Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2024-0069_2025.05.23_Draft EIR_Appendix O. Water Quality Management PlanSNUG HARBOR Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) Prepared for: Back Bay Barrels, LLC 3857 Birch Street, Suite 521 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-836-3055 Prepared By Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 15535 Sand Canyon, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 949.474.1960 www.fuscoe.com Project Manager Oriana Slasor P.E. Date Prepared: August 14, 2024 Date Revised: November 5, 2024 Project Number: 4206-001-01 ,~·~j , ..... ,4, E N G I N E E R I N G PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660, County of Orange TRACT, LOT NUMBERS, APPLICATION OR GRADING PERMIT NO: PENDING APN 119-200-38 & 119-200-41 Prepared for: Back Bay Barrels, LLC 3857 Birch Street, Suite 521 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-836-3055 Prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 949.474.1960 Oriana Slasor, P.E. Date Prepared: 8/14/2024 Date Revised: 11/5/2024 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC i Certification Page PROJECT OWNER’S CERTIFICATION Permit/Application No.: PENDING Grading Permit No.: PENDING Tract/Parcel Map and Lot(s)No.: PENDING Building Permit No.: PENDING Address of Project Site and APN: 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 APN 119-200-38 & 119-200-41 This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for BACK BAY BARRELS, LLC by FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan , including the ongoing operation and maintenance of all best management practices (BMPs), and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non- point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. OWNER: BACK BAY BARRELS, LLC Name: Adam Cleary Title: President Address: 3857 Birch Street, Suite 521, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email: adam@surffarm.com Telephone #: 949-836-3055 I understand my responsibility to implement the provisions of this WQMP including the ongoing operation and maintenance of the best management practices (BMPs) described herein. Owner Signature: Date: I I Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC ii Certification Page Preparer (Engineer): Oriana Slasor Title P.E. PE Registration # 63451 Company Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Address 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Irvine, CA 92618 Email oslasor@fuscoe.com Telephone # 949-474-1960 I hereby certify that this Water Quality Management Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order No. R8-2009-0030/NPDES No. CAS618030, of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Preparer Signature Date Place Stamp Here I I I I Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC iii Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS ........................ 1 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 2 II.1 Project Description ................................................................................................... 2 II.2 Potential Storm Water Pollutants ............................................................................. 4 II.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern ......................................................................... 6 II.4 Post Development Drainage Characteristics ........................................................ 7 II.5 Property Ownership/Management ........................................................................ 7 SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 9 III.1 Physical Setting ......................................................................................................... 9 III.2 Site Characteristics ................................................................................................... 9 III.3 Watershed Description ...........................................................................................11 SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) ......................................................... 13 IV.1 Project Performance Criteria..................................................................................13 IV.2 Site Design and Drainage Plan ..............................................................................14 IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs ..............................................................................................14 IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas .......................................................................15 IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis ........................................16 IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) ................................................................16 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs ................................................................................................17 IV.3.3 Rainwater Harvesting BMPs ............................................................................17 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs...........................................................................................18 IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs ...................................................................20 IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs ...................................................................20 IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs ..................................................................................20 IV.3.8 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs ..............................................................21 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs ......................................................................24 IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan .................................................................................26 IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits ......................................................................................26 IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information .....................................................27 SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs ............................... 28 SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN .................................................................... 36 SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS .......................................................................... 38 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC iv Table of Contents APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 39 APPENDICES Appendix A ........................................................................................ Supporting Calculations Appendix B ........................................................................ Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix C ............................................................................................ Educational Materials Appendix D ....................................................... BMP Maintenance Supplement / O&M Plan Appendix E ........................................................................ Conditions of Approval (Pending) Appendix F ................................................................................... Geotechnical Investigation Appendix G ......................................................................................... Hydrology Calculations EXHIBITS & BMP DETAILS (INCLUDED IN SECTION VI) ▪ Vicinity Map ▪ WQMP Exhibit ▪ BIO-1 Bioretention with Underdrain BMP Factsheet ▪ BIO-7 Proprietary Biotreatment BMP Factsheet ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-4-8 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-8 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-12 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-16 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-20 ▪ Bioretention with Underdrain Detail EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS (INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C) ▪ Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business ▪ DF-1 Drainage System Operation & Maintenance ▪ SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup ▪ SC-32 Outdoor Equipment Operations ▪ SC-43 Parking/Storage Area ▪ SC-70 Road and Street Maintenance ▪ SC-73 Landscape Maintenance ▪ SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance ▪ SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls ▪ SD-12 Efficient Irrigation ▪ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage ▪ SD-32 Trash Storage Areas ▪ SD-35 Outdoor Work Areas Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 1 Discretionary Permits SECTION I DISCRETIONARY PERMITS AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS PROJECT INFORMATION Permit/Application No.: PENDING Grading or Building Permit No.: PENDING Address of Project Site (or Tract Map and Lot Number if no address) and APN: 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 APN 119-200-38 & 119-200-41 WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR ISSUANCE Discretionary Permit(s): Pending – to be provided in Final WQMP Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance applied to this project: (Please list verbatim.) Pending – to be provided in Final WQMP CONCEPTUAL WQMP Was a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan previously approved for this project? No. This document is the Preliminary WQMP for the project. WATERSHED-BASED PLAN CONDITIONS Applicable conditions from watershed - based plans including WIHMPs and TMDLs: TMDLs include the following: Based on the 2020-2022 Integrated Report (CWA Section 303[d] List), the 303(d) listed impairments include: • Newport Bay, Upper: Metals, Nutrients, Pathogens, Pesticides/PCBs, Siltation • Newport Bay, Lower: Metals, Nutrients, Pathogens, Pesticides/Priority Organics, Siltation Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 2 Project Description SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION II.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Snug Harbor Surf Camp project site encompasses approximately 15.43 acres in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is bounded by the Santa Ana Delhi Channel to the north, Irvine Avenue to the northeast, existing commercial property to the southeast, and Mesa Drive to the southwest. A Vicinity Map is included in Section VI. Under existing conditions, the project site is the Newport Beach Golf Course. The Golf course includes three holes, a driving range, pro shop, clubhouse, restaurant, and parking lot. Adjacent land uses include commercial property including a fire station. The table below summarizes the proposed project. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Development Category (Model WQMP, Table 7.11-2; or 7.11- 3): Category 8: All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet of impervious surface on an already developed site. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of the facility, or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety. If the redevelopment results in the addition or replacement of less than 50 percent of the impervious area on-site and the existing development was not subject to WQMP requirement, the numeric sizing criteria discussed in Section 7.II-2.0 only applies to the addition or replacement area. If the addition or replacement accounts for 50 percent or more of the impervious area, the Project WQMP requirements apply to the entire development. Project Area (ft2): 672,086.61 ft2 (15.43 acres) # of Dwelling Units: Not Applicable SIC Code: 7992 - Public Golf Course Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 3 Project Description DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Narrative Project Description: The proposed project site is an irregularly shaped parcel approximately 15.43 ac located east of the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The property is bounded by the Santa Ana Delhi Channel to the north, Irvine Avenue to the northeast, existing commercial property to the southeast, and Mesa Drive to the southwest. The site is currently the Newport Beach Golf Course which consists of three holes, a driving range, pro shop, clubhouse, restaurant, and parking lot. The proposed Snug Harbor project will include construction of a 13 feet deep surf lagoon, two pools, a 3-story 50,000 square feet clubhouse which will include one subterranean level, a lodging building, parking lots with solar panel canopies, a service yard, pavement, landscaping, utilities, and retaining walls. Project Area: Pervious Area Pervious Area Percentage Impervious Area Impervious Area Percentage Pre-Project Conditions: 12.03 ac 78% 3.40 ac 22% Post-Project Conditions: 1.54 ac 10% 13.89 ac 90% Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 4 Project Description DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Drainage Patterns/ Connections: Under existing conditions, the project site generally drains in a northerly direction to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel via three (3) storm drain outlets. Onsite there are two (2) catch basins inlets which direct flow into one of the storm drain outlets. A swale also directs flow from the northern portions of the golf course into the western most storm drain outlet. Flows from the parking lot are directed into a parkway drain located on Irvine Avenue. Off-site run-on from adjacent properties on the southeast also contributes to surface flows onto the parking lot, approximately 3.94 acres. An existing cart tunnel also directs flow under Irvine Avenue and into the adjoining golf course to the north. Flows coming from the site discharge into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. Flows then travel south and enter Newport Bay, and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Under proposed conditions, runoff from the project site is separated into thirteen (13) Drainage Management Areas (DMAs). The proposed site drains to the north and will discharge treated flows into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel via new storm drain systems connecting to modular wetlands systems and bioretention systems with underdrains. After discharging into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel flows are conveyed to the Upper and Lower Newport Bay, respectfully, and eventually into the Pacific Ocean. Offsite run-on is proposed to be diverted from the project site and will not be comingled. II.2 POTENTIAL STORM WATER POLLUTANTS The table below, derived from Table 2 of the Countywide Model WQMP Technical Guidance Document (December 2013), summarizes the categories of land use or project features of concern and the general pollutant categories associated with them. ANTICIPATED & POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY LAND USE TYPE Priority Project Categories and/or Project Features General Pollutant Categories Su s p e n d e d So l i d / Se d i m e n t s Nu t r i e n t s He a v y Me t a l s Pa t h o g e n s (B a c t e r i a / Vi r u s ) Pe s t i c i d e s Oi l & Gr e a s e To x i c Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d s Tr a s h & De b r i s Detached Residential Development E E N E E E N E Attached Residential Development E E N E E E(2) N E Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 5 Project Description ANTICIPATED & POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY LAND USE TYPE Priority Project Categories and/or Project Features General Pollutant Categories Su s p e n d e d So l i d / Se d i m e n t s Nu t r i e n t s He a v y Me t a l s Pa t h o g e n s (B a c t e r i a / Vi r u s ) Pe s t i c i d e s Oi l & Gr e a s e To x i c Or g a n i c Co m p o u n d s Tr a s h & De b r i s Commercial/Industrial Development E(1) E(1) E(5) E(3) E(1) E E E Automotive Repair Shops N N E N N E E E Restaurants E(1)(2) E(1) E(2) E E(1) E N E Hillside Development >5,000 ft2 E E N E E E N E Parking Lots E E(1) E E(4) E(1) E E E Streets, Highways, & Freeways E E(1) E E(4) E(1) E E E Retail Gasoline Outlets N N E N N E E E Notes: E = expected to be of concern N = not expected to be of concern (1) Expected pollutant if landscaping exists on-site, otherwise not expected. (2) Expected pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas, otherwise not expected. (3) Expected pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products, otherwise not expected. (4) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff. (5) Expected if outdoor storage or metal roofs, otherwise not expected. Source: County of Orange. (2013, December 20). Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/ Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs). Table 2.1. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN Pollutant E = Expected to be of concern N =Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Suspended Solid/ Sediment E Nutrients E Heavy Metals E Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E Pesticides E Oil & Grease E Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 6 Project Description POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN Pollutant E = Expected to be of concern N =Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Toxic Organic Compounds E Trash & Debris E II.3 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN The purpose of this section is to identify any hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOC) with respect to downstream flooding, erosion potential of natural channels downstream, impacts of increased flows on natural habitat, etc. As specified in Section 2.3.3 of the 2011 Model WQMP, projects must identify and mitigate any HCOCs. A HCOC is a combination of upland hydrologic conditions and stream biological and physical conditions that presents a condition of concern for physical and/or biological degradation of streams. In the North Orange County permit area, HCOCs are considered to exist if any streams located downstream from the project are determined to be potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts and either of the following conditions exists: ▪ Post-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm exceeds the pre- development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm by more than 5 percent or ▪ Time of concentration (Tc) of post-development runoff for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event exceeds the time of concentration of the pre-development condition for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm event by more than 5 percent. If these conditions do not exist or streams are not potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts, an HCOC does not exist and hydromodification does not need to be considered further. In the North Orange County permit area, downstream channels are considered not susceptible to hydromodification, and therefore do not have the potential for a HCOC, if all downstream conveyance channels that will receive runoff from the project are engineered, hardened, and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity, and no sensitive habitat areas will be affected. Is the proposed project potentially susceptible to hydromodification impacts? ☒ Yes ☐ No (show map) Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 7 Project Description 2-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM SUMMARY Condition Acreage Tc (min) Peak Runoff (cfs) Volume (ac-ft) Pre-development 15.43 12.9 13.9 0.85 Proposed 15.43 7.0 14.1 1.06 Difference 0 -5.9 +0.2 +0.21 % Change -45.7% +1.4% +24.7% The project is in a HCOC susceptible area and HCOCs exist for the site because the post- development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm exceeds the pre-development runoff volume for the 2-yr, 24-hr storm by more than 5 percent. Infiltration is not feasible for the site, so the 2-yr, 24-hr peak flowrate requires mitigation. The proposed peak flowrate is 14.1 cfs, which is 1.4% greater than the existing peak flowrate. Thus, the proposed condition peak flowrate is less than 5% greater than the existing peak flowrate so no HCOC BMPs are required. II.4 POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS Under proposed conditions, runoff from the project site is separated into twelve (12) Drainage Management Areas (DMAs. The proposed site drains to the north and will discharge treated flows into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel via new storm drain systems connecting to modular wetlands systems and bioretention systems with underdrains. After discharging into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel flows are conveyed to the Upper and Lower Newport Bay, respectfully, and eventually into the Pacific Ocean. Offsite run-on is proposed to be diverted from the project site. II.5 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT Public Streets: City of Newport Beach Private Streets: Back Bay Barrels, LLC Landscaped Areas: Back Bay Barrels, LLC Open Space: Not applicable Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 8 Project Description PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT Parks: Not applicable Buildings: Back Bay Barrels, LLC Structural BMPs: Back Bay Barrels, LLC The Owner, Back Bay Barrels, LLC shall assume all BMP maintenance and inspection responsibilities for the proposed project. Inspection and maintenance responsibilities are outlined in Section V of this report. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 9 Site Description SECTION III SITE DESCRIPTION III.1 PHYSICAL SETTING Planning Area/ Community Name: Snug Harbor Address: 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Land Use: Parks and Recreation Zoning: SP-7 Acreage: 15.4 acres Predominant Soil Type: C and D1 III.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Precipitation Zone: 0.75 inches per TGD Figure XVI-1 (See Appendix A) Topography: The project site ranges from flat (0.6%) to steep (9.4%), and generally drains towards the north and northwest portion of the site and eventually discharges into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. Drainage Patterns/ Connections: See Section II.1 and Section II.4 for a complete description of existing and proposed drainage patterns and connections. Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties: This site is located in the Santa Ana Heights area adjacent to the Delhi Channel approximately ¾ mile north of Upper Newport Bay. Santa Ana Heights is located northwest of the San Joaquin Hills and is mapped as covered by coastal terrace deposits. The project site is underlain by engineered fill with a thickness ranging from 0 to about 15 feet and described as clayey sand, sandy lean clay, silty sand, and clay. The fill is underlain by late Quaternary to recent alluvium, which is underlain by Quaternary marine terrace deposits consisting primarily of lean clay with interlayers of fine to medium sand, silty sand, and silt layers. See Appendix F for further details. 1 Source: OC Stormwater Program Land Development Tool Web Map. https://ocgis.com/ocpw/envres/landdev/index.html. Accessed 8/8/2024 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 10 Site Description Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions: Groundwater below the site has been encountered in temporary piezometers at approximately El. +4 to +15 feet msl. This water level is likely the result of a pressurized confined or semiconfined aquifer. The recommended design groundwater level for the site is at El. +8 feet msl, which is approximately two feet above the adjacent concrete- lined Delhi Channel. Widespread dewatering or lowering of a water table is not anticipated to be required. However, isolated seepage zones may be encountered in excavations. Perched water and groundwater would be expected to occur where granular soils are encountered. Fluctuation of the groundwater level and localized zones of perched water should be anticipated below grade. Irrigation of landscaped areas can also impact local groundwater levels or likelihood of perched water or seepage to be encountered in excavations. Appendix F for further details. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 11 Site Description Geotechnical Conditions (relevant to infiltration): According to the geotechnical exploration report, stormwater infiltration is deemed infeasible due to the presence of thick clay layers underlying the site that would be expected to have very low to no permeability, presence of perched water, and evidence of pressurized aquifers below the site. Appendix F for further details. There are no GeoTracker-listed cleanup sites within a 250 feet radius2: Off-Site Drainage: Under existing conditions, approximately 3.94 ac of runoff from the adjacent property immediately southeast of the site drains onto the property’s parking lot. Under proposed conditions, runoff will be diverted prior to entering the site. Utility and Infrastructure Information: Dry and wet utilities will be incorporated into the proposed project and will tie into existing facilities associated with the existing development. One existing SCE easement will be quitclaimed. III.3 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION 2 Source: State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed 8/8/2024 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 12 Site Description Receiving Waters: Santa Ana Delhi Channel; Newport Bay (upper and lower); Pacific Ocean 303(d) Listed Impairments: Based on the 2020-2022 Integrated Report, the 303(d) listed impairments include: • Newport Bay, Upper: Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Indicator Bacteria, Malathion, Nutrients, PCBs, Sedimentation/Siltation, Toxicity • Newport Bay, Lower: Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients, PCBs, Toxicity Applicable TMDLs: • Newport Bay, Upper: Organophosphate Pesticides, Selenium, Metals, Organochlorine Compounds, Sediment, Nutrients, Pathogens • Newport Bay, Lower: Selenium, Metals, Organochlorine Compounds, Sediment, Nutrients, Pathogens Pollutants of Concern for the Project: Suspended Solid/Sediments, Nutrients, Heavy Metals, Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus), Pesticides, Oil & Grease, Toxic Organic Compounds, Trash & Debris Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOCs): The proposed condition peak flowrate is 14.1 cfs, which is less than 5% greater than the existing condition peak flowrate of 13.9 cfs. Thus, no HCOC BMPs are required. See Section II.3 for details. Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological Significant Areas: Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) • Upper Newport Bay • West Bay There is no Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) in the City of Newport Beach. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 13 Best Management Practices (BMP) SECTION IV BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) IV.1 PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional basis? ☐ Yes ☒ No PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Hydromodification Control Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-2.4.2.2) If a hydrologic condition of concern (HCOC) exists, priority projects shall implement onsite or regional hydromodification controls such that: ▪ Post-development runoff volume for the two-year frequency storm does not exceed that of the predevelopment condition by more than five percent, and ▪ Time of concentration of post-development runoff for the two-year storm event is not less than that for the predevelopment condition by more than five percent. Where the Project WQMP documents that excess runoff volume from the two-year runoff event cannot feasibly be retained and where in-stream controls cannot be used to otherwise mitigate HCOCs, the project shall implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls to: ▪ Retain the excess volume from the two-year runoff event to the MEP, and ▪ Implement on-site or regional hydromodification controls such that the post-development runoff two-year peak flow rate is no greater than 110 percent of the predevelopment runoff two-year peak flow rate. LID Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-2.4.3) Infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter, the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (Design Capture Volume). LID BMPs must be designed to retain, on-site, (infiltrate, harvest and use, or evapotranspire) storm water runoff up to 80 percent average annual capture efficiency. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 14 Best Management Practices (BMP) PROJECT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Treatment Control BMP Performance Criteria: (Model WQMP Section 7.II-3.2.2) If it is not feasible to meet LID performance criteria through retention and/or biotreatment provided on-site or at a sub- regional/regional scale, then treatment control BMPs shall be provided on-site or offsite prior to discharge to waters of the US. Sizing of treatment control BMP(s) shall be based on either the unmet volume after claiming applicable water quality credits, if appropriate. LID Design Storm Capture Volume: DCV = (0.75 x 1.00 +0.15) x 0.75 inches x 7.70 ac x 43560 sf/ac x 1/12 in/ft = 18,867 cubic feet Refer to Section IV.2.2 for specific Drainage Manage Area (DMA) breakdown and Appendix A for detailed calculations (Worksheet B). IV.2 SITE DESIGN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The following section describes the site design BMPs used in this project and the methods used to incorporate them. Careful consideration of site design is a critical first step in storm water pollution prevention from new developments and redevelopments. IV.2.1 Site Design BMPs Minimize Impervious Area Impervious surfaces have been minimized by incorporating landscaped areas throughout the site surrounding the proposed building. Landscaping will be provided throughout the site within the common areas as well as around the perimeter of the building. Maximize Natural Infiltration Capacity Infiltration is not recommended for the project site due to the presence of thick clay layers underlying the site. Refer to Section IV.3.2 for details. Preserve Existing Drainage Patterns and Time of Concentration Runoff from the site will continue to flow similar to existing conditions to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. Low-flows and first-flush runoff will drain to BMPs for water quality treatment via bio-filtration. Disconnect Impervious Areas Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 15 Best Management Practices (BMP) Landscaping will be provided adjacent to sidewalks and between the proposed buildings. Low-flows and first-flush runoff will drain to landscaped bioretention cells with underdrains for water quality treatment via bio-filtration. Refer to Section IV.3.4 for further details. Protect Existing Vegetation and Sensitive Areas, and Revegetate Disturbed Areas There are no existing vegetated or sensitive areas to preserve on the project site. All disturbed areas will either be paved or landscaped. Xeriscape Landscaping Xeriscape landscaping is not proposed for the project. However, native and/or tolerant landscaping will be incorporated into the site design consistent with City guidelines. IV.2.2 Drainage Management Areas In accordance with the MS4 permit and the 2011 Model WQMP, the project site has been divided into Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) to be utilized for defining drainage areas and sizing LID and other treatment control BMPs. DMAs have been delineated based on the proposed site grading patterns, drainage patterns, storm drain and catch basin locations. The design capture volumes (DCV) and treatment flow rates (QDesign) for each DMA are summarized in the table below. These have been derived utilizing the “Simple Method” in accordance with the TGD Section III.1.1. Additional calculations and TGD Worksheets are provided in Appendix A. DMA Total Drainage Area (sf) % Imp. Runoff Coefficient Design Storm Depth (in) Tc (min) Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Simple Method DCV (cf) QDesign (cfs) DMA A 1.70 90% 0.825 0.75 5 0.26 3,818 0.365 DMA B 1.94 90% 0.825 0.75 5 0.26 4,357 0.416 DMA C 0.30 90% 0.825 0.75 5 0.26 674 0.064 DMA D 0.26 100% 0.900 0.75 5 0.26 637 0.061 DMA E 0.27 100% 0.900 0.75 5 0.26 662 0.063 DMA F 0.37 0% 0.150 0.75 5 0.26 151 0.014 DMA G 0.20 100% 0.900 0.75 5 0.26 490 0.047 DMA H 0.29 100% 0.900 0.75 5 0.26 711 0.068 DMA I 0.19 30% 0.375 0.75 5 0.26 194 0.019 DMA J 2.27 100% 0.900 0.75 5 0.26 5,562 0.531 DMA K 1.24 100% 0.900 0.75 5 0.26 3,038 0.290 DMA L 5.53 100% 0.900 0.75 5 0.26 13,550 1.294 DMA M 0.87 90% 0.825 0.75 5 0.26 1,954 0.187 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 16 Best Management Practices (BMP) The project utilizes biotreatment BMPs to treat site runoff before discharging offsite. There are no BMPs proposed in DMA F due to the area being fully pervious and self-treating. Also, in the proposed project, DMA F mimics existing site conditions. Due to extreme site constraints, runoff in DMA I is not feasibly collected and treated. DMA I consists of an existing cart tunnel that runs under Irvine Avenue and will maintain current conditions with minimal disturbance, other than an increase in pervious area on the slopes adjacent to the cart path. Further site study is needed to determine how flows from the cart tunnel are intercepted in the existing condition. The lagoon, DMA L, will be self-contained, draining to sanitary sewer, and therefore does not require a BMP. IV.3 LID BMP SELECTION AND PROJECT CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. LID BMPs are engineered facilities that are designed to retain or biotreat runoff on the project site. The 4th Term MS4 Storm Water Permit (Order R8-2009-0030) requires the evaluation and use of LID features using the following hierarchy of treatment: infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvest/reuse, and biotreatment. The following sections summarize the LID BMPs proposed for the project in accordance with the permit hierarchy and performance criteria outlined in Section IV.1. IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) Hydrologic source controls (HSCs) can be considered to be a hybrid between site design practices and LID BMPs. HSCs are distinguished from site design BMPs in that they do not reduce the tributary area or reduce the imperviousness of a drainage area; rather they reduce the runoff volume that would result from a drainage area with a given imperviousness compared to what would result if HSCs were not used. HYDROLOGIC SOURCE CONTROLS ID Name Included? HSC-1 Localized on-lot infiltration ☐ HSC-2 Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) ☐ HSC-3 Street trees (canopy interception) ☐ HSC-4 Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) ☐ HSC-5 Green roofs/Brown roofs ☐ HSC-6 Blue roofs ☐ HSC-7 Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) ☐ No HSCs are proposed within the Project. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 17 Best Management Practices (BMP) IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Infiltration BMPs are LID BMPs that capture, store and infiltrate storm water runoff. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge (underdrain or outlet structure) until this volume is exceeded. Examples of infiltration BMPs include infiltration trenches, bioretention without underdrains, drywells, permeable pavement, and underground infiltration galleries. INFILTRATION ID Name Included? INF-3 INF-4 Bioretention Without Underdrains ☐ Rain Gardens ☐ Porous Landscaping ☐ Infiltration Planters ☐ Retention Swales ☐ INF-2 Infiltration Trenches ☐ INF-1 Infiltration Basins ☐ INF-5 Drywells ☐ INF-7 Subsurface Infiltration Galleries ☐ -- French Drains ☐ INF-6 Permeable Asphalt ☐ Permeable Concrete ☐ Permeable Concrete Pavers ☐ Other: ☐ No infiltration BMPs are proposed within the project. As discussed in Section III.2 infiltration is infeasible due to the presence of thick clay layers underlying the site. See Appendix F for further details. IV.3.3 Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Harvest and use (aka. Rainwater Harvesting) BMPs are LID BMPs that capture and store storm water runoff for later use. These BMPs are engineered to store a specified volume of water and have no design surface discharge until this volume is exceeded. Harvest and use BMPs include both above-ground and below-ground cisterns. Examples of uses Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 18 Best Management Practices (BMP) for harvested water include irrigation, toilet and urinal flushing, vehicle washing, evaporative cooling, industrial processes and other non-potable uses. HARVEST & REUSE / RAINWATER HARVESTING ID Name Included? HU-1 Above-ground cisterns and basins ☐ HU-2 Underground detention ☐ -- Other: ☐ For a system to be considered “feasible”, the system must be designed with a storage volume equal to the DCV from the tributary area and achieve more than 40% capture. The system must also be able to drawdown in 30 days to meet the 40% capture value. This is determined by calculating the Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) equation from Appendix X of the TGD. The EAWU can then be divided by the water quality volume for the project site or DMA to determine drawdown time. If the drawdown time is less than 30 days, harvest and reuse is considered partially feasible and the Effective Irrigated Area to Tributary Area (EIATA) ratio may be utilized to determine the capture efficiency of the system. If drawdown is greater than 30 days, harvest and reuse may be concluded to be infeasible. As shown by Worksheet J included in Appendix A, harvest and reuse is considered infeasible due insufficient water demand during the wet season to drawdown the water quality volume. IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs Biotreatment BMPs are a broad class of LID BMPs that reduce storm water volume to the maximum extent practicable, treat storm water using a suite of treatment mechanisms characteristic of biologically active systems, and discharge water to the downstream storm drain system or directly to receiving waters. BIOTREATMENT ID Name Included? BIO-1 Bioretention with underdrains ☒ Storm Water planter boxes with underdrains ☐ Rain gardens with underdrains ☐ BIO-5 Constructed wetlands ☐ BIO-2 Vegetated swales ☐ BIO-3 Vegetated filter strips ☐ Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 19 Best Management Practices (BMP) BIOTREATMENT ID Name Included? BIO-7 Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems ☒ BIO-4 Wet extended detention basin ☐ BIO-6 Dry extended detention basins ☐ -- Other: ☐ Modular Wetlands Systems by Contech are proprietary biotreatment systems that utilize multi-stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre-treatment chamber contains the first three stages of treatment, and includes a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment is achieved through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system. Bioretention planters with underdrains are plant-based biotreatment systems that typically consist of a ponding area, mulch layer, planting soils and plants. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants. Underdrains collect the treated water and return it back into the storm drain system. There are seven (7) MWS and three (3) bioretention planters with underdrains proposed to meet the water quality treatment requirements. The MWS units are sized based on the flowrate of the 85th percentile storm event. See Appendix A for additional calculations. MODULAR WETLAND DESIGN SUMMARY DMA / BMP ID(1)(2) Total Drainage Area (ac) % Imp. QDesign(3) (cfs) Sizes / Models(4) Total Treatment Capacity(5) (cfs) Latitude, Longitude DMA A 1.70 90% 0.365 MWS-L-8-16 0.462 33.6879, -117.8828 DMA C 0.30 90% 0.064 MWS-L-4-8 0.115 33.6584, -117.8829 DMA D 0.26 100% 0.061 MWS-L-4-8 0.115 33.6588, -117.8826 DMA E 0.27 100% 0.063 MWS-L-4-8 0.115 33.6583, -117.8826 DMA J 2.27 100% 0.531 MWS-L-8-20 0.577 33.6597, -117.8811 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 20 Best Management Practices (BMP) MODULAR WETLAND DESIGN SUMMARY DMA K 1.24 100% 0.290 MWS-L-8-12 0.346 33.6592, -117.8822 DMA M 0.87 90% 0.187 MWS-L-8-8 0.231 33.6590, -117.8803 Notes: (1) See also Section IV.2.2 (2) Refer to WQMP Exhibit in Section VI for locations of each drainage area and BMP. (3) Detailed calculations and worksheets are included in Appendix A. (4) Unit details and specifications are included in Section VI. (5) Treatment capacities of each unit are based on wetland media design loading rate (controlled by downstream orifice) and perimeter surface area of wetland media provided. Individual unit sizing calculations provided by the manufacturer are included on each cut sheet/detail included in Section VI. BIORETENTION WITH UNDERDRAIN DESIGN SUMMARY DMA / BMP ID(1)(2) Total Drainage Area (ac) Time to Drawdown Effective Depth (hr) Min. Surface Area Required (sq-ft) Surface Area Provided (sq-ft) Required Volume (cu-ft) Design Volume (cu-ft) Latitude, Longitude DMA B 1.94 2.4 2,179 4,944 1,089 2,472 33.6586, -117.8835 DMA G 0.20 1.2 392 1,743 98 436 33.6591, -117.8828 DMA H 0.29 1.2 569 1,238 142 310 33.6595, -117.8816 IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs No HCOC BMPs are required due to the site design resulting in a peak flowrate less than 5% greater than the existing condition peak flowrate. See Section II.3 for details. IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Not applicable. LID BMPs (biotreatment) will be utilized for water quality treatment on- site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Treatment control BMPs can only be considered if the project conformance analysis indicates that it is not feasible to retain the full design capture volume with LID BMPs. