034.000 to Point/Station 5052.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 1
Stream flow area = 714.050(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 729.591(CFS)
Time of concentration = 35.83 min.
Rainfall intensity = 1.923(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2
+ + ++++ +++++ + ++++ + + + ++-l-++++ + + + ++ + + + ++++++-(-+++4-++-(- + +-++++ ++++ + ++++ + +
Process from Point/Station 7 000.000 to Point/Station 7007.000
**** USER DEFINED FLOW INFORMATION AT A POINT
User specified 'C value of 0.700 given for subarea
Rainfall intensity (1) = 3.229(In/Hr) for a 100,0 year storm
User specified values are as follows:
TC = 16.05 min. Rain intensity = 3.23(In/Hr)
Total area = 72.820(Ac.) Total runoff = 163.030(CFS)
Process from Point/Station 7000.000 to Point/Station 7007.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ****
22
I
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream nvimber: 2
Stream flow area = 72.820(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 163.030 (CFS)
Time of concentration = 16.05 min.
Rainfall intensity = 3.229(In/Hr)
Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 3
Process from Point/Station 8003.000 to Point/Station 7007.000
USER DEFINED FLOW INFORMATION AT A POINT ****
User specified 'C value of 0.900 given for subarea
Rainfall intensity (I) = 5.688(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm
User specified values are as follows:
TC = 6.67 min. Rain intensity. = 5.69 (In/Hr)
Total area = 2.450(Ac.) Total runoff = 13.200(CFS)
++-I-++++++++-K + +++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++ + + +++ ++++++++++ +++++++
Process from Point/Station 8003,000 to Point/Station 7007.000
**** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ***'*
The following data inside Main Stream is listed:
In Main Stream number: 3
Stream flow area = 2.450(Ac.)
Runoff from this stream = 13.200(CFS)
Time of concentration = 6.67 min.
Rainfall intensity = 5.688(In/Hr)
Summary of stream data:
Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity
No. (CFS) (min) (In/Hr)
1 729.591 35.83 1.923
2 163.030 16.05 3.229
3 13.200 6.67 5.688
Qmax(1) =
1.000 * 1.000 * 729 .591) +
0.596 * 1.000 * 163 .030) +
0.338 * 1.000 * 13 .200) + = 831 .169
Qmax(2) =
1.000 * 0.448 * 729 .591) +
1.000 • 1.000 * 163 .030) +
0.568 * 1.000 * 13 .200) + = 497 .314
Qmax(3) =
1.000 * 0.186 * 729 .591) +
1.000 * 0.416 * 163 .030) +
1.000 * 1.000 * 13 .200) + = 216 .759
Total of 3 main streams to confluence:
23
Flow rates before confluence point:
729.591 153.030 13.200
Majcimum flow rates at confluence using above data:
831.169 497.314 216.759
Area of streams before confluence:
714.050 72.820 2.450
Results of confluence:
Total flow rate = 831.169(CFS)
Time of concentration = 35.833 min.
Effective stream area after confluence = 789.320(Ac.)
End of COT$>utations, total study area = 789.320 (Ac.)
This Is the area into the upper end of Reach W4. The totai area
tributary to Reach W4 is 789.32 acres pius the tributary area
downstream of El Camino Real, which was delineated from the
topographic mapping on the Study Area Exhibit and is 22.70 acres.
24
EXCERPTS FROM CHANG CONSULTANTS' "LOMR REQUEST FOR ROBERTSON'S RANCH"
SHOWING DRAINAGE AREA TRIBUTARY TO REACH E7 (4.68 ACRES) AND E8 (5.11 ACRES)
EKW IN OBIC mx EER SHXND
Tn^; IN mss, AREA IN SSUAFE MIIES
OffiRKITCN SWICN
EERK TBE CF AVEBfiGE EICW EOR MftXDlM EERIOD
ETDH EERK
e-mjR 24-fOJR 72-tCCR
BASIN MRXMJM TBE CF
APEA siao; MRX STRGE;
HTCSOGBATH AT
a 505. 10.25 249. 102. ,87
FOnED TO
504. 10.25 249. 102. 98. .87
335.64 10.25
FDUIED TO
a-C2 361. 11.00 235. 98. 95. .87
240.99 11.00
HYDRDGRAEH AT
C2 1519. 10.33 760. 311. 299. 2.72
2 CCMBDED AT
OIBINE 1831. 10.42 409. 394. 3.59
POUTED TO
EETCRIA 1348. 11.17 745. 291. 280. 3.59
218.76 11.17
BCUIED TO
C2-a 1325. 11.33 743. 290. 279. 3.59
100.24 11.33
reraCGPAPH AT
C3 475. 10.08 224. 91. .88
2 CCMBDED AT
OOCINE 1501. 11.17 879. 381. 367. 4.47
EOmD TO
EE3NBJB 971. 12.58 832. 381. 367. 4.47
76.38 12.58
DIVERSICN TO
DTVNCKTH 473. 12.58 421. 181. 174. 4.47
HnHXBSIH AT
Divo: 498. 12.58 411. 200. 193. 4.47
HM3BDGRAEH AT
C4 629. 10.42 314. 128. 123. 1.24
2 CCMBMD AT
907. 10.67 681. 328. 316. 5.71
KXJIED TO
C3S-Ba: 896. 10.83 680. 326. 314. 5.71
46.10 10.83
HYDBOGRRtH AT
RX 26. 10.00 12. 5. .05
2 CCMBINED AT
0C3OERL 909. 10.75 691. 331. 319. 5.76
HYEBDSyaH AT
RETDIV 473. 12.58 421. 181. 174. .00
BOUTED TO
KINOEt 473. 12.75 421. 179. 173. .00
40.37 12.75
HOTDOaEH AT
E1RC2 99. 10.08 46. 19. 18. •21 Reach E7 to here
2 CnBINED AT
BCK 497. 12.17 444. 198. 191. .21
ICnRaSflPH RT
EECH 198. 10.00 92. 38. 36. .43 Reach EB to here
2 OCMBBED AT
EX 8x8 549. 12.08 504. 236. 227. .63
BOOTED TO
NUBSEfor 545. 12.50 503. 236. 227. .63
35.34 12.50
*** tCRffil, EM) OF HEC-l ***
DRAINAGE AREA EXHIBIT FROM CHANG CONSULTANTS' LOMR
APPENDIX B
SCCWRP FIELD SCREENING DATA
Chapter 5. Open Channels
Table 5-13 Maximum Permissible Velocities for Lined and Unlined Channels
l^^aterial or Lining IVIaximum Permissible
Avttrage Velocity* (ft/sec)
Natural and Improved Unlined Channels
Fine Sand, Colloidal 150
Sandy Loam, Noncolloidal 1.75
Silt Loam, Noncolloidal 2.00
Alluvial Snts, Noncolloidal 2.00
Ordinary Rrm Loam..... 2.50
Volcanic Ash 2.50
Stiff Clay, Very Colloidal 3.75
Alluvial Silts, Collodal 3.75
Shales And Hardpans 6.00
Fine Gravel 2.50
Graded Loam To Cobbles When Noncolloidal 3.75
Giaded Sills To Cobbles When Colloidal 4.00
Coarse Gravel, Noncolloidal - 4.00
Cobttes And ShHigles - 5.00
Sandy Silt 2.00
Silty Clay 2.50
Clay - 6.00
Poor Sedimentary Rock 10.0
Fully-Lined Channels
Unreinforced Vegetation .............5.0
Reinforced Turf - 10.0
Loose Riprap per Table 5-2
Grouted Riprap 25.0
Gabions 15.0
Soil Cement 15.0
Concrete 35.0
• Maximum pemjiss/We veiodty listed here Is basic guideline; tngtter design vetocftes may be used, pmrided appropriate
lechnlcal documentatio-i tmm manufaoiurer.
San Diego County Drainage Design Manual Page 5-43
July 2005
Form 3 Suooort Materials
Form 3 Checklists 1 and 2, along Mvilh information recording in Form 3 Tabte 1,
are intended to support the decisions pathways illuslrated in
Form 3 Oueraii Vertical Rating tor Infermediate/Transitional Bed.
Form 3 Checklist 1: Armoring Potential
A A mm of coarse gravels and cobbles thai are lighlly packed wit^ <5%
surface malerial of diameler <2 mm
B InlermedJale to A and C or hardpan of unknown resistance, epdtial extent
{longitutTinal and depth), or unknown armoring potential due b surface
veneer covering gravel or coarser layer encountered with probe
C Gravels/cobbles lhal are loosely packed or >25% surface malerial of
diameter mm
Form 3 Figure 2, Armonng potential photographic siipplEmenT for assessing interniediale beds
(ie < dsp < 128 mm| lo be used in conjunction wifh Form 3 Checklist 1.
(Sheet 2 of 4}
RESULT FOR ALL STUDY REACHES
B-7
Form 3 Checklist 2: Grade Conlrol
A Grade conlrol is present with spacing <5Cl m or 2/3^ m
> Ho evidence of failure/inelfeclivenesa, e.g., no Jieadcullfng {>30 cm), no
aclive mass wasting (analyst cannot say grgde control sufficient if mass-
wasling checklist indicates presence of bank taiJure), no exposed bridge
pilings, no culverfs'structures undermined
• Hard points in sen/iceable condition al decadal trme scale, e.g., no apparent
undenii>ning, flanking, failing grout
- If geologic grade conlrof, rock should be resislanl igneous and/or
metamorphic; For sedimentaiy/hardpan to be classified as 'grade control', it
should be ot demonstrable strenglh as indicaled by field testing such as
hammer lest/borings and/or inspected by appropriate stakeholder
B intemiediate lo A and C - artificial or geologic grade control preseni bui
spaced 2/Sv m lo 4VSv m or poientiai evidence ot failure or handpan of
uncertain resistance
Grade control absent, spaced
of ineffectiveness
'100 m or >4/Sv m, or dear evidence
Form 3 Figures. Grade-control Icondifion) photographic supplement for assessing intermediate
beds (1G<d5i)<12e mm) to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Checklist 2.
/S^reef3of4^
RESULT FOR ALL STUDY REACHES
B-S
Regionally-Calibrated Screening Index Threshold for Incising/Braiding
For transitional bed channels (dso between 16 and 128 mm) or labile beds (channel not incised
past critical bank height), use Form 3 Figure 3 to determine Screening Index Score and complete
Form 3 Table 1.
Graphed results
apply to Reaches
E5, E6, and E7.
0.001
0.1
stable
10% risk
^ dso (mf")
X Braided
50% risk
11 mm 100
+ Incising
90% risk
c o
<»
S s
128
96
_S<L
0.145
0.125
Q.114
64 0.101
GIS-derived: , " v, . r.^-. -i:;;;
Field-derived: • (1 00-pebble count)
O)
o
48
32
16
8
4
2
1
0.5
0.087
0.070
0.049
0.031
0.026
0.022
0,0li8
0.015
64mm for dense
vegetation in
Reaches E1-E4,
E8, and W1-W4
Form 3 Figure 4. Probability of incising/braiding based on logistic regression of Screening Index
and dso to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Table 1.
Form 3 Table 1. Values for Screening Index Threshold (probability of incising/braiding) to be used
in conjunction with Form 3 Figure 4 (above) to complete Form 3 Overall Vertical Rating for
Intermediate/Transitional Bed (below).. Screening Index Score: A = <5p% probability of incision
for current Qio, valley slope, and dso; B = Hardpan/dso indeterminate; and C = >5d% probability of
incising/braiding for current QM, valley slope, and dso.
dso (mm)
From Form 2
e *ri 0 5 /mi-5,_o,5. S»*Qio'''' (m'' %"•*) &vUio im IS ) 50% risk of incising/braiding
From Form 1 ^^^^ ^^^^^^ p^^^ 3 ^^^^^^ 3 g^^^g
Screening Index Score
(A, B, C)
Overall Vertical Rating for Intermediate/Transitional Bed
Calculate the overall Vertical Rating for Transitional Bed channels using the formula below.
Numeric values for responses to Form 3 Checklists and Table 1 as follows: A = 3, B = 6, C = 9.
Vertical Rating = j{(-,Jarmoring * grade control) * screening index score}
6X3 X 3 = 3,6
Vertical Susceptibility based on Vertical Rating: <4.5 = LOW; 4.5 to 7 = MEDIUM; and >7 = HIGH.
CS/7eef4of4;
RESULT FOR ALL STUDY REACHES
B-9
FORM 4: LATERAL SUSCEPTIBILTY FIELD SHEET
Circle appropriate nodes/pathway for proposed site
OR use sequence or questions provided In Form 5.
yes
at^iBtiriEnts (mating?
(Sheet 1 ofl)
RESULT FOR ALL STUDY REACHES
B - 10
FORM 6: PROBABILITY OF MASS WASTING BANK FAILURE
If mass wasting is not cunrentiy extensive and the banks are moderately- to well-consolidated, measure
bank height and angle at several locations (i.e., at least three locations that capture the range of
conditions present in the study reach) to estimate representative values for the reach. Use Form 6 Figure
1 below to detemiine if risk of bank failure is >10% and complete Fomi 6 Table 1. Support your results
with photographs that include a protractor/rod/tape/person for scale.
Bank Angle
(degrees)
Cfrom Field)
Bank Height
(m)
(from Field)
Corresponding Bank Height for
10% Risk of Mass Wasting (m)
(fmm Fonn 6 Figure 1 below)
Bank Faiiure Risk
(<^(y^ Risk)
(>10% Risk)
Left Bank -— 2 m — <10%
Right Bank — 2 m <10%
probcfbiHty ot rnciss wcisFing rsp^SSaill.
in moderateiy/well consolidated banks ^'^^^-^'^^^^
O Stable-- 10%Risk—50%Risk ™-90%Risk X Unstable
^ io 00 0
I 1 i 9? Ch ^
Bank height and angte
schematic
Form 6 Figure 1. Probability Mass Wasting diagram. Bank Angle:Height/% Risk table, and
Band HeightAngle schematic.
(Sheet 1 of 1)
RESULT FOR ALL STUDY REACHES
B-12
ll now 5an Diego BMP Sizing Calculator
R»utl VlBw
f^. Define Drainage Basins
CRITICAL^STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOB REACH El
^•-•.^•iw-' Agua Hedionda Wale rs hed
Details
Ranch Costera & El Carnino Real Widening
POC
Manage Your Point ot Compfiance fPOC)
AnaJyzeifie recemng waler al iny'Poini or Compiiance' by iiompleiirKj
Ehistorm Click Edit-UlQ eFiTiSthe appropnate fieUg Thencltklhe
L^ate [Hiflonro cfllculaleifie ciK\cni flow ami totf^-llaw Ihreshidil
corjWiork Finally clicli Havp locorrfliiilhe changes
Cancel I Sa^e m Updsf«
C tunnel SutcapUbiriif:
Low Flow IhmhoFd:
:L_._. Walirehvcl Araa (u}^ [034
Chan rat BottDBi Widtti {ftj: ^cTo
Channel KB Ighi irt). |9.a
Channak Slap«L
Vvrtiul SuKtptitillllY: LowLVtrUcal]
LaEerdl SUKceptltiililTr Law(LaTiral 13
UKnOW San Diego BMP Sizing Catculator Hcirnc Corilact^ Legal
Define Drainage Basins
CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH E2
Fi^.i.i^ Agua Hedionda Watershed
MLip DfltallB
Pioitc! Ranch Costera 4 Ei Camino Real Widening
POC
Mffnage Your Potnt of Con^pHance (POC)
Analyze lite receiwng water at lhe 'Poinl of Compiiarice'By toirptermg
llus lorm. Click Edfl arx) erter BietftiprnJimatefielils, tlieii click flie
Updaie buHiinlocalculaEe the Clival Soft artd fow-ltcrt UiresJiold
condnron. Rnaty click Savelo commfl [he changes
Cancel • Save • Update
CtuFintI SuG»Fmblllry: ^^r~ _^ , 'j
Channel Aitntedi V#i
Wat«ntiid Ana ju): CI.Q721
MlWrlaL' |VvgptaliDn
CJunr>el Top Widlh (tfl: |/5.Q
CfHpnil Boimn Width IR): ^
Channal HalgtM (tt):
Vardcal SutcBpllblllty; LowCVtrdcal
LararaL Suicapllblllly; Low (Liltral]
Dlego 8MP Sizing Calailstcr Hrtni" Contacts LefriH
Jtap IKO^M 0[)e"
Map Dalalls
CRH-ICALSTRESS CALCUl^Vti^frR^^ FOR F^^^^^
Define Drainage Basins i^^'^jji Agua Hedionda Watershed Prju-ci Ranch Costera & El Camino Real Wjdening
POC
Manage Vour Point of Comp^anr^e (POC)
Analyse the recenflng waler a( [lie'Poinl Ql Compliarn:e' by compHirig
litis fomi C6cii Ecii aJid enler the appropnale fields, ilien clicli Hie
Updaie tualon lo caitiJaieilie cntrcaffc^ arid lowflow Ihie-diuld
condition Finally, clickSavcto commitrtiechan^s
Cancel I Save • UpE^^te
Channal ^uKBpHUIIty
Low now Ti™^^:
GtiannM AaMt»d; YES
VMHTStwd ATH (K): }0.0732
Maurlat VvgelatlDr
RDughnaii: JO'lDD
ChJnnel Top WiillTi jftV 43.0
Ctunrwl Bmom Width (ri): E.D
ChapnalHetghtfrt): [iO.O
Cnannal Slope; 1D.03B3\
Vanlr^l Sutctpdbll^ Low [Vanlcal)
LatiraL SuHeptlNlltr LowlLalenl}
: VL
3
uKnow Sa n Oiego BMP Sizing Calculator
{llwult.Vtaw
Map DetailB
CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH E4
^ Define Drarnage Basins it^^m Agua Hedionda Watershed pr.^ir,!;' Ranch Costera & El Camino Rea! Widening
POC
Manage Your Point of Comi^lance (POC)
^al/zeLbe recer/in^ wal^ ^Uie 'Pojrri uf CuFiipliance'bv compkeling
HdStalrn Click Ertfl and enter lhe appropnalEllelils, then elicit JTie
Updele butliHi to caiciii^ied^e crdicallViwand low-fkiwiTirtsrialir
condfljon FinaBy, clicI" Savi? lo iiJiTirjfUhi'changes
Channel SuHvpliblllly;
Low FIDW Thmh^d:
CancHj • 3ave • Update
Channal Amuiiad: Vei
Wjtarshed Area [ac}: C 1?73
Vaithjl SuufiFirJtiEtlty: Low |VartJcal)
Lataral SuicaptibLllfr: Low|Lal«ral} 1^
Ualarlar; iVagatation
ChaiHrtI Top Width lft} f^M.0
Channel BatTDm Width (fi): 20.0
Chann*r Haighl (fi): B.Q
Channel Slope. 0.0247
San Diego BMP Sizing Calculator -.wim llpme Cmilacis Legal
Hap ilfllB rfi^t'^r tit (rtt^rilfrisnii '.-
Map Details
CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH ES
^ Define Drainage Basins n.^^.r, AQUB Hedionda Watershed Prt^eci Ranch Costera & El Camino Real Widening
POC
Manage Your Point of Compliance (POC)
Analyse ihp receninq water al [hp 'Pmnl nr CompijaTice' by complehng
Uiisrorm Clicltbdil and enter Ihc appiapnatelieHs, Ihen cfck Itw
Update buKon to caEculare the cr tf icfll flow and low-flow ihr^-sbokJ
cflraMKHi Finally, cltck 5avik lo commrl lhe charfges
Can»l • SAtTB • UprlatB
Channel SuvcepHbllitY:
Low Fktw Ttfreihcrid:
Channel Aieeuvd; Yai
Waianhed Area lac); [0.3963
Maurlal: jVegeUtrDn
Channel Top Wdth |f1): ?90.D
Channal Bottom Widlti |tt}: 3fi.D
CtiannaJ Height jS.O
Channel SlopK [D.QOS^'
Veftlur 5ui»pfJi>inEy; LowfVartlcal
Lateral Suuftplitrillly; Lew (Laferal}
UKnOW 5dn Diega BMP Sizing Calculator i.v^.'Jj lOTfe Corilacl^ legal
r^ap Detallft
IVTeVf
i^-^r.—
CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH £6
-„ _• ,• V'
Define Drainage Basms fiasm Agua Hedionda Watershed i^i^oi^^cL Ranct) Costera S EL Cammo Real Widening
POC
Mariage Your Point of Compliance pOC)
Analyst lhe receriing waler arthe'Pmni ol GompBance'by cQmplding
ci'^ rumi Olich Editandenieriheappropraiefiekls, dienclicktfie
iJpdsFe iNiOon to naLcuEate the cmlcad How arul low-flow Ehleshukl
comEHicn Finally, clich Save lo coinmfl ihc ch^riyr'5
Cancel • Save • Upditls
Channel Susceptibility'
Low Row ThFSfthald 3^'
Channel Atwtied: Yes
ttater&hed Area {ac} a.A»4|
Malarial: Vegetation
Roughneu: ^^]00..-^ , _
Channel Top Width {ftj: Z70.0
Channel Bonrvii MVrdih (% l^.O
Channel Helabl (fl)r kfl
Channel Slop*' m.QOBS
3 Vertical SuicepilbllItT: LowfVcnlcal]
Lateral Susuptltilllly: Low(Lateral)
uKnow San Diego BMP Sizing Calculator Home Ciinf.id* Legaf
Hflpflaffl WH».iileil 1^ 0[.e:i'^iiiTm,i,nj
Map DetdUt
i.fmuhWew CRITICAL STRESS CALC^ _ _
^ Define Drainage Basins R^v,n Agita Hedionda watershed Pir^^rr Ranch Coslera & El Camino Real Widening
Manage Your Point of Compliance (POC)
fljialyze Ihe reiavmg waEer al Ihe 'Point o( Compliance' by comptenng
Ibe Irjnr. Clicli Erfu and eiaer ifie appnjpfiate Hedis, tiien ckk the
UpifalebuitaniQ caJeutate the cntical llQwandfo*-niiwlhresJiokl
condnion FpnaHy, rlmliSaifeln CMnmfllhcchFinges
Cancel H Save I Update
t^hamiel AssflHed: ft^
Water«hvd Area {ac}: [4.BUI
Material: jVegHlatlon
RouBhneii: Ifl.I^^ ,;
Channel Top Vifldth jtt}; |22D.O
Channel Bottom Widlh [ni: jaso
Channel Height (ft): {+•
Channel Slope: HLDOffOj
L.
