The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttachment 7.d.v. - Appendices E - SWQMP_1_Report and Atts1-2CITYOF CHULA VISTA PDPSWQMP PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL 595-710-11,12 DR 19-0012, CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 Insert Drawing Number ENGINEER OF WORK: Kamal S. Swe is P.E. 48592 PREPARED FOR: Acadia Health Care 6100 Tower Circle, Suite 1000 Franklin, TN 91914 370067 Insert Telephone Number PREPARED BY: [:ffil K &S ENGINEERING, INC. r .£J Planning Engineering Surveying 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92108 (619)296-5565 DATE:08/01/2019 Approved By: City of Chula Vista Date: PDP SWQMP Template Date: January 2016 Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronym Sheet Preparer's Certification Page Submittal Record Project Vicinity Map Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist (Intake Form) FORM 1-3B Site Information Checklist for PDPs FORM 1-4 Source Control BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM 1-5 Site Design BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM 1-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment la: DMA Exhibit Attachment lb: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment le: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment ld: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment le: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets/ Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Plan Attachment 3a: B Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 3b: Draft Maintenance Agreement (when applicable) Attachment 4: Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Storm Water BMPs ACRONYMS APN BMP HMP HSG MS4 N/A NRCS PDP PE SC SD SDRWQCB SIC SWQMP Assessor's Parcel Number Best Management Practice Hydromodification Management Plan Hydrologic Soil Group Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Not Applicable Natural Resources Conservation Service Priority Development Project Professional Engineer Source Control Site Design San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Standard Industrial Classification Storm Water Quality Management Plan CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL Permit Application Number: DR 19-0012, CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water best management practices (BMPs) for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the BMPs as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the PDP requirements of the City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9 -2013-0001 as amended by R9 -2015 -0001 and R9-2015 -0100 (MS4 Permit). I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this PDP SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land _pevelopment activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this PDP SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of sto rm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. I , PE Number & Expiration Date , Print Name /1/C. Company Dat~ f Engineer's Seal Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing SUBMITTAL RECORD Use this Table to keep a record of submittals of this PDP SWQMP. Each time the PDP SWQMP is re-submitted, provide the date and status of the project. In column 4 summarize the changes that have been made or indicate if response to plancheck comments is included. When applicable, insert response to plancheck comments behind this page. Submittal Date Project Status Summary of Changes Number IZI Preliminary Design/ 1 02/28/2019 Planning/ CEQA Click here to enter text. □ Final Design IZI Preliminary Design/ 2 08/05/2019 Planning/ CEQA Resubmittal □ Final Design Click here to D Preliminary Design/ 3 enter a date. Planning/ CEQA Click here to enter text. D Final Design Click here to D Preliminary Design/ 4 enter a date. Planning/ CEQA Click here to enter text. □ Final Design Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing PROJECT VICINITY MAP Project Name: EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL Permit Application Number: DR 19-0012, CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 SIT[ VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Complete and attach Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist (Intake Form) included in Appendix A.1 ~If?-Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist --.-...e -·~ (Intake Form) for All Permit Applications CITYOF CHUIAVISTA Public Works Department -Storm Water Management Section April 2016 Project Information Project Address : 830, 831 Showroom Place Chula Vista Project Application Number: DR 19-0012 , CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 p . t N EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH roJec ame: HOSPITAL APN(s) 561-710-11 ,12 Brief Description of Work Proposed: Grading and Drainage Owner/Contact Information Name of Person Completing this Form: Kamal Sweis Role : □ Property Owner □ Contractor □ Architect ~ Engineer □ Other Email : kss@ks-~n~ ~ Phone : (619)296-5565 Signat~iHJ I Date Completed : Feb 28, 2019 An "'-< j>il ch se Ction ~iEtarting with Section 1 and progressing through each section. Additional information for dete rminin the requirements is found in the Chula Vista BMP Design Manual available on the City 's website at h ://www.c hu lavistaca .oov/deoartments/oublic-works/services/sto rm -water-ooll ution- orevention/docu me nts-and -reoo rts . SECTION 1: Storm Water BMP Requirements Does the project consist of one or both of the following: □Yes Project is NOT Subject to Repair or improvements to an existing building or Permanent Storm Water BMP • requirements, BUT IS subject to structure that donot alter the size such as: tenant Construction BMP requirements . improvements, interior remodeling, electrical Review & sign "Construction work, fire alarm , fire sprinkler system, HVAC Storm Water BMP Certification work, Gas , plumbing , etc. Statement" on page 2. • Routine maintenance activities such as : roof or exterior structure surface replacement; resurfacing existing roadways and parking lots including digouts , slurry seal, overlay and .. ,,.,,,.,,, .. ,, .. ,, .. restriping; repair damaged sidewalks or pedestrian ramps on existing roads without expanding the impervious footprint; routine replacement of damaged pavement, trenching Continue to Section 2, page3 . and resurfacing associated with utility work (i .e. ~No sewer, water, gas or electrical laterals , etc.) and pot holing or geotechnical investigation borings . •. ❖ City of Chula Vista ❖ Storm \X'ater Applicability C h ecklist (fntake FoLm) Construction Storm Water BMP Certification Statement ❖ Page 2 o f S (April 20 l6) The following stormwater qual ity protection measures are required by City Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 and the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program. 1. All applicable construction BMPs and non-stormwater discharge BMPs shall be installed and ma intained for the duration of the project in accordance with the Appendix K "Construction BMP Standards" of the Chula Vista BMP Design Manual. 2 . Erosion control BMPs shall be implemented for all portions of the project area in wh ich no work has been done or is planned to be done over a period of 14 or more days. All onsite drainage pathways that convey concentrated flows shall be stabilized to prevent erosion . 3 . Run -on from areas outside the proj ect area shall be diverted around work areas to the extent feas ib le . Run-on that cannot be diverted shall be managed using appropriate erosion and sediment control BM Ps. 4. Sediment control BM Ps shall be impleme nted, includ ing provid ing fiber rolls, grave l bags, or other equally effective BMPs around the perimeter of the project to prevent transport of soil and sediment offsite. Any sed iment tracked on to offsite paved areas shall be removed via sweeping at least daily. 5. Trash and other construction wastes shall be placed in a designated area at least daily and shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable req uirements. 6. Materials sha ll be stored to avoid being transported in storm wate r runoff and non-storm water discharges. Concrete washout shall be directed to a washout area and shall no t be washed out to the ground. 7 Stockpiles and other sources of pollutants shall be covered when the chance of rain within the next 48 hours is at least 50 %. I certify that the stormwater quality protection measures listed above will be implemented at the project described on Intake Form. I understand that failure to implement these measures may result in monetary penalties or other enforcement actions . This certification is signed under penalty of perjury and does not requ ire notarization . ❖ City o f Chula \'ista ❖ St orm Water :\pplicabili ty Ch ecklist (I ntake Form) ❖ Page 3 of 5 (.\pril 20 16) Section 2: Determ ine if Project is a Standard Project or Priority Development Project 1. The project is (select one): ~ New Development -Redevelopment (is the creation and/or replacement of impervious surface on an already developed site) 2 . Is the project in any of the following categories, (a) through U)? a. New development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces ><'Yes n No (collectively over the entire project site). This includes commercial , industria l, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. --- b. Redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5 ,000 square feet or more of [Jves ~No impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site on an exfsting site of 10 ,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces). This includes commercial, industrial, residentia l, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land . C. New development or redevelopment of a restaurant that creates and/or replaces 5,000 n ves ~No square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immed iate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification Code 5812). d . New development or redevelopment of hlllside that creates and/or replaces 5 ,000 square 7 Yes ~No feet or more of impervious surface (collective ly over the entire project site). This category includes development on any nat ural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. __ ,. ... _ --- e. New development or redevelopment of parking lot that creates and/or replaces 5 ,000 2<Yes 7 No square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). This category is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce. ·-,., .. , ..... .. ,,,,.,,., •·······-····--- f. New development or redevelopment of Streets, roads, highways, freeways , and ~Yes -No driveways that creates and/or replaces 5 ,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). This category is defined as any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobi les , trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles ------ g. New development or redeve lopment project that creates and/or replaces 2 ,500 square ~ Yes IXf No feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site}, discharging 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 f low f rom the project to the ESA (i.e. not comming led with flows from adjacent lands). ... ,., "_,,_., " , ......... _ ........ '" ,,,,., , .... ,., h. New development or redevelopment project of automotive repair shops that creates C Yes 8J No and/or replaces 5 ,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014 , 5541 , 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. -.. ·• .. ' ................ i. New development or redevelopment projects of retail gasoline outlets that creates and/or ::::;Yes ~No replaces 5 ,000 square feet or more of impervious surface or its projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. .,,. . ......... , j . New development or redevelopment that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of Z:Yes 7 No land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction. ❖ City of Chula \'ista The project i s (select one): ❖ Storm Water . \pplicability Ch cckli sr (Inmkc Form) ❖ Page4 o f 5 (, \ pril 2016) If ''No" is checked for every category in Section 2 , project is "Stand ard Development Project". Site design and source control BMP requirements apply. Complete and submit Standard SWQMP (refer to Chapter 4 & Appendix E of the BMP Design Manual for guidance). Continue to Section 4. ~ If "Yes" is checked for ANY category in Section 2 , project is "Priority Development Project (PDP)". Complete below, if appl icable , and continue to Section 3. Complete for POP Redevelopment Projects ONLY: The total existing (pre-project) impervious area at the project site is: _o _____ ft2 (A) The tota l proposed newfy created or replaced impervious area is 270494 ft 2 (B) Percent impervious surface created or replaced (Bf A)"'100: 1 OO % The percent impervious surface created or replaced is (select one based on the above calculation): n less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) -only new impervious areas are considered a PDP OR 8 greater than fifty percent (50%) -the entire project site is considered a PDP Continue to Section 3 Section 3: Determine if project is PDP Exempt 1. Does the project ONLY include new or retrofit sidewalk, bicycle lane or trails that: • Are designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-erodible permeable areas? Or; • Are designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads? Or; • Are designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets guidance? L Yes. Project is POP Exempt. Complete and submit Standard SWOMP (refer to Chapter 4 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance). Continue to Section 4. 18 No. Next question 2. Does the project ONLY include retrofitting or redevelopment of existi ng paved alleys, streets or roads designed and constructed in accordance with the Green Streets standards? ,J Yes. Project is POP Exempt. Complete and submit Standard SWQMP (refer to Chapter 4 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance). Continue to Section 4. ~ No. Project is PDP. Site design, source control and structural pollutant control BMPs apply. Complete and submit PDP SWQMP (refer to Chapters 4 , 5 & 6 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance). Continue to Section 4 . ❖ City of C hula \Tis ta ❖ Storm Water Applic.ibili ty Checkli~t (lnrllke Form) ❖ Pagt: 5 ofS (A pril :2U 16) SECTION 4: Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements: All construction sites are required to implement construction BMPs in accordance with the performance standards in the BMP Design Manual. Some sltes are additionally required to obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit (CGP), which is administered by the State Water Resource Control Board . 1. Does the project include Building/Grading/Construction permits proposing less than 5 ,000 square feet of ground disturbance and has less than 5-foot elevation change over the entire project area? -- Yes; review & sign Construction Storm Water Certification Statement, skip questions 2-4 ~ No; next questfon 2. Does the project propose construction or demolition activity, including but not limited to , clearing grading, grubbing, excavation, or other activity that results in ground disturbance of less than one acre and more than 5,000 square feet? 0 Yes. complete & submit Construction Storm Water Pollution Control Plan (CSWPCP), skip questions 3-4 ~: No; next question 3. Does the project results in disturbance of an acre or more of total land area and are considered regular maintenance projects performed to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility? (Projects such as sewer/storm drain/utility replacement) [J Yes. complete & submit Construction Storm Water Pollution Control Plan (CSWPCP), skip question 4 g No; next question 4. Is the project proposing land disturbance greater than or equa l to one acre OR the project is part of a larger common plan of development disturbing 1 acre or more? ~ Yes ; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required . Refer to online CASQA or Caltrans Template. Visit the SWRCB web site at http://www. waterboards. ca . gov/water issues/prog rams/stormwater/construction .shtml . Note: for Projects that result in disturbance of one to five acres of total land area and can demonstrate that there will be no adverse water quality impacts by applying for a Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver, may be allowed to submit a CSWPCP in lieu of a SWPPP. Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing Site Information Checklist 1 Form 1-3B I For PDPs (for PDPs) Project Summary Information Project Name EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL 830, 831 SHOWROOM PLACE CHULA VISTA, CA Project Address Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 595-710-11, 12 Permit Application Number Click here to enter text. Select One: D Pueblo San Diego (908) Project Hydrologic Unit IZI Sweetwater (909) D Otay (910) D Tijuana (911) Project Watershed (Complete Hydrologic Unit, Area, and Subarea 909.110 Lower Sweetwater, Telegraph HSA Name with Numeric Identifier) Parcel Area (total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated 10.43 Acres (454,330 Square Feet) with the project) Area to be Disturbed by the Project 9.82 Acres (427,759 Square Feet) (Project Area) Project Proposed Impervious Area 6.2 Acres (270,072 Square Feet) (subset of Project Area) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset of Project Area) 4.18 Acres (182,080 Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. The proposed increase or decrease in impervious area in the proposed condition as 60% compared to the pre-project condition. -_ ~Forrni1!3s~·P~ge)•of10 -- -_ ~ . ---- Desc ription at Existin g Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Current Status of the Site (select all that apply}: 0 Existing development IZI Previously graded but not built out 0 Demolition completed without new construction 0 Agricultural or other non-impervious use 0 Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description/ Additional Information: Click here to enter text Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply}: IZI Vegetative Cover 0 Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas 0 Impervious Areas Description/ Additional Information: Click here to enter text. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply}: 0 NRCSType A 0 NRCSType B 0 NRCSType C IZ! NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW}: 0 GW Depth < 5 feet 0 5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet 0 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet IZ! GW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select al l that apply}: 0 Watercourses 0 Seeps 0 Springs 0 Wetlands IZI None Description/ Additional Information: Click here to enter text Form 1-38 Page 3 of 10 Desc ription of Exist ing 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) Is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if yes, quantify all offsite drainage areas, design flows, and locations where offsite flows enter the project site, and summarize how such flows are conveyed through the site; (3) Provide details regarding existing project site drainage conveyance network, including any existing storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels; and (4) Identify all discharge locations from the existing project site alo ng with a summary of conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide summary of the pre-project d rai nage areas and design flows to each of the existing runoff discharge locations. Description/ Additional Information: The site is mass graded and r unoff sheetflows mildly into two existing desilting basins located at the south side of the site. One drains to an existing 24" storm drain pipe located within Showroom Place . The second desilting basin drains east to another existing 18" storm drain.The existing site generates QSO= 24.2 CFS. The calc u late d flows for existing condition are based on flat ba r ren slopes runoff coefficient of C=0.65 Form 1-3B Page 4 of 10 Description of Propose d Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description/ Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The development consists of construction of one medica l building with attached parking and landscaped areas including three biofiltration with partial retention facilities for water quality and flow control purposes. In general r unoff from project will be directed into the proposed biofiltration basins underground storm drain pipes. After stormwater is treated and mitigated it will be conveyed to the two existing storm drain pipes mentioned before. Developed condition generates 42 .1 CFS of runoff (undetained). The calculated flows for developed condition are based on Commercial site runoff coefficient of C=0.85 List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): The project proposes impervious features such as: sidewalks, parking lot, drive aisles and one building which are approximately 70% of the site. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): The project proposes previous features such as: landscaped areas and slopes and bioretention basins for approximately 30% of the site. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? lg] Yes □ No Description/ Additional Information: The propject proposes the precise grading for buildings, parking and landscape areas. Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? IZI Yes □ No If yes, provide details regarding the proposed project site drainage conveyance network, including storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels, and the method for conveying offsite flows through or around the proposed project site. Identify all discharge locations from the proposed project site along with a summary of the conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide a summary of pre-and post-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the runoff discharge locations. Reference the drainage study for detailed calculations. Describe proposed site drainage patterns:: The project has two drainage basins . The westerly one drains to the south via an underground storm drain system a proposed biofiltration basin for water quality and HMP purposes and then conveyed to Showroom Place via an existing public 24" RCP storm drain. The easterly basin also drains to the south to a second biofiltration basin which drainage is intercepted and conveyed easterly by an existing private 18" RCP storm drain to Yosemitie Drive at the Eastlake Ill Woods. Developed condition generates cfs of runoff (undetained). The calculated flows for developed condition are based on Commercial site runoff coefficient of C=0.85 BASIN 1-PEAK FLOW TABLE (CFS) AT DETENTION BASIN STORM EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION EVENT BEFORE DETENTION SO-YEAR 13.4 24.5 BASIN 2-PEAK FLOW TABLE (CFS} AT DETENTION BASIN STORM EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION EVENT BEFORE DETENTION SO-YEAR 10.8 17.6 AFTER DETENTION 10.7 PROPOSED CONDITION AFTER DETENTION 7.8 Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be p r esent (select all that apply): 1:81 On-site storm drain inlets D Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps D Interi or parking garages D Need for future indoor & structural pest control 1:81 Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features D Food service 1:81 Refuse areas D Industrial processes D Outdoor storage of equipment or materials D Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning D Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance D Fuel Dispensing Areas 1:81 Loading Docks ~ Fire Sprinkler Test Water 1:81 M iscellaneous Drain or Wash Water 1:81 Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots Description/ Additional Information: Click here to enter text .. -.:;j--.. l_F'.qrn:iJ l-3_fRage"7.l""o_f !lO-•. _ . -----,. .. :r. l . ~ -. . .. --,---·-. . :-,. . --·--------. Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water and Pollutants of Concern Describe flow path of storm water from the project site discharge location(s), through urban storm conveyance systems as applicable, to receiving creeks, rivers, and lagoons as applicable, and ultimate discharge to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): The project discharges into the MS4 located at Showroom Place, which i nturn drains south into Fenton Street and into Telegraph Canyon Creek, then into the San Diego Bay and eventually into the Pacific Ocean . List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from t h e project site to the Padfic Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor (s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs and/or Highest Priority Pollutants from the WQI P fo r the impaired water bodies : TMDls/ WQIP Highest Priority 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) Pollutant San Diego Bay PCBs TMDL required Telegraph Canyon Creek Selenium TMDL required Click here to enter text Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Identification of Project Site Pollutants* *Identification of project site pollutants is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs (note the project must also participate in an alternative compliance program unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated) Identify pol lutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Not Applicable to the Anticipated from the Also a Receiving Water Pollutant Project Site Project Site Pollutant of Concern Sediment □ □ □ Nutrients □ □ □ Heavy Metals □ □ □ Organic Compounds □ □ □ T r ash & Debri s □ □ □ Oxygen Demanding Su b stances □ □ □ Oi l & Grease □ □ □ Bacteria & Viruses □ □ □ Pesticides □ □ □ Hydromodification Manageme nt Requirement s Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Des ign Manual}? 1x1 Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. D 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 . D 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. D No, the project will discharge r unoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watersh ed in which the project resides. Description/ Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): Click here to enter text Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas * *Th is Section o.nly required if hydromodification mana gement requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? D Yes IZl No, No criti cal coa rse 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 performe d? D 6.2.1 Verificati on of Geomorphic Landscape Units {GLUs) Onsite D 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coa rse Sediment 0 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite D No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yie ld areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final resu lt? D No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite 0 Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional an alysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2.b of the SWQMP. 0 Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and req uir e protection. The project will impl ement 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: Click here to enter text 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. The project consists of two POC's located at the project boundary which discharge to two different storm drain systems. POC#l discharges to an existing storm drain pipe on Showroom Place while POC#2 discharges to second existing storm drain pipe which drains southwestery to the easterly property. No diversion of flow is proposed for these POC's. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? ~ No, the low flow threshold is 0.102 (default low flow threshold) D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.102 □ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.302 □ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.502 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Click here to enter text Discussion/ Additional Information: (optional) Click here to enter text Other Site Requirements and Con straints When applicable, list other site r equirements or constraints that will influence storm water management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or local codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. None Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of infor mation from previous sections as needed. None Source Control BMP Checklist 1 for All Development Projects 1 Form 1-4 (Standard Projects and PDPs) Project Identification Project Name: EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL Permit Application Number: DR 19-0012, CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 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 of the manual 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 of the 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. • "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 I Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 I i:81Yes I □No I □N/A Discussion/ justification if SC-1 not implemented: Click here to enter text SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage I ~Yes I □No I □N/A Discussion/ justification if SC-2 not implemented: Click here to enter text SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, I □Yes I □No I ~N/A Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/ justification if SC-3 not implemented : The is no outdoor storage proposed. SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, I □Yes I □No I 1:81 N/A Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/ justification if SC-4 not implemented: There are no materials stored outdoor -- ____ Fo_!rn 1-4 Page 2 of 2 Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and rzlYes □No □N/A Wind Dispersal Discussion/ justification if SC-5 not implemented: Click here to enter text SC-6 Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants (must answer for each source listed below) D Onsite storm drain inlets rzlYes □No □N/A D Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps □Yes □No □N/A D Interior parking garages □Yes □No □N/A D Need for future indoor & structural pest control □Yes □No □N/A D Landscape/outdoor pesticide use rzlYes □No □N/A D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features □Yes □No □N/A D Food service rzlYes □No □N/A D Refuse areas □Yes □No □N/A D Industrial processes □Yes □No □N/A D Outdoor storage of equipment or materials □Yes □No □N/A D Vehicle and equipment cleaning □Yes □No □N/A D Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance □Yes □No □N/A D Fuel dispensing areas □Yes □No □N/A D Loading docks rzlYes □No □N/A D Fire sprinkler test water rzlYes □No □N/A D Miscellaneous drain or wash water □Yes □No □N/A D Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots rzlYes □No □N/A Discussion/ justification if SC-6 not implemented. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discussed. Justification must be provided for fill "No" answers shown above. Site does not propose: interior floor drains, interior parking garage, water features outdoor storage of equipment or materials, vehicle/equipment cleaning nor maintenance, fuel dispensing areas. Site Design BM P Checklist for All Development Projects (Standard Projects and PDPs) Project Identification Project Name: EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL Permit Application Number: DR 19-0012, CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 Site Design BMPs Form 1-5 All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the manual 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 BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E of the 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. • "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/ justification may be provided. Site Design Requirement SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Discussion/ justification if SD-1 not implemented: There is no existing natural drainage pathway nor hydrologic features SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Discussion/ justification if SD-2 not implemented: Click here to enter text SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area Discussion/ justification if SD-3 not implemented : 32% of the site will be landscaped SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction Discussion/ justification if SD-4 not implemented: PR-1 BASINS BOTTOMS PROVIDE MINIMIZED COMPACTION Applied? □Yes □No ~N/A ~Yes □No □N/A ~Yes □No □N/A ~Yes □No □N/A SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion 1:8:iYes O N/A Discussion/ justification if SD-5 not implemented: SD-6 Runoff Collection □Yes □No 1:8:J N/A Discussion/ justification if SD-6 not implemented : Per Form B.3-1 Harvest and Use is infeasible SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species 1:8:JYes □No □N/A Discussion/ justification if SD-7 not implemented: Cl ick here to enter text. SD-8 Harvesting and Us ing Precipitation □Yes □No 1:8:J N/A Discussion/ justification if SD-8 not implemented: Per Form B.3-1 Harvest and Use is infeasible I 1 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs I: Form 1-6 , {For PDPs} Project Identification Project Name: EASTLAKE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL Permit Application Number: DR 19-0012, CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 PDP Structural BMPs All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the 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 manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the local jurisdiction at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the local jurisdiction must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the manual). Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet (page 3 of this form) for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP). Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must descri be how the steps for se lecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the 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 or separate . One PR -1 biofiltration basin is being proposed for this project on the southwest corner of the site for HMP and pollutant control of OMA 1. A second PR-1 biofiltration basin is being proposed on the southeast corner of the site for HMP and pollutant control of OMA 2. (Continue on page 2 as necessary.) Form 1-6 Page 3 of~(Copy as many as needed) Structural BMP Summary I nformation (Copy t his page as needed to provide informatio n for each individual proposed st r uctura l BMP} Structural BMP ID No.: 1 Constru ct ion Pla n Sheet No.: C-5 Type of structural BMP: D Retention by harvest and use (HU -1) D Rete nt ion by infiltratio n basin (INF -1) D Retention by bioretention {IN F-2) □ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) IZl Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR -1) D Biofiltration (BF-1) D Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below) □ Flow -thru treatment control included as pre-t reatment/fore b ay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves i n discussion section below) D Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion sect ion below) □ Detentio n pond or vault for hydromodification management □ Other (descri be in disc ussion section below) Purpose: D Pollutant control only D Hydromodification control only IZl Combined pol lutant control and hydromodification cont rol D Pre -treatment/forebay for another structural BMP D Other (describe in discussion section below) Who will certify construction of this BMP? Kamal S. Swies, P.E. 48592 Provide name and contact information for the 7801 Mission Ce n ter Court, Suite 100 party responsible to sign BMP verification fo r ms if San Diego, CA 92108 required by the City Engineer (See Section 1.12 of (6 19) 296-5565 the manual) kss@ks-engr.com Who will be the final owner of this BMP? Eastlake Behaviora l Center Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Eastlake Beh aviora l Center What is the funding mechanism for ma i ntenance? Private Discussion (as needed): Click here to enter text. Form 1-6 Page 4 of ecopy as many as needed) Structural BMP ID No.: BMP 1 Construction Plan Sheet No.: C-5 Discussion (as needed): Click here to enter text ,5S YR \'IS 35" SURFACE PO~OI\G (MAX.) WATER QJAU"Y PO\Ol~G 24" SUHCE PGNCING \-~--"--- 7C0.5 --~J') 2:' SLOS:: ~AX. J' GRAVEL (ASTM 57) ·O 3' I, 36" UA 'Ill 5"/HOLR ~N'. FILTRATION RA1 IWPE~VE.~BLE LINE~- 30 SAND (.~S'M 33 )-----:iiiiiiiiiiiiii J' PEA GRAvU (ASTM 8)~ 18' ~EA fl l1V: (ASW 57) JTLE" J :E \ IE=690.65 ~ 6' n::RF:J~AITO PIPE \\l'h CLEA\'Jn / NOTE: ALL ENTRY AND EXIT "iPES PASS ~G C.9' LID :J~; C: @ ~m n;~u IMPERf.U.3LE u~ NG "0 BE S:Al£D AT JCIN 700.5 Form 1-6 Page f Copy as many as needed) St ructura l BMP Summa ry Information (Copy this page as needed to provide i nformatio n for each individua l propose d struct ural BMP) Structu r al BMP ID No.: 2 Const ruction Plan Sheet No.: C-5 Type of structural BMP: D Retention by harvest and use (HU -1) D Re t ention by infiltration basin {INF-1) □ Retention by b ioretention (INF -2) D Retention by permeable pavement (INF -3) ~ Partial retent ion by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) D Biofiltration (BF-1) D Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion sect ion below) D Flow-thru treatment control included as p re-t r eatment/foreb ay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BM P type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) D Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below) D Detention pond or vault for hydrornodification management D Other (describe in d iscussion section below) Purpose: D Pollutant control only D Hydromodification control only ~ Combined pollutant control and hyd r omod ification control D Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP D Other (describe in discussion sect ion below) W h o will certify constr uction of this BMP? Kamal S. Swies, P.E. 48592 Provide name and contact information for the 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if San Diego, CA 92108 required by the City Engineer (See Section 1.12 of (619) 296-5565 the manual) k ss@ks-engr.com Who will be the final owner of t his BMP? Eastlake Behavioral Center Who will maintain t his BMP into perpetuity? Eastlake Behavioral Center W h at is the funding mechanism for maintenance? Private Discussion (as needed): Click here to enter text. Form 1-6 Page [j)f JCopy as many as needed) Structural BMP ID No.: BMP 2 Construction Plan Sheet No.: C-5 Discussion (as needed): Click here to enter text. ~s:i ~ ~s \\'A1'1 CUAUTY PC~CI\G 24' SJRFASE co~Ol~G / 35' SJR ."AC[ PC\}KG (~AX.) I I 2:' S(O~E MAX. 3' m.VE '. (ASTM 57) 36" I\EDIA W/ 5"/,0UR ~Jl FILTRA l G\ RA[ IIIFffi\iEABLE L'.NER 3• SAND :A snJ 33)----;=5iii~~~~~k \},.~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3' 0EA GRAIL (ASlll 8) ·18" PG; GRA \I:_ .11:.'II 57) CU !LFT 0IPE 1[=687.92 6' PERFO~A ,EQ FIPE W iJi C~A~OUTS/ ~C1[: H ENffiY A~D EXIT PPC:S PASSl~G 0.75' l D O~F!CE ll RISER Tl-RU ;~PcRM EABL: UN i~G ~o 8: S~ALED AT JCN I SC' 701.0 1 ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Indicate which items are included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence OMA Exhibit (Required) Attachment la See OMA Exhibit Checklist on the back ~ Included of this Attachment cover sheet. Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing OMA ID matching OMA Exhibit, OMA ~ Included on OMA Exhibit in Area, and OMA Type (Required)* Attachment la Attachment lb D Included as Attachment lb, separate *Provide table in this Attachment OR on OMA Exhibit in Attachment la from OMA Exhibit Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist (Required unless the ~ Included entire project will use infiltration BMPs) D Not included because the entire Attachment le Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP project will use infiltration Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. BMPs Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Required unless the project will use harvest and use ~ Included Attachment ld BMPs) D Not included because the entire Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP project will use harvest and use BMPs Design Manual to complete Form 1-8. Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets/ Calculations (Required) Attachment le Refer to Appendices Band E of the BMP ~ Included Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The OMA Exhibit must identify: ~ Underlying hydrologic soil group ~ Approximate depth to groundwater D Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) D Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected ~ Existing topography and impervious areas ~ Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite D Proposed demolition ~ Proposed grading ~ Proposed impervious features ~ Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness ~ Drainage management area (OMA) boundaries, OMA ID numbers, and OMA areas (square footage or acreage), and OMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) ~ Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source controls (see Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Form 1-3B) ~ Structural BMPs (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) AREAS DRAINING TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN #2 (DMA #2)LANDSCAPE87,9910.14,4840.03149,462TOTAL DMA AREA=8,7997,456244,283 SFAREAS DRAINING TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN #1 (DMA #1)0.9156,292ROOF AND PAVEMENT140,663LEGENDFEATURESYMBOLDRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREASURFACE FLOW PROPOSED AC PAVEMENTPROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA(TRIBUTARY TO BIOFILTRATION)PROPOSED BIOFILTRATION AREA(TREATMENT CONTROL)PROPOSED P.C.C.PROPOSED ROOFPROPOSED TREE WELLRDROOF DRAINDRAINAGE STRUCTURE FLOWGROUNDWATERUNDERLAYING SOIL GROUPLANDSCAPE94,1700.13,3480.03111,599TOTAL DMA AREA=9,4176,690208,372 SF0.9114,202ROOF AND PAVEMENT102,182BMP1- BIOFILTRATION WITH PARTIAL INFILTRATION PR-1BMP2- BIOFILTRATION WITH PARTIAL INFILTRATION PR-1BMP CATEGORY/TYPESTORM DRAIN SIGNAGECCSYA NOTE:TOTAL SITE AREATOTAL DISTURBED AREAWITH DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIESDRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA)ATTACHMENT 1a/• BIORETENTION #1 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 296-5565 Fax: (619) 296-5564 ' /' ~/·_~ / // ACCORDING TO THE UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT PREPAREDD~;T~1~? 4~NfEtl□RE DATED MARCH 6, 2019: No GROUND WATER WAS OBSERVED IN THE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AT AT · PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN OR DOESN'T RECEIVE OR DRAINS FROM CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS. SEE ATTACHMENT 2b BIOFILTRATION PR-I ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY (USDA) THE UNDERLAYING SOIL CONSISTS OF SOIL TYPE D. 454,330 SQ. Fl 427,759 SQ. Fl POST-PROJECT SURFACE TYPE DMA AREA (SF) DMA RUNOFF FACTOR -----I II I lillW 1111 DMAAREAX RUNOFF FACTOR I IMP SIZING FACTOR SIT[ VICINl1Y MAP NOT TO SCALf NO DUMPING GOES TO OCEAN ~ NO TIRAR BASU RA ~ LLEGAAL MAR think BLUE 1. THESE ARE SAMPLE TILES AND SIGNS. 2. CITY ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE OR APPROVE SIGNS, TILES OR STENCILS. 3 PROVIDE LABELING WITH PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE ("NO DUMPING GOES TO OCEAN -NO TIRAR BASURA LLEGA AL MAR") 4. SIGN SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE CATCH BASIN GRATE. (WM ONLY) MIN.AREA (S.F.) PROPOSED AREA (S.F.) 5. SIGN SHALL HAVE A WHITE BACKGROUND WITH BLUE LETTERING. POST-PROJECT SURFACE TYPE DMA AREA (SF) WATER QUALITY PONDING 24" SURFACE PONDING DMA RUNOFF FACTOR I • I I DMAAREAX RUNOFF FACTOR IMP SIZING FACTOR I (WM ONLY) MIN.AREA (S.F.) 50 YR WS 36" SURFACE PONDING (MAX.) r . I' I I 2: I SLOPE MAX. 36" DIA. RISER '."I<::, °' 24" " OUTLET PIPE IE=690.65 6" PERFORATED PIPE WITH CLEANOUTS/ NOTE· ALL ENTRY AND EXIT PIPES PASSING I" LID ORIFICE @ RISER THRU. IMPERMEABLE LINING TO BE SEALED AT JOIN AREA (BMP) AREA (TOP) H (IN) LID ORIFICE BMP (IN) FT 2 FT 2 I 24 0.9 7,456 8,495 NOT TO SCALE 701.0 WATER QUALITY PONDING 21'' SURF /ICE PONDING 3" GRAVEL (ASTM 57) 36" MEDIA W/ 5" /HOUR MIN. FILTRATION RATE IMPERMEABLE LINER 3" SAND (ASTM 33) 3" PEA GRAVEL (ASTM 8) 18" PEA GRAV!" (ASTM 57) . I I ·. ·I ,-, TOTAL SURFACE DESIGN DEPTH VOLUME FT CF 3.5 6,572 50 YR WS 35" SURFACE PONDING (MAX.) 2: I SLOPE MAX. 36" DIA. RISER !o<:i 24" "'03 { . . . I I OUTI cT PIPF IE=687.92 6" PERFORATED PIPE WITH CLEANOUTS/ NOTE· ALL ENTRY AND EXIT PIPES PASSING THRU. IMPERMEABLE LINING TO BE SEALED AT JOIN I" LID ORIFICE @ RISER AREA (BMP) AREA (TOP) TOTAL SURFACE DESIGN H (IN) LID ORIFICE DEPTH VOLUME BMP (IN) FT 2 FT 2 FT CF 2 24 0.75 6,690 9,497 5.0 4,874 I PROPOSED AREA (S.F) 3.5' 36" 24" 5.0' 36" 24" NOT TO SCALE 700.5 701.0 NOT TO SCALE OMA SHEET FOR= ACADIA HEALTH CARE SHEET1 OF1 Appen dix B: Storm Water Pollutant Co ntrol H yd ro logic Calculatio n s and Sizing Metho d s Worksheet B.3-1. Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening i Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening I Worsksheet B.3-1 1. ls there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present duriog the wet sea son? Land type= office ( table B.3-1) lil Toilet and urinal flushing Total use pe r e mployee= 7 (table B .3-1) [i] Landscape irrigation plant water use= moderate D Othe .. 36 hr irrigation demand= 1,470 Gal I AC (per 36 hr period) (table B .3-3) t._______ total patients employees= 160 2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3 .2 . fProvi.de a summary of calculations here] T&U=7 Gal/day x 160 persons x 1 .5 day /7.48Gal per FT3= 224 LI= 1,470 Gal x 0.95 ACx 1 .5day / 7.48 Gal per FT3= 280 Total 36hr demand=T&U + LI = 224 + 280 = 504 CF 3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. [Provide a results here] DCV= 6 ,572 + 4 ,874= 11,446 (from the two basins) 0.25 DCV = 0 .25X11,446 = 2,861 CF 3a. Is the 36-hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV? Yes I ~ Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm that DCV can be used a t an adequate rate to meet drawdown criteria . BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 36. l s the 36-hour demand greater than 0.25DCV but less than the full DCV? Yes JJ I Harvest and use may be feas ible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to determine feasibility. Harvest and use may only be able to be used for a portion of the site, or (optionally) the storage may need to be upsized to meet long term capture targets while draining in longer than 36 hours. B -17 3c. Is the 36-hour demand less th an 0.25DCV? Yes .ii Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. INFEASIBLE OTYOF CHUlAVISTA AppendixC: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Worksheet C.4-1: Cate orization of Infiltration Feasibili Part 1-Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria 1 Screening Question Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes No ✓ As presented in the project geotechnical evaluation report (Ninyo & Moore, 2019), in-situ infiltration rates at the site were measured between 0.02 inches per hour and 0.47 inches per hour. Any infiltration system utilizing these results should apply the appropriate factor of safety to determine applicable site infiltration rates prior to design. For this project, a Suitability Assessment Safety Factor of 2.25 should be used. The design safety factor shall be determined by the design engineer. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 2 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: ✓ As discussed in the project geotechnical evaluation report (Ninyo & Moore, 2019), laboratory testing of the subsurface soils indicated the presence of soils with high expansion potential. Infiltration of storm water into expansive soils is not recommended. Additionally, fill slopes up to 90 feet in height are present on the west, east, and north portions of the site. Infiltration within 50 feet of the top of a slope is anticipated to induce seepage on the slope face and increase the risk of slope failures in these areas. As stated in the project geotechnical evaluation report, Ninyo & Moore recommends that the bottom and sides of stormwater control devices be lined with an impermeable liner. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 C-11 CITYOF CHULAVISTA Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements -Worksh~et C.4-1 Page 2 of4 j Criteria 3 Screening Question Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, stonn water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Yes No ✓ As discussed in the project geotechnical evaluation report (Ninyo & Moore, 2019), groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration and is anticipated at depths in excess of 60 feet. Based on the measured infiltration rates and the anticipated groundwater depth, infiltration at the site is not likely to have a significant impact on groundwater contamination. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: ✓ Based on the measured infiltration rates and the distance between the proposed BMPs and the nearest surface water (Salt Creek), infiltration at the site is not likely to have a significant impact to the water balance of the creek or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. Pant Result* If all answers to rows 1 -4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is ''No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 Proceed to Part 2 '4<To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings. BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 C-12 ~Vt---_.--::::¥ ~ ~ CITY OF CHULAVISTA Appe.ndix C: Geotech.nical a nd Groundwater Investigation R equirements Worksheet C.4-1 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount b e physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria 5 Screening Question Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes No ✓ As presented in the project geotechnical evaluation report (Ninyo & Moore , 2019), in-situ infiltration rates at the site were measured between 0.02 inches per hour and 0.47 inches per hour. Any infiltration system utilizing these results should apply the appropriate factor of safety to determine applicable site infiltration rates prior to design. For this project, a Suitability Assessment Safety Factor of 2.25 should be used. The design safety factor shall be determined by the design engineer. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 6 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: ✓ As discussed in the project geotechnical evaluation report (N inyo & Moore, 2019), laboratory testing of the subsurface soils indicated the presence of soils with high expansion potential. Infiltration of storm water into expansive soils is not recommended. Additionally, fill slopes up to 90 feet in height are present on the west, east, and north portions of the site . Infiltration within 50 feet of the top of a slope is anticipated to induce seepage on the slope face and increase the risk of slope failures in these areas. As stated in the project geotechnical evaluation report, Ninyo & Moore recommends that the bottom and sides of stormwater control devices be lined with an impermeable liner. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. P rovide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 C-13 ~~~ ~ .. -,_ .. _ .... ·~ -CITYOF OIULA VISTA AppendixC: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements •--· · ·· --Worlcsheet C.~-1 Page 4 of 4 ! Criteria 7 Screening Question Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3 . Provide basis: Yee No ✓ As discussed in the project geotechnical evaluation report (Ninyo & Moore, 2019), groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration and is anticipated at depths in excess of 60 feet. Based on the measured infiltration rates and the anticipated groundwater depth, infiltration at the site is not likely to have a significant impact on groundwater contamination. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: ✓ Based on the measured infiltration rates and the distance between the proposed BMPs and the nearest surface water (Salt Creek), infiltration at the site is not likely to have a significant impact to the water balance of the creek or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Part2 Result"' If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. No infiltration ~o be completed us1ng gathered site mformation and best professional Judgment cons1denng the definition of :MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by Agency /Jurisdictions to substantiate findings BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 C-14 ~Vt--_.-~ CITY OF CHULAVISTA BMP1 Appendix D : Approved Infiltra tion R ate Assessm e nt M e thods W k h D51 F f S fi dD . Infil R W kh --. ~ t~~~tor,o},~a:fety -~nd ,•Design· lnfiltratirin-! 'Worksheet D.·5-1 ,Rate Worksheet ~ Assigned Facto1· Product (p) Factor Category Factor Description Weight (w) Value (v) p=wxv Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5 Predominant soil texture 0.25 3 0.75 Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 3 0.75 A Assessment Depth to groundwater I impervious layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessm en t Safety Facto r, SA= I:p Level of pretreatment/ expected 0.5 1 0.5 sediment loads B Design R edundancy/ resiliency 0.25 1 0.25 Compaction during constmction 0.25 1 0.25 D esign Safety Factor, Ss = I:p Combined Safety Factor , Stot,J= SAX SB 2.25 Observed I nfiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobserved 0.29 (corrected fo r test-specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Kie,,gn = Kobserved / Stat.! 0.13 Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltratio n test and provide reference to test forms: Two infiltration tests were performed at each of th e fou r pro posed basin areas for a total of eight tests. Tests were perfor med in boreholes d rill ed to depths of 5 feet b e low existing grades. In-situ infiltration rates at the s ite we re measured b etween 0 .02 and 0 .47 inches per hour. Test locations and infiltration tests resu lt s a re presented in t he project geotechnical eval uati on re po rt (Ni nyo a nd Moore, 2019) BMP D es ign Manual-Appendices D ecember 2015 D -17 ~Vt-~•-;~ CJTYOF CHULAVISTA BMP2 AppendixD: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods W kh D5 1 F fS £ dD . -Infil Rt W k h - '•Fa'c tor o 'fSa'.fety ·,and Design •Infiltration i l Worksheet" D .:5-1 'Rate ·Worksheet I - Assigned Factor Product (p) Factoli Category Factor Description Weight (w) Value (v) p=wxv Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5 Predominant soil texture 0.25 3 0.75 Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 3 0 .75 A Assessment Depth to groundwater I impervious layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Fac tor, SA = I:p Level of pretreatment/ expected 0.5 1 0.5 sediment loads B Design Redw1dancy / resiliency 0.25 1 0.25 Compaction during constiuction 0.25 1 0.25 Design Safety Factor, SB = I:p Combined Safety Factor, S,0"11= SA x Ss 2.25 O bserved Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobserved 0.27 (corrected for test-specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Kdesi!'P = Kobmved / Sco,al 0.14 Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: Two infiltration tests were performed at each of the four proposed basin areas for a total of eight tests. Tests were performed in boreholes drilled to depths of 5 feet below existing grades. In-situ infiltration rates at the site were measured between 0.02 and 0.47 inches per hour. Test locations and infiltration tests results are presented in the project geotechnical evaluation report (Ninyo and Moore, 2019) BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 D-17 OlYOF CHULAVISfA DMA#1 AppendixB: Storm Water Pollutant Control H ydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B .2-1. DCV ~-. -----~ne~i.i~~iure ~~uiije --• -. ----7 ----.. -_-] ·~orksheet· B-2.l . -~ "' -. _._ . -.. -~ -~--~ ---- 1 8 5th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B .1-1 2 Area tributary to B:tvfP (s) 3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B .2.1 ) 4 Street trees volume r eduction 5 Rain barrels volume reduction 6 Calculate DCV =(3630 x C x d x A) -TCV -RCV WEIGHTED RUNOFF FACTOR EQUAT ION; Wc=(C")(AREA imp)+(C*)(AREA perv)/TOTAL AREA Where: Aimp=Tributary Area 156,292 sf Aperv=Tributary Area 87,991 sf Wc=(0.90)(156,292sf)+(0.10)(87,991 sf)/244,283sf We= 0.61 BMP Design Manu al-Append ices December 2015 B -13 ' ---- d= 0.53 A= 5.6 C= 0.61 T CV= - RCV= - DCV= 6,572 inches acres unitless cubic-feet cubic-feet cubic-feet OTYOF CHULAVISTA Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs Partial Retention 2 Infiltration rate from \Xlorksheet D.5-1 if partial infiltration is feasible 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] 5 Aggregate pore space 6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line -1-/ Line 5] 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 8 Media retained pore storage 9 Volume retained by BMP [[Line 4 + (Linc 12 x Line 8)]/12] x Linc 7 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 -Line 9] BMP Parameters 11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] 12 Media Thickness [18 inches minimum], also add mulch layer thickness to this line for sizing calculations Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical) -use 0 13 inches for sizing if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area 0.15 36 5.4 0.40 13 .5 7456 0.1 3345 3227 24 36 24 14 Media available pore space 0.2 Media filtration rate to be used for si7.ing (5 in/hr. with no outlet 0.66 15 control; if the filtration rate is controlled by the outlet use the outlet controlled rate) Baseline Calculations 16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 6 17 Depth filtered during storm [ Line 15 x Line 16] 4 18 Depth of Detention Storage [Linc 11 + (Line 12 x Line 1-1-)+ (Line 13 x Line 5)] 40.8 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 18] 44.8 in /\1r. hours inches in/in inches sq -ft in/in cubic-feet cubic-feet inches inches inches in/in in/hr. hours inches inches inches Simple Sizing Method for Biofiltration BMPs Worksheet B.5-1 (Page 2 of 2) Clpt iob. 1 -Biofi.lter 1.5 times the DCV 20 Required biofiltered volume (1.5 x Linc 10] 4840.5 cubic-feet 21 Required Footprint [Line 20/ Line 19] x 12 1297.7 sq-ft Option 2 -Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding 22 Required Storage (surface+ pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] cubic-feet 23 Required Footprint [Line 22/ Line 18] x 12 sq-ft Footprint of the BMP 2+ Arca draining to the BMP 244283 sq-ft 25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.61 26 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.03] 4470 sq-ft 25 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Line 21, Linc 23), Line 26) 3732 sq-ft 26 BMP Footprint Sizing Factor (Default 0.03 or an alternative minimum footprint sizing 0.03 unitless factor from Worksheet B.5-2, Line 11) 27 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Linc 25 x Linc 26] 4470 sq-ft 28 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Linc 21, Line 23), Line 27) 3732 sq-ft ,Check for Volume Reduction [Not applicable for No Infiltration Condition] 29 Calculate the fraction of the DCV retained by the BMP [Line 9 / Line 1] 0.5 unitless 30 Minimum required fraction of DCV retained for partial infiltration condition unitless 0.375 31 Is the retained DCV > 0.375? If the answer is no increase the footprint sizing factor in llGYes □No Line 26 until the answer is yes for this criterion. DMA#2 Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV , .. ----. -.. -.. De-sign Capture Volume 1 85 th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.l -1 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) 3 Area weighted runoff factor ( estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2 .1 ) 4 Street trees volume reduction 5 Rain barrels volume reduction 6 Calculate DCV =(3630 x C x d x A)-TCV -RCV WEIGHTED RUNOFF FACTOR EQUATION; Wc=(C*)(AREA imp)+(C*)(AREA perv)/TOTAL AREA Where: Aimp=Tributary Area 114,202 sf Aperv=Tributary Area 94,170 sf Wc=(0.90)(114,202sf)+(0.10)(94, 170 sf)/208,372sf We= 0.53 BlvfP D esign }.11anual-A ppendices December 2015 B-13 : ' Worksheet B-2.1 . ~ d= 0.53 A= 4.78 C= 0.53 TCV= - RCV= - DCV= 4,874 inches acres unitl ess cubic-feet cubic-feet cubic-feet ~If?.. -.-';:-=----~ OlYOF CHULAVISTA Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs Partial Retention 2 Infiltration rate from Worksheet D.5-1 if partial infiltration is feasible 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] 5 Aggregate pore space 6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4/ Line 5] 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 8 Media retained pore storage 9 Volume retained by BMP [[Line 4 + (Line 12 x Line 8)]/12] x Line 7 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 -Line 9] BMP Parameters 11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] 12 Media Thickness [18 inches minimum], also add mulch layer thickness to this line for sizing calculations Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical) -use 0 13 inches for sizing if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area 14 Media available pore space Media filtration rate to be used for sizing (5 in/hr. with no outlet 15 control; if the filtration rate is controlled by the outlet use the outlet controlled rate) Baseline Calculations 16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 17 Depth filtered during storm [ Line 15 x Line 16] 18 Depth of Detention Storage [Line 11 + (Line 12 x Line 14)+ (Line 13 x Line 5)] 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 18] 0.14 in/hr. 36 hours 5 inches 0.40 in/in 12.6 inches 6690 sq -ft 0.1 in/in 2784 cubic-feet 2090 cubic-feet 24 inc hes 36 inches 24 i nches 0.2 in/in 0.58 in/hi:. 6 h o urs 3.5 inch e~ 40.8 inches 44.3 inches 'Simple Sizing Method for Biofiltration BMPs Worksheet B.5-1 (Page 2 of2) Optj_0n 1 -Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV 20 Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 10] 3135 cubic-feet 21 Required Footprint [Line 20 / Line 19] x 12 850 sq-ft Option 2 -Store 0. 7 5 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding ')') Required Storage (surface+ pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] cubic-feet 23 Required Footprint [Line 22/ Line 18] x 12 sq-ft Footprint of the BMP 24 Area draining to the BMP 208372 sq-ft 25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendi..'i: B.1 and B.2) 0.53 26 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.03] 3313 sq-ft 25 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Line 21, Line 23), Line 26) 3732 sq-ft 26 BMP Footprint Sizing Factor (Default 0.03 or an alternative minimum footprint sizing 0.03 unitless factor from Worksheet B.5-2, Line 11) 27 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x Line 26] 3313 sq-ft 28 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Line 21, Line 23), Line 27) 3732 sq-ft - Check for Volume Reduction [Not applicable for No [ntiltratiQn .Condition] 29 Calculate the fraction of the DCV retained by the BMP [Line 9 / Line 1] 0.57 unitless 30 Minimum required fraction of DCV retained for partial infiltration condition unitless 0.375 31 Is the retained DCV > 0.375? If the answer is no increase the footprint sizing factor in 18 Yes □No Line 26 until the answer is yes for this criterion. USDA United States s::::::= Department of Agriculture NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for San Diego County Area, California Acadia Healthcare Chula Vista February 19, 2019 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use plann ing in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users , including farmers , ranchers, foresters , agronomists, urban planners , community officials , engineers , developers , builders , and home buye rs. Also, conservationists , teachers, students , and specialists in re creation , waste d isposal , and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand , p rotect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal , State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil propert ies that are used in ma king various land use or land t reatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identify ing and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for genera l farm , local , and wider a rea planning , onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usd a.g o v/wps/ porta l/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information , contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.s c.egov.usd a.