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 21 Best Management Practices (BMP) TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? TRT-1 Sand Filters ☐ TRT-2 Cartridge Media Filter ☐ PRE-1 Hydrodynamic Separation Device ☐ PRE-2 Catch Basin Insert ☐ Other: ☐ Not applicable. LID BMPs (biotreatment) will be utilized for water quality treatment on- site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.3.8 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants ☐ ☒ Non-residential development. N2 Activity Restrictions ☒ ☐ N3 Common Area Landscape Management ☒ ☐ N4 BMP Maintenance ☒ ☐ N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) ☒ ☐ N6 Local Water Quality Permit Compliance ☐ ☒ The City of Newport Beach does not issue water quality permits. N7 Spill Contingency Plan ☒ ☐ N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance ☐ ☒ No underground storage is proposed. N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance ☒ ☐ Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 22 Best Management Practices (BMP) NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation ☒ ☐ N11 Common Area Litter Control ☒ ☐ N12 Employee Training ☒ ☐ N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks ☐ ☒ No loading docks are proposed. N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection ☒ ☐ N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots ☒ ☐ N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets ☐ ☒ No gasoline facilities are proposed N2, Activity Restrictions The Owner shall develop ongoing activity restrictions that include those that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality. Activities include, but are not limited to: handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick-up, and vehicle or equipment repair and maintenance in non-designated areas, as well as any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. N3, Common Area Landscape Management Management programs will be designed and implemented by the Owner to maintain all the common areas within the project site. These programs will cover how to reduce the potential pollutant sources of fertilizer and pesticide uses, utilization of water-efficient landscaping practices and proper disposal of landscape wastes by the owner/developer and/or contractors. N4, BMP Maintenance The Owner will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable non-structural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors. Details on BMP maintenance are provided in Section V of this WQMP, and the O&M Plan is included in Appendix D. N5, Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Where applicable, the proposed project shall comply with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sections of the California Health and Safety Code regarding Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 23 Best Management Practices (BMP) hazardous waste management, which will be enforced by County Environmental Health on behalf of the State. Compliance shall be maintained on an ongoing basis. N7, Spill Contingency Plan Any facilities that store liquid materials or wastes shall maintain procedures for spill response and cleanup activities. Emergency spill kits shall be kept on-site at all times. Spill kits shall include, at a minimum, dry adsorbent material such as kitty litter, mats or pillows, containment booms, wipes, goggles, gloves and disposal bags. Minor spills shall be cleaned up immediately using dry methods, consistent with measures identified in the fact sheets attached to this WQMP. Activities will be coordinated between the respective departments and the Police and Fire departments in the event of a spill. Procedures shall be maintained on an ongoing basis. N9, Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Any storage or utilization of hazardous wastes, where applicable, shall comply with the County of Orange Fire Authority hazardous material disclosure requirements. Compliance shall be maintained on an ongoing basis. N10, Uniform Fire Code Implementation The Owner shall ensure all structures comply with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, County of Orange Fire Authority, and Orange City Fire Department. Compliance shall be maintained on an ongoing basis. N11, Common Area Litter Control The Owner will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by the public and reporting such violations for investigation. N12, Employee Training All employees of the Owner and any contractors will require training to ensure that employees are aware of maintenance activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. Training will include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc. N14, Common Area Catch Basin Inspection All on-site catch basin inlets and drainage facilities shall be inspected and maintained by the Owner at least once a year, prior to the rainy season, no later than October 1st of each year. The City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance of all public catch basins and drainage facilities associated with the project. N15, Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 24 Best Management Practices (BMP) The Owner shall be responsible for sweeping all on-site streets, drive aisles, and/or uncovered parking areas within the project on a quarterly basis. The applicant shall not spray down or wash down the parking lot or surrounding sidewalks unless the water used is directed through the sanitary sewer system or a filtered drain. No car washing shall be permitted in the parking lot. IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs The table below indicates all BMPs to be incorporated in the project. For those designated as not applicable (N/A), a brief explanation why is provided. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason S1 SD-13 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage ☒ ☐ S2 SD-34 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction ☐ ☒ No outdoor material storage areas are proposed. S3 SD-32 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction ☒ ☐ S4 SD-12 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control ☒ ☐ S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation ☒ ☐ S6 SD-31 Properly Design: Dock areas ☐ ☒ No loading docks are proposed. S7 SD-31 Properly Design: Maintenance bays ☐ ☒ No maintenance bays are proposed. S8 SD-33 Properly Design: Vehicle wash areas ☐ ☒ No vehicle wash areas are proposed. S9 SD-36 Properly Design: Outdoor processing areas ☐ ☒ No outdoor processing areas are proposed. S10 Properly Design: Equipment wash areas ☐ ☒ No equipment wash areas are proposed. S11 SD-30 Properly Design: Fueling areas ☐ ☒ No fueling areas are proposed. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 25 Best Management Practices (BMP) STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs ID Name Included? Not Applicable? If Not Applicable, Provide Brief Reason S12 SD-10 Properly Design: Hillside landscaping ☐ ☒ No hillside landscaping is proposed. S13 Properly Design: Wash water control for food preparation areas ☐ ☒ No food preparation areas are proposed. S14 Properly Design: Community car wash racks ☐ ☒ No community car wash racks are proposed. S1/SD-13, Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage The phrase “NO DUMPING! DRAINS TO OCEAN”, or an equally effective phrase approved by the City, will be stenciled on all major storm drain inlets within the project site to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. Stencils shall be in place prior to release of certificate of occupancy. Stencils shall be inspected for legibility on an annual basis and re-stenciled as necessary. S3/SD-32, Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction All trash and waste shall be stored in containers that have lids or tarps to minimize direct precipitation into the containers. One (1) trash enclosures will be located in the Clubhouse Building. The trash storage areas will be designed to City standards, and will be walled, roofed, have gates and proper drainage per City standards. S4/SD-12, Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control The Owner will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all common landscape areas utilizing similar planting materials with similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff. The Owner will be responsible for implementing all efficient irrigation systems for common area landscaping including, but not limited to, provisions for water sensors and programmable irrigation cycles. This includes smart timers, rain sensors, and moisture shut-off valves. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with water efficiency guidelines. Systems shall be tested twice per year, and water used during testing/flushing shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. S5, Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation The site drainage design shall include appropriate BMPs to decrease the potential for erosion of slopes and/or channels. The design shall be consistent with Federal, State, and local standards (e.g., RWQCB, ACOE, CDFG). Where feasible, the following principles shall be considered: 1) convey runoff safely from the tops of slopes, 2) avoid disturbing steep or unstable slopes, as well as natural channels, 3) implement a permanent stabilization BMP on disturbed slopes and channels as quickly as possible, such as native Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 26 Best Management Practices (BMP) vegetation, and 4) install energy dissipaters at the outlets of new storm drains, culverts, or channels. IV.4 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Local jurisdictions may develop a water quality credit program that applies to certain types of development projects after they first evaluate the feasibility of meeting LID requirements on-site. If it is not feasible to meet the requirements for on-site LID, project proponents for specific project types can apply credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMPs or participating in other alternative programs. WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. ☐ Brownfield redevelopment, meaning redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real property which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, and which have the potential to contribute to adverse ground or surface water quality if not redeveloped. ☐ Higher density development projects which include two distinct categories (credits can only be taken for one category): those with more than seven units per acre of development (lower credit allowance); vertical density developments, for example, those with a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance) ☐ Mixed use development, such as a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that can demonstrate environmental benefits that would not be realized through single use projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with the potential to reduce sources of water or air pollution). ☐ Transit-oriented developments, such as a mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation; similar to above criterion, but where the development center is within one half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, rail, light rail or commuter train station). Such projects would not be able to take credit for both categories, but may have greater credit assigned ☐ Redevelopment projects in an established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant city area including core City Center areas (to be defined through mapping). ☐ Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 27 Best Management Practices (BMP) WATER QUALITY CREDITS Credit Applicable? Developments with dedication of undeveloped portions to parks, preservation areas and other pervious uses. ☐ Developments in a city center area. ☐ Developments in historic districts or historic preservation areas. ☐ Live-work developments, a variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs together – similar to criteria to mixed use development; would not be able to take credit for both categories. ☐ In-fill projects, the conversion of empty lots and other underused spaces into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas. ☐ Not applicable. Water quality credits will not be applied for the project. LID BMPs (biotreatment) will be utilized for water quality treatment on-site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information Not applicable. LID BMPs (biotreatment) will be utilized for water quality treatment on- site in accordance with the MS4 Permit hierarchy identified at the beginning of this Section. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 28 BMP Inspection & Maintenance SECTION V INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR BMPs It has been determined that Back Bay Barrels, LLC shall assume all BMP inspection and maintenance responsibilities for the Snug Harbor Surf Camp project. Contact Name: Adam Cleary Company: Back Bay Barrels, LLC Address: 3857 Birch Street, #521 Phone: 949-836-3055 Email: steve@coynedev.com Should the maintenance responsibility be transferred at any time during the operational life of Snug Harbor Surf Camp, such as when an HOA or POA is formed for a project, a formal notice of transfer shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach at the time responsibility of the property subject to this WQMP is transferred. The transfer of responsibility shall be incorporated into this WQMP as an amendment. The Owner shall verify BMP implementation and ongoing maintenance through inspection, self-certification, survey, or other equally effective measure. The certification shall verify that, at a minimum, the inspection and maintenance of all structural BMPs including inspection and performance of any required maintenance in the late summer / early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. A form that may be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is included in Appendix D. The City of Newport Beach may conduct verifications to assure that implementation and appropriate maintenance of structural and non-structural BMPs prescribed within this WQMP is taking place at the project site. The Owner shall retain operations, inspections and maintenance records of these BMPs and they will be made available to the City or County upon request. All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years after the recorded inspection date for the lifetime of the project. Long-term funding for BMP maintenance will be provided by Back Bay Barrels, LLC. The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan can be found in Appendix D. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 29 BMP Inspection & Maintenance BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party BIOTREATMENT BMPs BIO-1 Bioretention with Underdrains Inspections should occur semi-annually or after major storm events to check for the following and remove accordingly: standing water, sediment, and trash & debris. Inspections should also look for potential clogging and clean planters or, if necessary, replace the entire filter bed. Inspect for weeds, and prune and/or replace plants in accordance with routine landscape maintenance activities. Replace mulch and prune shrubs as necessary. 2x per year and after large storm events Owner BIO-7 Proprietary Biotreatment Maintenance activities should include clearing of the accumulation of sediment and debris. Additional media/filter replacement determined by manufacturer maintenance procedures. 4x per year and after large storm events Owner NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs N2 Activity Restrictions The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through lease terms or other equally effective measure, for the property. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, prohibiting vehicle maintenance or vehicle washing. Ongoing Owner Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 30 BMP Inspection & Maintenance BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party N3 Common Area Landscape Management Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (OC DAMP Section 5.5). Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drains inlets. Monthly Owner N4 BMP Maintenance Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP. Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the Owner and shall be available for review upon request. Ongoing Owner Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 31 BMP Inspection & Maintenance BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) The Owner will ensure compliance with Title 22 CCR Compliance by ensuring that all trash, litter and other potentially toxic substances are disposed of in an appropriate manner. In addition, the owner/operator shall ensure that no hazardous material escapes the site untreated, thereby potentially contaminating the ground water. Ongoing Owner N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance Not Applicable N7 Spill Contingency Plan The Owner of the fuel dispensing site shall prepare a “Spill Contingency Plan (Business Emergency/ Contingency Plan Guidelines and Forms) in accordance with Section 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Spills will be immediately cleaned up according to the Spill Contingency Plan. Ongoing Owner Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 32 BMP Inspection & Maintenance BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance The Owner is responsible for making appropriate disclosures of the onsite storage of hazardous materials in accordance with County and/or City Ordinances. This BMP applies to any area where hazardous materials are being used, stored, or handled onsite. As a condition of approval (Resolution 3922 items 12.17 and 12.18) the developer was required to submit to the Fire Chief a “Hazardous Materials Disclosure Chemical Inventory and Business Emergency Plan.” The Owner and any future operators’ will ensure that this list is amended when any changes occur to reflect the current hazardous materials used, stored or handled onsite prior to commencement of gas station operations. The Hazardous Materials Disclosure Chemical Inventory and Business Emergency Plan shall be kept in the manager’s office at all times. Ongoing Owner N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation The Owner will comply with all applicable requirement of Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code including obtaining the necessary hazardous material storage permits from the Orange County Fire Authority, request the necessary inspections, maintenance and warning signage per Section 8001.9 prohibiting smoking where applicable. Ongoing Owner Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 33 BMP Inspection & Maintenance BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party N11 Common Area Litter Control Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. Weekly Owner N12 Employee Training The Owner shall educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted on an as needed basis. Materials that may be utilized on BMP maintenance are included in Appendix D. Annually Owner N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Remove trash and debris from catch basins and grates. Check for damage, clogging, and standing water. Repair or mitigate clogging/standing water, as needed. 2x per year and after large storm event Owner N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots On-site parking lots, drive aisles, and the parking structure basement level will be swept on a monthly basis, at minimum. Monthly Owner STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs S1 SD-13 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage On-site storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1st each year. Those determined to be illegible will be re-stenciled as soon as possible. Annually Owner Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 34 BMP Inspection & Maintenance BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party S3 SD-32 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Trash receptacles will be monitored and emptied by management of the Bowery. Trash will be taken from the interior trash rooms to the exterior trash storage areas at the time trash collection is set to occur. The four trash storage areas will drain into a water quality inlet to prevent discharge of spilled contaminants, consistent with local design standards. Ongoing Owner S4 SD-12 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control In conjunction with routine maintenance, verify that landscape design continues to function properly by adjusting systems to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas and to verify that irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance to water demands, given the time of year, weather, and day or nighttime temperatures. System testing shall occur twice per year. Water from testing/flushing shall be collected and properly disposed to the sewer system and shall not discharge to the storm drain system. 2x per year Owner Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 35 BMP Inspection & Maintenance BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Inspection/Maintenance Activities Minimum Frequency Responsible Party S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Check slopes, channels, riprap and other conveyance or energy dissipation areas for signs of erosion or scour. Replace material, repair channels, replant vegetation, and/or redesign, as needed for signs of erosion/scour. Four times per year during the wet season (preferably after rain events), and once during the dry season (ideally in September). Owner Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off-site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 36 Site Plan and Drainage Plan SECTION VI SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN The exhibits provided in this section are to illustrate the post construction BMPs prescribed within this WQMP. Drainage flow information of the proposed project, such as general surface flow lines, concrete or other surface drainage conveyances, and stor m drain facilities are also depicted. All structural source control and treatment control BMPs are shown as well. EXHIBITS ▪ Vicinity Map ▪ WQMP Exhibit BMP DETAILS & FACT SHEETS ▪ BIO-1 Bioretention with Underdrains BMP Factsheet ▪ BIO-7 Proprietary Biotreatment BMP Factsheet ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-4-8 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-8 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-12 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-16 ▪ Modular Wetland System (MWS) Standard Detail, MWS-L-8-20 ▪ Bioretention with Underdrain Detail Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 37 Site Plan and Drainage Plan VICINITY MAP ':'I VICIN ITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 949.474.1960 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 fuscoe.com g i ! X ~ I i ~ w is I i I ~ la ~ '.'.l I Drainage Drainage Assumed Simple Method Ooesign BMP DMAID BMP ID GPS Coordinates Area Area (ft') (acres) %Imp. DCV (ft') (els) Size/Model DMAA MWS 33.6879, -117.8828 74,052 1.70 90% 3,818 0,365 MWS-L-8-16 Bioretention 0.416 Bioretention DMA B w/Underdrain 33.6586, -117.8835 84,506 1.94 90% 4,357 w/ Underdrai n DMAC MWS 33.6584, -117.8829 13,068 0.30 90% 674 0,064 MWS-L-4-8 DMA D MWS 33.6588, -117.8826 11,326 0.26 100% 637 0.061 MWS-L-4-8 OMA E MWS 33.6583, -117.8826 11,761 0.27 100% 662 0,063 MWS-L-4-8 OMA F -16, 117 0.37 0% 151 0.014 - Bioretention DMAG w/Underdrain 33,6591, -117.8828 8,712 0.20 100% 490 0.047 Bioretention w/Underdrain Bioretentian 0.068 Bioretention DMAH w/Underdrain 33.6595, -117.8816 12,632 0.29 100% 711 w/ Underdrai n DMAI -8,276 0.19 30% 194 0.019 - DMA J MWS 33.6597, -117.8811 98,881 2.27 100% 5,562 0.531 MWS-L-8-20 OMAK MWS 33.6592, -117.8822 54,014 1.24 100% 3,038 0.290 MWS-L-8-12 DMA L -240,887 5.53 100% 13,550 1.294 - DMAM MWS 33.6590, -117.8803 37,897 0.87 90% 1,954 0.187 MWS-L-8-8 ( / / / BMP Treatment Capacity I 0.462 CFS 2180 SF [4944 SF PROVIDED] ,:-.. (' 0.115 CFS 0.115 CFS 0.115CFS - 393 SF [1743 PROVIDED] 570 SF [1238 SF PROVIDED] - 0.577 CFS 0.346 CFS - 0.231 CFS I • • / / /,11~ • 60' o· 30' 60' SCALE: 1" = 60' PREPARED FOR: BACK BAY BARRELS, LLC 3857BIRCH STREET, SUITE 521 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LEGEND - - - -PROPERTY LINE / RIGHT OF WAY ======== EXISTING STORM DRAIN -----PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ----BMP DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY lmiil - PROPOSED CATCH BASIN WITH INSERTS & STENCILING -COMMON AREA CATCH BASIN INSPECTION (N14) & DRAINAGE FACILITY OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (S20) DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA) DIRECTION OF PIPED FLOW DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM BIORETENTION WITH UNDERDRAIN NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs N2 ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS N3 COMMON AREA LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT N4 BMP MAINTENANCE N5 TITLE 22 CCR COMPLIANCE N7 SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN N10 UNIFORM FIRE CODE IMPLEMENTATION N 11 COMMON AREA LITTER CONTROL N12 EMPLOYEE TRAINING N14 COMMON AREA CATCH BASIN INSPECTION N15 STREET SWEEPING PRIVATE STREETS AND PARKING LOTS STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs S1 PROVIDE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM STENCILING AND SIGNAGE S3 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT TRASH AND WASTE STORAGE AREAS TO REDUCE POLLUTION INTRODUCTION S4 USE EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS & LANDSCAPE DESIGN, WATER CONSERVATION, SMART CONTROLLERS, AND SOURCE CONTROL S5 PROTECT SLOPES AND CHANNELS AND PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION PREPARED BY: CITY OF NEWPORT WQMP EXHIBIT SNUG HARBOR L_ _______________________________________________________________________________ ---1..------------'-----------'--------------' PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-4-8-V FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO www.ContechES.com/IP LEFT END VIEW INSTALLATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED TREATMENT FLOW {CFS} PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS} -IF APPLICABLE PIPE DATA I.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRA TION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION SURFACE LOAD NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURER's SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS£ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPEC/RED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PROJECT ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE {PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. 4. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING CONTECH FOR ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT PROPER ACTIVATION BY A CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE 5. VERTICAL HEIGHT VARIES BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. PRE-ALTER CARTRIDGE --- OPTIONAL CURB INLET C/L VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD OUTLET PIPE SEE NOTES RIM/FG VEGETATION---....:_ PLANT ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA --------B'-o"----- ' ' .. ------------------. BYPASS OVERFLOW WEIR FLOW CONTROL RISER IE OUT --4 '-0"-----i PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: TH£ INFORMATION CONTNNED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TH£ SOL£ PROPERTY OF CONTECH ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY 8£ US£D, R£PROOUC£D OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT TH£ WRITT£N CONSENT OF CONTECH. C(1j NTECH® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC www.ContachES.com IE IN PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-8-8-V LEFT END VIEW INSTALLATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED TREATMENT FLOW {CFS} PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS} -IF APPLICABLE PIPE DATA I.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRA TION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION SURFACE LOAD NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURER's SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS£ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPEC/RED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PROJECT ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE {PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. 4. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING CONTECH FOR ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT PROPER ACTIVATION BY A CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE 5. VERTICAL HEIGHT VARIES BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. WETLANDMEDIA BED PATENTED PERIMETER VOID AREA C/L ·.-: .. ~ ,. \,r'.:5f :t::<<:\'\: ;; I I •-, C I I :,'. _.', I I :.. 'J, I -;; i•, I 1 J ~I ~-h-~~~==:::::::!!;H~~:::::::::::::::+1~~1--~ PRE-ALTER CARTRIDGE INLET PIPE SEE NOTES C/L -----e·-o·----- PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD OUTLET PIPE SEE NOTES BYPASS OVERFLOW WEIR FLOW CONTROL RISER IE OUT VEGETATION ~ PLANT ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA ,.......,,iiiiii ii~i i ,~1------<----,............,., -----e·-o·----- C(1j NTECH® TH£ INFORMATION CONTNNED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TH£ SOL£ PROPERTY OF CONTECH ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, = ~ ~ ':~~ ~4':.: OF NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY 8£ US£D, R£PROOUC£D OR MODIFIED 7,674.J'II; a.nm~ RElA1ED FfJIIE/G// PA'/ENIS OR IN ANY MANNER WITH 0/JT TH£ WRITT£N CONSENT OF CONTECH. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC www.ContachES.com OTIERf'A'/ENISPDl)///(J IE IN PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-8-12-V FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO www.ContechES.com/IP LEFT END VIEW INSTALLATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED TREATMENT FLOW {CFS} PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS} -IF APPLICABLE PIPE DATA I.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRA TION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION SURFACE LOAD NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURER's SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS£ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPEC/RED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PROJECT ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE {PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. 4. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING CONTECH FOR ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT PROPER ACTIVATION BY A CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE 5. VERTICAL HEIGHT VARIES BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. WETLANDMEDIA BED PATENTED PERIMETER VOID AREA C/L VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD VEGETATION ~ PLANT ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA ~~~:::::tc~~~~~~➔~~~:::::tc:::::~~~-+--~ ,.......,,iiiilm=~~,-+----'---.,....-..,., PRE-ALTER CARTRIDGE INLET PIPE SEE NOTES C/L --------12·-o·-------- PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: TH£ INFORMATION CONTNNED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TH£ SOL£ PROPERTY OF CONTECH ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY 8£ US£D, R£PROOUC£D OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT TH£ WRITT£N CONSENT OF CONTECH. OUTLET PIPE SEE NOTES BYPASS OVERFLOW WEIR FLOW CONTROL RISER IE OUT C(1j NTECH® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC www.ContachES.com -----e·-o·----- IE IN PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-8-16-V FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO www.ContechES.com/IP LEFT END VIEW INSTALLATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED TREATMENT FLOW {CFS} PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS} -IF APPLICABLE PIPE DATA I.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRA TION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION SURFACE LOAD NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURER's SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS£ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PROJECT ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE {PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. 4. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING CONTECH FOR ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY JS VOID WITHOUT PROPER ACTIVATION BY A CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE 5. VERTICAL HEIGHT VARIES BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. WETLANDMEDIA BED PATENTED PERIMETER VOID AREA C/L OPTIONAL CURB INLET C/L DRAIN DOWN LINE VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD RIM/FG VEGETATION ~ PLANT ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA ,.........,ftiiei.r5i,i.m1------'---,..---.,., -----e·-o·----- BYPASS OVERFLOW WEIR FLOW CONTROL RISER IE OUT ------------16'-o·----------- PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: TH£ INFORMATION CONTNNED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TH£ SOL£ PROPERTY OF CONTECH ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY 8£ US£D, R£PROOUC£D OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT TH£ WRITT£N CONSENT OF CONTECH. C(1j NTECH® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC www.ContachES.com IE IN PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-8-20-V FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO www.ContechES.com/IP LEFT END VIEW INSTALLATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED TREATMENT FLOW {CFS} PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS} -IF APPLICABLE PIPE DATA I.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRA TION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION SURFACE LOAD NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURER's SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS£ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PROJECT ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE {PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. 4. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING CONTECH FOR ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT PROPER ACTIVATION BY A CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE 5. VERTICAL HEIGHT VARIES BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. It) ~ ~~ WETLANDMEDIA BED VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD C/L BYPASS OVERROW WEIR RIM/FG VEGETATION~ PLANT ESTABLISHMENT • ,,__..,,._ MEDIA -----e·-o·----- ~~ n~ ;,.-,,' _i_-t--C;ii=~;:z:;::.:;:~at:=:9?~:2::i:l:~~!=;;:;:=,r:±a~~*~:b.Ll - - -g - -~ - - -~~::::14'----:=--=:-:= IE OUT ---------------20·-o·-------------- PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: TH£ INFORMATION CONTNNED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TH£ SOL£ PROPERTY OF CONTECH ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY 8£ US£D, R£PROOUC£D OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT TH£ WRITT£N CONSENT OF CONTECH. C(1j NTECH® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC www.ContachES.com IE IN 3" LAYER OF NON-FLOATABLE WELL -AGED COMPOST OR FINE BARK (1-2" ADDED ANNUALLY OR AS NEEDED). CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION 2'-3' ENGINEERED SOIL (ES), 20% MEDIA POROSITY. FILTER COURSE TO PREVENT MIGRATION OF FINES FROM MEDIA ABOVE (2" -3" ASTM C33 COARSE SAND FOLLOWED BY 2"-3" OF ASTM NO. 8 OR NO. 89 GRAVEL.) 30 MIL IMPERVIOUS LINER (VERTICAL) ~~~~N~~~~~nsz::~~n ~~~□ll---OPEN-GRADED AGGREGATE (1/2" CLEAN, CRUSHED ROCK) LOCATED IN VEHICLE NON-ACCESSIBLE AREAS FILTER COURSE LAYER ...... ·: .. ··•. · : • • •• ·fa·--+-----2-3" WASHED ASTM C33 COARSE FILTER SAND ~~f,__C:-~i.__'C"'-¥"J/.J1".J/~~~~~~f,__C:-~-.;.__f.~;f~i~Jt~~~~fj~f~;f~ii ~E.t-----2-3" WASHED ASTM NO. 8 OR 89 GRAVEL COURSE ~--->:+----WASHED AASHTO NO. 57 AGGREGATE GRAVEL LAYER TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-51 May 19, 2011 XIV.5. Biotreatment BMP Fact Sheets (BIO) Conceptual criteria for biotreatment BMP selection, design, and maintenance are contained in Appendix XII. These criteria are generally applicable to the design of biotreatment BMPs in Orange County and BMP-specific guidance is provided in the following fact sheets. Note: Biotreatment BMPs shall be designed to provide the maximum feasible infiltration and ET based on criteria contained in Appendix XI.2. BIO-1: Bioretention with Underdrains Bioretention stormwater treatment facilities are landscaped shallow depressions that capture and filter stormwater runoff. These facilities function as a soil and plant-based filtration device that removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes. The facilities normally consist of a ponding area, mulch layer, planting soils, and plants. As stormwater passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded, and sequestered by the soil and plants. Bioretention with an underdrain are utilized for areas with low permeability native soils or steep slopes where the underdrain system that routes the treated runoff to the storm drain system rather than depending entirely on infiltration. Bioretention must be designed without an underdrain in areas of high soil permeability. Feasibility Screening Considerations x If there are no hazards associated with infiltration (such as groundwater concerns, contaminant plumes or geotechnical concerns), bioinfiltration facilities, which achieve partial infiltration, should be used to maximize infiltration. x Bioretention with underdrain facilities should be lined if contaminant plumes or geotechnical concerns exist. If high groundwater is the reason for infiltration infeasibility, bioretention facilities with underdrains do not need to be lined. Opportunity Criteria x Land use may include commercial, residential, mixed use, institutional, and subdivisions. Bioretention may also be applied in parking lot islands, cul-de-sacs, traffic circles, road shoulders, road medians, and next to buildings in planter boxes. x Drainage area is ≤ 5 acres. x Area is available for infiltration. Also known as: ¾ Rain gardens with underdrains ¾ Vegetated media filter ¾ Downspout planter boxes Bioretention Source: Geosyntec Consultants TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-52 May 19, 2011 x Site must have adequate relief between land surface and the stormwater conveyance system to permit vertical percolation through the soil media and collection and conveyance in underdrain to stormwater conveyance system. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Ponding depth should not exceed 18 inches; fencing may be required if ponding depth is greater than 6 inches to mitigate drowning. □ The minimum soil depth is 2 feet (3 feet is preferred). □ The maximum drawdown time of the bioretention ponding area is 48 hours. The maximum drawdown time of the planting media and gravel drainage layer is 96 hours, if applicable. □ Infiltration pathways may need to be restricted due to the close proximity of roads, foundations, or other infrastructure. A geomembrane liner, or other equivalent water proofing, may be placed along the vertical walls to reduce lateral flows. This liner should have a minimum thickness of 30 mils. □ If infiltration in bioretention location is hazardous due to groundwater or geotechnical concerns, a geomembrane liner must be installed at the base of the b ioretention facility. This liner should have a minimum thickness of 30 mils. □ The planting media placed in the cell shall be designed per the recommendations contained in MISC-1: Planting/Storage Media □ Plant materials should be tolerant of summer drought, ponding fluctuations, and saturated soil conditions for 48 hours; native place species and/or hardy cultivars that are not invasive and do not require chemical inputs should be used to the maximum extent feasible □ The bioretention area should be covered with 2-4 inches (average 3 inches) or mulch at the start and an additional placement of 1-2 inches of mulch should be added annually. □ Underdrain should be sized with a 6 inch minimum diameter and have a 0.5% minimum slope. Underdrain should be slotted polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe; underdrain pipe should be more than 5 feet from tree locations (if space allows). □ A gravel blanket or bedding is required for the underdrain pipe(s). At least 0.5 feet of washed aggregate must be placed below, to the top, and to the sides of the underdrain pipe(s). □ An overflow device is required at the top of the bioretention area ponding depth. □ Dispersed flow or energy dissipation (i.e. splash rocks) for piped inlets should be provided at basin inlet to prevent erosion. □ Ponding area side slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) unless designed as a planter box BMP with appropriate consideration for trip and fall hazards. Simple Sizing Method for Bioretention with Underdrain If the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method described in Appendix III.3.1 is used to size a bioretention with underdrain facility, the user selects the basin depth and then determines the appropriate surface area to capture the DCV. The sizing steps are as follows: Step 1: Determine DCV Calculate the DCV using the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method described in Appendix III.3.1. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-53 May 19, 2011 Step 2: Verify that the Ponding Depth will Draw Down within 48 Hours The ponding area drawdown time can be calculated using the following equation: DDP = (dP / KMEDIA) × 12 in/ft Where: DDP = time to drain ponded water, hours dP = depth of ponding above bioretention area, ft (not to exceed 1.5 ft) KMEDIA = media design infiltration rate, in/hr (equivalent to the media hydraulic conductivity with a factor of safety of 2; KMEDIA of 2.5 in/hr should be used unless other information is available) If the drawdown time exceeds 48 hours, adjust ponding depth and/or media infiltration rate until 48 hour drawdown time is achieved. Step 3: Determine the Depth of Water Filtered During Design Capture Storm The depth of water filtered during the design capture storm can be estimated as the amount routed through the media during the storm, or the ponding depth, whichever is smaller. dFILTERED = Minimum [ ((KMEDIA × TROUTING)/12), dP] Where: dFILTERED = depth of water that may be considered to be filtered during the design storm event, ft KMEDIA = media design infiltration rate, in/hr (equivalent to the media hydraulic conductivity with a factor of safety of 2; KMEDIA of 2.5 in/hr should be used unless other information is available) TROUTING = storm duration that may be assumed for routing calculations; this should be assumed to be no greater than 3 hours. If the designer desires to account for further routing effects, the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs (See Appendix III.3.2) should be used. dP = depth of ponding above bioretention area, ft (not to exceed 1.5 ft) Step 4: Determine the Facility Surface Area A = DCV/ (dP + dFILTERED) Where: A = required area of bioretention facility, sq-ft DCV = design capture volume, cu-ft dFILTERED = depth of water that may be considered to be filtered during the design storm event, ft dP = depth of ponding above bioretention area, ft (not to exceed 1.5 ft) Capture Efficiency Method for Bioretention with Underdrains If the bioretention geometry has already been defined and the user wishes to account more explicitly for routing, the user can determine the required footprint area using the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs (See Appendix III.3.2) to determine the fraction of the DCV that must be provided to manage 80 percent of average annual runoff volume. This method accounts for drawdown time different than 48 hours. Step 1: Determine the drawdown time associated with the selected basin geometry DD = (dp / KDESIGN) × 12 in/ft Where: DD = time to completely drain infiltration basin ponding depth, hours TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-54 May 19, 2011 dP = bioretention ponding depth, ft (should be less than or equal to 1.5 ft) KDESIGN = design media infiltration rate, in/hr (assume 2.5 inches per hour unless otherwise proposed) If drawdown is less than 3 hours, the drawdown time should be rounded to 3 hours or the Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-based BMPs (See Appendix III.3.3) shall be used. Step 2: Determine the Required Adjusted DCV for this Drawdown Time Use the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs (See Appendix III.3.2) to calculate the fraction of the DCV the basin must hold to achieve 80 percent capture of average annual stormwater runoff volume based on the basin drawdown time calculated above. Step 3: Determine the Basin Infiltrating Area Needed The required infiltrating area (i.e. the surface area of the top of the media layer) can be calculated using the following equation: A = Design Volume / dp Where: A = required infiltrating area, sq-ft (measured at the media surface) Design Volume = fraction of DCV, adjusted for drawdown, cu-ft (see Step 2) dp = ponding depth of water stored in bioretention area, ft (from Step 1) This does not include the side slopes, access roads, etc. which would increase bioretention footprint. If the area required is greater than the selected basin area, adjust surface area or adjust ponding depth and recalculate required area until the required area is achieved. Configuration for Use in a Treatment Train x Bioretention areas may be preceeded in a treatment train by HSCs in the drainage area, which would reduce the required design volume of the bioretention cell. For example, bioretention could be used to manage overflow from a cistern. x Bioretention areas can be used to provide pretreatment for underground infiltration systems. Additional References for Design Guidance x CASQA BMP Handbook for New and Redevelopment: http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-32.pdf x SMC LID Manual (pp 68): http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/guest75/pub/All_Projects/SoCal_LID_Manual/SoCalL ID_Manual_FINAL_040910.pdf x Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf x San Diego County LID Handbook Appendix 4 (Factsheet 7): http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/LID-Appendices.pdf Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 4: http://www.laschools.org/employee/design/fs-studies-and- reports/download/white_paper_report_material/Storm_Water_Technical_Manual_2009-opt- red.pdf?version_id=76975850 x County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Standards Manual, Chapter 5: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/LA_County_LID_Manual.pdf TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-69 May 19, 2011 BIO-7: Proprietary Biotreatment Proprietary biotreatment devices are devices that are manufactured to mimic natural systems such as bioretention areas by incorporating plants, soil, and microbes engineered to provide treatment at higher flow rates or volumes and with smaller footprints than their natural counterparts. Incoming flows are typically filtered through a planting media (mulch, compost, soil, plants, microbes, etc.) and either infiltrated or collected by an underdrain and delivered to the storm water conveyance system. Tree box filters are an increasingly common type of proprietary biotreatment device that are installed at curb level and filled with a bioretention type soil. For low to moderate flows they operate similarly to bioretention systems and are bypassed during high flows. Tree box filters are highly adaptable solutions that can be used in all types of development and in all types of soils but are especially applicable to dense urban parking lots, street, and roadways. Feasibility Screening Considerations x Proprietary biotreatment devices that are unlined may cause incidental infiltration. Therefore, an evaluation of site conditions should be conducted to evaluate whether the BMP should include an impermeable liner to avoid infiltration into the subsurface. Opportunity Criteria x Drainage areas of 0.25 to 1.0 acres. x Land use may include commercial, residential, mixed use, institutional, and subdivisions. Proprietary biotreatment facilities may also be applied in parking lot islands, traffic circles, road shoulders, and road medians. x Must not adversely affect the level of flood protection provided by the drainage system. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Frequent maintenance and the use of screens and grates to keep trash out may decrease the likelihood of clogging and prevent obstruction and bypass of incoming flows. □ Consult proprietors for specific criteria concerning the design and performance. □ Proprietary biotreatment may include specific media to address pollutants of concern. However, for proprietary device to be considered a biotreatment device the media must be capable of supporting rigorous growth of vegetation. □ Proprietary systems must be acceptable to the reviewing agency. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to request performance information. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to deny the use of a proprietary BMP on the grounds of performance, maintenance considerations, or other relevant factors. Also known as: ¾ Catch basin planter box ¾ Bioretention vault ¾ Tree box filter Proprietary biotreatment Source: http://www.americastusa.com /index.php/filterra/ TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-70 May 19, 2011 □ In right of way areas, plant selection should not impair traffic lines of site. Local jurisdictions may also limit plant selection in keeping with landscaping themes. Computing Sizing Criteria for Proprietary Biotreatment Device x Proprietary biotreatment devices can be volume based or flow-based BMPs. x Volume-based proprietary devices should be sized using the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method described in Appendix III.3.1 or the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs described in Appendix III.3.2. x The required design flowrate for flow-based proprietary devices should be computed using the Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-based BMPs described in Appendix III.3.3). Additional References for Design Guidance x Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 4: http://www.laschools.org/employee/design/fs-studies-and- reports/download/white_paper_report_material/Storm_Water_Technical_Manual_2009-opt- red.pdf?version_id=76975850 x Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 9: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf x Santa Barbara BMP Guidance Manual, Chapter 6: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/91D1FA75-C185-491E-A882- 49EE17789DF8/0/Manual_071008_Final.pdf Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 38 Educational Materials SECTION VII EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS The educational materials included in this WQMP are provided to inform people involved in future uses, activities, or ownership of the site about the potential pitfalls associated with careless storm water management. “The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door” provides users with information about storm water that is/will be generated on site, what happens when water enters a storm drain, and its ultimate fate, discharging into the ocean. Also included are activities guidelines to educate anyone who is or will be associated with activities that have a potential to impact storm water runoff quality, and provide a menu of BMPs to effectively reduce the generation of storm water runoff pollutants from a variety of activities. The educational materials that may be used for the proposed project are included in Appendix C of this WQMP and are listed below. EDUCATION MATERIALS Residential Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached Business Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Attached The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door ☒ Tips for the Automotive Industry ☐ Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers ☐ Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar ☐ Tips for the Home Mechanic ☐ Tips for the Food Service Industry ☐ Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use ☐ Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business ☒ Household Tips ☐ Other Materials (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) (https://www.casqa.org/resources/bmp- handbooks) Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste ☐ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) ☐ DF-1 Drainage System Operation & Maintenance ☒ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) ☐ SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup ☒ Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) ☐ SC-32 Outdoor Equipment Operations ☒ Tips for Maintaining Septic Tank Systems ☐ SC-43 Parking/Storage Area ☒ Responsible Pest Control ☐ SC-70 Road and Street Maintenance ☒ Sewer Spill ☐ SC-73 Landscape Maintenance ☒ Tips for the Home Improvement Projects ☐ SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance ☒ Tips for Horse Care ☐ SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls ☒ Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ☐ SD-12 Efficient Irrigation ☒ Tips for Pet Care ☐ SD-13 Storm Drain Signage ☒ Tips for Pool Maintenance ☐ SD-31 Maintenance Bays & Docs ☐ Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains ☐ SD-32 Trash Storage Areas ☒ Tips for Projects Using Paint ☐ SD-35 Outdoor Work Areas ☒ Tips for Protecting Your Watershed ☐ ☐ Other: Children’s Brochure ☐ ☐ Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Snug Harbor Surf Camp Back Bay Barrels, LLC 39 Appendices APPENDICES Appendix A ........................................................................................ Supporting Calculations Appendix B ........................................................................ Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Appendix C ............................................................................................ Educational Materials Appendix D ....................................................... BMP Maintenance Supplement / O&M Plan Appendix E ........................................................................ Conditions of Approval (Pending) Appendix F ................................................................................... Geotechnical Investigation Appendix G ......................................................................................... Hydrology Calculations APPENDIX A SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H DMA I DMA J DMA K DMA L DMA M 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d=0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, d remainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder=0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 inches 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=1.70 1.94 0.30 0.26 0.27 0.37 0.20 0.29 0.19 2.27 1.24 5.53 0.89 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=90%90%90%100%100%0%100%100%30%100%100%100%90%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.825 0.825 0.825 0.900 0.900 0.150 0.900 0.900 0.375 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 4 Calculate runoff volume, V design = (C x d remainder x A x 43560 x (1/12))Vdesign=3,818 4,357 674 637 662 151 490 711 194 5,562 3,038 13,550 2,181 cu-ft 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, K measured (in/hr) (Appendix VII)Kmeasured=in/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, S final (unitless)Sfinal= 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, K design = K measured / S final Kdesign=in/hr 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours)T=hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), D max = K design x T x (1/12) Dmax=feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), A min = V design / d max Amin=sq-ft Not Applicable Infiltration infeasible per Geotech - see Appendix F Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the DCV Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate Not Applicable Infiltration infeasible per Geotech - see Appendix F F:\Projects\4206\001\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & Worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_Snug Harbor_2024-11-04; B-1 11/5/2024 I I I I I I I I - - - - Worksheet D: Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-Based BMPs DMA A DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA J DMA K DML M 1 Enter the time of concentration, Tc (min) (See Appendix IV.2)Tc=5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 min 2 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the estimated time of concentration (Tc) achieves 80% capture efficiency, I 1 I1=0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 in/hr 3 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 0 0 0 0 0 0 inches 4 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y 2 (Worksheet A)Y2=0%0%0%0%0%0%0%% 5 Using Figure III.4, determine the design intensity at which the time of concentration (Tc) achieves the upstream capture efficiency (Y2), I 2 I2=0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in/hr 6 Determine the design intensity that must be provided by BMP, I design = I 1 - I 2 Idesign=0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.260 in/hr 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=1.70 0.30 0.26 0.27 2.27 1.24 0.89 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=90%90%100%100%100%100%100%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C = (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.825 0.825 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 4 Calculate design flowrate, Q design = (C x i design x A)Qdesign=0.365 0.064 0.061 0.063 0.531 0.290 0.208 cfs Describe System: Proprietary BioTreatment (BIO-7): Unit Size / Model =MWS-L-8-16 MWS-L-4-8 MWS-L-4-8 MWS-L-4-8 MWS-L-8-20 MWS-L-8-12 MWS-L-8-8 Unit Size / Model Treatment Capacity =0.462 0.115 1.115 0.115 0.577 0.346 0.231 cfs Number of Units Needed =1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Bio-treatment Provided =0.462 0.115 1.115 0.115 0.577 0.346 0.231 cfs Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the design flowrate Supporting Calculations F:\Projects\4206\001\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & Worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_Snug Harbor_2024-11-04; D-1 (MWS)11/5/2024 Worksheet C: Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs DMA B DMA G DMA H 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches)d=0.75 0.75 0.75 inches 2 Enter calculated drawdown time of the proposed BMP based on equation provided in applicable BMP Fact Sheet, T (hours)T=2.40 1.20 1.20 hours 3 Using Figure III.2, determine the "fraction of design capture storm depth" at which the BMP drawdown time (T) line achieves 80% capture efficiency, X 1 X1=0.25 0.20 0.20 4 Enter the effect depth of provided HSCs upstream, d HSC (inches) (Worksheet A)dHSC=0 0 0 inches 5 Enter capture efficiency corresponding to dHSC, Y 2 (Worksheet A)Y2=0%0%0%% 6 Using Figure III.2, determine the fraction of "design capture storm depth" at which the drawdown time (T) achieves the equivalent of the upstream capture efficiency (Y2), X 2 X2=0.00 0.00 0.00 7 Calculate the fraction of design volume that must be provided by BMP, fraction = X 1 - X 2 fraction=0.25 0.20 0.20 8 Calculate the resultant design capture storm depth (inches), d fraction = fraction × d dfraction=0.19 0.15 0.15 inches 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP(s), A (acres)A=1.94 0.20 0.29 acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp=90%100%100%% 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C=0.825 0.900 0.900 4 Calculate runoff volume, V design = (C x d rfraction x A x 43560 x (1/12))Vdesign=1,089 98 142 cu-ft Describe System: BMP Type: Bioretention with Underdrain Ponding Depth (d p ) =0.50 0.25 0.25 ft Design Infiltration Rate (K Design ) =2.50 2.50 2.50 in/hr Minimum Surface Area Required (A Min ) =2,178.7 392.0 568.5 ft2 Total Surface Area Provided =4,944.0 1,743.0 1,238.0 ft2 Total Volume Stored =2,472.0 435.8 309.5 ft3 Provide drawdown time calculations per applicable BMP Fact Sheet: Drawdown (DD or T) = (dp / K Design ) x 12 Time to Drawdown Effective Depth (T) =2.4 1.2 1.2 hours Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume Step 2: Calculate the DCV Supporting Calculations F:\Projects\4206\001\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & Worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_Snug Harbor_2024-11-04; C-1 BIO 11/5/2024 1 Is project large or small? (as defined by Table VIII.2) circle one 2 What is the tributary area to the BMP?A 15.43 acres 3 What type of BMP is proposed? 4 What is the infiltrating surface area of the proposed BMP? ABMP N/A sq-ft 6 What land use-based risk category is applicable?L M H 8 What minimum separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater applies to the proposed BMP? See Section VIII.2 (circle one) 10 What is separation from the infiltrating surface to seasonally high groundwater?SHGWT N/A ft 11 What is separation from the infiltrating surface to mounded seasonally high groundwater? Mounded SHGWT N/A ft 13 Is the site within a plume protection boundary (See Figure VIII.2)?Y N N/A 9 12 5 ft 10 ft Provide rationale for selection of applicable minimum separation to seasonally high mounded groundwater: Describe assumptions and methods used for mounding analysis: 7 What land use activities are present in the tributary area (list all) Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria Large Small 5 Roofs, drive aisles, parking lots, pedestrian walkways, water attactions, landscaping Modular Wetland System (5) Bioretention w/ Underdrain (4) If M or H, what pretreatment and source isolation BMPs have been considered and are proposed (describe all): c:::> C: ~ c:::> c:::> 14 Is the site within a selenium source area or other natural plume area (See Figure VIII.2)?Y N N/A 15 Is the site within 250 feet of a contaminated site?Y N N/A 17 Is the site within 100 feet of a water supply well, spring, septic system?Y N N/A 18 Is infiltration feasible on the site relative to groundwater- related criteria? Stormwater infiltration is infeasible due to the presence of thick clay layers underlying the site that would be expected to have very low to no permeability, presence of perched water, and evidence of pressurized aquifers below the site. Appendix F for further details Note: if a single criterion or group of criteria would render infiltration infeasible, it is not necessary to evaluate every question in this worksheet. Provide rationale for feasibility determination: 16 Y N Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria If site-specific study has been prepared, provide citation and briefly summarize relevant findings: C) C :) C) C) Worksheet J: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility 1 2 3 4 5 What is the design capture storm depth? (Figure III.1) d 0.75 inches 6 What is the project size? A 15.43 ac 7 What is the acreage of impervious area? IA 13.89 ac 8 What is the minimum use required for partial capture? (Table X.6) gpd 9 What is the project estimated wet season total daily use (Section X.2)? gpd 10 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 9 > Line 8?) 11 What is the minimum TUTIA for partial capture? (Table X.7) 12 What is the project estimated TUTIA? 13 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 12 > Line 11?) 14 What is the minimum irrigation area required based on conservation landscape design? (Table X.8)ac 15 What is the proposed project irrigated area? (multiply conservation landscaping by 1; multiply active turf by 2)ac 16 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 15 > Line 14?) Provide supporing assumptions and citations for controlling demand calculation: Minimum EIATA for Active Turf per Table X.8 = ac/ac Minimum EIATA for Conservation-Type Landscaping per Table X.8 = ac/ac Minimum Irrigated Area = Project Impervious Area ÷ EIATA ac Minimum Irrigated Area for 100% Active Turf Landscaping = ac Minimum Irrigated Area for 100% Conservation Landscaping = ac Proposed Landscaping Type = Total Proposed Irrigated Area for Active Turf Type = ac Total Proposed Irrigated Area for Conservation Type = ac 33.88 16.73 50% Turf; 50% Conservation 1.54 1.54 16.73 0.41 0.83 No For projects with multiple types of demand (toilet flushing, irrigation demand, and/or other demand) N/A N/A N/A For projects with only toilet flushing demand N/A N/A N/A For projects with only irrigation demand 16.73 4.62 Other: ________________________________________________________ What demands for harvested water exist in the tributary area (check all that apply): Toilet and urinal flushing N/A Landscape irrigation X F:\Projects\4206\001\_Support Files\Reports\WQMP\Appendices\Appendix A_Calcs & Worksheets\WQ Calcs Worksheets_Snug Harbor; J-18/13/2024 O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY ORA N G E C O U N T Y ORA N G E C O U N T Y LOS A N G E L E S C O U N T Y LOS A N G E L E S C O U N T Y 1.05 0.7 1 0 . 9 5 0 . 9 0 . 8 5 0 . 8 0 . 7 5 0 . 7 0 . 6 5 0.9 5 0.7 0. 9 0.9 0.7 5 P: \ 9 5 2 6 E \ 6 - G I S \ M x d s \ R e p o r t s \ I n f i l t r a t i o n F e a s a b i l i t y _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 \ 9 5 2 6 E _ F i g u r e X V I - 1 _ R a i n f a l l Z o n e s _ 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 . m x d FIGURE JO B TI T L E SC A L E 1" = 1 . 8 m i l e s DE S I G N E D DR A W I N G CH E C K E D BM P 04 / 2 2 / 1 0 DA T E JO B N O . 95 2 6 - E THTH OR A N G E C O U N T Y TE C H N I C A L G U I D A N C E DO C U M E N T OR A N G E C O . CA RA I N F A L L Z O N E S SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION 0 3.6 7.21.8 Miles 0 6 123 Kilometers LEGEND Orange County Precipitation Stations 24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) 24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) - Extrapolated City Boundaries Rainfall Zones Design Capture Storm Depth (inches) 0.65" 0.7 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.10" Note: Events defined as 24-hour periods (calendar days) with greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall. For areas outside of available data coverage, professional judgment shall be applied. XVI-1 Ro.s t ran$,1 .___ Paramo,,mt., ~ Bl11 11l>we ~ 0 a 0 San ~,u Say Art ola 0 Hawaii an Li r Eas1 1a 0~• Mirada s.mo~ 39 -"' 1! "i Q z L.a Habra r,i o !lj "C = lrada ti J _II Q .. ii: ;; ~ .. :r 0 Fullerton nahelm Garden Grove T ~k A r1 .,, E111• fwr-" i "' .. "5 i ::E ' '" r-,,,----,; w Ec:llnge-, Ave Bali.,(" St 0 Costa Mesa 90 v ' Cl " q 2 E Conins ,...,,_ Orang~ EWarnerA..,e, ,?~\UB/vd Jorba c Pa/'\, ,,:1/'""~ 1<0 7,. • 241 .1\ 7 C. C All~o 1, o L ,h.J .-1 Bi!"~C .:, ~.r-\J Pacific Ocean oCh lno Hlllo guoa HIiis ll'rado Reg~or,ill P•"'- -~ ' \ II' .. ",; ~ '\ t. 0 Sall Juan Capl'!lt ano ,o " •• L., "'"£' Cllrui, St ., - 'J ., ., E' IJpr,,, •o, S,;ti Cletner1te ~ :, t 0 ; (:) • ,. ... e,., ' ~ " !; .. -lj 0. .Ii "' No ., J,! I Juf'li?3 ve Jun.rpa Ave 0 LJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 1111 1111 Cl.e\l.,ier,d N,iUlonnl Forest ,Pu ~~ ·-'\.~. ake, El5ir,ore- , .. c,.,.~ ~· :< .. 0 8 a ! \, i ,; "' D ii 0 C'l ;;l ; <' .... l If' ,,• ,o ,,,.. r -,-",ii, Cr.f:!sik Jld e Ma e,1• • ve 0 O Wildo § ,:' ~ -C 0 C"<1tanC.~ ~ \.,> ... ¢ W., ~ CD O·& in ... J!! ~t 0:1 APPENDIX B NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 GRADING PLANS: TBD Submission of this Notice Of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Newport Beach that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”) for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his/her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/ Previous Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project (if applicable): Title of WQMP Applicable to site: Street Address of Site (if applicable): Planning Area (PA) and/ or Tract Number(s) for Site: Lot Numbers (if Site is a portion of a tract): Date WQMP Prepared (and revised if applicable): III. New Owner/ New Responsible Party Information Company/ Individual Name: Contact Person: Street Address: Title: City: State: ZIP: Phone: I I I I I IV. Ownership Transfer Information General Description of Site Transferred to New Owner: General Description of Portion of Project/ Parcel Subject to WQMP Retained by Owner (if any): Lot/ Tract Numbers of Site Transferred to New Owner: Remaining Lot/ Tract Numbers Subject to WQMP Still Held by Owner (if any): Date of Ownership Transfer: Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/ parcel no transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those portions of a project/ parcel addressed by the WQMP that are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner. Those portions retained by Previous Owner shall be labeled as “Previously Transferred”. V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee of property subject to a WQMP that such New Order is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for those portions of the site that it owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section II above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of Previous Owner Representative: Title: Signature of Previous Owner Representative: Date: B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section II above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I have informed myself and understand the New Owner’s responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing this notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendment of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of New Owner Representative: Title: Signature: Date: APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com To report a spill, call the Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455). For emergencies, dial 911. Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door PROJECT PREVENTION Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: Preventing water pollution at your commercial/industrial site Clean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and ocean are important to Orange County. However, many landscape and building maintenance activities can lead to water pollution if you’re not careful. Paint, chemicals, plant clippings and other materials can be blown or washed into storm drains that flow to the ocean. Unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks and toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways. You would never pour soap or fertilizers into the ocean, so why would you let them enter the storm drains? Follow these easy tips to help prevent water pollution. Some types of industrial facilities are required to obtain coverage under the State General Industrial Permit. For more information visit: www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwater/industrial.html Printed on Recycled Paper RECYCLE USED OIL 0 Tips for Pool Maintenance Call your trash hauler to replace leaking dumpsters. Do not dump any toxic substance or liquid waste on the pavement, the ground, or near a storm drain. Even materials that seem harmless such as latex paint or biodegradable cleaners can damage the environment. Recycle paints, solvents and other materials. For more information about recycling and collection centers, visit www.oclandfills.com. Store materials indoors or under cover and away from storm drains. Use a construction and demolition recycling company to recycle lumber, paper, cardboard, metals, masonry, carpet, plastic, pipes, drywall, rocks, dirt, and green waste. For a listing of construction and demolition recycling locations in your area, visit www.ciwmb.ca.gov/recycle. Properly label materials. Familiarize employees with Material Safety Data Sheets. Landscape Maintenance Compost grass clippings, leaves, sticks and other vegetation, or dispose of it at a permitted landfill or in green waste containers. Do not dispose of these materials in the street, gutter or storm drain. Irrigate slowly and inspect the system for leaks, overspraying and runoff. Adjust automatic timers to avoid overwatering. Follow label directions for the use and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides. Do not apply pesticides or fertilizers if rain is expected within 48 hours or if wind speeds are above 5 mph. Do not spray pesticides within 100 feet of waterways. Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped onto the surface. If fertilizer is spilled on the pavement or sidewalk, sweep it up immediately and place it back in the container. Building Maintenance Never allow washwater, sweepings or sediment to enter the storm drain. Sweep up dry spills and use cat litter, towels or similar materials to absorb wet spills. Dispose of it in the trash. If you wash your building, sidewalk or parking lot, you must contain the water. Use a shop vac to collect the water and contact your city or sanitation agency for proper disposal information. Do not let water enter the street, gutter or storm drain. Use drop cloths underneath outdoor painting, scraping, and sandblasting work, and properly dispose of materials in the trash. Use a ground cloth or oversized tub for mixing paint and cleaning tools. Use a damp mop or broom to clean floors. Cover dumpsters to keep insects, animals, rainwater and sand from entering. Keep the area around the dumpster clear of trash and debris. Do not overfill the dumpster. PROJECT PREVENTION Proper Maintenance Practices for your Business Never Dispose of Anything in the Storm Drain. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ DF-1 DRAINAGE FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE As a consequence of its function, the stormwater conveyance system collects and transports urban runoff and storm water that may contain certain pollutants. Consequently these pollutants may accumulate in the system and must be removed periodically. In addition, the systems must also be maintained to function properly hydraulically to avoid flooding . Maintaining the system may involve the following activities: 1. Inspection and Cleaning of Stormwater Conveyance Structures 2. Controlling Illicit Connections and Discharges 3. Controlling Illegal Dumping This list of Model Maintenance Procedures can be utilized as an inspection checklist to determine where better compliance with Designated Minimum Best Management Practices (notated with checkmarks and capital letters) is needed, and to recommend Additional Best Management Practices (notated with bullet points and lower case letters) that may be applicable under certain circumstances, especially where there are certain Pollutant Constituents of Concern. BMPs applicable to certain constituents are notated as: Bacteria (BACT) Sediment (SEO) Nutrients (NUT) Oil and Grease (O&G) Pesticides (PEST) Other Toxic Compounds (TOX) Trash (TRASH) Hydrological Impacts (HYO) Any/All or General (ANY) Program/Facility Being Inspected: Date: Inspector Name: When completed , the checklist should be attached to the General Inspection Form Cover Sheet and copies should be provided to the Supervisor of the Facility/Program being inspected. MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES: 1. Inspection and Cleaning of Drainage Facilities Unsatisfactory General Guidelines OK T 1A. Annually inspect and clean drainage structures as □ □ needed. T 1B. Maintain appropriate records of cleaning and □ □ inspections. T 1C. Properly dispose of removed mater ials at a landfill □ □ or recycling facility. T 1D . Conduct intermittent supplemental visual □ □ inspections during the wet season to determine if there are problem inlets where sediment/trash or other pol lutants accumulate, and provide for additional cleanouts as appropriate. □ □ T 1 E. Prevent or clean up any discharges that may occur during the course of maintenance and cleaning procedures. □ □ T 1 F. Verify that appropriate employees or subcontractors are trained in proper conductance of maintenance activities, including record keeping and disposal. □ □ T 1G. Annually inspect and clean v-ditches as needed, prior to the wet season. On shrub-covered slopes, vegetative debris may be placed on the downhill side of the ditch. landfill. Trash should be bagged and disposed at a County of Orange 02/13/03 Page 1 of 4 Unsatisfactory OK □ □ ---------- □ □ ---------- □ □ ---------- □---------□ □ □ ---------- □ □ ---------- □ □ ---------- □ □ ---------- □ □ ---------- □ □ ---------- □---------□ □ □ ---------- County of Orange 02 /13/03 DF-1 General Guidelines (cont.} • 1 a. Remove trash or debris as needed from open channels . It should be noted that major vege tative debris removal may require other regulatory permits prio r to completing the work. (TRASH) • 1 b. Consider retrofitting energy dissipaters (e.g . riprap) below culvert outfalls to minimize potential for erosion. (SED) • 1 c. Repair any v-ditches that have cracked or disp laced in a manner that accelerates erosion. (SED) • 1 d . If susp icious conditions appear to exist, test selected samples of the removed wastes for compliance w ith hazardous waste regulations prior to disposal. (TOX) • 1 e. Consider more frequent regular cleaning of selected drainage structures to help address ongo ing specific impa irments. (SED, BACT , NUT, TRASH) • 1f. Consider structural retrofits to the MS4 to help address ongoing specific impairments (SED, BACT , NUT , TRASH , O&G) • 1 g. Consider cleaning out pipes at gradient breaks or other in-pipe debris accumulation points as identified/needed. (ANY , BACT, NUT , TRASH) Storm Drain Flushing • 1 h. Flushing of storm drains or storm drain inlets shou ld only be done when critically necessary and no other solution is practica l. (SED, BACT, TRASH ). • 1 i. If flushed, to the extent practical the material shou ld be collected (vacuumed), treated with an ap propriate filtering device to remove sand and debris and disposed of properly. (SED) Waste Management T 1 H. Store wastes collected from cleaning activities of the drainage facilities in appropriate containers or temporary storage sites in a manner that prevents discharge to the storm drain . • 1j . Dewater the wastes if necessary with outflow into the sanitary sewer if permitted . Water should be treated with an appropriate fi ltering device to remove the sand and debris prior to discharge to the san itary sewer. If discharge to the sanitary sewer is not permitted, wate r should be pumped or vacuumed to a ta nk and properly disposed of. Do not dewater near a storm drain or stream . (SED, TRASH) • 1 k. Provide for laboratory ana lysis of at least one randomly collected sediment (less the debris) sample pe r year from the sto rm drain inlet leaning program to ensure that it does not meet the EPA criteria for hazardous waste . If the sample is determ ined to be hazardous, the sediment must be disposed of as hazardo us waste and the source should be investigated. (TOX). Page 2 of 4 DF-1 2. Controlling Illicit Connections and Discharges Unsatisfactory 0~ General Guidelines □ _________ □ T 2A. Report prohibited discharges such as dumping, paint spills, abandoned oil containers, etc. observed during the course of normal daily activities so they can be investigated, contained, and cleaned up. □ __________ □ T 28. Where field observations and/or monitoring data indicate significant problems, conduct field investigations to detect and eliminate existing illicit connections and improper disposal of pollutants into the storm drain (i.e . identify problem areas where discharges or illegal connections may occur and follow up stream to determine the source(s)). (Refer to Appendices A-10 and A-11 .) □ __________ □ T 2C. Report all observed illicit connections and discharges to the 24-hour water pollution problem reporting hotline (714) 567-6363. 0 __________ 0 T 2D. Encourage public reporting of improper waste disposal by distributing public education materials and advertising the 24-hour water pollution problem reporting hotline. Storm Drain Stenciling ("No Dumping-Drains to Ocean") 0 __________ □ T 2E. Implement and maintain a storm drain stenciling program. 0 __________ □ • 2a. Consider adding the hotline number to the storm drain stencils (BACT, TOX, TRASH). 3. Controlling Illegal Dumping □---------□ □---------□ □---------□ □---------□ □---------□ Field Investigation T T T T T 3A. Report prohibited discharges such as dumpings observed during the course of normal daily activities so they can be investigated, contained and cleaned up . 3B. Conduct field investigations to detect and eliminate improper disposal of pollutants into the storm drain (i.e. identify problem areas where discharges or illegal connections may occur and follow up stream to determine the source(s)). 3C. Report all observed illegal dumping to the 24-hour water pollution problem reporting hotline (714) 567-6363. 3D. Encourage public reporting of improper waste disposal by distributing public education materials and advertising the 24-hour water pollution problem reporting hotline. 3E. If perpetrator can be identified , take appropriate enforcement action. □ □ • 3a. Consider posting "No Dumping" signs in problem areas with a phone number for reporting dumping and disposal. Signs could also indicate fines and penalties for illegal dumping. (ANY) ---------- County of Orange 02/13/03 Page 3 of 4 DF-1 Training/Education/Outreach Unsatisfactory OK T 3F. Verify that appropriate employees and □ □ subcontractors are trained to recognize and report illegal ----------dumping. T 3G. Encourage public reporting of illegal dumping by □ □ advertising the 24-hour water pollution problem reporting ---------hotline (714) 567-6363. • 3b. Take extra steps to educate the public in □ □ neighborhoods where illegal dumping has occurred to ----------inform them why illegal dumping is a problem, and that LIMITATIONS: illegal dumping carries a significant financial penalty. (ANY) Clean-up activities may create a slight disturbance for local aquatic species . Access to items and material on private property may be limited. Trade-offs may exist between channel hydraulics and water quality/riparian habitat. If storm channels or basins are recognized as wetlands, many activities, including maintenance, may be subject to regulation and permitting. County of Orange 02/13/03 Page4 of4 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup SC-11 Photo Credit: Geoff Brosseau Description Many activities that occur at an industrial or commercial site have the potential to cause accidental or illegal spills. Preparation for accidental or illegal spills, with proper training • and reporting systems implemented, can minimize the discharge of pollutants to the environment. Spills and leaks are one of the largest contributors of stonnwater pollutants. Spill prevention and control plans are applicable to any site at which hazardous materials are stored or used. An effective plan should have spill prevention and response procedures that identify potential spill areas, specify material handling procedures, describe spill response procedures, and provide spill clean-up equipment. The plan should take steps to identify and characterize potential spills, eliminate and reduce spill potential, respond to spills when they occur in an effort to prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater drainage system, and train personnel to prevent and control future spills. Approach Pollution Prevention ■ Develop procedures to prevent/mitigate spills to storm drain systems . Develop and standardize reporting procedures, containment, storage, and disposal activities, documentation, and follow-up procedures. ■ Develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The plan should include: January 2003 Errata 4 -06 California Stormwater BM P Handbook Industrial and Commercial www. ca bmpha ndbooks.com Objectives ■ Cover ■ Contain ■ Educate ■ Reduce/Minimize ■ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics 0 0 0 ~- ASQ C,\L.IfOR'.