Channal SutceptitilEltf:
Ltiw Fl»f ThruhoJd:
VtrTicjl SirueptlbllitT: Low (VvitfcaJ)
Lateral SbtcapUbllltr: Low ILateral}
uKnow San Diego BMP Sizing Calculator
HID dflia [ii[>viiie<i Dpenvir«cff,r[iii
Map Detalle
Result View CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH E8
I ^ Define Drainage Basins B.^,.. Agua Hedionda Watershed sv^i.c Ranch Costera & El Camino Real Widening
POC
Marrage Your Point or Compliance (POC)
Analyze the receiving ^ala at the Poim ot Coftipliance' by completing
UiL'ilnnti Click EdaarMl enta lhe appiopnale I*ld5 ihen click Cie
Upddlp button ta calculalo UIE i:ntical How arkd ki^-ltaw llaeshaW
ccndFlKKL Finally, click SflvelocommPfhe chafes
Cancel • Save • Upd^ite
Ctiannal SincsptibMity:
Low Flow Threihold:
Ch«nnal Aeieiiad: Ya«
Waonhed Am [ac}: £.111^
MalBTiar: Vv[]vtiiion
Roughnaai. O.lDO
Channel Top Width (ft): jUW.O
Channel Bottom A^dih M.Q
GhaFinBlHelghtfftJ; \2.0
Channel Slope: [D.ODQI
V«rti»l SiiacepdbJIHyt U* IVerHcal)
Lateral Siucepilbllity: Lon {Lateral}
uKnow San Diego BMP Sizing Calculator (
HetuhVlew
Map DetaHa
CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH W1
——,^
Define Drainage Basins H^-.m Agua Hedionda Watershed Project Ranch Costera & El Camino Rea^ Widening ^
POC
Manage Your Point ot CompJIance (POC)
Analyze lt» [pceivins waler at Ihe 'Point uf Camp*ancp' by completing
[his lorm Click EdB and cnler lhe appropftate Itekl-i, Ihen click die
Updaie huHon to calcutale the critical flow and tow fti* tiireshold
condiliQFi Finally, cfitk Save In cDmmH Cie changes
Cancel Updat?
Channel AtH^sad: Yen
Watarmhed Area {ac}: D.OQU
Material- [Vvgataticn
Roughness ^100.
Channal TopWIdih [ft): SD.Q
Channel BoUota WhJIh (ft): S.Q
Channel HeJghllfl]: 4.0
Channel Slope: 0.044S
"-••WIS
Channel Susceptibility
Low FJ«w T^kreihold
Venical Sifueptlbflitr LDh(VBrtlcal|
Lateral SuieepiiNlity; Low (LtenI}
uKnow San Diego BMP 5i3ing Calculator
rjB[h cUiEa pr™»'idi=a Of'i^n ^rn- u u ^
Mao Detail•
ir^eniKVIfev
Define Drainage Basins
CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH W2 " '
^-a-.:-! Agua Hedionda Watershed Praieci Ranch Coslera & Ei Camino Reat Widening
POC
Manage Your Point of Comptiance (POC)
'V>3lyzclhc fecKn/ing vjaler alliie 'Pomlot Compliance' by completing
Ihs form Clitl; and enter Ihe appn^idl--fiekls. ti«n clich Ihs
Updaie bullaii IQ cslciilalelhe cnLcaJftiw Finil k-w-flow ihreGhold
cofidnion Finally, clicli Save to commil lhe changes
Caticrri • Save • Update
Channel Sutcepilbil iiy: [LOW ., .:,
Low Flow Threshold:
Channel Aaieaeetf: Yea
Watershed Araa (ac): 101076
MatatialL | Vegetation
RoughncBV |0,t00 • 1^
Channel Top Width (ft): \2QU.0
Ctannel BoETom nndth (fl): 2D.Q
Channel Height |R}, ko
Channel Stope: 0.0191
VartJcal SutcBpLlbllity: Low|VBrtlur]
Lai^ SuKeptib^lltr: Low {Lateral)
••I. I.eq^
Result view CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH W3
M^P Detalls
Define Drainage Basins F:,if.ij' Agua Hedionda Watershed Pii^M I Ranch Coslera & El Camino Reai Widening
POC
Uanagn Your Pornl of Compllartce (PDC)
Analyze lhe reteivwig wafer at the 'Point of Cornpiiance' by complefiig
tins fonn Click Edit and enter the appropnate lipfes, llipn etch fhe
Updaie bullonto caEciiEalethecniicat Now and !ow-lk>LV Ihreslvld
rondtfion Rnalt^, clfcli Save to commit lhe changes
Cantol • Save • Update
Channel Ateeued: |Yae
Watershed Aru (ac): 1.11^7
Material
Roughness:
Channel top Width |ff].
Channal BoTtom VAdlh jtt]:
Chann*I Haighl (ft):
Channel Slope:
Vagetailon
BO.0
ZD
0.0127
Channel SuBcaptlblilty: ^
Low Row Thtpshoid
VerUcal SuKepHbiniy: |LDw{V*iticjl)
Ulera] S^iiuptibility: | Low {Lj»nJ}
•3
LarJjlViflw
uKnow San Diego BMP Sizing Calculator l!cme Coriiiicrs Lefji
Rabun Vl«w CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH W4
Map Details
Define Drainage Basins l!H--.;n Agua Hedionda Watershed Proi.jiM Ranch Coslera & El Camino Real Widening :
POC
Manage Your Point of Compliance (POC)
Arimvie tne receivifig wafer m ine 'Poim al Compliance' by cnmplettng
IJiclifm-- ClK-k Edit HUfleplH" thFappropfHtClieTll'i, thPI cfccfc thU
Updaie tnHlonlo cak^ulalelhe cnhcal flow andlQW-nowDireshohl
condilicn Tmally, cliikSa^ to tommit the changes
Cancef | Save • Update
Channel SuicepiiblllTy: ^Off ^
LowFlow Threshold:
Chanrrel Aitaued: Yet
Watershed Area (K|: 1.2eSB
Material: Vegetailun
Rotighneii: ]0
Channel Top Width {ft): TO O
Channel Bonom Width (ftl: jtfiO
Channel Height (Tt): |i.T~
Channal Slope: DQia^
Vertcal SuKeptibLlliy: |LDW (Venical)
lateral Sutcepflblllty: |Low (Laieral)
^'.f'" V
t '
^3
-iU' '-'-
Silfjr ^--^jjn:'
Waal's
^fl* - _ .,
._
ATTACHMENT 2D
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT
Marja Acres
CT 16-07, PUD 16-08, CDP 16-33, HDP 16-02, SUP 16-02, SDP 2018-0001
Camino Del Norte, Carlsbad CA 92008
PREPARE BY:
Alex Parra, Civil Engineer
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This memorandum summarizes the approach used to model the proposed development project site in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water
Management Model 5.0 (SWMM). SWMM models were prepared for the pre‐ and post‐developed
conditions at the site in order to determine if the proposed LID bio‐filtration facilities have sufficient
volume to meet Order R9‐2013‐001 requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region (SDRWQCB), as explained in the Final Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP),
dated March 2011, prepared for the County of San Diego by Brown and Caldwell.
2.0 SWMM MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The Marja Acres development plan proposes a total number of 299 dwelling units consisting of 237
townhomes within the R‐15 General Plan designated area, and 46 age restricted affordable house units,
16 Townhomes, a 4,000‐square foot restaurant pad and a 5,700‐retail pad area within the GC General
Plan designated area. The proposed project has been designed to emphasize superior architecture,
views, privacy, walkability, internal connectivity and recreational amenities.
The semi‐developed site was previously graded and has 2:1 cut and fill slopes around the perimeter.
Two (2) SWMM models were prepared for this study: the first for the pre‐development and the second
for the post‐developed conditions. The project site drains to a single Point of Compliance (POC) located
just offsite to the northeast of the project site.
The SWMM model was used since we have found it to be more comparable to San Diego area
watersheds than the alternative San Diego Hydrology Model (SDHM) and also because it is a non‐
proprietary model approved by the HMP document. For both SWMM models, flow duration curves were
prepared to determine if the proposed HMP facilities are sufficient to meet the current HMP
requirements.
The inputs required to develop SWMM models include rainfall, watershed characteristics, and BMP
configurations. The Oceanside Rain Gauge from the Project Clean Water website was used for this study,
since it is the most representative of the project site precipitation due to elevation and proximity to the
project site.
2
Evaporation for the site was modeled using average monthly values from Table G.1‐1 of City of Carlsbad
BMP Manual. The site was modeled with soil Type D & C hydrologic soils as this is the existing soils
determined from the NRCS Soil Survey. Soils have been assumed to be compacted in the existing
condition to represent the current land use of the site, while fully compacted in the post developed
conditions.
The range of flows to control for hydromodification management depends on the erosion susceptibility
of the receiving stream. A geomorphic study had been prepared by Chang Consultants
(Hydromodification Screening for Rancho Costera and El Camino Real by Chang Consultants Dated June
19, 2013) just upstream of our proposed POC that discharges development runoff into the creek.
Mr. Chang’s findings suggest that the range of flows to control for this project would fall also under the
0.5Q2 to Q10 range.
Other SWMM inputs for the subareas are discussed in the appendices to this document, where the
selection of the parameters is explained in detail.
3.0 HMP MODELING
PRE- DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
In current existing conditions, runoff from the partially developed site discharges via surface flow to an
existing natural creek to the west, as such, there are two (2) points of compliance POC 1 & POC 2.
POC 2 encompasses 5.59 ac of land at the southwest corner of the site, this point of compliance has been
excluded from the HMP modeling since it does not drain to POC 1 in post development condition. Also,
some perimeter areas to the west and north of the project site have been excluded in both the pre and
post development condition as these areas are considered natural or self‐mitigating. These areas are also
either unchanged in post development condition or hydro‐modified by the existing facilities in El Camino
Real median. (Please see SWQMP attachment 1F)
Table 1 below illustrates the pre‐developed area and impervious percentage accordingly for the point of
compliance under consideration, POC 1. In pre‐development conditions, existing onsite impervious
surfaces have been excluded from the impervious percentage.
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
POC DMA Tributary Area, A
(Ac)
Impervious Percentage, Ip
(1)
1 DMA‐1C 4.582 0%
1 DMA‐1D 9.688 0%
TOTAL 14.270 ‐‐‐‐
Notes: (1) – Per the 2013 RWQCB permit, existing condition impervious surfaces are not to be accounted for in existing
conditions analysis.
Marja Acres HMP Memo
Revised: December 19, 2021
Marja Acres HMP Memo 3
Revised: December 19, 2021
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
Storm water runoff from the proposed project site is routed to one (1) POC located at the northwest
corner of the project site. Runoff from the developed project site is drained to seven (7) onsite receiving
bio‐filtration LID BMPs. Once flows are routed via the proposed LID BMPs, all onsite flows are then
conveyed via storm drain to the existing point of discharge. Hydromodification management for DMAs 8
& 9 do not drain to POC but the areas are accounted for in the model as runoff will be compensated by
providing additional facility onsite treatment area. DMAs 10 & 11 are excluded from HMP calculations as
these areas are either unchanged in post development condition or hydro‐modified by the existing
facilities in El Camino Real median. Runoff will be compensated onsite by providing additional facility
onsite treatment area.
Table 2 summarizes the post‐developed area and impervious percentage accordingly.
TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF POST-DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
DMA Tributary Area, A
(Ac)
Impervious
Percentage, Ip (%)Drains to
DMA‐1D 1.060 44.62 BMP 1
DMA‐2D 0.901 70.30 BMP 2
DMA‐3D 0.666 75.24 BMP 3
DMA‐3C 0.106 56.18 BMP 3
DMA‐4D 3.304 63.85 BMP 4
DMA‐4C 2.800 63.85 BMP 4
DMA‐5D 0.532 77.15 BMP 5
DMA‐5C 1.135 47.75 BMP 5
DMA‐6D 2.919 66.45 BMP 6
DMA‐6C 1.596 66.75 BMP 6
DMA‐7D 0.455 75.70 BMP7
DMA‐7C 2.747 66.28 BMP7
DMA‐8C 0.299 62.81 Modular Wetland
DMA‐9C 0.437 48.12
Tree well & Modular
Wetland
DMA‐10C 0.418 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐
excluded from HMP
DMA‐11C 0.394 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐
excluded from HMP
DMA‐11D 0.374 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐
excluded from HMP
DMA‐12D 0.044 0.00
onsite self‐mitigating‐NOT
excluded from HMP
TOTAL 20.19 N/A
Seven (7) LID bio‐filtration basins are located within the project site and are responsible for handling
hydromodification requirements for the project site. In developed conditions, the basins will have a
surface depth and a riser spillway structure set to variable elevations (see dimensions in Table 3). Flows
will then discharge from the basins via a low flow orifice outlet within the gravel layer. The riser
structure will act as a spillway such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain
system.
Marja Acres HMP Memo 4
Revised: December 19, 2021
The following is the profile of a typical bio‐filtration facility from top to bottom: A 3‐inch layer of mulch,
an 18‐inch layer of amended soil (a highly sandy, organic rich composite with an infiltration capacity of at
least 5 inches/hr) minimum of 36‐inch layer of gravel for additional detention and to accommodate the
French drain system that is to be located beneath the bio‐filtration layers to intercept treated storm
water and convey these flows to a small diameter lower outlet orifice and a 3” offsite below the orifice.
On regards to the 3‐inch layer of mulch, the equivalent depth has been updated to account for the
increase in volume by the voids in the amended soils slope and the reduce of volume by the mulch.
All facilities will have an impermeable liner on both sides and bottom. Once flows have been routed by
the outlet structure, flows are then drained to the receiving storm drain structures prior to discharging to
the POC. The bio‐filtration facilities were modeled using the bioretention LID module within SWMM. The
bioretention module can model the underground gravel storage layer, underdrain with an orifice plate,
amended soil layer, and a surface storage pond up to the elevation of the invert of the spillway.
Detailed outlet structure location and elevations will be shown on the construction/building plans based
on the recommendations of this study.
4.0 BMP MODELING FOR HMP PURPOSES
Modeling of five (5) dual purpose Water Pollution Control/Hydromodification and two (2) triple
purpose BMPs, for POC‐1
Five (5) LID BMP bio‐filtration basins are proposed for water quality treatment and hydromodification
conformance for the project site. Two (2) LID BMP bio‐filtration basins are proposed for water quality
treatment, hydromodification conformance and Q100 peak flow attenuation for the project site. An
underground storage vault is also proposed for hydromodification and peak flow control.
Table 3 illustrates the dimensions required for HMP compliance according to the SWMM model that was
undertaken for the project.
TABLE 3 – SUMMARY OF DEVELOPED DUAL AND TRIPLE PURPOSE BMPs
BMP
Tributary
Area
(Ac)(7)
DIMENSIONS
BMP
Area(1)
(ft2)
Gravel
Depth(2)
(in)
Lower
Orif. D
(in)(3)
Depth Riser
Invert (in)(4)
Weir
Perimeter
Length(5) (ft)
Total
Surface
Depth(6) (in)
BMP 1 1.060 1949 33 0.8 12 12 18
BMP 2 0.901 1098 33 0.9 9 12 12
BMP 3 0.773 2360 36 0.9 27 12 33
BMP 4 6.103 7724 48 2.3 45 12 63
BMP 5 1.667 1692 36 2.2 21 12 30
BMP 6 4.516 4347 36 2.4 21 12 31.5
BMP 7 3.203 3567 48 2.0 21 12 31.5
Notes:
(1): Area of amended soil equal to area of gravel. 18” thick and in
conformance with specifications listed on Fact Sheet BF‐2: Nutrient
Sensitive Media Design.
(2): Gravel depth needed to comply with hydromodification purposes
(3): Diameter of orifice in gravel layer with invert at bottom of layer; tied with hydromod min threshold (0.5∙Q2).
(4): Depth of ponding beneath riser structure’s surface spillway.
(5): Overflow length, the internal perimeter of the riser internal dimensions.
(6): Total surface depth of BMP from top crest elevation to surface invert.
(7): Tributary area to basin not including area of BMP.
Marja Acres HMP Memo 5
Revised: December 19, 2021
TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF RISER DETAILS
UG1 Characteristics
See Attachment for supplemental details.
UG‐1 consists of a system of double trap concrete modules; each module has a height of 12’. The basin
discharges to an outflow structure (modified SDRSD D‐09 Type A) equipped with low‐flow orifices and
weirs with varying dimensions and invert elevations; the outflow structure outlets to a proposed storm
drain pipe, which terminates at POC‐1. The following orifice system is described below. The invert
elevations are with respect to the invert (bottom) of UG‐1
Low‐flow orifice – 2(two)‐3” diameter (two) with invert at 0”
Mid orifice – 1(one)‐10” diameter with invert at 8.4”
Emergency Weir – 72” width with invert at 11.5’
Drawdown Calculations
To ensure compliance with the 96‐hour drawdown requirements per Section 6.4.6 of the Final HMP
dated March 2011, drawdown calculations are provided in Attachment 4 of this report.
5.0 FLOW DURATION CURVE COMPARISON
The Flow Duration Curve (FDC) for the site was compared at the POC by exporting the hourly runoff time
series results from SWMM to a spreadsheet.
Q2 and Q10 were determined with a partial duration statistical analysis of the runoff time series in an
Excel spreadsheet using the Cunnane plotting position method (which is the preferred plotting
methodology in the HMP Permit). As the SWMM Model includes a statistical analysis based on the
Weibull Plotting Position Method, the Weibull Method was also used within the spreadsheet to ensure
that the results were similar to those obtained by the SWMM Model.
The range between 50% of Q2 and Q10 was divided into 100 equal time intervals; the number of hours
that each flow rate was exceeded was counted from the hourly series. Additionally, the intermediate
peaks with a return period “i” were obtained (Qi with i=3 to 9). For the purpose of the plot, the values
BMP
Lower Slot Middle Slot Top Riser Emergency
weir
Width
(ft)
Height
(ft)
Elev.(1)
(ft)
Width
(ft)
Height
(ft)
Elev(1)
(ft)
Length(2)
(ft)
Elev.(1)
(ft)
Length(3)
(ft)
BMP 3 1.0 0.167 1.00 ‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 12 2.25
BMP 4 1.0 0.167 1.50 4.0 0.167 3.25 12 3.75 8
BMP 5 1.5 0.167 1.00 8.0 0.250 1.33 12 1.75 8
BMP 6 1.5 0.167 1.00 8.0 0.250 1.33 12 1.75 10
BMP 7 1.5 0.167 1.00 8.0 0.250 1.33 12 1.75 8
Notes:
(1): Basin ground surface elevation assumed to be 0.00 ft elevation.
(2): Overflow length is the internal perimeter of the riser structure.
(3): Additional Overflow length for peak flow discharges, BMPs 1 through 4 do not need additional overflow length.
Marja Acres HMP Memo 6
Revised: December 19, 2021
were presented as percentage of time exceeded for each flow rate. FDC comparison at each POC is
illustrated in Figure 1 in both normal and logarithmic scale. Attachment 5 provides a detailed drainage
exhibit for the post‐developed condition.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the FDC for the proposed condition with the HMP BMPs is within 110% of the
curve for the existing condition in both peak flows and durations. The additional runoff volume
generated from developing the site will be released to the existing point of discharge at a flow rate below
the 10% Q2 lower threshold for POC‐1. Additionally, the project will also not increase peak flow rates
between the Q2 and the Q10, as shown in the peak flow tables in Attachment 1.
6.0 SUMMARY
This study has demonstrated that the proposed HMP BMPs provided for the proposed project is
sufficient to meet the current HMP criteria for the Point of Compliance (POC), if the cross‐section areas
and volumes recommended within this technical memorandum, and the respective orifices and outlet
structures are incorporated as specified within the proposed project site.
7.0 HYDROMODIFICATION COMPLIANCE FOR OFF-SITE AREAS
Regarding hydromodification compliance for off‐site areas along El Camino Real, the following
assumption based in two design conditions has been made: (a) the receiving creek is low susceptibility
and (b) the existing BMPs were designed with the conservative sizing tables. The newly created
impervious surfaces will fall within the Green Steet design criteria and therefore exempt from
hydromodification compliance. Please refer to attachment 1F of the project SWQMP for the capacity
analysis for the existing BMPS.
8.0 ASSUMPTIONS
1. Type D &C Soils are representative of most of the existing condition site.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
I. Q2 to Q10 Comparison Tables
II. FDC Plots (log and natural “x” scale) and Flow Duration Table.
III. List of the “n” largest Peaks: Pre‐Development and Post‐Development Conditions
IV. Elevations vs. Discharge Curves to be used in SWMM, Draw Down Calculations
V. Pre & Post Development Maps, Project plan and section sketches
VI. SWMM Input Data in Input Format (Existing and Proposed Models)
VII. SWMM Screens and Explanation of Significant Variables
VIII. Geotechnical Soil Survey
IX. Summary files from the SWMM Model
Marja Acres HMP Memo 7
Revised: December 19, 2021
10. REFERENCES
[1] – “City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual Appendix G‐ Guidance for Continuous Simulation and
Hydromodification management Sizing Factors.
[2] – “Final Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) prepared for the County of San Diego”,
March 2011, Brown and Caldwell.
[3] ‐ Order R9‐2013‐001, California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region
(SDRWQCB).
[4] – “Handbook of Hydrology”, David R. Maidment, Editor in Chief. 1992, McGraw Hill.
Marja Acres HMP Memo 8
Revised: December 19, 2021
Figure 1a and 1b. Flow Duration Curve Comparison (logarithmic and normal “x” scale)
Marja Acres HMP Memo 9
Revised: December 19, 2021
ATTACHMENT I.
Q2 to Q10 Comparison Table – POC 1
Return Period Existing Condition (cfs) Mitigated Condition (cfs) Reduction, Exist ‐
Mitigated (cfs)
10 8.190 5.062 3.128
9 7.582 4.415 3.167
8 6.959 4.095 2.864
7 6.468 3.900 2.568
6 6.199 3.782 2.417
5 5.796 3.523 2.273
4 5.637 3.110 2.527
3 5.325 2.836 2.490
2 4.210 2.090 2.120
ATTACHMENT II
FLOW DURATION CURVE ANALYSIS
1)Flow duration curve shall not exceed the existing conditions by more than 10%,
neither in peak flow nor duration.
The figures on the following pages illustrate that the flow duration curve in post‐
development conditions after the proposed BMP is below the existing flow duration
curve. The flow duration curve table following the curve shows that if the interval
0.50Q2 – Q10 is divided in 100 sub‐intervals, then a) the post development divided by
pre‐development durations are never larger than 110% (the permit allows up to
110%); and b) there are no more than 10 intervals in the range 101%‐110% which
would imply an excess over 10% of the length of the curve (the permit allows less than
10% of excesses measured as 101‐110%).
Consequently, the design passes the hydromodification test.
It is important to note that the flow duration curve can be expressed in the “x” axis as
percentage of time, hours per year, total number of hours, or any other similar time
variable. As those variables only differ by a multiplying constant, their plot in
logarithmic scale is going to look exactly the same, and compliance can be observed
regardless of the variable selected. However, in order to satisfy the County of San
Diego HMP example, % of time exceeded is the variable of choice in the flow duration
curve. The selection of a logarithmic scale in lieu of the normal scale is preferred, as
differences between the pre‐development and post‐development curves can be seen
more clearly in the entire range of analysis. Both graphics are presented just to prove
the difference.
In terms of the “y” axis, the peak flow value is the variable of choice. As an additional
analysis performed, not only the range of analysis is clearly depicted (50% of Q2 to
Q10) but also all intermediate flows are shown (Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8 and Q9) in
order to demonstrate compliance at any range Qx – Qx+1. It must be pointed out that
one of the limitations of both the SWMM and SDHM models is that the intermediate
analysis is not performed (to obtain Qi from i = 2 to 10). Analysis were performed using
the Cunnane Plotting position Method (the preferred method in the HMP permit)
from the “n” largest independent peak flows obtained from the continuous time
series.
