Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 2019-0001; Chick-fil-A; Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis; 2019-09-16 APPENDIX F HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY DOCUMENTATION PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS For: CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT# 4306 5850 Avenida Encinas City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California Prepared for: Chick-fil-A, Inc. 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350 Irvine, CA 92618 Prepared by: Joseph C. Truxaw & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors 265 S. Anita Drive, Suite 111 Orange, CA 92868 (714) 935-0265 Prepared on: March 1, 2019 Revised: September 16, 2019 Table of Contents CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City of Carlsbad. CA Page 1.0 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITION ................................................................................................ 2 1.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................ 2 1.4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 3 1.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 4 1.6 DECLARATION OF CHARGE ............................................................................... 4 1.7 VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................... 6 1 .8 SOIL MAP ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.9 WATERSHED TRIBUTARY MAP (AGUA HEDIONDA) ........................................................ 8 2.0 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 9 2.1 10 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITION) .................................... I 0 2.2 25 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITION) .................................... 13 2.3 10 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (PROPOSED CONDITION) ................................ 15 2.4 25 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (PROPOSED CONDITION) ................................ 18 3.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 20 3.1 PIPE SIZE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 21 3.2 GRATE INLET ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 25 4.0 ATTACHMENTS .............................................................................................. 26 4.1 10-YEAR 6-HOUR ISOPLUVIAL MAP .................................................................. 27 4.2 100-YEAR 6-HOUR ISOPLUVIAL MAP ................................................................ 28 4.3 PRE-DEVLOPMENT HYDROLOGY PLAN ............................................................ 29 4.4 POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY PLAN ......................................................... 30 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01 ·4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -i - City of Carlsbad. C:1\ 1 DISCUSSION 1.1 PURPOSE This drainage study provides an analysis of the ex1stmg and proposed hydrology characteristics for the improvements of the project site at 5850 Avenida Encinas. The site is located just nmih of the Palomar Ai1p01i Rd./I-5 intersection with the Commercial Tourism Zoning. The site is at latitude and longitude of 33°07'32" N and 117°19'29" W, respectively. It is bounded on the west and nmih by Avenida Encinas, the east by Interstate 5, and the south by In-N-Out Burger. 1.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITION The project site is cun-ently occupied by a two-story commercial building that sits approx. in the center of the site. Parking stalls exist around the building and follow the perimeter of the site where access is provided by a drive aisle from the adjacent prope1iy (In-N-Out) and a driveway into Avenida Encinas just north of the building. The perimeter parking is AC pavement that is in moderate condition and drains surface runoff via a concrete v-gutter. The v-gutter was found to have a high point at the southeast comer of the site where it drains in two directions: • Northerly to discharge surface runoff out the existing driveway and into Avenida Encinas. Once the surface runoff has entered the curb & gutter in A venida Encinas it travels south to a municipal curb opening catch basin where it is collected into the municipal storm drain system. • Westerly to convey runoff through the shared drive aisle and into an existing grated inlet catch basin. Once collected in the private catch basin it is then conveyed through an 18" private storm drain and travels north back onto the project site where it discharges into the same curb opening catch basin in A venida Encinas as stated above. The landscaped area in front of the building drains toward A venida Encinas but also has multiple small grate inlets spared around the landscaping. The small grate inlets appear to discharge through curb openings in Avenida Encinas, but it has not been confirmed. The survey that was perfmmed revealed that the parking row just south of the building drains to the v-gutter on the project site. This parking row is outside prope1iy limits and therefore the project site is accepting offsite drainage. It was also found that the 18" private storm drain directs concentrated surface runoff from southerly prope1iies tlu-ough the site, and it was also found that storm water clarifiers were installed in line with this private storm drain upstream of the project site. Therefore offsite surface flows collected upstream of the project site that travel through this private sto1m drain are anticipated to have been treat by these clarifiers. HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGYI0l-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -2 - lC T 1.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements that will take place on this site will include a complete demolition of existing features, re-grading of the site, and construction of a new single-story commercial restaurant, trash enclosure, parking lot and landscape. The site will be designed to follow natural topography as best as possible. Due to the characteristics of this development, this project falls under the 'Priority Development Project' status by City Stonn Water Quality standards and is therefore required to implement storm water source control, site design, and structural treatment BMPs tlu·oughout the site. The structural BMPs selected for this site are Bio-Filtration basin (BF-1) and have been incorporated into the grading design. To meet Stmm Water Quality requirements as well as follow natural topography as best as possible, two bio-filtration basins will be constructed on this site. Basin #1 is located within DMA-1 and at the most northerly comer of the site. Surface runoff within DMA-1 is directed to av-gutter from around the south side of the building where it conveys collected runoff to the curb & gutter along the parking stalls following Avenida Encinas. The collected runoff travels through this curb & gutter until it reaches Basin # 1 which is its final confluence point. Basin #2 is located within DMA-2 and in the landscape planter within the proposed drive-thru. This basin will collect runoff from the building roof, the drive-tlu·u, and landscaped area just east of the build. The landscaped area will direct runoff through an earthen swale that discharges into the drive thru. A curb & gutter will collect runoff from the drive-thru where it discharges through a curb opening and into Basin #2 Both basins direct collected runoff either through the underdrain as treated storm water or through the overflow grated inlet for heavier storm events. Once runoff has entered the outlet pipe of each corresponding basin, the storm drain pipe system will direct storm water to a proposed sto1m capture vault system and then to a proposed storm drain manhole before discharging into the municipal stmm drain system. 1.4 METHODOLOGY For the purpose of this study, all drainage runoffs have been calculated based on a 10 and 100 year frequency. The following hydrology calculations are based on the San Diego County Hydrology Manual where the peak flow is determined by the equation: [Q=C*I* A] using the Advanced Engineering Software (AES) program. HYOROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050 -H & H REPORT.docx -3 - CH RESTAURA,NT # 4306 City of CmlshacL Ci\ C-Value For more accurate peak runoff values, a user specified C-Value was used in the rational method calculations. The equation that was used can be found on pg. 3-5 of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. C = 0.90 *(%IMP.)+ Cp * (1-%IMP.) Where Cp = 0.80 for General Commercial Isopluvial Map The rainfall depths that were used to calculate the peak runoff rates were determined from the 6-hour Isopluvial Maps for 10-yr and 100-yr storm events as found in the Appendix pages of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. Where the project site falls between two isopluvial contour lines, a graphical interpolation was used to determine the rainfall depth at the project site. 1.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION TOTAL SITE DISCHARGE FROM THE PROJECT SITE STORM PRE-DEVELOPMENT POST-DEVELOPMENT EVENT CONDITION CONDITION (YEAR) (cfs) (cfs) 10 4.04 3.69 100 5.94 5.42 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:ICFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx Ctty or CarlsbacL CJ\ 1.6 DECLARATION OF CHARGE I, HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE CIVIL ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I HA VE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 IN THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF POWAY IS CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROJECT DESIGN. Randy Decker, R.C.E. 81077 Date HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA18050\Repo11s\HYDROLOGY\01-4306·18050-·H & H REPORT.docx • 5 • All # Ci!y ofCmbbacL CJ\ 1.7 VICINITY MAP RONALD PACKARD PKWY. LEGOLAND RESORT AIRPORT ROAD HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE -6 - City of Carlsbad, CJ\ 1.8 SOIL MAP HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\0·I-43os-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -7 - l " o,,,. Point i 1' SblL (/RO~-:. ~ 1l--S61, ~ ~ 'f'?oK, Legend 0 2.5 5 Miles 10 Figure C.1 Soils San Diego County, California -Hydric Soils Hydrologic Soils Group B 1:-M)J,C-Ai't:,':> T +\.if{ SO'l-L &i?-() \JP l) 17'.-S, '> l '> Jr I "?'"\l0::5't:-(,, <::,1,i';. i "'116 \.l ~ t. 'b 1--N c., A\.-LU l.,.ftTU} tvS D f"J, ' • ·~•hU J. P:01" Tl~uan-a <,i. .. I n • ~ ·~~--~ County of San Diego - -r. r • -. ,, . : . ~ • • ~:; ·'•.-~ . ~ '. .,f -'<,it~--7 ...... )J, &of(tJO Sprlnp f·"""'e-,-,1 ---• ~..,.-t, .-~ ..-....... ~ ..-~"t,1 f ·, ~~ , t t ~ . • ~ ) j ~ :""~ :~I I ./ CJIJO Jt(Uffif 0 I l 1 I l I I I I I I I I 1 1 ,.., .,., I ' J ~ do l• • «01a CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City or Carlsbad. CA 1.9 WATERSHED MAP (AGUA HEDIONDA) PROJECT SITE HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -8 - Fl Ali # 4306 City or Ci1rlshmL CA 2.0 HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 Ci Ly of Carlsbad, CA 2.1 10 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITION) **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference : SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2012 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver . 18.2 Release Date: 05/08/2012 License ID 1537 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 * 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS, CARLSBAD , CA * 10-YR PRE-DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS ************************************************************************** FILE NAME : 18050EX.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:03 07/09/2019 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6 .00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0 .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* * * * HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: WIDTH CROSS FALL IN-I OUT-/PARK- CURB HEIGHT GUTTER-GEOMETRIES : WIDTH LIP HIKE MANNING FACTOR NO . (FT) (FT) SIDE I SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) --------------------------====== ====== 1 30.0 20 .0 0 .018/0.018/0.020 0 .67 2 .00 0 .0313 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS : 1 . Relative Flow-Depth= 0 .00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) -(Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint= 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* (FT) (n) 0 .167 0 .0150 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -10 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City of Carlsbad. CJ\. GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 95 .8200 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 260.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.93 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 52.46 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3 .47 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 3.691 WARNING : INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 65.02 (Reference : Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED I N Tc CALCULATION! 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 4 .479 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENSI TY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.90 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.52 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1 .90 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< -======================--=====---======-=====-======----=====---=====------- GENERAL COMMERCI AL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8200 SOIL CLASS I FICATION IS "D" S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 95 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 98.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 54 .83 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 52.58 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.25 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 3.373 WARNING : INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 77 .96 (Ref erence : Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 10 YEAR RAIN FALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 4 .479 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE . SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .89 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0 .89 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300 .00 TO NODE 301 .00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ================================-======================-=====---======--==== GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8200 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S . CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 95 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 278 .00 UPSTREAM ELEVATI ON(FEET) = 56.03 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 53 .48 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2 .55 SUBAREA OVERLAND TI ME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 3 .962 WARNING : INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 58 .35 (Reference : Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual ) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 4.479 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENS I TY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1 .25 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1 .25 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\0l -4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -11 - LI # City oCCmlshacL C;\ =--=======-========-========-=======-========-========--=======-=======---== END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0. 3 TC (MIN.) ~ 1. 25 3. 96 =--=================================-=================--=======-=======---== END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:ICFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -12 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City of Carlsbad, CA 2.2 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITION) **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2012 Advanced Engineer ing Software (aes) Ve r . 18 .2 Releas e Date: 05/08/2012 License ID 1537 Analysis prepared by : ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 * 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS, CARLSBAD, CA * 100-YR PRE-DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS ************************************************************************** FILE NAME : 18050EX.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 16:05 07/09/2019 USER S PECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION : 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRI TERIA USER S PECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) 11111 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6 .00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRI CTION SLOPE = 0 .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE : USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREET FLOW MODEL* * * * HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES : MANNING WIDTH CROSS FALL IN-I OUT-/PARK-HEIGHT WIDTH LIP NO . (FT) (FT) SIDE I SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) --------------------------====== ====== 1 30.0 20 .0 0 .018/0.018/0.020 0 .67 2 .00 0.0313 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS : 1. Relati ve Flow-Depth = 0 .00 FEET as (Maximum Allowabl e Street Fl ow Depth) -(Top-of-Curb) 2 . (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint= 6 .0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WI TH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* HIKE FACTOR (FT) (n) ======= 0.167 0 .0150 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 >>>>>RATI ONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYS I S<<<<< HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -13 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City of Carlsbad, CA GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT SOIL CLASSI FICATION IS "D" S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 95 .8200 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 260.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.93 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 52 .46 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3 .47 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 3 .691 WARNING : I NITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 65 .02 (Reference: Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED I N Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.587 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENSITY I S BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE . SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 2 .79 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .52 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2 .79 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201 .00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< -----=----===--=---===--====-====-===-==============-=========-============= GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8200 SOIL CLASSIFICATION I S "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 95 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 98.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 54.83 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 52.58 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.25 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 3 .373 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 77 .96 (Ref erence : Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual) THE. MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH I S USED I N Tc CALCULATION 1 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE . SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1 .31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.31 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD I NITI AL SUBAREA ANALYSI S<<<<< -===------===--======---==============-===================================== GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICI ENT = .8200 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C .S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II} = 95 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 278 .00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 56.03 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 53.48 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2 .55 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3 .962 WARNING : INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 58 .35 (Reference : Tabl e 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.587 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.84 TOTAL AREA(ACRES} = 0 .34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1 .84 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOG Y\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT .docx -14 - END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) L-A, RESTAUR/1 # 4306 0.3 TC(MIN.) - 1. 84 City of CarlsbarL CA 3. 96 ------------==============---==================================------======= END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -15 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City of Carlsbad. CA 2.3 10 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (PROPOSED CONDITION) **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference : SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2012 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 18.2 Release Date: 05/08/2012 License ID 1537 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * CHI CK-FIL-A, #4306 * 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS , CARLSBAD, CA * 10-YR POST-DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS ************************************************************************** FILE NAME : 18050PO.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 15:45 07/09/2019 * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE= 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL : CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: WIDTH CROSSFALL IN-/ OUT-/PARK-HE IGHT WIDTH LIP HII<E NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) MODEL* MANNING FACTOR (n) 1 30.0 20 .0 0.018/0.018/0 .020 0 .67 2 .00 0.0313 0 .167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS : 1. Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) -(Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint= 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101 .00 I S CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD I NITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSI S<<<<< ===============================================-======--======--=======-=--- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -16 - CHICK-FIL-A, REST AU RANT # 4306 City of Carlsbad. C;\ GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8800 S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00 UPSTREAM ELEVAT I ON(FEET) = 55.63 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 52 .09 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3 .54 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 3 .217 WARNING : INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 55 .36 (Reference: Table 3-l B of Hydrology Manual ) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENS ITY(INCH/HOUR) 4 .479 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 2 .64 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .67 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2 .64 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200 .00 TO NODE 201 .00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): GENERAL COMMERCI AL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8700 S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 147 .00 UPSTREAM ELEVATI ON(FEET) = 55 .60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 53 .75 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1 .85 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3 .065 WARNING : INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 63 .88 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION ! 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 4 .479 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENSITY I S BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.05 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .27 TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = 1 .05 -===========-----=====---======--==------=====---=====--==-=--=-====----==== END OF STUDY SUMMARY : TOTAL AREA(ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0. 3 TC (MIN.) = 1.05 3 .06 ==============---======================--=======-===========----======--==== ========-======================--=====================--=======-============ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\ReportslHYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -17 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City or Carlsbad, CA 2.4 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS (PROPOSED CONDITION) **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2012 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver . 18.2 Release Date: 05/08/2012 License ID 1537 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STU DY ************************** * CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 * 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS , CARLSBAD, CA * 100-YR POST-DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS ************************************************************************** FILE NAME : 18050PO.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 15:55 07/09/2019 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6 .00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0 .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PI PEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* * * * HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSS FALL : WIDTH CROSS FALL IN-I OUT-/PARK- CURB HEIGHT GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: WIDTH LIP HIKE MANNING FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE I SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) ========= ================= ====== ====== 1 30.0 20.0 0 .018/0.018/0.020 0 . 67 2 .00 0 .0313 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS : 1 . Relative Flow-Depth = 0 .00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) -(Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)* (Velocity) Constraint = 6 . 0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PI PE .* (FT) (n) 0 .167 0 .0150 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100 .00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8800 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -18 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT # 4306 City of Carlsbad, CJ\.. S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 461.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.63 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET} = 52.09 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET} = 3.54 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 3 .217 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 55 .36 (Reference: Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual} THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENS ITY(INCH/HOUR) 6 .587 NOTE : RAINFALL INTENSITY I S BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS} 3 .88 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .67 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS} = 3 .88 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200 .00 TO NODE 201 .00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< -====----==------==------=====---===-==--==-----=====---======--===-----==== *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA}: GENERAL COMMERCIAL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8700 S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II} = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 147 .00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET} = 55 .60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET} = 53 .75 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET} = 1.85 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .} = 3.065 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 63 .88 (Reference: Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual} THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR} 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS} = 1 .54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES} = 0 .27 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS} = 1 .54 -===-----====----=======-====----=====---======--=====-====-----======--==== END OF STUDY SUMMARY : TOTAL AREA(ACRES} PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS} 0 . 3 TC (MIN. } = 1. 54 3 .06 ======---======================--=====================--======--============ -======================-=======================--======================-==== END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -'19 - Fl AURANT # 4306 Citv o!Tarlsbad. CA 3.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:ICFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -20 - CHJCK-_FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City or Carlsbad, CA 3.1 PIPE SIZE ANALYSIS STORM DRAIN PIPE #1 This pipe will be analyzed under the 100 year storm conditions at Node 101 . **************************************************************************** >>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC I NPUT INFORMATION<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIPE DI AMETER(FEET) = PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = PI PEFLOW(CFS) = MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR 0 . 011000 =============-=--=====--=======-===-----===-----====------------------------ CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.84 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0 .702 CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0.739 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM (POUNDS ) = 58. 4 5 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) = 5 .529 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0 .47 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) 0 .95 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) 1.31 ==============================================--=======-=======-==------==== NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .76 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0 .64 FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0 .858 FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 59.28 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) 6.084 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0 .575 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .74 FROUDE NUMBER = 1.244 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1 .33 ========================-===================----====----====---------------- HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYS IS P:\CFA 18050\ReportslHYDROLOGY\0·l-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -21 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City of Carlsbad. CJ\ STORM DRAIN PIPE #2 This pipe will be analyzed under the 100 year storm conditions at Node 102 **************************************************************************** >>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<< PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = PIPEFLOW(CFS) = MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR= 0.011000 CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.58 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0.324 CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0 .460 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS ) = 16.76 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.759 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0 .35 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) 0 .70 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY (FEET) 0 .93 NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .37 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0 .20 FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0.667 FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS ) FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .30 FROUDE NUMBER= 2 .502 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 7 .750 0.933 1. 