\:IASTOR¼WATER 1 of 9 SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup Description of the facility, owner and address, activities and chemicals present Facility map Notification and evacuation procedures Cleanup instructions Identification of responsible departments Identify key spill response personnel ■ Recycle, reclaim, or reuse materials whenever possible. This will reduce the amount of process materials that are brought into the facility. Suggested Protocols (including equipment needs) Spill Prevention ■ Develop procedures to prevent/mitigate spills to storm drain systems. Develop and standardize reporting procedures, containment, storage, and disposal activities, documentation, and follow-up procedures. ■ If consistent illegal dumping is observed at the facility: Post "No Dumping" signs with a phone number for reporting illegal dumping and disposal. Signs should also indicate fines and penalties applicable for illegal dumping. Landscaping and beautification efforts may also discourage illegal dumping. Bright lighting and/ or entrance barriers may also be needed to discourage illegal dumping. ■ Store and contain liquid materials in such a manner that if the tank is ruptured, the contents will not discharge, flow, or be washed into the storm drainage system, surface waters, or groundwater. ■ If the liquid is oil, gas, or other material that separates from and floats on water, install a spill control device (such as a tee section) in the catch basins that collects runoff from the storage tank area. ■ Routine maintenance : 2 of 9 Place drip pans or absorbent materials beneath all mounted taps, and at all potential drip and spill locations during filling and unloading of tanks. Any collected liquids or soiled absorbent materials must be reused/recycled or properly disposed. Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location known to all near the tank storage area; and ensure that employees are familiar with the site's spill control plan and/ or proper spill cleanup procedures. Sweep and clean the storage area monthly if it is paved, do not hose down the area to a storm drain. California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Errata 4-06 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup SC-11 Check tanks (and any containment sumps) daily for leaks and spills. Replace tanks that are leaking, corroded, or otherwise deteriorating with tanks in good condition. Collect all spilled liquids and properly dispose of them. ■ Label all containers according to their contents (e.g., solvent, gasoline). ■ Label hazardous substances regarding the potential hazard (corrosive, radioactive, flammable, explosive, poisonous). ■ Prominently display required labels on transported hazardous and toxic materials (per US DOT regulations). ■ Identify key spill response personnel. Spill Control and Cleanup Activities ■ Follow the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. ■ Clean up leaks and spills immediately. ■ Place a stockpile of spill cleanup materials where it will be readily accessible (e.g., near storage and maintenance areas). ■ On paved surfaces, clean up spills with as little water as possible. Use a rag for small spills, a damp mop for general cleanup, and absorbent material for larger spills. If the spilled material is hazardous, then the used cleanup materials are also hazardous and must be sent to a certified laundry (rags) or disposed of as hazardous waste. Physical methods for the cleanup of dry chemicals include the use of brooms, shovels, sweepers, or plows . ■ Never hose down or bury dry material spills. Sweep up the material and dispose of properly. ■ Chemical cleanups of material can be achieved with the use of adsorbents , gels, and foams . Use adsorbent materials on small spills rather than hosing down the spill. Remove the adsorbent materials promptly and dispose of properly. ■ For larger spills, a private spill cleanup company or Hazmat team may be necessary. Reporting ■ Report spills that pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ■ Federal regulations require that any oil spill into a water body or onto an adjoining shoreline be reported to the National Response Center (NRC) at 800-424-8802 (24 hour). ■ Report spills to local agencies, such as the fire department; they can assist in cleanup. ■ Establish a system for tracking incidents. The system should be designed to identify the following : Types and quantities (in some cases) of wastes Patterns in time of occurrence (time of day/night, month, or year) January 2003 Errata 4-06 Cal i fornia Stormwater BMP Handbook I ndustrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com 3 of 9 SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup Mode of dumping (abandoned containers, "midnight dumping" from moving vehicles, direct dumping of materials, accidents/spills) Responsible parties Training ■ Educate employees about spill prevention and cleanup. ■ Well-trained employees can reduce human errors that lead to accidental releases or spills: The employee should have the tools and knowledge to immediately begin cleaning up a spill should one occur. Employees should be familiar with the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. ■ Employees should be educated about aboveground storage tank requirements. Employees responsible for aboveground storage tanks and liquid transfers should be thoroughly familiar with the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan and the plan should be readily available. ■ Train employees to recognize and report illegal dumping incidents. Other Considerations (Limitations and Regulations) ■ A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) is required for facilities that are subject to the oil pollution regulations specified in Part 112 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations or if they have a storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or more of petroleum. (Health and Safety Code 6.67) ■ State regulations also exist for storage of hazardous materials (Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.95), including the preparation of area and business plans for emergency response to the releases or threatened releases. ■ Consider requiring smaller secondary containment areas (less than 200 sq. ft.) to be connected to the sanitary sewer, prohibiting any hard connections to the storm drain. Requirements Costs (including capital and operation & maintenance) ■ Will vary depending on the size of the facility and the necessary controls. ■ Prevention of leaks and spills is inexpensive. Treatment and/ or disposal of contaminated soil or water can be quite expensive. Maintenance (including administrative and staffing) ■ This BMP has no major administrative or staffing requirements. However, extra time is needed to properly handle and dispose of spills, which results in increased labor costs. 4 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks .com January 2003 Errata 4-06 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup SC-11 Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Reporting Record keeping and internal reporting represent good operating practices because they can increase the efficiency of the facility and the effect iveness of BMPs. A good record keeping system helps the facility minimize incident recurrence, correctly respond with appropriate cleanup activities, and comply with legal requirements. A record keeping and reporting system should be set up for documenting spills, leaks, and other discharges, including discharges of hazardous substances in reportable quantities. Incident records describe the quality and quantity of non-storm water discharges to the storm sewer. These records should contain the following information: ■ Date and time of the incident ■ Weather conditions ■ Duration of the spill/leak/ discharge ■ Cause of the spill/leak/ discharge ■ Response procedures implemented ■ Persons notified ■ Environmental problems associated with the spill/leak/discharge Separate record keeping systems should be established to document housekeeping and preventive maintenance inspections, and training activities. All housekeeping and preventive maintenance inspections should be documented. Inspection documentation should contain the following information: ■ The date and time the inspection was performed ■ Name of the inspector ■ Items inspected ■ Problems noted ■ Corrective action required ■ Date corrective action was taken Other means to document and record inspection results are field notes, timed and dated photographs, videotapes, and drawings and maps. Aboveground Tank Leak and Spill Control Accidental releases of materials from aboveground liquid storage tanks present the potential for contaminating stormwater with many different pollutants. Materials spilled, leaked, or lost from January 2003 Errata 4-06 Cal i fornia Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www .cabmphandbooks.com 5 of 9 SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup tanks may accumulate in soils or on impervious surfaces and be carried away by stormwater runoff. The most common causes of unintentional releases are: ■ Installation problems ■ Failure of piping systems (pipes, pumps, flanges, couplings, hoses, and valves) ■ External corrosion and structural failure ■ Spills and overfills due to operator error ■ Leaks during pumping of liquids or gases from truck or rail car to a storage tank or vice versa Storage of reactive, ignitable, or flammable liquids should comply with the Uniform Fire Code and the National Electric Code. Practices listed below should be employed to enhance the code requirements: ■ Tanks should be placed in a designated area. ■ Tanks located in areas where firearms are discharged should be encapsulated in concrete or the equivalent. ■ Designated areas should be impervious and paved with Portland cement concrete, free of cracks and gaps, in order to contain leaks and spills. ■ Liquid materials should be stored in UL approved double walled tanks or surrounded by a curb or dike to provide the volume to contain 10 percent of the volume of all of the containers or no percent of the volume of the largest container, whichever is greater. The area inside the curb should slope to a drain. ■ For used oil or dangerous waste, a dead-end sump should be installed in the drain. ■ All other liquids should be drained to the sanitary sewer if available. The drain must have a positive control such as a lock, valve, or plug to prevent release of contaminated liquids. ■ Accumulated stormwater in petroleum storage areas should be passed through an oil/water separator. Maintenance is critical to preventing leaks and spills. Conduct routine inspections and: ■ Check for external corrosion and structural failure . ■ Check for spills and overfills due to operator error. ■ Check for failure of piping system (pipes, pumps, flanger, coupling, hoses, and valves). ■ Check for leaks or spills during pumping of liquids or gases from truck or rail car to a storage facility or vice versa. 6 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks .com January 2003 Errata 4-06 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup SC-11 ■ Visually inspect new tank or container installation for loose fittings, poor welding, and improper or poorly fitted gaskets. ■ Inspect tank foundations, connections, coatings, and tank walls and piping system. Look for corrosion, leaks , cracks, scratches, and other physical damage that may weaken the tank or container system. ■ Frequently relocate accumulated stormwater during the wet season. ■ Periodically conduct integrity testing by a qualified professional. Vehicle Leak and Spill Control Major spills on roadways and other public areas are generally handled by highly trained Hazmat teams from local fire departments or environmental health departments. The measures listed below pertain to leaks and smaller spills at vehicle maintenance shops. In addition to implementing the spill prevention, control, and clean up practices above, use the following measures related to specific activities: Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance ■ Perform all vehicle fluid removal or changing inside or under cover to prevent the run-on of stormwater and the runoff of spills . ■ Regularly inspect vehicles and equipment for leaks, and repair immediately. ■ Check incoming vehicles and equipment (including delivery trucks, and employee and subcontractor vehicles) for leaking oil and fluids. Do not allow leaking vehicles or equipment onsite. ■ Always use secondary containment, such as a drain pan or drop cloth, to catch spills or leaks when removing or changing fluids. ■ Immediately drain all fluids from wrecked vehicles. ■ Store wrecked vehicles or damaged equipment under cover. ■ Place drip pans or absorbent materials under heavy equipment when not in use. ■ Use adsorbent materials on small spills rather than hosing down the spill. ■ Remove the adsorbent materials promptly and dispose of properly. ■ Promptly transfer used fluids to the proper waste or recycling drums. Don't leave full drip pans or other open containers lying around. ■ Oil filters disposed of in trashcans or dumpsters can leak oil and contaminate storm water. Place the oil filter in a funnel over a waste oil recycling drum to drain excess oil before disposal. Oil filters can also be recycled. Ask your oil supplier or recycler about recycling oil filters. January 2003 Errata 4 -06 California Stormwater BMP Handbook I ndustrial and Commercial www.cabmphand books.com 7 of 9 SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup ■ Store cracked batteries in a non-leaking secondary container. Do this with all cracked batteries, even if you think all the acid has drained out. If you drop a battery, treat it as if it is cracked. Put it into the containment area until you are sure it is not leaking. Vehicle and Equipment Fueling ■ Design the fueling area to prevent the run-on of stormwater and the runoff of spills: Cover fueling area if possible. Use a perimeter drain or slope pavement inward with drainage to a sump. Pave fueling area with concrete rather than asphalt. ■ If dead-end sump is not used to collect spills, install an oil/water separator. ■ Install vapor recovery nozzles to help control drips as well as air pollution. ■ Discourage "topping-off of fuel tanks. ■ Use secondary containment when transferring fuel from the tank truck to the fuel tank. ■ Use adsorbent materials on small spills and general cleaning rather than hosing down the area. Remove the adsorbent materials promptly. ■ Carry out all Federal and State requirements regarding underground storage tanks, or install above ground tanks. ■ Do not use mobile fueling of mobile industrial equipment around the facility; rather, transport the equipment to designated fueling areas. ■ Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date. ■ Train employees in proper fueling and cleanup procedures. Industrial Spill Prevention Response For the purposes of developing a spill prevention and response program to meet the stormwater regulations, facility managers should use information provided in this fact sheet and the spill prevention/response portions of the fact sheets in this handbook, for specific activities. The program should: ■ Integrate with existing emergency response/hazardous materials programs (e.g., Fire Department) ■ Develop procedures to prevent/mitigate spills to storm drain systems ■ Identify responsible departments ■ Develop and standardize reporting procedures, containment, storage, and disposal activities, documentation, and follow-up procedures ■ Address spills at municipal facilities, as well as public areas 8 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Hand book Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Errata 4-06 Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup SC-11 ■ Provide training concerning spill prevention, response and cleanup to all appropriate personnel References and Resources California's Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.dark. wa. us /pubworks/bmpman. pdf King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://www.scvurppp.org The Stormwater Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ January 2003 Errata 4 -06 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www .cabmphandbooks.com 9 of 9 Outdoor Equipment Maintenance SC-32 Description Outside process equipment operations and maintenance can contaminate stormwater runoff. Activities, such as grinding, painting, coating, sanding, degreasing or parts cleaning, landfills and waste piles, solid waste treatment and disposal, are examples of process operations that can lead to contamination of stormwater runoff. Source controls for outdoor process equip- ment operations and maintenance include reducing the amount of waste created, enclosing or covering all or some of the equipment, installing secondary containment, and training employees. Approach Pollution Prevention ■ Perform the activity during dry periods. ■ Use non-toxic chemicals for maintenance and minimize or eliminate the use of solvents. Suggested Protocols ■ Consider enclosing the activity in a building and connecting the floor drains to the sanitary sewer. ■ Cover the work area with a permanent roof. ■ Minimize contact of stormwater with outside process equipment operations through berming and drainage routing (runon prevention). If allowed, connect process equipment area to public sewer. ■ Dry clean the work area regularly. Training ■ Train employees to perform the activity during dry periods only and to use less or non-toxic materials. ■ Train employee and contractors in proper techniques for spill containment and cleanup. The employee should have the tools and knowledge to immediately begin cleaning up a spill if one should occur. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com Objectives ■ Cover ■ Contain ■ Educate ■ Reduce/Minimize ■ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics Oxygen Demanding CALIFORI\IASrORMWATER I< 1 of 3 SC-32 Outdoor Equipment Maintenance Spill Response and Prevention ■ Refer to SC-11, Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup ■ Keep your spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan up-date, and implement accordingly. ■ Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location. ■ Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible. ■ Properly dispose of spill cleanup material. Other Considerations ■ Space limitations may preclude enclosing some equipment. ■ Storage sheds often must meet building and fire code requirements. Requirements Costs ■ Costs vary depending on the complexity of the operation and the amount of control necessary for stormwater pollution control. ■ Providing cover may be expensive. Maintenance ■ Conduct routine preventive maintenance, including checking process equipment for leaks. ■ Clean the storm drain system regularly. Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Hydraulic/Treatment Modifications In some cases it may be necessary to capture and treat polluted stormwater. If the municipality does not have its own process wastewater treatment system, consider discharging to the public sewer system. Use of the public sewer might be allowed under the following conditions: ■ If the activity area is very small (less than a few hundred square feet), the local sewer authority may be willing to allow the area to remain uncovered with the drain connected to the public sewer. ■ It may be possible under unusual circumstances to connect a much larger area to the public sewer, as long as the rate of stormwater discharges does not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. The stormwater could be stored during the storm and then transferred to the public sewer when the normal flow is low, such as at night. References and Resources California's Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html 2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Outdoor Equipment Maintenance Clark County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf SC-32 King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://www.scvurppp.org The Stormwater Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 3 of 3 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance SC-43 Description Parking lots and storage areas can contribute a number of substances, such as trash, suspended solids, hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and heavy metals that can enter receiving waters through storm water runoff or non-stormwater discharges. The following protocols are intended to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants from parking/storage areas and include using good housekeeping practices, following appropriate cleaning BMPs, and training employees. Approach Pollution Prevention ■ Encourage alternative designs and maintenance strategies for impervious parking lots. (See New Development and Redevelopment BMP Handbook). ■ Keep accurate maintenance logs to evaluate BMP implementation. Suggested Protocols General ■ Keep the parking and storage areas clean and orderly. Remove debris in a timely fashion. ■ Allow sheet runoff to flow into biofilte rs (vegetated strip and swale) and/or infiltration devices . ■ Utilize sand filters or oleophilic collectors for oily waste in low concentrations. January 2003 California Stor mwater BMP Handbook Municipal www .cabmp handbooks.com Objectives ■ Cover ■ Contain ■ Educate ■ Reduce/Minimize ■ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics Oxygen Demanding C"A l !FORNIA STORMWATER l.._ll \j I '1 '\.._._,, ,, l ft.; tr 1 of 4 SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance ■ Arrange rooftop drains to prevent drainage directly onto paved surfaces. ■ Design lot to include semi-permeable hardscape. Controlling Litter ■ Post "No Littering" signs and enforce anti-litter laws. ■ Provide an adequate number oflitter receptacles. ■ Clean out and cover litter receptacles frequently to prevent spillage. ■ Provide trash receptacles in parking lots to discourage litter. ■ Routinely sweep, shovel and dispose of litter in the trash. Surface cleaning ■ Use dry cleaning methods ( e.g. sweeping or vacuuming) to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater conveyance system. ■ Establish frequency of public parking lot sweeping based on usage and field observations of waste accumulation. ■ Sweep all parking lots at least once before the onset of the wet season. ■ If water is used follow the procedures below: Block the storm drain or contain runoff. -Wash water should be collected and pumped to the sanitary sewer or discharged to a pervious surface, do not allow wash water to enter storm drains. Dispose of parking lot sweeping debris and dirt at a landfill. ■ When cleaning heavy oily deposits: Use absorbent materials on oily spots prior to sweeping or washing. Dispose of used absorbents appropriately. Surface Repair ■ Pre-heat, transfer or load hot bituminous material away from storm drain inlets. ■ Apply concrete, asphalt, and seal coat during dry weather to prevent contamination form contacting stormwater runoff. ■ Cover and seal nearby storm drain inlets (with waterproof material or mesh) and manholes before applying seal coat, sluny seal, etc., where applicable. Leave covers in place until job is complete and until all water from emulsified oil sealants has drained or evaporated. Clean any debris from these covered manholes and drains for proper disposal. 2 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance SC-43 ■ Use only as much water as necessary for dust control, to avoid runoff. ■ Catch drips from paving equipment that is not in use with pans or absorbent material placed under the machines. Dispose of collected material and absorbents properly. Inspection ■ Have designated personnel conduct inspections of the parking facilities and storm water conveyance systems associated with them on a regular basis. ■ Inspect cleaning equipment/ sweepers for leaks on a regular basis. Training ■ Provide regular training to field employees and/ or contractors regarding cleaning of paved areas and proper operation of equipment. ■ Train employees and contractors in proper techniques for spill containment and cleanup. Spill Response and Prevention ■ Refer to SC-11, Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup. • Keep your Spill Prevention Control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan up-to-date, nad implement accordingly. ■ Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location. ■ Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible. ■ Properly dispose of spill cleanup material. Other Considerations ■ Limitations related to sweeping activities at large parking facilities may include high equipment costs, the need for sweeper operator training, and the inability of current sweeper technology to remove oil and grease. Requirements Costs Cleaning/sweeping costs can be quite large, construction and maintenance of stormwater structural controls can be quite expensive as well. Maintenance ■ Sweep parking lot to minimize cleaning with water. ■ Clean out oil/water/sand separators regularly, especially after heavy storms. ■ Clean parking facilities on a regular basis to prevent accumulated wastes and pollutants from being discharged into conveyance systems during rainy conditions. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 3 of 4 SC-43 Parking/Storage Area Maintenance Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Surface Repair Apply concrete, asphalt, and seal coat during dry weather to prevent contamination form contacting stormwater runoff. Where applicable, cover and seal nearby storm drain inlets (with waterproof material or mesh) and manholes before applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc. Leave covers in place until job is complete and until all water from emulsified oil sealants has drained or evaporated. Clean any debris from these covered manholes and drains for proper disposal. Use only as much water as necessary for dust control, to avoid runoff. References and Resources http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ California's Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for Small Municipalities. P r epared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Woodward~Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality control Board. July 1998 (Revised February 2002 by the California Coastal Commission). Orange County Stormwa ter Program http://www.ocwatersheds .com/StormWater/swp_introduction.asp Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies. Oregon Municipal Stormwater Toolbox for Maintenance Practices. June 1998. Pollution from Surface Cleaning Folder. 1996. Bay Area Stormwater Manageme nt Agencies Association (BASMAA) http: //www.basma.org San Diego Stormwater Co-permittees Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (URMP) ht1;p :(/www.projectcleanwater .org/pdf/Model%20Prouam%20Municipal%20Facilities.pdf 4 of 4 Ca lifornia Stormwater BMP Hand book Municipal www.cabm phandbooks.com Janua ry 2003 Road and Street Maintenance Description Streets, roads, and highways are significant sources of pollutants in stormwater discharges, and operation and maintenance (O&M) practices, if not conducted properly, can contribute to the problem. Stormwater pollution from roadway and bridge maintenance should be addressed on a site-specific basis. Use of the procedures outlined below, that address street sweeping and repair, bridge and structure maintenance, and unpaved roads will reduce pollutants in stormwater. Approach Pollution Prevention ■ Use the least toxic materials available ( e.g. water based paints, gels or sprays for graffiti removal) ■ Recycle paint and other materials whenever possible. ■ Enlist the help of citizens to keep yard waste, used oil, and other wastes out of the gutter. Suggested Protocols Street Sweeping and Cleaning ■ Maintain a consistent sweeping schedule. Provide minimum monthly sweeping of curbed streets. ■ Perform street cleaning during dry weather if possible. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www .cabmphandbooks.com SC-70 Objectives ■ Cover ■ Contain ■ Educate ■ Reduce/Minimize ■ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics Oxygen Demanding <A l.lfORJ-:IA 'ITORMWATER t,:t \ I ! f' ' , •I •1 J l t l''~ 1 of 9 SC-70 Road and Street Maintenance ■ Avoid wet cleaning or flushing of street, and utilize dry methods where possible. ■ Consider increasing sweeping frequency based on factors such as traffic volume, land use, field obseivations of sediment and trash accumulation, proximity to water courses, etc. For example: Increase the sweeping frequency for streets with high pollutant loadings, especially in high traffic and industrial areas. Increase the sweeping frequency just before the wet season to remove sediments accumulated during the summer. Increase the sweeping frequency for streets in special problem areas such as special events, high litter or erosion zones. ■ Maintain cleaning equipment in good working condition and purchase replacement equipment as needed. Old sweepers should be replaced with new technologically advanced sweepers (preferably regenerative air sweepers) that maximize pollutant removal. ■ Operate sweepers at manufacturer requested optimal speed levels to increase effectiveness. ■ To increase sweeping effectiveness consider the following: Institute a parking policy to restrict parking in problematic areas during periods of street sweepmg. Post permanent street sweeping signs in problematic areas; use temporary signs if installation of permanent signs is not possible. Develop and distribute flyers notifying residents of street sweeping schedules. ■ Regularly inspect vehicles and equipment for leaks, and repair immediately. ■ If available use vacuum or regenerative air sweepers in the high sediment and trash areas (typically industrial/ commercial). ■ Keep accurate logs of the number of curb-miles swept and the amount of waste collected. ■ Dispose of street sweeping debris and dirt at a landfill. ■ Do not store swept material along the side of the street or near a storm drain inlet. ■ Keep debris storage to a minimum during the wet season or make sure debris piles are contained ( e.g. by berming the area) or covered ( e.g. with tarps or permanent covers). Street Repair and Maintenance Pavement marking ■ Schedule pavement marking activities for dry weather. 2 of 9 califomla Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Road and Street Maintenance SC-70 ■ Develop paint handling procedures for proper use, storage, and disposal of paints. ■ Transfer and load paint and hot thermoplastic away from storm drain inlets. ■ Provide drop cloths and drip pans in paint mixing areas. ■ Properly maintain application equipment. ■ Street sweep thermoplastic grindings. Yellow thermoplastic grindings may require special handling as tl1ey may contain lead. ■ Paints containing lead or tributyltin are considered a hazardous waste and must be disposed of properly. ■ Use water based paints whenever possible. If using water based paints, clean the application equipment in a sink that is connected to the sanitary sewer. ■ Properly store leftover paints if they are to be kept for the next job, or dispose of properly. Concrete installation and repair ■ Schedule asphalt and concrete activities for dry weather. ■ Take measures to protect any nearby storm drain inlets and adjacent watercourses, prior to breaking up asphalt or concrete (e.g. place san bags around inlets or work areas). ■ limit the amount of fresh concrete or cement mortar mixed, mix only what is needed for the job. ■ Store concrete materials under cover, away from drainage areas. Secure bags of cement after they are open. Be sure to keep wind-blown cement powder away from streets, gutters, storm drains, rainfall, and runoff. ■ Return leftover materials to tl1e transit mixer. Dispose of small amounts of hardened excess concrete, grout, and mortar in the trash. ■ Do not wash sweepings from exposed aggregate concrete into the street or storm drain. Collect and return sweepings to aggregate base stockpile, or dispose in the trash. ■ When making saw cuts in pavement, use as little water as possible and perform during dry weather. Cover each storm drain inlet completely with filter fabric or plastic during the sawing operation and contain the slurry by placing straw bales, sandbags, or gravel dams around the inlets. After the liquid drains or evaporates, shovel or vacuum the slurry residue from tlie pavement or gutter and remove from site. Alternatively, a small onsite vacuum may be used to pick up the slurry as this will prohibit slurry from reaching storm drain inlets. ■ Wash concrete trucks off site or in designated areas on site designed to preclude discharge of wash water to drainage system. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 3 of 9 SC-70 Road and Street Maintenance Patching, resurfacing, and surface sealing ■ Schedule patching, resurfacing and surface sealing for dry weather. ■ Stockpile materials away from streets, gutter areas, storm drain inlets or watercourses. During wet weather, cover stockpiles with plastic tarps or berm around them if necessary to prevent transport of materials in runoff. ■ Pre-heat, transfer or load hot bituminous material away from drainage systems or watercourses. ■ Where applicable, cover and seal nearby storm drain inlets (with waterproof material or mesh) and maintenance holes before applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc. Leave covers in place until job is complete and until all water from emulsified oil sealants has drained or evaporated. Clean any debris from covered maintenance holes and storm drain inlets when the job is complete. ■ Prevent excess material from exposed aggregate concrete or similar treatments from entering streets or storm drain inlets. Designate an area for clean up and proper disposal of excess materials. ■ Use only as much water as necessary for dust control, to avoid runoff. ■ Sweep, never hose down streets to clean up tracked dirt. Use a street sweeper or vacuum truck. Do not dump vacuumed liquid in storm drains. ■ Catch drips from paving equipment that is not in use with pans or absorbent material placed under the machines. Dispose of collected material and absorbents properly. Equipment cleaning maintenance and storage ■ Inspect equipment daily and repair any leaks. Place drip pans or absorbent materials under heavy equipment when not in use. ■ Perform major equipment repairs at the corporation yard, when practical. ■ If refueling or repairing vehicles and equipment must be done onsite, use a location away from storm drain inlets and watercourses. ■ Clean equipment including sprayers, sprayer paint supply lines, patch and paving equipment, and mud jacking equipment at the end of each day. Clean in a sink or other area ( e.g. vehicle wash area) that is connected to the sanitary sewer. Bridge and Structure Maintenance Paint and Paint Removal ■ Transport paint and materials to and from job sites in containers with secure lids and tied down to the transport vehicle. ■ Do not transfer or load paint near storm drain inlets or watercourses. 4 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Road and Street Maintenance SC-70 ■ Test and inspect spray equipment prior to starting to paint. Tighten all hoses and connections and do not overfill paint container. ■ Plug nearby storm drain inlets prior to starting painting where there is significant risk of a spill reaching storm drains. Remove plugs when job is completed. ■ If sand blasting is used to remove paint, cover nearby storm drain inlets prior to starting work. ■ Perform work on a maintenance traveler or platform, or use suspended netting or tarps to capture paint, rust, paint removing agents, or other materials, to prevent discharge of materials to surface waters if the bridge crosses a watercourse. If sanding, use a sander with a vacuum filter bag. ■ Capture all clean-up water, and dispose of properly. ■ Recycle paint when possible ( e.g. paint may be used for graffiti removal activities). Dispose of unused paint at an appropriate household hazardous waste facility. Graffiti Removal ■ Schedule graffiti removal activities for dry weather. ■ Prot e ct nearby storm drain inlets prior to removing graffiti from walls, signs, sidewalks , or other structures needing graffiti abatement. Clean up afterwards by sweeping or vacuuming thoroughly, and/ or by using a bsorbent and properly disposing of the absorbent. ■ When graffiti is removed by painting over, implement the procedures under Painting and Paint Removal above. ■ Direct runoff from sand blasting and high pressure washing (with no cleaning agents) into a landscaped or dirt area. If such an area is not available, filter runoff through an appropriate filtering device (e.g. filter fabric) to keep sand, particles, and debris out of storm drains. ■ If a graffiti abatement method generates wash water containing a cleaning compound (such as high pressure washing with a cleaning compound), plug nearby storm drains and vacuum/pump wash water to the sanitary sewer. ■ Consider using a waterless and non-toxic chemical cleaning method for graffiti removal ( e.g. gels or spray compounds). Repair Work ■ Prevent concrete, steel, wood, metal parts, tools, or other work materials from entering storm drains or watercourses. ■ Thoroughly clean up the job site when tl1e repair work is completed. ■ When cleaning guardrails or fences follow the appropriate surface cleaning metliods (depending on the type of surface) outlined in SC-71 Plaza & Sidewalk Cleaning fact sheet. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Muni cipal www .cabmphandbooks.com 5 of 9 SC-70 Road and Street Maintenance ■ If painting is conducted, follow the painting and paint removal procedures above. ■ If graffiti removal is conducted, follow the graffiti removal procedures above. ■ If construction takes place, see the Construction Activity BMP Handbook. ■ Recycle materials whenever possible. Unpaved Roads and Trails ■ Stabilize exposed soil areas to prevent soil from eroding during rain events. This is particularly important on steep slopes. ■ For roadside areas with exposed soils, the most cost-effective choice is to vegetate the area, preferably with a mulch or binder that will hold the soils in place while the vegetation is establishing. Native vegetation should be used if possible. ■ If vegetation cannot be established immediately, apply temporary erosion control mats/blankets; a comma straw, or gravel as appropriate. ■ If sediment is already eroded and mobilized in roadside areas, temporary controls should be installed. These may include: sediment control fences, fabric-covered triangular dikes, gravel-filled burlap bags, biobags, or hay bales staked in place. Non-Stormwater Discharges Field crews should be aware of non-stormwater discharges as part of their ongoing street maintenance efforts. ■ Refer to SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges ■ Identify location, time and estimated quantity of discharges. ■ Notify appropriate personnel. Training ■ Train employees regarding proper street sweeping operation and street repair and maintenance. ■ Instruct employees and subcontractors to ensure that measures to reduce the stormwater impacts of roadway /bridge maintenance are being followed. ■ Require engineering staff and/or consulting A/E firms to address stormwater quality in new bridge designs or existing bridge retrofits. ■ Use a training log or similar method to document training. ■ Train employees on proper spill containment and clean up, and in identifying non- stormwater discharges. 6 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks .com January 2003 Road and Street Maintenance SC-70 Spill Response and Prevention ■ Refer to SC-11, Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup. ■ Keep your Spill Prevention Control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan up-to-date, and implement accordingly. ■ Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location. ■ Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible. ■ Properly dispose of spill cleanup material. Other Considerations ■ Densely populated areas or heavily used streets may require parking regulations to clear streets for cleaning. ■ No currently available conventional sweeper is effective at removing oil and grease. Mechanical sweepers are not effective at removing finer sediments. ■ Limitations may arise in the location of new bridges. The availability and cost of land and other economic and political factors may dictate where the placement of a new bridge will occur. Better design of the bridge to control runoff is required if it is being placed near sensitive waters. Requirements Costs ■ The maintenance of local roads and bridges is already a consideration of most community public works or transportation departments. Therefore, the cost of pollutant reducing management practices will involve the trai,ning and equipment required to implement these new practices. ■ The largest expenditures for street sweeping programs are in staffing and equipment. The capital cost for a conventional street sweeper is between $60,000 and $120,000. Newer technologies might have prices approaching $180,000. The average useful life of a conventional sweeper is about four years, and programs must budget for equipment replacement. Sweeping frequencies will determine equipment life, so programs tl1at sweep more often should expect to have a higher cost of replacement. ■ A street sweeping program may require the following. Sweeper operators, maintenance, supervisory, and administrative personnel are required. Traffic control officers may be required to enforce parking restrictions. Skillful design of cleaning routes is required for program to be productive. -Arrangements must be made for disposal of collected wastes. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmpha ndbooks.com 7 of 9 SC-70 Road and Street Maintenance ■ If investing in newer technologies, training for operators must be included in operation and maintenance budgets. Costs for public education are small, and mostly deal with the need to obey parking restrictions and litter control. Parking tickets are an effective reminder to obey parking rules, as well as being a source of revenue. Maintenance ■ Not applicable Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Street sweeping There are advantages and disadvantages to the two common types of sweepers. The best choice depends on your specific conditions. Many communities find it useful to have a compliment of both types in their fleet. Mechanical Broom Sweepers -More effective at picking up large debris and cleaning wet streets. Less costly to purchase and operate. Create more airborne dust. Vacuum Sweepers -More effective at removing fine particles and associated heavy metals. Ineffective at cleaning wet streets. Noisier than mechanical broom sweepers which may restrict areas or times of operation. May require an advance vehicle to remove large debris. Street Flushers -Not affected by biggest interference to cleaning, parked cars. May remove finer sediments, moving them toward the gutter and stormwater inlets. For this reason, flushing fell out of favor and is now used primarily after sweeping. Flushing may be effective for combined sewer systems. Presently street flushing is not allowed under most NPDES permits. Cross-Media Transfer of Pollutants The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has established state ambient air quality standards including a standard for respirable particulate matter Oess than or equal to 10 microns in diameter, symbolized as PM10 ). In the effort to sweep up finer sediments to remove attached heavy metals, municipalities should be aware that fine dust, that cannot be captured by the sweeping equipment and becomes airborne, could lead to issues of worker and public safety. Bridges Bridges that carry vehicular traffic generate some of the more direct discharges of runoff to surface waters. Bridge scupper drains cause a direct discharge of stormwater into receiving waters and have been shown to carry relatively high concentrations of pollutants. Bridge maintenance also generates wastes that may be eitl1er directly deposited to the water below or carried to the receiving water by stormwater. The following steps will help reduce the stormwater impacts of bridge maintenance: ■ Site new bridges so that significant adverse impacts to wetlands, sensitive areas, critical habitat, and riparian vegetation are minimized. 8 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www .cabmphandbooks.com January 200 3 Road and Street Maintenance SC-70 ■ Design new bridges to avoid the use of scupper drains and route runoff to land for treatment control. Existing scupper drains should be cleaned on a regular basis to avoid sediment/ debris accumulation. ■ Reduce the discharge of pollutants to surface waters during maintenance by using suspended traps, vacuums, or booms in the water to capture paint, rust, and paint removing agents. Many of these wastes may be hazardous. Properly dispose of this waste by referring to CA.21 (Hazardous Waste Management) in the Construction Handbook. ■ Train employees and subcontractors to reduce the discharge of wastes during bridge maintenance. De-icing ■ Do not over-apply deicing salt and sand, and routinely calibrate spreaders. ■ Near reservoirs, restrict the application of deicing salt and redirect any runoff away from reservoirs. ■ Consider using alternative deicing agents (less toxic, biodegradable, etc.). References and Resources Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for Small Municipalities. Prepared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Woodward-Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. July. 1998. Orange County Stormwater Program ht;n>://www.ocwatersheds.com/stormwater/swp introduction.asp Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies. Oregon Municipal Stormwater Toolbox for Maintenance Practices. June 1998. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 1997 Urban Runoff Management Plan. September 1997, updated October 2000. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 2001. Fresh Concrete and Mortar Application Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry. June. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 2001. Roadwork and Paving Best Management Practices for the Construction Industry. June. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Roadway and Bridge Maintenance. On-line ht;n>://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll 13.htm January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabrnphandbooks.com 9 of9 Landscape Maintenance Description Landscape maintenance activities include vegetation removal; herbicide and insecticide application; fertilizer application; watering; and other gardening and lawn care practices. Vegetation control typically involves a combination of chemical (herbicide) application and mechanical methods. All of these maintenance practices have the potential to contribute pollutants to the storm drain system. The major objectives of this BMP are to minimize the discharge of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to the stonn drain system and receiving waters; prevent the disposal of landscape waste into the storm drain system by collecting and properly disposing of clippings and cuttings, and educating employees and the public. Approach Pollution Prevention ■ Implement an integrated pest management (1PM) program. 1PM is a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools. ■ Choose low water using flowers, trees, shrubs, and groundcover. ■ Consider alternative landscaping techniques such as naturescaping and xeriscaping. ■ Conduct appropriate maintenance (i.e. properly timed fertilizing, weeding, pest control, and pruning) to help preserve the landscapes water efficiency. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-73 Objectives ■ Contain ■ Educate ■ Reduce/Minimize ■ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics Oxygen Demanding (" J\L!fOR1'1A STOR!.MATrn {1! \I I' •,,•.: 11 , ; ! : •'. 1 of 6 SC-73 Landscape Maintenance ■ Consider grass cycling (grass cycling is the natural recycling of grass by leaving the clippings on the lawn when mowing. Grass clippings decompose quickly and release valuable nutrients back into the lawn). Suggested Protocols Mowing, Trimming, and Weeding ■ Whenever possible use mechanical methods of vegetation removal ( e.g mowing with tractor- type or push mowers, hand cutting with gas or electric powered weed trimmers) rather than applying herbicides. Use hand weeding where practical. ■ Avoid loosening the soil when conducting mechanical or manual weed control, this could lead to erosion. Use mulch or other erosion control measures when soils are exposed. ■ Performing mowing at optimal times. Mowing should not be performed if significant rain events are predicted. ■ Mulching mowers may be recommended for certain flat areas. Other techniques may be employed to minimize mowing such as selective vegetative planting using low maintenance grasses and shrubs. ■ Collect lawn and garden clippings, pruning waste, tree trimmings, and weeds. Chip if necessary, and compost or dispose of at a landfill (see waste management section of this fact sheet). ■ Place temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses, and berm or cover stockpiles to prevent material releases to storm drains. Planting ■ Determine existing native vegetation features (location, species, size, function, importance) and consider the feasibility of protecting them. Consider elements such as their effect on drainage and erosion, hardiness, maintenance requirements, and possible conflicts between preserving vegetation and the resulting maintenance needs. ■ Retain and/or plant selected native vegetation whose features are determined to be beneficial, where feasible . Native vegetation usually requires less maintenance (e.g., irrigation, fertilizer) than planting new vegetation. ■ Consider using low water use ground covers when planting or replanting. Waste Management ■ Compost leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation or dispose of at a permitted landfill. Do not dispose of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems. ■ Place temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses and storm drain inlets, and berm or cover stockpiles to prevent material releases to the storm drain system. ■ Reduce the use of high nitrogen fertilizers that produce excess growth requiring more frequent mowing or trimming. 2 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www .cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Landscape Maintenance SC-73 ■ Avoid landscape wastes in and around storm drain inlets by either using bagging equipment or by manually picking up the material. Irrigation ■ Where practical, use automatic timers to minimize runoff. ■ Use popup sprinkler heads in areas with a lot of activity or where there is a chance the pipes may be broken. Consider the use of mechanisms that reduce water flow to sprinkler heads if broken. ■ Ensure that there is no runoff from the landscaped area(s) if re-claimed water is used for irrigation. ■ If bailing of muddy water is required ( e.g. when repairing a water line leak), do not put it in the storm drain; pour over landscaped areas. ■ Irrigate slowly or pulse irrigate to prevent runoff and then only irrigate as much as is needed. ■ Apply water at rates that do not exceed the infiltration rate of the soil Fertilizer and Pesticide Management ■ Utilize a comprehensive management system that incorporates integrated pest management (1PM) techniques. TI1ere are many methods and types of IPM, including the following: Mulching can be used to prevent weeds where turf is absent, fencing installed to keep rodents out, and netting used to keep birds and insects away from leaves and fruit. Visible insects can be removed by hand (with gloves or tweezers) and placed in soapy water or vegetable oil. Alternatively, insects can be sprayed off the plant with water or in some cases vacuumed off of larger plants. Store-bought traps, such as species-specific, pheromone-based traps or colored sticky cards, can be used. Slugs can be trapped in small cups filled with beer that are set in the ground so the slugs can get in easily. In cases where microscopic parasites, such as bacteria and fungi, are causing damage to plants, the affected plant material can be removed and disposed of (pruning equipment should be disinfected with bleach to prevent spreading the disease organism). Small mammals and birds can be excluded using fences, netting, tree trunk guards . . Beneficial organisms, sucl1 as bats, birds, green lacewings, ladybugs, praying mantis, ground beetles, parasitic nematodes, trichogramma wasps, seed head weevils, and spiders that prey on detrimental pest species can be promoted. ■ Follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides and training of applicators and pest control advisors. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 3 of 6 SC-73 Landscape Maintenance ■ Use pesticides only if there is an actual pest problem (not on a regular preventative schedule). ■ Do not use pesticides if rain is expected. Apply pesticides only when wind speeds are low Oess than 5 mph). ■ Do not mix or prepare pesticides for application near storm drains. ■ Prepare the minimum amount of pesticide needed for the job and use the lowest rate that will effectively control the pest. ■ Employ techniques to minimize off-target application ( e.g. spray drift) of pesticides, including consideration of alternative application techniques. ■ Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped or broadcast onto the surface. ■ Calibrate fertilizer and pesticide application equipment to avoid excessive application. ■ Periodically test soils for determining proper fertilizer use. ■ Sweep pavement and sidewalk if fertilizer is spilled on these surfaces before applying irrigation water. ■ Purchase only the amount of pesticide that you can reasonably use in a given time period (month or year depending on the product). ■ Triple rinse containers, and use rinse water as product. Dispose of unused pesticide as hazardous waste. ■ Dispose of empty pesticide containers according to the instructions on the container label. Inspection ■ Inspect irrigation system periodically to ensure that the right amount of water is being applied and that excessive runoff is not occurring. Minimize excess watering, and repair leaks in the irrigation system as soon as they are observed. ■ Inspect pesticide/fertilizer equipment and transportation vehicles daily. Training ■ Educate and train employees on use of pesticides and in pesticide application techniques to prevent pollution. Pesticide application must be under the supervision of a California qualified pesticide applicator. ■ Train/encourage municipal maintenance crews to use 1PM techniques for managing public green areas. ■ Annually train employees within departments responsible for pesticide application on the appropriate portions of the agency's IPM Policy, SOPs, and BMPs, and the latest 1PM techniques. 4 of 6 Ca.lifornia Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.ca bmphandb oo ks .com January 2003 Landscape Maintenance SC-73 ■ Employees who are not authorized and trained to apply pesticides should be periodically (at least annually) informed that they cannot use over-the-counter pesticides in or around the workplace. ■ Use a training log or similar method to document training. Spill Response and Prevention ■ Refer to SC-n, Spill Prevention, Control & Cleanup ■ Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a know in location ■ Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible. ■ Properly dispose of spill cleanup material. Other Considerations ■ The Federal Pesticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and California Title 3, Division 6, Pesticides and Pest Control Operations place strict controls over pesticide application and handling and specify training, annual refresher, and testing requirements. The regulations generally cover: a list of approved pesticides and selected uses, updated regularly; general application information; equipment use and maintenance procedures; and record keeping. The California Department of Pesticide Regulations and the County Agricultural Commission coordinate and maintain the licensing and certification programs. All public agency employees who apply pesticides and herbicides in "agricultural use" areas such as parks, golf courses, rights-of-way and recreation areas should be properly certified in accordance with state regulations. Contracts for landscape maintenance should include similar requirements. ■ All employees who handle pesticides should be familiar with the most recent material safety data sheet (MSDS) files. ■ Municipalities do not have the authority to regulate the use of pesticides by school districts, however the California Healthy Schools Act of 2000 (AB 2260) has imposed requirements on California school districts regarding pesticide use in schools. Posting of notification prior to the application of pesticides is now required, and 1PM is stated as the preferred approach to pest management in schools. Requirements Costs Additional training of municipal employees will be required to address 1PM techniques and BMPs. 1PM methods will likely increase labor cost for pest control which may be offset by lower chemical costs. Maintenance Not applicable January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 5 of 6 SC-73 Landscape Maintenance Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Waste Management Composting is one of the better disposal alternatives iflocally available. Most municipalities either have or are planning yard waste composting facilities as a means of reducing the amount of waste going to the landfill. Lawn clippings from municipal maintenance programs as well as private sources would probably be compatible with most composting facilities Contractors and Other Pesticide Users Municipal agencies should develop and implement a process to ensure that any contractor employed to conduct pest control and pesticide application on municipal property engages in pest control methods consistent with the 1PM Policy adopted by the agency. Specifically, municipalities should require contractors to follow the agency's 1PM policy, SOPs, and BMPs; provide evidence to the agency of having received training on current 1PM techniques when feasible; provide documentation of pesticide use on agency property to the agency in a timely manner. References and Resources King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual. Best Management Practices for Businesses. 1995. King County Surface Water Management. July. On-line: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Los Angeles County Stormwater Quality Model Programs. Public Agency Activities http: //ladpw'.org/wmd/npdes/model links.cfm Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for Small Municipalities. Prepared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Woodward-Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. July. 1998 . Orange County Stormwater Program http: //www.ocwatersheds.com/Storm Water /swp introduction.asp Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 1997 Urban Runoff Management Plan. September 1997, updated October 2000. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Landscaping and Lawn Care. Office of Water. Office of Wastewater Management. On-line: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll 8.htm 6 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Drainage System Maintenance SC-74 Photo Credit: Geoff Brosseau Description As a consequence of its function, the stormwater conveyance system collects and transports urban runoff that may contain certain pollutants. Maintaining catch basins, stormwater inlets, and other stormwater conveyance structures on a regular basis will remove pollutants, prevent clogging of the downstream conveyance system, restore catch basins' sediment trapping capacity, and ensure the system functions properly hydraulically to avoid flooding. Approach Suggested Protocols Catch Basins/Inlet Structures ■ Municipal staff should regularly inspect facilities to ensure the following: Immediate repair of any deterioration threatening structural integrity. Cleaning before the sump is 40% full. Catch basins should be cleaned as frequently as needed to meet this standard. Stenciling of catch basins and inlets (see SC-75 Waste Handling and Disposal). ■ Clean catch basins, storm drain inlets, and other conveyance structures in high pollutant load areas just before the wet season to remove sediments and debris accumulated during the summer. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com Objectives ■ Contain ■ Educate ■ Reduce/Minimize Targeted Constituents Sediment 0 N~e~ 0 Trash 0 Metals 0 Bacteria 0 Oil and Grease 0 Organics 0 Oxygen Demanding 0 CALIFORN IA STORMWATER 1 of 9 SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance ■ Conduct inspections more frequently during the wet season for problem areas where sediment or trash accumulates more often. Clean and repair as needed. ■ Keep accurate logs of the number of catch basins cleaned. ■ Record the amount of waste collected. ■ Store wastes collected from cleaning activities of the drainage system in appropriate containers or temporary storage sites in a manner that prevents discharge to the storm drain. ■ Dewater the wastes with outflow into the sanitary sewer if permitted. Water should be treated with an appropriate filtering device prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. If discharge to the sanitary sewer is not allowed, water should be pumped or vacuumed to a tank and properly disposed of. Do not dewater near a storm drain or stream. ■ Except for small communities with relatively few catch basins that may be cleaned manually, most municipalities will require mechanical cleaners such as eductors, vacuums, or bucket loaders. Storm Drain Conveyance System ■ Locate reaches of storm drain with deposit problems and develop a flushing schedule that keeps the pipe clear of excessive buildup. ■ Collect flushed effluent and pump to the sanitary sewer for treatment. Pump Stations ■ Clean all storm drain pump stations prior to the wet season to remove silt and trash. ■ Do not allow discharge from cleaning a storm drain pump station or other facility to reach the storm drain system. ■ Conduct quarterly routine maintenance at each pump station. ■ Inspect, clean, and repair as necessary all outlet structures prior to the wet season. ■ Sample collected sediments to determine if landfill disposal is possible, or illegal discharges in the watershed are occurring. Open Channel ■ Consider modification of storm channel characteristics to improve channel hydraulics, to increase pollutant removals, and to enhance channel/ creek aesthetic and habitat value. ■ Conduct channel modification/improvement in accordance with existing laws. Any person, government agency, or public utility proposing an activity that will change the natural (emphasis added) state of any river, stream, or lake in California, must enter into a steam or Lake Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game. The developer-applicant should also contact local governments (city, county, special districts), other state agencies 2 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Drainage System Maintenance SC-74 (SWRCB, RWQCB, Department of Forestry, Department of Water Resources), and Federal Corps of Engineers and USFWS fllicit Connections and Discharges ■ During routine maintenance of conveyance system and drainage structures field staff should look for evidence of illegal discharges or illicit connections: Is there evidence of spills such as paints, discoloring, etc. Are there any odors associated with the drainage system Record locations of apparent illegal discharges/illicit connections Track flows back to potential dischargers and conduct aboveground inspections. This can be done through visual inspection of up gradient manholes or alternate techniques including zinc chloride smoke testing, fluorometric dye testing, physical inspection testing, or television camera inspection. Once the origin of flow is established, require illicit discharger to eliminate the discharge. ■ Stencil storm drains, where applicable, to prevent illegal disposal of pollutants. Storm drain inlets should have messages such as "Dump No Waste Drains to Stream" stenciled next to them to warn against ignorant or intentional dumping of pollutants into the storm drainage system. ■ Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges. Illegal Dumping ■ Regularly inspect and clean up hot spots and other storm drainage areas where illegal dumping and disposal occurs. ■ Establish a system for tracking incidents. The system should be designed to identify the following: Illegal dumping hot spots Types and quantities (in some cases) of wastes Patterns in time of occurrence (time of day/night, month, or year) Mode of dumping (abandoned containers, "midnight dumping" from moving vehicles, direct dumping of materials, accidents/spills) Responsible parties ■ Post "No Dumping" signs in problem areas with a phone number for reporting dumping and disposal. Signs should also indicate fines and penalties for illegal dumping. ■ Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 3 of 9 SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance ■ The State Department of Fish and Game has a hotline for reporting violations called Cal TIP (1-800-952-5400 ). The phone number may be used to report any violation of a Fish and Game code (illegal dumping, poaching, etc.). ■ The California Department of Toxic Substances Control's Waste Alert Hotline, 1-800- 69TOXIC, can be used to report hazardous waste violations. Training ■ Train crews in proper maintenance activities, including record keeping and disposal. ■ Only properly trained individuals are allowed to handle hazardous materials/wastes. ■ Train municipal employees from all departments (public works, utilities, street cleaning, parks and recreation, industrial waste inspection, hazardous waste inspection, sewer maintenance) to recognize and report illegal dumping. ■ Train municipal employees and educate businesses, contractors, and the general public in proper and consistent methods for disposal. ■ Train municipal staff regarding non-stormwater discharges (See SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges). Spill Response and Prevention ■ Refer to SC-11, Prevention, Control & Cleanup ■ Have spill cleanup materials readily available and in a known location. ■ Cleanup spills immediately and use dry methods if possible. ■ Properly dispose of spill cleanup material. Other Considerations ■ Cleanup activities may create a slight disturbance for local aquatic species. Access to items and material on private property may be limited. Trade-offs may exist between channel hydraulics and water quality /riparian habitat. If storm channels or basins are recognized as wetlands, many activities, including maintenance, may be subject to regulation and permitting. ■ Storm drain flushing is most effective in small diameter pipes (36-inch diameter pipe or less, depending on water supply and sediment collection capacity). Other considerations associated with storm drain flushing may include the availability of a water source, finding a downstream area to collect sediments, liquid/sediment disposal, and disposal of flushed effluent to sanitary sewer may be prohibited in some areas. ■ Regulations may include adoption of substantial penalties for illegal dumping and disposal. ■ Municipal codes should include sections prohibiting the discharge of soil, debris, refuse, hazardous wastes, and other pollutants into the storm drain system. ■ Private property access rights may be needed to track illegal discharges up gradient. 4 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Drainage System Maintenance SC-74 ■ Requirements of municipal ordinance authority for suspected source verification testing for illicit connections necessary for guaranteed rights of entry. Requirements Costs ■ An aggressive catch basin cleaning program could require a significant capital and O&M budget. A careful study of cleaning effectiveness should be undertaken before increased cleaning is implemented. Catch basin cleaning costs are less expensive if vacuum street sweepers are available; cleaning catch basins manually can cost approximately twice as much as cleaning the basins with a vacuum attached to a sweeper. ■ Methods used for illicit connection detection (smoke testing, dye testing, visual inspection, and flow monitoring) can be costly and time-consuming. Site-specific factors, such as the level of impervious area, the density and ages of buildings, and type of land use will determine the level of investigation necessary. Encouraging reporting of illicit discharges by employees can offset costs by saving expense on inspectors and directing resources more efficiently. Some programs have used funds available from "environmental fees" or special assessment districts to fund their illicit connection elimination programs. Maintenance ■ Two-person teams may be required to clean catch basins with vactor trucks. ■ Identifying illicit discharges requires teams of at least two people (volunteers can be used), plus administrative personnel, depending on the complexity of the storm sewer system. ■ Arrangements must be made for proper disposal of collected wastes. ■ Requires technical staff to detect and investigate illegal dumping violations, and to coordinate public education. Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Storm Drain.flushing Sanitary sewer flushing is a common maintenance activity used to improve pipe hydraulics and to remove pollutants in sanitary sewer systems. The same principles that make sanitary sewer flushing effective can be used to flush storm drains. Flushing may be designed to hydraulically convey accumulated material to strategic locations, such as to an open channel, to another point where flushing will be initiated, or over to the sanitary sewer and on to the treatment facilities, thus preventing re-suspension and overflow of a portion of the solids during storm events. Flushing prevents "plug flow " discharges of concentrated pollutant loadings and sediments. The deposits can hinder the designed conveyance capacity of the storm drain system and potentially cause backwater conditions in severe cases of clogging. Storm drain flushing usually takes place along segments of pipe with grades that are too flat to maintain adequate velocity to keep particles in suspension. An upstream manhole is selected to place an inflatable device that temporarily plugs the pipe. Further upstream, water is pumped into the line to create a flushing wave. When the upstream reach of pipe is sufficiently full to January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 5 of 9 SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance cause a flushing wave, the inflated device is rapidly deflated with the assistance of a vacuum pump, releasing the backed up water and resulting in the cleaning of the storm drain segment. To further reduce the impacts of stormwater pollution, a second inflatable device, placed well downstream, may be used to re-collect the water after the force of the flushing wave has dissipated. A pump may then be used to transfer the water and accumulated material to the sanitary sewer for treatment. In some cases, an interceptor structure may be more practical or required to re-collect the flushed waters. It has been found that cleansing efficiency of periodic flush waves is dependent upon flush volume, flush discharge rate, sewer slope, sewer length, sewer flow rate, sewer diameter, and population density. As a rule of thumb, the length ofline to be flushed should not exceed 700 feet. At this maximum recommended length, the percent removal efficiency ranges between 65- 75 percent for organics and 55-65 percent for dry weather grit/inorganic material. The percent removal efficiency drops rapidly beyond that. Water is commonly supplied by a water truck, but fire hydrants can also supply water. To make the best use of water, it is recommended that reclaimed water be used or that fire hydrant line flushing coincide with storm drain flushing. Flow Management Flow management has been one of the principal motivations for designing urban stream corridors in the past. Such needs may or may not be compatible with the stormwater quality goals in the stream corridor. Downstream flood peaks can be suppressed by reducing through flow velocity. This can be accomplished by reducing gradient with grade control structures or increasing roughness with boulders, dense vegetation, or complex banks forms. Reducing velocity correspondingly increases flood height, so all such measures have a natural association with floodplain open space. Flood elevations laterally adjacent to the stream can be lowered by increasing through flow velocity. However, increasing velocity increases flooding downstream and inherently conflicts with channel stability and human safety. Where topography permits, another way to lower flood elevation is to lower the level of the flood way with drop structures into a large but subtly excavated bowl where flood flows we allowed to spread out. Stream Corridor Planning Urban streams receive and convey stormwater flows from developed or developing watersheds. Planning of stream corridors thus interacts with urban stormwater management programs. If local programs are intended to control or protect downstream environments by managing flows delivered to the channels, then it is logical that such programs should be supplemented by management of the materials, forms, and uses of the downstream riparian corridor. Any proposal for steam alteration or management should be investigated for its potential flow and stability effects on upstream, downstream, and laterally adjacent areas. The timing and rate of flow from various tributaries can combine in complex ways to alter flood hazards. Each section of channel is unique, influenced by its own distribution of roughness elements, management activities, and stream responses. 6 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Drainage System Maintenance SC-74 Flexibility to adapt to stream features and behaviors as they evolve must be included in stream reclamation planning. The amenity and ecology of streams may be enhanced through the landscape design options of 1) corridor reservation, 2) bank treatment, 3) geomorphic restoration, and 4) grade control. Corridor reservation -Reserving stream corridors and valleys to accommodate natural stream meandering, aggradation, degradation, and over bank flows allows streams to find their own form and generate less ongoing erosion. In California, open stream corridors in recent urban developments have produced recreational open space, irrigation of streamside plantings, and the aesthetic amenity of flowing water. Bank treatment -The use of armoring, vegetative cover, and flow deflection may be used to influence a channel's form, stability, and biotic habitat. To prevent bank erosion, armoring can be done with rigid construction materials, such as concrete, masonry, wood planks and logs, riprap, and gabions. Concrete linings have been criticized because of their lack of provision of biotic habitat. In contrast, riprap and gabions make relatively porous and flexible linings. Boulders, placed in the bed reduce velocity and erosive power. Riparian vegetation can stabilize the banks of streams that are at or near a condition of equilibrium. Binding networks of roots increase bank shear strength. During flood flows, resilient vegetation is forced into erosion-inhibiting mats. The roughness of vegetation leads to lower velocity, further reducing erosive effects. Structural flow deflection can protect banks from erosion or alter fish habitat. By concentrating flow, a deflector causes a pool to be scoured in the bed. Geomorphic restoration -Restoration refers to alteration of disturbed streams so their form and behavior emulate those of undisturbed streams. Natural meanders are retained, with grading to gentle slopes on the inside of curves to allow point bars and riffle-pool sequences to develop. Trees are retained to provide scenic quality, biotic productivity, and roots for bank stabilization, supplemented by plantings where necessary. A restorative approach can be successful where the stream is already approaching equilibrium. However, if upstream urbanization continues new flow regimes will be generated that could disrupt the equilibrium of the treated system. Grade Control -A grade control structure is a level shelf of a permanent material, such as stone, masonry, or concrete, over which stream water flows. A grade control structure is called a sill, weir, or drop structure, depending on the relation of its invert elevation to upstream and downstream channels. A sill is installed at the preexisting channel bed elevation to prevent upstream migration of nick points. It establishes a firm base level below which the upstream channel can not erode. A weir or check dam is installed with invert above the preexisting bed elevation. A weir raises the local base level of the stream and causes aggradation upstream. The gradient, velocity, and erosive potential of the stream channel are reduced. A drop structure lowers the downstream invert below its preexisting elevation, reducing downstream gradient and velocity. Weirs and drop structure control erosion by dissipating energy and reducing slope velocity. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 7 of 9 SC-74 Drainage System Maintenance When carefully applied, grade control structures can be highly versatile in establishing human and environmental benefits in stabilized channels. To be successful, application of grade control structures should be guided by analysis of the stream system both upstream and downstream from the area to he reclaimed. Examples The California Department of Water Resources began the Urban Stream Restoration Program in 1985. The program provides grant funds to municipalities and community groups to implement stream restoration projects. The projects reduce damages from streambank aid watershed instability arid floods while restoring streams' aesthetic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values. In Buena Vista Park, upper floodway slopes are gentle and grassed to achieve continuity of usable park land across the channel of small boulders at the base of the slopes. The San Diego River is a large, vegetative lined channel , which was planted in a variety of species to support riparian wildlife while stabilizing the steep banks of the floodway. References and Resources Ferguson, B.K. 1991. Urban Stream Reclamation, p. 324-322, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Los Angeles County Stormwater Quality. Public Agency Activities Model Program. On-line: http: //ladpw.org/wmd/npdes/public TC.cfm Model Urban Runoff Program: A How-To Guide for Developing Urban Runoff Programs for Small Municipalities. Prepared by City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, California Coastal Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Woodward-Clyde, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. July. 1998. Orange County Stormwater Program http: //www.ocwatersheds.com/Storm Water /swp introduction.asp Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 1997 Urban Runoff Management Plan. September 1997, updated October 2000. San Diego Stormwater Co-permittees Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (URMP) Municipal Activities Model Program Guidance. 2001. Project Clean Water. November. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Stormwater Management Fact Sheet Non-stormwater Discharges to Storm Sewers. EPA 832-F-99-022. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. September. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Stormwater O&M Fact Sheet Catch Basin Cleaning. EPA 832-F-99-011. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. September. 8 of 9 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Drainage System Maintenance SC-74 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Illegal Dumping Control. On line: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll 7.htm United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Storm Drain System Cleaning. On line: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll 16.htm January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Municipal www.cabmphandbooks.com 9 of 9 Roof Runoff Controls Rain Garden Description Various roof runoff controls are available to address stormwater SD-11 Design Objectives 0 Maximize Infiltration 0 Provide Retention 0 Slow Runoff Minimize Imperv ious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials 0 Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey that drains off rooftops. TI1e objective is to reduce the total volume and rate of runoff from individual lots, and retain the pollutants on site that may be picked up from roofing materials and atmospheric deposition. Roof runoff controls consist of directing the roof runoff away from paved areas and mitigating flow to the storm drain system through one of several general approaches: cisterns or rain barrels; dry ,\iells or infiltration trenches; pop-up emitters, and foundation planting. TI1e first three approaches require the roof runoff to be contained in a gutter and downspout system. Foundation planting provides a vegetated strip under the drip line of the roof. Approach Design of individual lots for single-family homes as well as lots for higher density residential and commercial structures should consider site design provisions for containing and infiltrating roof runoff or directing roof runoff to vegetative swales or buffer areas. Retained water can be reused for watering gardens , lavrns, and trees. Benefits to the environment include reduced demand for potable water used for inigation, improved stormwater quality, increased groundwater recharge, decreased runoff volume and peak flows , and decreased flooding potential. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and indust1ial areas planned for development or redevelopment. Design Considerations Designing New Installations Cisterns or Rain Barrels One method of addressing roof runoff is to direct roof downspouts to cisterns or rain baiTels . A cistern is an above ground storage vessel with either a manually operated valve or a pennanently open outlet. Roof runoff is temporarily stored and then released for irrigation or infiltration between storms. The number of rain January 2003 Californ ia Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbook.com 1 of 3 SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls barrels needed is a function of the rooftop area. Some low impact developers recommend that every house have at least 2 rain barrels, with a minimum storage capacity of 1000 liters. Roof barrels serve several purposes including mitigating tl1e first flush from the roof whicl1 has a high volume, amount of contaminants, and thermal load. Several types of rain barrels are commercially available. Consideration must be given to selecting rain barrels that are vector proof and childproof. In addition, some barrels are designed witl1 a bypass valve that filters out grit and other contaminants and routes overflow to a soak-away pit or rain garden. If the cistern has an operable valve, the valve can be closed to store storm water for irrigation or infiltration between storms. This system requires continual monitoring by the resident or grounds cre\vs, but provides greater flexibility in water storage and metering. If a cistern is provided with an operable valve and water is stored inside for long periods, the cistern must be covered to prevent mosquitoes from breeding. A cistern system with a permanently open outlet can also provide for metering stormwater runoff. If the cistern outlet is significantly smaller tlrnn the size of the downspout inlet (say¼ to ½ inch diameter), runoff will build up inside the cistern during storms, and will empty out slowly after peak intensities subside. TI1is is a feasible way to mitigate the peak flow increases caused by rooftop in1pervious land coverage, especially for the frequent, small stonns. Dry wells and Infiltration Trenches Roof downspouts can be directed to diy wells or infiltration trenches. A dry well is constructed by excavating a hole in the ground and filling it ·witl1 an open graded aggregate, and allowing the water to fill the dry well and infiltrate after the storm event. An underground connection from the downspout conveys water into the diy well, allowing it to be stored in the voids . To minimize sedimentation from lateral soil movement, the sides and top of the stone storage matrix can be wrapped in a permeable filter fabric, though the bottom may remain open. A perforated observation pipe can be inserted vertically into the dry well to allow for inspection and maintenance. In practice, dry wells receiving runoff from single roof dm,vnspouts have been successful over long periods because they contain very little sediment. TI1ey must be sized according to the amount of rooftop runoff received, but are typically 4 to 5 feet square, and 2 to 3 feet deep, lvith a minimum of 1-foot soil cover over the top (maximum depth of 10 feet). To protect the foundation, dry wells must be set away from the building at least 10 feet . They must be installed in solids tl1at accommodate infiltration. In poorly drained soils, dry wells have ve1y limited feasibility. Infiltration trenches function in a similar manner and would be particularly effective for larger roof areas. An infiltration trench is a long, narrow, rock-filled trench ·with no outlet that receives stormwater runoff. TI1ese are described under Treatment Controls. Pop-up Drainage Emitter Roof dmvnspouts can be directed to an underground pipe tl1at daylights some distance from the building foundation , releasing the roof runoff through a pop-up emitter. Similar to a pop-up irrigation head, the emitter only opens when there is flow from the roof. The emitter remains flush to the ground during diy periods, for ease of lawn or landscape maintenance. 2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www .cabmphandbook.com January 2003 Roof Runoff Controls SD-11 Foundation Planting Landscape planting can be provided around the base to allow increased opportunities for stormwater infiltration and protect the soil from erosion caused by concentrated sheet flow coming off the roof. Foundation plantings can reduce the physical impact of water on the soil and provide a subsurface matrix of roots that encourage infiltration. These plantings must be sturdy enough to tolerate the heavy runoff sheet flows, and periodic soil saturation. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities ,,vith structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of ' redevelopment" must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies , the steps outlined under "designing new installations'· above should be followed. Supplemental Information Examples ■ City of Ottawa's Water Links Surface -Water Quality Protection Program ■ City of Toronto Downspout Disconnection Program ■ City of Boston, Ml\ Rain Barrel Demonstration Program Other Resources Hager, Marty Catl1erine, Stormwater, "Low-Impact Development", January/February 2003. ~-v.stormh20.com Low Impact Urban Design Tools, Low Impact Development Design Center, Beltsville, MD. www.li d -stonnwat r.net Start at the Source, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, 1999 Edition January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www .cabmphandbook.com 3 of 3 Efficient Irrigation SD-12 Design Objectives 0 Maximize Infiltration 0 Provide Retention 0 Slow Runoff Minim ize Imperv ious Land Coverage Prohib it Dumping of Improper Materials Description Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Irrigation water provided to landscaped areas may result in excess inigation water being conveyed into stormwater drainage systems. Approach Project plan designs for development and redevelopment should include application methods of irrigation water that minimize runoff of excess ini.gation water into the stormwater conveyance system. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single-family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Designing New Installations The following methods to reduce excessive irrigation runoff should be considered, and incorporated and implemented where determined applicable and feasible by the Pennittee: ■ Employ rain-triggered shutoff devices to prevent inigation after precipitation. ■ Design inigation systems to each landscape area's specific water requirements. ■ Include design featuring flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. ■ Implement landscape plans consistent with County or City water conservation resolutions, which may include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for sho1t cycles), etc. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www .cabmphandbooks.com 1 of 2 SD-12 Efficient Irrigation ■ Design tinting and application methods of irrigation water to nrinimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the storm water drainage system. ■ Group plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote smface filtration . Choose plants '"rith 10\v irrigation requirements (for example, native or drought tolerant species). Consider design features such as : Using mulches (such as wood drips or bar) in planter areas without ground cover to minimize sedin1ent in runoff Installing appropriate plant mate1ials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and use native plant materials where possible and/or as recommended by the landscape architect Leaving a vegetative barrier along the property boundary and interior watercourses, to act as a pollutant filter , where appropriate and feasible Choosing plants that minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizer or pesticides to sustain growth ■ Employ other comparable, equally effective methods to reduce inigation water runoff. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "'redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/ or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of" redevelopment" must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the defiirition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed . Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stom1water Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Storm Drain Signage Description SD-13 Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage 0 Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey Waste materials dumped into storm drain inlets can have severe impacts on receiving and ground waters. Posting notices regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets can prevent waste dumping. Storm drain signs and stencils are highly visible source controls that are typically placed directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. Approach The stencil or affixed sign contains a brief statement that prohibits dumping of improper materials into the urban runoff conveyance system. Storm drain messages have become a popular method of alerting the public about the effects of and the prohibitions against w-aste disposal. Suitable Applications Stencils and signs alert tl1e public to the destination of pollutants discharged to the storm drain. Signs are approp1iate in residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as any other area where contributions or dumping to storm drains is likely. Design Considerations Storm drain message markers or placards are recommended at all stonn drain inlets ,vi.thin the boundary of a development project. The marker should be placed in clear sight facing toward anyone approaching the inlet from either side. All stom1 drain inlet locations should be identified on the development site map . Designing New Installations TI1e follmving methods should be considered for inclusion in tlle project design and show on project plans: ■ Provide stenciling or labeling of all stonn drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within tl1e project area with prohibitive language. Examples include "NO DUMPING January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 1 of 2 SD-13 Storm Drain Signage -DRAINS TO OCEAN " and/or other graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. ■ Post signs with prohibitive language and/or graphical icons, which prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels and creeks ·within the project are.a. Note -Some local agencies have approved specific signage and/or storm drain message placards for use. Consult local agency stonmvater staff to determine specific requirements for placard types and methods of application. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities \vith structural or impervious surfaces . If the project meets the definition of "redevelopment", then the requirements stated under " designing new installations" above should be included in all project design plans . Additional Information Maintenance Considerations ■ Legibility of markers and signs should be maintained. If required by the agency with jurisdiction over the project, the owner/operator or homeowner's association should enter into a maintenance agreement with the agency or record a deed restriction upon the property title to maintain the legibility of placards or signs. Placement ■ Signage on top of curbs tends to weather and fade. ■ Signage on face of curbs tends to be worn by contact with vehicle tires and sweeper brooms. Supplemental Information Examples ■ Most MS4 programs have storm drain signage programs. Some MS4 programs v,.rill provide stencils, or a1Tange for volunteers to stencil storm drains as part of their outreach program. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Storm.water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Po1t of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. • Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stonnwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002 . 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Trash Storage Areas Description Trash storage areas are areas where a trash receptacle (s) are located for use as a repository for solid wastes. Stormwater runoff from areas where trash is stored or disposed of can be polluted. In addition, loose trash and debris can be easily transpmted by water or wind into nearby storm drain inlets, channels, and/or creeks. Waste handling operations that may be sources of stormwater pollution include dumpsters, litter control, and waste piles. Approach This fact sheet contains details on the specific measures required to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with trash storage and handling. Preventative measures including enclosures, containment structures, and impervious pavements to mitigate spills, should be used to reduce the likelihood of contamination. Suitable Applications SD-32 Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohib it Dumping of Improper Materials 0 Con tain Pollutants Collect and Convey Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single-family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Design requirements for waste handling areas are governed by Building and Fire Codes, and by cmTent local agency ordinances and zoning requirements. The design cliteria described in this fact sheet are meant to enhance and be consistent with these code and ordinance requirements. Hazardous waste should be handled in accordance with legal requirements established in Title 22, California Code of Regulation. Wastes from commercial and industrial sites are typically hauled by either public or commercial ca1Tiers that may have design or access requirements for waste storage areas. The design criteria in this fact sheet are recommendations and are not intended to be in conflict with requirements established by the~ aste hauler. The waste hauler should be contacted prior to the design of your site trash collection areas. Conflicts or issues should be discussed with the local agency. Designing New Installations Trash storage areas should be designed to consider the following structural or treatment control BMPs: ■ Design trash container areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is dive1ted around the area(s) to avoid run-on. This might include henning or grading the waste handling area to prevent rm1-on of stormwater. ■ Make sure trash container areas are screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. January 2003 Californ ia Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www .cabmphandbooks.com 1 of 2 SD-32 Trash Storage Areas ■ Use lined bins or dumpsters to reduce leaking of liquid waste. ■ Provide roofs, awnings, or attached lids on all trash containers to minimize direct precipitation and prevent rainfall from entering containers. ■ Pave trash storage areas with an impervious smface to mitigate spills. ■ Do not locate storm drains in immediate vicinity of the tras11 storage area. ■ Post signs on all dumpsters informing users that hazardous materials are not to be disposed of therein. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans {SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of" redevelopment" must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed . Additional Information Maintenance Considerations The integrity of structural elements that are subject to damage {i.e., screens, covers, and signs) must be maintained by the ovmer/operator. Maintenance agreements bet\veen the local agency and the owner/ operator may be required. Some agencies ¥.ri.11 require maintenance deed restrictions to be recorded of the property title. If required by the local agency, maintenance agreements or deed restrictions must be executed by the owner/operator before improvement plans are approved. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures , July 2002. 2 of 2 Ca lifornia Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Outdoor Work Areas Pholo Cradit Geoff Brosseau Description Proper design of outdoor work areas for materials reduces SD-35 Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials 0 Contain Pollutant 0 Collect and Convey opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids, and other pollutants to enter the stormwater conveyance system. Approach Outdoor work areas require a drainage approach different from the typical infiltration/detention strategy. In outdoor work areas, infiltration is discouraged; collection and conveyance are encouraged. In outdoor work areas, infiltration is discouraged and runoff is often routed directly to the sanitary sewer, not the storm drain. Because this runoff is being added to the loads normally received by the wastewater treatment plants, municipal stonnwater programs and/ or private developers must work with the local plant to develop solutions that minimize effects on the treatment facility. These concerns are best addressed in the planning and design stage of the outdoor work area. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial, and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. Design Considerations Design requirements for outdoor work areas are governed by Building and Fire Codes, and by current local agency ordinances, and zoning requirements. Designing New Installations Outdoor work areas can be designed in particular ways to reduce impacts on both stormwater quality and sewage treatment plants. ■ Create an impermeable surface such as concrete or asphalt, or a prefabricated metal drip pan, depending on the use. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www .cabmphandbooks .com 1 of 2 SD-35 Outdoor Work Areas ■ Cover the area with a roof. TI1is prevents rain from falling on the work area and becoming polluted runoff. ■ Berm or perform mounding around the perimeter of the area to prevent water from adjacent areas from flowing on to the smface of the work area. ■ Directly connect runoff. Unlike other areas, runoff from work areas is directly connected to the sanitary sewer or other specialized containment system(s). Tiiis allows the more highly concentrated pollutants from these areas to receive special treatment that removes particular constituents. Approval for this connection must be obtained from the appropriate sanitary sewer agency. ■ Locate the work area away from storm drains or catch basins. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stonnwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define "redevelopment" in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of" redevelopment" must be consulted to determine whether or not tlie requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under "designing new installations" above should be followed. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stonnwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002 . Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14 , 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks .com Ja nuary 2003 APPENDIX D BMP MAINTENANCE SUPPLEMENT / O&M PLAN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN Water Quality Management Plan For Snug Harbor Surf Camp 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660, County of Orange APN 119-200-38 & 119-200-41 This page intentionally left blank O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 3 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs No N1. Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Not Applicable Yes N2. Activity Restrictions The Owner shall develop ongoing activity restrictions that include those that have the potential to create adverse impacts on water quality. Activities include, but are not limited to: handling and disposal of contaminants, fertilizer and pesticide application restrictions, litter control and pick-up, and vehicle or equipment repair and maintenance in non- designated areas, as well as any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to protect surface water quality, through lease terms or other equally effective measure, for the property. Frequency: Ongoing Back Bay Barrels, LLC. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 4 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N3. Common Area Landscape Management Management programs will be designed and implemented by the Owner to maintain all the common areas within the project site. These programs will cover how to reduce the potential pollutant sources of fertilizer and pesticide uses, utilization of water-efficient landscaping practices and proper disposal of landscape wastes by the owner/developer and/or contractors. Maintenance shall be consistent with City requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage shall be consistent with County Management Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (OC DAMP Section 5.5). Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming, replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be performed on an as-needed basis to prevent exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings, clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be properly disposed of in accordance with local regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled during maintenance activities shall be placed away from water courses and storm drains inlets. Frequency: Monthly Back Bay Barrels, LLC. Yes N4. BMP Maintenance The Owner will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable non-structural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors. Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in the O&M Plan. Records of inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept by the owner/developer and shall be available for review upon request. Frequency: Ongoing Back Bay Barrels, LLC. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 5 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N5. Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Where applicable, the proposed project shall comply with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and relevant sections of the California Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous waste management, which will be enforced by County Environmental Health on behalf of the State. Compliance shall be maintained on an ongoing basis. Frequency: Ongoing Back Bay Barrels, LLC. No N6. Local Industrial Permit Compliance Not Applicable O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 6 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N7. Spill Contingency Plan Any facilities that store liquid materials or wastes shall maintain procedures for spill response and cleanup activities. Emergency spill kits shall be kept on-site at all times. Spill kits shall include, at a minimum, dry adsorbent material such as kitty litter, mats or pillows, containment booms, wipes, goggles, gloves and disposal bags. Minor spills shall be cleaned up immediately using dry methods, consistent with measures identified in the fact sheets attached to this WQMP. Activities will be coordinated between the respective departments and the Police and Fire departments in the event of a spill. Frequency: Ongoing Back Bay Barrels, LLC. No N8. Underground Storage Tank Compliance Not Applicable Yes N9. Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Any storage or utilization of hazardous wastes, where applicable, shall comply with the County of Orange Fire Authority hazardous material disclosure requirements. Compliance shall be maintained on an ongoing basis. Frequency: Ongoing Back Bay Barrels, LLC. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 7 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N10. Uniform Fire Code Implementation The Owner shall ensure all structures comply with Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, County of Orange Fire Authority, and Orange City Fire Department. Compliance shall be maintained on an ongoing basis. Frequency: Ongoing Back Bay Barrels, LLC. Yes N11. Common Area Litter Control The Owner will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by the public and reporting such violations for investigation. Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction with routine maintenance activities. Frequency: Weekly Back Bay Barrels, LLC. Yes N12. Employee Training All employees of the Owner and any contractors will require training to ensure that employees are aware of maintenance activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. Training will include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc. Educate all new employees/ managers on storm water pollution prevention, particularly good housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall be conducted on an as needed basis. Frequency: Annually Back Bay Barrels, LLC. No N13. Housekeeping of Loading Docks Not Applicable O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 8 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection All on-site catch basin inlets and drainage facilities shall be inspected and maintained by the Owner at least once a year, prior to the rainy season, no later than October 1st of each year. The City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance of all public catch basins and drainage facilities associated with the project. Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities shall be inspected after each storm event and once per year. Storm drain inlets and other drainage facilities shall be cleaned prior to the rainy season, by October 1 each year. Frequency: 2x per year and after large storm event Back Bay Barrels, LLC. Yes N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots The Owner shall be responsible for sweeping all on-site streets, drive aisles, and/or uncovered parking areas within the project on a quarterly basis. The applicant shall not spray down or wash down the parking lot or surrounding sidewalks unless the water used is directed through the sanitary sewer system or a filtered drain. No car washing shall be permitted in the parking lot. Drive aisles and parking areas must be swept at least quarterly (every 3 months), including prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1). The applicant shall not spray down or wash down the parking lot or surrounding sidewalks unless the water used is directed through the sanitary sewer system or a filtered drain. No car washing shall be permitted in the parking lot. Frequency: Monthly Back Bay Barrels, LLC. No N16. Retail Gasoline Outlets Not Applicable STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 9 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes S1. Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage The phrase “NO DUMPING! DRAINS TO OCEAN”, or an equally effective phrase approved by the City, will be stenciled on all major storm drain inlets within the project site to alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. Stencils shall be in place prior to release of certificate of occupancy. Stencils shall be inspected for legibility on an annual basis and re-stenciled as necessary. Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm season, no later than October 1 each year. Those determined to be illegible will be re- stenciled as soon as possible. Frequency: Annually Back Bay Barrels, LLC. No S2. Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Not Applicable Yes S3. Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction All trash and waste shall be stored in containers that have lids or tarps to minimize direct precipitation into the containers. One (1) trash enclosures will be located in the Clubhouse Building. The trash storage areas will be designed to City standards, and will be walled, roofed, have gates and proper drainage per City standards. Sweep trash area at least once per week and before October 1st each year. Maintain area clean of trash and debris at all times. Frequency: Weekly Back Bay Barrels, LLC. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 10 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes S4. Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control The Owner will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all common landscape areas utilizing similar planting materials with similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff. The Owner will be responsible for implementing all efficient irrigation systems for common area landscaping including, but not limited to, provisions for water sensors and programmable irrigation cycles. This includes smart timers, rain sensors, and moisture shut- off valves. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with water efficiency guidelines. Systems shall be tested twice per year, and water used during testing/flushing shall not be discharged to the storm drain system. In conjunction with routine maintenance activities, verify that landscape design continues to function properly by adjusting properly to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, and to verify that irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance with water demands, given time of year, weather, and day or night time temperatures. System testing shall occur twice per year. Water from testing/flushing shall be collected and properly disposed to the sewer system and shall not discharge to the storm drain system. Frequency: 2x per year Back Bay Barrels, LLC. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 11 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Yes S5. Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation The site drainage design shall include appropriate BMPs to decrease the potential for erosion of slopes and/or channels. The design shall be consistent with Federal, State, and local standards (e.g., RWQCB, ACOE, CDFG). Where feasible, the following principles shall be considered: 1) convey runoff safely from the tops of slopes, 2) avoid disturbing steep or unstable slopes, as well as natural channels, 3) implement a permanent stabilization BMP on disturbed slopes and channels as quickly as possible, such as native vegetation, and 4) install energy dissipaters at the outlets of new storm drains, culverts, or channels. Frequency: Back Bay Barrels, LLC. No S6. Dock areas Not Applicable No S7. Maintenance bays Not Applicable No S8. Vehicle wash areas Not Applicable No S9. Outdoor processing areas Not Applicable O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 12 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility No S10. Equipment wash areas Not Applicable No S11. Fueling areas Not Applicable No S12. Hillside landscaping Not Applicable No S13. Wash water control for food preparation areas Not Applicable No S14. Community car wash racks Not Applicable BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BMPs O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 13 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Biotreatment BMP # 1: Modular Wetland System (MWS) Modular Wetlands by Modular Wetlands Systems, Inc. are proprietary biotreatment systems that utilize multi-stage treatment processes. The pre-treatment chamber contains the first three stages of treatment and includes a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment is achieved through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system. Typical maintenance includes removing trash & debris from the catch basin screening filter (by hand), removal of sediment and solids in the settlement chamber (vacuum truck), replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM filter cartridge, and replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM drain down filter. In the Separation Chamber, spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace the screening device, grate, or manhole cover when complete. In addition, plants within the wetland chamber will require trimming in conjunction with landscape maintenance activities. See attached manufacturer’s specifications for additional requirements. Frequency: Inspect system at a minimum of once every six months, prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1), and after major storm events. Back Bay Barrels, LLC. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 14 of 17 BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Biotreatment BMP # 2: Bioretention Planters with Underdrains Bioretention planters with underdrains are plant-based biotreatment systems that typically consist of a ponding area, mulch layer, planting soils and plants. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants. Underdrains collect the treated water and return it back into the storm drain system. Inspections should occur semi-annually or after major storm events to check for the following and remove accordingly: standing water, sediment, and trash & debris. Inspections should also look for potential clogging and clean planters or, if necessary, replace the entire filter bed. Inspect for weeds, and prune and/or replace plants in accordance with routine landscape maintenance activities. Replace mulch and prune shrubs as necessary. Frequency: 2x per year Back Bay Barrels, LLC. O PERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE P LAN Page 15 of 17 Required Permits Permits are not required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Forms to Record BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is attached. Recordkeeping All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request. Waste Management Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system. Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly off- site, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets. RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed APPENDIX E CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PENDING) APPENDIX F GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARL KIM GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 carlkimgeo@gmail.com GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PROPOSED WAVEGARDEN COVE 3100 IRVINE AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Back Barrels, LLC. 1940 Continental Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Project No. PWAS_20240507 June 28, 2024 CARL KIM GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 carlkimgeo@gmail.com June 28, 2024 Project No. PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC. 1940 Continental Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Attention: Mr. Adam Cleary Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Proposed Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, California Per your request, Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. (Carl Kim Geo) has performed a geotechnical exploration for the subject project. The purpose of this study was to review and verify engineering properties of onsite soils, identify geologic and seismic hazards that may impact the site, and develop foundation and earthwork recommendations for the project that are in general conformance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). Based on plans prepared by X Engineering and 52nd Street Consultants LLC and a “geotechnical brief” prepared by LPC, Carl Kim Geo understands that the proposed Snug Harbor project will include construction of a 13-foot-deep surf lagoon, a 3-story 50,000-square-foot clubhouse building with one subterranean level, a building for athlete lodging, two additional pools, parking lots with solar panel canopies, a service yard, pavement, landscaping, and utilities. Retaining walls are planned to achieve design grades. The project site is located at the Newport Beach Golf Course, east of the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive. The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel that includes three holes, a driving range, pro shop, clubhouse, restaurant, and parking areas. The site generally slopes toward the northwest. An existing 15- to 20-foot-high slope descends from the southeast edge of the property from about Elevation (El.) +58 feet mean sea level (msl). The rest of the site generally slopes gently from about El. +50 feet msl to about El. +15 feet msl near the west corner of the property. Based on review of aerial photos, the golf course was constructed between 1972 and 1980. The site is bounded by the Santa Ana-Delhi channel and Irvine Avenue from the north, Mesa Drive from the south, and commercial properties from the southeast. Carl Kim Geo reviewed and incorporated subsurface geotechnical data previously collected by Moore Twining and performed additional subsurface explorations. Current explorations included two hand-auger borings and seven (7) cone penetration test soundings. This site is located in the Santa Ana Heights area adjacent to the Delhi Channel approximately ¾ mile north of Upper Newport Bay. Santa Ana Heights is located northwest of the San Joaquin Hills and is mapped as covered by coastal terrace deposits. PWAS_20240507 - 2 - The project site is underlain by engineered fill (thickness ranging from 0 to about 15 feet) described clayey sand, sandy lean clay, silty sand, and clay. The fill is underlain by late Quaternary to recent alluvium, which is underlain by Quaternary marine terrace deposits consisting primarily of lean clay with interlayers of fine to medium sand, silty sand, and silt layers. Groundwater below the site has been encountered in temporary piezometers at approximately El. +4 to +15 feet msl. However, this water level is likely the result of a pressurized confined or semiconfined aquifer. The recommended design groundwater level for the site is at El. +8 feet msl, which is approximately two feet above the adjacent concrete-lined Delhi Channel. Widespread dewatering or lowering of a water table is not anticipated to be required. However, isolated seepage zones may be encountered in excavations. Based on results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations presented herein are implemented in the design and construction of the project. No evidence of extraordinarily adverse geological or geotechnical hazards at the site were noted that will preclude the development of the project as currently planned. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further service, please call us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. Carl C. Kim Senior Principal Engineer Andrew Hillstrand Consulting Engineering Geologist ARH/CCK Distribution: (4) Addressee PWAS_20230915 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Site Location and Project Description ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope............................................................................................................. 1 Task 1 - Document Review ................................................................................................. 1 Task 2 –Subsurface Exploration and Laboratory Testing ................................................... 2 Task 3 –Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation .................................................................. 2 Task 4 - Engineering Analysis and Report ......................................................................... 2 2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Geologic Setting .................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Site Geology ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Faulting and Seismicity ....................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Surface Rupture Hazard ........................................................................................ 5 3.1.2 Historical Seismicity ............................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Secondary Seismic Hazards ............................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Liquefaction ............................................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Seismically-Induced Settlement ............................................................................. 8 3.2.3 Lateral Spreading or Flow Failure .......................................................................... 8 3.2.4 Seismically-Induced Landslides ............................................................................. 9 3.2.5 Seiches and Tsunamis ........................................................................................... 9 3.3 Flooding Hazards ................................................................................................................ 9 3.4 Expansive Soils ................................................................................................................. 10 PWAS_20230915 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page - ii - 3.5 Corrosive Soils .................................................................................................................. 10 3.6 Subsurface Gases ............................................................................................................. 10 3.7 Subsidence ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 11 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 12 5.1 Earthwork and Grading ..................................................................................................... 12 5.1.1 Site Preparation ................................................................................................... 12 5.1.2 Subgrade Preparation .......................................................................................... 13 5.1.3 Fill Materials ......................................................................................................... 14 5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ........................................................................... 14 5.1.5 Reuse of concrete and Asphalt in Fill .................................................................. 14 5.2 Foundations ...................................................................................................................... 15 5.2.1 Spread Footings ................................................................................................... 15 5.2.2 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction ............................................................................ 16 5.2.3 Flagpole Type Foundations ................................................................................. 16 5.2.4 Micropiles ............................................................................................................. 16 5.3 Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................................................................. 18 5.4 Cement Type and Corrosion Protection ............................................................................ 19 5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures .................................................................................................... 19 5.7 Pavement Design .............................................................................................................. 20 5.7.1 Asphalt Concrete Paving ..................................................................................... 20 5.7.2 Portland Cement Concrete Paving ...................................................................... 20 5.7.3 Specifications ....................................................................................................... 21 PWAS_20230915 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page - iii - 5.8 Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................... 