The largest “n” peak flows are attached in this appendix, as well as the values of Qi
with a return period “i”, from i=2 to 10. The Qi values are also added into the flow‐
duration plot.
12/19/20211.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.005.506.006.507.007.508.008.509.000.00025 0.0025 0.025Q (cfs)Percentage of time exceeded (%)Marja Estates POC 1‐Flow Duration CurveExistingProposedQx
12/19/20211.52.53.54.55.56.57.58.59.50 0.01 0.02 0.03Q (cfs)Percentage of time exceeded (%)Marja Estates POC 1‐Flow Duration CurveExistingProposedQx
Flow Duration Curve Data for Marja Estates POC‐1 , City of Carlsbad CA
Q2 = 4.21 cfs Fraction 50 %
Q10 = 8.19 cfs
Step = 0.0615 cfs
Count = 499678 hours
57.00 years
Pass or
Q (cfs) Hours > Q% time Hours>Q % time Post/Pre Fail?
1 2.105 108 2.16E‐02 78 1.56E‐02 72% Pass
2 2.166 103 2.06E‐02 70 1.40E‐02 68% Pass
3 2.228 100 2.00E‐02 66 1.32E‐02 66% Pass
4 2.289 96 1.92E‐02 63 1.26E‐02 66% Pass
5 2.351 91 1.82E‐02 59 1.18E‐02 65% Pass
6 2.412 85 1.70E‐02 56 1.12E‐02 66% Pass
7 2.474 83 1.66E‐02 56 1.12E‐02 67% Pass
8 2.535 79 1.58E‐02 53 1.06E‐02 67% Pass
9 2.597 74 1.48E‐02 49 9.81E‐03 66% Pass
10 2.658 72 1.44E‐02 47 9.41E‐03 65% Pass
11 2.720 69 1.38E‐02 43 8.61E‐03 62% Pass
12 2.781 66 1.32E‐02 43 8.61E‐03 65% Pass
13 2.843 60 1.20E‐02 39 7.81E‐03 65% Pass
14 2.904 54 1.08E‐02 35 7.00E‐03 65% Pass
15 2.965 53 1.06E‐02 31 6.20E‐03 58% Pass
16 3.027 52 1.04E‐02 30 6.00E‐03 58% Pass
17 3.088 51 1.02E‐02 27 5.40E‐03 53% Pass
18 3.150 50 1.00E‐02 27 5.40E‐03 54% Pass
19 3.211 48 9.61E‐03 26 5.20E‐03 54% Pass
20 3.273 46 9.21E‐03 25 5.00E‐03 54% Pass
21 3.334 44 8.81E‐03 25 5.00E‐03 57% Pass
22 3.396 40 8.01E‐03 25 5.00E‐03 63% Pass
23 3.457 39 7.81E‐03 24 4.80E‐03 62% Pass
24 3.519 39 7.81E‐03 21 4.20E‐03 54% Pass
25 3.580 38 7.60E‐03 21 4.20E‐03 55% Pass
26 3.642 38 7.60E‐03 21 4.20E‐03 55% Pass
27 3.703 38 7.60E‐03 21 4.20E‐03 55% Pass
28 3.765 38 7.60E‐03 21 4.20E‐03 55% Pass
29 3.826 37 7.40E‐03 18 3.60E‐03 49% Pass
30 3.887 37 7.40E‐03 18 3.60E‐03 49% Pass
31 3.949 37 7.40E‐03 18 3.60E‐03 49% Pass
32 4.010 37 7.40E‐03 18 3.60E‐03 49% Pass
33 4.072 36 7.20E‐03 17 3.40E‐03 47% Pass
34 4.133 36 7.20E‐03 17 3.40E‐03 47% Pass
35 4.195 35 7.00E‐03 17 3.40E‐03 49% Pass
36 4.256 34 6.80E‐03 16 3.20E‐03 47% Pass
Detention Optimized
Interval
Existing Condition
12/19/2021
Pass or
Q (cfs) Hours > Q% time Hours>Q % time Post/Pre Fail?
Detention Optimized
Interval
Existing Condition
37 4.318 34 6.80E‐03 16 3.20E‐03 47% Pass
38 4.379 32 6.40E‐03 16 3.20E‐03 50% Pass
39 4.441 30 6.00E‐03 15 3.00E‐03 50% Pass
40 4.502 30 6.00E‐03 15 3.00E‐03 50% Pass
41 4.564 29 5.80E‐03 15 3.00E‐03 52% Pass
42 4.625 29 5.80E‐03 15 3.00E‐03 52% Pass
43 4.686 28 5.60E‐03 14 2.80E‐03 50% Pass
44 4.748 28 5.60E‐03 14 2.80E‐03 50% Pass
45 4.809 28 5.60E‐03 14 2.80E‐03 50% Pass
46 4.871 28 5.60E‐03 13 2.60E‐03 46% Pass
47 4.932 28 5.60E‐03 12 2.40E‐03 43% Pass
48 4.994 28 5.60E‐03 12 2.40E‐03 43% Pass
49 5.055 27 5.40E‐03 11 2.20E‐03 41% Pass
50 5.117 25 5.00E‐03 11 2.20E‐03 44% Pass
51 5.178 24 4.80E‐03 11 2.20E‐03 46% Pass
52 5.240 24 4.80E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 42% Pass
53 5.301 23 4.60E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 43% Pass
54 5.363 20 4.00E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 50% Pass
55 5.424 20 4.00E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 50% Pass
56 5.485 19 3.80E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 53% Pass
57 5.547 18 3.60E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 56% Pass
58 5.608 16 3.20E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 63% Pass
59 5.670 16 3.20E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 63% Pass
60 5.731 16 3.20E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 63% Pass
61 5.793 13 2.60E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 77% Pass
62 5.854 12 2.40E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 83% Pass
63 5.916 12 2.40E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 83% Pass
64 5.977 12 2.40E‐03 10 2.00E‐03 83% Pass
65 6.039 12 2.40E‐03 9 1.80E‐03 75% Pass
66 6.100 12 2.40E‐03 8 1.60E‐03 67% Pass
67 6.162 12 2.40E‐03 8 1.60E‐03 67% Pass
68 6.223 11 2.20E‐03 8 1.60E‐03 73% Pass
69 6.284 11 2.20E‐03 7 1.40E‐03 64% Pass
70 6.346 10 2.00E‐03 6 1.20E‐03 60% Pass
71 6.407 10 2.00E‐03 6 1.20E‐03 60% Pass
72 6.469 10 2.00E‐03 6 1.20E‐03 60% Pass
73 6.530 10 2.00E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 50% Pass
74 6.592 10 2.00E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 50% Pass
75 6.653 10 2.00E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 50% Pass
76 6.715 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
77 6.776 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
78 6.838 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
79 6.899 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
80 6.961 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
81 7.022 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
12/19/2021
Pass or
Q (cfs) Hours > Q% time Hours>Q % time Post/Pre Fail?
Detention Optimized
Interval
Existing Condition
82 7.084 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
83 7.145 9 1.80E‐03 5 1.00E‐03 56% Pass
84 7.206 9 1.80E‐03 4 8.01E‐04 44% Pass
85 7.268 9 1.80E‐03 4 8.01E‐04 44% Pass
86 7.329 9 1.80E‐03 4 8.01E‐04 44% Pass
87 7.391 8 1.60E‐03 4 8.01E‐04 50% Pass
88 7.452 8 1.60E‐03 3 6.00E‐04 38% Pass
89 7.514 8 1.60E‐03 3 6.00E‐04 38% Pass
90 7.575 8 1.60E‐03 3 6.00E‐04 38% Pass
91 7.637 8 1.60E‐03 3 6.00E‐04 38% Pass
92 7.698 8 1.60E‐03 3 6.00E‐04 38% Pass
93 7.760 8 1.60E‐03 3 6.00E‐04 38% Pass
94 7.821 8 1.60E‐03 2 4.00E‐04 25% Pass
95 7.883 8 1.60E‐03 2 4.00E‐04 25% Pass
96 7.944 8 1.60E‐03 2 4.00E‐04 25% Pass
97 8.005 8 1.60E‐03 2 4.00E‐04 25% Pass
98 8.067 8 1.60E‐03 2 4.00E‐04 25% Pass
99 8.128 8 1.60E‐03 2 4.00E‐04 25% Pass
100 8.190 8 1.60E‐03 2 4.00E‐04 25% Pass
Peak Flows calculated with Cunnane Plotting Position
Return Period
(years)Pre‐dev. Q (cfs)Post‐Dev. Q
(cfs)
Reduction
(cfs)
10 8.190 5.062 3.128
9 7.582 4.415 3.167
8 6.959 4.095 2.864
7 6.468 3.900 2.568
6 6.199 3.782 2.417
5 5.796 3.523 2.273
4 5.637 3.110 2.527
3 5.325 2.836 2.490
2 4.210 2.090 2.120
12/19/2021
ATTACHMENT III
List of the “n” Largest Peaks: Pre & Post‐Developed Conditions
Basic Probabilistic Equation:
R = 1/P R: Return period (years).
P: Probability of a flow to be equaled or exceeded any given year (dimensionless).
Cunnane Equation:Weibull Equation:
Pൌ୧ି.ସ
୬ା.ଶ Pൌ ୧
୬ାଵ
i: Position of the peak whose probability is desired (sorted from large to small)
n: number of years analyzed.
Explanation of Variables for the Tables in this Attachment
Peak: Refers to the peak flow at the date given, taken from the continuous simulation
hourly results of the n year analyzed.
Posit: If all peaks are sorted from large too small, the position of the peak in a sorting
analysis is included under the variable Posit.
Date: Date of the occurrence of the peak at the outlet from the continuous simulation
Note: all peaks are not annual maxima; instead they are defined as event maxima,
with a threshold to separate peaks of at least 12 hours. In other words, any peak P in
a time series is defined as a value where dP/dt = 0, and the peak is the largest value
in 25 hours (12 hours before, the hour of occurrence and 12 hours after the
occurrence, so it is in essence a daily peak).
List of Peak events and Determination of Q2 and Q10 (Pre‐Development)
Marja Estates ‐ POC 1
T
(Year)
Cunnane
(cfs)
Weibull
(cfs)
10 8.19 8.67 Date Posit Weibull Cunnane
9 7.58 7.87 2.7 2/6/1969 57 1.02 1.01
8 6.96 7.18 2.74 3/8/1968 56 1.04 1.03
7 6.47 6.56 2.74 2/26/2004 55 1.05 1.05
6 6.20 6.24 2.75 12/24/1971 54 1.07 1.07
5 5.80 5.81 2.8 8/17/1977 53 1.09 1.09
4 5.64 5.68 2.8 11/11/1985 52 1.12 1.11
3 5.33 5.33 2.83 2/12/2003 51 1.14 1.13
2 4.21 4.21 2.84 12/5/1966 50 1.16 1.15
2.84 1/15/1978 49 1.18 1.18
2.84 1/15/1993 48 1.21 1.20
Note: 2.85 1/12/1960 47 1.23 1.23
Cunnane is the preferred 2.85 3/1/1991 46 1.26 1.25
method by the HMP permit. 2.88 2/22/1998 45 1.29 1.28
2.95 1/6/1979 44 1.32 1.31
3.03 2/4/1994 43 1.35 1.34
3.11 2/23/2005 42 1.38 1.38
3.16 1/11/2005 41 1.41 1.41
3.17 9/18/1963 40 1.45 1.44
3.25 12/2/1961 39 1.49 1.48
3.26 3/11/1995 38 1.53 1.52
3.33 1/9/2005 37 1.57 1.56
3.38 1/18/1993 36 1.61 1.61
3.38 2/14/1998 35 1.66 1.65
3.39 3/2/1980 34 1.71 1.70
3.52 2/15/1986 33 1.76 1.75
3.81 1/29/1983 32 1.81 1.81
4.03 2/16/1980 31 1.87 1.87
4.18 2/17/1998 30 1.93 1.93
4.21 12/30/1991 29 2.00 2.00
4.33 2/27/1983 28 2.07 2.07
4.34 1/29/1980 27 2.15 2.15
4.38 10/20/2004 26 2.23 2.23
4.55 1/16/1978 25 2.32 2.33
4.64 2/23/1998 24 2.42 2.42
5.05 11/15/1952 23 2.52 2.53
5.16 2/3/1998 22 2.64 2.65
5.28 3/17/1982 21 2.76 2.78
5.32 10/27/2004 20 2.90 2.92
5.33 11/22/1965 19 3.05 3.08
5.36 1/16/1952 18 3.22 3.25
5.44 10/29/2000 17 3.41 3.45
5.57 4/1/1958 16 3.63 3.67
5.58 12/19/1970 15 3.87 3.92
5.78 2/10/1978 14 4.14 4.21
5.78 3/1/1978 13 4.46 4.54
5.79 9/23/1986 12 4.83 4.93
5.83 1/14/1993 11 5.27 5.40
6.19 2/18/2005 10 5.80 5.96
6.34 2/20/1980 9 6.44 6.65
6.66 2/4/1958 8 7.25 7.53
7.38 2/25/1969 7 8.29 8.67
8.32 2/25/2003 6 9.67 10.21
10.37 1/15/1979 5 11.60 12.43
10.38 1/4/1978 4 14.50 15.89
11.97 10/1/1983 3 19.33 22.00
12.08 1/4/1995 2 29.00 35.75
13.9 4/14/2003 1 58.00 95.33
Peaks (cfs)
Period of Return
(Years)
12/18/2021
List of Peak events and Determination of Q2 and Q10 (Post‐Development)
Marja Estates ‐ POC‐1
T
(Year)
Cunnane
(cfs)
Weibull
(cfs)
10 5.06 5.38 Date Posit Weibull Cunnane
9 4.42 4.72 1.39 1/25/1969 57 1.02 1.01
8 4.09 4.15 1.42 3/5/1995 56 1.04 1.03
7 3.90 3.96 1.44 2/17/1998 55 1.05 1.05
6 3.78 3.79 1.45 12/25/1983 54 1.07 1.07
5 3.52 3.59 1.45 1/13/1997 53 1.09 1.09
4 3.11 3.14 1.46 1/22/1967 52 1.12 1.11
3 2.84 2.84 1.46 2/16/1980 51 1.14 1.13
2 2.09 2.09 1.47 3/1/1991 50 1.16 1.15
1.5 1/16/1972 49 1.18 1.18
1.52 1/12/1960 48 1.21 1.20
Note: 1.53 2/23/2005 47 1.23 1.23
Cunnane is the preferred 1.53 2/23/2005 46 1.26 1.25
method by the HMP permit. 1.54 11/15/1952 45 1.29 1.28
1.54 9/18/1963 44 1.32 1.31
1.55 2/26/2004 43 1.35 1.34
1.64 1/14/1993 42 1.38 1.38
1.66 12/30/1991 41 1.41 1.41
1.7 4/1/1958 40 1.45 1.44
1.76 3/2/1980 39 1.49 1.48
1.76 2/23/1998 38 1.53 1.52
1.78 12/19/1970 37 1.57 1.56
1.78 3/1/1983 36 1.61 1.61
1.83 10/20/2004 35 1.66 1.65
1.85 1/13/1957 34 1.71 1.70
1.9 2/3/1998 33 1.76 1.75
1.94 12/5/1966 32 1.81 1.81
2 10/29/2000 31 1.87 1.87
2.07 3/11/1995 30 1.93 1.93
2.09 1/15/1978 29 2.00 2.00
2.13 1/11/1980 28 2.07 2.07
2.18 1/9/2005 27 2.15 2.15
2.22 2/20/1980 26 2.23 2.23
2.31 2/18/2005 25 2.32 2.33
2.41 8/17/1977 24 2.42 2.42
2.48 9/24/1986 23 2.52 2.53
2.5 1/16/1978 22 2.64 2.65
2.54 11/22/1996 21 2.76 2.78
2.82 2/10/1978 20 2.90 2.92
2.85 2/4/1958 19 3.05 3.08
2.86 1/20/1962 18 3.22 3.25
2.93 3/8/1968 17 3.41 3.45
2.93 1/16/1993 16 3.63 3.67
3.07 1/6/1979 15 3.87 3.92
3.21 1/16/1952 14 4.14 4.21
3.44 11/22/1965 13 4.46 4.54
3.48 10/27/2004 12 4.83 4.93
3.77 2/25/1969 11 5.27 5.40
3.78 2/25/2003 10 5.80 5.96
3.82 2/15/1986 9 6.44 6.65
4.02 3/17/1982 8 7.25 7.53
4.2 3/1/1978 7 8.29 8.67
5.2 1/29/1980 6 9.67 10.21
6.23 10/1/1983 5 11.60 12.43
6.5 1/15/1979 4 14.50 15.89
7.16 1/4/1978 3 19.33 22.00
7.79 4/14/2003 2 29.00 35.75
11.77 1/4/1995 1 58.00 95.33
Peaks (cfs)
Period of Return
(Years)
12/19/2021
ATTACHMENT IV
AREA VS ELEVATION
Volume provided above the first surface outlet is accounted for in the basin
Module within SWMM. A stage-storage relationship is provided within this
Module, a copy of which is located on the following pages.
DISCHARGE VS ELEVATION
Discharge vs. elevation relationships were not required as the low flow orifice
discharge has been accounted for within the aforementioned LID Module.
The orifices have been selected to maximize their size while still restricting flows
to conform with the required 50% of the Q2 event flow as mandated in
the Final Hydromodification Management Plan by Brown & Caldwell, dated
March 2011.
To reduce the risk of blockage of the orifices, regular maintenance of
the riser
and orifices must be performed to ensure potential blockages are minimized. A
detail of the orifice and riser structure is provided in Attachment V of this
memorandum.
A stage-discharge relationship is provided on the following pages for the surface
outlet structure. The LID low flow orifice discharge relationship is addressed
within the LID Module within SWMM – please refer to Attachment VII for further
information.
DRAWDOWN CALCULATIONS
Drawdown calculations are provided on the following pages to illustrate the LID
BMPs ability to not exceed the 96 hour requirement for standing water.
Category #DescriptioniiiiiiivvviviiUnits1Drainage Basin ID or Name BMP1 BMP2 BMP3 BMP4 BMP5 BMP6 BMP7 sq-ft2Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in/hr3Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,107 1,332 1,207 8,470 2,080 6,333 4,578 cubic-feet4Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated? Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated Vegetated unitless5Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined Lined unitless6Does BMP Have an Underdrain? Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain Underdrain unitless7Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media? Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard unitless8Provided Surface Area 1,949 1,098 2,360 7,724 1,692 4,347 3,567 sq-ft9Provided Surface Ponding Depth 1261218121221 inches10Provided Soil Media Thickness 18181818181818 inches11Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness) 33333648363648 inches12Underdrain Offset3333333inches13Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 0.800.900.902.302.202.402.00 inches14Specialized Soil Media Filtration Ratein/hr15Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retentionunitless16Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltrationunitless17Specialized Gravel Media Pore Spaceunitless18Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm0000000cubic-feet19Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 unitless20Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.050.050.050.050.050.050.05 unitless21Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain) 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 unitless22Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Below Underdrain) 0.400.400.400.400.400.400.40 unitless23Effective Retention Depth 2.102.102.102.102.102.102.10 inches24Fraction of DCV Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time) 0.310.140.340.160.140.120.14 ratio25Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Time 120120120120120120120 hours26Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.320.160.340.180.160.140.16 ratio27Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time) 3492144111,533335892737 cubic-feet28Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 7581,1187966,937 1,745 5,441 3,841 cubic-feet29Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.0375 0.0449 0.0486 0.3584 0.2887 0.3433 0.2763 cfs30Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 0.831.770.892.007.373.413.35 in/hr31Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.005.005.005.005.005.005.00 in/hr32Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 0.831.770.892.005.003.413.35 in/hr33Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 4.9810.615.3312.03 30.00 20.47 20.08 inches34Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 unitless35Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.200.200.200.200.200.200.20 unitless36Gravel Pore Space Available for Biofiltration (Above Underdrain) 0.400.400.400.400.400.400.40 unitless37Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 27.60 21.60 28.80 39.60 28.80 28.80 42.60 inches38Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 143139246hours39Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 331232206813 hours40Total Depth Biofiltered 32.58 32.21 34.13 51.63 58.80 49.27 62.68 inches41Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 1,137 1,677 1,194 10,406 2,618 8,161 5,762 cubic-feet42Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 1,137 1,677 1,194 10,406 2,618 8,161 5,762 cubic-feet43Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 5698385975,203 1,309 4,081 2,881 cubic-feet44Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 5698385975,203 1,309 4,081 2,881 cubic-feet45Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 ratio46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? YesYesYesYesYesYesYes yes/no47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor) 1.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 ratio48Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater0000000cubic-feetBiofiltration CalculationsFalseFalseFalseFalseResultFalseFalseNo Warning MessagesRetention CalculationsAutomated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0)FalseFalseBMP InputsDRAWDOWN TIME
DISCHARGE EQUATIONS
1) Weir:
ܳௐ = ܥௐ ·ܮ ·ܪଷ/ଶ (1)
2) Slot:
As an orifice: ܳ௦ =ܤ௦ ·ℎ௦ ·ܿ ·ට2݃ ቀܪ −
ೞ
ଶ ቁ (2.a)
As a weir: ܳ௦ =ܥௐ ·ܤ௦ ·ܪଷ/ଶ (2.b)
For H > hs slot works as weir until orifice equation provides a smaller discharge. The elevation such that
equation (2.a) = equation (2.b) is the elevation at which the behavior changes from weir to orifice.
3) Vertical Orifices
As an orifice: ܳ = 0.25 ·ߨܦଶ ·ܿ ·ට2݃ ቀܪ −
ଶቁ (3.a)
As a weir: Critical depth and geometric family of circular sector must be solved to determined Q as a function of
H:
ܳைଶ
݃ =ܣଷ
ܶ
; ܪ = ݕ +ܣ
2 ·ܶ
; ܶ = 2ඥݕ(ܦ − ݕ) ; ܣ = ܦଶ
8 [ߙ − ݏ݅݊(ߙ)] ;
ݕ =
ଶ [1 − ݏ݅݊(0.5 ·ߙ)] (3.b.1, 3.b.2, 3.b.3, 3.b.4 and 3.b.5)
There is a value of H (approximately H = 110% D) from which orifices no longer work as weirs as critical depth is
not possible at the entrance of the orifice. This value of H is obtained equaling the discharge using critical
equations and equations (3.b).
A mathematical model is prepared with the previous equations depending on the type o discharge.
The following are the variables used above:
QW, Qs, QO = Discharge of weir, slot or orifice (cfs)
CW, cg : Coefficients of discharge of weir (typically 3.1) and orifice (0.61 to 0.62)
L, Bs, D, hs : Length of weir, width of slot, diameter of orifice and height of slot, respectively; (ft)
H: Level of water in the pond over the invert of slot, weir or orifice (ft)
Acr, Tcr, ycr, αcr: Critical variables for circular sector: area (sq-ft), top width (ft), critical depth (ft), and angle to the center,
respectively.