30 P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01 -4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx 25 .07 -22 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT# 4306 City ol'Carlsbad, CA STORM DRAIN PIPE #3 This pipe will be analyzed under the 100 year storm conditions at Node 101 & 102 **************************************************************************** >>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = PIPEFLOW(CFS) = MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = 0 .011000 ============================================================================ CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .94 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0 .764 CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0.489 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 95.95 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7 .092 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0.78 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) 1 .56 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY (FEET) 1.72 NOTE:GIVEN NORMAL DEPTH IS LOWER VALUE OF TWO POSSIBLE. SUGGEST CONSIDERATION OF WAVE ACTION , UNCERTAINTY , ETC. ======-==========================================================-========== NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMAT I ON : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .84 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0.70 FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0 .740 FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 98 .00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7 .724 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0 .926 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .95 FROUDE NUMBER= 1 .397 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1 .76 ===----====--=====-===--====--=========-=-====--==============----==----==== HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -23 - CHICK-FIL-A, RESTAURANT # 4306 City or Carlsbad, CA CURB OPENING This curb opening will be analyzed under the 100 year storm conditions at 101 **************************************************************************** >>>>CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<< CHANNEL Zl(HORI ZONTAL/VERTICAL) Z2(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) = BASEWIDTH(FEET) = - CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET/FEET) UNIFORM FLOW(CFS ) = MANN INGS FRICTION FACTOR = 0 .0150 0.005000 -------------==-=--------=====------==-=--------============================ NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION : >>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) 0 .31 FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 4.61 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 1.32 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .29 FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.93 UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER= 0 .966 PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 34 .43 AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0.134 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0 .441 -===---------------------==----------=========-====--------===========-==== CRIT ICAL-DEPTH FLOW I NFORMATION : CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 4 .60 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 1 .29 CRIT ICAL FLOW HYDRAULI C DEPTH(FEET) 0.28 CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 3.02 CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .30 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 34 .41 AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0.141 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0.440 -=================-=-----===========-======================================= HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -24 - 3.2-GRATE INLET ANALYSIS 36" X 36" GRATE INLET-BASIN #1 # 4306 City or CmlsbacL C1\ This grate will be analyzed under the 100 year storm conditions Weir Equation Weir Coefficient (C) = 3.33 0100 = 3.88 cfs 3.88 = 3.33 • ( 4 * 3') * (h)1.5 h = 0.21' = 2.5" 24"X24" GRATE INLET-BASIN #2 This grate will be analyzed under the 100 year storm conditions Q100 = C x A x✓2xgxh Grate Area (A) = 2' x 2' = 4 ft2 Area of opening = 50% Assume clogging = 50% A= 4 x 0.50 x 0.50 = 1.0 ft2 Orifice Coefficient (C) = 0.67 0100 = 1.54 cfs 1.54 = 0.67 x 1.0 x ✓zx32.2xh h = 0.08' = 1.0" HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -25 - 4.0 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS L-A, RESTAIJHANT # 4306 Cit, of C1rlsba,L C:/\ ATTACHMENTS P:\CFA 18050\ReportslHYDROLOGY\0·l-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -26 - C LA, RESlAURANT # 4306 City ul' Carlsb,Hl CA 4.1 10-YEAR 6-HOUR ISOPLUVIAL MAP HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -27 - I I I 1--l--l-----l----1-i-+-l-+-1 J J l -G> ---lO ,._ 1-f-(E) 1-1-en J""" 0 -~ I-1-0 o_ f-f-~ r;--Ft: I Ii'-T"" ~ ~ - l---+-+--~32°• 5 I I I I I I--G> I CD I ~~ ..,.. I T I -I ,-,_ _I b lO 'St (") D' 0,--f-~ se ..,.. ~ ~ I- J 1.0 -- T"" o· f-f-· ~ +- ,_ f-f- ~1- ~ ~f- County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Rainfall Isopluvials 10 Year Rainfall Event -6 Hours lsopluvial (inches) -.•.. -t--f--lf-l---1-+-· I , __ J J •->--0 -~ ............ er> -~o ,_ ·-~~ Ii--..-+- >-+-+--+-I-f-- >- --f- f-C-1--+---<-- 1--i---r--- l f-lf--+---t-1- ,--• -+--32°45. i •·t-+---1---+--+-< , __ --1--+--t--+-~ --+---+-+--+-I 1 -~J ··--,. -~~ 0 f--1-l.O 0 ~ 0 I)'-<p ..-..,.. 1--, __ ~ -'"" ..,.. I J l-t--+--+--,1--+--+-+--+-< --'---,_ I •--<-l-l--+--1---1-+-L...L....L--L-L- 1+-+--+--l-~-l---t-l--+-l-+--+--l-9:? 0 en 0 <p t: ~ =-+---+-!--+--1--1-!f-+-l-+--+--+---l--+-~~~~-+--+-1---l--+--+-l---+-'f , __ ,L--f- County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Rainfall Isopluvials 100 Year Rainfall Event -6 Hours lsopluvial (inches) # 4306 City of C\irlsbmL CJ\ 4.3 PREDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY PLAN HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\01-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx -29 - INTERSTATE ROUTE NO. 1-5 GRAPHIC SCALE i i i i (mm:r) I inch -20 Jl DMA HYDRO LOGY DATA - OMA NO. NODE AREA (AC) Tc (min.) 1 101 0.516 5.00 2 201 0.243 5.00 3 301 0.340 5.00 DMA HYD ROLOGY DATA - OMA NO. NODE AREA (AC) Tc (min.) 1 101 0.516 5.00 2 201 0.243 5.00 3 301 0.340 5.00 1O-YR STORM EVENT LEGEND ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA --- NOOE 10 EL.-56.8" HIGH POIN OMA BOUNDARY NODE CONCENTRATION POINT ELEVATION NODE DESCRIPTION PATH OF FLOW SOIL TYPE = 'D' INTENSITY (in/hr) PEAK RUNOFF RATE (cfs) 4.479 1.90 4.479 0.89 4.479 1.25 1OO-YR STORM EVENT INTENSITY (in/hr) PEAK RUNOFF RA TE ( cfs) 5.269 2.79 5.269 1.31 5.269 1.84 ~ ~ !,! ~ ~ ~ ! R['SOR I . I, ii. .J ~ ~ VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE l'.! ~ ~ ~ -c:, § -.J -c:, § l'.! "' "' -~ Q :-;:: ~ OArE 3-4-19 DRAWN BY PJS ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ' :;l "-' s. il: :ii s! .. ... j -: ~ ~ i 'll ~ ~ ~ "' :e:! ~ ~ z 0::: 0 I..,,_ I..,,_ 0 CHECKED BY RD/SMH JOB NO. CFA18050 SHEU NO. 1 OF 2 SHEETS REST Al.! # 4306 City of Caris bad .. C1\ 4.4 POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY PLAN HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS P:\CFA 18050\Reports\HYDROLOGY\0·l-4306-18050--H & H REPORT.docx P ·>!TT: 1:-1.m r.l GRAPHIC SCALE i i j (DiYIET) L lnoh • 20 ll STORM DRAIN PIPE NO. PIPE DIA. (in.) 1 12 2 8 3 12 INTERSTATE ROUTE NO. 1-5 r PIPE FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OMA HYDROLOGY DATA OMA NO. NODE AREA (AC) Tc (min.) SLOPE DESIGN FLOW RATE (cfs) (100-YEAR STORM EVENT) 1 101 0.670 5.00 0.010 3.88 2 201 0.269 5.00 0.033 1.54 0.016 5.42 OMA HYDROLOGY DATA OMA NO. NODE AREA (AC) Tc (min.) 1 101 0.611 5.00 2 201 0.269 5.00 - - 10-YR STORM EVENT LEGEND ■ • • • ■ TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA ---OMA BOUNDARY NODE NOOE 10 CONCENTRATION POINT ELEVATION NODE DESCRIPTION ----\,-PATH OF FLOW SOIL TYPE ~ 'D' INTENSITY (in/hr) PEAK RUNOFF RATE (cfs) 4.479 2.64 4.479 1.05 100-YR STORM EVE NT INTENSITY (in/hr) PEAK RUNOFF RATE (cfs) 5.269 3.88 5.269 1.54 LEC0LAII 0 RESORT I VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE t ~ j 12 ? ~ -:.-IS. ~ ill ~ ~ ~ <l t;'l ~-~ '<:, Jl § -: --.J ~ '<:, j C: ~ t ~ ., ~ ., l: .£; g, "" ~ Jl 6 .. ~ ~ OATE 7-11-19 ORAIYN BY PJS CHECKED BY RD/SMH JOB NO. CFA18050 SHEET NO. 2 OF 2 SHEETS CITY OF CARLSBAD PRELIMINARY PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 SWQMP No. PENDING ENGINEER OF WORK: RANDY J. DECKER P.E. 81077 PREPARED FOR: CHICK-FIL-A, INC. 5200 BUFFINGTON RD. ATLANTA, GA 30349-2998 PREPARED BY: JOSEPH C. TRUXAW & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1915 W. ORANGEWOOD AVE. SUITE 101 ORANGE, CA 92868 (714) 935-0265 DATE: September 16, 2019 I?' (. City of Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov E-34 J 1NSTRUCTIONS: To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the city requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5). This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to 'STANDARD PROJECT' requirements or be subject to 'PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the city. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 PROJECT ID: PENDING ADDRESS: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS, CARLSBAD, CA APN: 210-170-08-00 & 210-170-09-00 The project is (check one): D New Development I¼] Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is (Project Area): 41 ,147 ft2 ( 0.945) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 32,998 ft2 ( 0.758) acres If your project is covered by an approved SWQMP as part of a larger development project, provide the project ID and the SWQMP # of the larger development project: Project ID SWQMP#: Then, go to Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your application to the city. E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16 To determine if your project is a "development project", please answer the following question: Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing building or structure that do not alter the size (See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance)? YES NO □ If you answered "yes" to the above question, provide justification below then go to Step 5, mark the third box stating "my project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant information. Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following: 1. Constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: a) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non- erodible permeable areas; b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; c) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets uidance? 2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance? 3. Ground Mounted Solar Array that meets the criteria provided in section 1.4.2 of the BMP manual? YES NO □ □ Ix] □ If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, provide discussion/justification below, then go to Step 5, mark the second box stating "my project is EXEMPT from PDP ... " and complete applicant information. Discussion to justify exemption ( e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Street guidance): If ou answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exem t from PDP, go to Step 3. E-34 Page2of4 REV 04/17 To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E. 3. b. (1) ): 1. Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and ub/ic development pro ·eels on public or riv ate land. 2. Is your project a redevelopment project creating and/or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. 3. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a restaurant? A restaurant is a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification SIC code 5812 . 4. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside develo men! pro·ect includes develo men! on an natural slo e that is twent -five ercent or reater. 5. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot? A parking lot is a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for business or for commerce. 6. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious street, road, highway, freeway or driveway surface collectively over the entire project site? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the trans ortation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. 7. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feel or less from the project lo the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the roject to the ESA i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).• 8. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. 9. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious area that supports a retail gasoline outlet (RGO)? This category includes RGO's that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. 10. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? 11. Is your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMG 21.203.040 YES NO □ IXI IZl □ IXI □ □ IXI lxl □ □ 6o □ lxl □ □ IZI □ IXI □ IXI If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment project, go to step 4. If your project is a new project, go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT.' Go to step 5, check the second box statin "M ro·ect is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' ... " and com lete a licant information. E-34 Page 3 of4 REV 04/17 Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A) = 24,977 sq. ft. Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = 27,977sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)'100 = 112% YES NO D If you answered "yes", the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BM P's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box statin ro·ect is a PDP ... "and com lete a information. IZ] My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. 0 My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36' and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply. 0 My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Applicant Name: ________________ _ Applicant Title: _____________ _ Applicant Signature: _______________ _ Date: __________________ _ * Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments}; water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin {1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat Management Plan; and any other equivalent environmentally sensltive areas which have been identified by the City. This Box for City Use Only YES NO City Concurrence: D D By: Date: Project ID: Page 4 of 4 REV 04/17 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certification Page Project Vicinity Map FORM E-34 Storm Water Standard Questionnaire Site Information FORM E-36 Standard Project Requirement Checklist Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment 1 a: OMA Exhibit Attachment 1b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1 c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1 e: 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 Thresholds and Actions Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 Project ID: PENDING I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the current Order. I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and site design BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date RANDYJ.DECKER Print Name JOSEPH C. TRUXAW & ASSOCIATES, INC. Company Date PROJECT VICINITY MAP RONALD PACKARD PKWY. ~ LEGOLAND 'b ~ '® l--\ / j _, \ ei 7 '?:i RESORT ';ic ,<) <" 7 !Iii Cl ~ / "' / Cl AIRPORT ROAD 0 () I"' 7 VICINITY MAP '.t- NOT TO SCALE SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST ,>'>,CC,',,:\,'<,,,'"', > ,''. ·• ••• .. ••· > Proie.l::tsummiiti!Jnf<>imiiti<>n < ··•···•• > .. > » > ./ Proiect Name CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 Project ID PENDING Project Address 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD,CA Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s}} 210-170-08-00 & 210-170-09-00 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904 Parcel Area 0.890 Acres ( 38,761 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area 0.594 Acres ( 25,878 Square Feet) (subset of Parcel Area) Area to be disturbed by the project 0.945 Acres (41,147 Square Feet) (Project Area) Project Proposed Impervious Area 0.758 Acres ( 32,998 Square Feet) (subset of Proiect Area) Project Proposed Pervious Area 0.177 Acres ( 7,691 Square Feet) (subset of Proiect Area) Note: • Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. • Disturbed area includes improvements in the Public R/W which consists of both pervious and impervious surfaces. Proposed pervious and impervious values above reflect only proposed surfaces within property limits and therefore do not add up to the total disturbed area. • Proposed pervious area does not include the surface of the bio-filtration basins . • ·•·. ·• < .. .< ••• Pes~rfptioifofEidsti11g s1teco11ditian a11dDrai11ageP11.tteroi; . ·. • ... . . . /> ... Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): X Existing development D Previously graded but not built out D Agricultural or other non-impervious use □ Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description / Additional Information: Site is currently a developed site with a two-story commercial office building, associated parking and landscaped areas (grass) Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): X Vegetative Cover □ Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas X Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: Impervious surfaces include AC pavement, concrete sidewalk, building roof Pervious surfaces include grassy areas in front of the building, planters around the building and shrubs around the property perimeter Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): D NRCS Type A D NRCS Type B D NRCS Type C X NRCSType D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): D GW Depth < 5 feet D 5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet X 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet D GW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): □ Watercourses D Seeps D Springs □ Wetlands X None Description / Additional Information: Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage [How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer (1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) describe existing constructed storm water conveyance systems, if applicable; and (3) is runoff from of/site conveyed through the site? if so, describe]: The project site is currently occupied by a two-story commercial building that site approx. in the center of the site. Parking stalls around the building and follow the perimeter of the site where access is provided by a drive aisle from the adjacent property (ln-N-Out) and a driveway into Avenida Encinas just north of the building. The perimeter parking is AC pavement that is in moderate condition and drains surface runoff via a concrete v-gutter. The v-gutter was found to have a high point at the southeast corner of the site where it drains in two directions; • Northerly to discharge surface runoff out the existing driveway and into Avenida Encinas. Once surface runoff has entered the curb & gutter in Avenida Encinas it travels south to a municipal curb opening catch basin where it is collected into the municipal storm drain system. • Westerly to convey runoff through the shared drive aisle and into an existing grated inlet catch basin. Once collected in the private catch basin it is conveyed through an 18" private storm drain and travels north back onto the project site where it discharges into the same curb opening catch basin in Avenida Encinas as stated above. The landscaped area in front of the building drains toward Avenida Encinas but also has multiple small grate inlets sparsed around the landscaping. The small grate inlets appear to discharge through curb openings in Aveninad Encinas, but it has not been confirmed. The survey that was performed revealed that the parking row just south of the building drains to the v-gutter on the project site. This parking row is outside property limits and therefore the project site is accepting offsite drainage. It was also found that the 18" private storm drain directs concentrated surface runoff from southerly properties through the site, and it was also found that stormwater clarifiers were installed in line with this private storm drain upstream of the projects site. Therefore offsite surface flows collected upstream of the project site that travel through this private storm drain are anticipated to have been treated by these clarifiers. ,-,_/ >, ·ri--,-\(}/fL/ P,e~t:'i'iQ'tipll'l">fPtPpQ$ec.l)$ile Oevel9'Pmlilnta11tl OraiOll!JEfl"ii,tt!lrns. ·.··•··•·····••• • •··.•··••··• .. •.· Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The proposed development will consists of a complete site demolition and removal of existing features for the construction of a new single story restaurant. Proposed improvements will consist of a new building, trash enclosure parking areas, drive-thru, outdoor patio, landscaped areas, and bio-filtration basins. The land use will be commercial and activities will include preparation of food & offsite/onsite food consumption. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): Proposed impervious surfaces will include the rooftop of the building and trash enclosure, Ac pavement in parking areas, concrete sidewalk, and a concrete drive-thru. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): Proposed pervious surfaces will include landscaped areas planted with drought tolerant species and bio-filtration basin surfaces. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? X Yes □No Description/ Additional Information: A complete demolition and removal of existing features will be done and grading will be performed to allow for the proposed features. Proposed grading will follow the existing site topography as best as possible. Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? X Yes □No Description/ Additional Information: The site will be designed to follow the existing topography as best as possible, however to comply with Low Impact Development requirements the runoff will be intercepted by 2 bio- filtration basins before discharging into the municipal storm drain system. Once the treated runoff leaves the bio-filtration basins it will enter the proposed onsite storm drain system where it will discharge into the existing catch basin in Avenida Encinas, the same catch basin as the existing condition. The primary change to the site drainage conditions are the bio-filtration basins that will treat and control the discharge flow of the site runoff. See calculation worksheets and SOHM for bio-filtration sizing and hydromodification calculations. Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): X On-site storm drain inlets D Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps D Interior parking garages D Need for future indoor & structural pest control X Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features X Food service X 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 D Loading Docks IJ Fire Sprinkler Test Water □ Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water X Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots I .•• _·····•. \ .... ;C/: •.• .. • ldei:ffifi¢.atianqf R.eiieivina-Wafer,l'aJl.utant$ qf C.<io~~tn ••-•· •·•.· <· ...... • ••• .• /'' "' .•". Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): Plans provided by the City of Carlsbad and the Storm Drain Atlas found on the City website were used to determine the ultimate flowpath of runoff leaving the project site. It was found that once the treated and controlled runoff discharge into the catch basin in Avenida Encinas, the storm water is directed through a storm drain in Avenida Encinas. The storm drain travels north and outlets runoff into a vegetated ditch where the runoff continues north, then appears to enter a second storm drain pipe that travels underneath the Encinas Power Plant Finally the storm drain pipe discharges runoff into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s )/Stressor(s) TMDLs Agua Hedionda Lagoon Indicator Bacteria-Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform, Enterococcus, Agua Hedionda Lagoon Invasive Species Agua Hedionda Lagoon Sedimentation/Siltation " ,_1deut111~atfq11qf!atoJe~t1$JtetP011u.t)lotir.-•·· .•·->P•>.:··•··· .c><"' '·,,,' ·J· Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Also a Receiving Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern Sediment X Nutrients X Heavy Metals X Organic Compounds X Trash & Debris X Oxygen Demanding Substances X Oil & Grease X Bacteria & Viruses X Pesticides p .•• ··•.•·· < • ...• J •.. •.··.... I-IY!!ri:>mgdifi~citit:iit Maoitiemetif~eqµirefuerits< . •·•··. < > • ... •·.•. ••••• < Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? X 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 runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides. Description/ Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): As the runoff from the subject site travels through\ the municipal storm drain system, there is a section that is a vegetated ditch that is not concrete lined. Therefore, by MS4 permit regulations this site is required control runoff flowrates to reduce sediment transport from this ditch into Agua Hedionda Lagoon I:IJ,fjfjiif i'1~i,~i,'i~I!J/$}fi~illlil ~,r,iittitliWif liiiJff l~l~i\~~,nrr:il~t~1~;~l~:if'•; Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? □Yes X No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed? D 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) 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 D No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? D No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite D Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP. o Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion/ Additional Information: No critical coarse sediment yield areas exist downstream of the project site. , ...•••• ·.;.·.·.•.••·•··• )·••/•··••··•.· .. ·••······••t{ 0;}f.f1#¾fii?~Q!f§.!,f§Tf%<i5\i~t§j~~t'~l-!l)t?.ft\•? },t•.}t \ '•.)•·•·•./.•··•····• .. •·••···••'••·• ·: . "l"l'iii; .. $e:<,tiou>onlY•req1.1iredif,l'iY(lromQdifi~atioo.mau.igemeotr.eqvir.emeMi; 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 SOHM program was used to design the hydromodification parameters of the storm water treatment system. After inputting the bio-filtration basin design characteristics, the system passed the hydromodification test using the outlet of the Storm Capture Vaults at the flow control device as the Point of Compliance. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? X No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) o Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2 D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Discussion/ Additional Information: (optional) ·•.· • < <• , .? .• > ,'(ijtfi1;fo•$it~Rl:!ciii]fernenil.aril:IGQristraiiit$ , > < ,. • .... When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or City codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. NIA 1,·· ••.• < Pi:iti<SJ'ial1'i(i:li(iou~llnfprlflatii>ti<or.Gi>nf1niiatior(Qf:Brifvi6iii; S~!!ti<Sris'.A'$lN~e<11fq>, •.·· •·· This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. ( Cicyof Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Information Project Name: 1-5 & Palomar, Chick-fil-A FSU Project ID: PENDING DWG No. or Building Permit No.: PENDING Source Control BMPs Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "NIA" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 ~Yes □ No □ NIA Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage ~Yes □ No □ NIA Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind ~ Yes □ No □ NIA Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 09/16 ;.> >o •··. ·. Scllifoe Control Reblliremerit(contir\llei!) ···•·• .. > .• ·, ----:_>---< ' '>., :-_--:'ADniied?, -_ ----:-__ --\-,---- SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and □Yes Iii No □ N/A Wind Disoersal Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: No materials will be stored outdoors SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal !ii Yes 0 No □ NIA Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Annendix E.1 of BMP Manual for ouidance). □ On-site storm drain inlets Iii Yes □ No □ NIA □ Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps □Yes □ No Iii N/A □ Interior parking garages □Yes D No Iii N/A □ Need for future indoor & structural pest control □Yes D No Iii N/A □ Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Iii Yes □ No □ NIA □ Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features □Yes □ No Iii N/A □ Food service !ii Yes D No □ N/A □ Refuse areas Iii Yes D No □ N/A □ Industrial processes D Yes □ No Iii N/A □ Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Iii Yes □ No □ NIA □ Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning □Yes □ No Iii N/A D Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance □Yes □ No Iii N/A □ Fuel Dispensing Areas □Yes D No Iii N/A □ Loading Docks □ Yes □ No Iii N/A D Fire Sprinkler Test Water □ Yes □ No Iii N/A □ Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water □Yes □ No Iii N/A □ Plazas, sidewalks, and oarkina lots !ii Yes □ No □ NIA For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E. 1. Provide justification for "No" answers. A. On-site storm drain inlets -Grated Inlets are shown on plans. All inlets will have a 'No Dumping' graphic that will be visible. D2. Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use -Landscape areas that incorporate pesticide use will drain to bio-filtration basins, and self-treating areas are shown on the DMA Exhibit. Plant species will be of drought tolerant type and will minimize the use of irrigation and thus reduce runoff of irrigation water. E. Food Service -Cleaning of floor mats, container, etc. will occur inside over an interior drain that will be connected to the grease waste line. G. Refuse Areas -The proposed trash enclosure will be covered and a drain inside the refuse area will be connected to the grease waste line. The door will a roll-up type and will prevent wind from spreading trash/debris throughout the site. P. Plazas, Sidewalks, and Parking Lots -The sidewalk and patio area will be swept daily. E-36 Page 2 of4 Revised 09/16 Alfdevelopme11tprojects mDstimplernent site design BMPs SD"1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required. • "No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Com action Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: E-36 ~ Yes □ No □ N/A □ Yes □ No ~ N/A ~ Yes □ No □ N/A □ Yes □ No ~ N/A ~Yes □ No □ N/A Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 . ',, \' ' ' ,-:,c_ ·.•··. Site Desi!lll Requirenierit(col1tinued) , ___ ,c'' ,', '-,, ·····• I . AnriUedT .· .. · .. ·. SD-6 Runoff Collection I IBI Yes I D No ID N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I 1Bi Yes I D No ID N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvestinq and Using Precipitation I □Yes I 1Bi No ID NIA Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: Toilet Flushing and irrigation demand is less than the DCV and will not drawdown in sufficient time. E-36 Page4 of4 Revised 09/16 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP{s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual). Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP . Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated together or separate. A soils report was provided to and analyzed to determine if infiltration of storm water runoff is a feasible option for this site. The report shows two percolation borings with infiltration rates found to be: 0.05 & 0.00 in/hr, giving an average of 0.025 in/hr. Using form 1-9 from the City BMP Design Manual Appendices, the factor of safety to be used is 3.5 giving a design infiltration rate of 0. 007 in/hr which is insufficient for infiltration purposes and therefore deeming infiltration infeasible. Form 1-7 was used to determine the feasibility of harvest and use as a storm water treatment system. However, due to low demand of irrigation water usage and moderate facility usage, harvest and use is also not feasible as the demand will not allow for drawdown of collected storm water in the required time. Bio-filtration was decided as the proposed BMP for this project site. The site has sufficient landscaped areas to be used for bio-filtration basins however due to the topography certain areas were deemed infeasible, such as the landscape buffer between Avenida Encinas and the site parking fronting Avenida Encinas. The grading design required two (2) basins to be spaced out around the site instead with one basin within the drive-thru to capture the runoff from the building and trash enclosure roof and drive-thru pavement, and a second basin at the north corner of the site to capture the remainder of the parking lot and existing parking area that is to remain adjacent to the ln-N-Out. The surface of each bio-filtration basin was maximized due to the fact that the invert of the existing catch basin invert elevation is approx. 