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/po rtal/n rcs/detail/soils/contactus/? c id=nrcs 142p2_053951 ). Great differences in soil properties can occu r within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding . Some are too unstabl e to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads . Clayey or wet soils a re poony suited to use as septic tank absorption fields . A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basement s or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies , State agencies including the Agricultura l Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Informat ion aboi.jt soils is updated periodically. Updated infor mation is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey inf ormation. The U.S. Department of Agric ulture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in a ll its programs and activities on the basis of race , color, nationa l origin , age, disability, and where app licable , sex, marital status , familial status , parental status , religion , sexual orientation , genetic information, political beliefs , reprisal , or because a ll or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all p ro hibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons w ith disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface .................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made .................................................................................. 5 Soil Map .................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map ................................................................................................................ 9 Legend ................................................................................................................ 10 Map Unit Legend ................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions ......................................................................................... 11 San Diego County Area, California ................................................................. 13 DaC-Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes ..................................................... 13 DaE-Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes ................................................. 14 References ............................................................................................................ 16 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 32° 39' 23" N '52 32° 39' 15" N ~ ~ iii i !ii I ~ !ll i ! ~ :"I f;; ~ fO«l2ll N A Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map = 504100 504140 504100 504220 Map Scale: 1:1,830 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet ---~====-------~=======Meters o ~ ro 100 1ro ---===-----=====i Feet a ro 100 200 DJ Map projection : Web MerollDr Comer a:,oroinates : WGS84 Edge tics : lJTM Zone llN WGS84 9 5042a) 5043:XJ :D4340 50438J ~ !cl f;; ~ ~ 32" 39'23"N Iii g i Ii! ,; !ii ~ !ii I ~ Iii ! 32° 39' 1511 N Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) 91 Spoil Area □ Area of Interest (AOI) 0 Stony Spot Soils a) Very Stony Spot LJ Soil Map Unit Polygons , Wet Spot -Soil Map Unit Lines [:; Other Soil Map Unit Points ... Special Point Features Special Line Features w Blowout Water Features ,,-..,, Streams and Canals 181 Borrow Pit Transportation • Clay Spot Rails +-H ◊ Closed Depression -Interstate Highways ;x; Gravel Pit US Routes -. Gravelly Spot Major Roads .. 0 Landfill Local Roads A. Lava Flow Background .. Marsh or swamp • Aerial Photography ~ Mine or Quarry 0 Miscellaneous Water 0 Perennial Water V Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot .. Sandy Spot ... Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole ~ Slide or Slip fJ Sadie Spot 10 MAP INFORMATION 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 13, Sep 12, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed : Dec 7, 2014-Jan 4 , 2015 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 shirtln.9. of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend . ·. Map .Unit Symbol Map Unit.Name AcresinAOI Percentof AOI .. Dae Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent 6.5 slopes DaE Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent 4.0 slopes Totals for Area of Interest 10.5 Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 11 62.1% 37.9% 100.0% Custom Soil Resource Report onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, Oto 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, Oto 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report San Diego County Area, California DaC-Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hbb8 Elevation: 30 to 3,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 61 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 320 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Diab/a and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Diablo Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Calcareous sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 -Oto 15 inches: clay H2 -15 to 32 inches: silty clay loam, clay H2 -15 to 32 inches: weathered bedrock H3 -32 to 36 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydro/ogic Soil Group: D Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Altamont Percent of map unit: 10 percent 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Linne Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Olivenhain Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No DaE-Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hbbb Elevation: 200 to 3,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 25 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 31 0 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Diab lo and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on obseNations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Diablo Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Calcareous sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 -Oto 15 inches: clay H2 -15 to 32 inches: silty clay loam, clay H2 -15 to 32 inches: weathered bedrock H3 -32 to 36 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 O percent Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7 .7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: CLAYEY (1975) (R019XD001 CA) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Altamont Percent of map unit: 1 O percent Hydric soil rating: No Linne Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Oliventain Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No 15 References American Association of State H ighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing . 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005 . Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Coward in, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/3 1. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of th e United States. Hurt , G.W., and L.M. Vasilas , editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ n rcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=n rcs142p2_ 054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service , U .S . Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www. n res. usd a. gov/wps/porta 1/n rcs/d eta i 1/n ati on a 1/so ils/?cid = n res 142p2_ 05 35 77 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service. httpJ/ www. nrcs. usda .gov/wps/portal/nrcs/deta il/n ational/soils/?cid=nrcs 142p2_ 053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control , Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers , Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1 . United States Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/s oils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_05337 4 United States Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ d etail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=ste lprdb1043084 16 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agricu lture , Natu ral Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, t itle 430-VI. http://www.nrcs .usda.g ov/W ps/po rtal/ nrcs/d e tai I/s oi ls/scie ntists/?cid=nrcs 142p2_ 054242 United States Department of Agriculture , Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and maj or land resource areas of the United States, the Car ibbean , and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.n rcs .usd a.g ov/W ps/po rta l/n rcs /detail/n ation al/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_05 3624 United States Department of Agric ulture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agricult ure Handbook 210. http:// www. nrcs. usda .g ov/I nternet/FSE_DOCUM ENTS/nrcs 142p2_ 052290 .pdf 17 2 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2. Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing D Mark this box if this attachment is empty because the project is exempt from PDP hydromodification management requirements. Indicate which items are included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Hydromodification Management Exhibit IZJ Included (Required) Attachment 2a See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Management of Critical Coarse IZl Exhibit showing project drainage Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit is boundaries marked on WMAA Critical required, additional analyses are Coarse Sediment Yield Area Map optional) (Required) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Manual. Sediment Yield Area Determination Attachment 2b D 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite D 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment D 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving IZl Not performed Channels (Optional) D Included Attachment 2c See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design D Submitted as separate stand-alone Manual. document Flow Control Facility Design, including IZl Included Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations D Submitted as separate stand-alone Attachment 2d and Overflow Design Summary document (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual Vector Control Plan (Required when D Included Attachment 2e structural BMPs will not drain in 96 IZl Not required because BMPs will drain hours) in less than 96 hours Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify: 0 Underlying hydrologic soil group 0 Approximate depth to groundwater D Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) D Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected 0 Existing topography 0 Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite 0 Proposed grading 0 Proposed impervious features 0 Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness 0 Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management 0 Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) 0 Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) AREAS DRAINING TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN #2 (DMA #2)LANDSCAPE87,9910.14,4840.03149,462TOTAL DMA AREA=8,7997,456244,283 SFAREAS DRAINING TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN #1 (DMA #1)0.9156,292ROOF AND PAVEMENT140,663LEGENDFEATURESYMBOLDRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREASURFACE FLOW PROPOSED AC PAVEMENTPROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA(TRIBUTARY TO BIOFILTRATION)PROPOSED BIOFILTRATION AREA(TREATMENT CONTROL)PROPOSED P.C.C.PROPOSED ROOFPROPOSED TREE WELLRDROOF DRAINDRAINAGE STRUCTURE FLOWGROUNDWATERUNDERLAYING SOIL GROUPLANDSCAPE94,1700.13,3480.03111,599TOTAL DMA AREA=9,4176,690208,372 SF0.9114,202ROOF AND PAVEMENT102,182BMP1- BIOFILTRATION WITH PARTIAL INFILTRATION PR-1BMP2- BIOFILTRATION WITH PARTIAL INFILTRATION PR-1BMP CATEGORY/TYPESTORM DRAIN SIGNAGECCSYA NOTE:TOTAL SITE AREATOTAL DISTURBED AREAHYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT (HMP)ATTACHMENT 2aWITH DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES/• BIORETENTION #1 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 296-5565 Fax: (619) 296-5564 ' /' ~/·_~ / // ACCORDING TO THE UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT PREPAREDD~;T~1~? 4~NfEtl□RE DATED MARCH 6, 2019: No GROUND WATER WAS OBSERVED IN THE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AT AT · PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN OR DOESN'T RECEIVE OR DRAINS FROM CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS. SEE ATTACHMENT 2b BIOFILTRATION PR-I ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE SOIL SURVEY (USDA) THE UNDERLAYING SOIL CONSISTS OF SOIL TYPE D. 454,330 SQ. Fl 427,759 SQ. Fl POST-PROJECT SURFACE TYPE DMA AREA (SF) DMA RUNOFF FACTOR -----I II I lillW 1111 DMAAREAX RUNOFF FACTOR I IMP SIZING FACTOR SIT[ VICINl1Y MAP NOT TO SCALf NO DUMPING GOES TO OCEAN ~ NO TIRAR BASU RA ~ LLEGAAL MAR think BLUE 1. THESE ARE SAMPLE TILES AND SIGNS. 2. CITY ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE OR APPROVE SIGNS, TILES OR STENCILS. 3 PROVIDE LABELING WITH PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE ("NO DUMPING GOES TO OCEAN -NO TIRAR BASURA LLEGA AL MAR") 4. SIGN SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE CATCH BASIN GRATE. (WM ONLY) MIN.AREA (S.F.) PROPOSED AREA (S.F.) 5. SIGN SHALL HAVE A WHITE BACKGROUND WITH BLUE LETTERING. POST-PROJECT SURFACE TYPE DMA AREA (SF) WATER QUALITY PONDING 24" SURFACE PONDING DMA RUNOFF FACTOR I • I I DMAAREAX RUNOFF FACTOR IMP SIZING FACTOR I (WM ONLY) MIN.AREA (S.F.) 50 YR WS 36" SURFACE PONDING (MAX.) r . I' I I 2: I SLOPE MAX. 36" DIA. RISER '."I<::, °' 24" " OUTLET PIPE IE=690.65 6" PERFORATED PIPE WITH CLEANOUTS/ NOTE· ALL ENTRY AND EXIT PIPES PASSING I" LID ORIFICE @ RISER THRU. IMPERMEABLE LINING TO BE SEALED AT JOIN AREA (BMP) AREA (TOP) H (IN) LID ORIFICE BMP (IN) FT 2 FT 2 I 24 0.9 7,456 8,495 NOT TO SCALE 701.0 WATER QUALITY PONDING 21'' SURF /ICE PONDING 3" GRAVEL (ASTM 57) 36" MEDIA W/ 5" /HOUR MIN. FILTRATION RATE IMPERMEABLE LINER 3" SAND (ASTM 33) 3" PEA GRAVEL (ASTM 8) 18" PEA GRAV!" (ASTM 57) . I I ·. ·I ,-, TOTAL SURFACE DESIGN DEPTH VOLUME FT CF 3.5 6,572 50 YR WS 35" SURFACE PONDING (MAX.) 2: I SLOPE MAX. 36" DIA. RISER !o<:i 24" "'03 { . . . I I OUTI cT PIPF IE=687.92 6" PERFORATED PIPE WITH CLEANOUTS/ NOTE· ALL ENTRY AND EXIT PIPES PASSING THRU. IMPERMEABLE LINING TO BE SEALED AT JOIN I" LID ORIFICE @ RISER AREA (BMP) AREA (TOP) TOTAL SURFACE DESIGN H (IN) LID ORIFICE DEPTH VOLUME BMP (IN) FT 2 FT 2 FT CF 2 24 0.75 6,690 9,497 5.0 4,874 I PROPOSED AREA (S.F) 3.5' 36" 24" 5.0' 36" 24" NOT TO SCALE 700.5 701.0 NOT TO SCALE OMA SHEET FOR= ACADIA HEALTH CARE SHEET1 OF1 CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS M A P esp ma p Source: SWRCB E IC'.&S ENGINEERING, INC. Planning Engineering Surveying HMP Modeling for Hydromodification Compliance DR 19-0012, CUP 19-0010, PER 19-0006 Prepared for: EASTLAKE BEHA VIORAL HEALTH HOSPITAL 6100 Tower Circle, Suite 1000 Franklin, TN 9191-1 3 70067 Prepared by: K&S ENGINEERING, INC. 780 I Mission Center Court, Suite I 00 San Diego, CA 92108 6 19.296.5565 August I, 20 19 K&S JN 16-054 ~~ s.s,._~, No. 48592 (P Exp. 6-30-20 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 -VICIN ITY MAP SECTION 2 -INTRODUCTION SECTION 3 -PURPOSE OF THIS MODEL SECTION 4 -HMP MODELING HYDROLOGY STUDY 4. I Summary of Existing Condition ....................................................................... . 