MARJA BASIN MARJA BASIN
Project: MARJA Project: MARJA
Basin Description:
BASIN 1
REV Basin Description:
BASIN 2
REV
Contour Contour Contour Contour Cumulative
Elevation Area Volume Elevation Area Volume
(sq. ft) Conic (sq. ft) Conic
(cu. ft)(cu. ft)
72.15 1,505.07 0 bottom 72.65 1949 0 bottom
72.2 1,524.57 46.14 72.75 1949 194.9
72.25 1,545.94 116.88 72.85 1949 389.8
72.3 1,567.42 188.69 72.95 1949 584.7
72.35 1,589.00 261.57 73.05 1949 779.6
72.4 1,610.70 335.54 73.15 1949 974.5 first outlet
72.45 1,632.73 410.6 73.25 1949 1169.4
72.5 1,654.84 486.76 73.35 1949 1364.3
72.55 1,677.02 564.03 73.45 1949 1559.2
72.6 1,699.27 642.42 73.55 1949 1754.1
72.65 1,721.60 721.91 73.65 1949 1949 crest
72.7 1,744.01 802.53
72.75 1,766.49 884.27
72.8 1,789.04 967.13
72.85 1,811.67 1051.12
72.9 1,834.37 1136.25
72.95 1,857.15 1222.51
73 1,880.00 1309.91
73.05 1,902.92 1398.46
73.1 1,925.92 1488.16
73.15 1,949.00 1579.01 first outlet
73.2 1,972.14 1671.01
73.25 1,995.37 1764.17
73.3 2,018.66 1858.5
73.35 2,042.04 1953.99
73.4 2,065.48 2050.65
73.45 2,081.17 2148.29
73.5 2,096.90 2246.72
73.55 2,112.65 2345.93
73.6 2,128.44 2445.94
73.65 2,144.27 2546.73 crest
MARJA BASIN MARJA BASIN
Project: MARJA Project: MARJA ACRES
Basin Description:
BASIN 3
REV
Basin
Descripti
on:
BASIN 4
REV
Contour Contour Cumulative Contour Contour Cumulative
Elevation Area Volume Elevation Area Volume
(sq. ft) Conic (sq. ft) Conic
(cu. ft) (cu. ft)
73.85 2360 0 bottom 53.5 6,100.65 0 bottom
73.95 2360 236 53.6 6,204.97 615.27
74.05 2360 472 53.7 6,309.87 1241.01
74.15 2360 708 53.8 6,415.32 1877.26
74.25 2360 944 53.9 6,521.34 2524.09
74.35 2360 1180 54 6,627.93 3181.54
74.45 2360 1416 54.1 6,735.08 3849.69
74.55 2360 1652 54.2 6,842.79 4528.57
74.65 2360 1888 54.3 6,951.07 5218.26
74.75 2360 2124 54.4 7,059.91 5918.8
74.85 2360 2360 first outlet 54.5 7,169.32 6630.26
74.95 2360 2596 54.6 7,279.29 7352.68
75.05 2360 2832 54.7 7,389.83 8086.13
75.15 2360 3068 54.8 7,500.93 8830.66
75.25 2360 3304 54.9 7,612.59 9586.33
75.35 2360 3540 55 7,724.82 10353.19 First Outlet
75.45 2360 3776 55.1 7,799.89 11129.42
75.55 2360 4012 55.2 7,875.22 11913.18
75.65 2360 4248 55.3 7,950.79 12704.47
75.75 2360 4484 55.4 8,026.62 13503.34
75.85 2360 4720 55.5 8,102.70 14309.8
75.95 2360 4956 55.6 8,179.03 15123.89
76.05 2360 5192 emergency weir 55.7 8,251.64 15945.42
76.15 2360 5428 55.8 8,319.83 16773.99
76.25 2360 5664 55.9 8,387.30 17609.34
76.35 2360 5900 56 8,454.06 18451.41 second outlet
76.45 2360 6136 56.1 8,516.43 19299.93
76.55 2360 6372 crest 56.2 8,578.52 20154.68
76.65 2361 6608.1 crest 56.3 8,640.34 21015.62
56.4 8,701.89 21882.73
56.5 8,763.17 22755.98
56.6 8,824.17 23635.35
56.7 8,884.91 24520.8
56.75 8,915.17 24965.97
56.8 8,945.37 25412.31
56.9 9,005.56 26309.86
57 9,065.48 27213.41
57.1 9,125.13 28122.93
57.2 9,184.51 29038.42 emergency weir
57.3 9,243.61 29959.82
57.4 9,302.44 30887.12
57.5 9,361.00 31820.29
57.6 9,419.29 32759.3
57.7 9,477.31 33704.13
57.8 9,535.06 34654.75
57.9 9,592.53 35611.13
58 9,649.73 36573.24
58.1 9,706.66 37541.06
58.2 9,763.32 38514.56 crest
MARJA BASIN MARJA BASIN
Project: MARJA Project: MARJA
Basin Description:
BASIN 5
REV Basin Description:
BASIN 6
REV
Contour Contour Cumulative Contour Contour
Elevation Area Volume Elevation Area Volume
(sq. ft) Conic (sq. ft) Conic
(cu. ft) (cu. ft)
63.5 1,359.06 0 bottom 68.5 2,286.51 0 bottom
63.6 1,391.38 133.82 68.6 2,490.13 241.66
63.7 1,423.92 270.88 68.7 2,694.29 503.72
63.8 1,456.69 411.21 68.8 2,899.01 786.22
63.9 1,489.68 554.82 68.9 3,104.27 1089.22
64 1,522.90 701.75 69 3,310.09 1412.79
64.1 1,556.35 852.01 69.1 3,516.46 1756.96
64.2 1,590.02 1005.62 69.2 3,723.38 2121.81
64.3 1,623.92 1162.62 69.3 3,930.85 2507.37
64.4 1,658.05 1323.01 69.4 4,138.88 2913.72
64.5 1,692.40 1486.83 first outlet 69.5 4,347.45 3340.89 first outlet
64.6 1,715.81 1653.54 69.6 4,556.57 3788.95
64.7 1,739.40 1822.6 69.7 4,766.25 4257.95
64.8 1,763.18 1994.03 second outlet 69.8 4,976.48 4747.95 second outlet
64.9 1,787.13 2167.84 69.9 5,187.25 5259
65 1,811.28 2344.06 70 5,398.58 5791.16
65.1 1,835.60 2522.71 70.1 5,610.53 6344.48
65.2 1,860.11 2703.79 emergency weir 70.2 5,823.04 6919.03 emergency weir
65.3 1,884.78 2887.33 70.3 6,036.10 7514.85
65.4 1,909.48 3073.35 70.4 6,249.72 8132.01
65.5 1,934.18 3261.83 70.5 6,463.91 8770.56
65.6 1,958.87 3452.78 70.6 6,590.05 9279.08
65.7 1,983.57 3646.2 70.7 6,724.70 9800.32
65.8 2,008.28 3842.09 70.8 6,877.00 10335.91
65.9 2,032.98 4040.45 70.9 7,046.96 10887.6
66 2,057.69 4241.28 crest 71 7,234.45 11457.17
71.1 7,438.33 12046.29 crest
MARJA BASIN
Project: MARJA
Basin Description:
BASIN 7
REV
Contour Contour
Elevation Area Volume
(sq. ft) Conic
(cu. ft)
63 2,857.36 0 bottom
63.1 2,921.90 288.96
63.2 2,986.99 584.4
63.3 3,052.65 886.37
63.4 3,118.87 1194.94
63.5 3,185.65 1510.16
63.6 3,252.98 1832.09
63.7 3,320.88 2160.77
63.8 3,389.35 2496.28
63.9 3,458.37 2838.66
64 3,566.95 3187.97 first outlet
64.1 3,593.73 3543.05
64.2 3,620.99 3902.79
64.3 3,668.23 4267.24 second outlet
64.4 3,715.45 4636.43
64.5 3,762.66 5010.33
64.6 3,809.84 5388.95
64.7 3,856.93 5772.29 emergency weir
64.8 3,902.69 6160.27
64.9 3,947.01 6552.75
65 3,991.01 6949.65
65.1 4,034.83 7350.94
65.2 4,078.47 7756.6
65.3 4,121.92 8166.62
65.4 4,165.12 8580.97
65.5 4,208.02 8999.62
65.6 4,250.60 9422.55
65.7 4,292.87 9849.72
65.8 4,334.80 10281.11
65.9 4,376.39 10716.66
66 4,417.65 11156.36
66.1 4,458.58 11600.17 crest
Outlet structure for Discharge of Detention Basin BF‐3
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Lower slot Emergency Weir
Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 1.250 ft
B 1.00 ft B: 12 ft
h 0.167 ft
Upper slot
Invert: 0.000 ft
B: 0.00 ft
h 0.000 ft
h H/D‐low H/D‐mid Qtot‐med Qslot‐low Qemer Qtot
(ft) ‐ ‐ (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 FIRST OUTLET ‐ 1' ABOVE BIOFILTRATION
0.042 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.026
0.083 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.075
0.125 1.500 0.000 0.000 0.137 0.000 0.137
0.167 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.211 0.000 0.211
0.208 2.500 0.000 0.000 0.288 0.000 0.288
0.250 3.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.000 0.333
0.292 3.500 0.500 0.000 0.372 0.000 0.372
0.333 4.000 1.000 0.000 0.408 0.000 0.408
0.375 4.500 1.500 0.000 0.441 0.000 0.441
0.417 5.000 2.000 0.000 0.471 0.000 0.471
0.458 5.500 2.500 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.500
0.500 6.000 3.000 0.000 0.527 0.000 0.527
0.542 6.500 3.500 0.000 0.552 0.000 0.552
0.583 7.000 4.000 0.000 0.577 0.000 0.577
0.625 7.500 4.500 0.000 0.600 0.000 0.600
0.667 8.000 5.000 0.000 0.623 0.000 0.623
0.708 8.500 5.500 0.000 0.645 0.000 0.645
0.750 9.000 6.000 0.000 0.666 0.000 0.666
0.792 9.500 6.500 0.000 0.687 0.000 0.687
0.833 10.000 7.000 0.000 0.707 0.000 0.707
0.875 10.500 7.500 0.000 0.726 0.000 0.726
0.917 11.000 8.000 0.000 0.745 0.000 0.745
0.958 11.500 8.500 0.000 0.763 0.000 0.763
1.000 12.000 9.000 0.000 0.781 0.000 0.781
1.042 12.500 9.500 0.000 0.799 0.000 0.799
1.083 13.000 10.000 0.000 0.816 0.000 0.816
1.125 13.500 10.500 0.000 0.833 0.000 0.833
1.167 14.000 11.000 0.000 0.849 0.000 0.849
1.208 14.500 11.500 0.000 0.865 0.000 0.865
1.250 15.000 12.000 0.000 0.881 0.000 0.881 EMERGENCY WEIR
1.292 15.500 12.500 0.000 0.897 0.316 1.213
1.333 16.000 13.000 0.000 0.912 0.895 1.807
1.375 16.500 13.500 0.000 0.927 1.644 2.571
1.417 17.000 14.000 0.000 0.942 2.531 3.473
1.458 17.500 14.500 0.000 0.957 3.537 4.494
1.500 18.000 15.000 0.000 0.971 4.650 5.621
1.542 18.500 15.500 0.000 0.985 5.860 6.845
1.583 19.000 16.000 0.000 0.999 7.159 8.158
1.625 19.500 16.500 0.000 1.013 8.543 9.556
1.667 20.000 17.000 0.000 1.027 10.005 11.032
1.708 20.500 17.500 0.000 1.040 11.543 12.583
1.750 21.000 18.000 0.000 1.053 13.152 14.205
1.792 21.500 18.500 0.000 1.066 14.830 15.896
1.833 22.000 19.000 0.000 1.079 16.574 17.653
1.875 22.500 19.500 0.000 1.092 18.381 19.473
1.917 23.000 20.000 0.000 1.105 20.249 21.354
1.958 23.500 20.500 0.000 1.117 22.177 23.294
2.000 24.000 21.000 0.000 1.130 24.162 25.292
2.042 24.500 21.500 0.000 1.142 26.203 27.345
2.083 25.000 22.000 0.000 1.154 28.299 29.453
2.125 25.500 22.500 0.000 1.166 30.448 31.614
2.167 26.000 23.000 0.000 1.178 32.648 33.826
2.208 26.500 23.500 0.000 1.189 34.899 36.089
2.250 27.000 24.000 0.000 1.201 37.200 38.401
2.292 27.500 24.500 0.000 1.212 39.549 40.761
2.333 28.000 25.000 0.000 1.224 41.946 43.169
2.375 28.500 25.500 0.000 1.235 44.389 45.624
2.417 29.000 26.000 0.000 1.246 46.877 48.124
2.458 29.500 26.500 0.000 1.257 49.411 50.668
2.500 30.000 27.000 0.000 1.268 51.989 53.257
2.542 30.500 27.500 0.000 1.279 54.610 55.889
2.583 31.000 28.000 0.000 1.290 57.273 58.563
2.625 31.500 28.500 0.000 1.301 59.979 61.279
2.667 32.000 29.000 0.000 1.311 62.726 64.037
2.708 32.500 29.500 0.000 1.322 65.513 66.835
2.750 33.000 30.000 0.000 1.332 68.341 69.673 CREST
Outlet structure for Discharge of Detention Basin BF‐4
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Lower slot Emergency Weir
Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 2.250 ft
B 1.50 ft B: 12 ft
h 0.167 ft
Upper slot
Invert: 1.750 ft
B: 4.00 ft
h 0.167 ft
h H/D‐low H/D‐mid Qslot‐low Qslot‐upp Qemer Qtot
(ft) ‐ ‐ (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 FIRST OUTLET ‐ 1.5' ABOVE BIOFILTRATION
0.042 0.500 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.040
0.083 1.000 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.112
0.125 1.500 0.000 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.206
0.167 2.000 0.000 0.316 0.000 0.000 0.316
0.208 2.500 0.000 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.433
0.250 3.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500
0.292 3.500 0.500 0.559 0.000 0.000 0.559
0.333 4.000 1.000 0.612 0.000 0.000 0.612
0.375 4.500 1.500 0.661 0.000 0.000 0.661
0.417 5.000 2.000 0.707 0.000 0.000 0.707
0.458 5.500 2.500 0.749 0.000 0.000 0.749
0.500 6.000 3.000 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.790
0.542 6.500 3.500 0.829 0.000 0.000 0.829
0.583 7.000 4.000 0.865 0.000 0.000 0.865
0.625 7.500 4.500 0.901 0.000 0.000 0.901
0.667 8.000 5.000 0.935 0.000 0.000 0.935
0.708 8.500 5.500 0.968 0.000 0.000 0.968
0.750 9.000 6.000 0.999 0.000 0.000 0.999
0.792 9.500 6.500 1.030 0.000 0.000 1.030
0.833 10.000 7.000 1.060 0.000 0.000 1.060
0.875 10.500 7.500 1.089 0.000 0.000 1.089
0.917 11.000 8.000 1.117 0.000 0.000 1.117
0.958 11.500 8.500 1.145 0.000 0.000 1.145
1.000 12.000 9.000 1.172 0.000 0.000 1.172
1.042 12.500 9.500 1.198 0.000 0.000 1.198
1.083 13.000 10.000 1.224 0.000 0.000 1.224
1.125 13.500 10.500 1.249 0.000 0.000 1.249
1.167 14.000 11.000 1.274 0.000 0.000 1.274
1.208 14.500 11.500 1.298 0.000 0.000 1.298
1.250 15.000 12.000 1.322 0.000 0.000 1.322
1.292 15.500 12.500 1.345 0.000 0.000 1.345
1.333 16.000 13.000 1.368 0.000 0.000 1.368
1.375 16.500 13.500 1.391 0.000 0.000 1.391
1.417 17.000 14.000 1.413 0.000 0.000 1.413
1.458 17.500 14.500 1.435 0.000 0.000 1.435
1.500 18.000 15.000 1.457 0.000 0.000 1.456621
1.542 18.500 15.500 1.478 0.000 0.000 1.478
1.583 19.000 16.000 1.499 0.000 0.000 1.499
1.625 19.500 16.500 1.520 0.000 0.000 1.520
1.667 20.000 17.000 1.540 0.000 0.000 1.540
1.708 20.500 17.500 1.560 0.000 0.000 1.560
1.750 21.000 18.000 1.580 0.000 0.000 1.580
1.792 21.500 18.500 1.600 0.105 0.000 1.705
1.833 22.000 19.000 1.619 0.298 0.000 1.917
1.875 22.500 19.500 1.638 0.548 0.000 2.186
1.917 23.000 20.000 1.657 0.844 0.000 2.501
1.958 23.500 20.500 1.676 1.155 0.000 2.831
2.000 24.000 21.000 1.694 1.334 0.000 3.029
2.042 24.500 21.500 1.713 1.492 0.000 3.205
2.083 25.000 22.000 1.731 1.634 0.000 3.365
2.125 25.500 22.500 1.749 1.766 0.000 3.514
2.167 26.000 23.000 1.766 1.887 0.000 3.654
2.208 26.500 23.500 1.784 2.002 0.000 3.786
2.250 27.000 24.000 1.801 2.110 0.000 3.912 EMERGENCY WEIR
2.292 27.500 24.500 1.819 2.213 0.316 4.348
2.333 28.000 25.000 1.836 2.312 0.895 5.042
2.375 28.500 25.500 1.853 2.406 1.644 5.903
2.417 29.000 26.000 1.869 2.497 2.531 6.898
2.458 29.500 26.500 1.886 2.585 3.537 8.008
2.500 30.000 27.000 1.902 2.670 4.650 9.222
2.542 30.500 27.500 1.919 2.752 5.860 10.530
2.583 31.000 28.000 1.935 2.832 7.159 11.926
2.625 31.500 28.500 1.951 2.909 8.543 13.403
2.667 32.000 29.000 1.967 2.985 10.005 14.957
2.708 32.500 29.500 1.983 3.059 11.543 16.584
2.750 33.000 30.000 1.998 3.131 13.152 18.281
2.792 33.500 30.500 2.014 3.201 14.830 20.045
2.833 34.000 31.000 2.029 3.270 16.574 21.873
2.875 34.500 31.500 2.045 3.337 18.381 23.763
2.917 35.000 32.000 2.060 3.403 20.249 25.712
2.958 35.500 32.500 2.075 3.468 22.177 27.720
3.000 36.000 33.000 2.090 3.532 24.162 29.784
3.042 36.500 33.500 2.105 3.594 26.203 31.903
3.083 37.000 34.000 2.120 3.656 28.299 34.074
3.125 37.500 34.500 2.134 3.716 30.448 36.298
3.167 38.000 35.000 2.149 3.776 32.648 38.573
3.208 38.500 35.500 2.163 3.834 34.899 40.897
3.250 39.000 36.000 2.178 3.892 37.200 43.270 CREST
Outlet structure for Discharge of Detention Basin BF‐5
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Lower slot Emergency Weir
Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 0.750 ft
B 1.50 ft B: 12 ft
h 0.167 ft
Upper slot
Invert: 0.333 ft
B: 8.00 ft
h 0.250 ft
h H/D‐low H/D‐mid Qslot‐low Qslot‐upp Qemer Qtot
(ft) ‐ ‐ (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 FIRST OUTLET ‐ 1' ABOVE BIOFILTRATION
0.042 0.500 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.040
0.083 1.000 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.112
0.125 1.500 0.000 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.206
0.167 2.000 0.000 0.316 0.000 0.000 0.316
0.208 2.500 0.000 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.433
0.250 3.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500
0.292 3.500 0.500 0.559 0.000 0.000 0.559
0.333 4.000 1.000 0.612 0.000 0.000 0.612
0.375 4.500 1.500 0.661 0.211 0.000 0.872
0.417 5.000 2.000 0.707 0.597 0.000 1.303
0.458 5.500 2.500 0.749 1.096 0.000 1.845
0.500 6.000 3.000 0.790 1.687 0.000 2.477
0.542 6.500 3.500 0.829 2.358 0.000 3.187
0.583 7.000 4.000 0.865 3.100 0.000 3.965
0.625 7.500 4.500 0.901 3.906 0.000 4.807
0.667 8.000 5.000 0.935 4.469 0.000 5.403
0.708 8.500 5.500 0.968 4.895 0.000 5.863
0.750 9.000 6.000 0.999 5.287 0.000 6.287 EMERGENCY WEIR
0.792 9.500 6.500 1.030 5.653 0.316 6.999
0.833 10.000 7.000 1.060 5.995 0.895 7.950
0.875 10.500 7.500 1.089 6.320 1.644 9.053
0.917 11.000 8.000 1.117 6.628 2.531 10.276
0.958 11.500 8.500 1.145 6.923 3.537 11.605
1.000 12.000 9.000 1.172 7.206 4.650 13.027
1.042 12.500 9.500 1.198 7.478 5.860 14.535
1.083 13.000 10.000 1.224 7.740 7.159 16.123
1.125 13.500 10.500 1.249 7.994 8.543 17.786
1.167 14.000 11.000 1.274 8.240 10.005 19.519
1.208 14.500 11.500 1.298 8.479 11.543 21.320
1.250 15.000 12.000 1.322 8.711 13.152 23.185
1.292 15.500 12.500 1.345 8.937 14.830 25.113
1.333 16.000 13.000 1.368 9.158 16.574 27.100
1.375 16.500 13.500 1.391 9.374 18.381 29.145
1.417 17.000 14.000 1.413 9.584 20.249 31.247
1.458 17.500 14.500 1.435 9.790 22.177 33.402
1.500 18.000 15.000 1.457 9.992 24.162 35.611 CREST
Outlet structure for Discharge of Detention Basin BF‐6
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Lower slot Emergency Weir
Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 0.750 ft
B 1.50 ft B: 12 ft
h 0.167 ft
Upper slot
Invert: 0.333 ft
B: 8.00 ft
h 0.250 ft
h H/D‐low H/D‐mid Qslot‐low Qslot‐upp Qemer Qtot
(ft) ‐ ‐ (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 FIRST OUTLET ‐ 1' ABOVE BIOFILTRATION
0.042 0.500 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.040
0.083 1.000 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.112
0.125 1.500 0.000 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.206
0.167 2.000 0.000 0.316 0.000 0.000 0.316
0.208 2.500 0.000 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.433
0.250 3.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500
0.292 3.500 0.500 0.559 0.000 0.000 0.559
0.333 4.000 1.000 0.612 0.000 0.000 0.612
0.375 4.500 1.500 0.661 0.211 0.000 0.872
0.417 5.000 2.000 0.707 0.597 0.000 1.303
0.458 5.500 2.500 0.749 1.096 0.000 1.845
0.500 6.000 3.000 0.790 1.687 0.000 2.477
0.542 6.500 3.500 0.829 2.358 0.000 3.187
0.583 7.000 4.000 0.865 3.100 0.000 3.965
0.625 7.500 4.500 0.901 3.906 0.000 4.807
0.667 8.000 5.000 0.935 4.469 0.000 5.403
0.708 8.500 5.500 0.968 4.895 0.000 5.863
0.750 9.000 6.000 0.999 5.287 0.000 6.287 EMERGENCY WEIR
0.792 9.500 6.500 1.030 5.653 0.316 6.999
0.833 10.000 7.000 1.060 5.995 0.895 7.950
0.875 10.500 7.500 1.089 6.320 1.644 9.053
0.917 11.000 8.000 1.117 6.628 2.531 10.276
0.958 11.500 8.500 1.145 6.923 3.537 11.605
1.000 12.000 9.000 1.172 7.206 4.650 13.027
1.042 12.500 9.500 1.198 7.478 5.860 14.535
1.083 13.000 10.000 1.224 7.740 7.159 16.123
1.125 13.500 10.500 1.249 7.994 8.543 17.786
1.167 14.000 11.000 1.274 8.240 10.005 19.519
1.208 14.500 11.500 1.298 8.479 11.543 21.320
1.250 15.000 12.000 1.322 8.711 13.152 23.185
1.292 15.500 12.500 1.345 8.937 14.830 25.113
1.333 16.000 13.000 1.368 9.158 16.574 27.100
1.375 16.500 13.500 1.391 9.374 18.381 29.145
1.417 17.000 14.000 1.413 9.584 20.249 31.247
1.458 17.500 14.500 1.435 9.790 22.177 33.402
1.500 18.000 15.000 1.457 9.992 24.162 35.611
1.542 18.500 15.500 1.478 10.190 26.203 37.871
1.583 19.000 16.000 1.499 10.384 28.299 40.182