3.6' below finished surface. This requires the basins to be designed with the min. depths: • 18" Engineered Soil • 12" Gravel (3" above perf. Pipe, 6" perf pipe, 3" below perf. Pipe) Due to very low infiltration rates the basins are proposed to be lined. Using the applicable worksheets it was found that with the min. depths the basin still provide the necessary storage for treatment. This BMP type was also selected using the BMP fact sheet BF-1 for pollutant control as is removes the anticipated pollutants from this site. •··••i• ··•··•••tk\ JC>,c::.,.:•;;.ryc;;;••·;~t~ll$!l!t~ll=I\Y!~··~·\!mlY~~~.¾\~J§r;91,~l.~!'c,t;,; ;.•:S1t lvc:.;ic >.•·· r ,~ .. •• • •·.· ... •·,.[£.RPYJ!ll!!•P.~9Et£a!!fggj3:q(d•• t<>.·Pi"9Y!!'l.(.iJif9rroiti9i:tfo.r E1ll~!li.n(li\figµlll pr9p1>s1:1g • •.. isfr1.1ct(lt'al!:1MPl •; < . Structural BMP ID No. T1 DWG: Conceptual Grading Plan Sheet No. 4 -Low Impact Development Plan Type of structural BMP: D Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) D Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) D Retention by bioretention (INF-2) D Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) D Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) X Biofiltration (BF-1) D Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) D Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management O Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: D Pollutant control only D Hydromodification control only X Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control o Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP D Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): ·;~(if~i1?g{;:;~.~f,~gz~f ~~},1(!f !l!f !~f !;if ff f;f !if ltj'ir~i!t(~{f~l§~~i~~I•;,'i;v•' Structural BMP ID No. T2 DWG: Conceptual Grading Plan Sheet No. 4 -Low Impact Development Plan Type of structural BMP: D Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) D Retention by bioretention (INF-2) D Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) D Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) X Biofiltration (BF-1) D Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) □ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management D Other ( describe in discussion section below) Purpose: D Pollutant control only D Hydromodification control only X Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control □ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP □ Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): ••••••• . t it····•··::···•··•· ............• <~.iI~gtg,f~!'~lV!~v~iJVJ.fil~t¥•J~f~r"li~i~~f: ::x•:·••·· .. ·•·•••···•··•·•.· , :.•• •••• · •.[QQt>Y:tl:!i.s p<1g~ !\.S1!1!i~i:llti:llo pi;9'¥(~~;jl\f9,:m;itt911J9i'i~11,:;lji!J.i:liti.i:11-111l••prop9s11.i:1,< • . :.. ,jtructuriite,111Pl' \T < .. Structural BMP ID No. T3 DWG: Hydromodification Management Plan Type of structural BMP: n Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □ Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) □ Retention by bioretention (INF-2) D Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) CJ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) □ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) D Biofiltration (BF-1) □ Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) XDetention pond or vault for hydromodification management D Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: n Pollutant control only XHydromodification control only □ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control □ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP D Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion ( as needed): ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 1 a OMA Exhibit (Required) X Included See OMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24"x36" Exhibit typically required) Attachment 1 b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing X Included on OMA Exhibit in OMA ID matching OMA Exhibit, OMA Attachment 1 a Area, and OMA Type (Required)* □ Included as Attachment 1 b, separate from OMA Exhibit *Provide table in this Attachment OR on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a Attachment 1 c Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility X Included Screening Checklist (Required unless D Not included because the entire the entire project will use infiltration project will use infiltration BMPs BMPs) Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. Attachment 1 d Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration X Included Feasibility Condition (Required unless □ Not included because the entire the project will use harvest and use project will use harvest and use BMPs) BMPs Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-8. Attachment 1 e Pollutant Control BMP Design X Included Worksheets / Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP 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: X Underlying hydrologic soil group X Approximate depth to groundwater X Existing natun,1 hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) X Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) X Existing topography and impervious areas X Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite X Proposed grading X Proposed impervious features X Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness X Drainage management area (OMA) boundaries, OMA ID numbers, and OMA areas (square footage or acreage), and OMA type (Le., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) X Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP) Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist Form 1-7 1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? ~ Toilet and urinal flushing 1251.Landscape irrigation 0 Other:. _____ _ 2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. TO"l-LFi FL~t\"I/VlY ln1.CrATI:ON ~1t "\'AB\..l: ~.-~-\ : 1 'J':.>'f:,':>/f>f:,'l ./'bfl't R>t=-1J 354-s,-f'. [Provide a summat.y of calculations here] • lb~Vl'\"l-N If ~ .-lt'S ~c,\ff"I v~.-. i,Tvv l):: '}.1{")'0,40><1i s.~. llO.0l~ -roTJtl. LONS.\JJ'ffi,'1.,01\) o.~o OV~1\. ~c., hr'> n. -t'"' ~ -i,l,S x =t )I '3.~'5 ll \.'5-: 4 '\-4.7 •1 E. 1 \v'V:. I,-,,}~. 't ,ii. 3. Calculate the DCV usingworksheetB.2-1. Tdl.l..£1 fL¼)11-J/ I,,;-t-1\./1)-:. l,1tiA~C)J\ DCV = I ~43 (cubic feet) d,:~4 .5 <. \~~4) ~) )04-:~ vV,~~ 3a. Is the 36 hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV? D Yes / 18 No q ~ Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm that DCV can be used at an adequate rate to meet drawdown criteria. 36. Is the 36 hour demand greater than 0.25DCV but less than the full DCV? D Yes / ~ No c:> .(i Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to dete11nine 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. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? D Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BlvIPs. ~No, select alternate BMPs. 1-2 3c. Is the 36 hour demand less than 0.25DCV? ~ Yes .0. Hai-vest and use is considered to be infeasible. February 2016 Appendix I: Form s and Checklis.ts Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Form 1-8 Condition Part 1 -Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Q uestion shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes No X 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: X Swnmarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 1-3 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Ch ecklists Criteri a 3 Form 1-8 Page 2 of 4 Screening Question Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per h our be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Yes No X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 4 Can infiltration g reater 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 fac tors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. Part 1 Result * If all answers to rows 1 -4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. 111e feasibility screening category is Full Infiltratio n If any answer from row 1-4 is~nfiltration rnay be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 *I 'o be completed us111g gathered site 111fonnat:1on and best pro fessional Judgment cons1dei-1ng the definition of iVffiP tn the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-4 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Form 1-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria 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 Appendi.," D. Provide basis: Yes No X 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 Appendi.," C.2. Provide basis: X 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. I-5 Februa1y 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria 7 Form 1-8 Page 4 of 4 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: Yes No X Swnmarize 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: 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. Part 2 Result* If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The fea sibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is c~ ... ;r1-.°'1 to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category i~o Infiltratio~ *To be completed us111g gathered site 111formation and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the ·MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. I-6 Februa1y 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists -, -·- Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Form 1-9 A Factor Category Suitability Assessment Factor Description Soil assessment methods Predominant soil texture Site soil variability Depth to groundwater / impervious layer Assigned \'{!eight (w) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = Lp B Design Level of pretreatment/ sediment loads Redundancy/ resiliency expected Compaction during construction Design Safety Factor, Su = LP Combined Safety Factor, Sm121= SA x Su Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, K,hscrvcd (corrected for test-specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Ktcsign = K,bs,n·rd / Sro,at Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: 0.5 0.25 0.25 Factor Value (v) Product (p) p=wxv O.SO o:so ).. 00 o :=rs ?E"'\\COLA-11..0N ,-s~, ~'t:;1-FO"R,,lv'\ \:-b 1\-i a-LOl-A\..1-1:, ~b ~o~""tN lr~. ~ t. t So1-t~ ~ 't..\'o,~J i!::,'f (r1.,L'S~ tNlr1-N £-'S'R"l-Nb; ~ t...G ,~o N A-A, b ,,f1 t, 1) 10/~/\ 'o, 1-7 Februa1y 2016 Wocksbes::1 B 1-1 Gcoccal Notes· Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (Vl.3 Dr:iin.:i_J?C B:isif! ID_ or ~:unel DMA•l B:isin Do.ins to the Following BMJ) Typcl l3iofiltr:umn 0.58 0.007 2~22 0 E~ccrcd Pcn;ous Sutt:Jcc:s: ~Qt Senior a._ Dimcr<ion Arca (C=O.tO)I O 0 4.290 No N:in1l':ll T}ye A Soil Serving as ~~2ruoJ T}'.Ec B Soil Serving as :,..Z:irunlT Docs DMP Ovctf1ow to Stoanw:itcr F~rures in Onw,,utMm Doin:i,ec?j -No__! Identify Downstrom Do.iru.gc &sin Pro\;dingTrc:atment in Series Pecccm of Uostteam Flo,1,-s Directed to Downstre.Un Di.-ion Arc:as t.:p:-i-rc..-,.m Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Arc::i. (Ci:;0.90) 0 _Upstre,,m lropcrvi~~s Sw:::f.iccs :--:ot Qi.rectcd to Dispersion Arc:1 (C=0.90) 0 Tott! Tabuorv :\rC"J 28.912 Lndard Dn.in:i~ Areas 0.81 lniti.i.l Runoff F::i.~t_Q_r for Dispersed & Dh;ocrsion Arc.:::is 0.00 lnici:u W~lncd Runoff F:i.cror 0.81 Initial Desim U nrurc Volume 1.132 Toul Impervious Aro Dispecsed to Pcrvious Surface 0 T ottl Pcrvious Disocrsion Arc.."!l 0 R2tio of Dimcrscd Jmt)(!fViOus Arc:i. to Pcrviow Dispersion Are1 n/, Adjustment r-:actor foe Dispersed & D~ion Atc::lS 1.00 RunoffF:i.ctor Aftct Dispersion Tcchni<1ucs 0.81 Dcsim G.oru,c Volume After Di.soersion Tcchnioucs 1,132 Tottl Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 Tot::U R:iin lhrcel Volume Reduccion 0 f-in:tl Adjusted Runoff f':i.ctor 0.81 FU\2.1 Effective Tobut2ry Are1 23,419 lniti:tl D~.G.prurc Volume Reoincd b\• Site Dcsii?n Elements 0 Fin:tl Dcsi,l?fl C:1Pturc Volume Tribut:1rv to B.'vlP 1,132 D~L\-2 Biofihr.ttlon 0.58 0.007 8~0 u 3,398 :,..lo No __ I 0 0 11,718 0.73 0.00 0.73 413 0 0 n/, 1.00 0.73 413 0 0 0.73 s,;;4 0 413 - 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 n/2 1.00 n/, 0 0 0 o.oo 0 0 0 No ~o I >:o I No I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/, n/, 1.00 1.00 n/, n/, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 lunidcss lun.ides:- !inches ~ i ft ft ~ :--.lo No '.\!o No So t_ft_ I! No I ~o I No I 1\:o ~o ~itlcss lurutlcss 0 0 0 0 0 ~cem I cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/, n/, n/, n/, n/o ~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Iorio n/, n/o n/, n/, n/, lunitlcss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jcubic-fcct !cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 !cubic-feet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 [unitlcss 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 jcubic,fcct 0 0 0 0 0 I cubic-feet A. Applionrs rruy use this woduheet to c:t1cub1c design opturc volurnc!l for up to 10 dnm2gc :i.rc:is User inpu1 must be provided for yellow sludcd cells:. ,'21ues for :ill other cells will be :1.utomatically gcner:i.ted. crrot'j/notifie:1.tions will be highliglucd in red 2nd swnnurizcd below. t.:pon completion of thi.,; worksheet. proceed to tl1c 2ppropri:ttc BMP Sizing ,,.,"Orkshcct(s). Automated Worksheet B.5-1: Sizin?; Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (Vl.3 0 I Dni.mge Basin 1D or Name 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 -10 Dcsi.J!rl lnfiltrnrion R:ite Recommended by Gcotcchnic:il En~ccr. P_!~vidcd Biofil(!":lrion BMP Surfucc Arc:,, Provided Surfucc Pond.in~ Depth Provided Soil Media 111ickncss Provid~ Depth ofGr::,,vcl Above Undcrdr.1in I.nvcrt Di:1.mcter of Undcrdrain oc Hydromod Orifice (Select Sm:illcst) Provided Q_cpth of Gnvcl Below the Undcrdnin Volume tnfiltr:ncd Over 6 Hour Storm Soil tv[cdi:i Pore Space Available for Retention Grnvcl Pore l)pacc Available for Retention Effective Retention Depth C:llcubtcd Rcccntion Stonge Do.,vdown (Including 6 Hr Storm) Volume Rct:1incd by B~·lP Fracri9n of DCV Retained Portion of Retention Pc:rfoan:tnce Standard S:i.risficd Faction of DCV Retained (noan:ilizcd_ to 36-lu drawdown Dcs!S:: Capture Volume R~:i.inin,l? fo!: Biofiltr:i.tion Max Jlydromod flow Rate throuj.!h Undc.rdr::>.~ ~vb.x Soil Filmtion R:i.tc Allowed hr Undctdrain Orifice Soil Mcdi:l Filrotion R..it'c per Specifications_ Soil Medi:1 Filrotion Rate to be used for Sizin; Dep_t_h Biofihercd Over 6 Hour Storm Effccti\'c Depth q_f Biofiltr:uion Stora Dr::iwdown Time for Surf.tee Pondin1 Do Site Design Elcmcms and BMP:: Satisfr Annual Retention Requirements? -----Ovcr:111 Portion of Performance Sr:mcbrd Satisfied 111is BMP Ovl.,-flows to the Fol!owing DcUm.ge Basin Deficit of Effectively Treated Stonn~•atcr DMA-1 0.007 23.-119 0.030 1.132 Lined 779 6 18 3 6.00 3 0 0.05 0.00 0.90 120 58 0.05 0.06 O.o3 1.0<JS 1.3370 7-1.15 5.00 5.00 30.00 0.20 10.80 2 40.80 1,647 1,647 82-1 701 1.00 Yes 1.00 0 I Di'.:L-\-2 0.007 8,55-1 0.030 -113 Lined 36-1 6 18 3 6.00 3 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 120 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0.07 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 396 0 0 0 1.3370 n/a n/a n/, 158.68 n/a n/a n/, 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 10.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 l 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 40.80 30.00 30.00 30.00 594 0 0 0 594 0 0 0 297 0 0 0 297 0 0 0 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yes 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 I n/a I n/a n/a inches inches inches inches inches 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitlcss 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitlcss 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 inches 0 0 0 0 0 hours 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 otio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r::itio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r:itio 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feel n/a n/, n/a n/a n/a CFS n/a n/, n/, n/a n/a in/hr 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 0 0 0 0 0 hours 0 0 0 0 0 hours 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 r:itio vcs/no 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo l':ltio unitlcss n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Workc:brtt R 5-1 Grnrcal Notre:· A. Applionts may use this "vorkshect to size Lined or Unlined Bio6.It.r.1tion B;..,(Ps (BF-1. PR-1} for up to 10 basin.c:. User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells. values for blue cells ::ae :.1.utonutiolly popul:ncd based on user inputs &om previous worksheets. v:ilucs for a.ti other cells will be ::i.utonuticall)' gcncotcd. ca::ors/notifications will be highlighted in red/or:1ngc and summarized below. BMPs fully satisfying rhe pollut:i.nt cornrol performance standards will have :l deficit treated volume of zero and be highlighted in green. unitk:ss ....___ 85th Percentile Stonn Depth 0.58 0.58 0.58 ---inches Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotcchnical Engineer 0.007 0.007 0.007 ---in/hr Total Tributary Arc:t 22,599 11,718 2,265 ----s9-ft 85th Percentile St0nn Volume (R,1infall Volume) 1,092 566 109 -----cubic-feet Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.80 0.70 0.67 ---unitlcss Initial Design Capture Volume 874 396 73 cubic-feet Dispersion Arcn Reductions 0 0 0 ----cubic-feet Tree \Vell and Rain Barrel Reductions 0 0 0 ----cubic-feet Effective Arca Tributary to BMP 18,079 8,203 1,518 ---square feet Fin::i.l Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 874 396 73 -cubic-feet B:isin Drains to the Following BMP Type Bio filtration Bio filtration Bio filtration ----unitlcss Volume Retained by BMP 35 16 (normalized ro 36 hour drawdown) -I I I I I I I I lcubie-feet To~,! Fraction oflniti.,1 DCV Rero.ined within Dlv!A 0.04 0.04 0.05 --fraction Percent of 1\ vera.gc Annual Runoff Retention Provided 6.1% 6.1% 7.6% ------% Percent of Average Annunl Runoff Retention Required 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% ---% Percent of Pollution Control Standard Satisfied 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% --% Discharges to Secondary Treatment in Dminagc Basin ---unitless Impervious Surface Ar~ Still Requiring T reatmcnt 0 0 0 ------square feet Impervious Surfaces Directed to Downstr~ Dispersion --I I I -I -I I I -!square foct Arca Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Downstte:im I I -I I I -I I -I I I square feet Dispersion Arca Deficit of Effectively Treated Stonnwatcr 0 I ,1 I 0 I I I I -I I I I cubic-feet Summary Notes: All fields in this summary worksheet arc popubtcd based on previous user inputs. If ~pplicable, drainage basin clements that require revision:-and/ or supplemental information outside the scope of these worksheets are highlighted in orange and summairzed in the red text belo-..v. lf all drainage basins achieve full compliance without a need for supplemental information, a green message will appear below. .Congrarulations. aU specified doina~ b-.uins and Bf\lPs an: in compliance wich stotm'\t":ltcr pallumnc control 11:quircmt·nts. lncludt 11 x 17 co lot' prints of thi:. $Umm1try sheet and ~upporting \\'orkshcct calcul:icion.:. as ~t'"t of the S\X'Qrvn> submitml pack:i.gc. INTERSTATE R UTE NO. /-5 57.77 fl GRAPHIC SCALE 'j r ( IN rn;r ) I inch "" 20 IL INTERS TA TE ROUTE NO. /-5 ,\ EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA DETAIL SCALE: 1•-40• I LEGEND I LIMITS OF TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA LAND COVER D IMPERVIOUS -AC PAVEMENT D IMPERVIOUS -CONCRETE D IMPERVIOUS -BUILDING/TRASH ENCLOSURE STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INFORMATION 1. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP 'D' 2. DEPTH TO GROUNOWA TER = 17 -18 ft. 3. NO NATURAL HYOROLOGIC FEATURES EXIST WITHIN THIS PROJECT SITE 4. NO CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS EXIST DOWNSTREAM OF THIS PROJECT SITE ~E SO R I r. ROAO VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE HOTIC( fO COHTAACTOR NE ctlHilACTvl SK.Ill A.$JCUIA:ll THE Jl\.l( VUTlC.1.1. A.'10 IIOIIZMAl lOCATIO!'I A.\°O Sil[ Of IJJ. lfTlJTlS, P'ii[S. 00/0I. mlXTVm A.'10 SW.U. U R£SIO)t518U r~ QI.IIJ.CC TCI 00 '1.IU: OIi "10,1[ vn.rra. m'Jlfl( Ot IIOT SWIW MUCO!I, MPCCl'AA'J NOTJC( Stcroi,Ull tl1►.tCoftrM',4rJ~t ~~:!1ll~~~:>fll 'Pffll'lit k Ucac,a!t" di h "'6i. r"' JOI.If c-:.;i Altr1 LO. Munbor (Cl) lhdtt9r.Mld s.n-lct IJtrt Cill.l11 ho .. ~~ ~rc,,n rou ""· DISTURBED AREA= 0.945 acres *TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA TO BASINS=0.939 acres * INCLUDES 0.102ACRES OF OFFSITE DRAINAGE OUTSIDE OF OISTIJRBED AREA DRAJNAGE MANAGEMENT AREA SURFACE T'l'PE AREA AC PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS PROPOSED BMP AC/CONCRETE 0.566 64.57. 8I0-flLTRATION@ DMA-1 0.670 oASIN-1 LANDSCAPE 0.104 15.57. ROOF -PAVEMENT 0.191 71.27. BI0-flLTRATION@ DMA-2 0.269 oASIN-2 LANDSCAPE 0.078 28.87. SELF-TREATING AREAS SURFACE T'l'PE !AREA AC PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS PROPOSED BMP STA-1 LANDSCAPE I 0.042 0.042 100.or. -N/A LID FEATURES PREVENT ILLICIT DISCHARGES TO THE MS4 IDENTIFY THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM USING STENCILING DR SIGNAGE lsc-11 lsc-21 lsc-JI PROTECT OUTDOOR MATERIAL STORAFE AREAS FROM RAINFALL, RUN-ON, RUNOFF AND vnND DISPERSAL PROTECT TRASH STORAGE AREAS FROM RAINFALL, RUN-ON, RUNOFF, AND VnND DISPERSAL ADDITIONAL BIAPS -POTENTIAL SOURCES OF RUNOFF POLLUTION A. ON-SITE STORM DRAIN INLETS 02. LANDSCAPE/OUTDOOR PESTICIDE USE E. FOOD SERVICE G. REFUSE AREAS P. PLAZAS. SIDEWALKS. AND PARKING LOTS MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREA DISPERSE IMPERVIOUS AREAS ISD-6j COLLECT RUNOFF ISD-7j LANDSCAPE 111TH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES THIS PLAN IS: PRELIMINARY INOT FOR CONSTRUCTION! ~ ~ I S: l:! ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ .s ::i :,: ' ;;l ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ -· l!' ~ .!; § ..:, ...... ~ ~ ~ § i ~ " ., i ., .!:, go "" Q .!; ~ "' ~ :!? I-::! z z 0::: w 0 LL. ::E :J 0.... (/')< 0 t0<u _J oZLL.. w t<>o o > ~w I-w << < 0 I OI-...J-(/') -Z I-LL..w ~ l>Cl u :,::: < < <( U CD -o(/') 0.... :r:I() ~ ::E Uoo< -I() u LL. 3: 0 0 >-_J I-0 OATE 9-16-19 ORAIY/1 Br PJS CH£CKEO Br RD/SMH JOB HO. CFA18050 SH££T 110. 1 OF 2 SHfffS INTERSTATE ,,· '•,:•, --,--~ · .. • .•• ·.•.• .. • •. -~ -• . •. • • . ? . ·,,, ·. .•·.. ~ '',' ... ~ ROUTE NO. /-5 ·1 ! r- 1 ',, ,' I I : ,,.,,--r I I I I ~[ I I 'ti I I I lt SWMP NO. PENDING PAR'N RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: WJ,IE TBO (STORE OPERATOR) ADDRESS 58SOAVENIDAEtJCl!tllS CARlSMD, CA com-ACT TBD PHONENO. nm PLAN PREPARED BY: NAl,\E RANDY J. DECKER COMPAm JOSEPH C. TRUXI\W&ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDf!ESS 19\SW. ORI\NGE\\'OOOAVE. SUITE 101 ORANGE, CA 928<8 PllONENO, [7!4)935--0265 BMP NOTES: Cf.RTif!CATION ___ _ !. Tl-lESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO !IE PISTALlED PER l,W!UFACTlJRER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS. 2. NO CH/1.NGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON rns SHEITWJTI-lotff PRlOR APPROVAL FROl,I THE cm El!GIN!:ER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO IBE MATERw_ OR TYPES OR PtAHTING TYPES 1'/ITHOUl" PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER 4, NO OCCUPANCY Will BEGIWITEOUNTll THE CITY INSPECTION STIIH HAS INSPECTED nus PROJECT FOR Af'PROPRlATE BMP CONSTRUCTION A.'/Ol~STAllATION. 5. REFER TO W1lNTEtlANCE AGREEMEtlT DOCUIJEtIT, 6. SEE PROJECT S\\'l.1P FORADDITIOflAL INFORWHlOI!. BMP TABLE OMPIO~ BM!'TYPE SYMBOL CASOA NO. DAA\'/ING 110. HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL ®® BIORETEtfJION ,~, 1.!43Sf. """' HYDROMODIFICATION ® STORM CAPTURE ~ .• • VAULTS LOW IMPACT DESIGN (LI.□.) @ ROOFOIWIITO I@] S0.11 LANDSCAPING @@ INLET ~ "'"' FILTER SOURCE CONTROL @ TRASH ENCLOSURE '"'' ®@ STENCILS S0.13 SHEEHW.(S) INSPECTION* fRF.OUEI/CY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY OlJIIRTERLY WEEKLY ANNUALLY MAIITTENIINCE* FREQUENCY SEMI-ANNUALLY SEMI-ANNUALLY SEMI-ANNUALLY SEM~ANNUALLY MOIIIBLY ANNl/lllLY !--+-+------------+--+-+--+---!~ crrx!NE~!NG ~b~~~N~AD ~ 1----+--+---------------+---\---+---1----l SINGLE SHEET BMP SITE PLAN CHICK-FIL-A, #4306 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS RECORD COPY PROJECT NO. OA1E !IIITIAL DATE INl1MJ. Dl<TE INITIAL ORA\\1NG NO. ENCIIIWl Of \\'OllK REVISION DESCRIPTION 0111!:Jl APPROVAL CHY Al'PROVAl llllTIAL DAlE ~o-.S'tl-i '!:>~ d~~:. 0.1:)~ '"<-\..&~ San Diego County 85 th Percentile lsopluvials Legend -85th PERCENTILE ISOPLU\IIAL D INCORPORATED CITY NOTE· Toe 85th percentile is a 24 hour rainfall tolal. It represetns a value &uth lhat 65% of the obseNed 24 hour rainfatl totals wtll be k!ss than that value N + ~ ..... 0 1 1 ,_ a I 'n<15lol>J\Ul"A<$.,.,...tttl\\1110Jll'\.\ll,~',IT",Ol-l..-.flo..-'Gl"n,,vll Lllf"fMOt"""'-ft'r.t\,IOt41l.ilfn'll"-'!1£0TO 1-..EMP\'(D YNl't .. 'itTI~llO'IOl,l,•1~1,»l)tlll-i,!$SfO.: .. M.q•cu.,,,J1 ~ _, .... po1.,.1~ .... ~---t.....t-.~ ~•-S."111n~O-t,t..,..._.,i~ .... -l-d$'1tif.lHl rr.1-...ie:.,----..,..._~ --r..-111:tlTl'lnlW.O:,,l(;M~'>S.,....4 "-''"•• ~t,11'.r.llil;I ..... ~ ••-"""'lltoN,,_ ••••,~,1"-.:1-b'~-o,,_ ,.-..,NM'l'- ""-cf""\UW,CI~ Cfn'll'(~'A•A JJn.e,e-~IU!<l,._i.,.,.,-C..,._k .u.,cll _,._ .. ..,._~.._-.,u.,.,_ W,t';'CU ~t'-~OM-j""-'.''l'Ct"-......-crai . .!'C1" rt;!ilo_a.YVIY"l>I Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Figure B.1-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour Isopluvial Map B-5 February 2016 GREEN Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU 5850 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, California Prepared for: Chick-fil-A, Inc. Irvine, California Prepared by: Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. October 5, 2018 Project No. 2G-1808005 GILES E:NGINEERING A ssoc1ATES. 1Nc. GILES E:NGINEEAING Assoc1ATES, INC. •Atlanta, GA GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS • Baltimore, MD • Dallas, TX • Los Angeles, CA • Manassas, VA • Milwaukee, WI October 5, 2018 Chick-fil-A, Inc. 15635 Alton Parkway, Suite 350 Irvine, California 92618 Attention: Subject: Dear Ms. Witt: Ms. Beth Witt Development Coordinator Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -Draft Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU 5850 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (Giles) is pleased to present our Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis report prepared for the above-referenced project. Conclusions and recommendations developed from the exploration and analysis are discussed in the accompanying report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If we may be of additional assistance, should geotechnical related problems occur or to provide construction observation and testing services, please do not hesitate to call at any time. Respectfully submitted, GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Edgar L. Gatus, P.E. Assistant Regional Manager Distribution: Chick-fil-A, Inc. Attn: Ms. Beth Witt (email: Beth.Witt@cfacorp.com) Attn: Mr. Jennifer Daw (email: Jennifer.Daw@cfacorp.com) Attn: Mr. Elizabeth Meloy (email: Elizabeth.Meloy@cfacorp.com) Attn: Ms. Vicky Burke (email: Vicky.Burke@accesscfa.com) (1 upload to Buzzsaw) 1965 North Main Street • Orange, CA 92865 714/279-0817 • Fax 714/279-9687 • E-Mail losangeles@gilesengr.com TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS -DRAFT Description PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 1-5 AND PALOMAR FSU 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 2G-1808005 Page No. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE ................................................................................ 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................. 3 3.0 SITES AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 3 3.1 Site Description ................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Proposed Project Description .............................................................................. 4 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .................................................................................... 4 4.1 Subsurface Exploration ....................................................................................... 4 4. 2 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................ 5 4.3 Photoionization Detector (PID) Screening ........................................................... 6 4.4 Infiltration Testing .................................................... , ........................................... 6 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................... 7 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 9 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................... 9 6.2 Site Improvement Recommendations ............................................................... 11 6.3 Construction Considerations ............................................................................. 14 6.4 Foundation Recommendations ......................................................................... 14 6.5 Floor Slab Recommendations ........................................................................... 16 6.6 Retaining Wall Recommendations (If Required) ................................................ 17 6.7 New Pavement ................................................................................................. 18 6.8 Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services .................................. 20 6.9 Basis of Report ................................................................................................. 20 APPENDICES Appendix A-Figure (3), Boring Logs (6) and Liquefaction Analysis Appendix B -Field Procedures Appendix C -Laboratory Testing and Classification Appendix D -General Information (Modified Guideline Specifications) and Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report r..L'---=--~-----~ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS -DRAFT CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 1-5 AND PALOMAR FSU 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 2G-1808005 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE The executive summary is provided solely for purposes of overview. Any party who relies on this report must read the full report. The executive summary omits a number of details, any one of which could be crucial to the proper application of this report. Subsurface Conditions • Site Class designation D is recommended for seismic design considerations. • Our review of the Geology of San Diego Quadrangle indicates that the site is mapped as being underlain by Old Paralic Deposits consisting generally of poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strand like, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate. • Possible fills were encountered within our test borings to depths of about 3 feet below existing ground surfaces and were noted to be moist, medium dense in relative density clayey sand and silty sand, and firm in comparative consistency sandy clay. • Native soils encountered below the possible fills were generally moist, medium dense to dense silty sand and sand, and very stiff sandy clay. • Old Paralic Deposits were encountered within test borings B-1 and B-4 to depths of about 18 to 20 feet below existing ground surface and generally consisted of very dense silty sandstone materials. • Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration to a depth of about 17 and 18 feet below existing grade within test borings B-1 and B-4. Site Development • The proposed site development will include the demolition of existing building for the construction of a new Chick-fil-A single-story building and site improvements that include new concrete walkways, parking stalls, driveways, drive thru lane, and trash enclosure. • Building Area: DI.le to the presence of variable strength characteristics of the near surface soils and likely disturbance of site soils during clearing operations, it is recommended that the soils within the proposed new building and an appropriate distance beyond (5 feet minimum) be over- excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade or planned grade and 1 foot below bottom of footings, whichever is greater. The soils exposed at the base of this recommended over- excavation should be examined by the geotechnical engineer to document that the soils are suitable for building support. Prior to placement of fill, the exposed surfaces approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and then recompacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557-00). • Due to the presence of dense to very dense onsite soils some excavation difficulties should be expected. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 2 Building Foundation • Shallow spread footing foundation systems or turned-down slabs may be designed for a maximum, net allowable soil pressure of 3,000 psf soil bearing pressure supported on newly placed structural compacted fill. • Minimum reinforcing in the strip footings is recommended to consist of four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom). Building Floor Slab • It is recommended that on grade slab be a minimum 4-inch thick slab-on-grade or turned-down slab, underlain by properly prepared subgrade. • Minimum slab reinforcing recommended consisting of No. 3 rebars spaced at 18 inches on center, each way. Parking Improvement • Asphalt Pavements: 3 inches of asphaltic concrete underlain by 5 and 8 inches of base course aggregate in parking stalls and driveways, respectively. • Portland Cement Concrete: 6 inches in thickness underlain by 4 inches of base course in high stress areas such as entrance/exit aprons, trash enclosure-loading zone, and the drive through area. GREEN -This site has been given a Green designation to indicate that there are no significant geotechnical related construction or recognized problems foreseen which are unusual or not typical to this general area. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 3 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES This report provides the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis that Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. ("Giles") conducted regarding the proposed development. The Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis included several separate, but related, service areas referenced hereafter as the Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program, Geotechnical Laboratory Services, and Geotechnical Engineering Services. The scope of each service area was narrow and limited, as directed by our client and in consideration of the proposed project. The scope of each service area is briefly explained in this report. Geotechnical-related recommendations for design and construction of the foundation and ground- bearing floor slab for the proposed building are provided in this report. Geotechnical-related recommendations are also provided for the proposed parking lot. Site preparation recommendations are also given; however, those recommendations are only preliminary since the means and methods of site preparation will depend on factors that were unknown when this report was prepared. Those factors include the weather before and during construction, the water table at the time of construction, subsurface conditions that are exposed during construction, and finalized details of the proposed development. Giles conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for the subject site. The results of that assessment will be provided under separate cover (2E-1808009). 3.0 SITES AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description The proposed Chick-fil-A site is currently an active two-story office building, about 10,977 square feet, and located at 5850 Avenida Encinas, in the city of Carlsbad, California .. The roughly triangular shaped property is bounded on the north and west by Avenida Encinas, on the south by ln-N-Out restaurant, and on the east by the 1-5 freeway. The existing building is situated within the central portion of the site and bordered with parking stalls and drive ways to the north, east and south sides, and landscape area to the west by Avenida Encinas. Based upon a review of the ALT A/NSPS Land Title Survey prepared by Joseph Truxaw and Associates, elevations at the site range from El. 56 feet to El. 58 feet. The site is relatively level and slopes to the northwest by the adjacent street (Avenida Encinas). The subject property is situated at approximately latitude of 33.1255° North and longitude of-117.3247°West. The site is currently covered with asphalt pavement, curbs and few landscape planters that contain shrubs and trees. Other existing site improvements include asphalt pavement along with curbs and gutter, concrete v-gutter, concrete walkways, lighting poles, chain linked fence, trash enclosure, landscape areas containing grass, shrubs and trees, and underground utilities. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. ZG-1808005 Page4 3.2 Proposed Project Description The proposed development includes the demolition of existing building for the construction of a new, single-story Chick-fil-A restaurant building with drive through lane to be located along the westerly portion of the site (parking area) adjacent to 1-5 freeway and within a portion of the easterly side of the existing building (Figure 1). Although detailed building plans are not yet ready for our review, the new building will be a single-story wood-frame structure, 3,201 square feet, with no basement or underground levels to be located within the northern end of the property. We were not provided with specific loading information for this project at the time of this report; however, based on previous Chick-fil-A projects, we expect maximum combined dead and live loads supported by the bearing walls and columns of 2 to 3 kips per lineal foot (kif) and 40 to 50 kips, respectively. The live load supported by the floor slab is expected to be a maximum of 100 pounds per square foot (psi). Other planned improvements include new parking lot, menu board signs, outdoor dining area, a playground area, concrete walkways and planter areas, and a trash enclosure. Parking lot improvement within the property will include curbs and gutters, and underground utilities. Preliminary project information did not indicate the planned finished floor elevation for the proposed building. However, it is anticipated that the .finish floor elevation of the new building will be constructed at elevation El 57.0. Therefore, site grading is anticipated to include only minor cut and fill (up to 1 foot) in order to establish the necessary site grade to accommodate the assumed floor elevation, exclusive of site preparation or over-excavation requirements necessary to create a stable site suited for the proposed development. The traffic loading on the proposed parking lot improvement is understood to predominantly consist of automobiles with occasional heavy trucks resulting from deliveries and trash removal. The parking lot pavement sections have been designed on the basis of daily traffic intensity equivalent to five 18-kip single axle loads and 1,500 automobiles within the main drive lanes and only automobiles of a lesser intensity within the parking stalls. Pavement designs are based on a 20-year design period. Therefore, the parking lot pavement sections have been designed on the basis of a Traffic Index (Tl) of 4.0 for the automobile traffic parking stalls (light duty) and a Tl of 5.0 for drive lane areas (medium duty). 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface exploration consisted of the drilling of six (6) exploratory test borings to depths of about 5 to 35½ feet below existing ground surfaces. The approximate test boring locations are shown in the Test Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). The Test Boring Location Plan and Test Boring Logs (Records of Subsurface Exploration) are enclosed in Appendix A. Field and laboratory test procedures and results are enclosed in Appendix B and C, respectively. The terms and symbols used on the Test Boring Logs are defined on the General Notes in Appendix D. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 5 Our subsurface exploration included the collection of relatively undisturbed samples of subsurface soil materials for laboratory testing purposes. Bulk samples consisted of composite soil materials obtained at selected depth intervals from the borings. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected (per ASTM D-3550) using a 3-inch outside-diameter, modified California splitsspoon soil sampler (CS) lined with 1-inch high brass rings. The sampler was driven with successive 30-inch drops of a hydraulically operated, 140-pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6-inch driving increment were recorded on the field exploration logs. The central portions of the driven core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing. Where deemed appropriate, standard split-spoon tests (SS), also called Standard Penetration Test (SPT), were also performed at selected depth intervals in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Procedure D 1586. This method consists of mechanically driving an unlined standard split-barrel sampler 18 inches into the soil with successive 30-inch drops of the 140-pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6-inch driving increment were recorded on the exploration logs. The number of blows required to drive the standard split-spoon sampler for the last 12 of the 18 inches was identified as the uncorrected standard penetration resistance (N). Disturbed soil samples from the unlined standard split-spoon samplers were placed in plastic containers and transported to our laboratory.for testing. 4.2 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions as subsequently described have been simplified somewhat for ease of report interpretation. A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions at the test boring locations is provided by the logs of the test borings enclosed in Appendix A of this report. Pavement Existing pavement encountered within our test borings consisted of approximately 2½ to 5 inches thick asphalt concrete over 4½ to 5 inches of aggregate base. No aggregate base was noted within test borings B-2, B-3 and B-4. Based on our visual observation, the existing asphalt pavement is in fair to poor condition. Soil Our review of the Geology of San Diego Quadrangle indicates that the site is mapped as being underlain by Old Paralic Deposits consisting generally of poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strand like, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate. Possible fills were encountered within our test borings to depths of about 3 feet below existing ground surfaces and were noted to be moist, medium dense in relative density clayey sand and silty sand, and firm in comparative consistency sandy clay. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 6 Native soils encountered below the possible fills were generally moist, medium dense to dense silty sand and sand, and very stiff sandy clay. Old Paralic Deposits were encountered within test borings B-1 and B-4 to depths of about 18 to 20 feet below existing ground surface and generally consisted of very dense silty sandstone materials. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface investigation to depths of about 17 and 18 feet below existing grade. However, fluctuations of the groundwater table, locali:zed :zones of perched water, and rise in soil moisture content should be anticipated during and after the rainy season. Irrigation of landscape areas on or adjacent to the site can also cause fluctuations of local or shallow perched groundwater levels. 4.3 Photoioni:zation Detector {PIDI Screening Soil samples taken from our subsurface exploration were screened with a Photoioni:zation Detector (PIO) to check for the possible presence of volatile vapors. No volatile vapors were detected during the screening of soil samples collected from any of the borings with a PIO. Additionally, no odors detected or stains observed that might suggest some form of contamination. PIO field-screening results are included on the soil boring logs. 4.4 Infiltration Testing It is our understanding that an on-site below grade storm water infiltration system is being considered for the subject site. Therefore, percolation tests were performed to assess the infiltration characteristics of the site soils. Two percolation tests (designated as B-5 and B-6) were conducted and involved the drilling of the test boring utili:zing a hollow-stem auger drill rig with an outside diameter of approximately 8 inches. The percolation test procedure by City of San Diego BMP Design Manual (2018) was used in our percolation tests. The approximate percolation test boring locations are shown in the Test Boring Location Plan (Figure 1 ). A perforated 2-inch diameter pvc pipe was installed inside each of the test boring with gravel placed below and on the sides of the perforated pipe. The percolation tests involved presoaking the boring and filling the test holes with water, recording the drop in water surface with time, and refilling the holes with water. The results of the percolation test are presented on the following table. The drop in water level over time is the percolation rate at the test location. The percolation rates were reduced to account for the discharge of water from both the sides and bottom of the boring. The formula below was used to calculate for the infiltration rate. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 7 Infiltration Rate = L'iH (60r) I Lit (r + 2Havg) Where: r is the radius of the test hole (in) LiH is the change in height over the time interval (in) Lit is the time interval (min) Havg is the average head height over the time interval The design infiltration rate noted below has not been reduced to account for a factor safety (FS). TABLE I -PER COLA T!ON TEST RESULTS Test Hole Test Depth1 Percolation Rate Infiltration Rate Soil Type /feet) lin/hr\ /in/hr\ B-5 5.0 0.48 0.05 Clayey Sand B-6 5.0 0.00 0.00 Sandy Clay I) Depth is referenced to the existing surface grade at the test location. It should be noted that the infiltration rate of the on-site soils represents a specific area and depth tested and may fluctuate throughout other parts of the site. Based on the results of the infiltration, it is our opinion that an on-site stormwater infiltration system is not suitable due to very low infiltration rates obtained during our testing. 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING Several laboratory tests were performed on selected samples considered representative of those encountered in order to evaluate the engineering properties of on-site soils. The following are brief descriptions of our laboratory test results. In Situ Moisture and Density Tests were performed on select samples from the test borings to determine the subsoils dry density and natural moisture contents in accordance with Test Method ASTM 2216-05. The results of these tests are included in the Test Boring Logs enclosed in Appendix A. Sieve Analysis Sieve Analyses including Passing No. 200 sieve were performed on selected samples from various depths within Test Borings B-1 and B-5 to assist in soil classification and aid in the liquefaction analysis. These tests were performed in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 1140-00 (Reapproved 2006) and ASTC C 1369-96. The results of the sieve analysis are graphically presented as Figure 2 and passing no. 200 results are presented in Test Boring Logs. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 8 Expansion To evaluate the expansive potential of the near surface soils encountered during our subsurface exploration, a composite sample collected from Test Boring B-1 (1 to 5 feet) was subjected to Expansive Index (El) testing in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 4829-0Ba. The result of our expansion index (El) test indicates that the near surface sample has a very low expansion potential (El= 14). Consolidation Test Settlement prediction under anticipated load was made on the basis of one-dimensional consolidation test. These tests were performed in general accordance with Test Method ASTM D 2435 and ASTM D5333. The test sample was inundated at 2,000 psf pressure in order to evaluate the sudden increase in moisture condition (collapse potential). Result of this test indicated that the tested on-site soils exhibit a slight degree of collapse (1.25%) potential. The Consolidation test curve, Figure 3 is included in Appendix A. Soluble Sulfate Analysis and Soil Corrosivity A representative sample of the near surface soils which may contact shallow buried utilities and structural concrete was performed to determine the corrosion potential for buried ferrous metal conduits and the concentrations present of water soluble sulfate which could result in chemical attack of cement. The following table presents the results of our laboratory testing. Parameter B-2 1 to 5 feet nH 7.48 Chloride 134 nnm Sulfate 0.0162% Resistivitv 800 ohm-cm The chloride content of the near-surface soils was determined for a selected sample in accordance with California Test Method No. 422. The results of this test indicated that tested on-site soil has a Low exposure to chloride. The results of limited in-house testing of soil pH and resistivity were determined in accordance with California Test Method No. 643 and indicated that on-site soil is moderately alkaline with respect to pH and soil resistivity was found to possess a severe degree of corrosivity. These test results have been evaluated in accordance with criteria established by the Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association, the American Concrete Institute and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers. The test results on a near surface bulk sample from the site generally indicate that tested on-site soils have severe corrosive potential when in contact with ferrous materials. Therefore, special protection for underground cast iron pipe or ductile pipe may be warranted depending on the actual materials in contact with the pipe. We recommend that a corrosion engineer review these results in order to provide specific recommendations for corrosion protection as well as appropriate recommendations for other types of buried metal structures. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 9 Corrosivity testing also included determination of the concentrations of water-soluble sulfates present in the tested soil sample in accordance with California Test Method No. 417. Our laboratory test data indicated that near surface soils contain approximately 0.0162 percent of water soluble sulfates. Based on the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), concrete that may be exposed to sulfate containing soils shall comply with the provisions of ACI 318-05, Section 4.3. Therefore, according to Table 4.3.1 of the ACI 318-05, a low exposure to sulfate corrosivity can be expected for concrete placed in contact with the tested on-site soils. No special sulfate resistant cement is considered necessary for concrete which will be in contact with the tested on-site soils. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, the planned development for the subject site is considered feasible from a geotechnical point of view provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated in the design and project specifications. Conditions imposed by the proposed improvement have been evaluated on the basis of the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered during our subsurface investigation and their anticipated behavior both during and after construction. Conclusions and recommendations, along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations are discussed in the following sections of this report. Impact of Site on Stability of Adjacent Properties It is our opinion that the proposed grading and construction for the subject site will not affect adversely impact the stability of adjoining properties provided that grading and construction are performed in accordance with the recommendations provided herein and in accordance with local code guidelines. 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations Faulting/Seismic Design Parameters Research of available maps published by the California Geological Survey (CGS) indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The potential for fault rupture through the site is, therefore, considered to be low. The site may however be subject to strong groundshaking during seismic activity. The proposed structure should be designed in accordance with the current version of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable local codes. Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, a Site Class D is recommended for design. According to the maps of known active fault near-source zones (ICBO, 1998) to be used with the 2016 CBC, the Rose Canyon, Newport Inglewood, Coronado Bank and Elsinore faults are the closest known active faults and are located about 4.11, 4.11, 20.04 and 23.55 miles, respectively, to the site. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-Iii-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 10 The Newport Inglewood Fault would probably generate the most severe site ground motions at the site with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.50. The proposed structure should be designed in accordance with the current version of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable local codes. Within the International Code Council's 2015 International Building Code (IBC), the five-percent damped design spectral response accelerations at short periods, Sos, and at 1-second period, S01, are used to determine the seismic design base shear. These parameters, which are a function of the site's seismicity and soil, are also used as parts of triggers for other code requirements. The following values are determined by using the USGS published U.S. Seismic Design Maps program based upon the 2016 CBC referenced ASCE 7 (with July 2013 errata). Site Class Definition (Table 1613.5.2) D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S, (Figure 1613.3.1(1) for 0.2 second) 1.160 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 (Figure 1613.3.1 (2) for 1.0 second) 0.446 Site Coefficient, F, (Table 1613.3.3 (1) short period) 1.036 Site Coefficient, F, (Table 1613.3.3 (2) 1-second period) 1.554 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMs(Eq. 16-37) 1.202 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1 (Eq. 16-38) 0.693 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Sos (Eq. 16-39) 0.801 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, So1 (Eq. 16-40) 0.462 Liquefaction A site liquefaction evaluation consistent with the guidelines contained in CDMG Special Publication 117 A along with a report by Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) has been performed as part of the current investigation. Our site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis was derived using data published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Based on 2016 CBC, Section 1803.5.12, Seismic Design Categories D through F, the peak ground acceleration shall be determined in accordance with Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7. The predominant earthquake magnitude of 6. 72 was obtained from the USGS Interactive Deaggregation web site using 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The mean peak ground acceleration for the site used in our liquefaction analysis was determined to be 0.482g. Our liquefaction analysis was performed using the computer program Liquefypro (version 5) developed by Civil Tech Software. The program is based on the most recent publications of the NCEER Workshop and SP117 Implementation. Corrected SPT blow counts based upon hammer energy ratio, borehole diameter and sampling method were used in analysis calculations. Although groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 17 to 18 feet below existing ground surfaces during ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. ZG-1808005 Page 11 our drilling operations, groundwater of 10 feet was used in our liquefaction analysis. The liquefiable layers at the location of boring B-1 are presented graphically in Plate A 1 of Appendix A. The computer output files are also included. In order to estimate the amount of post-earthquake settlement, methods proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) were used for the settlement calculations. Based on our analysis and under the current site conditions, we estimate that the maximum total seismic-induced ground settlement at the site would be negligible (0.01 inch) and therefore, not significant to the proposed development. 6.2 Site Improvement Recommendations The following recommendations for site development have been based upon th_e assumed floor elevation and foundation bearing grades and the conditions encountered at the test boring locations. Site Clearing Clearing and demolition operations should include the removal of all landscape vegetation and existing structural features such as asphaltic concrete pavement, concrete curb and gutters within the area of the proposed new building and site improvements. Existing pavement within areas of proposed development should be removed or processed to a maximum 3-inch size and stockpiled for use as compacted fill or stabilizing material for the new development. Processed asphalt may be used as fill, sub-base course material, or subgrade stabilization material beyond the building perimeter. Processed concrete or existing base may be used as fill, sub-base course material, or subgrade stabilization material both within and outside of the building perimeter. Due to the moisture sensitivity, the pavement is recommended to remain in-place as long as possible to help protect the subgrade from construction traffic disturbance. All soils disturbed by the demolition of the existing improvements should be removed to expose a competent subgrade, as determined by the project geotechnical engineer. Debris resulting from the demolition and clearing operations should be legally exported from the site. Existing Utilities All existing utilities should be located. Utilities that are not reused should be capped off and removed or properly abandoned in-place in accordance with local codes and ordinances. The excavations made for removed utilities that are in the influence zone of new construction are recommended to be backfilled with structural compacted fill. Underground utilities, which are to be reused or abandoned in-place, are recommended to be evaluated by the structural engineer and utility backfill is recommended to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer, to determine their potential effect on the new improvement. If any existing utilities are to be preserved, grading operations must be carefully performed so as not to disturb or damage the existing utility. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 12 Building Area Due to the presence of variable strength characteristics of the near surface soils and likely disturbance of site soils during clearing operations, it is recommended that the soils within the proposed new building area and an appropriate distance beyond (5 feet minimum) be over-excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade or planned grade and 1 foot below bottom of footings, whichever is greater. The soils exposed at the base of this recommended over-excavation should be examined by the geotechnical engineer to document that the soils are suitable for building support. Prior to placement of fill, the exposed surfaces approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and then recompacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557-00). A representative of the project geotechnical engineer should be present on site during grading operations to verify proper placement and adequate compaction of all fills. Proofroll and Compact Subgrade The subgrades within the new pavement area should be proofrolled in the presence of the geotechnical engineer with appropriate rubber-tire mounted heavy construction equipment or a loaded dump truck to detect very loose/soft yielding soil which should be removed to a stable subgrade. Following proofrolling and completion of any necessary overexcavation, the subgrades should be scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. In accordance with the enclosed Guide Specifications and in the event that new pavement is constructed within the site, the top 12 inches of the pavement subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum density, or, 5 percent higher than the underlying fill materials. Low areas and excavations may then be backfilled in lifts with suitable very low to low expansive structural compacted fill. The selection, placement and compaction of structural fill should be performed in accordance with the project specifications. The Guide Specifications included in Appendix D (Modified Proctor) of this report should be used as a minimum in developing the project specifications. The need may arise to recompact the floor slab and pavement subgrades immediately prior to construction due to the effects of weather and construction traffic on a previously prepared subgrade. Reuse of On-site Soil On-site material may be reused as structural compacted fill within the proposed building and pavement improvement area provided they are moisture conditioned and compacted as recommended, and do not contain oversized materials, significant quantities of organic matter, or other deleterious materials. Care should be used in controlling the moisture content of the soils to achieve proper compaction for pavement support. All subgrade soil compaction as well as the selection, placement and compaction of new fill soils should be performed in accordance with the project specifications under engineering controlled conditions. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 13 Import Structural Fill Any soil imported to the site (if required) for use as structural fill should consist of very low expansive soils (El less than 21). Material designated for import should be submitted to the project geotechnical engineer no less than three working days prior to placement for evaluation. In addition to expansion criteria, soils imported to the site should exhibit adequate characteristics for the recommended pavement support characteristics and soluble sulfate content. Subgrade Protection The near surface soils that are expected to comprise the subgrade are sensitive to water. Unstable soil conditions will develop if these soils are exposed to moisture increases or are disturbed (rutted) by construction traffic. The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding within construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Accumulated water must be removed immediately along with any unstable soil. Foundation concrete should be placed and excavations backfilled as soon as possible to protect the bearing grade. The degree of subgrade instability and associated remedial construction is dependent, in part, upon precautions taken by the contractor to protect the subgrade during site development. Silt fences or other appropriate erosion control devices should be installed in accordance with local, state and federal requirements at the perimeter of the development areas to control sediment from erosion. Since silt fences or other erosion control measures are temporary structures, careful and continuous monitoring and periodic maintenance to remove accumulated soil and/or replacement should be anticipated. Fill Placement Material for engineered fill should be moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with the specifications, be free of organic material, debris, and other deleterious substances, and should not contain fragments greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. On-site excavated soils that meet these requirements may be used to backfill the excavated pavement areas. All fill should be placed in 8-inch-thick maximum loose lifts, moisture conditioned and then compacted in accordance with recommendation herein and with the enclosed "Guide Structural Fill Specifications". A representative of the geotechnical engineer should be present on-site during grading operations to verify proper placement and compaction of all fill, as well as to verify compliance with the other geotechnical recommendations presented herein. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 14 6.3 Construction Considerations Construction Dewatering As mentioned previously, groundwater was encountered at depths of about 17 and 18 feet below existing grade during our subsurface investigation. In the event that shallow perched water is encountered, filter sump pumps placed within pits in the bottoms of excavations are expected to be the most feasible method of construction dewatering. Soil Excavation Some slope stability problems may be encountered for shallow unbraced excavations considering the nature of the subsoils. All excavations must be performed in accordance with CAL-OSHA requirements, which is the responsibility of the contractor. Shallow excavations may be adequately sloped for bank stability while deeper excavations or excavations where adequate back sloping cannot be performed may require some form of external support such as shoring or bracing. Due to the presence of dense to very dense on-site soils at shallow depths, some difficulty may be encountered during excavation with conventional equipment. The use of specialized excavation equipment may be necessary. 6.4 Foundation Recommendations Vertical Load Capacity Upon completion of the building pad preparation, the proposed structure may be supported by a shallow foundation system. The foundation system may consist of either independently constructed spread footings or monolithically constructed foundation and floor slab thereby using a turned-down slab construction technique. Foundations may be designed for a maximum, net, allowable soil- bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Minimum foundation widths for walls and columns should be 16 and 24 inches, respectively, regardless of the calculated soil bearing pressure. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short term wind and/or seismic loads. Reinforcing The recommended minimum quantity of longitudinal reinforcing for geotechnical considerations within continuous strip footing is four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom) continuous through column pads within the strip footings. The recommended quantity of longitudinal reinforcing pertains to a minimum 12- inch thick and a maximum 24-inch wide footing pad; additional reinforcing may be necessary if a thinner or wider footing pad is used to develop equivalent rigidity. Conventional reinforcing is considered suitable in isolated column pad footings. The final design of the foundations as well as determination of the actual quantity of steel reinforcing and the footing dimensions should be performed by the structural engineer. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 15 Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. Passive pressure and friction may be used in combination, without reduction, in determining the total resistance to lateral loads. A one-third increase in the passive pressure value may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces for footings placed on competent native soil and/or newly placed compacted fill soil. An allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of footing depth (pcf) below the lowest adjacent grade may be used for the sides of footings placed against newly placed structural fill. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 2,000 psf. Bearing Material Criteria Soil suitable to serve as the foundation bearing grade should exhibit at least a loose relative density (average N value of at least 10) for non-cohesive soils or possess a stiff consistency (average unconfined compressive strength of 1.50 tsf) for cohesive soils for the recommended 3,000 psf allowable soil bearing pressure. For design and construction estimating purposes, suitable bearing soils are expected to be encountered at nominal foundation depths following the recommended site preparation activities. However, field testing by the Geotechnical Engineer within the foundation bearing soils is recommended to document that the foundation support soils possess the minimum strength parameters noted above. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered, they should be recompacted in-place, if feasible, or excavated to a suitable bearing soil subgrade and to a lateral extent as defined by Item No. 3 of the enclosed Guide Specifications, with the excavation backfilled with structural compacted fill to develop a uniform bearing grade. Foundation Embedment The California Building Code (CBC) requires a minimum 12-inch foundation embedment depth. However, it is recommended that exterior foundations extend at least 18 inches below the adjacent exterior grade for bearing capacity consideration. Interior footings may be supported at nominal depth below the floor. All footings must be protected against weather and water damage during and after construction, and must be SLipported within suitable bearing materials. Estimated Foundation Settlement Post-construction total and differential static movement (settlement) of a shallow foundation system designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be less than ¾ and ½ inch, respectively, for static conditions. The estimated differential movement is anticipated to result in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch on the ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. ZG-1808005 Page 16 basis of a minimum clear span of 20 feet. The maximum estimated total and differential movement is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure provided it is considered in the structural design. 6.5 Floor Slab Recommendations Subgrade The floor slab subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the appropriate recommendations presented in the Site Development Recommendations section of this report. Foundation, utility trenches and other below-slab excavations should be backfilled with structural compacted fill in accordance with the project specifications. Design The floor of the proposed building may be designed and constructed as a conventional slab-on-grade supported on a properly prepared subgrade. If desired, the floor slab may be poured monolithically with perimeter foundations where the foundations consist of thickened sections thereby using a turned-down slab construction technique. The minimum slab reinforcing for geotechnical considerations is recommended to consist of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center, each way. Based on the recommended reinforcing and the assumed live loading, the slab is recommended to be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness. A qualified structural engineer should perform the actual design of the slab to ensure proper thickness and reinforcing. If desired, a Subgrade Modulus of 150 pci may be used for floor slab design. The floor slab is recommended to be underlain by a 4 inch thick layer of granular material. A minimum 10-mil synthetic sheet should be placed below the floor slab to serve as a vapor retarder where required to protect moisture sensitive floor coverings (i.e. tile, or carpet, etc.). It is recommended that a structural engineer or architect specify the vapor retarder location with careful consideration of concrete curing and the effects of moisture on future flooring materials. The vapor retarder is recommended to be in accordance with ASTM E 17 45-11, which is entitled: Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soi/ or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs. The sheets of th_e vapor retarder material should be evaluated for holes and/or punctures prior to placement and the edges overlapped and taped. If materials underlying the synthetic sheet contain sharp, angular particles, a layer of coarse sand (Sand Equivalent>30) approximately 2 inches thick or a geotextile should be provided to protect it from puncture. An additional 2-inch thick layer of coarse sand may be needed between the slab and the vapor retarder to promote proper curing. Proper curing techniques are recommended to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking and slab curling. Estimated Movements Post-construction total and differential movements of the floor slab designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be less than ½ and ½ inch, respectively. Movements on the order of those estimated for foundations should be expected ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. --- Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 17 when the foundation and floor slab are structurally connected or constructed monolithically. The estimated differential movement is anticipated to occur across the short dimension of the structure. The maximum total and differential movement is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure, provided that the structural design adequately considers this distortion. 6.6 Retaining Wall Recommendations (If Required) It is possible that retaining walls may be needed for this site. The retaining wall(s) may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. A higher allowable soil bearing pressure may be possible, but that determination should be based on a review of the locations and details of the planned wall and foundation elevations. Design of walls should incorporate an adequate factor-of-safety against both over-turning and sliding (FS=1.5). The overturning resultant should also fall within the center third (kern) of the retaining wall footing for stability, or the design must be re-evaluated with a reduced bearing area. Static Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining walls should be designed to resist the applicable lateral earth pressures. On-site soil materials may be used as backfill behind walls, provided they are confirmed to have very low expansive characteristic and allow for a drainage layer as discussed in subsequent paragraphs. For on-site soils and/or imported soils (El less than 21) to be used as backfill materials, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressure) should be used assuming a level adjacent backfill and drained conditions. For walls to be restrained at the top, an at-rest pressure of 55 pcf should be used for design. All retaining walls should be supplied with a proper subdrain system. All walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings and vehicles in addition to the above recommended active earth pressure. Crushed rock or clean sand and gravel exhibiting a sand equivalent of 30 or greater may also be used for retaining wall backfill. If these materials are used as backfill within the active zone, the retaining wall may be designed for an active earth pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressure) and 45 pounds per cubic foot for at rest pressure. Drainage and Damp-proofing Retaining walls are recommended to be designed for drained earth pressures and therefore, adequate drainage should be provided behind the walls. This can be accomplished by installing subdrains at the base of the walls. Wall footing-drains should consist of a system of filter material and perforated pipe. The perforated pipe system should consist of 4-inch diameter, schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in 1 cubic foot of Class II Permeable Material (CAL TRANS Standard Specifications, latest edition) or equivalent per lineal foot of pipe. Alternatively, ¾-inch open graded gravel or crushed rock enveloped in Mirafi 140 geofabric or equivalent may be used instead of the ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-Iii-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 18 Class II Permeable Material. The pipe should be placed at the base of the wall, and then routed to a suitable area for discharge of accumulated water. Wall backfill should be protected against infiltration of surface water. Backfill adjacent to walls should be sloped so that surface water drains freely away from the wall and will not pond. Damp-proofing of walls below-grade is recommended especially where moisture control is required by an approved waterproofing compound or covered with similar material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. Wall Backfill Retaining wall backfill behind the drainage layers should consist of low expansive soils with an E.1. less than 51, as determined by ASTM D 4829-03 method. Wall backfill should not contain organic material, rubble, debris, and rocks or cemented fragments larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension. A 1 foot thick low-expansive cohesive layer or pavement should be placed at the surface to help prevent surface water intrusion. A geotextile or filter fabric should be placed between the granular drainage layers and adjacent soils (excavated face or compacted materials) to prevent fines from migrating into the drainage layers. Backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, moisture conditioned and mechanically compacted throughout to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557). Retaining walls should be properly braced prior to placement and compaction of backfill should be performed with extreme care not to damage the walls. 6. 7 New Pavement The following recommendations for the new pavement are intended for vehicular traffic associated with the restaurant development within the subject property. New PavementSubgrades Following completion of the recommended subgrade preparation procedures, the subgrade in areas of new pavement construction are expected to consist of existing on-site soil that exhibit a very low to low expansion potential. An R-value of 20 has been assumed in the preparation of the pavement design. It should however, be recognized that the City of Carlsbad may require a specific R-value test to verify the use of the following design. It is recommended that this testing, if required, be conducted following completion of rough grading in the proposed pavement areas so that the R-value test results are indicative of the actual pavement subgrade soils. Alternatively, a minimum code pavement section may be required if a specific R-value test is not performed. To use this R-value, all fill added to the pavement subgrade must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to the existing soils, and must be placed and compacted in accordance with the project specifications. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 19 Asphalt Pavements The following table presents recommended thicknesses for a new flexible pavement structure consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base, along with the appropriate CAL TRANS specifications for proper materials and placement procedures. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stall areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas. However, care must be used so that truck traffic is excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used, since premature pavement distress may occur. In the event that heavy vehicle traffic cannot be excluded from the specific areas, the pavement section recommended for drive lanes should be used throughout the parking lot. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Materials Thickness (inches) CALTRANS Parking Stalls Drive Lanes Specifications /Tl=4.0) (Tl=S.0) Asphaltic Concrete 1 1 Section 39, (a) Surtace Course /bl Asphaltic Concrete 2 2 Section 39, (a) Binder Course (bl Crushed Aggregate 5 8 Section 26, Class 2 (R-value at least 78) Base Course NOTES: (a) Compaction to density between 95 and 100 percent of the 50-Blow Marshall Density /bl The surtace and binder course mav be combined as a sinale !aver olaced in one lift if similar materials are utilized. Pavement recommendations are based LJpon CAL TRANS design parameters for a twenty-year design period and assLJme proper drainage and construction monitoring. It is, therefore, recommended that the geotechnical engineer monitors and tests subgrade preparation, and that the subgrade be evaluated immediately before pavement construction. Portland Concrete Pavements Portland Cement Concrete pavements are recommended in areas where traffic is concentrated such as the entrance/exit aprons as well as areas subjected to heavy loads such as the trash enclosure loading zone. The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described in this report. Portland Cement Concrete pavements in high stress areas are recommended to be at least 6 inches thick containing No. 3 bars at 18-inch on-center both ways placed at mid-height. The pavement should be constructed in accordance with Section 40 of the CAL TRANS Standard Specifications. A minimum 4-inch thick layer of base course (CAL TRANS Class 2) is recommended below the concrete pavement. This base course should be compacted to at least 95% of the material's maximum dry density. ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis -DRAFT Proposed Chick-fil-A Restaurant #4306 1-5 and Palomar FSU Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-1808005 Page 20 The maximum joint spacing within all of the Portland Cement Concrete pavements is recommended to be 15 feet to control shrinkage cracking. Load transfer reinforcing is recommended at construction joints perpendicular to traffic flow if construction joints are not properly keyed. In this event, ¾-inch diameter smooth dowel bars, 18 inches in length placed at 12 inches on-center are recommended where joints are perpendicular to the anticipated traffic flow. Expansion joints are recommended only where the pavement abuts fixed objects such as light standard foundations. Tie bars are recommended at the first joint within the perimeter of the concrete pavement area. Tie bars are recommended to be No. 4 bars at 42-inch on-center spacings and at least 48 inches in length. General Considerations Pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring and are based on traffic loads as indicated previously. Pavement designs are based on either PCA or CAL TRANS design parameters for twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs are also based on a routine pavement maintenance program and significant asphalt concrete pavement rehabilitation after about 8 to 10 years, in order to obtain a reasonable pavement service life. 6.8 Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services The report was prepared assuming that Giles will perform Construction Materials Testing (CMT) services during construction of the proposed development. In general, CMT services are recommended (and expected) to at least include observation and testing of foundation and pavement support soil and other construction materials. It might be necessary for Giles to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations based on the results of CMT services and specific details of the project not known at this time. • 6.9 Basis of Report This report is based on Giles' proposal, which is dated August 17, 2018 and is referenced by Giles' proposal number 2GEP-1808006. The actual services for the project varied somewhat from those described in the proposal because of the conditions that were encountered while performing the services and in consideration of the proposed project. This report is strictly based on the project description given earlier in this report. Giles must be notified if any parts of the project description or our assumptions are not accurate so that this report can be amended, if needed. This report is based on the assumption that the facility will be designed and constructed according to the codes that govern construction at the site. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on estimated subsurface conditions as shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration. Giles must be notified if the subsurface conditions that are encountered during construction of the proposed development differ from those shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration because this report will likely need to be revised. General comments and limitations of this report are given in the appendix. © Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 2018 ~GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX A FIGURES AND TEST BORING LOGS The Test Boring Location Plan contained herein was prepared based upon information supplied by Giles' client, or others, along with Giles' field measurements and observations. The diagram is presented for conceptual purposes only and is intended to assist the reader in report interpretation. The Test Boring Logs and related information enclosed herein depict the subsurface (soil and water) conditions encountered at the specific boring locations on the date that the exploration was performed. Subsurface conditions may differ between boring locations and within areas of the site that were not explored with test borings. The subsurface conditions may also change at the boring locations over the passage of time. 0 20' APPROXIMATE SCALE 40' LEGEND: CD s @ ED NOTES: GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING / PERCOLATION TEST BORING 1.) TEST BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. s 2.) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM THE "PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN" (SHEET PSP-17), REV. 8-3-18, PREPARED BY CRHO ARCHITECTS. 7---------, / I t!t I i I I I I I ' II) w I-~ ~ w I-~ G-1LES ENGINEERING Assoc1ATEs, INc. 1965 N. MAIN STREET ORANGE, CA 92865 (714)279-0817 www.gilesengr.com FIGURE 1 TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT NO. 04306 1-5 AND PALOMAR FSU 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DESIGNED DRAWN SCALE DATE ELG lrfa/ approx. 1 "=40' 10-01-18 REVISED PROJECT NO.: 2G-1808005 CAD No. 291808005-blp U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 112 3/8 3 4 6 810 14!6 20 30 40 so 70 100140200 100 I I I I I IT ~ I 90 80 \ p ~70 C E N \ Teo I F I N E50 R B \ y 40 \ w E \ I G3Q H T 20 . • 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification MC% LL PL Pl Cc Cu • B-5 3.5 Clayey Sand to Silty Sand Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay • B-5 3.5 1.18 0.24 0.0 69.0 31.0 PROJECT Proeosed CFA#4306 -Carlsbad, CA JOB NO. 2G-1808005 FIGURE2 DATE 10/4118 GRADATION CURVES Giles Engineering Associates, Inc CONSOLIDATION / COLLAPSE TEST ASTM D2435/ASTM D5333 0.000 0.005 ~ 0.010 r-----.. i--.... 0.015 11-., 0.020 \ 0.025 "" 0.030 '2 0.035 "► £ z 0.040 ~ 0.045 I-en \ z 0.050 \ 0 j:: 0.055 <I: 0 \ :::i 0.060 ◄'-i-. ' 0 en z 0.065 ' 0 I'--.. u 0.070 ......... \ ........... 0.075 "' ' \ 0.080 .... , ~► 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100 10 100 1000 10000 100000 VERTICAL LOAD (psf) Classification Clayey Sand Boring No. B-3 Sample No. 2-CS Initial Moisture Content (%) 11 .2 Depth (ft.) 3.0 Final Moisture Content (%) 15.5 Elevation Natural Density (pcf) 123.4 Liquid Limit Initial Dry Density (pcf) 110.9 Plastic Limit Final Dry Density (pcf) 119.4 Specimen Diameter (in.) 2.42 Collapse @ 2000 psf 1.25% Initial Specimen Thickness (in.) 1.00 Sample inundated at 2000 psf pressure Project: CFA Carlsbad GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Client: Chick-fil-A -GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS- Project No.: 2G-1808005 1965 NORTH MAIN STREET, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA OFFICE: 714-279-0817 FAX : 714-279-9687 Figure No.: 3 BORING NO. & LOCATION: B-1 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 ~ 56.5 feet COMPLETION DATE: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 09/11/18 CARLSBAD, CA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. TREVOR SLAZAS PROJECT NO: 2G-1808005 ~ §: " "" 0 ~~ Q,, a,, Q,, w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION % ~ "'°" N PID NOTES ~ E . (tsij (tsij (tsij {%) ~ mo C iii CllZ Approximately 2.5 inches of asphaltic ~ -- concrete over 4.5 inches of aggregate base _ -55 a -1-SS 18 13 BDL P200=40% Brown Clayey fine Sand -Moist (Possible Fill) . f- r Gray fine Sand, some Silt, some layers of .1. - '· .. • f- -silty Sand -Moist (Native) 5- . •. r 2-SS 20 13 BDL P200=23% f--.. -so f--• ..... ~ r -f- r -r 10-r ,-Light Brown Silty Sand to fine to medium -3-SS 32 13 BDL P200=20% r Sand, trace Silt -Moist .·• .• ->--45 f- r r .·• .• r -15-f-4-SS 51 14 BDL r-40 . •.• -- 20-5-SS 50/3" 16 BDL Pwo=27% Light Yellowish Silty Sandstone -Moist (Old Paralic Deposits) -35 ---25-50/6" 15 BDL -6-SS , -30 f-. f--1:::: 30-1-7-SS 50/5" 15 BDL P200=23% -_~25 f-- r -f--35-8-SS 50/4" 10 BDL f- ,-Groundwater encountered at 18 feet f-Boring Terminated at about 35.5 feet (EL. r 21') -f- f- Water Observation Data Remarks: 'il Water Encountered During Drilling: 18' SS = Standard Penetration Test -=-'L Water Level At End of Drilling: BDL -Below Detection Level -=-' Cave Depth At End of Drilling: f---y Water Level After Drilling: -=-p:p;:;:,~3 Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes In strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soll types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location oftest boring Is shown on the Boring Local1on Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: 8-2 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 ~ 57 feet COMPLETION DATE: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 09/11/18 CARLSBAD, CA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. TREVOR SLAZAS PROJECT NO: 2G-1808005 • g C C. 0 .s!~ °" a, a. w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5 ~ c.,. N (tsn (tsn PID NOTES C. ~ E . (tsn (%) • ~o C jjj cnz Approximately 4 inches of asphaltic concrete • Light Brown Clayey Sand -Moist (Possible ~ - Fill) ~ 1-SS 11 17 BDL --55 0 - Brown Clayey fine Sand -Moist (Native) ½. ~ 2-CS 48 14 BDL Dd=124.9 pcf ~ . -/ 5- '.% /. / / -- Light Brown Silty Sand to fine Sand with Silt - Moist -50 3-CS 53 8 BDL Dd=104.5 pcf - i"·.·. I 4-CS 63 12 BDL Dd=116.8 pcf No groundwater encountered Boring Terminated at about 10 feet (EL. 47') - - ·- Water Observation Data Remarks: 'SL Water Encountered During Drilling: None CS = California Split Spoon -=-'L Water Level At End of Drilling: SS = Standard Penetration Test -=- -Cave Depth At End of Drilling: y Water Level After Drilling: BDL M Below Detection Level -=-Ff0?n Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes In strata Indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between sol! types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring ls shown on the Boring Loca11on Plan. g IB J " BORING NO. & LOCATION: TEST BORING LOG B-3 SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 ~ 56.8 feet COMPLETION DATE: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 09/11/18 CARLSBAD,CA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. TREVOR SLAZAS PROJECT NO: ZG-1808005 • g C 0. 0 .!!?~ a,, a,, a, w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .c ~ o.,,. N (%) PID NOTES 1,_ > E . (tsn (tsn (tsn • • ffl 0 0 iii u,z Approximately 5 inches of asphaltic concrete Brown Clayey fine Sand -Moist (Possible Fill) ~ - -55 1-SS 9 20 BDL ~ Brown to Light Brown Clayey fine Sand - ~-Moist (Native) 2-CS 27 17 BDL Dd=111.0 pcf ~ - ~ --5-r0 .. / Yellowish Brown fine Sand to Silty fine Sand, some iron oxide staining -Moist _ -50 3-CS 40 8 BDL Dd=112.3 pcf - - ---4-CS 46 13 BDL Dd=104.7 pcf - " _ No groundwater encountered Boring Terminated at about 10 feet (EL. 46.8') r - - Water Observation Data Remarks: 'SL Water Encountered During Drilling: None CS :::: California Split Spoon -=--~ Water Level At End of Drilling: SS:::: Standard Penetration Test --"--... Cave Depth At End of Drilling: -BDL -Below Detection Level .Y Water Level After Drilling: -fa);\µ1 Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes In strata indicated by the Unes are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring Is shown on the Boring Location Plan, BORING NO. & LOCATION: TEST BORING LOG B-4 SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 ~ 57.5 feet COMPLETION DATE: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 09/11/18 CARLSBAD, CA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. TREVOR SLAZAS PROJECT NO: 2G-1808005 ~ g C C. 0 ~~ a, a, a. w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .c '; "'"" N PID NOTES 1i ~ E . (ts!) (ts!) (ts!) {%) ~ ~ 0 C iii UJZ Approximately 5 inches of asphaltic concrete ~ - Brown Clay fine Sand -Moist (Possible Fill) -»0·· - / -55 1-SS 15 17 BDL Light Brown fine Sand, trace of Clay, some .1·--. layers of Silty Sand -Moist (Native) " -5--2-SS 25 10 BDL r :_1-- -so ~ - " -- " 10- Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt -Moist " 3-SS 30 10 BDL " " - ,-45 r ~ - " -15- " 4-SS 35 16 BDL " - " " e-40 - Yellowish Brown Silty Sandstone -Moist (Old r Paralic Deposits) " ,-20- ' " 5-SS 5015" 11 BDL ~ - " Groundwater encountered at 17 feet Boring Terminated at about 21.5 feet (EL. " 36') ~ " ·- " Water Observation Data Remarks: 'SL Water Encountered During Drilling: -C-17' SS = Standard Penetration Test 'L Water Level At End of Drilling: BDL M Below Detection Level -C- i Cave Depth At End of Drilling: >---:!: Water Level After Drilling: -C- lf'7''.2l Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes In strata Indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types, The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Locat1on of test boring Is shown an the Boring Location Plan. ~ " g ~ BORING NO. & LOCATION: B-5 TEST BORING LOG SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 ~ 56.3 feet COMPLETION DATE: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 09/11/18 CARLSBAD,CA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. TREVOR SLAZAS PROJECT NO: 2G-1808005 ~ g C Q. 0 ~~ a,, a,, a. w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .c ~ o.., N (ts!) (ts!) (%) PID NOTES 1i ~ E . (ts!) ~ • 0 C iii cnz Approximately 3 inches of asphaltic concrete r over 5 inches of aggregate base I , - ~. C Brown Clayey fine Sand to Silty fine Sand -- Moist (Possible Fill to Native) /. ,-ss.c ·, r8 - 1-SS 17 14 BDL - -f;; 2.5- C ~ - - ~s2.s ~ -2-SS 38 7 BDL P200=30% ~ - --·- -No groundwater encountered -Boring Terminated at about 5 feet (EL. 51.3') - - - - - - Water Observation Data Remarks: '2 ~ Water Encountered During Drilling: None SS = Standard Penetration Test 'L Water Level At End of Drilling: BDL -Below Detection Level ~ ,, ' Cave Depth At End of Drilling: -y Water Level After Drilling: ~ il::R',D Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings, location of test boring Is shown on the Boring Location Plan, BORING NO. & LOCATION: TEST BORING LOG B-6 SURFACE ELEVATION: PROPOSED CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT #4306 ~ 56.4 feet COMPLETION DATE: 5850 AVENIDA ENCINAS 09/11/18 CARLSBAD, CA GILES ENGINEERING FIELD REP: ASSOCIATES, INC. TREVOR SLAZAS PROJECT NO: ZG-1808005 • §: C "' 0 .!!~ a,, a,, Q w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a ~ "'«s N PID NOTES > E . (Isl) (ts!) (Isl) {%} • • mo " iii wz Approximately 4 inches of asphaltic concrete ■ c over 5 inches of aggregate base " Brown fine Sandy Clay -Moist (Possibble Fill -" " to Native) _t-55.0 _c-1-SS 5 25 BDL f- >--2.5-1- " - " -" " s 1/. _-52.5 2-SS 18 22 BDL c -" -·- f- No groundwater encountered " Boring Terminated at about 5 feet (EL. 51.4') " " - c f- " " - c c f- f- >-- " c .- Water Observation Data Remarks: 'SJ. Water Encountered During Drilling: None SS = Standard Penetration Test -"Sf.. Water Level At End of Drilling: BDL -Below Detection Level -... Cave Depth At End of Drilling: -.!. Water Level After Drilling: -!2bKU Cave Depth After Drilling: Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Locatron Plan, LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CFA #4306 -Carlsbad, CA Hofe No.=B-1 Water Depth=10 ft Magnitude=6. 72 Acceleration=0.482g Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement !!/ 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 (In.) 1 ----r----r------.----,-----r---,----,---,--------.---,1 1 " , " " I II II I r 10 ~-------4--------------------"-'SZc__i 20 -30 fs1=1 CRR -CSR fs'I-- Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential 40 60 CivilTech Corporation 2G-1808005, 5850 Avenida Encinas S =0.01 In. Saturated Unsaturat. - Plate A-1 UNTITLED.sum LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY copyright by civilTech software www.civiltechsoftware.com **************************************************************************•********* ******************* Input Font: courier New, Regular, size 8 is recommended for this report. Licensed to, 9/20/2018 1:34:24 PM Input File Name: UNTITLED Title: CFA #4306 -Carlsbad, CA subtitle: 2G-1808005, 5850 Avenida Encinas surface Elev.= Hole No.=B-1 Depth of Hole= 36.00 ft water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 ft water Table during In-situ Testing= 18.00 ft Max. Acceleration= 0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude= 6.72 Data: Surface Elev.= flole NO.=B-1 Depth of Hole=36.00 ft water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 ft water Table during In-situ Testing= 18.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0,48 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.72 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. SPT or BPT calculation. 2. settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu/seed 3. Fines correction for Liquefaction: Idriss/seed 4. Fine correction for settlement: During Liquefaction* 5. settlement calculation in: All zones* 6. I-lammer Energy Ratio, 7. Borehole Diameter, 8. sampling Method, 9. user request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , Plot one CSR curve (fsl=l) 10. use curve smoothing: Yes* * Recommended options In-situ Test Data: Depth SPT gamma Fines ft pcf % 2.00 18.00 120.00 15.00 5.00 20.00 120.00 15.00 10.00 32.00 120.00 10.00 15.00 51.00 120.00 5 .00 20.00 50.00 120.00 5 .oo 25.00 50.00 120.00 5.00 30.00 50.00 120.00 5,00 35.00 50.00 120.00 4.00 Page 1 Ce = 1. 25 Cb= 1 CS= 1.2 user= 1 UNTITLED.sum output Results: settlement of saturated sands=0.00 in. settlement of unsaturated sands=0.01 in. Total Settlement of saturated and unsaturated sands=0.01 in. Differential settlement=0,006 to 0.008 in. Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. s_sat. ~-dry s_all ft in. ,n, in. 2.00 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo 0.01 0.01 2. 50 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo 0.01 0.01 3.00 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo 0.01 0.01 3.50 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo 0.01 0.01 4.00 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo 0.01 0.01 4. 50 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo 0.01 0.01 5.00 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo 0.01 0.01 5.50 2.65 0.31 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 6.00 2.65 0.31 5 .00 0.00 0.01 0.01 6.50 2.65 0.31 5 .oo 0.00 0.01 0.01 7 .00 2.65 0.31 5.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 7.50 2.65 0.31 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 8.00 2.65 0.31 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 8.50 2.65 0.31 5.00 o.oo o.oo o.oo 9.00 2.65 0.31 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9. 50 2.65 0.31 5 .00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 10.00 2.65 0.31 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 10.50 2.65 0.31 5 .00 0.00 o.oo o.oo 11.00 2.65 0.32 5.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 11.50 2.65 0. 33 5 .00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 12.00 2.65 0.33 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 12.50 2.65 0.34 s.oo o.oo 0.00 o.oo 13.00 2.65 0.35 s.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 13.50 2.65 0.35 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.00 2.65 0.36 S .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 2.65 0.36 S .00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 15.00 2.65 0.37 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 15.50 2.65 0.37 5.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 16.00 2.65 0.37 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 16. 50 2.65 o. 38 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 17.00 2.65 0.38 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 17.50 2.65 o.39 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 2.65 0.39 5 .00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 18. 50 2.65 0.39 5.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 19.00 2.65 0.40 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 19. 50 2.65 0.40 5.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 20.00 2.65 0.40 5.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 20. 50 2.65 0.41 5.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 21.00 2,65 0.41 5.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 21. 50 2.65 0.41 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 22.00 2.65 0.41 5 .oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.50 2.65 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.00 2.65 0.42 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.50 2.65 0.42 5 .00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 24.00 2. 65 0.42 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 24.50 2.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 .00 2.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25. 50 2.65 0.43 5.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 26.00 2.65 0.43 5.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 26.50 2.65 0.43 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 27.00 2.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 27.50 2.65 0.44 5.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 28.00 2.65 0.44 5 .oo o.oo 0.00 o.oo 28.50 2.65 0.44 5 .oo o.oo 0.00 0.00 Page 2 UNTITLED.sum 29.00 2.65 0.44 5.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 29.50 2.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 30.00 2.65 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 30. 50 2.65 0.45 5.00 o.oo 0.00 0,00 31.00 2.65 0.45 5.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 31. 50 2.65 0.45 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 2.65 0.45 5.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 32.50 2.65 0.45 5 .oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 33.00 2.65 0.44 5 .oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 33. 50 2.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 34.00 2.65 0.44 5.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 34.50 2. 65 0.44 S .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 2 .65 0.44 S.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,50 2.65 0.44 5 .00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 36.00 2.65 0.44 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential zone (F.S, is limited to 5, CRR is limited to 2, CSR is limited to 2) Units: Unit: qc, fs, stress or Pressure= atm (1,0581tsf); unit Weight= pcf; Depth= ft; settlement= in. request 1 atm (atmosphere)= 1 tsf (ton/ft2) CRRm cyclic resistance ratio from soils CSRsf cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user factor of safety) F.S. Factor of safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf s_sat settlement from saturated sands s_dry settlement from unsaturated sands s_all Total settlement from saturated and unsaturated sands Noli q NO-Liquefy Soil 5 Page 3 APPENDIX 8 FIELD PROCEDURES The field operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) designation D 420 entitled "Standard Guide for Sampling Rock and Rock" and/or other relevant specifications. Soil samples were preserved and transported to Giles' laboratory in general accordance with the procedures recommended by ASTM designation D 4220 entitled "Standard Practice for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples." Brief descriptions of the sampling, testing and field procedures commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. GENERAL FIELD PROCEDURES Test Boring Elevations The ground surface elevations reported on the Test Boring Logs are referenced to the assumed benchmark shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Unless otherwise noted, the elevations were determined with a conventional hand-level and are accurate to within about 1 foot. Test Boring Locations The test borings were located on-site based on the existing site features and/or apparent property lines. Dimensions illustrating the approximate boring locations are reported on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1 ). Water Level Measurement The water levels reported on the Test Boring Logs represent the depth of "free" water encountered during drilling and/or after the drilling tools were removed from the borehole. Water levels measured within a granular (sand and gravel) soil profile are typically indicative of the water table elevation. It is usually not possible to accurately identify the water table elevation with cohesive (clayey) soils, since the rate of seepage is slow. The water table elevation within cohesive soils must therefore be determined over a period of time with groundwater observation wells. It must be recognized that the water table may fluctuate seasonally and during periods of heavy precipitation. Depending on the subsurface conditions, water may also become perched above the water table, especially during wet periods. Borehole Backfilling Procedures Each borehole was backfilled upon completion of the field operations. If potential contamination was encountered, and/or if required by state or local regulations, boreholes were backfilled with an "impervious" material (such as bentonite slurry). Borings that penetrated pavements, sidewalks, etc. were "capped" with Portland Cement concrete, asphaltic concrete, or a similar surface material. It must, however, be recognized that the backfill material may settle, and the surface cap may subside, over a period of time. Further backfilling and/or re-surfacing by Giles' client or the property owner may be required. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES Auger Sampling (AU) Soil samples are removed from the auger flights as an auger is withdrawn above the ground surface. Such samples are used to determine general soil types and identify approximate soil stratifications. Auger samples are highly disturbed and are therefore not typically used for geotechnical strength testing. Split-Barrel Sampling (SS) -(ASTM D-1586) A split-barrel sampler with a 2-inch outside diameter is driven into the subsoil with a 140- pound hammer free-falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer- blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of an 18-inch sample interval is defined as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or N-value is an index of the relative density of granular soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils. A soil sample is collected from each SPT interval. Shelby Tube Sampling (ST) -(ASTM D-1587) A relatively undisturbed soil sample is collected by hydraulically advancing a thin-walled Shelby Tube sampler into a soil mass. Shelby Tubes have a sharp cutting edge and are commonly 2 to 5 inches in diameter. Bulk Sample (BS) A relatively large volume of soils is collected with a shovel or other manually-operated tool. The sample is typically transported to Giles' materials laboratory in a sealed bag or bucket. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test {DC) -(ASTM STP 399) This test is conducted by driving a 1.5-inch-diameter cone into the subsoil using a 15- pound steel ring (hammer), free-falling a vertical distance of 20 inches. The number of hammer-blows required to drive the cone 1¾ inches is an indication of the soil strength and density, and is defined as "N". The Dynamic Cone Penetration test is commonly conducted in hand auger borings, test pits and within excavated trenches. -Continued - GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ring-Lined Barrel Sampling -(ASTM D 3550) In this procedure, a ring-lined barrel sampler is used to collect soil samples for classification and laboratory testing. This method provides samples that fit directly into laboratory test instruments without additional handling/disturbance. Sampling and Testing Procedures The field testing and sampling operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM} and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the field testing (i.e. N-values) are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Explanations of the terms and symbols shown on the logs are provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes". GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIXC LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION The laboratory testing was conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer in accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Brief descriptions of laboratory tests commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION Photoionization Detector (PID) In this procedure, soil samples are "scanned" in Giles' analytical laboratory using a Photoionization Detector (PID). The instrument is equipped with an 11.7 eV lamp calibrated to a Benzene Standard and is capable of detecting a minute concentration of certain Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapors, such as those commonly associated with petroleum products and some solvents. Results of the PID analysis are expressed in HNu (manufacturer's) units rather than actual concentration. Moisture Content (w) (ASTM D 2216) Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water contained within a soil sample to the weight of the dry solids within the sample. Moisture content is expressed as a percentage. Unconfined Compressive Strength (gu) {ASTM D 2166) An axial load is applied at a uniform rate to a cylindrical soil sample. The unconfined compressive strength is the maximum stress obtained or the stress when 15% axial strain is reached, whichever occurs first. Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance (gp) The small, cylindrical tip of a hand-held penetrometer is pressed into a soil sample to a prescribed depth to measure the soils capacity to resist penetration. This test is used to evaluate unconfined compressive strength. Vane-Shear Strength (gs) The blades of a vane are inserted into the flat surface of a soil sample and the vane is rotated until failure occurs. The maximum shear resistance measured immediately prior to failure is taken as the vane-shear strength. Loss-on-Ignition {ASTM D 2974; Method C) The Loss-on-Ignition (L.O.1.) test is used to determine the organic content of a soil sample. The procedure is conducted by heating a dry soil sample to 440°C in order to burn-off or "ash" organic matter present within the sample. The LO.I. value is the ratio of the weight loss due to ignition compared to the initial weight of the dry sample. LO.I. is expressed as a percentage. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Particle Size Distribution (ASTB D 421. D 422. and D 1140) This test is performed to determine the distribution of specific particle sizes (diameters) within a soil sample. The distribution of coarse-grained soil particles (sand and gravel) is determined from a "sieve analysis." which is conducted by passing the sample through a series of nested sieves. The distribution of fine-grained soil particles (silt and clay) is determined from a "hydrometer analysis" which is based on the sedimentation of particles suspended in water. Consolidation Test (ASTM D 2435) In this procedure. a series of cumulative vertical loads are applied to a small. laterally confined soil sample. During each load increment. vertical compression (consolidation) of the sample is measured over a period of time. Results of this test are used to estimate settlement and time rate of settlement. Classification of Samples Each soil sample was visually-manually classified. based on texture and plasticity. in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2488-75). The classifications are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the laboratory tests are provided on the Test Boring Logs or other appendix enclosures. Explanation of the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes." GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. INC. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test ASTM D-1833 The CBR test is used for evaluation of a soil subgrade for pavement design. The test consists of measuring the force required for a 3-square-inch cylindrical piston to penetrate 0.1 or 0.2 inch into a compacted soil sample. The result is expressed as a percent of force required to penetrate a standard compacted crushed stone. Unless a CBR test has been specifically requested by the client, the CBR is estimated from published charts, based on soil classification and strength characteristics. A typical correlation chart is below. CAUFORNlA BEARJNG RATIO • CBR 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 8090100 I I I I I I I I GP 'GW ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GM (Unified Classfication) GC I I I 11 SW SM SP SC OH ML CH CL "' = MH . ' AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION A+O I I I I A-1-0 I I I I A-2-4 A-2-5 '. A-2-6 A-2-7 I M A4 A-5 I I I A~ I A-7-5 A-7-6 I I I I I ' ' ' FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION E-1 E-2 cc SOIL CLASSIFICATION I E-3 " I I ! E-4 " I E-5 E-5 E-7 I E·B E-9 E-10 E-11 E-12 RESISTAl'-K::E VALUE· R 5 no 20 0 0 50 60 70 . . ' ' ' ' ' MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION K PSI PER !N 1 0 150 2co I 2qo 90 4DP 5D0 I 0 70 ' BE ARING VALUE PS 10 2) ,b 40 5) " Cf1-1f~RNl1A BEARl~G RA110 • C~R 3 4 5678910 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 8090100 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX D GENERAL INFORMATION GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBGRADE AND PREPARATION FOR FlLL, FOUNDATION, FLOOR SLAB AND PAVEMENT SUPPORT; AND SELECTION,PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL sorrs USJNG MODIFIED PROCTOR PROCEDURES I. Construction monitoring and testing of subgrades and grades for fill, foundation, floor slab and pavement; and fill selection. placement and compaction shall be performed by an experienced soils engineer and/or bis represeotatives. 2. All compacted fill, subgrades, and grades shall be (a) underlain by suitable bearing material, (b) free of all organic frozen, or olher deleterious material, and (c) observed, tested and approved by qualified engineering perw1mel representing an experienced soils eogine<:r. Preparation of subg,ades after stripping vegetation, organic or other unsuitable materials shall consist of (a) proofrolling to detect soft, wet, yielding soils or other unstable materials thnt must be undercut, (b) scarifying top 6 to 8 inches, (c) moisture conditioning the soils as required, and (d) reccmpaction to same minimum in-situ density required for similar material indicated under Item S. Note: Compaction requirements for pavement subgrade are higher than other areas. Weather and construction equipment may damage C(lmpacted nil surface and reworking and rete."ling may be necessary for proper performance. 3. In overexcavation and fill areas, the compacted fill must extend (a)• minimum 1 foot lateral distance beyond the exterior edge of the foondation at bearing grade or pavement at subuooe and down to compacted fill subgrade on n maximum O.S(I-1): I (v) slope, (b) I fuotabove footing grade outside the building, and (c) to floor sub grade inside the building. Fill shall be placed and compacted on a S(HJ: l (V) slope or must be stepped or benched as required to flatten if not speeifically approved by qualified personnel under the direction of an experienced soils engineer. 4. The compacted fill lTllllerials shall be:free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in lhe material being classified as 'rontaminatoo", and shall below-expansive with a maximum Liquid Limit (ASTM D-423) and Plasticity Index (ASTM D-424) of 30 and l 5. respecti,-ely, llllless specifically 1ested and found to have low expansive properties and approved by an experienced soils engineer. The top 12 inches of compacted fill should have a maximum 3 inch particle diameter and all underlying compacted fill • maximum 6 inch diameter unless specifically approved by an experienced soils engineer. All fill material m\lSl be tested and "flPCOVed under the direction of an experienced soils engineer prior to placement. lfthe fill is to provide non-frost susceptible cbaracteristics, it must be classified as a clean GW, GP, SW or SP per Unifie<l Soils Classification System (ASTMD-2487). S. For structural fill dcplhs less than 20 feet, 1he density of the structural compacted fill and scarified subgrade and grades shall not be less 1han 90poo:,ent of the maximum dry density as determined by Modifie<l Proctor (ASTM D-15S7) wi1h !he exception of the top 12 inches of pavement subgrade which sbnll have a minimum in-situ density of 95 percent of maximum dry density, or 5 percent higher than underlying structural fiU materials. Where tlle structural fill depth is greater 1han 20 feet, !he portion below 20 feet should have a minimum in-place density of95 percent ofits maxim= dry density or S percent higher lhan the top 20 feet. Cohesive soils shnll not vary by more than -1 to +3 percent moislure content and granular soil ±3 percent from !he optimum when placed and =pacted or recompacted, unite$ specifically recommended/approved by the soils engineer observing the placement and compaction. Cohesive soils with moderate to high expansion potentials (Pl> l S) should, however, be placed, compacte<l and maintained prior to consnuction ata 3±1 percent moisture content above optimum moisture content to limit future heave. Fill shall be placed in layers with a maximum loose thickness of8 inches for foundations and 10 inches for floor slabs and pavements, unless specifically approved by the soils engineer laking into C(lnsideration the type of materials and compaction equipment being used. The compaction equipment should consist of suitable mechanical equipment specifically designed for soil compaction. Bulldozers or similar tracked vehicles are typically not suitable for compaction. 6. Excavatioo. filing. sub grade grade preparation shall be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion Precipitation, springs, and =page water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable worldng platfonn. Springs or water seepage encountered during grade/foundation construction must be called to the soils engineer's attention immediately for possible construction procedure revision or inclusion of an underdrain system. 7. Noo-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be plai:ed and compacted with care to r:nsure exe<ssive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type offill material plac,,d adjacent to below grade walls (i.e. basement walls and retaining walls) must be properly tested and approved by an experienced soils engineer wilh consideration for 1he lateral pressure used in the wall design. 8. Wherever, in the opinion of the soils engineer or the Owner's Representatives, nn unstable condition is being created either by cutting or filling, the work should not proeecd into !hat area until an appropriate geotechnicnl exploration and analysis b.as been performed and tbe grading plan revised, if found necessary. Gil.ES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL COMMENTS The soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration will be retained for a period of thirty days. If no instructions are received, they will be disposed of at that time. This report has been prepared exclusively for the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. Copies of this report may be provided to contractor(s), with contract documents, to disclose information relative to this project. The report, however, has not been prepared to serve as the plans and specifications for actual construction without the appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. Reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Giles. This report has been based on assumed conditions/characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available. It is recommended that the architect, civil engineer and structural engineer along with any other design professionals involved in this project carefully review these assumptions to ensure they are consistent with the actual planned development. When discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to ensure they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations provided herein. The project plans and specifications may also be submitted to Giles for review to ensure that the geotechnical related conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been correctly interpreted. The analysis of this site was based on a subsoil profile interpolated from a limited subsurface exploration. If the actual conditions encountered during construction vary from those indicated by the borings, Giles must be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied. r-t::' _____ _ ~ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. ARACTERISTICS AND RATINGS OF UNIFIED SOIL SYSTEM CLASSES FOR SOIL CONSTRUCTION* Max. Dry Value as Value as Temporary ion Density Compressibility Drainage and Value as an Subgrade Value as Base Pavement istics Standard and Expansion Permeability Embankment When Not Course With Proctor Material Subject to With Dust Bituminous (pct) Frost Palliative Treatment ·-tired, steel 125-135 Almost none Good drainage, Very stable Excellent Good Fair to Excellent ,Iler nervious looor ·-tired, steel 115-125 Almost none Good drainage, Reasonably Excellent to Poor to fair Poor ,lier lnervious stable ,.,.ood r light 120-135 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Excellent lo Fair to poor Poor Poor to fair seminervious stable ,.,.ood tired or 115-130 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Good Good to fair Excellent Excellent imncrvious stable *' ·-tired or 110-130 Almost none Good drainage, Very stable Good Fair to poor Fair to Good nervious noor ·-tired or 100-120 Almost none Good drainage, Reasonably Good to fair Poor Poor Poor to fair pervious stable when dense r sheepsfoot 110-125 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Good to fair Poor Poor Poor to fair impervious stable when dense tired or 105-125 Slight to Poor drainage, Reasonably Good to fair Fair to poor Excellent Excellent medium imnervious stable ·-tired or 95-120 Slight to Poor drainage, Poor stability, Fair to poor Not suitable Poor Poor medium impervious high density renuired Oot or rubber-95-120 Medium No drainage, Good stability Fair to poor Not suitable Poor Poor imnervious Jot or rubber-80-100 Medium to high Poor drainage, Unstable, should Poor Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable impervious not be used Jot or rubber-70-95 High Poor drainage, Poor stability, Poor Not suitable Very poor Not suitable impervious should not be used Jot roller 80-105 Very high No drainage, Fair stability, Poor to very Not suitable Very poor Not suitable impervious may soften on poor exnansion Jot roller 65-100 High No drainage, Unstable, should Very poor Not suitable Not Not suitable impervious not be used suitable Very high Fairto poor Should not be Not suitable Not suitable Not Not suitable drainai:,e used suitable pend ix A -Characteristics of Soil, Groups Pertaining to Roads and Airfields, and Appendix B -Characteristics of Soil Groups Pertaining to Embankments :morandum 357, U.S. Waterways Ixperiment Station, Vicksburg, 1953. GINEERING ASSOClATES INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) Major Divisions Group Symbols GW GP d GM' - u GC SW SP d SM' - u ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt Typical Names Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtrues, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel- sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel- sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine Laboratory Classification Criteria D Cu= ~greater than 4· C D10 ' c (D )' 0 30 0 between 1 and 3 10 X 60 Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Atterberg limits below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 Atterberg limits above "A" line or P.I. greater than 7 Limits plotting within shaded area, above"A"line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols D (D )' Cu= o:: greater than 4;Cc = 010 ;0 060 between 1 and 3 Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW Atterberg limits below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 Atterberg limits above"A"line or P.I. greater than 7 Plasticity Chart Limits plotting within shaded area, above"A"line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols sands, or clayey silts / with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low 501---+--+----+--+--l--+--l--+--,f-----l to medium plasticity, / gravelly clays, sandy CH / clays, silty clays / Organic silts and 4ol---+--+----+--+--l--+--l--l/-,<-l---+---I organic silty clays of low plasticity / Inorganic silts, mica-~ 301---+--+----+--+--l--+'--l--+--1---I ceous or diatomaceous ] ~ fine sandy or silty soils, .f ~ oH an MH elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Peat and other highly organic soils 201-------1----4------l-------l-/-----A-------1--------1-------+---+-------l CL / ,ol--+---+--l-/-,L-1--+---+--+---+----JI--~ Cl-Ml ✓ Ml dOL / 10 20 30 40 60 " 90 100 Uquldllmlt a Divismn of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfields only.Subdiv1s1on 1s based on Atterberg hm1ts,suffix d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffix u is used when LL. is greater than 28. b Borderline classifications, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group sympols. For example GW-GC, well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder. Giles Engineering Associat;es, Inc. GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION All samples are visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487-75 or D-2488-75) DESCRIPTIVE TERM(% BY DRY WEIGHT) PARTICLE SIZE (DIAMETER) Boulders: 8 inch and larger Trace: 1-10% Little: 11-20% Some: And/Adjective 21-35% 36-50% SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS Dd: LL: PL: PI: LOI: Gs: K: w: qp: qs: qu: qc: Dry Density (pct) Liquid Limit, percent Plastic Limit, percent Plasticity Index (LL-PL) Loss on Ignition, percent Specific Gravity Coefficient of Permeability Moisture content, percent Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance, tsf Vane-Shear Strength, tsf Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf Static Cone Penetrometer Resistance Cobbles: 3 inch to 8 inch Gravel: Sand: Silt: Clay: coarse -¾ to 3 inch fine -No. 4 ( 4.76 mm) to ¾ inch coarse-No. 4 (4.76 mm) to No. JO (2.0 mm) medium -No. JO (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) fine-No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (non-plastic) No 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (plastic) DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS SS: ST: CS: DC: AU: DB: CB: WS: RB: BS: Note: Split-Spoon Shelby Tube-3 inch O.D. (except where noted) 3 inch O.D. California Ring Sampler Dynamic Cone Penetrometer per ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 399 Auger Sample Diamond Bit Carbide Bit Wash Sample Rock-Roller Bit Bulk Sample PID: ( correlated to Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf) Results of vapor analysis conducted on representative samples utilizing a Photoionization Detector calibrated Depth intervals for sampling shown on Record of Subsmface Exploration are not indicative of sample recovery, but position where sampling initiated to a benzene standard. Results expressed in HNU-Units. (BDL=Below Detection Limit) N: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for a standard 2 inch O.D. (13/8 inch I.D.) split spoon sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches. Performed in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications (ASTM D- 1586). Nin blows per foot equals sum ofN-Values where plus sign(+) is shown. Ne: Penetration Resistance per I¾ inches of Dynamic Cone Pcnctrometer. Approximately equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value in blows per foot. Nr: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for California Ring Sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches per ASTM D-3550. Not equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value. SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS COHESIVE (CLAYEY) SOILS COMPARATIVE CONSISTENCY Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard DEGREE OF PLASTICITY None to Slight Slight Medium High to Very High BLOWS PER FOOT(N) 0-2 3 -4 5-8 9-15 16-30 31+ Pl 0-4 5 -IO I I -30 31+ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TSF) 0 -0.25 0.25 -0.50 0.50 -l.00 l.00 -2.00 2.00 -4.00 4.00+ DEGREE OF EXPANSIVE POTENTIAL Low Medium High PI 0 -15 15 -25 25+ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. NON-COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS RELATIVE BLOWS PER DENSITY FOOT(N) Very Loose 0-4 Loose 5 -10 Firm 11 -30 Dense 31 -50 Very Dense 51+ Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. The following information is provided to help you manage your risks. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specmc Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -no/even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability tor problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurtace conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurtace conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnica/ engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations ii that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating togs tram the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient lime to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, white requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responslblltty Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bililies begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project /aHures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared tor someone else. Obtain Prolesslonal Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of Itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing In or on the structure Involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer lor Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE Hit 1111 ••t11U III UUh 8811 Colesville RoadlSuile G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 3011565-2733 Facsimile: 3011589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, In whole or in pa,t, by any means whatsoever, Is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnicaf engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation, IIGER06045.0M Geot;echnical, Environment;al & Const;ruct;lon Mat;erials Consult;ant;s MILWAUKEE, WI (262) 544-0118 GILES E:NGINEERING AssOCIATES, INC. w w w, g i Iese n gr.com ATLANTA, GA (770) 458-3399 ORLANDO, FL (407) 321-5356 DALLAS, TX (214) 358-5885 TAMPA, FL (813) 283-0096 LOS ANGELES, CA (714) 279-0817 BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON, D.C. (410) 636-9320 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES [This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.] Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management X Included Exhibit (Required) See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse X Exhibit showing project drainage Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit boundaries marked on WMAA Critical is 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 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 Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving X Not performed Channels (Optional) D Included See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and X Included Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify: X Underlying hydrologic soil group X Approximate depth to groundwater X Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) X Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) X Existing topography X Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite X Proposed grading X Proposed impervious features X Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness X Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management X Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) X Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) 'i GRAPHIC SCALE i i { 1H l'CET ) 1lnch •20 1L □ LIMITS OF TRBUTA AREA ORANNG BIO-Fl.11lA T10N i 5I.J8 □ <UO 0.5' NOTOir DEPTH (1 .... 0TH) 12-INCli P\'C CAP, 3/ 8-INCH STORM DRAIN ltMT ROUTE 12-INCli P\'C RISO< HYDROMODIFICATION TANK/FLOW CONTROL DEVICE DETAIL DIA. ORIFICE ORlllffi AT BOTTOU ~ NOT TO SCAL.£ NO. 1-5 I LEGEND I ----LIMITS OF TOTAL TRIBUTARY AREA LIMITS OF OMA ,1.o)r• --,;s~)rG ~,.,,-(m1)rc __ _ I ~.-(\ ~ I ~ --~ SOIL BORING STRUCTURAL BMPs FOR HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT .:,-11.·tsrr,: ~]'•~ • :"'~') f);,. ~ . / . ,\'J I'\;;.\ ·--~· ·:... ,' " ~ 8I0-FlL lRA TION BASIN-1 (LINEO) BI0-FlLlRATION BASIN-2 (LINEO) STORM CAPTURE VAULTS ) rs ~>l~I) ;t-l-i (:. a) 0 ' (!N,J) T2 r o•)± i ~s --~: - l'\"lrl , 1 ;-;;,,.., • 1 OS-1 ~ I \ 0.093 AC 1 W. srucc"J I ~ I ~ ..::;_ , '. 111-N-Ot ~~ .; SOl'l,' I _t::M\ .•. ·L· I I -~-•. ' ~-J\, ff. \ \ -\ ' ' (~ (~ ~--~ty [519'.) TC (5H4)F'J l LAND COVER D IMPERVIOUS -AC PAVEMENT r.! IMPERVIOUS -CONCRETE D IMPERVIOUS -BUILDING/lRASH ENCLOSURE G::::J PERVIOUS -LANDSCAPING D PERVIOUS -SELF lREATING AREA HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT PLAN INFORMATION 1. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP 'O' 2. DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER = 17 -18 ft. J. NO NA TUR AL HYDROLOGIC FEATURES EXIST l\1THIN THIS PROJECT SITE 4. NO CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELO AREAS EXIST DOWNSTREAM OF THIS PROJECT SITE LID FEATURES lsc-11 PREVENT ILLICIT DISCHARGES TO THE MS4 1sc-21 IDENTIFY THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM USING STENCILING OR SIGNAGE LEGOLAHD I VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE NOTIC( lO COKTIU.CTOR McomACffll9WJ.ASC(IJAICMTll\lC Y[lflYAJ.M)ll:WZOIC'l'.l,llDCl,TIOIIOOmtor.AU. UJl/TU. 19D. 00/0f. S1l\lC1VR[S NCI S1W1 IIC USl'OKSIIUl'OIIOAXMXT0>HfflJ9Uc:0lf'l!ff,\T[ UTllrD, SHQl'MORMIJISJ!Qrl'N .umc. """'"""""' ~UllofltltGot-wwr .... Codt ~~~11:i~ .,_.....,.~•--t,e~ rot,-,le\!Nwfl.O.Muinwoal! ~ Stnb N.t Wl.111 Tn~'"J'btlffllJW~ ~;:;j I ' 3if 1e m.")" ,~+~~,>('... ~~~~-::--1.. 5400I~'\J (H,r.z)r.,v \ =-=.,=--'JI. ~ !SC-J! PROTECT OUTDOOR MATERIAL STORAFE AREAS FROM RAINFALL, RUN-ON, RUNOFF AND WIND DISPERSAL \ ~ \ ,.,,,,_,..,_-~ -~ \ %, ' -~ ' ' ' ' ' ',,,, "'-"' ~. '\,oJ)lc -... · • :S '-..., ~,~ /("S)~ ·-. '-.Y ._ ' ~ <'\ .. .,_,,, --...___ -I..__ - , ~ -.......__ l(~.f3} rs-', -----... , , ....... ,.. ---- 1sc-s1 PROTECT TRASH STORAGE AREAS FROM RAINFALL, RUN-ON, RUNOFF, AND V~NO DISPERSAL !SC-6! ADDITIONAL BMPS -POTENTIAL SOURCES OF RUNOFF POLLUTION A. ON-SITE STORM DRAIN INLETS D2. LANDSCAPE/OUTDOOR PESllCIDE USE E. FOOD SERVICE G, REFUSE AREAS P. PLAZAS, SIDEWALKS, ANO PARKING LOTS !SO-J! MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREA 1so-s1 DISPERSE IMPERVIOUS AREAS !S0-6! COLLECT RUNOFF !S0-7! LANDSCAPE WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES Till8 PLAN 18: PRELIMINARY (NOT FOR CON8TRUCTION) ~ \. OAT£ 7-11-19 OF/AWN BY PJS CHECKED BY RD/SMH JOB NO. CFA18050 SHffT NO. 2 ~ z a,: 0 IL. ::J IL. 0 OF 2 SHffTS *CCSYA info is .kmz file uploaded into Google Earth, provided by www.projectcleanwater.org -Jose Jh C. Ti uxaw and A ssooates, Inc - CM/ Engineers and Land Surveyors Z6'S. ~•if• o,,s,,n, II I, Cr.,og,, CA 91&£6 (l1'}1J5--026S lor.(1"}155-0106 Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Exhibit 5850 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA SDHM3.1 PROJECT REPORT General Model Information Project Name: CFA 18050(2) Site Name: CFA 1-5 & Palomar Site Address: 5850 Avenida Encinas City: Carlsbad Report Date: 7/9/2019 Gage: OCEANSID Data Start: 10/01/1959 Data End: 09/30/2004 Timestep: Hourly Precip Scale: 1.000 Version Date: 2018/07/12 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: t of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1: CFA 18050(2) 7/9/20191:46:49 PM Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use acre D,NatVeg,Flat 0.939 Pervious Total 0.939 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.939 Element Flows To: ~~r Surface lnterflow ~ ~oundwater ~~ CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:49 PM Page 3 Mitigated Land Use DMA-1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre D,NatVeg,Flat 0.104 Pervious Total 0.104 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 0.566 Impervious Total 0.566 Basin Total 0.67 Element Flows To: Surface I nterflow Surface Biofilter 1 Surface Biofilter CFA 18050(2) 7/9/20191:46:49 PM Page 4 Basin 2 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use acre D,NatVeg,Flat 0.078 Pervious Total 0.078 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 0.191 Impervious Total 0.191 Basin Total 0.269 Element Flows To: Surface lnterflow Groundwater Surface Biofilter 2 Surface Biofilter ~ ~ CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:49 PM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeve/oped Routing CFA 18050(2) 7/9/201 9 1:46:49 PM Page 6 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: 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: 0.5 ft. 38.95 ft. 20 .00 ft. 1.5 ESM 1 GRAVEL 0 GRAVEL 6 6 3 16.57 19.819 83.6 Riser Diameter: 27.1 in. ~ Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 (?~ Storm Capture 1 ~ Biofilter Hydraulic Table "v Stage(feet) Area(ac. «} '\11:1 ume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0179 S)~0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0403 0.017 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0807 0.0179 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.1210 0.0179 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.1613 0.0179 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.2016 0.0179 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.2420 0.0179 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.2823 0.0179 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.3226 0.0179 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.3630 0.0179 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.4033 0.0179 0.0022 0.0000 0.0000 0.4436 0.0179 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000 0.4840 0.0179 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 0.5243 0.0179 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.5646 0.0179 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0.6049 0.0179 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 0.6453 0.0179 0.0035 0.0000 0.0000 0.6856 0.0179 0.0037 0.0000 0.0000 0.7259 0.0179 0.0039 0.0000 0.0000 0.7663 0.0179 0.0041 0.0000 0.0000 0.8066 0.0179 0.0043 0.0000 0.0000 0.8469 0.0179 0.0045 0.0000 0.0000 0.8873 0.0179 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 0.9276 0.0179 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.9679 0.0179 0.0052 0.0000 0.0000 1.0082 0.0179 0.0054 0.0000 0.0000 1.0486 0.0179 0.0056 0.0000 0.0000 1.0889 0.0179 0.0058 0.0000 0 .0000 1.1292 0.0179 0.0061 0.0000 0.0000 CF A 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:49 PM Page 7 1.1696 1.2099 1.2502 1.2905 1.3309 1.3712 1.4115 1.4519 1.4922 1.5325 1.5729 1.6132 1.6535 1.6938 1.7342 1.7745 1.8148 1.8552 1.8955 1.9358 1.9762 2.0165 2.0568 2.0971 2.1375 2.1778 2.2181 2.2585 2.2988 2.3391 2.3795 2.4198 2.4601 2.5000 0.0179 0.0063 0.0179 0.0065 0.0179 0.0067 0.0179 0.0069 0.0179 0.0071 0.0179 0.0074 0.0179 0.0076 0.0179 0.0078 0.0179 0.0080 0.0179 0.0083 0.0179 0.0086 0.0179 0.0089 0.0179 0.0092 0.0179 0.0095 0.0179 0.0098 0.0179 0.0101 0.0179 0.0104 0.0179 0.0107 0.0179 0.0110 0.0179 0.0113 0.0179 0.0116 0.0179 0.0119 ~ 0.0179 0.012~ 0.0179 0.01 2:::v 0.0179 0.0 1--213~ 0.0179 0:§)~~ 0.0179 (\([;11~ 8:8~ i~ v 2g~~l~6 0.0179,0 0.017 '('\ 0.0179 '-...V 0.0179 0.0179 0.0155 Biofilter Hydraulic Table 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)lnfilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0179 0.0155 0.0000 0.0926 0.0000 2.5403 0.0179 0.0162 0.0000 0.0926 0.0000 2.5807 0.0179 0.0169 0.0000 0.0950 0.0000 2.6210 0.0179 0.0176 0.0000 0.0974 0.0000 2.6613 0.0179 0.0184 0.0000 0.0999 0.0000 2.7016 0.0179 0.0191 0.0000 0.1023 0.0000 2.7420 0.0179 0.0198 0.0000 0.1047 0.0000 2.7823 0.0179 0.0205 0.0000 0.1071 0.0000 2.8226 0.0179 0.0213 0.0000 0.1096 0.0000 2.8630 0.0179 0.0220 0.0000 0.1120 0.0000 2.9033 0.01 79 0.0227 0.0000 0.1144 0.0000 2.9436 0.0179 0.0234 0.0000 0.1168 0.0000 2.9840 0.0179 0.0241 0.0000 0.1193 0.0000 3.0243 0.0179 0.0249 0.0000 0.1217 0.0000 3.0646 0.0179 0.0256 0.0000 0.1241 0.0000 3.1049 0.0179 0.0263 0.0020 0.1265 0.0000 3.1453 0.0179 0.0270 0.0024 0.1289 0.0000 3.1856 0.0179 0.0277 0.0031 0.1314 0.0000 3.2259 0.0179 0.0285 0.0039 0.1338 0.0000 3.2663 0.0179 0.0292 0.0049 0.1362 0.0000 3.3066 0.0179 0.0299 0.0060 0.1386 0.0000 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:49 PM Page 8 3.3469 0.0179 0.0306 0.0073 0.1411 0.0000 3.3873 0.0179 0.0314 0.0087 0.1435 0.0000 3.4276 0.0179 0.0321 0.0103 0.1459 0.0000 3.4679 0.0179 0.0328 0.0120 0.1483 0.0000 3.5082 0.0179 0.0335 0.0138 0.1508 0.0000 3.5486 0.0179 0.0342 0.0159 0.1532 0.0000 3.5889 0.0179 0.0350 0.0181 0.1556 0.0000 3.6292 0.0179 0.0357 0.0205 0 .1580 0.0000 3.6696 0.0179 0.0364 0.0231 0.1605 0.0000 3.6700 0.0179 0.0364 0.0258 0.1605 0.0000 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:49 PM Page 9 Surface Biofilter 1 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Storm Capture 1 Biofilter 1 CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:49 PM Page 10 Biofi lter 2 Bottom Length: 18.20 ft. Bottom Width : 20.00 ft. Material thickness of first layer: 1.5 Material type for first layer: ESM Material thickness of second layer: 1 Material type for second layer: GRAVEL Material thickness of third layer: 0 Material type for third layer: GRAVEL Underdrain used Underdrain Diameter (feet): 6 Orifice Diameter (in.): 6 Offset (in.): 3 Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 6.185 Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 6.906 Percent Through Underdrain: 89.56 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 0.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 27.1 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Storm Capture 1 Biofilter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) 28]\1'~m Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0084 ~>Jo., ({oo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0495 0.0084 0:-('.}01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0989 o.0084 N 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.1484 0.008', 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.1978 0.0084 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.2473 0.0084 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.2967 0.0084 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.3462 0.0084 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.3956 0.0084 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.4451 0.0084 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.4945 0.0084 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.5440 0.0084 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.5934 0.0084 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.6429 0.0084 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000 0.6923 0.0084 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.7418 0.0084 0.0019 0.0000 0.0000 0.7912 0.0084 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.8407 0.0084 0.0021 0.0000 0.0000 0.8901 0.0084 0.0022 0.0000 0.0000 0.9396 0.0084 0.0024 0.0000 0.0000 0.9890 0.0084 0.0025 0.0000 0.0000 1.0385 0.0084 0.0026 0.0000 0.0000 1.0879 0.0084 0.0027 0.0000 0.0000 1.1374 0.0084 0.0029 0.0000 0.0000 1.1868 0.0084 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 1.2363 0.0084 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 1.2857 0.0084 0.0032 0.0000 0.0000 1.3352 0.0084 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000 1.3846 0.0084 0.0035 0.0000 0.0000 1.4341 0.0084 0.0036 0.0000 0.0000 1.4835 0.0084 0.0037 0.0000 0.0000 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/201 9 1 :46:49 PM Page 11 1.5330 0.0084 0.0039 0.0000 0.0000 1.5824 0.0084 0.0041 0.0000 0.0000 1.6319 0.0084 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 1.6813 0.0084 0.0044 0.0000 0.0000 1.7308 0.0084 0.0046 0.0000 0.0000 1.7802 0.0084 0.0047 0.0000 0.0000 1.8297 0.0084 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 1.8791 0.0084 0.0051 0.0000 0.0000 1.9286 0.0084 0.0053 0.0000 0.0000 1.9780 0.0084 0.0054 0.0000 0.0000 2.0275 0.0084 0.0056 0.0000 0.0000 2.0769 0.0084 0.0058 0.0000 0.0000 2.1264 0.0084 0.0059 0.0000 0.0000 2.1758 0.0084 0.0061 0.0000 0.0000 2.2253 0.0084 0.0063 0.0000 0.0000 2.2747 0.0084 0.0065 0.0000 0.0000 2.3242 0.0084 0.0066 0.0000 0.0000 2.3736 0.0084 0.0068 0.0000 0.0000 2.4231 0.0084 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 2.4725 0.0084 0.0071 0.0000 0.0000 2.5000 0.0084 0.0072 0.0000 0.0000 Biofilter Hydraulic Table /( Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)l}~~~(cfs)To Amended(cfs)lnfilt(cfs) 2.5000 0.0084 0.0072 0,~~00 0.0435 0.0000 2.5495 0.0084 0.0077 .o~Q_O 0.0435 0.0000 2.5989 0.0084 0.0081 t 0 {2900 0.0449 0.0000 2.6484 0.0084 0.0085./) e,0000 0.0463 0.0000 2.6978 0.0084 0.008" V. -0.0000 0.0477 0.0000 2.7473 0.0084 O;QO©@ 0.0000 0.0491 0.0000 2.7967 0.0084 Q"Q,Q'§~) 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 2.8462 0.0084 O.~QJ 0.0000 0.0519 0.0000 2.8956 0.0084 0.010 0.0000 0.0532 0.0000 2.9451 0.0084 0.0110 0.0000 0.0546 0.0000 2.9945 0.0084 0.0114 0.0000 0.0560 0.0000 3.0440 0.0084 0.0118 0.0000 0.0574 0.0000 3.0934 0.0084 0.0122 0.0009 0.0588 0.0000 3.1429 0.0084 0.0126 0.0011 0.0602 0.0000 3.1923 0.0084 0.0130 0.0016 0.0616 0.0000 3.2418 0.0084 0.0134 0.0021 0.0630 0.0000 3.2912 0.0084 0.0139 0.0027 0.0644 0.0000 3.3407 0.0084 0.0143 0.0034 0.0657 0.0000 3.3901 0.0084 0.0147 0.0042 0.0671 0.0000 3.4396 0.0084 0.0151 0.0051 0.0685 0.0000 3.4890 0.0084 0.0155 0.0062 0.0699 0.0000 3.5385 0.0084 0.0159 0.0073 0.0713 0.0000 3.5879 0.0084 0.0163 0.0086 0.0727 0.0000 3.6374 0.0084 0.0167 0.0100 0.0741 0.0000 3.6868 0.0084 0.0172 0.0115 0.0755 0.0000 3.7363 0.0084 0.0176 0.0132 0.0769 0.0000 3.7857 0.0084 0.0180 0.0149 0.0782 0.0000 3.8352 0.0084 0.0184 0.0169 0.0796 0.0000 3.8846 0.0084 0.0188 0.0189 0.0810 0.0000 3.9341 0.0084 0.0192 0.0212 0.0824 0.0000 3.9835 0.0084 0.0196 0.0235 0.0838 0.0000 4.0330 0.0084 0.0201 0.0260 0.0852 0.0000 4.0824 0.0084 0.0205 0.0287 0.0866 0.0000 4.1319 0.0084 0.0209 0.0316 0.0880 0.0000 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/20191:46:49 PM Page 12 4.1813 0.0084 0.0213 0.0332 0.0894 0.0000 4.2308 0.0084 0.0217 0.0377 0.0907 0.0000 4.2802 0.0084 0.0221 0.0393 0.0921 0.0000 4.3297 0.0084 0.0225 0.0421 0.0935 0.0000 4.3791 0.0084 0.0229 0.0421 0.0949 0.0000 4.4286 0.0084 0.0234 0.0421 0.0963 0.0000 4.4780 0.0084 0.0238 0.0421 0.0977 0.0000 4.5000 0.0084 0.0240 0.0421 0.0983 0.0000 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:49 PM Page 13 Surface Biofi lter 2 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Storm Capture 1 Biofilter 2 CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:49 PM Page 14 Storm Capture 1 Dimensions Depth: Length: Width: Infiltration On 2 ft. 540 ft. 7 ft. Infiltration rate: 0.05 Infiltration safety factor: 1 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: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Notch Type: Notch Width: Notch Height: 1.92 ft. 12 in. Rectangular 0.080 ft. 0.500 ft. 9.507 17.222 26.729 35.57 0 0 Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.75 in. Eleva ·on:0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 SCapture Hydraulic T abl . \;:;> ~ Stage(feet) Area(ac.) V V I me(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.086~ 0.000 0.0222 0.086 0.001 0.0444 0.086 0.003 0.0667 0.086 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.0889 0.086 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.1111 0.086 0.009 0.005 0.004 0.1333 0.086 0.011 0.005 0.004 0.1556 0.086 0.013 0.006 0.004 0.1778 0.086 0.015 0.006 0.004 0.2000 0.086 0.017 0.006 0.004 0.2222 0.086 0.019 0.007 0.004 0.2444 0.086 0.021 0.007 0.004 0.2667 0.086 0.023 0.007 0.004 0.2889 0.086 0.025 0.008 0.004 0.3111 0.086 0.027 0.008 0.004 0.3333 0.086 0.028 0.008 0.004 0.3556 0.086 0.030 0.009 0.004 0.3778 0.086 0.032 0.009 0.004 0.4000 0.086 0.034 0.009 0.004 0.4222 0.086 0.036 0.009 0.004 0.4444 0.086 0.038 0.010 0.004 0.4667 0.086 0.040 0.010 0.004 0.4889 0.086 0.042 0.010 0.004 0.5111 0.086 0.044 0.010 0.004 0.5333 0.086 0.046 0.011 0.004 0.5556 0.086 0.048 0.011 0.004 0.5778 0.086 0.050 0.011 0.004 0.6000 0.086 0.052 0.011 0.004 0.6222 0.086 0.054 0.012 0.004 CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:49 PM Page 15 0.6444 0.086 0.055 0.012 0.004 0.6667 0.086 0.057 0.012 0.004 0.6889 0.086 0.059 0.012 0.004 0.7111 0.086 0.061 0.012 0.004 0.7333 0.086 0.063 0.013 0.004 0.7556 0.086 0.065 0.013 0.004 0.7778 0.086 0.067 0.013 0.004 0.8000 0.086 0.069 0.013 0.004 0.8222 0.086 0.071 0.013 0.004 0.8444 0.086 0.073 0.014 0.004 0.8667 0.086 0.075 0.014 0.004 0.8889 0.086 0.077 0.014 0.004 0.9111 0.086 0.079 0.014 0.004 0.9333 0.086 0.081 0.014 0.004 0.9556 0.086 0.082 0.014 0.004 0.9778 0.086 0.084 0.015 0.004 1.0000 0.086 0.086 0.015 0.004 1.0222 0.086 0.088 0.015 0.004 1.0444 0.086 0.090 0.015 0.004 1.0667 0.086 0.092 0.015 0.004 1.0889 0.086 0.094 0.015 0.004 1.1111 0.086 0.096 0.016 0.004 1.1333 0.086 0.098 0.016 0.004 1.1556 0.086 0.1 t½0Q 0.016 0.004 1.1778 0.086 0.1 ', 0.016 0.004 1.2000 0.086 ~-:--1,0~4 0.016 0.004 1.2222 0.086 -'W2 0.016 0.004 1.2444 0.086 ~>)0,j ~8 0.017 0.004 1.2667 0.086 0J 09 0.017 0.004 1.2889 0.086~ 0.1 11 0.017 0.004 1.3111 o.086 N o.113 0.017 0.004 1.3333 0.086 0.115 0.017 0.004 1.3556 0.086 0.117 0.017 0.004 1.3778 0.086 0.119 0.017 0.004 1.4000 0.086 0.121 0.018 0.004 1.4222 0.086 0.123 0.018 0.004 1.4444 0.086 0.125 0.019 0.004 1.4667 0.086 0.127 0.021 0.004 1.4889 0.086 0.129 0.023 0.004 1.5111 0.086 0.131 0.026 0.004 1.5333 0.086 0.133 0.028 0.004 1.5556 0.086 0.135 0.032 0.004 1.5778 0.086 0.136 0.035 0.004 1.6000 0.086 0.138 0.038 0.004 1.6222 0.086 0.140 0.042 0.004 1.6444 0.086 0.142 0.046 0.004 1.6667 0.086 0.144 0.050 0.004 1.6889 0.086 0.146 0.055 0.004 1.7111 0.086 0.148 0.059 0.004 1.7333 0.086 0.150 0.063 0.004 1.7556 0.086 0.152 0.068 0.004 1.7778 0.086 0.154 0.073 0.004 1.8000 0.086 0.156 0.078 0.004 1.8222 0.086 0.158 0.083 0.004 1.8444 0.086 0.160 0.088 0.004 1.8667 0.086 0.162 0.093 0.004 1.8889 0.086 0.163 0.098 0.004 1.9111 0.086 0.165 0.103 0.004 CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:49 PM Page 16 1.9333 1.9556 1.9778 2.0000 CFA18050(2) 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.086 0.1 67 0.169 0.171 0.173 0.122 0.177 0.253 0.345 7/9/2019 1 :46:49 PM 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 Page 17 Analysis Results POC 1 0.49 ~------~-------- 'i O 0.37 " ~ 0261-----1---11>---------- J ., IL o.14f---~---...-------- 11E•J 11E·2 IIE·l 10 100 , .• I C.nwli·,. •-ty I ,., +------ P c.t.r 04i!llnt. "Tlme E.x.cEt-.c:llng 0.5 I 2 S I') 21) J) ~ 70 SO 9) t-5 ~ 9} 9-H I + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0.939 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 ~ Total Pervious Area: 0.182 Total Impervious Area: 0.757 (<~ Flow Frequency Method: _wei\0 Flow Frequency Return Pe.9-~tt~\for\R·redeveloped. Return Period ~l!w '$,f.s) 2 year :--{)\:,; 2~23 5 year ('\Ot.5Y 7038 10 year "."'vl-.490837 25 year 0.677956 POC#1 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.018 5 year 0.0672 10 year 0.139321 25 year 0.235251 CFA18050(2) 7/9/201 9 1:46:49 PM Page 18 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0193 385 424 110 Pass 0.0240 287 296 103 Pass 0.0288 263 248 94 Pass 0.0336 233 198 84 Pass 0.0383 209 167 79 Pass 0.0431 192 133 69 Pass 0.0479 184 115 62 Pass 0.0526 170 100 58 Pass 0.0574 158 80 50 Pass 0.0622 147 68 46 Pass 0.0669 135 58 42 Pass 0.0717 124 51 41 Pass 0.0764 118 47 39 Pass 0.0812 109 38 34 Pass 0.0860 101 35 34 Pass 0.0907 93 26 27 Pass 0.0955 88 20 4 Pass 0.1003 84 17 <20 Pass 0.1050 81 15 \8 Pass 0.1098 78 13 <16 Pass 0.1 145 76 12 N5 Pass 0.1193 70 12 \/ 7 Pass 0.1241 65 t, 16 Pass 0.1288 62 16 Pass 0.1336 57 ~~ 17 Pass 0.1384 53 15 Pass 0.1431 48 12 Pass 0.1479 47 12 Pass 0.1527 43 6 13 Pass 0.1574 43 6 13 Pass 0.1622 40 6 15 Pass 0.1669 39 6 15 Pass 0.1717 38 5 13 Pass 0.1765 36 5 13 Pass 0.1812 36 5 13 Pass 0.1 860 34 5 14 Pass 0.1908 32 4 12 Pass 0.1955 28 4 14 Pass 0.2003 26 4 15 Pass 0.2050 26 4 15 Pass 0.2098 26 3 11 Pass 0.2146 24 2 8 Pass 0.2193 22 2 9 Pass 0.2241 22 2 9 Pass 0.2289 22 2 9 Pass 0.2336 19 2 10 Pass 0.2384 19 2 10 Pass 0.2432 18 2 11 Pass 0.2479 18 2 11 Pass 0.2527 18 2 11 Pass 0.2574 18 2 11 Pass 0.2622 17 2 11 Pass 0.2670 16 2 12 Pass CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:58 PM Page 19 0.2717 16 2 12 Pass 0.2765 16 2 12 Pass 0.2813 16 2 12 Pass 0.2860 15 2 13 Pass 0.2908 14 2 14 Pass 0.2955 14 2 14 Pass 0.3003 14 2 14 Pass 0.3051 14 2 14 Pass 0.3098 14 2 14 Pass 0.3146 14 2 14 Pass 0.3194 12 2 16 Pass 0.3241 10 2 20 Pass 0.3289 10 2 20 Pass 0.3337 10 2 20 Pass 0.3384 10 2 20 Pass 0.3432 9 2 22 Pass 0.3479 9 2 22 Pass 0.3527 9 2 22 Pass 0.3575 9 2 22 Pass 0.3622 9 2 22 Pass 0.3670 9 2 22 Pass 0.3718 8 2 j5 Pass 0.3765 8 2 Pass 0.3813 8 2 ~ Pass 0.3860 8 2 ~;i Pass 0.3908 8 2 Pass 0.3956 7 2 8 Pass 0.4003 7 ~ 28 Pass 0.4051 6 33 Pass 0.4099 6 ~ 33 Pass 0.4146 6 33 Pass 0.4194 6 33 Pass 0.4242 6 33 Pass 0.4289 6 2 33 Pass 0.4337 6 2 33 Pass 0.4384 6 2 33 Pass 0.4432 6 1 16 Pass 0.4480 6 1 16 Pass 0.4527 6 1 16 Pass 0.4575 6 1 16 Pass 0.4623 6 0 0 Pass 0.4670 6 0 0 Pass 0.4718 6 0 0 Pass 0.4765 6 0 0 Pass 0.4813 6 0 0 Pass 0.4861 5 0 0 Pass 0.4908 4 0 0 Pass CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:58 PM Page 20 Water Qua lity CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:58 PM Page 21 POC2 POC #2 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:46:58 PM Page 22 POC3 POC #3 was not reported because POC must exist in both scenarios and both scenarios must have been run. CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:58 PM 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. CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :46:58 PM Page 24 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic CFA 18050(2) Basin 1 0.94ac 7/9/2019 1:46:58 PM Page 25 Mitigated Schematic CFA 18050(2) orm apture 1 7/9/2019 1:47:00 PM Page 26 Predeveloped UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 START model simulation 1959 10 01 OUTPUT LEVEL RUN INTERP RESUME END GLOBAL FILES 0 RUN 1 END 2004 09 30 3 0 UNIT SYSTEM 1 <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> WDM MESSU 26 25 27 28 30 END FILES OPN SEQUENCE CFA18050(2) .wdm PreCFA18050(2) .MES PreCFA18050(2) .L61 PreCFA18050(2) .L62 POCCFA18050(2)1 .dat INGRP INDELT 00 :60 PERLND 40 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 ~ END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE *** DISPLY ~ DI:PLY-!~~~=-------Title--------->***TRAN PIVL DIGl FILl PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFOl END DISPLY COPY TIMES ERIES # -# NPT 1 1 501 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD END OPCODE PARM # # END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO *** K *** <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS # -# 40 B,Urban,Flat 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY Unit-systems User t-series in out 1 1 1 Printer Engl Metr 27 0 *** *** *** <PLS >*************Active Sections***************************** # -# ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 40 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS >*****************Print-flags***************************** # -# ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NI TR PHOS TRAC 40 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PRINT-INFO CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM PIVL PYR ********* 1 9 Page 27 PWAT-PARMl parameter value flags *** <PLS > PWATER variable monthly # -# CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 40 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARMl PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 # -# ***FOREST LZSN INFILT 40 0 4 0.07 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS # - 40 > PWATER input info: Part 3 # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 0 0 2 <PLS > # -# PWATER input info : Part 4 CEPSC UZSN NSUR 40 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM 0 0 .6 0.03 *** LSUR SL SUR 50 0.05 *** INFILD DEEPFR 2 0 INTFW 1 IRC 0.3 <PLS > PWATER input info : Part 3 *** KVARY 2 .5 BASETP 0.05 *** LZETP *** 0 AGWRC 0.915 AGWETP 0.05 # -# JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 0.6 0.6 0.6 *** 40 0.6 0 .6 0.6 0.6 0 .7 &. 0.7 0.7 0.7 END MON-LZETPARM MON-INTERCEP ~ <PLS > PWATER input inf~•:,~P t *** # -# JAN FEB MAR APR MA JUN JUL AUG SEP 40 0.1 0.1 0.1 o~,...____ .) 0 .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 END MON-INTERCEP \/ PWAT-STATEl /":, <PLS >***Initial c~~j • ·sat start of simulation ran fromS)"7.'9~Q~~o end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) # -# *** CEPS/ ,\;URS uzs IFWS 40 o"'-._"'-._)) o 0.15 o END PWAT-STATE l V END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name -------> # -# END GEN-INFO *** Section I WATER*** ACTIVITY Unit-systems Printer User t-series Engl Metr in out OCT NOV DEC 0 .1 0.1 0 .1 RUN 21 *** LZS AGWS *** *** *** 1 0 .05 <PLS >*************Active Sectio ns***************************** # -# ATMP SNOW I WAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS >********Pri nt-flags ******** PIVL PYR # -# ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRI NT-I NFO I WAT-PARMl <PLS > IWATER vari able monthl y paramete r value f l ags *** # -# CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT -PARMl I WAT-PARM2 <PLS > I WATER input info: Part 2 *** # -# *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END I WAT-PARM2 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM *** GWVS 0 Page 28 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # -# ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEl <PLS >***Initial conditions at start of simulation # -# *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATEl END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # Basin l*** PERLND 40 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <--Area--> <-factor-> 0.935 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <Name> # <Name># #<-factor->strg COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--M~~~ <Name> # <Name># #<-fac o >strg END NETWORK RCHRES \/ <-Target-> <Name> # COPY 501 MBLK Tbl# 12 *** *** <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> <Name> # # <Name>## DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> <Name> # # <Name>## END GEN-~NFO S) *** Section RCHRES** Unit Systems User T-series in out Printer Engl Metr LKFG ACTIVITY <PLS >*************Active Sections***************************** # -# HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO PYR *** *** *** *** *** *** *** <PLS >*****************Print-flags******************* PIVL # -# HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL END PRINT-INFO PYR ********* HYDR-PARMl RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section # -# VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each*** ODGTFG for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * END HYDR-PARMl HYDR-PARM2 # -# FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS *** FUNCT for each possible exit *** DB50 <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section # -# *** VOL Initial value of COLIND *** ac-ft for each possible exit *** Initial value of OUTDGT for each possible exit <------><--------> END HYDR-INIT *** <---><---><---><---><---> END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 29 END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> WDM 2 PREC WDM 2 PREC WDM 1 EVAP WDM 1 EVAP WDM 22 IRRG END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <Name> # COPY 501 OUTPUT END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK # tern strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP ENGL 0.7 SAME PERLND 40 EXTNL SURLI <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name># #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tern strg strg*** MEAN 1 1 1 2.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL <Volume> <Name> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Name># #<-factor-> <Target> <Name> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name>##*** MASS -LINK PERLND PWATER END MASS -LINK END MASS-LINK END RUN CFA 18050(2) 12 SURO COPY INPUT MEAN 12 7/9/2019 1 :47:03 PM Page 30 Mitigated UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 START model simulation 1959 10 01 OUTPUT LEVEL RUN INTERP RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES END 2004 09 30 3 0 UNIT SYSTEM 1 <File> <Un#> <-ID-> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** *** WDM 26 MESSU 25 27 28 30 END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP PERLND IMPLND GENER RCHRES RCHRES GENER RCHRES RCHRES RCHRES COPY COPY DISPLY END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFOl CFA18050(2) .wdm MitCFA18050 (2) .MES MitCFA18050(2) .L61 MitCFA18050(2) .L62 POCCFA18050(2)1.dat 28 1 2 1 2 4 3 4 5 1 501 1 INDELT 00:60 # -#<----------Titv.e----------->***TRAN PIVL DIGl FILl 1 Storm Capture END DISPLY-INFOl END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # -# NPT 1 1 501 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # 2 4 # OPCD 24 24 END OPCODE PARM NMN 1 1 *** *** # # K *** 2 4 END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO 0. 0. 