21 5.9 Trench Backfill ................................................................................................................... 22 5.10 Drainage and Landscaping ............................................................................................... 22 5.11 Additional Geotechnical Services ..................................................................................... 23 7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 24 PWAS_20230915 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page - iv - Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Rear of Text Figure 2 – Aerial Photos Rear of Text Figure 3 – Geologic Map Rear of Text Figure 4 – Historic High Groundwater Level Rear of Text Figure 5 – Regional Faults Rear of Text Figure 6 – Historic Seismicity Rear of Text Figure 7 – Seismic Hazards Rear of Text Figure 8 – Tsunami Hazard Rear of Text Figure 9 – Flood Hazards Rear of Text Figure 10 – Dam Inundation Rear of Text Plates Plate 1 – Explorations Rear of Text Plate 2 – Cross-Sections A-A through F-F’ Rear of Text Appendices Appendix A – References Rear of Text Appendix B – Explorations Rear of Text Appendix C – Laboratory Tests Rear of Text Appendix D – Seismic Design Parameters Rear of Text Appendix E – Liquefaction Analysis Rear of Text Appendix F – Earthwork Grading Guide Specifications Rear of Text Appendix G – Foundations Rear of Text PWAS_20240507 - 1 - 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site (latitude + 33.6585°, longitude -117.8819°) is located within a portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course located at 3100 Irvine Avenue in Newport Beach (Figure 1 – Site Location) (Figure 2 – Aerial Photos). The irregularly shaped property includes three holes, a driving range, pro shop, clubhouse, restaurant, and parking areas. The site generally slopes toward the northwest. An existing 15- to 20-foot-high slope descends from the southeast edge of the property from about Elevation (El.) +58 feet mean sea level (msl). The rest of the site generally slopes gently from about El. +50 feet msl to about El. +15 feet msl near the west corner of the property. Based on review of aerial photos, the golf course was constructed between 1972 and 1980. The site is bounded by the Santa Ana-Delhi channel and Irvine Avenue from the north, Mesa Drive from the south, and commercial properties from the southeast. Based on preliminary plans and specifications for the project, Carl Kim Geo understands that the proposed Snug Harbor project will include construction of a 13-foot-deep surf lagoon, a 3-story 50,000-square-foot clubhouse building with one subterranean level, a building for athlete lodging, two additional pools, parking lots with solar panel canopies, a service yard, pavement, landscaping, and utilities. Segmental and conventional retaining walls are planned to achieve design grades. A plinth structure approximately 40 feet wide by 350 feet long will be constructed along the central axis of the lagoon to generate waves. The plinth structure will be tied in with a continuous footing that will span the remaining length of the lagoon. The proposed project elements are shown on Plate 1, Explorations. 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to characterize engineering properties of onsite soils, identify geologic and seismic hazards impacting the site, and develop geotechnical recommendations for foundations and earthwork. The tasks completed as part of this study are described below in more detail. TASK 1 - DOCUMENT REVIEW Carl Kim Geo reviewed preliminary plans and specifications prepared by X Engineering, 52nd Street Consultants LLC, and La Playa Consulting Inc. (LPC). In addition, previous geotechnical data gathered by Moore Twining Associates (2019, 2020) were reviewed and incorporated into this report. The documents reviewed are referenced in Appendix A. PWAS_20240507 - 2 - TASK 2 –SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Current exploration included seven (7) cone penetration test (CPT) soundings, sampling of the near-surface hand excavations for each of the CPTs, and two (2) hand-auger borings advanced to obtain representative subsurface data for grading and foundation design in addition to prior explorations conducted by others. Prior exploration data by Moore Twining included logs from 26 hollow stem auger borings and four CPT soundings. Six (6) of the hollow-stem-auger borings were converted to temporary piezometers. Explorations ranged in depth from 4 to 75 feet below ground surface (bgs). Exploration locations are shown on Plate 1 and logs of current and prior explorations are attached in Appendix B, Explorations. Laboratory test results from current and prior explorations are attached in Appendix C, Laboratory Tests. The testing included:  Soil classification (ASTM D2488);  Moisture and density (ASTM D 2216 and D 2937);  Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829);  Direct Shear (ASTM D3080);  Consolidation (ASTM D 2435);  Compaction (ASTM D 1557); and  R-value (CTM 301). TASK 3 –GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION Using available geologic data, we have developed information on the general geologic conditions beneath the project including the locations of documented active and potentially active faults near the site. This study addresses the potential for primary earthquake hazards (ground shaking and surface rupture) and secondary earthquake hazards (liquefaction, seismic settlement, seiches, and earthquake-induced landsliding) impacting the site. Seismic design parameters are attached in Appendix D. TASK 4 - ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND REPORT The results of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geologic-seismic hazards, and geotechnical design recommendations are summarized below. PWAS_20240507 - 3 - 2.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The property is located in the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province of California. This geomorphic province is characterized by north-northwest trending geologic grain, meaning that its primary faults, folds, mountains and valleys are all aligned in north-northwest direction. The site is located northwest of the pediment of the San Juaquin Hills in the Santa Ana Heights area, approximately ¾-mile north of Upper Newport Bay. According to regional geologic mapping by Douglas M. Morton and others of the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2006), the Santa Ana Heights area consists of “old paralic deposits overlain by alluvial-fan deposits”. A regional scale geologic map compiled by the indicates the site is underlain by Quaternary-age marine terrace deposits that may or may not be covered by river-derived alluvium in places. The older rock units underlying the region (e.g. Monterey, Topanga Formations, etc.) are generally folded into a series of anticlines and synclines with axes that trend and plunge toward the northwest roughly parallel to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and Whittier-Elsinore Fault system to the north (Yerkes, 1965) (USGS, 2006). The regional geologic conditions of the site and vicinity are shown on Figure 3, Geology. 2.2 SITE GEOLOGY An improved concrete culvert known as the Santa Ana-Delhi Channel traverses the northwest and west edges of the site. The drainage course was known as the Delhi Drainage Ditch for some time prior to improvements (USGS, 1932). This drainage system locally formed the topographically lowest portion of the site as it meanders and drains from north to south generally toward the Upper Newport Bay (aka upper Back Bay). Aerial photos and geomorphology indicate the active channel and lowest fluvial flood plain (where Holocene to recent alluvial deposits would be deposited) was 250 to 300 feet wide extending from roughly the present Santa Ana-Delhi Channel southeastward (Figure 2 – Aerial Photos). Based on aerial photos reviewed (Appendix A) the site appears to have been used historically for agriculture and was fallow for several decades before it was developed into the Newport Beach Golf Course around or just before 1980. It appears that grading was performed along the periphery of the site and for construction of onsite infrastructure. Based on subsurface explorations, field mapping, and review of historic maps and aerials photos, earth materials at the site consist of man-made fill, alluvium, and older terrace deposits. The identified and interpreted limits of the earth materials are shown on Plates 1 and 2. The materials underlying the site are described below and in Appendix B. PWAS_20240507 - 4 - Undocumented Artificial Fill (afu): The site is mantled by variable thicknesses of man- made fill. Fill was identified in B-3, B-5, B-11, and B-19. A maximum of approximately 15 feet of fill was identified in B-11. Note that fill is expected to occur in other areas explored but was not specifically labeled in many of the explorations. As encountered, fill soils vary from soft to stiff sandy lean clay, and loose to dense and silty sand and clayey sand that is generally moist. Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal): Quaternary to recent age alluvium encountered in site explorations consisted of layers of lean clay, sandy lean clay, clayey sand, silty sand, and poorly graded sands. Soils with notable organic content were logged in B-3, B- 5, B-16, and CKG CPT-2. The materials were generally slightly moist to moist. Fine- grained soils varied from soft to stiff while granular soils encountered were logged as medium dense. Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt): Quaternary-age terrace deposits encountered in site explorations consisted of layers of lean clay, sandy lean clay, and fat clay with interlayers or intermixed zones of silty sand, poorly graded sand, and silt. The materials were generally moist. Fine-grained soils varied from soft to hard while granular soils encountered were logged as medium dense to very dense. 2.3 GROUNDWATER According to the California Geological Survey (CGS, 1997a), the historic high groundwater level in the vicinity of the site is approximately 10 bgs (Figure 4 – Historic High Groundwater Level). Free water was encountered/detected in 7 of 26 hollow stem auger borings and not detected at 19 locations. The highest first encountered water was in boring B-9 at a depth of 18 feet bgs (El. +14 feet msl). Six temporary piezometers were constructed in 2020 at B-17, B-18, B-19, B-22, B-23, and B-24 (Moore Twining, 2020a,b). Available well construction details and depth to water measurements in wells and borings are tabulated in Appendix B. The water level measured in B-9 appears to be a localized perched water zone. Water levels below the site vary from unobserved to El. +15 feet msl. Given the variability of water levels across the site and the presence of the adjacent Delhi Channel with a flow line at approximately El. +6 feet msl, the recommended design groundwater level is 15 feet bgs. Perched water and groundwater would be expected to occur where granular soils are encountered. Fluctuation of the groundwater level and localized zones of perched water should be anticipated below grade. Irrigation of landscaped areas can also impact local groundwater levels or likelihood of perched water or seepage to be encountered in excavations. PWAS_20240507 - 5 - 3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Geologic hazards include surface faulting, ground lurching, seismic shaking, landslides, liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, lateral spreading, seismically-induced landslides, flooding, expansive soils, corrosive soils, and soil gas. The following sections discuss these hazards and their potential impacts at the site in more detail. 3.1 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY In general, the primary seismic hazards for sites in the region include strong ground shaking and surface fault rupture. Our discussion of faults potentially impacting the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Geological Survey (CGS), an active fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Similarly, a fault whose recency of past movement is older than 11,700 years is a pre- Holocene fault, and does not meet State criteria as “active.” Age-undetermined faults are those whose age of most recent movement is not known and is unconstrained. These updated definitions were necessary to eliminate agency and practitioner confusion for fault investigation reports as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zones Act of 1972 (AP Act) and recently revised Special Publication 42 (CGS, 2018). The intent of this act is to prevent siting of habitable structures across traces of “active” faults. 3.1.1 SURFACE RUPTURE HAZARD According to the State of California Earthquake Fault Zones maps), the site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, a surface fault rupture hazard evaluation is not mandated for this site. The closest zoned active fault is a segment of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 5.6 miles to the west (CGS, 1997a,b). Inferred/buried strands of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone are mapped trending south of the site but are not currently zoned as active. The closest mapped trace is approximately 0.9 mile south of the site. No photo lineaments or other geomorphic evidence of active or potentially active faults intersecting the site were observed or recognized as part of our review of aerial photos and historic topographic maps; therefore, potential for surface fault rupture at the site is expected to be low. Major active and potentially active faults in the site vicinity are shown on Figure 5, Regional Faults. PWAS_20240507 - 6 - 3.1.2 HISTORICAL SEISMICITY Although Southern California has been seismically active during the past 200 years, written accounts of only the strongest shocks survive the early part of this period. Early descriptions of earthquakes are rarely specific enough to allow an association with any particular fault zone. It is also not possible to precisely locate epicenters of earthquakes that have occurred prior to the twentieth century. A search of historical earthquakes was performed using the USGS database (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/) for the time period between 1769 and the present. Within that time frame, 353 earthquakes of magnitude 4 or greater were found within a 100-kilometer radius of the site (Figure 6, Historical Seismicity). 3.1.3 SEISMICITY The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in southern California (Figure 5). The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics. Accordingly, design of the project should be performed in accordance with all applicable current codes and standards utilizing the appropriate seismic design parameters to reduce seismic risk as defined by California Geological Survey (CGS) Chapter 2 of Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). The 2022 edition of the California Building Code (CBC) is the current edition of the code. Through compliance with these regulatory requirements and the utilization of appropriate seismic design parameters selected by the design professionals, potential effects relating to seismic shaking can be reduced. PWAS_20240507 - 7 - The following code-based seismic parameters should be considered for design under the 2022 CBC: 2022 CBC Map Based Ground Motion Parameters Categorization/Coefficient Code-Based Site Latitude +33.6587° Site Longitude -117.8826° Site Class D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SS 1.311 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), S1 0.468 g Short Period (0.2 sec) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Long Period (1 sec) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.8321 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SMS 1.311 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SM1 0.8581 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period (0.2 sec), SDS 0.874 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Long Period (1 sec), SD1 0.5721 g Site Amplification Factor, FPGA 1.1 Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.620 g 1 See Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16. A site-specific ground motion hazard analysis in accordance with Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 is required for this site. Per Supplement 3 to ASCE 7-16, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis is not required where the value of the parameters SM1 and SD1 in the table are increased by 50%. The site is located within a seismically active region, as is all of Southern California. Based on the available subsurface information for the site, the site was designated as Site Class D. Details are presented in Appendix D. / ( /"'···· •••••••........ / )-~- / ~····· ••••.......... ' ••• •.. ~······ ••.......... /.) "'···· ••..... (-·-•• ~···· ........ ~ (// '-.... \ \\~··,,.,, ... ~. /-....... ,, \\\ ~ ~\ ( /, ~\\ \ ,, / ........ .I ' ..... ) \( - \ PWAS_20240507 - 8 - 3.2 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS In general, secondary seismic hazards for sites in the region could include soil liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, lateral spreading, landsliding, seiches and tsunamis. These potential secondary seismic hazards are discussed below. 3.2.1 LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose and medium dense, near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. As shown on Figure 7, Seismic Hazards, a liquefaction hazard zone is delineated by the State of California (CGS, 1997a) along the northwest edge of the site. Based on our site- specific evaluation using a design high groundwater at 15 feet bgs, PGAM, and a mean magnitude of 6.7, liquefaction hazard is deemed low. The results are presented in Appendix E. 3.2.2 SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT Seismically-induced settlement consists of dynamic settlement of unsaturated soil (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). These settlements occur primarily within low density sandy soil due to reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event. Based on our evaluation using the historic high groundwater level of 15 feet bgs, PGAM, and a mean magnitude of 6.7, the potential total earthquake-induced settlement is estimated to be less than ½ inch (Appendix E). Moore Twining’s CPT-3 indicated over 1 inch of seismically-induced settlement but most of the settlement occurred within the undocumented fill in the upper 10 feet, which will be removed and replaced as engineered fill during grading. The differential settlement can be taken as half the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. 3.2.3 LATERAL SPREADING OR FLOW FAILURE Liquefaction may also cause lateral spreading. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along PWAS_20240507 - 9 - gently sloping ground toward an unconfined area. Because liquefaction hazard is low, the potential for lateral spreading is deemed low. 3.2.4 SEISMICALLY-INDUCED LANDSLIDES As shown on Figure 7, Seismic Hazards, the site is not mapped within a seismically- induced landslide hazard zone identified by the State of California (CGS, 1999). In addition, due to project site lacking significant slopes, it is our opinion that the potential for seismically-induced landslide hazard at the site is low. 3.2.5 SEICHES AND TSUNAMIS Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water by fault displacement or major ground movement. Once built, the Wavegarden lagoon will be an enclosed body of water subject to accelerations from ground movements. An area immediately south of Mesa Drive is within a tsunami hazard Zone (Figure 8, Tsunami Hazard). As such, the site and periphery are subject to seiche and/or tsunami hazards should strong ground motions or significant displacement of earth occur offshore. 3.3 FLOODING HAZARDS According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FEMA, 2008), the project site is located within a flood hazard area identified as “Zone X”, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard. Regionally, storm runoff flow is generally directed to the south toward Upper Newport Bay. As shown on Figure 9, Flood Hazards, the site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Earthquake-induced flooding can be caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes. The site is not mapped within modeled inundation zone associated with proximal reservoirs (Figure 10). Therefore, the risk of seismically-induced flooding due to dam failure is considered very low. PWAS_20240507 - 10 - 3.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and which shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper mitigation measures, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result. Prior laboratory testing indicates that site soils have very low to medium expansion potential. Low to medium plasticity clays were encountered in explorations. Expansion Index test results range from 0 to 74 and are included in Appendix C. 3.5 CORROSIVE SOILS Results of corrosion testing are included in Appendix C. The underlying soil should be assumed to be severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals per ASTM STP 1013. Concrete in contact with the soil is expected to have moderate (S1) exposure to sulfate attack per ACI 318 (ACI, 2014). An exposure class of C1 may be assumed for concrete in contact with soil exposed to moisture per ACI 318 but not to external sources of chlorides. 3.6 SUBSURFACE GASES Based on review of State of California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM, formerly DOGGR) records, the project site is not located within an oil field boundary (CalGEM, 2024). Accordingly, the potential for methane hazards to affect the site is low. 3.7 SUBSIDENCE Based on review of referenced reports the site is not within an area of known significant subsidence associated with groundwater or petroleum withdrawal, peat oxidation, or hydro- compaction. PWAS_20240507 - 11 - 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the following geotechnical factors should be considered:  The project site is underlain by variable thicknesses of fill in areas up to 15 feet in thickness. The fill is described as sandy clay and silty sand. The fill is underlain by Quaternary age and younger alluvium and Quaternary age marine terrace deposits consisting of low plasticity clay, sandy clay, silt, and some sand layers.  Our review of the geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates there are no known active faults that intersect the site. In addition, site-specific data does not indicate the presence of faulting at the site.  The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is strong ground shaking.  Groundwater appears to occur in discrete confined layers at different elevations across the site. Perched water may occur at the site at approximately El. +15 feet msl. Design groundwater may be assumed at 15 feet below the existing ground surface.  The expansion potential of near-surface onsite soils is expected to be low to medium.  The onsite soils are expected to be severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals and have moderate sulfate exposure to concrete.  Due to the presence of thick clay layers underlying the site that would be expected to have very low to no permeability, presence of perched water, evidence of pressurized aquifers below the site, stormwater infiltration is deemed infeasible.  The planned grading will place up to 20 feet of new fill to establish design elevations along the north side of the site. Raising the ground surface elevation at the site will induce settlement. We estimate about an inch of settlement per foot of new fill placed to raise site grades. Accordingly, we recommend that the rough site grading be performed as far in advance as possible before construction of the proposed improvements. PWAS_20240507 - 12 - 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated in design and construction. The recommendations presented below are based upon the exhibited geotechnical engineering properties of the soils and their anticipated response both during and after construction. The recommendations are also based upon proper field observation and testing during construction. The project geotechnical engineer should be notified of suspected variances in field conditions to determine the effect upon the recommendations subsequently presented. These recommendations are considered minimal and may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the civil and structural engineers, the City of Newport Beach, and other governing agencies. Carl Kim Geo should review the grading and foundation plans and project specifications as they become available to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans for this project. 5.1 EARTHWORK AND GRADING We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and the project specifications as prepared by others. The Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications included in Appendix F may be used for guidance in developing the project specifications. If conflict arises, the recommendations in Appendix F shall be superseded by the project specifications, recommendations contained in this report and/or the City of Newport Beach requirements, whichever is more stringent. All site grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable local codes and in accordance with the project specifications that are prepared by the appropriate design professional. 5.1.1 SITE PREPARATION After the site is cleared, the soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable deposits. We recommend that after removal of pavements and hardscape, and complete demolition of existing structures within the proposed improvement footprints, all undocumented fill soils should be excavated from these proposed improvement footprints, which is expected to occur over most of the northern half of the site. Undocumented fill was encountered as deep as 15 feet bgs in the borings. Deeper fill may be encountered between boring locations. PWAS_20240507 - 13 - Overexcavation is not required for footings established directly on undisturbed natural soils. Any underground obstructions encountered should be removed. Those lines should be removed or rerouted where interfering with proposed construction. It is essential that excavation does not undermine foundations of any existing infrastructure that will remain in place along the boundaries of the project. As-built details of any structure to remain should be provided to Carl Kim Geo and the structural engineer prior to incorporation into the new design. Areas outside the structure footprint limits, planned for new asphalt and/or concrete pavement or pavers, should be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 24 inches below existing or finish grade or 18 inches below proposed pavement sections, whichever is deeper. 5.1.2 SUBGRADE PREPARATION Excavation bottoms should be observed by Carl Kim Geo prior to placement of any backfill or new construction. After overexcavations are completed, and prior to fill placement, exposed surfaces should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture- conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557 standard test method (modified Proctor compaction curve). Based on the explorations (Appendix B) saturated subgrade conditions are expected in deep excavations for undocumented fill removal and the planned basement for the 3-story building, which will require stabilization for support of engineered fill or new structures. Adjustment to the stabilization limits should be anticipated based on observed performance during stabilization. The stabilization methodology may vary and it is the contractor’s responsibility to achieve a non-yielding compacted subgrade prior to fill placement or foundation construction. While the laboratory-indicated moisture contents alone may not cause subgrade instability, the exposed moisture conditions may vary from what is currently reported. As such, we provide this information for planning purposes. The following proven geotechnical solution may be considered should subgrade instability occur during grading. Rock Stabilization: If saturated subgrade conditions exist at the bottom of excavation, a 4- to 6-inch layer of 2- to 3-inch crushed rock should be placed in the excavation. Rock should be mechanically compacted under the weight of the equipment to push the rock into the underlying clay soils. Vibratory equipment should not be used to work in the rock blanket as the vibrations may aggravate locally soft saturated clays causing pumping conditions to expand laterally and destabilize the subgrade further. Clay soils removed from the excavation will require drying prior to reuse and are not considered suitable for use behind retaining walls. PWAS_20240507 - 14 - Depending upon the degree of subgrade instability, should it occur, the initial lift may completely penetrate the subgrade, and additional lifts will be necessary. Alternatively, the quantity of material may be reduced if a geogrid or geotextile fabric is considered to provide additional reinforcement effect after the placement of the initial lift. Geogrid or geotextile reinforcement should be placed with a minimum 3 feet of overlap between adjacent panels extending a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the footprint on all sides. 5.1.3 FILL MATERIALS On-site soil that is free of construction debris, organics, or rock larger than 4 inches in largest dimension is suitable to be used as fill for support of structures. Onsite clayey soils with an Expansion Index greater than 20 should not be used within 2 feet of concrete slabs-on-grade to avoid potential for lightly loaded concrete slabs to heave. Any imported fill soil should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to import or use onsite. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less than 2 percent), have a very low expansion potential (with an EI of 20 or lower) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements. Because of the medium expansive nature of some onsite clay soils, precautions should be taken to reduce the potential heaving of concrete slabs on grade if clay soil is exposed in the subgrade. A 24-inch-thick layer of relatively non-expansive, predominantly granular soils is recommended immediately beneath concrete walks and slabs on grade, including Portland cement concrete paving. This select, non-expansive granular soil should contain sufficient fines as to be relatively impermeable when compacted. Material of this type was observed onsite within the undocumented fill encountered at the boring locations. This granular undocumented fill material may be reused onsite. 5.1.4 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION All fill soil should be placed in thin, loose lifts, moisture-conditioned, as necessary, to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction as determined by ASTM D 1557 standard test method (modified Proctor compaction curve) within building footprints. Aggregate base for pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. At least the upper 12 inches of the exposed soils in roadways and access drives, parking and (concrete –paver) flatwork areas, should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D 1557. 5.1.5 REUSE OF CONCRETE AND ASPHALT IN FILL PWAS_20240507 - 15 - Pulverized demolition concrete free of rebar and other materials and demolished asphalt pavement can be pulverized to particles no-larger-than (≤) 3-inches and mixed with site soils for use in compacted fill. Blended pulverized concrete and asphalt should be mixed with at least 25% soils by weight. Such materials must be free of and segregated from any hazardous materials and/or organic material of any kind. 5.2 FOUNDATIONS Because structural loading information for the proposed buildings is not yet available, we assumed a maximum dead plus live column load of 450 kips in our evaluation. The design of the plinth structure is anticipated to be governed by dynamic loading with relatively small dead loads. The proposed new structures may be supported on a shallow spread footing foundation system established on engineered fill or undisturbed natural soils. 5.2.1 SPREAD FOOTINGS Footings for proposed structures should have a minimum embedment of 2 feet and have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings for proposed temporary structures may be supported directly on grade. Bearing Value: Footings or post-tensioned concrete slabs with thickened edges established on engineered fill or undisturbed natural soils may be designed to impose an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The excavations should be deepened as necessary to extend into satisfactory soils. A 50 percent increase in the bearing value for short duration loading, such as wind or seismic forces, may be used. The ultimate bearing capacity can be taken as 9,000 psf. This value does not incorporate a factor of safety and may only be used for an ultimate bearing capacity check with appropriate factored loads. A resistance factor of 0.45 may be used for initial bearing capacity evaluation with factored loads. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf); the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads. Settlement: The above recommended allowable bearing capacities are generally based on a total post-construction settlement of about 1 inch for column loads not exceeding 450 kips in dead plus live loads. PWAS_20240507 - 16 - Differential settlement due to static loading is generally estimated at ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Once developed by the structural engineer, we should review total dead and sustained live loads for each column including plan location and span distance, to evaluate if differential settlements between dissimilarly loaded columns will be tolerable. Excessive differential settlement can be mitigated with the use of reduced bearing pressures, deeper footing embedment, possibly changing overexcavation schemes and using imported base material under spread footings, or possibly other methods. Lateral Resistance: Soil resistance available to withstand lateral loads on a shallow foundation is a function of the frictional resistance along the base of the footing and the passive resistance that may develop as the face of the structure tends to move into the soil. The frictional resistance between the base of the foundation and the subgrade soil may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.3. The passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) up to a maximum of 2,500 psf, assuming there is constant contact between the footing and undisturbed soil. The passive resistance can be increased by one-third when considering short-duration wind or seismic loads. The friction resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. 5.2.2 MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION For static loading, 20 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be assumed as the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) for shallow foundations supported on engineered fill or undisturbed natural soils. For seismic loading, a k value of 100 pci may be assumed. 5.2.3 FLAGPOLE TYPE FOUNDATIONS Canopy structures, light poles, and fencing may be supported on flagpole-type foundations. Flagpole-type foundations may be designed to impose an allowable vertical bearing pressure of 2,000 psf and an allowable lateral bearing pressure of 500 psf per foot below grade. The allowable vertical and lateral bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for short-duration loading such as wind or seismic loading. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the flagpole footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot. 5.2.4 MICROPILES Micropiles should be designed and detailed in accordance with Sections 1810.3.10 of the 2022 CBC. Axial capacities of 6- and 8-inch diameter micropiles, at least 40 feet long, should be calculated based on the bonded length of grout to ground bond adhesion presented in the following table: PWAS_20240507 - 17 - Axial Capacities of 6- and 8-inch-diameter Micropiles Pile Diameter (inches) Bond Adhesion (kips-per-foot) Construction Type 6-inch 0.9 Gravity 8-inch 1.1 Gravity The grout to ground bond adhesion capacity can be increased to 150% for pressure grouting using Type B Construction (pressure grouted through the casing during casing withdrawal). The bond adhesion values are considered ultimate values. Ultimate pile capacities can be used if micropiles are proof tested to design capacities. Uplift capacity can be taken as 50 percent of the downward capacity. A resistance factor of 0.5 should be used for downward and uplift capacity evaluation with factored loads. Micropiles should have a maximum total length of 100 feet including cased length with a minimum edge distance of 2 times the pile diameter from center of the pile. To avoid group effects, the pile on-center spacing should be at least three times its largest diameter. The specialty contractor may be able to attain higher bond capacities by pressure grouting or secondary grouting. The micropile casing should be designed to transfer vertical loads to soils below an imaginary 1:1.5 (horizontal:vertical) plane extending down buried structures. Structural constraints and lateral load analysis may dictate longer casing. Micropiles should not be designed to carry lateral loads. Micropile installation should be performed by a specialty contractor experienced with the types of soils encountered at this site. We recommend that Carl Kim Geo review the final foundation plans and specifications to assure that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the contract documents. Project-specific micropile testing should be performed before and over the course of construction to verify design capacities. We recommend testing include the following: At least two pre-production tests performed per ASTM D1143 or D3689. At least one proof test at each pile group performed per ASTM D1143 or D3689. It is understood that micropile foundations are to be designed to resist seismic forces utilizing ultimate geotechnical capacity. For this case, pre-production and proof testing should be performed to 100 percent of the design axial load governing individual pile capacity. Results of pre-production and proof test should be evaluated for acceptance using a 0.025 in/kip load-displacement curve slope at the maximum test load. PWAS_20240507 - 18 - 5.3 SLABS-ON-GRADE Concrete slabs-on-grade should be designed by the structural engineer in accordance with 2022 CBC requirements for soils with a high expansion potential. More stringent requirements may be required by the structural engineer and/or architect; however, slabs-on-grade should have the following minimum recommended components:  Subgrade: The near-surface soils can be expansive and will shrink and swell with changes in the moisture content. Therefore, floor slabs-on-grade and adjacent concrete flatwork should be underlain by at least 24 inches of non-expansive fill (EI<21). Existing clay soils at planned basement levels are anticipated to be expansive. Accordingly, removal and replacement with non-expansive fill is recommended at the basement level. Slab-on-grade subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to within 2% of optimum moisture content, to a minimum depth of 18 inches within building footprints and compacted to 90% of the modified proctor (ASTM D 1557) laboratory maximum density prior to placing either a moisture barrier, steel and/or concrete. Onsite soil may be suitable for this use; however additional expansion testing should be performed upon completion of grading to verify expansive properties of onsite soil.  Moisture Barrier: A moisture barrier consisting of at least 15-mil-thick Stego-wrap vapor barriers (see: http://www.stegoindustries.com/products/stego_wrap_vapor_barrier.php ), or equivalent, should then be placed below slabs where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or equipment will be placed.  Reinforced Concrete: A conventionally reinforced concrete slab-on-grade with a thickness of at least 5 inches within the building footprint and 6 inches for exterior SOG in pedestrian areas without heavy loads may be used. Reinforcing steel should be designed by the structural engineer, but as a minimum should be No. 3 rebar placed at 18 inches on-center, each direction (perpendicularly), mid-depth in the slab. A modulus of subgrade reaction (k) as a linear spring constant, of 75 pounds-per-square-inch per inch deflection (pci) can be used for design of heavily loaded slabs-on-grade, assuming a linear response up to deflections on the order of ¾ inch. Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to expansion, drying and shrinkage is normal and will occur. However, cracking is often aggravated by a high water-to-cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage. PWAS_20240507 - 19 - 5.4 CEMENT TYPE AND CORROSION PROTECTION Based on the results of laboratory testing, concrete structures in contact with the onsite soil are expected to have moderate (S1) exposure to water-soluble sulfates in the soil. Type II/V cement plus pozzolan may be used for concrete construction onsite and the concrete should be designed in accordance with 2022 CBC requirements. The onsite soil may be considered severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Ferrous pipe should be avoided by using high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or other non-ferrous pipe when possible. Ferrous pipe, if used, should be protected by polyethylene bags, tap or coatings, di-electric fittings or other means to separate the pipe from onsite soils. 