1.625 19.500 16.500 1.520 10.575 30.448 42.542 CREST
Outlet structure for Discharge of Detention Basin BF‐7
Discharge vs Elevation Table
Lower slot Emergency Weir
Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 0.750 ft
B 1.50 ft B: 12 ft
h 0.167 ft
Upper slot
Invert: 0.333 ft
B: 8.00 ft
h 0.250 ft
h H/D‐low H/D‐mid Qslot‐low Qslot‐upp Qemer Qtot
(ft) ‐ ‐ (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 FIRST OUTLET ‐ 1' ABOVE BIOFILTRATION
0.042 0.500 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.040
0.083 1.000 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.112
0.125 1.500 0.000 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.206
0.167 2.000 0.000 0.316 0.000 0.000 0.316
0.208 2.500 0.000 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.433
0.250 3.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.500
0.292 3.500 0.500 0.559 0.000 0.000 0.559
0.333 4.000 1.000 0.612 0.000 0.000 0.612
0.375 4.500 1.500 0.661 0.211 0.000 0.872
0.417 5.000 2.000 0.707 0.597 0.000 1.303
0.458 5.500 2.500 0.749 1.096 0.000 1.845
0.500 6.000 3.000 0.790 1.687 0.000 2.477
0.542 6.500 3.500 0.829 2.358 0.000 3.187
0.583 7.000 4.000 0.865 3.100 0.000 3.965
0.625 7.500 4.500 0.901 3.906 0.000 4.807
0.667 8.000 5.000 0.935 4.469 0.000 5.403
0.708 8.500 5.500 0.968 4.895 0.000 5.863
0.750 9.000 6.000 0.999 5.287 0.000 6.287 EMERGENCY WEIR
0.792 9.500 6.500 1.030 5.653 0.316 6.999
0.833 10.000 7.000 1.060 5.995 0.895 7.950
0.875 10.500 7.500 1.089 6.320 1.644 9.053
0.917 11.000 8.000 1.117 6.628 2.531 10.276
0.958 11.500 8.500 1.145 6.923 3.537 11.605
1.000 12.000 9.000 1.172 7.206 4.650 13.027
1.042 12.500 9.500 1.198 7.478 5.860 14.535
1.083 13.000 10.000 1.224 7.740 7.159 16.123
1.125 13.500 10.500 1.249 7.994 8.543 17.786
1.167 14.000 11.000 1.274 8.240 10.005 19.519
1.208 14.500 11.500 1.298 8.479 11.543 21.320
1.250 15.000 12.000 1.322 8.711 13.152 23.185
1.292 15.500 12.500 1.345 8.937 14.830 25.113
1.333 16.000 13.000 1.368 9.158 16.574 27.100
1.375 16.500 13.500 1.391 9.374 18.381 29.145
1.417 17.000 14.000 1.413 9.584 20.249 31.247
1.458 17.500 14.500 1.435 9.790 22.177 33.402
1.500 18.000 15.000 1.457 9.992 24.162 35.611
1.542 18.500 15.500 1.478 10.190 26.203 37.871
1.583 19.000 16.000 1.499 10.384 28.299 40.182
1.625 19.500 16.500 1.520 10.575 30.448 42.542
1.667 20.000 17.000 1.540 10.762 32.648 44.950
1.708 20.500 17.500 1.560 10.946 34.899 47.406
1.750 21.000 18.000 1.580 11.127 37.200 49.907
1.792 21.500 18.500 1.600 11.305 39.549 52.454
1.833 22.000 19.000 1.619 11.480 41.946 55.045
1.875 22.500 19.500 1.638 11.653 44.389 57.680
1.917 23.000 20.000 1.657 11.823 46.877 60.357
1.958 23.500 20.500 1.676 11.991 49.411 63.078
2.000 24.000 21.000 1.694 12.156 51.989 65.839
2.042 24.500 21.500 1.713 12.319 54.610 68.642
2.083 25.000 22.000 1.731 12.480 57.273 71.484
2.125 25.500 22.500 1.749 12.639 59.979 74.367 CREST
ATTACHMENT V
Pre & Post‐Developed Maps, Bio‐FILTRATION Facility details
891012131415161718676869707172737475767778PM 3451MAP7292MAP8033MAP10558PM 3451PM 3451MAP8033MAP7292EL CAMINO REALN65°22
'26
"E
1291
.68
'
N02°23'45"E 315.88'S87°53'49"W 397.21'N18°57'34"E 977.24'PARK
DR
IVE
KELLY DRIVE
SOIL TYPE
CSOIL TYPE D CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGLEGENDPOC 1DMA1DDMA1CEXISTINGINLETEXISTINGBIO-FILTRATIONFACILITIESEXISTINGINLETEXISTINGCULVERTSEXISTINGNATURALCREEKEXISTINGNATURALCREEKEXISTING BLDG ANDPARKING LOTEXISTINGBLDG.EXISTINGBLDG.EXISTINGPAVEDROADEXISTINGBLDG.AREA NOT INCLUDEDAS PART OF THE HMPMODEL IN PREDEVELOPMENTCONDITIONSAREA NOT INCLUDED AS PART OFTHE HMP MODEL IN PRE ANDPOST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONSAS IS CONSIDERED NATURALAREA NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE HMPMODEL IN PRE AND POST DEVELOPMENTCONDITIONS AS ARE EITHER UN CHANGEDOR HYDROMODIFIED BY EXISTING FACILITIESON EL CAMINO REALEXISTINGBIO-FILTRATIONFACILITYPOC 1POC 2POC 3
(EV)(EV)EVEVE(No2). 24" CMP(EV)(EV)FF 83.25PAD 82.50URBANFARMSOIL TYPE
CSOIL TYPE DBMP1BMP2BMP3BMP4BMP7BMP5BMP6DMA-1 DDMA-2 DDMA-3 DDMA-4CDMA-5 CDMA-5 DDMA-6 DDMA-6 CDMA-9C.2DMA-7 DDMA-7 CDMA-3 CDMA-4DDMA-4CDMA-10 CDMA-10 CDMA-11 DDMA-4DSOIL TYPE CSOIL TYPE DSOIL TYPE CSOIL TYPE DDMA-11 CDMA-12 DDMA-9C.1DMA-8 CDMA-8C-1AURBANFARMDMA-8C-1BDMA-9C-1ADMA-9C-1B CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGLEGENDPOC 1SELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)SELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)PROPOSED INLETAND TREE WELL(ADDED TO HMPMANAGEMENT)POC 1PROPOSED ULTIMATEPOINT OF DISCHARGEEXISTINGINLET TO BERELOCATEDEXISTINGINLETEXISTINGCULVERTSEXISTINGNATURALCREEKEXISTINGNATURALCREEKPERMANENT WATER QUALITYTREATMENT FACILITIES ONTHIS SITEKEEPING OUR WATER CLEANMAINTAIN WITH CARENO MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT CITY OF CARLSBAD APPROVALOFFSITE AREA DRAINS TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITY(NOT ADDED TO HMP MANAGEMENT)IMPERVIOUS SURFACESDRAIN TO EX. BIO-FILTRATIONFACILITY IN MEDIANSELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)EXISTING BIO-FILTRATIONFACILITY (SEE ATTACHMENT1F SWQMP)EXISTINGBIO-FILTRATIONFACILITYSELF MITIGATINGAREA - (EXCLUDEDFROM HMP MANAGEMENT)IMPERVIOUS SURFACESDRAIN TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITYIN MEDIANMWS-#TW1MWS-3MWS-1OFFSITE AREA DRAINS TO EX.BIO-FILTRATION FACILITY(NOT ADDED TO HMP MANAGEMENT)TW DRAINS TOMODULAR WETLANTDRAINS TO TREEWELLDE-MINIMISAREASELF MITIGATINGAREA - (INCLUDED INMANAGEMENT)DMA-9C.1 AND DMA-9C.2BOTH ADDED TO HMPMANAGEMENTMWS-2MWS-4PROPOSEDUNDERGROUNDSTORAGEVAULT (UG1)POC 2POC 3
CT 16-07 PUD 16-09 HDP 16-02 SUP 16-02 PUD 2018-0007CDP 16-33SDP 2018-0001EIR 2017-001DEV16038Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287 Email. info@HWL-PE.com2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217, CARLSBAD, CA 92010 www.HWL-PE.comHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGSECTION VIEWPLAN VIEWTREE TIE NOTE:TREE WELL NOTESSTREET TREES DETAILSECTION B-BPLAN VIEWSECTION A-A TYPICAL TREE WELL DETAILS TYPICAL BIO-FILTRATION BASIN DETAILPVC CAP / ORIFICE DETAILSUMMARY OF DEVELOPED DUAL AND TRIPLE PURPOSE BMPsSUMMARY OF RISER DETAILSPRECAST DRAIN INLET - BIO-FILTRATION OUTLET STRUCTURELINER ATTACHEMENT DETAILOPTIONAL RETAININGWALL AT BASIN
82S
81S
79S
80S
FF=78.7
5
FP=78.0
0
FF=78.2
5
FP=77.5
0
FF=77.7
5
FP=77.0
0
FF=78.2
5
FP=77.5
0
FF=78.7
5
FP=78.0
0
BMP 2
72.65
F
G
77.5 TW
73.0 BW
78.5 TW
73.0 BW
76.4 TW
73.0 BW
75.0 TW
73.0 BW
B
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 2
B
PLAN VIEW
SECTION B-B
22S
28S
27S
7876FF=78.7
5
FP=78.0
0 FF=79.2
5
FP=78.
5
0
76.6 FS
PROP. INLET
BMP 3
73.85 FG 77.5 TW
73.85 BW
77.5 TW
73.85 BW
77.9 TW
73.85 BW
77.0 TW
73.85BW76.6 TW
73.85 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 3
PLAN VIEW
SECTION C-C
C
C
565860PM 34515%58.4 FG
PM 345166.1 FS
60.2 FS
56.6 FG 64.0 FS
58.0 FS
PROP. INLET
BMP 4
53.50 FG
58.75 TW
55.7 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 4PLAN VIEW
SECTION D-D
D D
58.75 TW
58.75 BW
58.25 TW
55.7 BW
58.75 TW
58.25 BW
58.75 TW
56.0 BW
EMERGENCY
OUTLET
70
66.0 FS
65.5 FS
65.9 FS
PROP.
INLET
BMP 5
63.50 FGEMERGENCY
OUTLET
66.0 TW
65.5 BW
66.5 TW
64.0 BW
66.5 TW
64.0 BW
66.0 TW
65.5 BW
66.5 TW
64.0 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 5PLAN VIEW
SECTION E-E
PROP.
6" CURB
66.6 TC
66.0 TC
E
E
70
76 68664%
66.2 FG
80
74
71.9 FS
72.0 FS 3%3%0.5%0.5%69.8 FG
69.9 FG
BMP 6
71.2 TW
69.1 BW 71.2 TW
68.5 BW
72.5 TW
69.8 BW
71.2 TW
67.5 BW
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 6
PLAN VIEW
SECTION F-F
BMP 6
68.50 FG
68.50 FG
71.20 FG
68.50 FG
PROP. INLET
EMERGENCY
OUTLETF
F
664%66.2 FG
66.3 FG
67.2 FG
69.5 FS
64.0 BW66.2 FG
MARJA ACRES
BMP DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
BMP 7PLAN VIEW
SECTION G-G
63.00 FG BMP 7
63.0 FG
PROP. INLET
EMERGENCY
OUTLET
63.00 FG
PROP.
RETAINING WALL
66.13 TW
66.13 TW
G
G
MARJA ACRES
UG1 OUTLET DETAILSHOWES WEILER LANDY
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Tel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.2287
2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
SECTION B-B:
INTERIOR WALL W/ ORIFICES
MODIFIED D-09 TYPE A7
SD CLEANOUT
ATTACHMENT VI
SWMM MODEL input/output data format (Existing & Proposed
Models)
Marja Estates - Pre Development
SWMM MODEL
Page 1
[TITLE]
Marja Estates -Pre Development
[OPTIONS]
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
START_DATE 10/17/1948
START_TIME 00:00:00REPORT_START_DATE 10/05/1948
REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00
END_DATE 10/05/2005
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
ALLOW_PONDING NO
INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL
VARIABLE_STEP 0.75
LENGTHENING_STEP 0
MIN_SURFAREA 0
NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO
FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-WLINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
[EVAPORATION]
;;Type Parameters
;;---------- ----------
MONTHLY 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.150 0.170 0.190 0.190 0.180 0.150 0.110 0.080 0.060
DRY_ONLY NO
[RAINGAGES]
;; Rain Time Snow Data
;;Name Type Intrvl Catch Source ;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;; Total Pcnt. Pcnt. Curb Snow
;;Name Raingage Outlet Area Imperv Width Slope Length Pack
;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
DMA-1_SOIL_D oceanside POC-1 4.582 0 560 11.94 0
DMA-1_SOIL_C oceanside POC-1 9.688 0 160 11.88 0
[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-1_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-1_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction HydCon IMDmax
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-1_SOIL_D 9 0.0249 0.30
DMA-1_SOIL_C 6 0.0949 0.31
[OUTFALLS]
;; Invert Outfall Stage/Table Tide
;;Name Elev. Type Time Series Gate
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- ----
POC-1 0 FREE NO
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------Oceanside FILE "S:\PROJECTS\12704 Marja Acres\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWMM\OsideRain.prn"
[REPORT]
INPUT NO
CONTROLS NO
SUBCATCHMENTS ALL
NODES ALL
LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS -2332.031 5700.000 3253.906 12300.000
Units None
Marja Estates -Pre Development
Page 1
[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord ;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC-1 750.000 6000.000
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA-1_SOIL_D -300.128 9524.130
DMA-1_SOIL_C 1825.112 9531.310
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
oceanside 726.593 10550.851
Marja Estates -Pre Development
Page 2
Marja Estates ‐ Proposed
[TITLE]
Marja Estates - Proposed
[OPTIONS]
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
START_DATE 10/17/1948
START_TIME 00:00:00REPORT_START_DATE 10/05/1948
REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00
END_DATE 10/05/2005
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
ALLOW_PONDING NO
INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL
VARIABLE_STEP 0.75
LENGTHENING_STEP 0
MIN_SURFAREA 0
NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO
FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-WLINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
[EVAPORATION]
;;Type Parameters
;;---------- ----------
MONTHLY 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.150 0.170 0.190 0.190 0.180 0.150 0.110 0.080 0.060
DRY_ONLY NO
[RAINGAGES]
;; Rain Time Snow Data
;;Name Type Intrvl Catch Source ;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;; Total Pcnt. Pcnt. Curb Snow
;;Name Raingage Outlet Area Imperv Width Slope Length Pack
;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
DMA-1_SOIL_D oceanside BF-1 1.0603 44.62 210 2 0
DMA-2_SOIL_D oceanside BF-2 0.9011 70.30 105 2.0 0
DMA-3_SOIL_D oceanside BF-3 0.6663 75.24 115 2.0 0
DMA-3_SOIL_C oceanside BF-3 0.1064 56.18 118 2.0 0
DMA-4_SOIL_C oceanside BF-4 2.7996 63.85 210 2.0 0 DMA-4_SOIL_D oceanside BF-4 3.3035 63.85 250 2.0 0
DMA-5_SOIL_C oceanside BF-5 1.1348 47.75 230 2.0 0
DMA-5_SOIL_D oceanside BF-5 0.5318 77.15 210 2.0 0
DMA-6_SOIL_C oceanside BF-6 1.5963 66.75 180 2.0 0
DMA-6_SOIL_D oceanside BF-6 2.9193 66.45 225 2.0 0
DMA-7_SOIL_C oceanside BF-7 2.7477 66.28 135 2.0 0
DMA-7_SOIL_D oceanside BF-7 0.4548 75.70 130 2.0 0
DMA-8_SOIL_C oceanside POC-1 0.2993 62.81 90 7.5 0
DMA-9_SOIL_C oceanside POC-1 0.4373 48.12 82 4.5 0
DMA-12_SOIL_D oceanside POC-1 0.044 0 55 30 0
BF-1 oceanside UG1 0.044743 0 15 0 0
BF-2 oceanside UG1 0.025207 0 10 0 0
BF-3 oceanside BF3-DIV 0.054178 0 15 0 0
BF-4 oceanside BF4-DIV 0.177318 0 23 0 0
BF-5 oceanside BF5-DIV 0.038843 0 15 0 0
BF-6 oceanside BF6-DIV 0.099793 0 15 0 0
BF-7 oceanside BF7-DIV 0.08191 0 48 0 0
[SUBAREAS];;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-1_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-2_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-3_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-3_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-4_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-4_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-5_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 1
DMA-5_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-6_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-6_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA-7_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
DMA-7_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
DMA-8_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
DMA-9_SOIL_C 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
DMA-12_SOIL_D 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
BF-1 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET BF-2 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
BF-3 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
BF-4 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
BF-5 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
BF-6 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
BF-7 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction HydCon IMDmax
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA-1_SOIL_D 9 0.01875 0.30
DMA-2_SOIL_D 9 0.01875 0.30
DMA-3_SOIL_D 9 0.01875 0.30
DMA-3_SOIL_C 6 0.075 0.31
DMA-4_SOIL_C 6 0.075 0.31
DMA-4_SOIL_D 9 0.01875 0.30
DMA-5_SOIL_C 6 0.075 0.31
DMA-5_SOIL_D 9 0.01875 0.30
DMA-6_SOIL_C 6 0.075 0.31 DMA-6_SOIL_D 9 0.01875 0.30
DMA-7_SOIL_C 6.0 0.075 0.31
DMA-7_SOIL_D 9 0.01875 0.30
DMA-8_SOIL_C 6.0 0.075 0.31
DMA-9_SOIL_C 6.0 0.075 0.31
DMA-12_SOIL_D 9.0 0.01875 0.30
BF-1 9 0.01875 0.30
BF-2 9.0 0.01875 0.30
BF-3 6.0 0.075 0.31
BF-4 6.0 0.075 0.31
BF-5 6.0 0.075 0.31
BF-6 6.0 0.075 0.31 BF-7 6.0 0.075 0.31
[LID_CONTROLS]
;; Type/Layer Parameters
;;-------------- ---------- ----------
BF-1 BC
BF-1 SURFACE 10.62 0 0 0 5
BF-1 SOIL 18 0.40 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5
BF-1 STORAGE 36 0.67 0 0
BF-1 DRAIN 0.2067 0.5 3 6
BF-2 BCBF-2 SURFACE 7.2 0 0 0 5
BF-2 SOIL 18 0.40 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5
BF-2 STORAGE 33 0.67 0 0
BF-2 DRAIN 0.2456 0.5 3 6
BF-3 BC
BF-3 SURFACE 10.2 0.0 0 0 5
BF-3 SOIL 18 0.40 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5
BF-3 STORAGE 39 0.67 0 0
BF-3 DRAIN 0.1143 0.5 3 6
BF-4 BC
BF-4 SURFACE 27.76 0.0 0 0 5
BF-4 SOIL 18 0.40 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5
BF-4 STORAGE 51 0.67 0 0
BF-4 DRAIN 0.2332 0.5 3 6
BF-5 BC
BF-5 SURFACE 10.95 0.0 0 0 5 BF-5 SOIL 21 0.40 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5
BF-5 STORAGE 39 0.67 0 0
BF-5 DRAIN 0.9524 0.5 3 6
BF-6 BC
BF-6 SURFACE 15.06 0.0 0 0 5
BF-6 SOIL 18 0.40 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5
BF-6 STORAGE 39 0.67 0 0
BF-6 DRAIN 0.4412 0.5 3 6
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 2
BF-7 BC
BF-7 SURFACE 11.15 0.0 0 0 5
BF-7 SOIL 18 0.40 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5
BF-7 STORAGE 51 0.67 0 0
BF-7 DRAIN 0.3734 0.5 3 6
[LID_USAGE]
;;Subcatchment LID Process Number Area Width InitSatur FromImprv ToPerv Report File;;-------------- ---------------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
BF-1 BF-1 1 1949.0 15 0 100 0
BF-2 BF-2 1 1098 10 0 100 0
BF-3 BF-3 1 2360 15 0 100 0
BF-4 BF-4 1 7724 23 0 100 0
BF-5 BF-5 1 1692 15 0 100 0
BF-6 BF-6 1 4347 15 0 100 0
BF-7 BF-7 1 3567 48 0 100 0
[OUTFALLS]
;; Invert Outfall Stage/Table Tide
;;Name Elev. Type Time Series Gate
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- ----
POC-1 0 FREE NO
[DIVIDERS]
;; Invert Diverted Divider
;;Name Elev. Link Type Parameters
;;-------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- ----------BF3-DIV 0 BYPASS3 CUTOFF 0.03736 0 0 0 0
BF4-DIV 0 BYPASS4 CUTOFF 0.27838 0 0 0 0
BF5-DIV 0 BYPASS5 CUTOFF 0.21905 0 0 0 0
BF6-DIV 0 BYPASS6 CUTOFF 0.25991 0 0 0 0
BF7-DIV 0 BYPASS7 CUTOFF 0.21119 0 0 0 0
[STORAGE]
;; Invert Max. Init. Storage Curve Ponded Evap.
;;Name Elev. Depth Depth Curve Params Area Frac. Infiltration Para
;;-------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----------------
BASIN3 0 2.75 0 TABULAR BASIN3 2360 1
BASIN4 0 3.25 0 TABULAR BASIN4 9763 1 BASIN5 0 1.5 0 TABULAR BASIN5 2057 1
BASIN6 0 1.63 0 TABULAR BASIN6 7438 1
BASIN7 0 2.125 0 TABULAR BASIN7 4458 1
UG1 0 12 0 TABULAR UG1 2716 0
[CONDUITS]
;; Inlet Outlet Manning Inlet Outlet Init. Max.