1 <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS # -# 28 D,NatVeg,Flat 1 END GEN -INFO *** Section PWATER*** CFA 18050(2) MAX Unit-systems User t -series i n out 1 1 1 Printer Engl Metr 27 0 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM PYR DI G2 FIL2 YRND *** *** *** 1 2 30 9 Page 31 ACTIVITY <PLS # - 28 >*************Active # ATMP SNOW PWAT SEO Sections***************************** PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS >*****************Print-flags***************************** # -# ATMP SNOW PWAT SEO PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC 28 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARMl <PLS > PWATER variable monthly # -# CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ 28 0 1 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARMl PWAT-PARM2 parameter value flags *** VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT 0 0 0 1 1 0 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # -# ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR 28 0 3 .3 0.03 100 0.05 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: *** *** KVARY 2.5 # -# ***PETMAX PETMIN INFILD DEEPFR BASETP 28 0 0 2 0 0.05 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input i ~v # -# CEPSC uz,5N INTFW IRC LZETP 28 0 ~-6 1 0 .3 0 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM <PLS > PWA~~ inp info: Part 3 *** # -# JAN FEB ~ APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 28 0.4 0.4 vi 0.4 0.6 0 .6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 END MON-LZETPARM MON-INTERCEP <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** *** PIVL PYR ********* 1 9 AGWRC 0.915 AGWETP 0.05 *** *** *** # -# JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 28 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0 .06 0 .1 0 .1 0.1 END MON-INTERCEP PWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** # -# *** 28 Initial ran from CEPS conditions at start 1990 to end of 1992 SURS UZS of simulation (pat 1 -11 -9 5 ) IFWS END PWAT-STATEl END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO 0 0 0.01 <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems # -# User t -series in out 1 IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1 1 1 END GEN-I NFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY 0 Printer Engl Metr 27 0 RUN 21 LZS 0.4 *** *** *** *** AGWS 0.01 <PLS # - >*************Active Sections # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ***************************** *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY CFA 18050(2) 7/9/20191:47:03 PM GWVS 0 Page 32 PRINT-INFO <ILS >********Print-flags # -# ATMP SNOW !WAT SLD 1 0 0 4 0 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARMl ******** PIVL PYR IWG IQAL ********* 0 0 1 9 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # -# CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTL! *** 1 0 0 0 0 1 END IWAT-PARMl IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER # -# *** LSUR 1 100 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER # -# ***PETMAX 1 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEl <PLS # - > *** # *** Initial RETS 1 END IWAT-STATEl END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # DMA-1*** PERLND 28 PERLND 28 IMPLND 1 Basin PERLND PERLND IMPLND 2*** 28 28 1 ******Routing****** RCHRES 2 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 4 RCHRES 4 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 5 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK 0 input info: Part 2 SLSUR NSUR 0 .05 0 .011 input info: Part 3 PETMIN 0 conditions at~rt SURS 0 ~ 00:~: 0.104 0.566 0.078 0.078 0.191 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RETSC 0.1 *** *** of simulation <-Target-> <Name> # RCHRES 1 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 3 RCHRES 5 COPY 1 RCHRES 5 COPY 1 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 5 COPY 1 RCHRES 5 COPY 1 RCHRES 4 COPY 501 MBLK Tbl# 2 3 5 2 3 5 6 16 7 17 8 6 16 7 17 8 17 *** *** <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 GENER 2 OUTPUT TI MSER .0002778 RCHRES 1 EXTNL OUTDGT 1 GENER 4 OUTPUT TIMSER .0002778 RCHRES 3 EXTNL OUTDGT 1 *** *** <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name># #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name>## *** END NETWORK CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 33 RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits # -#<------------------><---> 1 Surface Biofilte-020 3 2 Biofilter 1 1 3 Surface Biofilte-022 3 4 Biofilter 2 1 5 Storm Capture 1-025 2 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY Unit Systems Printer User T-seri es Engl Metr LKFG in out 1 1 1 28 0 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 <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 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO ******************* PYR *** *** *** <PLS > ***************** Print-fl_l~ # -# HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED (? L 1 4 0 0 0 1 OXRX 0 0 0 0 0 NUTR 0 0 0 0 0 PLNK 0 0 0 0 0 PHCB 0 0 0 0 0 PIVL PIVL 1 1 1 1 1 PYR ********* 9 2 4 0 0 0 ~, 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 Q,..____ 0 0 5 4 0 0 or\) 0 HYDR-PARMl V_ END PRI NT-INFO ~)l__ RCHRES Flags fa~~~ ~DR Section # -# VC Al A2 A3 op V~G for e~ch FG FG FG ~Cl bssible exit * * * * * * * * 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 END HYDR-PARMl HYDR-PARM2 # -# FTABNO LEN DELTH *** ODGTFG for each *** possible exit * * * * * 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STCOR KS 9 9 9 9 *** FUNCT for each possible exit *** 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 DB50 <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** *** 1 1 0.01 0 .0 0 .0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0 .01 0.0 0 .0 0.5 0 .0 3 3 0 .01 0.0 0 .0 0 .5 0 .0 4 4 0 .01 0.0 0.0 0 .5 0.0 5 5 0.1 0 .0 0 .0 0 .5 0 .0 END HYDR -PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial condit ions for each HYDR section *** # -# *** VOL Initial value of COLIND I n itial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft f or each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4 .0 5.0 6.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 4 .0 5 .0 6.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 4 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 o_o 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 5 0 4 .0 5.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS *** User-Define d Vari able Quantity Lines CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 34 *** *** addr *** kwd varnam optyp opn vari sl s2 s3 tp multipl y le ls ac as agfn *** <****> <----> <----> <-> <----><-><-><-><-><--------> <><-> <><-> <--> *** UVQUAN vol2 RCHRES UVQUAN v2m2 GLOBAL UVQUAN vpo2 GLOBAL UVQUAN v2d2 GENER *** User-Defined Variable *** *** 2 VOL WORKSP WORKSP 2 K Quantity addr <------> 4 1 3 2 3 1 3 Lines *** kwd varnam <****> <----> optyp opn vari sl s2 s3 tp multiply le ls ac as agfn *** UVQUAN vol4 UVQUAN v2m4 UVQUAN vpo4 UVQUAN v2d4 <----> RCHRES GLOBAL GLOBAL GENER <-> 4 4 VOL WORKSP 3 WORKSP 4 *** User-Defined *** K 1 Target Variable Names addr or *** <------> 4 3 3 3 addr or <------> <><-> *** *** kwd varnam ct vari sl s2 s3 frac aper vari sl s2 s3 frac oper <****> <----><-> <----><-><-><-> <---> <--> <----><-><-><-> <---> <--> UVNAME v2m2 1 WORKSP 1 1.0 QUAN UVNAME vpo2 1 WORKSP 2 1.0 QUAN UVNAME v2d2 1 K 1 1.0 QUAN *** addr or addr or *** User-Defined Target Variable Nam~ *** <-> ~ <------> **:*~:~> ::=~::<=~ <~~~~::::<:~<:W =:> ~~=~ <~:=~><::<::<:! <:=:~ ~~=~ UVNAME v2m4 1 WORKSP 3 ~1 .0 QUAN UVNAME vpo4 1 WORKSP 4 \) 1. 0 QUAN UVNAME v2d4 1 K ~ii, 1. 0 QUAN *** opt foplop dcdts yr 6)d d t vnam sl s2 s3 ac quantity tc ts rp ~;;;;><-;<--><><->/~--> < s ~> <><><> ~;~;-><-><-><-><-><~;~~----> <> <-><-> *** Compute remainir'J'.g(a~J ole pore space GENER 2 "-..V vpo2 v2m2 GENER 2 vpo2 vol2 *** Check to see if VPORA goes negative; if so set VPORA = 0.0 IF (vpo2 < 0.0) THEN GENER 2 vpo2 0.0 END IF *** Infiltration volume GENER 2 *** opt foplop dcdts yr mo dy hr mn d t <****><-><--><><-><--> <> <> <> <><><> GENER 4 v2d2 vpo2 vnam sl s2 s3 ac quantity tc ts rp <----><-><-><-><-><--------> <> <-><-> v2m4 295. *** Compute remaining available pore GENER 4 space GENER 4 *** Check to see if VPORA goes negative; IF (vpo4 < 0.0) THEN GENER 4 END IF *** Infiltration GENER 4 volume END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 63 4 Depth (ft) 0.000000 0.040330 0.080659 0.120989 0.161319 0.201648 0.241978 2 Area (acres) 0 .017883 0.017883 0.017883 0.017883 0.017883 0.017883 0.017883 Volume (acre-ft) 0.000000 0.000216 0.000433 0.000649 0 .000865 0.001082 0.001298 Outflowl (cfs) 0.000000 0 .000000 0.000000 0.000000 0 .000000 0 .000000 0.000000 vpo4 vpo4 if so vpo4 v2d4 v2m4 vol4 set VPORA = 0.0 0.0 vpo4 Velocity (ft/sec) Travel Time*** (Minutes)*** CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 35 0.282308 0.322637 0 .362967 0.403297 0 .443626 0.483956 0.524286 0.564615 0.604945 0 .645275 0 .685604 0.725934 0.766264 0.806593 0 .846923 0. 887253 0 .927582 0.967912 1.008242 1.048571 1 .088901 1.129231 1 .169560 1.209890 1 .250220 1.290549 1 .330879 1 .371209 1 .411538 1.451 868 1.492198 1 .532 527 1 .572857 1 .613187 1 .653516 1.693846 1 .7341 76 1 .774505 1.814835 1.855165 1.895495 1.935824 1.976154 2.016484 2. 056813 2.097143 2 .137473 2 .177802 2 . 218132 2.258462 2 .298791 2.339121 2.379451 2.419780 2.460110 2.500000 END FTABLE FTABLE 31 6 Depth Time *** (ft) (Minutes)*** 0.017883 0 .001515 0 .000000 0.017883 0 .001731 0.000000 0.017883 0 .001947 0 .000000 0.017883 0.002164 0.000000 0 .017883 0.002380 0 .000000 0 .017883 0.002596 0.000000 0 .017883 0.002813 0.000000 0.017883 0 .003029 0.000000 0.017883 0.003246 0.002034 0.017883 0 .003462 0.002355 0.017883 0.003678 0 .003083 0 .017883 0.003895 0.003935 0 .017883 0.004111 0.004916 0 .017883 0.004327 0.006033 0.017883 0.004544 0.007291 0 .017883 0.004760 0.008696 0 .017883 0.004976 0.010252 0.017883 0.005193 0.011 967 0 .017883 0.005409 0.01 3843 0.017883 0.005626 0.015887 0.017883 0 .005842 0.018102 0.017883 0.006058 0.020494 0 .017883 0.006275 0 .023067 0 .017883 0.006491 0.025826 0 .017883 0.006707 0.028773 0 .017883 0.006924 0.03 1J'1B 0.017883 0.007140 0 .03<°~~~ 0.017883 0 .007357 O .fa~ 7 0 .017883 0.007573 Q({e(,µ?41 0 .017883 0 .007789 o\.¾6497 o. 011883 o. 00800~ ----.o__.o'Q.0~65 0. 0 1 7883 0 . 00830!3],0 ~-~5050 0.01 7883 O.OJ 86~4 0--:0-59655 0 • 0 1 7883 0 •<'!0,9994 I • 064484 0.01 7883 0.0~0~ 0.069538 ~: ~~ ;::3~0 ~o:~.~; ~: ~;6~;~ 0.01 7883 ~-..y 101 0 .082049 0 .017883 ~ 0400 0 .090162 0 .017883 0.010699 0 .090162 0 .017883 0 .010999 0.090162 0.017883 0 .0 11298 0.090162 0 .017883 0.011597 0 .090162 0.017883 0 .011897 0 .090162 0.017883 0 .012196 0.090162 0.017883 0 .012495 0.0901 62 0 .017883 0 .012795 0 .090162 0 .017883 0 .0 13094 0.090162 0.017883 0.013393 0 .090162 0.017883 0 .0 1 3693 0.090162 0.017883 0 .013992 0 .090162 0.017883 0.014291 0 .090162 0 .017883 0.014590 0.090162 0 .017883 0.014890 0 .090162 0 .017883 0.015189 0.090162 0 .017883 0.03251 9 0 .090162 2 1 Area (acres) Volume Outflowl (acre-ft) (cfs) 0.000000 0.017883 0 .040 330 0 .017883 0.080659 0 .017883 0 .120989 0.017883 0 .16 1 319 0.017883 0 .201648 0.017883 0 .241978 0.017883 0.000000 0.000721 0.001442 0.002164 0 .002885 0.003606 0.004327 0 .000000 0 .000000 0 .000000 0.000000 0.000000 0 .000000 0 .000000 Outflow2 outflow (cfs) (cfs) 0.000000 0 .000000 0.092586 0 .000000 0 .095010 0 .000000 0.097435 0.000000 0 .099859 0 .000000 0.1 02283 0 .000000 0.104707 0 .000000 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/201 9 1:47:03 PM 3 Velocity Trave l (ft/sec) Page 36 0.282308 0.017883 0.005049 0 .000000 0.107131 0.000000 0.322637 0.017883 0.005770 0.000000 0.109555 0 .000000 0.362967 0.017883 0.006491 0.000000 0 .111979 0.000000 0.403297 0.017883 0.007212 0.000000 0 .114403 0.000000 0 .443626 0.017883 0 .007934 0.000000 0 .116828 0.000000 0.483956 0.017883 0.008655 0.000000 0. 119252 0.000000 0.524286 0.017883 0.009376 0.090729 0.121676 0.000000 0.564615 0.017883 0.010097 0.393444 0 .124100 0.000000 0 . 604945 0.017883 0.010818 0.813776 0.126524 0.000000 0.645275 0.017883 0.011540 1.324073 0.128948 0.000000 0 .685604 0.017883 0.012261 1.909104 0.131372 0.000000 0 . 725934 0.017883 0 .012982 2.557879 0.133797 0.000000 0.766264 0 .017883 0.013703 3.261166 0.136221 0.000000 0.806593 0.017883 0.014425 4 .010432 0.138645 0 .000000 0 .846923 0.017883 0.015146 4.797350 0.141069 0.000000 0.887253 0.017883 0.015867 5.613548 0.143493 0 .000000 0 .927582 0.017883 0.016588 6. 450513 0.145917 0.000000 0.967912 0 .017883 0 .017310 7 .299574 0.148341 0.000000 1.008242 0 .017883 0 .018031 8.151957 0.150766 0.000000 1.048571 0.017883 0.018752 8.998863 0.153190 0.000000 1.088901 0.017883 0.019473 9.831606 0 .155614 0 .000000 1.129231 0.017883 0.020194 10.64175 0.158038 0 .000000 1.169560 0.017883 0.020916 11. 42130 0.160462 0.000000 1.170000 0.017883 0.020924 12.16288 0.160489 0.000000 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 4 52 4 Depth Area Volume O~~~~elocity Travel Time*** ( ft) (acres) (acre-ft) ~-~ ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0 .000000 0 .008356 0. 000000 0 0~000 0 .049451 0.008356 0.00012~. • 000 0.098901 0.008356 0. 00024 ~~9,-000 0.148352 0.008356 0.000~12 ".o'ooooo 0.197802 0 . 008356 0. -~<M96 . 000000 0.247253 0.008356 0.~~~0'6,2.0 0.000000 0. 296703 0. 00835~0. (),0 • 7•j4 0 . 000000 0.346154 0. 00835 • ~-' D'p • 8 0 . 000000 0 .395604 0 . 008356 • i 0992 0 . 000000 0 .445055 0.008356 0}01116 0.000000 0.494505 0 .008356 0.001240 0.000000 0.543956 0 .008356 0 . 001364 0.000000 0.593407 0.008356 0.001488 0.000942 0 .642857 0.008356 0.001612 0. 001126 0 .692308 0.008356 0.001736 0.001558 0.741758 0.008356 0.001860 0.002077 0.791209 0 .008356 0.001983 0 .002689 0.840659 0.008356 0.002107 0 .003399 0 .890110 0.008356 0.002231 0.004213 0.939560 0.008356 0.002355 0.005134 0.989011 0 .008356 0.002479 0.006167 1.038462 0.008356 0 .002603 0.007317 1.087912 0.008356 0.002727 0.008587 1.137363 0.008356 0.002851 0 .009981 1.186813 0.008356 0.002975 0 .011504 1.236264 0 .008356 0.003099 0 .013158 1.285714 0.008356 0 .003223 0 .014948 1 .335165 0.008356 0 .003347 0. 016877 1.384615 0 .008356 0.003471 0.018948 1.43 4066 0.008356 0 .003595 0.021165 1.483516 0 .008356 0. 003719 0.023530 1. 532967 0.008356 0.003890 0 .026048 1.582418 0.008356 0.004062 0 .028720 1 .631868 0.008356 0.004233 0.031550 1. 681319 0.008356 0.004405 0 .033168 1.730769 0 .008356 0 .004576 0.037692 1.780220 0 .008356 0.004748 0.039329 1.829670 0.008356 0.004919 0 .042130 1.879121 0.008356 0.005091 0.042130 1.928571 0.008356 0.005262 0.042130 1.978022 0.008356 0 .005434 0 .042130 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 37 2.027473 0.008356 0.005605 0.042130 2 .076923 0.008356 0.005777 0 . 042130 2.126374 0 .008356 0.005948 0. 042130 2.175824 0.008356 0 .006120 0 .042130 2.225275 0.008356 0 .006291 0.042130 2 .274725 0.008356 0.006463 0.042130 2.324176 0.008356 0.006634 0.042130 2.373626 0.008356 0.006806 0.042130 2.423077 0 .008356 0 .006977 0. 042130 2.472527 0.008356 0.007149 0.042130 2.500000 0 .008356 0 .0 15212 0 .042130 END FTABLE 4 FTABLE 3 42 6 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 outflow 3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0 .000000 0.008356 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0 .049451 0.008356 0. 000413 0.000000 0.043519 0.000000 0.098901 0.008356 0 .000826 0.000000 0.044907 0.000000 0.148352 0.008356 0 .001240 0 .000000 0.046296 0.000000 0.1 97802 0.008356 0.001653 0 .000000 0.047685 0.000000 0. 247253 0.008356 0.002066 0.000000 0.049074 0 .000000 0.296703 0 .008356 0.002479 0.000000 0.050463 0.000000 0.346154 0.008356 0.002893 0. 00~·9,0 0 . 051852 0.000000 0.395604 0.008356 0 .003306 o.0~610~0~0.053241 0.000000 0.445055 0.008356 0.003719 0 .0~' 0 ' 0 .054630 0.000000 0.494505 0 .008356 0 .004132 ~ /, to~•-oo 0.056019 0.000000 0.543956 0.008356 0.004545 835 0.057407 0.000000 0.593407 0.008356 0.00495!--........~~479 0 .058796 0 .000000 0.642857 0.008356 0.0053~\i,:/4{'9 254 0.060185 0 .000000 0.692308 0. 008356 0 . 0'600.S--7· 5 ~. 0 2784 0.061574 0.000000 0.741758 0.008356 0. ·~~ 8 .827810 0.062963 0.000000 0.791209 0 .008356 o.~~o 6~~ 3.719715 0.064352 0.000000 0 .840659 0.008356~0~(};~5 4 .672998 0 .065741 0.000000 0.890110 0. 00835~0 ~-OU~ 8 5 .672260 0. 067130 0.000000 0.939560 0.008356 0"90 851 6.70181 8 0.068519 0.000000 0.989011 0.008356 ''<}>08264 7.745651 0 .069907 0.000000 1.038462 0 .008356 0.008678 8 .787553 0. 071296 0.000000 1 .087912 0.008356 0.009091 9 .811421 0 . 072685 0.000000 1.137363 0 .008356 0 .009504 10. 80165 0.074074 0.000000 1.186813 0 .008356 0.009917 11.74359 0.075463 0.000000 1 .236264 0 .008356 0.010331 12. 62413 0.076852 0 .000000 1.285714 0.008356 0.010744 13.43226 0.078241 0.000000 1.335165 0.008356 0. 011157 14 .15972 0.079630 0.000000 1.384615 0 .008356 0 .011570 14.80175 0.081019 0.000000 1.434066 0 .008356 0. 011983 15.35779 0.082407 0 .000000 1.483516 0.008356 0.012397 15.83232 0.083796 0.000000 1. 532967 0.008356 0.012810 16.23562 0 .085185 0 .000000 1.582418 0.008356 0. 013223 16 .58469 0.086574 0.000000 1.631868 0.008356 0.013636 17.08966 0.087963 0.000000 1.681319 0.008356 0.014050 17.45899 0.089352 0.000000 1.730769 0 .008356 0.014463 17.82067 0.090741 0 .000000 1.780220 0 .008356 0.014876 18.17515 0.092130 0.000000 1.829670 0.008356 0 .015289 18.52284 0.093519 0.000000 1.879121 0.008356 0 .015702 18.86413 0.094907 0.000000 1. 928571 0.008356 0. 016116 19.19935 0 .096296 0.000000 1.978022 0.008356 0.016529 19.52882 0 .097685 0.000000 2.000000 0.008356 0.016713 19.85283 0.098303 0.000000 END FTABLE 3 FTABLE 5 92 5 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 Velocity Tr avel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cf s) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.086777 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.022222 0 .086777 0.002020 0.002275 0.004375 0.044444 0 .086777 0 .003967 0 .003218 0.004375 0.066667 0.086777 0. 005896 0 .003941 0.004375 0 .088889 0.086777 0.007824 0.004551 0.004375 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 38 0. 111111 0 .086777 0 .009752 0.005088 0.004375 0 . 133333 0.086777 0. 011681 0.005574 0.004375 0.155556 0.086777 0 . 013609 0 .006020 0.004375 0.177778 0. 086777 0 .015537 0.006436 0.004375 0.200000 0.086777 0 .017466 0 .006826 0.004375 0.222222 0.086777 0 .019394 0.007196 0.004375 0.244444 0.086777 0.021323 0.007547 0.004375 0.266667 0.086777 0.023251 0.007883 0 .004375 0.288889 0.086777 0.025179 0 .008204 0.004375 0.311111 0.086777 0. 027108 0.008514 0 .004375 0.333333 0 .086777 0.029036 0. 008813 0 .004375 0.355556 0 . 086777 0 .030964 0 .009102 0.004375 0.377778 0.086777 0 .032893 0.009382 0.004375 0 .400000 0.086777 0.034821 0. 009654 0.004375 0 .422222 0.086777 0.036750 0.009919 0 .004375 0 .444444 0.086777 0.038678 0 .010176 0 .004375 0.466667 0.086777 0.040606 0 .010428 0.004375 0.488889 0 .086777 0.042535 0 .010673 0.004375 0. 511111 0 .086777 0.044463 0 . 010913 0.004375 0 .533333 0.086777 0 .046391 0.011148 0.004375 0 .555556 0.086777 0 .048320 0.011377 0 .004375 0.5777 78 0.086777 0.050248 0.011603 0 .004375 0.600000 0.086777 0.052177 0. 011824 0 .004375 0.622222 0.086777 0 .054105 0.012041 0.004375 0.644444 0.086777 0.056033 0.012254 0.004375 0.666667 0.086777 0 . 057962 0.012j-62~ 0 .004375 0 .688889 0.086777 0.059890 0. O~-,,~ ~O. 004375 0. 711111 0.086777 0.061818 ~'~ 87Q 0 .004375 0.733333 0.086777 0.063747 .0~~~72 0 .004375 0.755556 0.086777 0 .065675 0 i 268 0 .004375 0.777778 0 .086777 0.06760!,,..._____NN~~462 0.004375 0.800000 0 . 086777 0. 06953 ~. ', 653 0 . 004375 0.822222 o.086777 o.oi r~~o ,.o 3841 0 .004375 0 .844444 0. 086777 0. 0 ~· 9 '. 014027 0 .004375 0.866667 0 .086777 O.~~'-~l ~ 0.014210 0.004375 0.888889 0 .0867771 0 ~5 0.014391 0 .004375 0. 911111 0. 086777.~0 ~' ~ 4 0. 014570 0.004375 0 .933333 0.086777 "98 102 0.014747 0 .004375 0 .955556 0 .086777 O-vJ~3031 0.014921 0 .004375 0.977778 0.086777 0.084959 0.015094 0 .004375 1.000000 0.086777 0 .086887 0.015264 0.004375 1 .022222 0. 086777 0.088816 0.015433 0 .004375 1.044444 0 .086777 0.090744 0.015600 0 .004375 1.066667 0.086777 0.092672 0.015765 0 .004375 1.088889 0 .086777 0 .094601 0.015928 0.004375 1.111111 0 .086777 0.096529 0 .016090 0.004375 1.133333 0 .086777 0.098458 0.016250 0 .004375 1.155556 0.086777 0.100386 0.016409 0 .004375 1.177778 0.086777 0.102314 0.016566 0 .004375 1.200000 0.086777 0.104243 0 .016721 0.004375 1.222222 0 .086777 0 .106171 0.016875 0.004375 1.244444 0.086777 0 .108099 0.017028 0.004375 1.266667 0 .086777 0 .110028 0.017180 0.004375 1 .288889 0.086777 0 .111956 0.017330 0.004375 1. 311111 0.086777 0.113885 0.017478 0.004375 1.333333 0 .086777 0 .115813 0 .017626 0.004375 1.355556 0.086777 0.117741 0.017772 0.004375 1.377778 0.086777 0 .119670 0.017917 0 .004375 1 .400000 0.086777 0.121598 0.018061 0.004375 1.422222 0.086777 0.123526 0.018232 0 .004375 1.444444 0.086777 0.125455 0 .019359 0 .004375 1.466667 0.086777 0.127383 0.021147 0.004375 1.488889 0.086777 0.129312 0.023376 0 .004375 1 . 511111 0.086777 0.131240 0.025957 0.004375 1 .533333 0 .086777 0 .133168 0.028835 0.004375 1.555556 0.086777 0.135097 0.03 1 973 0.004375 1.577778 0.086777 0.137025 0.035342 0 .004375 1.600000 0.086777 0.138953 0.038920 0.004375 1.622222 0.086777 0 .140882 0.042688 0.004375 1.644444 0.086777 0.142810 0 .046630 0.004375 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/20191:47:03 PM Page 39 1.666667 0.086777 0.144738 0.050732 1.688889 0.086777 0 .146667 0.054984 1. 711111 0.086777 0 .148595 0 .059374 1.733333 0.086777 0 .150524 0.063893 1 .755556 0.086777 0.152452 0 .068532 1 .777778 0.086777 0.154380 0 .073284 1.800000 0.086777 0.156309 0 .078140 1.822222 0.086777 0 .158237 0. 083096 1.844444 0.086777 0 .160165 0.088143 1.866667 0.086777 0.162094 0 .093277 1.888889 0.086777 0.164022 0 .098492 1.911111 0.086777 0.165951 0 .103783 1.933333 0.086777 0.167879 0 .122333 1.955556 0 .086777 0.169807 0 .177208 1.977778 0.086777 0.171736 0.253351 2.000000 0 .086777 0.173664 0.345629 2 .022222 0.086777 0.175592 0 .451047 END FTABLE 5 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <Name> # <Name> # tern strg<-factor->strg WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 ~ WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0 WDM 1 EVAP ENGL WDM 1 EVAP ENGL END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> < --Mult-->Tran <Name> # < <-factor->strg RCHRES 5 HYDR RO 1 1 1 RCHRES 5 HYDR 0 1 1 1 RCHRES 5 HYDR 0 2 1 1 RCHRES 5 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12 .1 COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12 .1 END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Name> <Name># #<-factor-> MASS -LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 6 RCHRES ROFLOW END MASS-LINK 6 MASS-LI NK 7 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 END MASS-LINK 7 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 0 .004375 0 .004375 0 .004375 0.004375 0.004375 0.004375 <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # # <Name> # # *** PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP RCHRES 1 EXTNL PREC RCHRES 3 EXTNL PREC RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV RCHRES 3 EXTNL POTEV RCHRES 4 EXTNL POTEV <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> tern strg strg*** WDM 1040 FLOW ENGL REPL WDM 1041 FLOW ENGL REPL WDM 1042 FLOW ENGL REPL WDM 1043 STAG ENGL REPL WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL <Target> <Name> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name>##*** RCHRES INFLOW IVOL RCHRES INFLOW IVOL RCHRES INFLOW IVOL RCHRES INFLOW RCHRES INFLOW IVOL CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 40 MASS-LINK 8 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 8 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 16 MASS-LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 17 END MASS-LINK END RUN CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:03 PM Page 41 Predeve/oped HSPF Message File \ \ CFA18050(2) 7/9/20191:47:03 PM Page 42 Mitigated HSPF Message File ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered high. Did you speci fy any ''special actions"? If so, they could account for it. Relevant data are: DATE/TIME: 1962/6/30 24: 0 RCHRES 1 RELERR -1.000E+00 Where: STORS STOR 0.00000 0.0000E+00 MATIN MATDIF 0.00000 2.6360E-12 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF. REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS is the storage of material in ~t -l:le pu at t he start of the present printout r eporting period. / MATIN is the total inflow of mata6il , the pu during the present printout reporting period. ~ MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-ut. ow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting pe~'-od. ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 /jl ~ The continuity error repb ~d-4 low is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered,))igh\"'-) Did you specify any ~l actions "? If so, they could account for it. Relevant data are: DATE/TIME : 1962/6/30 24: 0 RCHRES 3 RELERR -1 .000E+00 Where : STORS STOR 0 .00000 0.0000E+00 MATIN MATDIF 0.00000 l.9770E-12 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF. REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period. MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu dur i ng the present print out reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity error r eported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered high. Did you specify any "special actions"? If so, they could account for it. Relevant data are: CFA 18050(2) 7/9/20191:47:04 PM Page 43 DATE/TIME: 1963/6/30 24: 0 RCHRES 1 RELERR -1.000E+00 Where: STORS STOR 0.00000 0.0000E+00 MATIN MATDIF 0.00000 3.0345E-12 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF . REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period. MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered high. Did you specify any "special action~If so, they could account for i t . Relevant data are, ~'-\) ::::::IME, l::::R:/ 3 0 24 ~ ~ MATIN MATDIF -1. 000E+00 0. 00000 ~'~~~~O 0 . 00000 2 . 2759E-12 Where, ~ RELERR is the relative ~ror (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR -STORS) -MATDI F. REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is t he storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval . STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period. MATIN is the total inflow of material to t he pu during the present printout reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity e rror reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is t herefore considered high. Did you specify any "special acti ons"? If so, they could account for it. Relevant data are : DATE/TIME : 1976/6/30 24: 0 RCHRES 1 RELERR -3.697E-01 Where : STORS STOR 0.00000 0 .0000E+00 MATIN MATDIF 0 .00000 3 .7344E-12 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR -STORS) -MATDIF. CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1 :47:04 PM Page 44 REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material i n the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS is the storage of material i n the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period. MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered high. Did you specify any "special actions"? If so, they could account for it. Relevant data are: DATE/TIME: 1976/6/30 24: 0 RCHRES 3 RELERR -3.697E-01 STORS STOR 0.00000 0.0000E+00 MATIN MATDIF 0.00000 2.8008E-12 Where : ~ RELERR is the relative error (ERR9Rf' E ) . ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF .~-•~ REFVAL is the reference value (ST~ S+MATIN). STOR is the storage of mate(\~l..J.'N.."-he processing unit (l and-segment or reach/reservior) at the end Ol\1tf'l7i-Present int erval. ST?RS is the s~orage ?f ~at'~r~ in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting periodQ L MATI N is the total infl?i ,-f -m terial to the pu during the present print out reporting period. /;. ~': MATDIF is ~he net i n'i,_~)~f nfl?w-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout repo~ period. ----ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 a nd is therefore considered high. Did you specify any "special actions"? If so, they could account for it. Rel evant data are: DATE/TIME: 1977/7/31 24: 0 RCHRES 1 RELERR -1.000E+00 Where: STORS STOR 0.00000 0 .0000E+00 MATIN MATDIF 0.00000 1.2596E-11 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF. REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the star t of the present printout r eport ing period . MATIN is the total inflow of material to t he pu during the present p r intout reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (infl ow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period . ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 CFA 18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:04 PM Page 45 The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part i n 1000 and is therefore considered high . Did you specify any "special actions"? If so, they could account for it. Relevant data are: DATE/TIME: 1977/7/31 24: 0 RCHRES 3 RELERR -1.000E+00 Where: STORS STOR 0.00000 0.0000E+00 MATIN MATDIF 0.00000 9.4471E-12 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF. REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period . MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outf ~) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity error reported ~Lo t herefore considered high. \v' Did you specify any "sp~)ac , Relevant data are: ~~ DATE/TIME: 1982/ 6/3,~ J RCHRES : 1 V RELERR -1.000E+00 Where : STORS STOR 0 .00000 0.0000E+00 greater than 1 part in 1000 and is If so, they could account for it. MATIN MATDIF 0 .00000 3.7183E-12 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF. REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS i s the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period. MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporti ng period. -The count for the WARNING printed above has reached its maximum. If the condition i s encountered again the message will not be repeated. ERROR/WARNING ID: 238 1 The continuity error reported below is greater than 1 part in 1000 and is therefore considered high. Did you specify any "special actions"? If so, they could account for it. Relevant data are: CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:04 PM Page 46 DATE/TIME: 1982/6/30 24: 0 RCHRES 3 RELERR -1.000E+OO Where: STORS STOR 0.00000 O.OOOOE+OO MATIN MATDIF 0 .00000 2.7887E-1 2 RELERR is the relative error (ERROR/REFVAL). ERROR is (STOR-STORS) -MATDIF. REFVAL is the reference value (STORS+MATIN). STOR is the storage of material in the processing unit (land-segment or reach/reservior) at the end of the present interval. STORS is the storage of material in the pu at the start of the present printout reporting period. MATIN is the total inflow of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. MATDIF is the net inflow (inflow-outflow) of material to the pu during the present printout reporting period. The count for the WARNING printed above has reached its maximum. If the condition is encountered again the message will not be repeated. ::::~;:::,::9:~,1/ :·:,,: «~ RCHRES : 5 ~ The volume of water in thi s re,. -mi0eed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column o0 !1e l a t row of RCHTAB () . To continue the simulation the table ha5_~Jd .e rapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows . -!~~ wix usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being ca (Ub~ e it wil l also cause an error condition. Relevant data are: "-v NROWS Vl V2 VOL 92 7.5648E+03 7648 .8 7943.0 ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5 DATE/TIME: 1995/1/4 21: 0 RCHRES: 5 Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0 .0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was .extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable . Relevant data are : A B C RDEPl RDEP2 COUNT O.OOOOE+OO 7560.0 -3.405E+04 4 .5034 4.5034E+OO 2 CFA18050(2) 7/9/2019 1:47:04 PM Page 47 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright© by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2019; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1 (866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com CFA1 8050(2) 7/9/201 9 1:47:04 PM Page 48 ATTACHMENT 3 Structural BMP Maintenance Information Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Preliminary Design/Planning/CEQA level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: n Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7. 7 of the BMP Design Manual Final Design level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: n Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) o How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance o Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) o Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable □ Maintenance thresholds for BMPs subject to siltation or heavy trash(e.g., silt level posts or other markings shall be included in all BMP components that will trap and store sediment, trash, and/or debris, so that the inspector may determine how full the BMP is, and the maintenance personnel may determine where the bottom of the BMP is . If required, posts or other markings shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.) CJ Recommended equipment to perform maintenance □ When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit [Use the City's standard Single Sheet BMP Plan.]