4.2 Summary of Pro posed Conditi on ................................... . SECTION 5-REFERENCES TABLE OF FIGURES APPENDIX A SOHM 3 .J Project Report Calculations and C harts APPENDIXB HMP Exhibit 1 VICINITY MAP SITE VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE HY DRO LOGY STU DY ··, ------ HYDROLOGY STUDY 2 INTRODUCTION The project consists of two ex.isting mass graded lots. i.e .. Lots 7 & 8 of Map No. 14395 The project consists of grading and drainage improvements for one medical building with loading docks. parking, landscaping. storm drains a nd biofiltration BMP's for pollutant control and hydromodification purposes. The s ubject report reflects the proposed precise grading and drainage as shown on precise grading plan Drawing N o. C-1 through C-5 of DRC 19-001 2. 3 PURPOSE OF THIS MODEL Continuous s imulation hy drologic modeling was conducted on this project to demonstrate compliance with the performance standards for hydromodification management in San Diego. The San Diego Hydrology Model (SOHM) distributed by Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. was used for hydromodification management on the subject driveway. The inputs requi red to develop SOHM models include rainfall, watershed characteristics, and BMP configurations. The Bonita gauge from the Proj ect Clean Water website was used for this study. Default SDHM 3.1 pervious and impervious soil parameters used are foun d in Appendix A of thi s report. Per the NRCS web soil sw-vey, the project site is situated upon C lass D soils. Soils have been assumed to be compacted to represent the current existing developed condition of the site, while fully compacted in the post developed conditions 4 HMP MODELING In current existing conditions, the existing s ite is a mass graded development that includes vegetated areas areas. Table 4.1 below illustrates the pre-developed area and impervious percentage accordingly. 4.1 Summary of Predev eloped Condition POC DMAID Tributary Area, A (Ac) Impervious Percentage,lp POC-1 DMA-1 5.60 0% POC-2 DMA-2 4.78 0% HYDROLOGY STUDY Rw1off from the improved areas of the project site are drained to two one onsite receiving LID BMPs. Once flows are routed via the proposed BMPs, onsite flows are then discharged to the existing discharge locations. Table 4.2 summarizes the post-developed area and impervious percentage accordingly. 4.2 Summary of Proposed Condition POC DMAID Tributary Area, A (Ac) Impervious Percentage, Ip POC-1 DMA-1 5.60 64% POC-2 DMA-2 4.78 56% Two HMP Biofiltration basins with Pattial Retention are proposed within the project site and are responsible for performing bydromodification and water quality requirements for the project site. Runoff is di scharged to these dual purpose water quality and H MP biofiltration basins prior to drainjng to the receiving POCs. In developed conditions, the Biofiltration basin l will have surface depth of 2 4-inches. This Biofiltration basin w ill include a riser spillway structure set to an e levation of 24-inches from the surface bottom of the basin. U nderneath the basin invert is located the proposed LID biofiltration portion of the drainage facility. This portion of the basin is comprised of a 3-inch layer o f mulch, an 36-inch layer of amended soi l (a hi ghly sandy. organic r ich composite with an infiltration capacity of at least 5 inches/hr) and an 24-i nch layer of gravel which in cl udes the 6 inches of filter layer and the 3 inches of dead storage b elow the LID orifice. The BMP will be unlined to allow infiltration into the underlying soi l. Similarly, the Biofiltration basin 2 will have surface depth of 24-inc hes. This Biofiltration basin w ill include a riser spillway structure set to an elevation of 24-inches from the surface bottom of tbe basin. Underneath the basin invert is located the proposed LlD biofiltration pmtion of the drainage faci lity. This pottion of the basin is comprised of a 3-inch layer of mulch, an 36-inch layer of amended soil (a highl y sandy, organic ri ch composite with an infiltration capacity of at least 5 inches/hr) and an 24-inch layer of gravel which jncJudes the 6 inches of filter layer and the 3 inches of dead storage below tJ1e LID orifice. The BMP will be un lined to a llow infiltration into the underlying soil. The BMP w ill be unlined to allow infi ltration into the underlying soil. HYDROLOGY STUDY TABLE 3 -SUMMARY OF D EVELOPE D DUAL P U RPO SE BMP DIMENSIONS BMP Tributary BMP LID Gravel Depth to Weir Total Area Area, Orifice Depth Top of Perimeter Surface (Ac) (ff) (in) (in) Riser( rt) Length (ft) Depth (ft) I 5.60 7,456 1.0" 24" 2 .0· 9.42 ' 3.5 ' 2 4 .78 6,690 1.0" 24'' 2.0' 4 .42' 5.0 ' Water Quality BMP Sizing The BMPs have been designed in accordance with City of Chula Vista 2 015 BMP Design Manual sizing c riteria. 5. REFERENCES I -"Final Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) prepared for the County of San Diego", March 2011 , Brown and Caldwell. 2 -San Dieg o Regional Water Qual ity Control Board Order No . R9-2013-000 I as amended by R9-2015-000L and R 9-2015-0 J00 (MS4 Permit). 3 -"City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual",. 4 -San Di ego Hydrology Model 3.1 User ManuaJ -April 2017 APPENDIX A - SOHM 3 .1 PROJECT REPORT CALCULATIONS AND CHARTS HYD ROLOGY STU DY SDHM3.1 PROJECT REPORT General Model Information Project Name: 18-062 Site Name: Acadia Site Address: Shwiroom Place City: Chu la Vista Report Date: 8/2/2019 Gage: BONITA Data Start: 10/01/1971 Data End: 09/30/2004 Timestep: Hourly Precip Scale: 1.000 Version Date: 2019/04/19 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: High Flow Threshold for POC1: Low Flow Threshold for POC2: High Flow Threshold for POC2: 18-062 10 Percent of the 2 Year 10 Year 1 0 Percent of the 2 Year 10 Year 8/2/2019 7:48:34 AM Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass : No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre D ,NatVeg ,Flat 5 .61 Pervious Total 5.61 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 5 .61 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow 18-062 Groundwater 8/2/2019 7 :48:34 AM Page 3 Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre D,NatVeg ,Flat 4.78 Pervious Tota l 4.78 Impervious Land Use acre I mpervious Total 0 Basin Total 4.78 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater 18-062 8/2/2019 7 ·48:34 AM Page4 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre D,NatVeg,Moderate 2.02 Pervious Tot al 2 .02 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-MOD 3.59 Impervious Total 3.59 Basin Total 5.61 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Surface B iofilter 1 Surface Biofilter 1 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:34 AM Page 5 Basin 2 Bypass : No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre D, NatVeg, Moderate 2 .16 Pervious Total 2.16 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-MOD 2.62 Impervious Total 2 .62 Basin Total 4 .78 Element Flows To: Surface l nterflow Groundwater Surface Biofilter 2 Surface Biofilter 2 18-062 8/2120 19 7:48:34 AM Page 6 Routing Elements Predeve/oped Routing 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:34 AM Page 7 Mitigated Routing Biofilter 1 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Material thickness of first layer: Material type for first layer: Material thickness of second layer: Material type for second layer: Material thickness of third layer: Material type for third layer: Infiltration On Infiltration rate: Infiltration safety factor: Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.); Percent Infiltrated : Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet): Orifice Diameter (in.): Offset (in.): Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): Total Outflow (ac-ft.): Percent Through Underdrain: Discharge Structure Riser Height: 2 ft. Riser Diameter: 36 in . Element Fl ows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter Hydraulic Table 223.00 ft. 20.00 ft. 0.25 Mulch 3 ESM 2 GRAVEL 0.29 0.13 19.339 3.381 71.696 26.97 5.61 5.875 0.5 0.9 3 48.976 71.696 68.31 Stage(feet) 697.00 697.09 697.18 697.27 697.36 697.45 697.54 697.63 697.73 697.82 697.91 698.00 698.09 698.18 698.27 698.36 698.45 698.54 698.63 698.72 Area(ac.) 0.3009 0.2974 0.2936 0.2898 0.2861 0.2823 0.2785 0.2748 0.2711 0.2674 0.2637 0.2600 0.2563 0.2527 0.2491 0.2454 0 .2418 0.2382 0.2346 0 .2311 Volume(ac-ft.) 0.0000 Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0057 0.0000 0.0000 0.0087 0.0000 0.0000 0.0118 0.0000 0.0000 0.0150 0.0000 0.0024 0.0182 0.0000 0.0039 0.0215 0.0000 0.0039 0.0250 0.0000 0.0039 0.0285 0.0000 0 .0039 0.0320 0.0000 0.0039 0.0357 0.0000 0.0039 0.0395 0.0000 0.0039 0.0433 0.0000 0.0039 0.0472 0.0000 0.0039 0.0513 0.0018 0.0039 0.0554 0.0027 0.0039 0.0596 0.0044 0.0039 0.0639 0.0052 0.0039 0.0682 0.0064 0.0039 18-062 8/2/2019 7 :48 :34 AM Page 8 698.81 0.2275 0 .0727 0 .0070 0.0039 698.90 0 .2240 0 .0772 0.0080 0 .0039 698.99 0 .2204 0 .08 19 0.0085 0 .0039 699.09 0 .2169 0.0866 0.0093 0 .0039 699.18 0 .2134 0 .0915 0.0097 0 .0039 699.27 0 .2099 0.0964 0.0104 0 .0039 699 .36 0 .2064 0.1014 0.0108 0 .0039 699.45 0.2030 0.1065 0.011 4 0.0039 699 .54 0.1995 0.1117 0.01 18 0 .0039 699 .63 0.1961 0 .1170 0 .0124 0 .0039 699.72 0 .1927 0 .1223 0.0127 0.0039 699.81 0 .1893 0 .1278 0 .0132 0 .0039 699.90 0 .1859 0 .1334 0.0135 0 .0039 699.99 0 .1825 0 .1390 0.0 140 0.0039 700.08 0 .1791 0 .1448 0 .0143 0.0039 700.17 0.1758 0 .1507 0.0148 0 .0039 700 .26 0.1724 0 .1589 0.0151 0 .0039 700.35 0.1691 0.1672 0 .0155 0.0039 700.45 0 .1658 0.1757 0.0158 0 .0039 700.54 0.1625 0.1844 0.0162 0.0039 700 .63 0 .1592 0 .1931 0.0165 0.0039 700.72 0 .1559 0 .2020 0 .0169 0 .0039 700.81 0.1527 0.21 10 0 .0171 0.0039 700.90 0 .1494 0.2202 0 .0175 0 .0039 700.99 0.1462 0.2295 0 .0 178 0 .0039 701.08 0.1430 0 .2390 0 .0 180 0 .0039 70 1.17 0.1398 0 .2485 0 .018 1 0.0039 70 1.26 0.1366 0 .2582 0 .0 185 0.0039 701 .35 0 .1334 0.2681 0 .0 192 0 .0039 701.44 0.1302 0.2781 0.0201 0.0039 701 .53 0 .1271 0 .2882 0.02 10 0.0039 701.62 0 .1240 0.2985 0.0220 0 .0039 701 .7 1 0 .1208 0 .3089 0 .0230 0.0039 701 .80 0 .1177 0.3194 0.0239 0.0039 70 1.90 0 .1146 0.3301 0 .0248 0 .0039 701.99 0.1116 0 .3410 0 .0257 0 .0039 702 .08 0.1085 0 .3519 0.0265 0.0039 702.17 0 .1054 0 .3631 0 .0274 0 .0039 702.25 0.1024 0.3733 0 .0492 0 .0039 Biofilter Hyd raulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharg e(cfs)T o Ame nded(cfs)lnfil t(cfs ) 5 .2500 0 .3009 0 .3733 0.0000 0 .0530 0 .0000 5 .34 07 0.3047 0.4008 0.0000 0.0530 0 .0000 5.4313 0 .3086 0.4286 0 .0000 0.0530 0 .0000 5 .5220 0.3124 0.4567 0 .0000 0.0530 0 .0000 5 .6126 0 .3163 0.4852 0 .0000 0.0530 0.0000 5.7033 0 .3202 0.5140 0.0000 0 .0530 0 .0000 5.7940 0.3241 0.5433 0.0000 0 .0530 0.0000 5.8846 0.3280 0 .5728 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 5.9753 0 .33 19 0 .6027 0 .0000 0.0530 0 .0000 6.0659 0 .3358 0 .6330 0 .0000 0.0530 0.0000 6.1566 0 .3398 0.6636 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 6.2473 0.3437 0.6946 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 6.3379 0 .3477 0 .7259 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 6.4286 0.3517 0 .7576 0.0000 0.0530 0 .0000 6.5192 0 .3557 0.7897 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 6.6099 0.3597 0 .8221 0 .0000 0.0530 0.0000 18-062 8/2120 19 7:4 8:34 AM Page9 6 .7005 0 .3638 0.8549 0 .0000 0.0530 0.0000 6.7912 0.3678 0.8881 0 .0000 0.0530 0.0000 6.8819 0.3719 0.9216 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 6 .9725 0 .3759 0.9555 0.0000 0 .0530 0.0000 7.0632 0.3800 0.9898 0.0000 0 .0530 0.0000 7 .1538 0 .3841 1.0244 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 7.2445 0.3882 1 .0594 0.0000 0.0530 0.0000 7.3352 0.3924 1.0948 0 .7909 0.0530 0.0000 7.4258 0.3965 1 .1306 2.3428 0 .0530 0.0000 7.5165 0.4007 1.1667 4.3596 0.0530 0.0000 7 .6071 0.4048 1 .2032 6.7280 0.0530 0 .0000 7 .6978 0.4090 1.2401 9 .3612 0.0530 0.0000 7.7885 0.4132 1.2774 12.177 0 .0530 0.0000 7.8791 0.4174 1.3151 15.091 0 .0530 0 .0000 7.9698 0.4216 1.3531 18.017 0.0530 0.0000 8.0604 0.4259 1.3915 20.869 0 .0530 0.0000 8.1511 0.4301 1.4303 23.565 0 .0530 0.0000 8.2418 0.4344 1.4695 26.032 0.0530 0 .0000 8.2500 0.4348 1.4731 28.2 12 0.0530 0.0000 ~8-062 8/2/2019 7:48:34 AM Page 10 Surface Biofilter 1 Element Fl ows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter 1 18-062 8/2/2019 7 :48 :34 AM Page 11 Biofilter 2 Bottom Le ngth: Bottom Width: Material thickness of first layer: Material type for first layer: Material thickness of second layer: Material type for second layer: Material thickness of third layer: Material type for third layer: Infiltration On Infiltration rate: Infiltration safety factor: Total Volume I nfiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent I nfiltrated : Total Precip Applied to Facil ity: Tota l Evap From Facility: Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet): Orifice Diameter (in.): Offset (in.): Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): Total Outflow (ac-ft.): Percent Through Underdrain: Discharge Structure Riser Height: 2 ft. Riser Diameter: 36 in . El ement Fl ows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter Hydraulic Table 184.00 ft . 20.00 ft. 0.25 Mulch 3 ESM 2 GRAVEL 0 .27 0 .14 16.029 2 .711 53.91 29.73 4.763 4 .952 0.5 0 .75 3 35.17 53.91 65.24 Stage(feet) 696.00 696.09 696.18 696.27 696.36 696.45 696.54 696.63 696 .73 696 .82 696.91 697.00 697 .09 697 .18 697.27 697,36 697.45 697.54 697.63 697.72 697.81 697.90 Area(ac.) 0.2548 0 .2518 0.2484 0 .2451 0.2419 0.2386 0.2353 0.2321 0.2288 0.2256 0 .2224 0.2192 0.2160 0.2129 0 .2097 0 .2066 0 .2035 0.2003 0 .1972 0 .1942 0 .1911 0 .1 880 Volume(ac-ft.) 0.0000 Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0,0000 0.0000 0 .0023 0 .0000 0.0000 0.0047 0 .0000 0 . 0000 0 .0072 0.0000 0.0000 0.0097 0.0000 0.0000 0.0124 0.0000 0.0020 0.0150 0.0000 0.0032 0.0178 0.0000 0.0032 0.0206 0.0000 0.0032 0.0235 0 .0000 0.0032 0 .0265 0 .0000 0.0032 0 .0295 0 .0000 0.0032 0.0327 0.0000 0.0032 0.0359 0.0000 0.0032 0 .0391 0 .0 000 0.0032 0 .0425 0 .0013 0.0032 0 .0459 0 .0019 0.0032 0 .0494 0 .0030 0.0032 0 .0529 0 .0036 0.0032 0 .0566 0 .0044 0.0032 0 .0603 0 .0049 0.0032 0.0641 0.0055 0.0032 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48;34 AM Page 12 697.99 0 .1850 0.0680 0.0059 0.0032 698.09 0 .1820 0.0719 0 .0064 0.0032 698.18 0.1789 0.0760 0.0067 0 .0032 698.27 0.1759 0 .0801 0.0072 0 .0032 698.36 0 .1730 0.0842 0 .0075 0 .0032 698.45 0 .1700 0 .0885 0 .0079 0.0032 698.54 0.1670 0 .0928 0.0082 0 .0032 698 .63 0.1641 0 .0973 0 .0086 0.0032 698 .72 0.1611 0 .1018 0 .0088 0 .0032 698.81 0.1582 0.1064 0 .0092 0 .0032 698.90 0 .1553 0.1110 0 .0094 0 .0032 698.99 0 .1524 0 .1158 0.0098 0 .0032 699.08 0 .1495 0 .1206 0 .0099 0.0032 699.17 0 .1467 0.1255 0.0103 0.0032 699.26 0.1438 0.1324 0.010 5 0.0032 699.35 0 .1410 0.1394 0.0108 0.0032 699.45 0 .1381 0.1466 0 .0 11 0 0 .0032 699.54 0.1353 0 .1538 0.0 113 0.0032 699.63 0 .1325 0 .1612 0 .0 114 0.0032 699 .72 0.1298 0 .1686 0.0117 0.0032 699 .8 1 0 .1270 0 .1762 0.0119 0 .0032 699.90 0 .1242 0 .1840 0 .0 122 0.0032 699 .99 0 .1215 0.1918 0 .0123 0 .0032 700.08 0 .1187 0.1997 0.0125 0 .0032 700 .17 0 .1160 0 .2078 0.0126 0.0032 700 .26 0.1133 0.2160 0 .0128 0 .0032 700.35 0.11 06 0.2243 0.0133 0.0032 700.44 0.1080 0.2327 0.0139 0 .0032 700.53 0 .1053 0.2413 0 .0146 0 .0032 700 .62 0.1026 0.2499 0 .0153 0.0032 700.7 1 0.1000 0.2587 0 .0159 0.0032 700 .80 0 .0974 0.2677 0 .0166 0 .0032 700 .90 0.0948 0.2767 0 .0172 0.0032 700 .99 0 .0922 0 .2858 0.0178 0.0032 701 .08 0 .0896 0.2951 0 .0184 0 .0032 701 .17 0 .0870 0.3045 0 .0190 0.0032 701 .25 0.0845 0 .3132 0 .0341 0.0032 Biofilter Hyd raulic T able St age (feet)Are a(a c.)Volume(a c-ft.)Discharg e(cfs)To Amend ed(cf s)lnfi lt(cfs) 5.2500 0.2548 0.3132 0.0000 0 .0374 0 .0000 5 .3407 0 .2581 0 .3365 0.0000 0 .0374 0.0000 5.4313 0.26 15 0.3600 0.0000 0 .0374 0 .0000 5.5220 0 .2648 0 .3839 0.0000 0.0374 0.0000 5 .6126 0 .2682 0.4080 0 .0000 0 .0374 0 .0000 5 .7033 0.2716 0.4325 0 .0000 0.0374 0 .0000 5.7940 0 .2750 0.4573 0.0000 0 .0374 0 .0000 5.8846 0.2785 0.4824 0.0000 0 .0374 0..0000 5.9753 0.2819 0.5078 0.0000 0.0374 0 .0000 6 .0659 0 .2853 0.5335 0.0000 0.03 74 0.0000 6.1566 0.2888 0 .5595 0 .0000 0.0374 0.0000 6.2473 0.2923 0.5858 0.0000 0 .0374 0 .0000 6.3379 0.2958 0.6125 0.0000 0 .0374 0.0000 6.4286 0.2993 0 .6395 0.0000 0 .0374 0 .0000 6 .5192 0 .3028 0.6668 0 .0000 0 .0374 0 .0000 6 .6099 0.3063 0 .6944 0.0000 0 .0374 0.0000 6 .7005 0.3099 0 .7223 0 .0000 0 .0374 0.0000 6.7912 0 .3134 0 .7506 0.0000 0.0374 0 .0000 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48 :34 AM Page 13 6.8819 0.3170 0 .7791 0.0000 0.0374 0 .0000 6.9725 0.3206 0.8080 0 .0000 0 .0374 0.0000 7.0632 0.3242 0.8373 0 .0000 0.0374 0 .0000 7.1538 0 .3278 0.8668 0.0000 0.0374 0.0000 7.2445 0 .3314 0 .8967 0 .0000 0.0374 0 .0000 7 .3352 0 .3351 0.9269 0.7909 0 .0374 0.0000 7.4258 0 .3387 0.9575 2 .3428 0 .0374 0 .0000 7.5165 0 .3424 0 .9883 4 .3596 0 .0374 0.0000 7.6071 0 .3461 1.0195 6 .7280 0.0374 0.0000 7.6978 0 .3498 1.0511 9.3612 0 .0374 0.0000 7 .7885 0 .3535 1.0830 12 .177 0 .0374 0 .0000 7 .8791 0 .3572 1.1152 15.091 0 .0374 0.0000 7 .9698 0.3609 1.1477 18 .017 0.0374 0.0000 8 .0604 0 .3647 1.1806 20 .869 0 .0374 0 .0000 8 ,1511 0.3684 1.2138 23 .565 0.0374 0.0000 8.2418 0.3722 1.2474 26 .032 0.0374 0 .0000 8 .2500 0.3725 1.2505 28 .212 0 .0374 0 .0000 18-062 812/2019 7:48 :34 AM Page 14 Surface Biofilter 2 Element Flows To : Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biofilter 2 18-062 8/2/20 19 7 :48 :34 AM Page 15 Analysis Results POC 1 1.57 -.