;;Name Node Node Length N Offset Offset Flow Flow
;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
UDRAIN3 BF3-DIV UG1 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
UDRAIN4 BF4-DIV POC-1 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
UDRAIN5 BF5-DIV UG1 10 0.01 0 0 0 0 UDRAIN6 BF6-DIV UG1 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
UDRAIN7 BF7-DIV UG1 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
BYPASS3 BF3-DIV BASIN3 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
BYPASS4 BF4-DIV BASIN4 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
BYPASS5 BF5-DIV BASIN5 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
BYPASS6 BF6-DIV BASIN6 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
BYPASS7 BF7-DIV BASIN7 10 0.01 0 0 0 0
[OUTLETS]
;; Inlet Outlet Outflow Outlet Qcoeff/ Flap
;;Name Node Node Height Type QTable Qexpon Gate
;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ---------- ----
ORIFICE3 BASIN3 UG1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-3 NO
ORIFICE4 BASIN4 POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-4 NO
ORIFICE5 BASIN5 UG1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-5 NO
ORIFICE6 BASIN6 UG1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH UG1-1 NO
ORIFICE7 BASIN7 UG1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLET-7 NO
UG1OUTLET UG1 POC-1 0 TABULAR/HEAD UG1-1 NO
[XSECTIONS]
;;Link Shape Geom1 Geom2 Geom3 Geom4 Barrels
;;-------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
UDRAIN3 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
UDRAIN4 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
UDRAIN5 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
UDRAIN6 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
UDRAIN7 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
BYPASS3 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 3
BYPASS4 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
BYPASS5 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1 BYPASS6 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
BYPASS7 DUMMY 0 0 0 0 1
[LOSSES]
;;Link Inlet Outlet Average Flap Gate
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
[CURVES]
;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
OUTLET-3 Rating 0.000 0.000
OUTLET-3 0.042 0.026
OUTLET-3 0.083 0.075
OUTLET-3 0.125 0.137
OUTLET-3 0.167 0.211
OUTLET-3 0.208 0.288
OUTLET-3 0.250 0.333
OUTLET-3 0.292 0.372
OUTLET-3 0.333 0.408
OUTLET-3 0.375 0.441
OUTLET-3 0.417 0.471
OUTLET-3 0.458 0.500
OUTLET-3 0.500 0.527
OUTLET-3 0.542 0.552
OUTLET-3 0.583 0.577
OUTLET-3 0.625 0.600 OUTLET-3 0.667 0.623
OUTLET-3 0.708 0.645
OUTLET-3 0.750 0.666
OUTLET-3 0.792 0.687
OUTLET-3 0.833 0.707
OUTLET-3 0.875 0.726
OUTLET-3 0.917 0.745
OUTLET-3 0.958 0.763
OUTLET-3 1.000 0.781
OUTLET-3 1.042 0.799
OUTLET-3 1.083 0.816
OUTLET-3 1.125 0.833 OUTLET-3 1.167 0.849
OUTLET-3 1.208 0.865
OUTLET-3 1.250 0.881
OUTLET-3 1.292 1.213
OUTLET-3 1.333 1.807
OUTLET-3 1.375 2.571
OUTLET-3 1.417 3.473
OUTLET-3 1.458 4.494
OUTLET-3 1.500 5.621
OUTLET-3 1.542 6.845
OUTLET-3 1.583 8.158
OUTLET-3 1.625 9.556 OUTLET-3 1.667 11.032
OUTLET-3 1.708 12.583
OUTLET-3 1.750 14.205
OUTLET-3 1.792 15.896
OUTLET-3 1.833 17.653
OUTLET-3 1.875 19.473
OUTLET-3 1.917 21.354
OUTLET-3 1.958 23.294
OUTLET-3 2.000 25.292
OUTLET-3 2.042 27.345
OUTLET-3 2.083 29.453
OUTLET-3 2.125 31.614
OUTLET-3 2.167 33.826
OUTLET-3 2.208 36.089
OUTLET-3 2.250 38.401
OUTLET-3 2.292 40.761
OUTLET-3 2.333 43.169
OUTLET-3 2.375 45.624
OUTLET-3 2.417 48.124 OUTLET-3 2.458 50.668
OUTLET-3 2.500 53.257
OUTLET-3 2.542 55.889
OUTLET-3 2.583 58.563
OUTLET-3 2.625 61.279
OUTLET-3 2.667 64.037
OUTLET-3 2.708 66.835
OUTLET-3 2.750 69.673
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 4
OUTLET-4 Rating 0.000 0.000
OUTLET-4 0.042 0.040 OUTLET-4 0.083 0.112
OUTLET-4 0.125 0.206
OUTLET-4 0.167 0.316
OUTLET-4 0.208 0.433
OUTLET-4 0.250 0.500
OUTLET-4 0.292 0.559
OUTLET-4 0.333 0.612 OUTLET-4 0.375 0.661
OUTLET-4 0.417 0.707
OUTLET-4 0.458 0.749
OUTLET-4 0.500 0.790
OUTLET-4 0.542 0.829
OUTLET-4 0.583 0.865
OUTLET-4 0.625 0.901
OUTLET-4 0.667 0.935
OUTLET-4 0.708 0.968
OUTLET-4 0.750 0.999
OUTLET-4 0.792 1.030
OUTLET-4 0.833 1.060
OUTLET-4 0.875 1.089
OUTLET-4 0.917 1.117
OUTLET-4 0.958 1.145
OUTLET-4 1.000 1.172
OUTLET-4 1.042 1.198
OUTLET-4 1.083 1.224
OUTLET-4 1.125 1.249 OUTLET-4 1.167 1.274
OUTLET-4 1.208 1.298
OUTLET-4 1.250 1.322
OUTLET-4 1.292 1.345
OUTLET-4 1.333 1.368
OUTLET-4 1.375 1.391
OUTLET-4 1.417 1.413
OUTLET-4 1.458 1.435
OUTLET-4 1.500 1.457
OUTLET-4 1.542 1.478
OUTLET-4 1.583 1.499
OUTLET-4 1.625 1.520 OUTLET-4 1.667 1.540
OUTLET-4 1.708 1.560
OUTLET-4 1.750 1.580
OUTLET-4 1.792 1.705
OUTLET-4 1.833 1.917
OUTLET-4 1.875 2.186
OUTLET-4 1.917 2.501
OUTLET-4 1.958 2.831
OUTLET-4 2.000 3.029
OUTLET-4 2.042 3.205
OUTLET-4 2.083 3.365
OUTLET-4 2.125 3.514 OUTLET-4 2.167 3.654
OUTLET-4 2.208 3.786
OUTLET-4 2.250 3.912
OUTLET-4 2.292 4.348
OUTLET-4 2.333 5.042
OUTLET-4 2.375 5.903
OUTLET-4 2.417 6.898
OUTLET-4 2.458 8.008
OUTLET-4 2.500 9.222
OUTLET-4 2.542 10.530
OUTLET-4 2.583 11.926
OUTLET-4 2.625 13.403
OUTLET-4 2.667 14.957
OUTLET-4 2.708 16.584
OUTLET-4 2.750 18.281
OUTLET-4 2.792 20.045
OUTLET-4 2.833 21.873
OUTLET-4 2.875 23.763
OUTLET-4 2.917 25.712 OUTLET-4 2.958 27.720
OUTLET-4 3.000 29.784
OUTLET-4 3.042 31.903
OUTLET-4 3.083 34.074
OUTLET-4 3.125 36.298
OUTLET-4 3.167 38.573
OUTLET-4 3.208 40.897
OUTLET-4 3.250 43.270
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 5
OUTLET-5 Rating 0.000 0.000
OUTLET-5 0.042 0.040 OUTLET-5 0.083 0.112
OUTLET-5 0.125 0.206
OUTLET-5 0.167 0.316
OUTLET-5 0.208 0.433
OUTLET-5 0.250 0.500
OUTLET-5 0.292 0.559
OUTLET-5 0.333 0.612 OUTLET-5 0.375 0.872
OUTLET-5 0.417 1.303
OUTLET-5 0.458 1.845
OUTLET-5 0.500 2.477
OUTLET-5 0.542 3.187
OUTLET-5 0.583 3.965
OUTLET-5 0.625 4.807
OUTLET-5 0.667 5.403
OUTLET-5 0.708 5.863
OUTLET-5 0.750 6.287
OUTLET-5 0.792 6.999
OUTLET-5 0.833 7.950
OUTLET-5 0.875 9.053
OUTLET-5 0.917 10.276
OUTLET-5 0.958 11.605
OUTLET-5 1.000 13.027
OUTLET-5 1.042 14.535
OUTLET-5 1.083 16.123
OUTLET-5 1.125 17.786 OUTLET-5 1.167 19.519
OUTLET-5 1.208 21.320
OUTLET-5 1.250 23.185
OUTLET-5 1.292 25.113
OUTLET-5 1.333 27.100
OUTLET-5 1.375 29.145
OUTLET-5 1.417 31.247
OUTLET-5 1.458 33.402
OUTLET-5 1.500 35.611
OUTLET-6 Rating 0.000 0.000
OUTLET-6 0.042 0.040 OUTLET-6 0.083 0.112
OUTLET-6 0.125 0.206
OUTLET-6 0.167 0.316
OUTLET-6 0.208 0.433
OUTLET-6 0.250 0.500
OUTLET-6 0.292 0.559
OUTLET-6 0.333 0.612
OUTLET-6 0.375 0.872
OUTLET-6 0.417 1.303
OUTLET-6 0.458 1.845
OUTLET-6 0.500 2.477
OUTLET-6 0.542 3.187 OUTLET-6 0.583 3.965
OUTLET-6 0.625 4.807
OUTLET-6 0.667 5.403
OUTLET-6 0.708 5.863
OUTLET-6 0.750 6.287
OUTLET-6 0.792 6.999
OUTLET-6 0.833 7.950
OUTLET-6 0.875 9.053
OUTLET-6 0.917 10.276
OUTLET-6 0.958 11.605
OUTLET-6 1.000 13.027
OUTLET-6 1.042 14.535
OUTLET-6 1.083 16.123
OUTLET-6 1.125 17.786
OUTLET-6 1.167 19.519
OUTLET-6 1.208 21.320
OUTLET-6 1.250 23.185
OUTLET-6 1.292 25.113
OUTLET-6 1.333 27.100 OUTLET-6 1.375 29.145
OUTLET-6 1.417 31.247
OUTLET-6 1.458 33.402
OUTLET-6 1.500 35.611
OUTLET-6 1.542 37.871
OUTLET-6 1.583 40.182
OUTLET-6 1.625 42.542
OUTLET-7 Rating 0.000 0.000
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 6
OUTLET-7 0.042 0.040
OUTLET-7 0.083 0.112 OUTLET-7 0.125 0.206
OUTLET-7 0.167 0.316
OUTLET-7 0.208 0.433
OUTLET-7 0.250 0.500
OUTLET-7 0.292 0.559
OUTLET-7 0.333 0.612
OUTLET-7 0.375 0.872 OUTLET-7 0.417 1.303
OUTLET-7 0.458 1.845
OUTLET-7 0.500 2.477
OUTLET-7 0.542 3.187
OUTLET-7 0.583 3.965
OUTLET-7 0.625 4.807
OUTLET-7 0.667 5.403
OUTLET-7 0.708 5.863
OUTLET-7 0.750 6.287
OUTLET-7 0.792 6.999
OUTLET-7 0.833 7.950
OUTLET-7 0.875 9.053
OUTLET-7 0.917 10.276
OUTLET-7 0.958 11.605
OUTLET-7 1.000 13.027
OUTLET-7 1.042 14.535
OUTLET-7 1.083 16.123
OUTLET-7 1.125 17.786
OUTLET-7 1.167 19.519 OUTLET-7 1.208 21.320
OUTLET-7 1.250 23.185
OUTLET-7 1.292 25.113
OUTLET-7 1.333 27.100
OUTLET-7 1.375 29.145
OUTLET-7 1.417 31.247
OUTLET-7 1.458 33.402
OUTLET-7 1.500 35.611
OUTLET-7 1.542 37.871
OUTLET-7 1.583 40.182
OUTLET-7 1.625 42.542
OUTLET-7 1.667 44.950 OUTLET-7 1.708 47.406
OUTLET-7 1.750 49.907
OUTLET-7 1.792 52.454
OUTLET-7 1.833 55.045
OUTLET-7 1.875 57.680
OUTLET-7 1.917 60.357
OUTLET-7 1.958 63.078
OUTLET-7 2.000 65.839
OUTLET-7 2.042 68.642
OUTLET-7 2.083 71.484
OUTLET-7 2.125 74.367
UG1-1 Rating 0.000 0.000
UG1-1 0.200 0.074
UG1-1 0.300 0.101
UG1-1 0.400 0.122
UG1-1 0.500 0.140
UG1-1 0.600 0.156
UG1-1 0.700 0.170
UG1-1 0.800 0.215
UG1-1 0.900 0.316
UG1-1 1.000 0.469
UG1-1 1.100 0.669
UG1-1 1.200 0.909
UG1-1 1.300 1.182
UG1-1 1.400 1.482
UG1-1 1.500 1.799
UG1-1 1.600 2.128
UG1-1 1.700 2.349
UG1-1 1.800 2.528
UG1-1 1.900 2.694 UG1-1 2.000 2.851
UG1-1 2.100 2.999
UG1-1 2.200 3.140
UG1-1 2.300 3.275
UG1-1 2.400 3.405
UG1-1 2.500 3.529
UG1-1 2.600 3.649
UG1-1 2.700 3.766
UG1-1 2.800 3.879
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 7
UG1-1 2.900 3.988
UG1-1 3.000 4.095 UG1-1 3.100 4.199
UG1-1 3.200 4.300
UG1-1 3.300 4.399
UG1-1 3.400 4.496
UG1-1 3.500 4.591
UG1-1 3.600 4.684
UG1-1 3.700 4.775 UG1-1 3.800 4.864
UG1-1 3.900 4.951
UG1-1 4.000 5.038
UG1-1 4.100 5.122
UG1-1 4.200 5.206
UG1-1 4.300 5.288
UG1-1 4.400 5.368
UG1-1 4.500 5.448
UG1-1 4.600 5.526
UG1-1 4.700 5.603
UG1-1 4.800 5.680
UG1-1 4.900 5.755
UG1-1 5.000 5.829
UG1-1 5.100 5.902
UG1-1 5.200 5.975
UG1-1 5.300 6.046
UG1-1 5.400 6.117
UG1-1 5.500 6.187
UG1-1 5.600 6.256 UG1-1 5.700 6.324
UG1-1 5.800 6.392
UG1-1 5.900 6.459
UG1-1 6.000 6.525
UG1-1 6.100 6.590
UG1-1 6.200 6.655
UG1-1 6.300 6.720
UG1-1 6.400 6.783
UG1-1 6.500 6.846
UG1-1 6.600 6.909
UG1-1 6.700 6.971
UG1-1 6.800 7.032 UG1-1 6.900 7.093
UG1-1 7.000 7.153
UG1-1 7.100 7.213
UG1-1 7.200 7.272
UG1-1 7.300 7.331
UG1-1 7.400 7.390
UG1-1 7.500 7.447
UG1-1 7.600 7.505
UG1-1 7.700 7.562
UG1-1 7.800 7.619
UG1-1 7.900 7.675
UG1-1 8.000 7.731 UG1-1 8.100 7.786
UG1-1 8.200 7.841
UG1-1 8.300 7.895
UG1-1 8.400 7.950
UG1-1 8.500 8.004
UG1-1 8.600 8.057
UG1-1 8.700 8.110
UG1-1 8.800 8.163
UG1-1 8.900 8.215
UG1-1 9.000 8.268
UG1-1 9.100 8.319
UG1-1 9.200 8.371
UG1-1 9.300 8.422
UG1-1 9.400 8.473
UG1-1 9.500 8.523
UG1-1 9.600 8.574
UG1-1 9.700 8.624
UG1-1 9.800 8.673
UG1-1 9.900 8.723 UG1-1 10.000 8.772
UG1-1 10.100 8.821
UG1-1 10.200 8.869
UG1-1 10.300 8.918
UG1-1 10.400 8.966
UG1-1 10.500 9.013
UG1-1 10.600 9.061
UG1-1 10.700 9.108
UG1-1 10.800 9.155
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 8
UG1-1 10.900 9.202
UG1-1 11.000 9.249 UG1-1 11.100 9.295
UG1-1 11.200 9.341
UG1-1 11.300 9.387
UG1-1 11.400 9.433
UG1-1 11.500 9.478
UG1-1 11.600 10.111
UG1-1 11.700 11.232 UG1-1 11.800 12.669
UG1-1 11.900 14.363
UG1-1 12.000 16.278
BASIN3 Storage 0 2360
BASIN3 1 2360
BASIN3 1.5 2360
BASIN3 2.0 2360
BASIN3 2.5 2360
BASIN3 2.75 2360
BASIN4 Storage 0 7724
BASIN4 0.5 8102
BASIN4 1.0 8454
BASIN4 1.5 8763
BASIN4 2.0 9065
BASIN4 2.5 9361
BASIN4 3.0 9649
BASIN4 3.25 9763
BASIN5 Storage 0 1692
BASIN5 0.5 1811
BASIN5 1.0 1934
BASIN5 1.5 2057
BASIN6 Storage 0 4347
BASIN6 0.5 5398
BASIN6 1.0 6464
BASIN6 1.5 7234
BASIN6 1.6 7438
BASIN7 Storage 0 3567
BASIN7 0.5 3762
BASIN7 1.0 3991
BASIN7 1.5 4208
BASIN7 2.0 4418
BASIN7 2.1 4458
UG1 Storage 0 2716
UG1 12 2716
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value ;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Oceanside FILE "C:\Users\Alex Parra\Dropbox\AP PROJECTS\100.54 HWL Marja\SWQMP\SWMM\OsideRain.prn"
[REPORT]
INPUT NO
CONTROLS NO
SUBCATCHMENTS ALL
NODES ALL
LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS -2332.031 5700.000 3253.906 12300.000
Units None
[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------POC-1 1152.824 5116.408
BF3-DIV -616.000 8828.532
BF4-DIV -1205.608 6662.625
BF5-DIV 460.937 9255.697
BF6-DIV 2247.811 9009.025
BF7-DIV 3300.682 8449.499
BASIN3 -1139.427 8479.581
BASIN4 -1428.215 6091.067
BASIN5 -188.835 8996.992
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 9
BASIN6 1543.891 9237.648
BASIN7 2680.992 8774.385 UG1 1158.841 6097.083
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
[Polygons];;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA-1_SOIL_D -2902.235 8190.793
DMA-2_SOIL_D -2571.332 8894.713
DMA-3_SOIL_D -1855.380 9532.452
DMA-3_SOIL_C -1313.903 9899.453
DMA-4_SOIL_C -3305.334 6969.462
DMA-4_SOIL_D -3064.678 7571.103
DMA-5_SOIL_C -363.310 10146.126
DMA-5_SOIL_D 214.265 10308.569
DMA-6_SOIL_C 2362.123 10278.487
DMA-6_SOIL_D 2915.632 10188.241
DMA-7_SOIL_C 3818.093 9682.862
DMA-7_SOIL_D 4389.652 9261.714
DMA-8_SOIL_C 4148.996 7787.694
DMA-9_SOIL_C 4365.587 7125.889
DMA-12_SOIL_D 4573.908 6317.959
BF-1 -1957.659 7631.267
BF-2 -1717.002 8329.170 BF-3 -1031.132 9201.550
BF-4 -2065.954 6867.183
BF-5 232.314 9718.961
BF-6 2464.401 9556.518
BF-7 3721.831 9057.156
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
oceanside 1279.169 10531.176
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 10
Sub Catchment Areas:
Please refer to the attached diagrams that indicate the DMA and Bio‐FILTRATION BMPs
(BMP) sub areas modeled within the project site at both the pre and post developed
conditions draining to the POC.
Selection of a Kinematic Approach: As the continuous model is based on hourly rainfall,
and the time of concentration for the pre‐development and post‐development conditions
is significantly smaller than 60 minutes, precise routing of the flows through the
impervious surfaces, the underdrain pipe system, and the discharge pipe was considered
unnecessary. The truncation error of the precipitation into hourly steps is much more
significant than the precise routing in a system where the time of concentration is much
smaller than 1 hour.
Sub‐catchment BMP:
The area of bio‐FILTRATION must be equal to the area of the development tributary to
the bio‐FILTRATION facility (area that drains into the bio‐FILTRATION, equal external area
plus bio‐FILTRATION itself). Five (5) decimal places were given regarding the areas of the
bio‐FILTRATION to ensure that the area used by the program for the LID subroutine
corresponds exactly with this tributary.
ATTACHMENT VII
EXPLANATION OF SELECTED VARIABLES
ATTACHMENT VII
Geotechnical - Web Soils Survey
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
(Marja Carlsbad CA)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 1 of 436677603667850366794036680303668120366821036683003667760366785036679403668030366812036682103668300470860470950471040471130471220471310471400471490471580471670
470860 470950 471040 471130 471220 471310 471400 471490 471580 471670
33° 9' 11'' N 117° 18' 46'' W33° 9' 11'' N117° 18' 11'' W33° 8' 53'' N
117° 18' 46'' W33° 8' 53'' N
117° 18' 11'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,080 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/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
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 12, Sep 13, 2017
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.
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California
(Marja Carlsbad CA)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 2 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
DaC Diablo clay, 2 to 9
percent slopes
D 3.6 4.7%
DaE2 Diablo clay, 15 to 30
percent slopes,
eroded, warm MAAT,
MLRA 20
C 5.4 7.0%
LeC Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 2 to 9 percent
slopes
D 19.3 25.0%
LeC2 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 5 to 9 percent
slopes, eroded
D 0.1 0.1%
LeD2 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 9 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
D 12.2 15.7%
LeE2 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 15 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded
D 7.0 9.1%
LeE3 Las Flores loamy fine
sand, 9 to 30 percent
slopes, severely
eroded
D 4.1 5.3%
SbC Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
C 25.5 33.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 77.3 100.0%
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Marja Carlsbad CA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 3 of 4
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive
precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively
drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well
drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of
water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay
layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in
their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Marja Carlsbad CA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/19/2018
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT VIII
Summary files from SWMM Model
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.022)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marja Estates - Proposed
*********************************************************
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
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... YES
Ponding Allowed ........ NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE
Starting Date ............ OCT-17-1948 00:00:00
Ending Date .............. OCT-05-2005 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
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 1057.137 649.730
Evaporation Loss ......... 155.520 95.585
Infiltration Loss ........ 302.631 186.001
Surface Runoff ........... 613.632 377.146
Final Surface Storage ....0.030 0.018
Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.388
************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow .......0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 613.632 199.961
Groundwater Inflow .......0.000 0.000
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 1
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.022)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marja Estates - Proposed
*********************************************************
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
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... YES
Ponding Allowed ........ NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE
Starting Date ............ OCT-17-1948 00:00:00
Ending Date .............. OCT-05-2005 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
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit UDRAIN3
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit UDRAIN4
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit UDRAIN5
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit UDRAIN6
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit UDRAIN7
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit BYPASS3
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit BYPASS4
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit BYPASS5
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit BYPASS6
WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit BYPASS7
************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 1057.137 649.730
Evaporation Loss ......... 155.619 95.645
Infiltration Loss ........ 302.631 186.001
Surface Runoff ........... 613.432 377.023
Final Surface Storage .... 0.031 0.019
Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.379
************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 613.432 199.896
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 612.910 199.726
Internal Outflow ......... 0.265 0.086
Storage Losses ........... 0.187 0.061
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.011
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 1
******************************** 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
***************************
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_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 56.28 255.42 344.69 9.92 1.24 0.531
DMA-2_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 77.84 136.80 441.79 10.81 1.07 0.680 DMA-3_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 80.66 113.29 463.65 8.39 0.79 0.714
DMA-3_SOIL_C 649.73 0.00 56.02 254.60 347.66 1.00 0.12 0.535
DMA-4_SOIL_C 649.73 0.00 67.83 212.80 374.07 28.44 3.29 0.576
DMA-4_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 73.97 168.19 413.06 37.05 3.89 0.636
DMA-5_SOIL_C 649.73 0.00 49.95 306.02 299.77 9.24 1.32 0.461
DMA-5_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 80.23 103.81 475.41 6.86 0.63 0.732
DMA-6_SOIL_C 649.73 0.00 69.48 194.93 391.31 16.96 1.88 0.602
DMA-6_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 76.08 155.83 423.40 33.56 3.45 0.652
DMA-7_SOIL_C 649.73 0.00 71.92 199.21 382.72 28.55 3.22 0.589
DMA-7_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 79.77 110.67 468.37 5.78 0.54 0.721
DMA-8_SOIL_C 649.73 0.00 62.67 216.36 379.18 3.08 0.35 0.584
DMA-9_SOIL_C 649.73 0.00 49.88 303.21 303.08 3.60 0.51 0.466 DMA-12_SOIL_D 649.73 0.00 21.74 452.38 185.71 0.22 0.05 0.286
BF-1 649.73 8168.30 960.12 0.00 7918.54 9.62 1.16 0.898
BF-2 649.73 15793.24 1043.73 0.00 15515.48 10.62 1.09 0.944
BF-3 649.73 6384.92 954.92 0.00 6110.19 8.99 0.78 0.869
BF-4 649.73 13601.48 1026.29 0.00 13337.33 64.22 6.88 0.936
BF-5 649.73 15266.61 1079.74 0.00 14995.71 15.82 1.97 0.942
BF-6 649.73 18645.39 1058.58 0.00 18422.64 49.92 5.32 0.955
BF-7 649.73 15438.91 1041.75 0.00 15195.65 33.80 3.67 0.944
***********************
LID Performance Summary ***********************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Evap Infil Surface Drain Init. Final Pcnt.
Inflow Loss Loss Outflow Outflow Storage Storage Error
Subcatchment LID Control in in in in in in in
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BF-1 BF-1 8818.03 960.16 0.00 311.38 7607.47 0.00 0.00 -0.69
BF-2 BF-2 16442.97 1043.78 0.00 2263.00 13253.29 0.00 0.85 -0.72
BF-3 BF-3 7034.65 954.95 0.00 67.63 6042.77 0.00 0.00 -0.44
BF-4 BF-4 14251.21 1026.33 0.00 233.03 13104.75 0.00 0.83 -0.80
BF-5 BF-5 15916.34 1079.78 0.00 1002.25 13994.02 0.00 1.14 -1.01
BF-6 BF-6 19295.12 1058.62 0.00 1450.13 16973.11 0.00 0.85 -0.97
BF-7 BF-7 16088.64 1042.08 0.00 886.26 14314.21 0.00 0.85 -0.96
******************
Node Depth Summary
******************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max
Depth Depth HGL Occurrence
Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POC-1 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00
BF3-DIV DIVIDER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00
BF4-DIV DIVIDER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00
BF5-DIV DIVIDER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 2
BF6-DIV DIVIDER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00
BF7-DIV DIVIDER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 BASIN3 STORAGE 0.00 0.60 0.60 16880 21:21
BASIN4 STORAGE 0.00 2.30 2.30 16880 21:21
BASIN5 STORAGE 0.00 0.45 0.45 19902 17:03
BASIN6 STORAGE 0.00 1.63 1.63 16880 20:39
BASIN7 STORAGE 0.00 0.56 0.56 19902 17:15
UG1 STORAGE 0.02 8.09 8.09 16880 21:27
*******************
Node Inflow Summary
*******************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum Lateral Total
Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow
Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume
Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POC-1 OUTFALL 0.91 12.55 16880 21:22 6.902 199.711
BF3-DIV DIVIDER 0.78 0.78 16880 21:00 8.989 8.989
BF4-DIV DIVIDER 6.88 6.88 19902 17:15 64.216 64.216
BF5-DIV DIVIDER 1.97 1.97 19902 17:00 15.816 15.816
BF6-DIV DIVIDER 5.32 5.32 19902 17:15 49.920 49.920
BF7-DIV DIVIDER 3.67 3.67 19902 17:15 33.797 33.797
BASIN3 STORAGE 0.00 0.75 16880 21:00 0.000 0.098
BASIN4 STORAGE 0.00 6.60 19902 17:15 0.000 1.354 BASIN5 STORAGE 0.00 1.75 19902 17:00 0.000 0.749
BASIN6 STORAGE 0.00 5.06 19902 17:15 0.000 3.711
BASIN7 STORAGE 0.00 3.46 19902 17:15 0.000 1.771
UG1 STORAGE 2.25 10.43 19902 17:15 20.240 128.637
**********************
Node Surcharge Summary
**********************
Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth
Hours Above Crown Below Rim
Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BF3-DIV DIVIDER 499391.02 0.000 0.000
BF4-DIV DIVIDER 499391.02 0.000 0.000
BF5-DIV DIVIDER 499391.02 0.000 0.000
BF6-DIV DIVIDER 499391.02 0.000 0.000
BF7-DIV DIVIDER 499391.02 0.000 0.000
BASIN3 STORAGE 499391.02 0.605 2.145
BASIN4 STORAGE 499391.02 2.301 0.949
BASIN5 STORAGE 499391.02 0.451 1.049 BASIN6 STORAGE 499391.02 1.630 0.000
BASIN7 STORAGE 499391.02 0.556 1.569
UG1 STORAGE 499391.02 8.085 3.915
*********************
Node Flooding Summary
*********************
Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Maximum
Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded
Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Volume
Node Flooded CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 1000 ft3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIN6 2.67 2.86 19902 17:15 0.086 0.000
**********************
Storage Volume Summary
**********************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Avg E&I Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum
Volume Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow
Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 3
BASIN3 0.000 0 0 1.428 22 16880 21:20 0.59
BASIN4 0.001 0 2 19.617 68 16880 21:21 4.49 BASIN5 0.000 0 0 0.787 28 19902 17:02 1.75
BASIN6 0.004 0 1 9.784 100 10671 16:08 2.19
BASIN7 0.001 0 0 2.045 24 19902 17:15 3.46
UG1 0.064 0 0 21.964 67 16880 21:26 7.78
*********************** Outfall Loading Summary
***********************
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flow Avg. Max. Total
Freq. Flow Flow Volume
Outfall Node Pcnt. CFS CFS 10^6 gal
-----------------------------------------------------------
POC-1 6.35 0.23 12.55 199.711
-----------------------------------------------------------
System 6.35 0.23 12.55 199.711
********************
Link Flow Summary
********************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full
Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDRAIN3 DUMMY 0.04 6246 02:02
UDRAIN4 DUMMY 0.28 11047 14:00
UDRAIN5 DUMMY 0.22 1186 11:55
UDRAIN6 DUMMY 0.26 1186 11:48
UDRAIN7 DUMMY 0.21 10671 15:00
BYPASS3 DUMMY 0.75 16880 21:00
BYPASS4 DUMMY 6.60 19902 17:15
BYPASS5 DUMMY 1.75 19902 17:00
BYPASS6 DUMMY 5.06 19902 17:15 BYPASS7 DUMMY 3.46 19902 17:15
ORIFICE3 DUMMY 0.59 16880 21:21
ORIFICE4 DUMMY 4.49 16880 21:21
ORIFICE5 DUMMY 1.75 19902 17:03
ORIFICE6 DUMMY 2.19 16880 20:39
ORIFICE7 DUMMY 3.46 19902 17:15
UG1OUTLET DUMMY 7.78 16880 21:27
*************************
Conduit Surcharge Summary
*************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hours Hours
--------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity
Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UDRAIN3 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
UDRAIN4 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
UDRAIN5 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
UDRAIN6 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
UDRAIN7 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
BYPASS3 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
BYPASS4 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
BYPASS5 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
BYPASS6 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
BYPASS7 0.01 0.01 0.01 499391.02 0.01
Analysis begun on: Sat Dec 18 23:10:38 2021 Analysis ended on: Sat Dec 18 23:13:10 2021
Total elapsed time: 00:02:32
Marja Estates - Proposed
SWMM 5 Page 4
ATTACHMENT 3 Structural BMP Maintenance Information
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
Attachment 3a: Structural BMP Maintenance Information •The table below identifies the specific maintenance indicators and actions for the proposed structural BMPs.(Biofiltration Basins).•All proposed BMPs shall be access via proposed access road.•No features proposed to facilitate inspections as all inspections/measurements are based on visual observation.•For most maintenance actions, a truck is sufficient. A 10-15 cu-yd truck or backhoe may be necessary when removingsediment from BMP.•No proprietary parts or training necessary to perform activities for proposed BMPs.BMP: Biofiltration Basin MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ROUTINE ACTION MAINTENANCE INDICATOR FIELD MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Frequency (# of times per year) Vegetation Management for Aesthetics (optional) Average vegetation height greater than 12‐inches, emergence of trees or woody vegetation, Visual observation and random measurements throughout the side slope area Annually, prior to start of wet season Cut vegetation to an average height of 6‐inches and remove trimmings. Remove any trees, or woody vegetation. 1.0 Soil Repair Evidence of erosion Visual observation Annually, prior to start of wet season Reseed/revegetate barren spots prior to wet season 1.0 Standing Water Standing water for more than 96 hrs Visual observation Annually, 96 hours after a target storm (0.60 in) event Drain facility. Corrective action prior to wet season. Consult engineers if immediate solution is not evident. 1.0 Trash and Debris Trash and Debris present Visual observation Annually, prior to start of wet season Remove and dispose of trash and debris 1.0 Sediment Management Sediment depth exceeds 10% of the facility design Measure depth at apparent maximum and minimum accumulation of sediment. Calculate average depth Annually, prior to start of wet season Remove and properly dispose of sediment. Regrade if necessary. (expected every 2 years) 0.5 Underdrains Evidence of Clogging Visual Observation Annually, prior to start of wet season Corrective action prior to wet season. Consult engineers if immediate solution is not evident. 1.0 General Maintenance Inspection Inlet structures, outlet structures, side slopes or other features damaged, significant erosion, burrows, emergence of trees or woody vegetation, graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. Visual observation Annually, prior to start of wet season Corrective action prior to wet season. Consult engineers if immediate solution is not evident. 1.0 Reporting1.0
ATTACHMENT 3b
Maintenance Information for Modular Wetland Systems
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Guidelines for
Modular Wetland System - Linear
Maintenance Summary
o Remove Trash from Screening Device – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.
(5 minute average service time).
o Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.
(10 minute average service time).
o Replace Cartridge Filter Media – average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months.
(10-15 minute per cartridge average service time).
o Replace Drain Down Filter Media – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.
(5 minute average service time).
o Trim Vegetation – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.
(Service time varies).
System Diagram
Access to screening device, separation
chamber and cartridge filter
Access to drain
down filter
Pre-Treatment
Chamber
Biofiltration Chamber
Discharge
Chamber
Outflow
Pipe
Inflow Pipe
(optional)
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Procedures
Screening Device
1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre-Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry.
2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done
manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. 3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole
cover when completed.
Separation Chamber 1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before
maintaining the separation chamber.
2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. 3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed.
Cartridge Filters 1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters.
2. Enter separation chamber.
3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. 4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. 5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. 6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants.
7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside
supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. 8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed.
Drain Down Filter
1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. 2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place.
3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover.
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Notes
1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and
condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. 2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time.
3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. 4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local
regulations. 5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. 6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape
architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation.
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Procedure Illustration
Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted
directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck.
Separation Chamber
The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a
vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure
washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process.
www.modularwetlands.com
Cartridge Filters
The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have
removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck.
Drain Down Filter
The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with
new block.
www.modularwetlands.com
Trim Vegetation
Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall
be used on the plants. Irrigation
per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of
irrigation.
www.modularwetlands.com
Inspection Form
Modular Wetland System, Inc.
P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. Info@modularwetlands.com
For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( )_
Inspector Name Date / /Time AM / PM
Weather Condition Additional Notes
Yes
Depth:
Yes No
Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault):Size (22', 14' or etc.):
Other Inspection Items:
Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm
Office personnel to complete section to the left.
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176
Inspection Report
Modular Wetlands System
Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system?
Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber?
Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section.
Chamber:
Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly?
Structural Integrity:
Working Condition:
Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging theunit?
Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period?
Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting
pressure?
Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)?
Project Name
Project Address
Inspection Checklist
CommentsNo
Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes,
specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber.
Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system?
Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)?
Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below.
Sediment / Silt / Clay
Trash / Bags / Bottles
Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage
Waste:Plant Information
No Cleaning Needed
Recommended Maintenance
Additional Notes:
Damage to Plants
Plant Replacement
Plant Trimming
Schedule Maintenance as Planned
Needs Immediate Maintenance
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Report
Modular Wetland System, Inc.
P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. Info@modularwetlands.com
For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company (Date)
Contact Phone ( )_
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM
Weather Condition Additional Notes
Site Map #
Comments:
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176
Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition
Drain Down Pipe Condition
Discharge Chamber Condition
Drain Down Media Condition
Plant Condition
Media Filter Condition
Long:
MWS
Sedimentation
Basin
Total Debris
Accumulation
Condition of Media
25/50/75/100
(will be changed
@ 75%)
Operational Per
Manufactures'
Specifications
(If not, why?)
Lat:MWS Catch Basins
GPS Coordinates
of Insert
Manufacturer /
Description / Sizing
Trash
Accumulation
Foliage
Accumulation
Sediment
Accumulation
Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes
Office personnel to complete section to
the left.
Project Address
Project Name
Cleaning and Maintenance Report
Modular Wetlands System
MODEL #DIMENSIONS
WETLANDMEDIA
SURFACE AREA
(sq.ft.)
TREATMENT FLOW
RATE
(cfs)
MWS-L-4-4 4’ x 4’23 0.052
MWS-L-4-6 4’ x 6’32 0.073
MWS-L-4-8 4’ x 8’50 0.115
MWS-L-4-13 4’ x 13’63 0.144
MWS-L-4-15 4’ x 15’76 0.175
MWS-L-4-17 4’ x 17’90 0.206
MWS-L-4-19 4’ x 19’103 0.237
MWS-L-4-21 4’ x 21’117 0.268
MWS-L-6-8 7’ x 9’64 0.147
MWS-L-8-8 8’ x 8’100 0.230
MWS-L-8-12 8’ x 12’151 0.346
MWS-L-8-16 8’ x 16’201 0.462
MWS-L-8-20 9’ x 21’252 0.577
MWS-L-8-24 9’ x 25’302 0.693
MWS-L-10-20 10' x 20'302 0.693
VOLUME-BASED DESIGN
HORIZONTAL FLOW BIOFILTRATION ADVANTAGE
The Modular Wetlands® System Linear offers a unique advantage in the world of biofiltration due to it’s
exclusive horizontal flow design: Volume-Based Design. No other biofilter has the ability to be placed
downstream of detention ponds, extended dry detention basins, underground storage systems and permeable
paver reservoirs. The systems horizontal flow configuration and built-in orifice control allows it to be installed
with just 6” of fall between inlet and outlet pipe for a simple connection to projects with shallow downstream
tie-in points. In the example above the Modular Wetlands® is installed downstream of underground box
culvert storage. Designed for the water quality volume, the Modular Wetlands® will treat and discharge the
required volume within local drain down time requirements.
DESIGN SUPPORT
Bio Clean engineers are trained to provide you with superior support for all volume sizing configurations
throughout the country. Our vast knowledge of state and local regulations allow us to quickly and efficiently
size a system to maximize feasibility. Volume control and hydromodification regulations are expanding the
need to decrease the cost and size of your biofiltration system. Bio Clean will help you realize these cost
savings with the Modular Wetlands®, the only biofilter than can be used downstream of storage BMPs.
SPECIFICATIONS
FLOW-BASED
The Modular Wetlands® System Linear can be used in stand-alone applications to meet treatment flow
requirements. Since the Modular Wetlands® is the only biofiltration system that can accept inflow pipes several feet below the surface, it can be used not only in decentralized design applications but also as a large central end-of-the-line application for maximum feasibility.
ADVANTAGES
• BUILT-IN ORIFICE CONTROL STRUCTURE
• WORKS WITH DEEP INSTALLATIONS
• LOWER COST THAN FLOW BASED DESIGN
• MEETS LID REQUIREMENTS
Modular Wetlands® with
Arch Plastic Chambers
Modular Wetlands® with
Box Culvert Prestorage
ATTACHMENT 3c
Maintenance Information for Underground Detention Basins (UDB - UG1)
Maintenance should be conducted during dry weather when no flow is entering the system. Confined space entry is usually required to maintain the
Underground Detention Basins. Only personnel that are OSHA Confined Space Entry trained and certified may enter underground structures. Once
safety measures such as traffic control have been deployed, the access covers may be removed and the following activities may be conducted to
complete maintenance. All access covers will be securely replaced following inspection and/or maintenance
Inspection Activity Maintenance
Indicator(s) Field Measurement Minimum Frequency of
Inspection Maintenance Activity Minimum Maintenance
Frequency
Inspect vault twice during
the first wet season of
operation
N/A Visual inspection Post-construction Set cleaning frequency Post-construction
Inspect for cracks and
inlet/outlet area erosion Cracks or erosion present Visual inspection Semi-annually
Repair cracks/erosion.
Consult engineers if
immediate solution is not
evident.
As needed
Inspect for litter, oil and
grease from inlet/outlet
areas
Litter, oil or grease
present Visual inspection Beginning & end of rainy
season
Remove litter, oil and
grease Semi-annually
Inspect for accumulated
sediment
Sediment on the system
floor exceeds 6” Tape measure Annually, prior to start of
wet season
Remove sediment with
vacuum truck. No jetting
permitted to loosen
sediment.
Bi-annually or as needed
Inspect for trash and
debris Trash and debris present Visual inspection Semi-annually Remove trash and debris
(e.g. via vacuum truck) As needed
Inspect system for
movement of modules
Spacing of modules
exceeds ¾” Tape measure Semi-annually Consult engineers As needed
Inspect inlet and outlet
for obstruction(s) Obstruction is present Visual inspection Semi-annually Remove obstruction Semi-annually or as
needed
Report drawdown rate Drawdown rate exceeds
96 hours
Recording Device (pen &
paper, voice recorder,
etc.)
96 hours after wet
weather
Remove any
obstructions. Consult
engineers if immediate
solution not evident.
As needed
Lower
Costs
Installed savings compared
to traditional systems
Innovative design allows
quick and efficient
installation
Reduced labor and
excavation costs
Meets water quantity
requirements without
compromising land use
Increase
Options
Sizes ranging from 1'1" to
11'4" in 1" increments
Designed to exceed HS-20
loading with minimum of
6" cover
Locally manufactured in
a NPCA (National Precast
Concrete Association)
certified facility
Modular design maximizes
storage volume while
minimizes footprint and
cost
Minimize
Maintenance
Total accessible void
storage for easy
maintenance
Reclaim 100% of original
storage volume
High-strength precast
concrete provides up to 100
years of service life
Streamline
Design and
Installation
Structural stamp on each
project
Budget estimate for system
and installation
Complete set of drawings
Pre-construction meeting
Representative on site
during installation
PHONE 877 867 6872
WEB stormtrap.com
STORMTRAP MAINTENANCE MANUAL
1. Introduction
Regular inspections are recommended to ensure that the system is functioning as designed.
Please call your Authorized StormTrap Representative if you have questions in regards to the
inspection and maintenance of the StormTrap system. Prior to entry into any underground
storm sewer or underground detention systems, appropriate OSHA and local safety
regulations and guidelines should be followed.
2. Inspection Schedules for Municipalities
StormTrap Stormwater Management Systems are recommended for inspection whenever the
upstream and downstream catch basins and stormwater pipes of the stormwater collection
system are inspected or maintained. This will economize the cost of the inspection if it is done
at the same time the Municipal crews are visiting the area.
3. Inspection Schedules for Private Development
StormTrap Stormwater Mangement Systems, for a private development, are recommended
for inspection after each major storm water event. At a minimum, until a cleaning schedule
can be established, an annual inspection is recommended. If inspected on an annual basis,
the inspection should be conducted before the stormwater season begins to be sure that
everything is functioning properly for the upcoming storm season.
4. Inspection Process
Inspections should be done such that at least 2-3 days has lapsed since the most recent rain
event to allow for draining. Visually inspect the system at all manhole locations. Utilizing a
sediment pole, measure and document the amount of silt at each manhole location (Figure
1). Inspect each pipe opening to ensure that the silt level or any foreign objects are not
blocking the pipes. Be sure to inspect the outlet pipe(s) because this is typically the smallest
pipe in the system. It is common that most of the larger materials will be collected upstream
of the system in catch basins, and it is therefore important at time of inspections to check
these structures for large trash or blockages.
Remove any blockages if you can during the inspection process only if you can do so safely
from the top of the system without entering into the system. Do not go into the system
under any circumstances without proper ventilation equipment and training. Pass any
information requiring action onto the appropriate maintenance personnel if you cannot
remove the blockages from above during the inspection process. Be sure to describe the
location of each manhole and the type of material that needs to be removed.
The sediment level of the system should also be measured and recorded during the inspection
process. Recording the sediment level at each manhole is very important in order get a history
of sediment that can be graphed over time (i.e. years) in order to estimate when the system
will need to be maintained next. It is also important to keep these records to verify that the
inspection process was actually performed if anyone asks for your records in the future.
The sediment level in the underground detention system can be determined from the outside
of the system by opening up all the manholes and using a sediment pole to measure the
amount of sediment at each location. Force the stick to the bottom of the system and then
remove it and measure the amount of sediment at that location. Again, do not go into the
system under any circumstances without proper ventilation equipment and training.
5. When to Clean the System
Any blockages should be safely removed as soon as practical so that the Stormwater detention
system will fill and drain properly before the next stormwater event.
The Dry Detention System should be completely cleaned whenever the sediment occupies
more than 10% to 15% of the originally designed system’s volume. The Wet Detention
System should be cleaned when the sediment occupies more than 30% or 1/3rd of the
originally designed system’s volume. NOTE: Check with your municipality in regards to
cleaning criteria, as the allowable sediment before cleaning may be more or less then
described above.
6. How to Clean the StormTrap
The system should be completely cleaned back to 100% of the originally designed storage
volume whenever the above sediment levels have been reached. Be sure to wait at least 3
days after a stormwater event to be sure that the system is completely drained (if it is a Dry
Detention System), and all of the sediments have settled to the bottom of the system (if it is
a Wet Detention System).
Do not enter the System unless you are properly trained, equipped, and qualified to enter a
confined space as identified by local occupational safety and health regulations.
There are many maintenance companies that are in business to help you clean your
underground stormwater detention systems and water quality units. Please call your
StormTrap representative for referrals in your area.