-I " I I f 1 19 -•-.---------~ . .. ~ 081 g II. 0.4• ._ __ ____..,...,..__ _____ _ P -.-o-~t Tim e Excee,di~g + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 5.61 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 2.02 Total Impervious Area: 3.59 Flow Frequency Method: Weibull Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.605958 5 year 1.066418 10 year 1.567726 25 year 1.8 75636 Flow Frequency Return Periods for M itigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.048954 5 year O .580303 10 year 1 .2 16318 25 year 1.539163 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:34 AM ... Page 16 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0606 357 143 40 Pass 0 .0758 306 131 42 Pass 0.0910 262 124 47 Pass 0 .1063 229 114 49 Pass 0.1215 209 107 51 Pass 0.1367 192 98 5 1 Pass 0 .1519 173 90 52 Pass 0 .1672 159 80 50 Pass 0 .1824 152 73 48 Pass 0.1976 143 70 48 Pass 0.2128 134 68 50 Pass 0 .2281 128 66 51 Pass 0.2433 118 62 52 Pass 0.2585 114 60 52 Pass 0 .2737 108 56 51 Pass 0 .2889 105 56 53 Pass 0.3042 101 52 51 Pass 0.3194 96 49 51 Pass 0.3346 93 48 51 Pass 0 .3498 86 47 54 Pass 0 .3651 81 42 51 Pass 0 .3803 73 4 2 57 Pass 0 .3955 71 39 54 Pass 0.4107 69 38 55 Pass 0.4260 66 33 50 Pass 0.4412 63 30 47 Pass 0.4564 59 29 49 Pass 0.4716 56 27 48 Pass 0.4869 54 25 46 Pass 0.5021 51 24 47 Pass 0 .5173 48 24 50 Pass 0 .5325 47 23 48 Pass 0 .5477 44 22 50 Pass 0.5630 42 22 52 Pass 0 .5782 40 22 55 Pass 0.5934 39 22 56 Pass 0.6086 35 22 62 Pass 0.6239 34 21 61 Pass 0.6391 32 20 62 Pass 0 .6543 31 19 61 Pass 0.6695 30 19 63 Pass 0.6848 27 19 70 Pass 0 .7000 25 18 72 Pass 0.7152 22 15 68 Pass 0.7304 20 15 75 Pass 0 .7457 18 13 72 Pass 0 .7609 18 13 72 Pass 0 .7761 18 11 61 Pass 0 .7913 16 10 62 Pass 0 .8065 16 10 62 Pass 0 .8218 16 10 62 Pass 0 .8370 16 10 62 Pass 0 .8522 16 10 62 Pass 18-062 8/2/2019 7 :48 :41 AM Page 17 0.8674 16 10 62 Pass 0.8827 13 10 76 Pass 0.8979 13 9 69 Pass 0 .9131 13 7 53 Pass 0 .9283 12 7 58 Pass 0 .9436 11 7 63 Pass 0 .9588 11 6 54 Pass 0 .9740 9 6 66 Pass 0.9892 9 6 66 Pass 1.0045 9 5 55 Pass 1.0197 8 5 62 Pass 1 .0349 8 5 62 Pass 1 .0501 8 4 50 Pass 1 .0653 7 4 57 Pass 1.0806 7 4 57 Pass 1.0958 7 4 57 Pass 1 .1110 6 4 66 Pass 1.1262 6 4 66 Pass 1 .1415 6 4 66 Pass 1.1567 6 4 66 Pass 1.1719 6 4 66 Pass 1 .1871 6 4 66 Pass 1 .2024 5 4 80 Pass 1.2176 5 3 60 Pass 1.2328 5 2 40 Pass 1.2480 5 2 40 Pass 1 .2633 5 2 40 Pass 1.2785 5 2 40 Pass 1.2937 5 2 40 Pass 1 .3089 5 2 40 Pass 1.3241 5 2 40 Pass 1 .3394 5 2 40 Pass 1.3546 5 2 40 Pass 1.3698 4 2 50 Pass 1.3850 4 2 50 Pass 1.4003 4 2 50 Pass 1.4155 4 2 50 Pass 1.4307 4 2 50 Pass 1.4459 3 2 66 Pass 1.4612 3 2 66 Pass 1.4764 3 2 66 Pass 1.4916 3 2 66 Pass 1 .5068 3 1 33 Pass 1.5221 3 1 33 Pass 1.5373 3 1 33 Pass 1.5525 3 1 33 Pass 1 .5677 3 1 33 Pass 18-062 8/2/2019 7 :48:41 AM Page 18 Water Quality Drawdown Time Results Pond: Surface Biofilter 1 Days 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Stage: 18-062 Stage(feet) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Percent of Total Run Time 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2 .000 Drawdown Time : Less than 1 day 8/2/2019 7 :48 :41 A M Page 19 POC2 " ~ 1,01 ~ ~ 0.69 0 .J 11. Cl37 ... " ,, " 100 ... , _____________ _,,,,., OC. I l i. I) i'.l Kl ~ ffi ,SJ ~ 116 \II lb ~t l + Predeveloped x M itigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area: 4.78 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area: 2.16 Total Impervious Area: 2.62 Flow Frequency Method: Weibull Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped . POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.516306 5 year 0.908641 10 year 1.33578 25 year 1.598135 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.033578 5 year O .445888 10 year 0.814807 25 year 1 .103909 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48 :41 AM Page 20 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0 .0516 357 137 38 Pass 0 .0646 306 129 42 Pass 0 .0776 264 122 46 Pass 0 .0905 230 112 48 Pass 0 .1035 209 100 47 Pass 0 .1165 192 92 47 Pass 0 .1295 173 8 1 46 Pass 0.1424 160 74 46 Pass 0 .1554 152 67 44 Pass 0 .1684 143 65 45 Pass 0 .1813 134 63 47 Pass 0.1943 128 61 47 Pass 0.2073 118 59 50 Pass 0.2203 113 55 48 Pass 0 .2332 108 53 49 Pass 0 .2462 105 53 50 Pass 0.2592 101 50 49 Pass 0 .2721 96 47 48 Pass 0 .2851 93 47 50 Pass 0.2981 86 44 51 Pass 0.3111 81 43 53 Pass 0.3240 73 37 50 Pass 0 .3370 71 35 49 Pass 0 .3500 69 34 49 Pass 0 .3629 66 33 50 Pass 0 .3759 63 30 47 Pass 0.3889 59 25 42 Pass 0.4019 56 24 42 Pass 0.4148 54 24 44 Pass 0.4278 51 24 47 Pass 0.4408 48 23 47 Pass 0.4537 47 20 42 Pass 0.4667 44 19 43 Pass 0.4797 42 19 45 Pass 0.4927 41 18 43 Pass 0 .5056 39 18 46 Pass 0 .5186 35 18 51 Pass 0 .5316 34 18 52 Pass 0 .5445 32 17 53 Pass 0 .5575 31 17 54 Pass 0.5705 30 16 53 Pass 0 .5835 27 16 59 Pass 0 .5964 24 16 66 Pass 0.6094 22 16 72 Pass 0.6224 20 13 65 Pass 0.6353 18 12 66 Pass 0.6483 18 10 55 Pass 0 .6613 18 9 50 Pass 0 .6742 16 9 56 Pass 0 .6872 16 9 56 Pass 0 .7002 16 8 50 Pass 0 .7132 16 8 50 Pass 0 .7261 16 8 50 Pass 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:47 AM Page 21 0.7391 16 7 43 Pass 0.7521 13 7 53 Pa ss 0.7650 13 6 46 Pass 0.7780 13 5 38 Pass 0.7910 12 5 41 Pass 0 .8040 11 5 45 Pass 0.8169 11 4 36 Pass 0.8299 9 3 33 Pass 0 .8429 9 3 33 Pass 0 .8558 9 3 33 Pass 0 .8688 8 3 37 Pass 0 .881 8 8 2 25 Pass 0 .8948 8 2 25 Pass 0.9077 7 2 28 Pass 0.9207 7 2 28 Pass 0.9337 7 2 28 Pass 0 .9466 6 2 33 Pass 0 .9596 6 2 33 Pass 0.9726 6 2 33 Pass 0 .9856 6 2 33 Pass 0 .9985 6 2 33 Pass 1.0115 6 2 33 Pass 1.0245 5 1 20 Pass 1.0374 5 1 20 Pass 1.0504 5 1 20 Pass 1 .0634 5 1 20 Pass 1.0764 5 1 20 Pass 1.0893 5 1 20 Pass 1.1023 5 1 20 Pass 1.1153 5 1 20 Pass 1 .1282 5 1 20 Pass 1.1412 5 1 20 Pass 1.1542 5 1 20 Pass 1.1672 4 1 25 Pass 1 .1801 4 1 25 Pass 1.1931 4 1 25 Pass 1.2061 4 0 0 Pass 1.2190 4 0 0 Pass 1 .2320 3 0 0 Pass 1 .2450 3 0 0 Pass 1 .2580 3 0 0 Pass 1.2709 3 0 0 Pass 1 .2839 3 0 0 Pass 1.2969 3 0 0 Pass 1 .3098 3 0 0 Pass 1.3228 3 0 0 Pass 1 .3358 3 0 0 Pass 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:47 AM Page 22 Water Quality Drawdown Time Results Pond: Surface Biofilter 2 Days 1 2 3 4 5 Maximum Stage: 18-062 Stage(feet) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Percent of Total Run Time 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2.000 Drawdown Time: Less than 1 day 8/2/2019 7.48:47 AM Page 23 Model Default Modifications Total of O changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:47 AM Page 24 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 18-062 Basin 2 .78ac 8/2/2019 7:48:47 AM Page 25 Mitigated Schematic 18-062 Basin 2 .78ac 8/2/2019 7:48:48 AM Page 26 Predeve/oped UC/ File 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48 :49 AM Page 27 Mitigated UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 START model simulation 1971 10 01 OUTPUT LEVEL RUN INTERP RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES END 2004 09 30 3 0 UNIT SYSTEM 1 <File> <t:Jn#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> WDM MESSU 26 25 27 28 30 31 1a-062.wdm MitlB-062.MES Mit18-062 .L61 Mit18-062.L62 POC l S-0621.dat POClB-0622.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP PERLND 29 IMPLND 2 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 4 COPY 1 COPY 501 COPY 2 COPY 502 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFOl INDELT 00 :60 # -#<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIGl FILl 1 Surface 2 Surface END DISPLY-INFOl END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # -# NPT 1 1 501 1 2 1 502 1 END TlMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE NMN 1 1 1 1 # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM Biofilter Biofilter *** # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO 1 2 <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS # -# 29 D,NatVeg,Moderate 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** 18-062 MAX MAX Unit-systems User t-series in out 1 1 1 Printer Engl Metr 27 0 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND *** *** 1 2 30 9 1 2 31 9 Page 28 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* AcLive Sections ***************************** # -# ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACT IVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS # - 29 BND >*****************Print-flags ***************************** # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC o o 4 o o a a o o o o o PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARMl <PLS > PWATER variabl e monthly # -# CSNO RTOP GZFG VCS VUZ parameter value flags *** VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT 29 0 1 1 l 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARMl PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info : Part 2 *** # -# ***FOREST LZSN INPILT LSUR SLSUR 29 0 3 0.025 80 0.l END PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# **"'PETMA.X PETMIN INJ?EXP INFILD DEEPFR 29 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER # -# CEPSC 29 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM 0 0 2 inp1,1t info: Part. 4 UZSN NSUR 0 .6 0 .04 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 # -# JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL 29 0.4 0 .4 0 .4 0.4 0 .6 0.6 0 .6 END MON-LZETPARM MON -INTERCEP 2 INTFW 1 AUG SEP 0 .6 0 .6 <PLS > PWATER input info; Part 3 *** # -# 29 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 0.1 0.1 0 .1 0.1 0 .06 0 .06 0 .06 0 .06 0.06 MON-INTERCEP END PWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulat:ion ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) # -# *** CEPS 29 END PWAT-STATEl END PERLND IM PLND GEN -INFO 0 SURS o <PLS ><-------Name-------::. # -# 2 IMPERVIOUS-MOD END GEN-INFO *** Section !WATER*** ACTIVITY uzs 0.0l Unit-systems User t-series in out 1 l 1 IFWS 0 Printer Engl Metr 27 0 0 IRC 0.3 OCT 0.4 OCT 0 .1 RUN LZS 0 .4 *** *** KVARY 2.5 BASETP 0.05 LZETP 0 NOV 0.4 DEC 0.4 NOV 0 .l DEC 0 .1 21 *** AGWS 0.01 <PLS > # -# 2 ************* Active ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD Sections IWG IQAL ****************************• *** 0 0 l 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY 18-062 8/2/2019 7 :48 :49 AM * ... PIVL PYR *********· *** *** l 9 AGWRC 0.915 AGWETP 0.05 *** GWVS 0 Page 29 PRINT-INFO <ILS # - 2 >********Print-flags # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD 0 0 4 0 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARMl PIVL PYR IWG IQAL ********* 0 0 1 9 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value £lags *** # -# CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 2 0 0 0 0 1 END IWAT-PARMl IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > # -# *** 2 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 IWATER input info : Part 2 LSUR SL SUR NSUR 1 00 0 .1 0.011 <PLS > IWATER input info , Part 3 # -# ***PETMAX PETMIN 2 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEl RETSC 0.08 *** *** <PLS it - > *** # *** Initial conditions at start of simulation RETS SURS 2 0 0 END IWAT-STATEl EN-0 IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> < --Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# Basin l *** PERLND 29 2.02 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 29 2.02 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 2 3 .59 RCHRES 1 5 Bas i n 2 *** PERLND 29 2 .16 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 29 2 .16 RCHRES 3 3 IMPLND 2 2.62 RCHRES 3 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 29 2.02 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 2 3 .59 COPY 1 15 PERLND 29 2 .02 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 8 PERLND 29 2 .1 6 COPY 2 12 IMPLND 2 2 .62 COPY 2 15 PERLND 29 2 .1 6 COPY 2 13 RCHRES 3 1 RCHRES 4 8 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 17 RCHRES l 1 COPY 501 1 7 RCHRES 4 1 COPY 502 1 7 RCHRES 3 1 COPY 502 17 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK *** * ** <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Mernber-><--Mul t-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12 .1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Mernber-><--Mul t-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member~> *** <Name> # <Name># #<-factor->str g <Name> # # <Name>## *** END NETWORK 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM Page 30 RCHRES GEN -INFO RCHRES Name Nexi ts # -#<------------------><---> 1 Surface Biofilte-004 3 2 Biofilter 1 2 3 Surfa ce Bi ofil te-008 3 4 Biofilter 2 2 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES *** ACTIVITY Unit Systems User T-series in out 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 l 1 Pri nter Engl Metr 28 0 28 0 28 0 28 0 LKFG l J. l l <PLS > ************* Active Sections ************************~**** # -# HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flag s ******************* PIVL PYR # -# HYDR ADCA CONS HElAT SEO GQ L OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PY R 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARMl RC HRES Flags for each HYDR Section # -# VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG f or each FUNCT *** 'I<** *** ********* *** f or each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 2 2 2 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARMl HYDR-PARM2 # -# FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS D850 <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> 1 2 3 4 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT 1 2 3 4 0 .0 1 0.04 0.01 0 .03 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 697 .0 697 .0 696.0 696.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RCHRES Initial conditi ons for each HYDR section # -# *** VOL Initial value of CO LIND *** ac-ft for each possible exit <------><--------> 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 END HYDR-INIT END RC HRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABL ES FTABLE 59 5 Depth (f t) 0 .000000 2 Area (acres) 0.300890 <---><---><---><---><---::, 4.0 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 Volume (acre-ft) 0 .000000 5.0 6.0 5 .0 0 .0 5.0 6 .0 5 .0 0 .0 Outflowl (cfs) 0.000000 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 Outflow2 {cfs) 0 .000000 *** Initial value of OOTDGT for each possible exit <---><---><---><---><---> 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 Velocity (f t/sec) Travel T ime*** (M i nutes )*** 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM Page 31 0.090659 0.29 7 42 1 0.002826 0.000000 0.000000 0.181319 0.293619 0 .005735 0.000000 0.000000 0 .271978 0.289831 0 .008727 0 .000000 0 .000000 0.362637 0 .286056 0.011803 0 .000000 0 .000000 0 .453297 0.282295 0 .014963 0.000000 0 .002410 0.543956 0 .278547 0.018207 0.000000 0 .003892 0.634615 0 .274813 0.021536 0 .000000 0.003892 0 . 