A. Dry Detention System Cleaning
Maintenance is typically performed using a vacuum truck. Sediment should be flushed towards
a vacuum hose for thorough removal. For a Dry Detention System, remove the manhole cover
at the top of the system and lower a vacuum hose into one of the rows of the StormTrap
system. Open up the manhole at the opposite end of the StormTrap and use sewer jetting
equipment to force water in the same row from one end of the StormTrap row to the opposite
side. The rows of the StormTrap are completely open in one contiguous channel from one end
to the other for easy cleaning.
Place the vacuum hose and the sewer jetting equipment in the next row and repeat the
process until all of the rows have been cleaned.
When finished, replace all covers that were removed and dispose of the collected
material properly.
B. Wet Detention System Cleaning
If the system was designed to maintain a permanent pool of water, floatables and any oil
should be removed in a separate procedure prior to the removal of all sediment.
The floatable trash is removed first by using a bucket strainer to capture and remove any
floating debris.
The floatable oils are then removed off the top of the water by using the vacuum truck to
suck off any floatable fluids and liquids.
The next step is to use the vacuum truck to gently remove the clarified water above the
sediment layer.
The final step is to clean the sediment for each row as described above in the paragraph “A.
Dry Detention System Cleaning”. For smaller systems, the vacuum truck can remove all of
the sediment in the basin without using the sewer jetting equipment because of the smaller
space.
7. Inspection Reports
Proof of these inspections is the responsibility of the property owner. All inspection reports
and data should be kept on site or at a location where they will be accessible for years in the
future. Some municipalities require these inspection and cleaning reports to be forwarded to
the proper governmental permitting agency on an annual basis.
Refer to your local and national regulations for any additional maintenance requirements and
schedules not contained herein. Inspections should be a part of your standard operating
procedure.
Figure 1. During inspection, measure the distance from finished grade to the top of the
sediment inside the system.
Sample inspection and maintenance log
ATTACHMENT 3d
Maintenance Information for Tree Well
SD-1
Tree Wells
BMP MAINTENANCE FACT SHEET
FOR
SITE DESIGN BMP SD-1 TREE WELLS
Tree wells as site design BMPs are trees planted in configurations that allow storm water runoff to be directed into
the soil immediately surrounding the tree. The tree may be contained within a planter box or structural cells. The
surrounding area will be graded to direct runoff to the tree well. There may be features such as tree grates,
suspended pavement design, or shallow surface depressions designed to allow runoff into the tree well. Typical
tree well components include:
• Trees of the appropriate species for site conditions and constraints
• Available growing space based on tree species, soil type, water availability, surrounding land uses, and
project goals
• Entrance/opening that allows storm water runoff to flow into the tree well (e.g., a curb opening, tree
grate, or surface depression)
• Optional suspended pavement design to provide structural support for adjacent pavement without
requiring compaction of underlying layers
• Optional root barrier devices as needed; a root barrier is a device installed in the ground, between a tree
and the sidewalk, intended to guide roots down and away from the sidewalk in order to prevent sidewalk
lifting from tree roots
• Optional tree grates; to be considered to maximize available space for pedestrian circulation and to
protect tree roots from compaction related to pedestrian circulation; tree grates are typically made up of
porous material that will allow the runoff to soak through
• Optional shallow surface depression for ponding of excess runoff
• Optional planter box drain
Normal Expected Maintenance
Tree health shall be maintained as part of normal landscape maintenance. Additionally, ensure that storm water
runoff can be conveyed into the tree well as designed. That is, the opening that allows storm water runoff to flow
into the tree well (e.g., a curb opening, tree grate, or surface depression) shall not be blocked, filled, re-graded, or
otherwise changed in a manner that prevents storm water from draining into the tree well. A summary table of
standard inspection and maintenance indicators is provided within this Fact Sheet.
Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure
Tree wells are site design BMPs that normally do not require maintenance actions beyond routine landscape
maintenance. The normal expected maintenance described above ensures the BMP functionality. If changes have
been made to the tree well entrance / opening such that runoff is prevented from draining into the tree well (e.g.,
a curb inlet opening is blocked by debris or a grate is clogged causing runoff to flow around instead of into the tree
well, or a surface depression has been filled so runoff flows away from the tree well), the BMP is not performing as
intended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or erosion. Corrective maintenance will be
required to restore drainage into the tree well as designed.
Surface ponding of runoff directed into tree wells is expected to infiltrate/evapotranspirate within 24-96 hours
following a storm event. Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours following a storm event may be
detrimental to vegetation health, and surface ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event
poses a risk of vector (mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging or compaction of the soils
surrounding the tree. Loosen or replace the soils to restore drainage.
SD-1 Page 1 of 6
January 12, 2017
SD-1
Tree Wells
Other Special Considerations
Site design BMPs, such as tree wells, installed within a new development or redevelopment project are
components of an overall storm water management strategy for the project. The presence of site design BMPs
within a project is usually a factor in the determination of the amount of runoff to be managed with structural
BMPs (i.e., the amount of runoff expected to reach downstream retention or biofiltration basins that process
storm water runoff from the project as a whole). When site design BMPs are not maintained or are removed, this
can lead to clogging or failure of downstream structural BMPs due to greater delivery of runoff and pollutants than
intended for the structural BMP. Therefore, the [City Engineer] may require confirmation of maintenance of site
design BMPs as part of their structural BMP maintenance documentation requirements. Site design BMPs that
have been installed as part of the project should not be removed, nor should they be bypassed by re-routing roof
drains or re-grading surfaces within the project. If changes are necessary, consult the [City Engineer] to determine
requirements.
SD-1 Page 2 of 6
January 12, 2017
SD-1
Tree Wells
SUMMARY OF STANDARD INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR SD-1 TREE WELLS
The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection, operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless responsibility has been formally transferred to
an agency, community facilities district, homeowners association, property owners association, or other special district.
Maintenance frequencies listed in this table are average/typical frequencies. Actual maintenance needs are site-specific, and maintenance may be required more frequently.
Maintenance must be performed whenever needed, based on maintenance indicators presented in this table. The BMP owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections
to see when maintenance is needed based on the maintenance indicators. During the first year of operation of a structural BMP, inspection is recommended at least once prior
to August 31 and then monthly from September through May. Inspection during a storm event is also recommended. After the initial period of frequent inspections, the
minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based on the results of the first year inspections.
Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency
Tree health Routine actions as necessary to maintain tree health. • Inspect monthly.
• Maintenance when needed.
Dead or diseased tree Remove dead or diseased tree. Replace per original
plans.
• Inspect monthly.
• Maintenance when needed.
Standing water in tree well for longer than 24 hours
following a storm event
Surface ponding longer than approximately 24 hours
following a storm event may be detrimental to tree
health
Loosen or replace soils surrounding the tree to restore
drainage.
• Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger
storm event. If standing water is observed, increase
inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger
storm event.
• Maintenance when needed.
Presence of mosquitos/larvae
For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult
mosquitos, see
http://www.mosquito.org/biology
Disperse any standing water from the tree well to
nearby landscaping. Loosen or replace soils surrounding
the tree to restore drainage (and prevent standing
water).
• Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch or larger
storm event. If mosquitos are observed, increase
inspection frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger
storm event.
• Maintenance when needed
Entrance / opening to the tree well is blocked such that
storm water will not drain into the tree well (e.g., a curb
inlet opening is blocked by debris or a grate is clogged
causing runoff to flow around instead of into the tree
well; or a surface depression is filled such that runoff
drains away from the tree well)
Make repairs as appropriate to restore drainage into the
tree well.
• Inspect monthly.
• Maintenance when needed.
SD-1 Page 3 of 6
January 12, 2017
SD-1
Tree Wells
References
American Mosquito Control Association.
http://www.mosquito.org/
County of San Diego. 2014. Low Impact Development Handbook.
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/watersheds/susmp/lid.html
San Diego County Copermittees. 2016. Model BMP Design Manual, Appendix E, Fact Sheet SD-1.
http://www.projectcleanwater.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=250&Itemid=220
SD-1 Page 4 of 6
January 12, 2017
SD-1
Tree Wells
Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.:
Permit No.: APN(s):
Property / Development Name:
Responsible Party Name and Phone Number:
Property Address of BMP:
Responsible Party Address:
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR SD-1 TREE WELLS PAGE 1 of 2
Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted
Dead or diseased tree
Maintenance Needed?
☐ YES
☐ NO
☐ N/A
☐ Remove dead or diseased tree
☐ Replace per original plans
☐ Other / Comments:
Standing water in tree well for longer than 24
hours following a storm event
Surface ponding longer than approximately 24
hours following a storm event may be
detrimental to tree health
Maintenance Needed?
☐ YES
☐ NO
☐ N/A
☐ Loosen or replace soils surrounding the
tree to restore drainage
☐ Other / Comments:
SD-1 Page 5 of 6
January 12, 2017
SD-1
Tree Wells
Date: Inspector: BMP ID No.:
Permit No.: APN(s):
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR SD-1 TREE WELLS PAGE 2 of 2
Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Recommendation Date Description of Maintenance Conducted
Presence of mosquitos/larvae
For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and adult
mosquitos, see
http://www.mosquito.org/biology
Maintenance Needed?
☐ YES
☐ NO
☐ N/A
☐ Disperse any standing water from the tree
well to nearby landscaping
☐ Loosen or replace soils surrounding the
tree to restore drainage (and prevent
standing water)
☐ Other / Comments:
Entrance / opening to the tree well is blocked
such that storm water will not drain into the
tree well (e.g., a curb inlet opening is blocked by
debris or a grate is clogged causing runoff to
flow around instead of into the tree well; or a
surface depression is filled such that runoff
drains away from the tree well)
Maintenance Needed?
☐ YES
☐ NO
☐ N/A
☐ Make repairs as appropriate to restore
drainage into the tree well
☐ Other / Comments:
SD-1 Page 6 of 6
January 12, 2017
ATTACHMENT 3eDraft Maintenance agreement
2
RECORDING REQUESTD BY:
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
(property owner)
MAINTENANCE NOTIFICATION AGREEMENT FOR CATEGORY 1
STORMWATER
THIS AGREEMENT is made on the day of , 20 .
, the Owner(s) of the hereinafter described real property:
Address , Post Office Zip Code
Assessor Parcel No.(s)
List, identify, locate (plan/drawing number) and describe the Structural
Owner(s) of the above property acknowledge the existence of the storm water Structural Best Management Practice on the said
property. Perpetual maintenance of the Structural BMP(s) is the requirement of the State NPDES Permit, Order No. R9-2015-0001,
Section E.3.e.(1)( c) and the County of San Diego Watershed Protection Ordinance (WPO) Ordinance No. 10385 Section 67.812
through Section 67.814, and County BMP Design Manual (BMP DM) Chapters 7 & 8. In consideration of the requirement to
construct and maintain Structural BMP(s), as conditioned by Discretionary Permit, Grading Permit, and/or Building Permit (as may
be applicable), I/we hereby covenant and agree that:
1.I/We are the owner(s) of the existing (or to be constructed concurrently) premises located on the above described property.
2.I/We shall take the responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of the Structural BMP(s) as listed above in accordance with
-inspection reporting and verification for as long as I/we have
ownership of said property(ies).
3.I/We shall cooperate with and allow the County staff to come onto said property(ies) and perform inspection duties as
prescribed by local and state regulators.
4.I/We shall inform future buyer(s) or successors of said property(ies) of the existence and perpetual maintenance requirement
responsibilities for Structural BMP(s) as listed above and to ensure that such responsibility shall transfer to the future owner(s).
5.I/We will abide by all of the requirements and standards of Section 67.812 through Section 67.814 of the WPO (or renumbering
thereof) as it exists on the date of this Agreement, and which hereby is incorporated herein by reference.
This Agreement shall run with the land. If the subject property is conveyed to any other person, firm, or corporation, the instrument
that conveys title or any interest in or to said property, or any portion thereof, shall contain a provision transferring maintenance
responsibility for Structural BMP(s) to the successive owner according to the terms of this Agreement. Any violation of this
Agreement is grounds for the County to impose penalties upon the property owner as prescribed in County Code of Regulatory
Ordinances, Title 1, Division 8, Chapter 1 Administrative Citations §§18.101-18.116.
Owner(s) Signature(s)
Print Owner(s) Name(s) and Title
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF )
On before me, Notary Public,
personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be
the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity
upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
ATTACHMENT 3 - 2021
VP - Forward Planning
24th January 22
KB Home
4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92010 92010
207-101-35, 207-101-37
BMP-1 THOUGH BMP 7, MWS-1 THROUGH MWS 4 PER City of Carlsbad Proj. CT 16-07 and DWG 529-9A
Jesse Kleist,
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
KB HOME MARJA DEVELOPMENT LLC
I, Tony Richelieu, do hereby certify that I am the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of
KB HOME Marja Development LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (this “Company”).
I do further certify that the resolutions attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are a true and complete
representation of such resolutions that were duly adopted by the unanimous written consent of the Sole
Member of this Company as of December 27, 2021, and that said resolutions have not been rescinded,
modified or revoked, and are in full force and effect.
WITNESS MY HAND this 27th day of December, 2021.
By:
Tony Richelieu
Secretary
1
EXHIBIT “A”
KB HOME MARJA DEVELOPMENT LLC
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AS OF DECEMBER 27, 2021
Signing Authority
RESOLVED . . ., that the following officers and/or employees of this Company
are authorized to act on behalf of the Company; provided, however, that such authority
shall be limited to such authority as may be provided herein below and to other ordinary
course of business transactions relating to the operations of the Company as indicated
hereinbelow:
Stephen J. Ruffner President
Robert V. McGibney Executive Vice President [Co-Chief Operating Officer]
Michael J. Gartlan Senior Vice President, Finance
John Abboud Vice President, Land Acquisition
Denise Lainez Vice President, Land Acquisition
Scott Hansen Vice President, Forward Planning
Jesse Kleist Vice President, Forward Planning
Daniel C. Loth Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Ron Mertzel Vice President, Land Development
Erick Montano Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Martha Herrera Senior Director, DUP and Assistant Secretary
Jennifer Blott Director, Finance
Frank Chen Director, Forward Planning
Bob Linder Director, Forward Planning
Heidi McBroom Director, Forward Planning
Vernell Williams Director, Forward Planning
Bob Dinsmore Director, Purchasing
Allen Barrett Senior Project Manager, Land
Chris Earl Senior Project Manager, Land
Christina Hagan Senior Escrow Manager
Sean Motlagh Senior Project Manager
Elizabeth Shoemaker Project Manager, Land
Caine Tsutsui Project Manager, Land
Jessica Cross Assistant Manager, DUP
Bob Kronenfeld Senior Director, Marketing
Kathrine Katcher Senior DUP Coordinator
Aubrey Fitzgerald DUP Coordinator
Christian Prado Escrow Coordinator
Jordan Mastroianni Forward Planner
2
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any of the following person(s), acting alone be, and
each hereby is, authorized and empowered for and on behalf and in the name of this
Company and any Company Entity (which, for these purposes is (a) any limited liability
company in which this Company is the sole member and (b) any partnership in which this
Company is the general partner), to execute, acknowledge and deliver any and all documents
deemed by such person to be necessary or appropriate in connection with the acquisition
and/or disposition of bulk parcels of real property by this Company or any Company Entity,
including, but not limited to, land purchase and sale agreements, purchase and sale of
residential dwellings and lots, amendments, assignments, escrow instructions, grant deeds,
promissory notes, deeds of trust, maps, agreements and related documents:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the signature of the President or any Executive Vice
President of this Company is required on any and all disbursements in excess of $1,000 for
non-contract items that are executed and delivered for and on behalf of this Company.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized and empowered to sign, execute and deliver for and on behalf and
in the name of this Company and any Company Entity, any and all documents deemed by
such person necessary or appropriate in connection with this Company’s or any Company
Entity’s (a) land improvement and construction activities, including, but not limited to,
purchase orders and subcontracts for labor and materials; and (b) land improvement and
development activities including but not limited to, easements, development agreements,
applications for land development approvals, option agreements, subdivision approvals,
declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions, and any other submissions required to
be filed with the California Department of Real Estate (“DRE”), subdivision and tract maps
and exhibits thereto, applications and submissions to obtain preliminary and final subdivision
public reports and supporting documents:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Denise Lainez Scott Hansen
Jesse Kleist Ron Mertzel Frank Chen
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized to sign, execute and deliver for and on behalf and in the name of
this Company and any Company Entity, any and all documents required in connection with
this Company’s or any Company Entity’s development of real property including, but not
limited to, improvement bonds, subdivision improvement agreements, subdivision maps,
building permit applications and such other documents related to the permit process:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Denise Lainez Scott Hansen
Jesse Kleist Ron Mertzel Frank Chen
Bob Linder Allen Barrett Chris Earl
Heidi McBroom Vernell Williams Sean Motlagh
Elizabeth Shoemaker Caine Tsutsui
3
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized to execute and deliver for and on behalf and in the name of this
Company and any Company Entity, (a) any and all documents required to be submitted to the
DRE in connection with this Company’s or any Company Entity’s preliminary and final
subdivision public report process, and to support filings required to be made pursuant to such
DRE requirements; (b) utility contracts and (c) applications and other ancillary documents
required to obtain city and/or County permits for projects developed by this Company or any
Company Entity:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Denise Lainez Scott Hansen
Jesse Kleist Ron Mertzel Frank Chen
Bob Linder Allen Barrett Chris Earl
Heidi McBroom Vernell Williams Sean Motlagh
Elizabeth Shoemaker Caine Tsutsui Jordan Mastroianni
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized and empowered to execute, acknowledge and deliver for and on
behalf and in the name of this Company and any Company Entity, any and all documents
deemed necessary or appropriate (a) to convey title in and to property which comprises the
common area in planned residential projects developed by this Company or any Company
Entity to be conveyed to each respective homeowners association and any and all restrictive
covenants, conditions and easements and any and all supplemental declarations with respect
thereto; (b) in connection with the development of real property by this Company or any
Company Entity; (c) in connection with the permitting processing with respect to such real
property developments and (d) to allow the DRE to issue a public report; such documents to
include, without limitation, consultant contracts, utility contracts, improvement bonds,
subdivision improvement agreements, subdivision maps, tract maps, parcel maps and
building permit applications:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Denise Lainez Scott Hansen
Jessie Kleist Ron Mertzel Frank Chen
4
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized and empowered for and on behalf and in the name of this
Company and any Company Entity, to take all actions and to execute, deliver, file and record
any and all certificates, instruments, agreements and documents as may be required or as such
officer may deem necessary, advisable or proper, in connection with the financing of this
Company’s or any Company Entity’s land improvement and development activities,
including the public facilities necessary to serve such development, including, but not limited
to, (a) the formation of assessment districts or community facilities districts pursuant to the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, or any other comparable or
similar statute or regulation; (b) authorizing the levy of assessments or special taxes against
the real property of this Company or any Company Entity by any such assessment district or
community facilities district; and (c) authorizing the issuance of bonds by any such
assessment district or community facilities district secured by a first pledge of the proceeds of
the special taxes or assessments levied on the real property of this Company or any Company
Entity:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Scott Hansen Ron Mertzel
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized to sign, execute and deliver for and on behalf and in the name of
this Company and any Company Entity, any and all documents required in connection with
the sale of individual lots to third parties, including, but not limited to, purchase and sale
agreements, escrow instructions, notices of completion, warranty/grant deeds, contracts
(including amendments, assignments, addendums and other ancillary documents forming a
part of the contract), holdback agreements, termite inspection certificates, buyer and seller
certificates as required under FHA, VA and other government sponsored loan programs, to
effect the sale of such lots to purchasers:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Martha Herrera Jennifer Blott
Christina Hagan Jessica Cross Katherine Katcher
Aubrey Fitzgerald* Christian Prado*
; provided, that each person designated by an asterisk is not authorized to sign
warranty/grant deeds;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized to sign, execute and deliver for and on behalf and in the name of
this Company and any Company Entity, any and all master subcontract agreements and
related documents and material purchase agreements, subcontract work agreements and
related documents with respect to the construction of improvements on real property:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Scott Hansen Jessie Kleist
Ron Mertzel Bob Dinsmore
5
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, is
authorized and empowered for and on behalf and in the name of this Company and any
Company Entity, to sign, execute and deliver master consultant agreements, purchase orders
and subcontracts for labor and materials and related documents with respect to development
of real property:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
John Abboud Scott Hansen Jessie Kleist
Ron Mertzel Bob Dinsmore
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized and empowered to sign, execute and deliver for and on behalf and
in the name of this Company and any Company Entity, any and all master service
agreements, vendor agreements, independent contractor sales agreements and supporting
documents with respect to the marketing, sales and management of real property:
Daniel C. Loth Erick Montano Martha Herrera
Bob Kronenfeld
RESOLVED FURTHER, that Stephen J. Ruffner or Martha Herrera, acting alone, be,
and each hereby is, authorized and empowered to sign, execute and deliver for and on behalf
and in the name of this Company and any Company Entity, any and all documents required in
connection with this Company’s or any Company Entity’s customer service and new home
warranty activities and other business operations including, but not limited to, settlement
agreements, purchase orders and subcontracts for labor and materials;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following persons, acting alone, be, and
each hereby is, authorized and empowered to sign, execute and deliver for and on behalf and
in the name of this Company and any Company Entity, any and all documents establishing
bank accounts, financing arrangements and other ordinary course banking and financial
arrangements:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney Michael J. Gartlan
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any one of the following person(s), acting alone, be,
and each hereby is, authorized and empowered to act on behalf of this Company in its
capacity as a member (other than a sole member) of any limited liability company or as a
partner (other than a general partner) of any partnership in which this Company owns an
interest, directly or indirectly:
Stephen J. Ruffner Robert V. McGibney
RESOLVED FURTHER, that Stephen J. Ruffner, President of this Company, and
Robert V. McGibney, Executive Vice President [Co-Chief Operating Officer], be, and each
hereby is, authorized, empowered and directed, for and on behalf and in the name of this
Company and any Company Entity, to take such further actions and to do all such further
things which he may deem necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purpose and to
effectuate the intent of the foregoing resolutions with respect to this Company or any
Company Entity;
RESOLVED FURTHER, that any and all documents executed or actions undertaken
by any officers or employees listed in the foregoing resolutions between February 24, 2021
and the date hereof substantively within the scope of their authority as designated above be,
and they hereby are, ratified, confirmed and approved.
ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit
[Use the City’s standard Single Sheet BMP Plan.]
N65°22
'26
"E
1291
.68
'
N02°23'45"E 315.88'S87°53'49"W 397.21'N18°57'34"E 977.24'(EV)(EV)EVEVE(No2). 24" CMP(EV)(EV)BENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCH BENCHBENCHBENCHBENCH
BENCHBENCH
BENCHBENCHBENCHBENCHBENCH BENCHBENCHBENCH
MARJA ACRESHOWES WEILER LANDYPLANNING & ENGINEERINGTel. 760.929.2288 Fax. 760.929.22872888 LOKER AVENUE EAST SUITE 217CARLSBAD, CA 92010Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallRCONTACTEXIST. BIORETENTION BASINEXIST. BIORETENTION BASINPERMANENT WATER QUALITYTREATMENT FACILITIES ONTHIS SITEKEEPING OUR WATER CLEANMAINTAIN WITH CARENO MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT CITY OF CARLSBAD APPROVALBMP 1BMP 2BMP 3BMP 4BMP 5BMP 6BMP 7TTTSINGLE SHEET BMP EXHIBIT