725275 0.271092 0.024950 0.000000 0.003892 0 .815934 0 .267385 0.028450 0 .000000 0.003892 0 .906593 0.263692 0.032036 0 .000000 0.003892 0 . 997253 0.260012 0.035707 0 .000000 0 .003892 1 .087912 0.256346 0.039466 0.000000 0.003892 1. 178571 0.252694 0. 043311 0 .000000 0 . 003892 1.269231 0 .249055 0 .047243 0.000000 0.003892 1.359890 0.245429 0 .051264 0.001826 0 .003892 1. 450549 0.241817 0 .055372 0.002739 0.003892 l .541209 0.238219 0.059569 0 .004351 0 .003892 1 .631868 0.234634 0.063855 0.005158 0 .003892 1.722527 0 .231063 0 .068229 0 .006379 0 .003892 1 . 813187 0 .227506 0 . 072694 0 .006989 0 .003892 1.903846 0.223962 0 .077248 0 .007965 0 .003892 1 .994505 0 .220432 0 .081893 0 .008452 0 .003892 2.085165 0 .21691.5 0 .086628 0 .009278 0 .003892 2.175824 0.2 1 3412 0 .091454 0 .009690 0 .003892 2.266 4 84 0 .209922 0.096372 0 .01.0417 0 .003892 2.357143 0 .206446 0 .101381 0 .010781. 0 .003892 2 .447802 0.202984 0.106483 0 . 011438 0 .003892 2 .538462 0.199535 0 .111677 0.011767 0 .003892 2.62912 1 0.196100 0 .116964 0 .012372 0.003892 2.719780 0 .192678 0.1223 4 4 0,012674 0 .003892 2.810440 0.189270 0.127818 0 .013238 0 .003892 2.901 099 0 .185875 0 .133386 0 . 013520 0 .003892 2.991758 0 .182495 0.139048 0.014050 0 .003892 3.082418 0.179127 0 . 144805 0 .014315 0.003892 3.1 73077 0.175774 0 .150657 0.014816 O. 003892 3 .263736 0 .172433 0 .158884 0 .015067 0 .003892 3.354396 0.1691 07 0 .16724 4 0.015545 0.003892 3.445055 0 .165794 0 .1 75737 0 .0 1 5783 0 .003892 3 . 535714 0 .162495 0 .184363 0 .016240 0 .0038 9 2 3 . 626374 0 .159209 0.193 1 24 0.016468 0.003892 3 .717033 0 .155937 0 .202019 0 .016906 0.003892 3 .807692 0.152678 0 .211049 0 .0 1 7125 0.003892 3 .898352 0.149433 0.220215 0.01 7547 0 .003892 3. 9890 11 0 .1 4 6201 0.22951 7 0 .0 1 7758 0 .00389 2 4 .079670 0.1 42984 0 .238956 0 .0 1 8011 0 .003892 4 .170330 0 .139779 0 .2485 3 2 0 . 0 1 8138 0 .003892 4 .260989 0 .136589 0 .258246 0 .0 1 8498 0.0038 9 2 4 .351648 0 .133411 0.268098 0.01 9195 0.003892 4 .442308 0 .130248 0 .27808 8 0 .020084 0.0038 9 2 4.532967 0 .127098 0 .288218 0 .021041 0 .003892 4.623626 0.123962 0 .298487 0.0220 1 0 0.003892 4 .714286 0.120839 0 .308897 0 .022965 0.003892 4.804945 0 .11 7 730 0 .319448 0.023896 0.003892 4.895604 0. 114634 0. 330139 0 .02 4 798 0.003892 4.986264 0. 111552 0 .340973 0 .025673 0 . 0038 92 5.076923 0 .108484 0.351949 0.026523 0.003892 5.167582 0.105429 0.363067 0. 027350 0 .003892 5.250000 0 .102388 0 .377683 0.049151 0.003892 END FTABLE 2 F TABLE 1 35 6 Depth Area Volume OUtflowl Outflow2 0Utflow3 Velocity Travel Time *** (ft) (acres ) (acre-f t) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (M inutes)*** 0 .000000 0 .102388 0 .000000 0 .000000 0.000000 0 .000000 0.090659 0 .304718 0 .0 2 7452 0.000000 0.053043 0 .000000 0 .181319 0.308559 0.055252 0 .000000 0.053043 0 .000000 0 . 271978 0. 312414 0 .083400 0 .000000 0.053043 0.000000 0.362637 0.31 6283 0 .111899 0 .000000 0.053043 0 .000000 18-062 8/2/2019 7 :48:49 AM Page 32 0.453297 0.320165 0.140749 0.000000 0.053043 0 .000000 0.543956 0.324061 0 .169951 0 .000000 0.053043 0.000000 0.634615 0 .327971 0 .199508 0 .000000 0 .053043 0 .000000 0 .725275 0.331894 0 .229419 0.000000 0.053043 0.000000 0.815934 0.335830 0.259687 0.000000 0 .053043 0 .000000 0.906593 0.339781 0.290312 0 .000000 0. 053043 0 .000000 0 .997253 0.343744 0 .321296 0.000000 0.053043 0.000000 1.087912 0.347722 0.352640 0.000000 0.053043 0.000000 1.178571 0 .351713 0.384345 0.000000 0.053043 0 .000000 1.269231 0.355717 0. 416413 0.000000 0.053043 0.000000 1 .359890 0 .359736 0.448844 0.000000 0 .053043 0.000000 1.450549 0.363767 0.481640 0.000000 0.053043 0.000000 1. 54.1209 0 . 367813 0.514802 0.000000 0 .05304 3 0.000000 1.631868 0 . 371872 0. 548332 0.000000 0.053043 0.000000 1. 722527 0.375944 0.582230 0.000000 0.053043 0.000000 1. 813187 0 . 380030 0.616498 0.000000 0,053043 0.000000 1.903846 0. 384130 0.651137 0 .000000 0 .053043 0 .000000 1.994505 0.388243 0 .686149 0.000000 0 .053043 0 .000000 2.085165 0.392370 0.721534 0.790872 0 .053043 0 .000000 2.175824 0.396510 0 . 757294 2.342816 0 .053043 0.000000 2.266484 0.400664 0.793429 4.359603 0.053043 0.000000 2. 357143 0.404832 0. 829942 6 . 728010 0 .053043 0 .000000 2.447802 0. 409013 0.866833 9.361249 0 .053043 0.000000 2.538462 0.413208 0.904104 12.17685 0.053043 0.000000 2.629121 0 .4 17416 0 .941756 15.09073 0.053043 0.000000 2_719780 0.421638 0.979790 18.01672 0.053043 0.000000 2 .810440 0.425874 1.018208 20.86880 0.053043 0 .000000 2.901099 0 .430123 1.0570 1 0 23.56490 0.053043 0.000000 2 .991758 0.434386 1.096198 26.03191 0.053043 0.000000 3.000000 0.434774 1.099780 28 .21160 0.053043 0.000000 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 4 59 5 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time *** (ft:) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) {ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0 .000000 0.254781 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.090659 0 .2 51755 0.002332 0 .000000 0.000000 0 .181319 0.248440 0.004735 0.000000 0.000000 0 .27 1 978 0.245139 0. 007207 0.000000 0.000000 0.362637 0.241851 0.009749 0 .000000 0.000000 0 .453297 0.238577 0.012362 0.000000 0.001989 0.543956 0 .235316 0 .015047 0.000000 0.003220 0.634615 0 .232069 0 .017803 0.000000 0 .003220 0.725275 0.228835 0.020631 0.000000 0.003220 0.815934 0.225616 0.023531 0.000000 0 .003220 0.906593 0.222409 0 .026503 0 .000000 0 .003220 0.997253 0.219216 0.029549 0.000000 0 .0032 2 0 1.087912 0.216037 0 .032668 0.000000 0 .003220 1 .178571 0.212872 0.035860 0 .000000 0 .003220 1. 269231 0 .209720 0.039127 0 .000000 0.003220 l. 359890 0.206581 0.042468 0.001268 0.003220 l. 450549 0 .203456 0.045884 0.001902 0.003220 1 .541209 0.200345 0.049376 0 .003022 0 .003220 1.631868 0 .197248 0.052943 0.003582 0.003220 1. 722527 0 .194163 0.056585 0.004430 0.003220 1.813187 0.191093 0 .060304 0 .004854 0 .003220 1.903846 0 .188036 0.064100 0.005531 0.003220 1.994505 0.184993 0 .067973 0.005870 0.003220 2 .085 1 65 0 .181963 0.071923 0.0 0644 3 0 .003220 2 .1 75824 0.178947 0.075951 0. 006729 0.003220 2 .2 66484 0.175944 0.080057 0.007234 0.003220 2.357143 0.172955 0.084242 0 .007487 0 .003220 2.447802 0.169980 0 .088505 0 .007943 0.003220 2.538462 0.167018 0.092848 0.008171 0.003220 2.629121 0.164070 0 .09727 1 0 .008592 0 .0032;20 2.719780 0.161135 0 .101773 0 .008802 0 .003220 2.810440 0.158214 0.106356 0 .009193 0 .003220 2.901099 0.1 55307 0 .111019 0.009389 0,003220 2.991758 0 .1 52413 0 .1 1 5764 0.009757 0.003220 3.082418 0 .1495 33 0.120590 0.00994 1 0.003220 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM Pa9e 33 3.173077 0 .146666 0 .125498 0.010289 0.003220 3 .263736 0.143813 0 .132401 0 .0 1 0463 0 .003220 3 .354396 0 .140973 0 .139419 0.010795 0 .003220 3.445055 0.138147 0.146551 0.010961 0 .003220 3.535714 0.135335 0.153798 0.011278 0.003220 3.626374 0 . 132536 0. 161161 0 .011436 0.003220 3.717033 0.129751 0.16864 1 0.011741 0 .003220 3.807692 0.126979 0 .176237 0. 011893 0.003220 3.898352 0 .124221 0 .183950 0 .0 1 2186 0.003220 3. 989011 0 .12 1 477 0.191782 0 .0 1 2332 0.003220 4.079670 0.118746 0 .199732 0.012508 0.003220 4.170330 0.116029 0 .207800 0.0 1 2596 0.003220 4.260989 0.113325 0.215988 0.012846 0.003220 4.351648 0.110635 0 .224296 0 .013 330 0.003220 4.442308 0.107958 0. 232724 0 . 013947 0.003220 4 .532967 0.105296 0 .241273 0.014612 0.003220 4 .623626 0 .102646 0 .249943 0.015285 0.003220 4.714286 0.100010 0.258736 0.015948 0.003220 4 .804945 0.097388 0.267651 0.016594 0 .003220 4 .895604 0 .094780 0.276688 0.017221 0.003220 4 .986264 0 .092185 0.285849 0 .017829 0 .003220 5 .076923 0.089603 0.295135 0.018419 0 .003220 5 . 167582 0.087035 0.304544 0.018993 0 .003220 5.250000 0.084481 0.316294 0.034132 0 .003220 END FTABLE 4 FTABLE 3 35 6 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 Outflow3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.084481 0.000000 0 .000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.090659 0 .258122 0.023250 0.000000 0 .037352 0 .000000 0 .181319 0.261476 0 .046803 0.000000 0 .037352 0 .000000 0. 271978 0.264844 0 .070661 0.000000 0.037352 0 .000000 0 .3 62637 0.268226 0 .094825 0 .000000 0.037352 0.000000 0.453297 0 .271621 0 . 119296 0 ,000000 0.037352 0.000000 0.543956 0.275030 0 .144075 0.000000 0 .037352 0 .000000 0.634615 0.278453 0.169165 0 .000000 0 .037352 0 .000000 0. 725275 0 .281889 0.194565 0.000000 0.037352 0 .000000 0.815934 0 .285338 0.220277 0.000000 0.037352 0 .000000 0 .906593 0.288802 0.246303 0 .000000 0.037352 0.000000 0.997253 0 .292278 0 .272643 0.000000 0 .037352 0.000000 1.087912 0.295769 0 .299299 0.000000 0 .037352 0.000000 1.178571 0.299273 0.326272 0.000000 0.037352 0.000000 1.269231 0.302790 0.353563 0 .000000 0.037352 0.000000 1.359890 0.306322 0.381174 0.000000 0.037352 0 .000000 1. 450549 0.309866 0.409106 0.000000 0.037352 0 .000000 1.541209 0.313425 0 .437359 0 .000000 0.037352 0.000000 1.631868 0.316997 0.465936 0.000000 0.037352 0.000000 1.722527 0.320582 0.494837 0.000000 0.037352 0.000000 1.813187 0 .324181 0.524064 0.000000 0.037352 0 .000000 1.903846 0 .327794 0 .553618 0.000000 0.037352 0.000000 1. 994505 0.331420 0.583500 0 .000000 0.037352 0.000000 2 .085165 0.335060 0 .613711 0.790872 0.037352 0 .000000 2.175824 0 . 338713 0.644253 2.342816 0 .037352 0 .000000 2.266484 0 .342380 0 .675 12 7 4 .3 59603 0.037352 0.000000 2.357143 0 .346061 0.706334 6. 728010 0 .037352 0 .000000 2.447802 0.349755 0.737875 9.361249 0.037352 0 .000000 2.538462 0 .353463 0.769751 12.17685 0.037352 0 .000000 2.629121 0.357184 0.801965 15.09073 0.037352 0 .000000 2. 719780 0.360919 0.834516 18 . 01672 0 .037352 0.000000 2.810440 0.364668 0.867407 20.86880 0.037352 0.000000 2.901099 0.368430 0 .900638 23.56490 0.037352 0.000000 2.991758 0.372205 0. 934211 26 .03191 0 .037352 0.000000 3.000000 0.372549 0 .937280 28 .21160 0.037352 0.000000 END FTABLE 3 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48 :49 AM Page 34 <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult -->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tern strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ** .. WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLNO 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL l IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 1 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 RCHRES 3 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.7 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 3 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0 .7 RCHRES 4 EXTNL POTEV END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp.> <-Member-><--Mult--.>Tran <-Vol ume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR 0 1 1 1 WDM 1001 FLOW ENG L R8:PL RCHRES 2 HYDR 0 2 1 1 WDM 1002 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1003 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1004 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR 0 1 1 l WDM 1005 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12 .1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 l 12 .l WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR RO 1 l_ l WDM 1006 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR 0 1 1 l WDM 1010 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR 0 2 l 1 WDM 1011 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 4 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1007 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR STAGE 1 1 l WDM 1008 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR 0 1 1 1 WDM 1009 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 702 FLOW E!NGL REP L COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 1 2 .1 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp;:, <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->** .. <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS -LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PSRLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0 .0833 33 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 8 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL SND MASS-LINK 8 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0 .083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IM PLND IWATER SURO 0 .083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS -LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 17 18·062 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM Page 35 END MASS-LINK END RUN 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM Page 36 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM Page 37 Mitigated HSPF Message File 18-062 8/2/2019 7:48:49 AM Page 38 APPENDIX B - HMP EXHIBIT H YD RO LOGY ST UDY ~.;:: --------=::....:::c . ,-,-~~---~-...::::::, ""=--~ -~ B-;;:===-,;a===---I --_ --~- I E. d1 1IT l~--=:;;:::=:i 11 K& S ENGINEERING, INC. PlaMing Engineering Surveying -7801 lfmioo Ctnlor Court, SIJ~• 100 S<!n lli119<, CA 9z1i-, {619) 296-5565 Fox: (619) 296-5564 t iGft&si'o.,v. ~ .. , .If ~ li! ,::. \ ~ -u=r -tt~•-t -::----.; ~ --~:--.: _--=_ --~ ~ -~~ =---= ==--·-~ ~~~'.-~: ~~ iY P.o.·c. # ,--, IN~AIZE IMPEIMOUS AREA GROUNDWATER UNDERLAYING SOIL GROUP '~ING TO THE UPOAIOl Gi:Ol[OlNICAL EY/ol.UATI~ llU'O'!T PREP~'!Ol lif Nll"O ',110 MOQI;[ DAIOl MAROl 6, 2019; NO ACC~Olr;tJ_ TO THE NATIQN/,l coo>ERATI\£ Sal SUR',!'Y (USDA) THE UNIJ£RLAnNG COOJffil WAl[R WAS OO'Dl(l) rN THE SUBSIJllFl,C( EXPl~ATI Cl!S AT Al ~lll OF 1/J fill, rot c~g,15 OF S<!L. 1"!'£ D. CCSYA NOTE : PRo..ECT IS NOT YIITHIN OR OOESlfT REOO\€ OR DAAINS FROII CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMEIH 't'IElJl AREAS SEE ATTAOlMENT 2h BMP CATEGORY/TYPE BICfl..TRA TIOH PR-1 TOTAL SITE AREA 454.l.JO SQ FT . TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 427.759 SQ FT. LEGEND SURFACE FLOW DRAINAGE STRUCTURE FLOW DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (TRIBUTARY TO BIOFILTRATION) PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PROPOSED PC C PROPOSED ROOF PROPOSED L.ANDSCAPED AREA WITH DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES PROPOSED BIOFILTRATION AREA (TREA TIME NT CONTROL) PROPOSED TREE WELL ROOF DRAIN SYMBOL ----· c:::::=:::::J c:::::=:::::J c:::::=:::::J c:::::=:::::J f~4:;;.~'i) RD AREAS DRAINING TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN #1 (DMA#1} POST-PROJECT SURFACE TYPE ROOF AND PAVEMENT llMA N'.EA (SF) 156,292 OMA OMA AREA X RUNOFF FACTOR 09 RUNOFF FACTOR 140,663 IMP SIZING FACTOR PROPOSED NODUMPING ~ ~OTIRARBASURA GOES TO OCEAN u-,n, BLUE 1.1.EGAAL MAR 1 THESE ARE SAMPU' TILES AND SIGNS 2 QTY ENQNEIR TO !ES/GNAT£ a< APl'RO'IE SIGNS. TILES a< SlINOLS. l PRO~!E L.ABEIJNG YIITH PRO<IBITI\£ LANGUAGE ("NO DUMPING GO£S TO ()('£AN -NO TIRAR BASURA ll£GA AL MAR") 4. SIGN ~ BE PL.ACED 00 lllE CATOl BASN GRATE. MIN AREA AREA LANDSCAPE 87,99 1 0 1 6,7 99 (WMONLY) (SF) TOTAL OMA AREA= 244,283 SF 149,462 0 03 AREAS DRAIN ING TO BIOF ILTRATION BASIN #2 (DMA #2} POST-PROJECT SURFACE TYPE ROOF AND PAVEMENT l" GRA',!'L (A "ftj~\1f FILTRATI IMPERME l" SANO (ASTM l" PEA GRA',!'L (AS IB'i'O <•SJM ~7) LANDSCAPE TOTAL DMA AREA= 'lf'.\1!1\ a.!AU,r OMA RUNOFF OMA AREA (SF) FACTOR 11-4,202 09 94 ,170 01 20B,372 SF DMAAREAX RUNOFF FACTOR IMP SIZING 102 ,182 FACTOR 9,417 (WMONLYJ 111 ,599 0 03 11.i:T PIPE IE•o'l<I .U 4 ,48-4 MIN AREA (S.F.) 3,348 60m?Efil':tlII'is!JFE NOT£ AlL ElflRY N<O EJOT PIPES PMS/IC ~ UD QiJFIC!: 0 RISER JIIRIJ lllf'EllMEMli lMIINC TO BE ~IUD AT Jtlff BMP H (IN) UD ORIFlCE AREA (BMP) IRE.A (TOP) TOTAL 9JRrACE (IN) FT2 FT2 ~lll 24 0 9 7,456 8.495 l.5 BMP1-BIOFlLTRATION WITH PART IAL INFI LTRATION PR-1 ilof IQ 5(IAl[ l" GRA',l'L { g!ifti~~\1~ FlLTRA IMPERME l" SAND (ASTM BMP H (IH) UO OOIF1CE AREA (!!MP) AREA (TOP) TOTAL 9JRFACE (IN) FT2 FT2 ~lll 24 0,75 6,690 9,497 50 (SF) 7 ,456 PROPOSED N'.EA (SF.) 6,690 $.D' 5 SIGN SHALL HA\£ A VllllT£ BAO<GROONO YIITH 81.l/£ LEJIDllllC. 7006 701 .0 STORM DRAIN SIGNAGE NOT TO SCALE HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT (HMP) ATTACHMENT 2a BMP2· B IOFLLTRAT ION WITH PARTI Af_t NFILll<ATION PR-1 OMA SHEET FOR, NOT TO SCALE. ACADIA HEAL TH CARE SHEE:TIOFI 3