5.6 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Recommended lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf/ft. or pcf., for retaining walls in drained conditions using onsite sandy soils as backfill. Condition Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (psf/ft) Level Backfill, Static Condition Active 45 At-Rest 65 Passive 250 Coefficient of Friction 0.35 The above passive resistance values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the structural engineer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. Cantilever walls that are designed for a deflection at the top of the wall of at least 0.001H, where H is equal to the wall height, may be designed using the active earth pressure condition. Rigid walls that are not free to rotate, walls that are braced at the top, and walls that provide indirect support for foundations should be designed using the at-rest condition. A seismic increment of 20 pcf may be added to the active earth pressure above to evaluate seismic loading on walls. The above lateral earth pressures are based on fully drained conditions. Infiltrating surface water may build-up behind proposed basement walls. Therefore, walls below grade should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures (additional fluid pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot) or be provided with positive drainage behind the wall. .. ' ...---..... \ ~ ·,,, ""···· •...... / ·-....._ '···· ... ......... ,. PWAS_20240507 - 20 - Lateral load resistance will be provided by the sliding resistance at the base of the foundation and the passive pressure developed along the front of the foundation. A frictional resistance coefficient of 0.3 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. In addition to the above lateral forces due to retained earth, the appropriate loads due to surcharges should be considered in the design of retaining structures. 5.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN 5.7.1 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING The paving thicknesses presented in the table below are based on our review of available subsurface data. We assumed an R-value of 8 for design (laboratory test results ranged from 8 to 10). The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). Assuming that the paving subgrade will consist of the on-site or comparable soils compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction as recommended, the minimum recommended paving thicknesses are presented in the following table. Area Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete (inches) Base Course (inches) Parking Areas 4 3 6 Light Truck 5 4 7 Heavy Truck 6 5 9 Main Drives 7 6 11 The asphalt paving sections were determined using the Caltrans design method. We can determine the recommended paving and base course thicknesses for other Traffic Indices if required. Careful inspection is recommended to verify that the recommended thicknesses or greater are achieved, and that proper construction procedures are followed. 5.7.2 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVING We have assumed that the subgrade consisting of a layer of non-expansive fill below Portland cement concrete paving will have an R-value of at least 20, which will need to be verified during grading. Portland cement concrete paving sections were determined in accordance with procedures developed by the Portland Cement Association. Concrete paving sections for a range of Traffic Indices are presented in the following table. We have assumed that the Portland Cement Concrete will have a compressive strength of at least 4,000 pounds per square inch. ( / " \. ' / ....... ' \ ' - PWAS_20240507 - 21 - Area Traffic Index PCC (inches) Base Course (inches) Parking Areas 4 5½ 4 Light Truck 5 6 4 Heavy Truck 6 6½ 4 Main Drives 7 7½ 4 The paving should be provided with expansion joints at regular intervals no more than 15 feet in each direction. Load transfer devices, such as dowels or keys, are recommended at joints in the paving to reduce possible offsets. The paving sections in the above table have been developed based on the strength of unreinforced concrete. Steel reinforcing may be added to the paving to reduce cracking and to prolong the life of the paving. 5.7.3 SPECIFICATIONS The base course should conform to requirements of Section 26 of State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans), latest edition, or meet the specifications for untreated base as defined in Section 200-2 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). The existing asphalt paving may be used for base course if it is crushed and processed to meet the requirements of crushed miscellaneous base per the Green Book. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. The asphalt concrete should conform to the specifications outlined in Section 203-6 of the Green Book, and asphalt concrete construction methods should meet the requirements of Section 302-5 of the Green Book. 5.8 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, retaining wall excavations, and foundation excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all OSHA requirements. Excavations 4 feet or deeper should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel are allowed to enter. No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is greater from the top of the cut, unless the cut is shored appropriately. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structure. Temporary excavations should be treated in accordance with the State of California version of OSHA excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements, Article 6, Section 1541, effective October 1, 1995. The sides of excavations should be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of unbraced excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 feet, to be cut to a ¾H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type A soils, PWAS_20240507 - 22 - 1H:1V for Type B soils, and 1½H:1V for Type C soils. Onsite soils are to be considered Type C soils which are subject to collapse in shallow unbraced excavations (i.e. approximately 3 feet in vertical height). During construction, the soil conditions should be regularly evaluated to verify that conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination between the competent person and the geotechnical engineer should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. 5.9 TRENCH BACKFILL Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1 and 306- 6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2018 Edition. Utility trenches can be backfilled with onsite sandy material free of rubble, debris, organic and oversized material up to (≤) 3-inches in largest dimension. Prior to backfilling trenches, pipes should be bedded in and covered with either: (1) Sand: A uniform, sand material that has a Sand Equivalent (SE) greater-than-or-equal-to () 30, passing the No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve (or as specified by the pipe manufacturer), water densified in place, or (2) CLSM: Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) conforming to Section 201-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2018 Edition. Pipe bedding should extend at least 4 inches below the pipeline invert and at least 12 inches over the top of the pipeline. Native and clean fill soils can be used as backfill over the pipe bedding zone, and should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned above optimum, and mechanically compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, relative to the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density. 5.10 DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING Building walls below grade should be waterproofed or at least damp proofed, depending upon the degree of moisture protection desired. Surface drainage should be designed to direct water away from foundations and toward approved drainage devices. Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain, as much as possible, consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without overwatering. PWAS_20240507 - 23 - 5.11 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on subsurface conditions as interpreted from limited subsurface explorations and limited laboratory testing. Our conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed and verified by Carl Kim Geo during site construction and revised accordingly if exposed geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations. The recommendations presented in this report are only valid if Carl Kim Geo verifies the site conditions during construction. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided during the following activities:  Grading and excavation of the site;  Overexcavation and compaction;  Compaction of all fill materials;  Excavation and installation of foundations;  After excavation of all slabs and footings and prior to placement of steel or concrete to confirm the slabs and footings are founded in firm, compacted fill;  Utility trench backfilling and compaction; and  When any conditions are encountered that varies significantly from the conditions described in this report. Carl Kim Geo should review the final grading and foundation plans and specifications, when available, to comment on the geotechnical aspects. Our recommendations should be revised, as necessary, based on future plans and incorporated into the final design plans and specifications. PWAS_20240507 - 24 - 7.0 LIMITATIONS The geotechnical engineering analyses presented in this geotechnical exploration report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No other warranty, express or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geologic and seismic aspects of the site, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns or the presence of hazardous materials. Our conclusions, recommendations and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions, engineering characteristics of the observed site soils and our review of the referenced geologic literature and reports. If geologic conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. FIGURES AND PLATES Delhi C h a n n e l Upper Newport Bay San Diego Creek Santa Ana Heights CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: Ü02,000 4,0001,000 Feet 1 inch =2,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Legend Site Boundary PWAS_20240507 Site Location FIGURE 1 Imagery Source: California F&W. 2022. Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 Site Location D CKGEO CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 300 600150 Feet 1 inch =300 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A _ H i s t o r i c A e r i a l s . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Legend Site Boundary (approximate) Historic Aerial (1927) FIGURE 2APWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 300 600150 Feet 1 inch =300 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A _ H i s t o r i c A e r i a l s . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Legend Site Boundary (approximate) Historic Aerial (1938) FIGURE 2BPWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 300 600150 Feet 1 inch =300 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A _ H i s t o r i c A e r i a l s . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Legend Site Boundary (approximate) Historic Aerial (1963) FIGURE 2CPWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 300 600150 Feet 1 inch =300 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A _ H i s t o r i c A e r i a l s . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Legend Site Boundary (approximate) Historic Aerial (1968) FIGURE 2DPWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 300 600150 Feet 1 inch =300 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A _ H i s t o r i c A e r i a l s . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Legend Site Boundary (approximate) Historic Aerial (2001) FIGURE 2EPWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 8,000 16,0004,000 Feet 1 inch =8,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Geologic Map FIGURE 3 Legend Site Boundary Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangles, California, Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, 2006, USGS Open File report 2006-1217 Site Location PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 Newpmt .. Beach '·• . . . D CKGEO CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 5,000 10,0002,500 Feet 1 inch =5,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Historic High Groundwater Level FIGURE 4 Base Map: Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Newport Beach 7.5 Quadrangle, Plate 1.2 Historically Highest Ground Water Contours and Borehole Log Data Locations Site Location Legend Site Boundary Estimated depth to historic high groundwater level in feet10 !(Borehole Site PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 I 9 t h <;J !2 ll. • • w 0 E W tl1 I • • .. O'". • • > a:i 0 .0 "' ::r CKGEO • -n; ... '.f. i '~ . C/1 :n WA Ii, nAtJc-e • • • • OS -~ • ' •• • • .._ • si tfJ V) ED t ~ -- D ,;-, <-" " <: --:: ' "'· ~ ~ ... J~ ,;. ,..?J ~I,) C o" ,:,S' ') San qui n rt,., ::-,, <t: 7, Tl,e ['1·tr IT, 1111 L~g / Q:-1:S-Irv [ I Hi ll s JY te CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 50,000 100,00025,000 Feet 1 inch =50,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Regional Faults FIGURE 5 Base Map: Fault Activity Map of California, California Department of Conservation Site Location Legend Historic Holocene Late Quaternary Quaternary Holocene PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 Sa nt a An ---- CKGEO M1>,I 1 Vi~io L ag un J N i ual t.liru Lo m;i C ~nm Ft, ji~ n r ,~""" 1:01 9:1 Occo11&1d !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 100 K ilo m e ter S ite Rad ius CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: Ü0100,000 200,00050,000 Feet 1 inch =100,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Historic Seismicity FIGURE 6 Base Map: Earthquake Hazards Program. USGS. Site Location Historic Earthquakes, 1769-2015 - California (Magnitude 5.0 Plus) Legend !(4 - 5 !(5 - 6 !(6 - 7 7+!( PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 rd - CKGEO y, l o il le ···'"' ··~~·~ . ......... ~ ~ .. Lo s An ge tes Re don o ·,, B a 1 L O)~ e ~Cll . • ... ~. H un1111~l B ea \\re_st 1 ~ 11 ln:il An.ah 1111 Smt aAll . I dllQ'C- 1\, Corona ", ....... \ ~~ili, do ~ "· OLJ( 1'1t(~ .. ...._ L ;,;J Ui kl ,~1g1 1~1 t,Aur ri e4 a•,, Clc 1 ,e 111 0 c r F-'I> ,1.,lun ;a m,, ~ , p IJJ.oo ,~ '\, ~- S n S 11 f:t C; I I ti SIi CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: Ü02,000 4,0001,000 Feet 1 inch =2,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Seismic Hazards Base Map: CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction and Landslide Zones, California Department of Conservation Site Location Legend Site Boundary Liquefaction Zones Landslide Zones FIGURE 7PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 J ~.:.m nan, Coro1 ..i L -1 -sru~:.:s~rs➔ ,;;, .., ~ CKGEO ,..-.... ,7 (r----- f0,~IJ ,l /!' /./ D - c, CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: Ü02,000 4,0001,000 Feet 1 inch =2,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Legend Site Boundary Tsunami Hazard Area Tsunami Hazard FIGURE 8 Tsunami Inundation Source: California Department of Conservation. California Tsunami Maps. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps Site Location PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 r .. l fl.S.1 1"1!!- Gan r I Dr C11 r:11 -" Snt,.:ll::l llr S1 : J: ~ .,, F 1r O r Cos ta M Sil ... , s CKGEO 5 .. t.11 • r:,.. h')' Ch.ob (jr~ ~ ,_,~<f S ~1LaAn..:1 H Al ~h CJ CJ ,.hit~,~ DiJ 11 I~ ,. LI M I T O F S T U D Y >LEd͗ twhWd͗ twhWd Ehaw͗ ÜϬϮ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͕ϬϬϬϭ͕ϬϬϬ CĞĞƚ ϭ ŝŶĐŚ сϮ͕ϬϬϬ ĨĞĞƚ Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. ϵϰϱ ĂŝůĞLJĂŶĂ wŽĂĚ IŝůůƐďŽƌŽƵŐŚ͕  ϵϰϬϭϬ ϵϰϵͲϰϰϭͲϴϭϰϯ CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMCŝ ů Ğ ͗ y ͗ Ͱ  Ă ƌ ů Y ŝ ŵ Ͱ  Ă ů ŝ Ĩ Ž ƌ Ŷ ŝ Ă Ͱ E Ğ ǁ Ɖ Ž ƌ ƚ  Ğ Ă Đ Ś ͺ   Ͱ ϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ L ƌ ǀ ŝ Ŷ Ğ  ǀ Ğ Ͱ ϯ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ L ƌ ǀ ŝ Ŷ Ğ ͺ E Ğ ǁ Ɖ Ž ƌ ƚ  Ğ Ă Đ Ś   ͘ Ă Ɖ ƌ dž ϲ ͬ ϭ ϵ ͬ Ϯ Ϭ Ϯ ϰ  ƌ Ğ Ă ƚ Ğ Ě ď LJ ͗ t a  Ś Ğ Đ Ŭ Ğ Ě ď LJ ͗  I  Ž Ž ƌ Ě ŝ Ŷ Ă ƚ Ğ ^ LJ Ɛ ƚ Ğ ŵ ͗ E   ϭ ϵ ϴ ϯ ^ ƚ Ă ƚ Ğ t ů Ă Ŷ Ğ  Ă ů ŝ Ĩ Ž ƌ Ŷ ŝ Ă s L C L t ^ Ϭ ϰ Ϭ ϲ C Ğ Ğ ƚ Flood Hazards CůŽŽĚ >ĂLJĞƌ ^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ CaΖƐ EĂƟŽŶĂů CůŽŽĚ IĂnjĂƌĚ >ĂLJĞƌ ^ŝƚĞ >ŽĐĂƟŽŶ >ĞŐĞŶĚ ^ŝƚĞ ŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ ϭй ŶŶƵĂů ŚĂŶĐĞ CůŽŽĚ IĂnjĂƌĚ Ϭ͘Ϯй ŶŶƵĂů ŚĂŶĐĞ CůŽŽĚ IĂnjĂƌĚ FIGURE 9tt^ͺϮϬϮϰϬϱϬϳ ĂĐŬ ĂLJ ĂƌƌĞůƐ͕ >> tĂǀĞŐĂƌĚĞŶ ŽǀĞ ϯϭϬϬ LƌǀŝŶĞ ǀĞŶƵĞ EĞǁƉŽƌƚ ĞĂĐŚ͕  June 2024 J ~.:.m na n 1 Coro1 ..i L -1 -sru~:.:s~rs➔ ,;;, .., ~ D CKGEO --~11 lrv!! _ " ... u111 c, .. " 9- E CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: š0 3,000 6,0001,500 Feet 1 inch =3,000 feet Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COMFi l e : X : \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A . a p r x 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 C r e a t e d b y : P M C h e c k e d b y : A H C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e C a l i f o r n i a V I F I P S 0 4 0 6 F e e t Dam Inundation Dam Inundation Source: California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). California Dam Breach Inundation Maps. Site Location Legend Site Boundary Dam Breach Inundation Scenario (Santiago Creek, No. 75-0) Dam Breach Inundation Scenario (Sand Canyon, No. 1029-2) Dam Breach Inundation Scenario (San Juaquin Reservoir, No. 1029-0) FIGURE 10PWAS_20240507 Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA June 2024 Ot n Co l ~ M!mnm, Vil v ,0 c:. a-- 3 q ',~:e1on 1 Wuke F Ar lU'l!J n Dr C os ta Me CKGEO D D ~ D CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA PWAS_20240507 Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COM EXPLORATIONS PLATE 1 June 2024 Aerial Imagery Source: ©2024. Microsoft Corporation. 50 100 200 N X: \ C a r l K i m \ C a l i f o r n i a \ N e w p o r t B e a c h _ C A \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e A v e \ 3 1 0 0 I r v i n e _ N e w p o r t B e a c h C A - P l a t e 1 _ E x p l o r a t i o n s . d w g ; L a y o u t 1 J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 2 4 0 EXPLANATION CURRENT EXPLORATIONS HAND AUGER CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) PRIOR EXPLORATIONS BORING BY BACA ASSOCIATES (1989) BORING BY MOORE TWINING, (P) DENOTES TEMPORARY PIEZOMETER CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) BY MOORE TWINING OTHER SYMBOLS GROUNDWATER TOTAL DEPTH OTHER SYMBOLS (CONTINUED) GEOLOGIC CONTACT (APPROXIMATE, DOTTED WHERE BURIED, QUIERRIED WHERE UNCERTAIN) PROPERTY LINE CROSS SECTION TRANSECT EARTH MATERIALS ARTIFICIAL FILL (UNDOCUMENTED) QUATERNARY (TO HOLOCENE) ALLUVIUM (RIVERINE AND LAGOONAL FACIES) QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS (UPLIFTED MARINE AND NEARSHORE) * CIRCLED WHERE BURIED (GW) (TD) afu Qal Qt ? UP DN ATHLETE ACCOMMODATIONS SERVICE / STORAGE UP 20 % R A M P UP FF 29'0" M E S A D R I V E SANTA A N A - D E L H I C H A N N E L IRVI N E A V E N U E PAD=47.00 PAD=44.00 PAD=47.00 PAD=37.00 PAD=41.00 PAD=41.00 BASEMENT PAD=27.00 PAD=39.00 F' E' D' C' A' B' A B C D F E Qal Qt Qt Qt afu Qal (?) Qal Qal afu afu afu Qt Qal afu Qt afu Qal afu afu Qt Qt BB-3 BB-4 BB-2 BB-1 HA-2 HA-1 Qal (?) B-1 B-2 B-8 B-7 B-4 B-3 B-5 B-23 (P) B-22 (P) B-21 B-6 B-24 (P) B-9 B-17 (P) B-10 B-11 B-12B-14 B-13 B-15 B-26B-16 B-25 B-18 (P) B-20 B-19 (P) CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 GW @30' (2020) Piezo. (TD 40') TD 39.5' GW @ 18' (2019) TD 51.5' GW @ 26' (2020) Piezo. (TD 35') TD 35' No free GW (2019) TD 21.5' GW @ 20' (2019) TD 46.5' No free GW (2019) TD 6.5' No free GW (2019) TD 20' TD 34.4' No free GW (2019) TD 20' No free GW (2019) TD 46.5' No free GW (2020) TD 25'No free GW (2019) TD 46.5' No free GW (2020) TD 30' No free GW (2019) TD 31.5' TD 47.58' No free GW (2020) Piezo. (TD 55') TD 76.5' No free GW (2019) TD 21.5' GW @ 18' (2020) Piezo. (TD 50') TD 51.5' No free GW (2019) TD 51.5' GW @ 29' (2020) Piezo. (TD 55') TD 56.5' GW @ 37' (2020) TD 66.5' No free GW (2019) TD 71.5' No free GW (2020) TD 21.5' GW @ 30' (2020) Piezo. (TD 35') TD 36.5' No free GW (2019) TD 40' TD 26.13' No free GW (2019) TD 41.5' GW @ 30' (2019) TD 31.5' TD 29.14' No free GW (2019) TD 21.5' CPT-4 CKG CPT-7 CKG CPT-4 CKG CPT-5 CKG CPT-3 CKG CPT-6 CKG CPT-1 CKG CPT-2 TD 50.4' TD 50.5' TD 50.3' GW@~55.1' TD 75.3' TD 50.3' TD 50.3' TD 50.3' No free GW (1989) TD 15' No free GW (1989) TD 25' No free GW (1989) TD 15' No free GW (1989) TD 25' ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .8 GREEN 23.3 21.2 20.4 19.3 ,24.4 ..--LD.J -{\\Jt-X Ztf 511<\JI~ - X -~5.5 -?5.4 -f\SPr1 -- ooo't<>o • / x - ¥-ASPH ---- 27.6 \ • •• 'f\ I \\ \\~ d~83 \ ... •· ~OJ ' ----' -" v ------------~~~-------\---- ------,,. 7 ~~.~ 3'1\7 \ X \ '. \ \ 55.4 56.6 • l----r1 .. QQ 1 6 • . ---- ,•' ---- C/.0 {? ,4.4 ~ CKGEO ----• • • • • • • • • • ------ El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 100 0 50 A 200 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 0 50 A' Qal Qal afuafu ⅊ Exisiting Grade Proposed Grade Santa Ana-Delhi Channel T.D. 50.5' T.D. 50.4' CK G C P T - 2 CK G C P T - 1 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 100 0 50 B 200 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 0 50 B' T.D. 41.5' T.D. 40' ⅊ B- 5 ( P r o j . ~ 1 1 ' ) Santa Ana-Delhi Channel Proposed Grade CP F - 1 ( P r o j . ~ 2 0 ' ) B- 3 ( P r o j . ~ 3 2 ' ) af af Qal Qal CROSS SECTION A-A' CROSS SECTION B-B' af ??? ? ?? Qt Qt Qt Qt ? ????? El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 150 600 0 50 100 ⅊⅊ IP IP IP C' Proposed Building 3-Story W/Basement C El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 0 50 Exisiting GradeCP T - 2 ( P r o j ~ 4 8 ' ) B- 2 ( P r o j ~ 2 0 ' ) Proposed Grade El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) T.D. 50' T.D. 29.1' T.D. 75.3' T.D. 76.5' T.D. 71.5' T.D. 50.3' T.D. 21.5' CK G C P T - 6 CK G C P T - 3 B- 2 1 ( P r o j ~ 2 5 ' ) B- 2 3 ( P r o j ~ 1 7 ' ) CK G C P T - 5 Pr o p o s e d A c c e s s R o a d Pr o p o s e d B u i l d i n g Santa Ana-Delhi Channel T.D. 21.5' T.D. 36.5' IP 350 IP IP B- 1 ( P r o j ~ 2 6 ' ) B- 2 2 ( P r o j ~ 6 3 ' ) afuafu Qal Qal afu CROSS SECTION C-C' ? ?? Qt Qt Qt ? Qal ?? ?? Note: IP = Inflection Point El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 100 0 50 D El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 0 50 D' T.D. 30' T.D. 50.3' T.D. 31.5'T.D. 51.5'T.D. 51.5' T.D. 50.5' ⅊ ⅊ Santa Ana-Delhi Channel CK G C P T - 4 B- 8 HA - 1 B- 1 8 ( P r o j . ~ 1 8 ' ) B- 7 ( P r o j . ~ 8 1 ' ) Proposed Grade Plinth Structure Proposed Pathway af Afu Qal Qal Qt Qt Qt Qt 200 300 400 500 600 700 B- 2 5 ( P r o j . ~ 2 7 ' ) B- 2 4 ( P r o j . ~ 1 2 ' ) CROSS SECTION D-D' ?? ? CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COM CROSS SECTIONS PLATE 2A June 2024 50 50 HORIZONTAL SCALE (IN FEET) VE R T I C A L S C A L E (I N F E E T ) Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA PWAS_20240507 EXPLANATION BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE PROPERTY LINE ARTIFICIAL FILL, UNDOCUMENTED/ DOCUMENTED ALLUVIUM TERRACE DEPOSIT MEAN SEA LEVEL GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qal MSL ⅊ afu Qt +----_ _J _ -t- . I ___ II ~., ____ ___J, -----.,,. ---+-----------· ------------------------------- --~----------------~----------- - I I ..... l ..... . r _____ _.. / ---_, ______ ._ ____ .1------ .............. :::::-::-::::-: .. ---- ----~~ ................. ::::: :::: :::: :::: :::: ............................... . : :::: :::. :::: :::::-: ------- .... ! ... ---------------------, ______ ..,, --...... .... . ......... rTl'TT"'" . ............. . 1 ----------------------------------------------- ✓--------------~ ..L r---, L ___ ...J r---, L ___ ...J CKGEO El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 0 50 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 100 0 50 E 200 300 400 500 600 700 El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 0 50 E' T.D. 66.5' T.D. 51.5'T.D. 51.5' T.D. 51.5' T.D. 35' T.D. 50.3' B- 2 0 ( P r o j . ~ 2 4 ' ) Exisiting Grade Proposed Grade B- 7 ( P r o j . ~ 3 8 ' ) B- 1 8 ( P r o j . ~ 5 8 ' ) B- 9 ( P r o j . ~ 2 6 ' ) B- 1 7 ( P r o j . ~ 6 3 ' ) CK G - 7 B- 1 0 ( P r o j . ~ 9 ' ) HA - 2 ⅊ Proposed Walkway Proposed Plinth Structure CROSS SECTION E-E' Qt Qt Qt El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 100 0 50 F El e v a t i o n ( F e e t A b o v e M S L ) -50 0 50 F 200 300 400 500 ⅊ Exisiting Club House Exisiting Building Exisiting Grade Proposed Grade Exisiting 2-Story T.D. 20' T.D. 46.5' T.D. 50.3' T.D. 21' B B - 1 ( P r o j ~ 7 5 ' ) HA - 2 B- 1 0 CK G C P T - 7 B- 1 1 ( P r o j . ~ 1 4 ' ) B- 1 4 ( P r o j . ~ 7 4 ' ) Qal Af (?)Af Qal Af T.D. 15' CROSS SECTION F-F' Proposed Plinth Stucture ?? Qt Qt Qt CLIENT: PROJECT: PROJECT NUMBER: Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 CARLKIMGEO@GMAIL.COM CROSS SECTIONS PLATE 2B June 2024 50 50 HORIZONTAL SCALE (IN FEET) VE R T I C A L S C A L E (I N F E E T ) EXPLANATION BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE PROPERTY LINE ARTIFICIAL FILL, UNDOCUMENTED/ DOCUMENTED ALLUVIUM TERRACE DEPOSIT MEAN SEA LEVEL GROUNDWATER LEVEL Qal MSL ⅊ afu Back Bay Barrels, LLC Wavegarden Cove 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA PWAS_20240507 Qt • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ---:. ................ ·::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::::: :::: :::·. :: :::: :::: :::: :::: ::::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::::: :::: :::. .... .. . ..... . ... . -,--............. 1 ····· ..L ..L 1 r---7 L ___ _J r---7 L ___ _J CKGEO APPENDIX A REFERENCES PWAS_20230915 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 52nd Street Consultants, LLC, 2024, Snug Harbor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Site Development Review [Plans], sheets 1 through 4, scale of 1 inch to 60 feet, dated, 4/29/2024. Baca Associates, Inc (Baca), 1989, New Office Building Development, EMA Grading permit No. 89-233823, 20351 Acacia Avenue, Sana Heights, County of Orange, California, Project No. A-0675-F, dated August 19, 1989. California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2024, SGMA Data Viewer, [Interactive Web Page], https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels California Geological Survey (CGS; formerly California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG), 1980, Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, California, Open File Report 80-19 L.A., September 1980. , 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, California, Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits, Bulletin 204, Plate 1. , 1997a, Seismic Hazard Zone Evaluation Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03. , 1997b, Seismic Hazard Zone Evaluation Report for the Laguna Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 013. , 1998a, Seismic Hazard Zones, Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Official Map dated April 15, 1998. , 1998b, Seismic Hazard Zones, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Official Map dated April 15, 1998. , 2001, Seismic Hazard Zones, Tustin Quadrangle, Revised Official Map dated January 17, 2001. , 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, Originally Adopted March 13, 1997, Revised and Re-adopted September 11, 2008. , 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Official Map dated March 15, 2009. , 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas (Scale 1: 750,000), Geologic Data Map No. 6, Compiled and Interpreted by Charles W. Jennings and William Z. Bryant. , 2015, Radon Potential in Orange County, California, Special Report 232, authored by Ronald K. Churchill, 2015 , 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners 2018. for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised ______, 2024, Orange County Tsunami Areas, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/orange PWAS_20230915 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) (formerly DOGGR), 2024, Interactive Wellfinder Website, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ La Playa Consulting, Inc. (LPC), 2024, NPB2 - Wavegarden Cove, Newport Beach, CA, Geotechnical Brief for Lagoon, LPC Project #: 24003, dated April 8, 2024. Moore Twining Associates, Inc. (Moore Twining), 2019a, [DRAFT] Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Design Recommendations, Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant and Golf Driving Range, 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, California, Project #: E40550.01, dated September 16, 2019. _____, 2020, [DRAFT] Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant and Golf Driving Range, 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, California, Project #: E40550.01, dated April 18, 2020. Morton, P.K., et. al., 1979, Environmental Geology of Orange County, California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-08. Newport Beach (City of), 2024, CDD Docs [Parcel Records Interface], accessed June 2024 https://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/WEB/Browse.aspx?id=205567&dbid=0&repo=CNB NorCal Engineering, Soils Investigation, Proposed Leonard’s Golf Shop Expansion – Located at 3100 Irvine Avenue in the city of Newport Beach, California, Project number 7533-98, dated July 16, 1998. Orange County Water District (OCWD), 2017, Basin 8-1 Alternative, Submitted by Orange County Water District, City of La Habra, Irvine Ranch Water District, dated January 1, 2017 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/alternative/print/3 Structural Engineers Association/Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 2020, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, web site address: https://seismicmaps.org/ ; Date Accessed: February 5, 2020. Soils International, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Investigation Report, Edwards Theatre, Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, Project S-1093-F, dated April 18, 1988. Tan, S.S., and Edgington, W.J., 1976, Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 127. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1932, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California, (Topographic), scale of 1: 31,680, contour interval of 5 feet, dated 1932. , 1949a, Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). , 1949b, Newport Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California, 7.5 x 10 Minute Series, W/2 Santa Ana 15’ Quadrangle, contour interval 5 feet, scale of 1: 24,000 (Topographic). , 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Version 1.0, Open File Report 2006-1217, Scale of 1: 100,000, by Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller, dated 2006 , 2020, Unified Hazard Tool, NSHM 2014 Dynamic Deaggregation Program; web site address: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ PWAS_20230915 , 2024a, Interactive Fault Map [Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States], https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/faults , 2024b, Interactive Geologic Map, http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/MapView/ , 2024c, Topoview Interactive Map https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.01/-100.06 , 2024d, Design Ground Motions, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/ X Engineering & consulting, Inc. (X Engineering), 2024, Conceptual Site Plan/Grading (Lagoon) Exhibit, Wavegarden Cove, Scale of 1 inch to 50 feet, Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E. and Vedder, J.G. (Yerkes), 1957, Geologic Map of the San Juaquin Hills-San Capistrano Area, Orange County, California, [USGS] Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM 193, scale of 1:24,000, dated 1957 Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E. and Vedder, J.G. (Yerkes), 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California -- An Introduction: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 420-A, 57 p. Yerkes, R.F., 1972, Geology and Oil Resources of the Western Puente Hills Area, Southern California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-C, 63 p. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Date Photograph Source 10-14-1939 5925-112 Continental Aerial Photo 11-18-1952 AXK-1K-43 Continental Aerial Photo 1-13-75 157 7-23 Continental Aerial Photo 1-20-1992 C85-13-20 Continental Aerial Photo _ PWAS_20230915 APPENDIX B EXPLORATIONS Proposed Wavegarden Cove Geotechnical Exploration B-1 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATIONS General This appendix collates available relevant subsurface information from recent investigations by Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc (Carl Kim Geo) and from prior explorations by others. The bullet points below summarize the data attached in this appendix. Carl Kim Geo (2024)  Seven (7) cone penetration test soundings (CKG CPT-1 through CKG CPT-7)  Two (2) hand auger borings (HA-1 and HA-2) Moore Twining Associates, Inc. (Moore Twining) (2019-2020)  4 CPT soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-4)  26 hollow stem auger borings (B-1 through B-26) o Six (6) of the 26 borings listed above were converted to temporary piezometers (B-17, B-18, B-19, B-22, B-23, and B-24) Baca Associates, Inc. (Off site work 1989) (20351 SW Acacia Street)  Four (4) hollow stem auger borings (BB-1 through BB-4) Current Investigation Current geotechnical investigations by Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. consisted of cone penetration test (CPT) soundings. As applicable, explorations were supervised and logged by qualified representatives. Earth materials encountered in hand-augered excavations for utility clearance were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Interpreted stratigraphic boundaries are indicated on the logs. Some soil/material types transition gradually. Reconnaissance and Logistics Locations of the CPT soundings and hand auger borings were chosen to obtain subsurface information at locations appropriate for the objective of this report. Prior to conducting the subsurface explorations, Carl Kim Geotechnical personnel evaluated each drill site for equipment access and marked proposed locations. Locations were reviewed by Newport Beach Golf Course representatives. Prior to field explorations an exploration permit was obtained from the County of Orange Environmental Health Division and Underground Service Alert (USA) was contacted greater than 48 hours in advance of subsurface work. USA contacted members (i.e. utility infrastructure owners) to provide clearance for drilling with respect to underground utility lines. No underground utilities were encountered with drilling equipment during the current investigation. Proposed Wavegarden Cove Geotechnical Exploration B-2 Subsurface Exploration 7 CPT soundings and two hand auger borings were advanced May 28, 2024. Shear wave measurements and a pore dissipation test was conducted at CKG CPT-3. Shallow soils were logged and sampled from each location. Soil descriptions are tabulated below and CPT interpretations are included in this appendix. Temporary piezometers installed by Moore Twining were sounded using an a Solinst electric well sounder. The accessible wells included B-17, B-18, and B-19. The remaining wells (B-22, B-23, and B-24) were not located because they are located within the artificial turf covered driving range. Each well sounded appeared to be constructed with nominal 1- inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing covered by a metal flush mount surface completion. Each well was outfitted with a compression cap. Depth to water (DTW) below top of casing (BTOC) was measured and recorded to the nearest hundredth of a foot (0.01 feet). Borehole Sealing Each borehole was abandoned using cement-bentonite grout emplaced via tremie pipe. Asphalt cold patch/soil was placed as needed to match the existing surface. Sampling by Carl Kim Geo Representative bulk (bag) samples of fill and native soils were obtained from CKG CPT-1 through CKG CPT-7 and HA-1 and HA-2. Samples were logged, labeled, and retained for laboratory testing. Bulk samples are designated with a B-[number] and California modified split spoon samples (ring samples) are designated with R-[number] below. No free groundwater was encountered in hand excavations. Proposed Wavegarden Cove Geotechnical Exploration B-3 Table B-1 - LOG OF HAND AUGER EXCAVATIONS, MAY 28, 2024 EXCAVATION DESIGNATION SAMPLE IDENTIFIERS. SOIL DESCRIPTION CKG CPT-1 B-1 at 0-5.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +19 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEAL LEVEL (MSL) lean clay with sand (CL), soft to stiff, dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6), moist, low plasticity, high dry strength, slow dilatancy; estimate 25-35% fine to coarse sand, trace gravel, few thin black organic-rich zones, trace rootlets TOTAL DEPTH OF HAND AUGER 5 FEET CKG CPT-2 B-1 at 0-5.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +20 MSL organic soil (OL/CL), soft under hand auger, black (10YR 2/1), dry to slightly moist, low to medium plasticity, low toughness, no dilatancy, medium dry strength; feels low density, no odor, micaceous, estimate 10% fine sand TOTAL DEPTH OF HAND AUGER 5 FEET CKG CPT-3 B-1 at 0-5.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +25 MSL silt with sand (ML), soft, dark yellow brown (10YR 3/6), dry to slightly moist, low plasticity, rapid dilatancy, low dry strength, estimate 15 to 20% fine to medium grained sand TOTAL DEPTH OF HAND AUGER 5 FEET CKG CPT-4 B-1 at 0-5.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +24 MSL organic soil (OL/CL), soft under hand auger, black (5YR 2.5/1), slightly moist, low to medium plasticity, low toughness, no dilatancy, high dry strength; micaceous TOTAL DEPTH OF HAND AUGER 5 FEET CKG CPT-5 B-1 at 0-5.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +19 MSL organic soil/ fat clay (OH/CH), soft under hand auger, black (5YR 2.5/1) with few light gray zones, slightly moist, high plasticity, low toughness, no dilatancy, high dry strength TOTAL DEPTH OF HAND AUGER 5 FEET CKG CPT-6 B-1 at 0-5.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +43 MSL lean clay with sand (CL), soft to medium stiff under hand auger, dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4), nonplastic, slow to rapid dilatancy (rapid, but faint reaction to test), high dry strength; estimate 40% fine to medium sand TOTAL DEPTH OF HAND AUGER 5 FEET Proposed Wavegarden Cove Geotechnical Exploration B-4 Table B-1 - LOG OF HAND AUGER EXCAVATIONS, MAY 28, 2024 EXCAVATION DESIGNATION SAMPLE IDENTIFIERS. SOIL DESCRIPTION CKG CPT-7 B-1 at 0-5.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +37 MSL Asphalt (0-3”); Base (GW)(0.25’ to 1’) @1’ to 5’: well graded sand with gravel (SW), loose to dense under hand auger, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), dry, fine to coarse sand, angular to subangular, estimate 15% subrounded fine gravel, estimate 5% fines; noncohesive – easy to excavate with hand auger; mostly “clean” sand TOTAL DEPTH OF HAND AUGER 5 FEET HA-1 B-1 at 0-5.0’ R-1 at 5.5’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +45 lean clay/ silt with clay (CL/ML), very stiff under hand auger (difficult to excavate; appears to bulk considerably), dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4), dry from 0 to 2.2’, moist below, low to medium plasticity, slow dilatancy, medium dry strength, micaceous; estimate 10% fine sand, massive, orange paleosol appearance TOTAL DEPTH SAMPLED ~5.8 FEET BACKFILLED WITH FILL SAND HA-2 B-1 at 0-4.0’ APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION +46 fat clay (CH), soft to 1.8’, medium stiff below, dry to slightly moist, light gray, high plasticity, no dilatancy, medium tough, high dry strength TOTAL DEPTH SAMPLED 4 FEET BACKFILLED WITH FILL SAND Proposed Wavegarden Cove Geotechnical Exploration B-5 Groundwater The highest reported saturated soils observed at the site were encountered at boring B-9 at a depth of 18 feet bgs (~EL +14 feet msl). Of the 26 hollow-stem auger borings drilled and logged by Moore Twining, free groundwater was observed in seven (7) of the points. Table B-2 below summarizes groundwater levels where encountered. Note that first encountered groundwater is shown in bold on Table B- 2, which differs from subsequent water level measurements. In most cases it appears that free water was encountered in granular strata that is confined by clayey layers and under some pressure (confined/semi-confined conditions). Similarly, a pore dissipation test was conducted in CKG CPT-3 at 55.92 feet BGS. The pore pressure in that zone was attenuating slowly when the test was concluded. The last pressure of 16 pounds per square inch was recorded suggesting that water in that zone could potentially rise to about EL +6 feet if overlying confining layers were not present. TABLE B-2 - GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS IN BORINGS FIELD POINT DTW (FEET BTOC) APPROX. SURFACE EL (FEET MSL) CALC. GW EL (FEET MSL) BORING TD (FEET) MEASURE DATE B-4 30 18 -12 31.5 7/22/2019 B-9 18 32 14 51.5 7/29/2019 B-17 - 34 - 35 2/24/2020 B-17 26 34 8 35 2/25/2020 B-18 35 33 -2 51.5 2/24/2020 B-18 18 33 15 51.5 2/25/2020 B-19 38.5 36 -2.5 55.5 2/24/2020 B-19 29 36 7 55.5 2/25/2020 B-20 42.5 34 -8.5 66.5 2/25/2020 B-20 37 34 -3 66.5 2/26/2020 B-22 - 30 - 55 2/28/2020 B-23 - 20 - 55 2/27/2020 B-24 30 28 -2 39.5 2/26/2020 B-24 24 28 4 39.5 2/27/2020 NOTES: TD = TOTAL DEPTH EL = ELEVATION DTW = DEPTH TO WATER MSL = MEAN SEA LEVEL 1. DEPTH TO 'FIRST ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER’ IN BOLD. 2. B-22 AND B-23 COMPLETED AS PEIZOMETERS IN DRY HOLES. Proposed Wavegarden Cove Geotechnical Exploration B-6 Table B-3 summarizes all available groundwater level measurements from temporary piezometers constructed at the direction of Moore Twining. TABLE B-3 - PIEZOMETER MEASUREMENTS FIELD POINT WELL TD (FEET) APPROX. DATUM EL (FEET MSL) GEOL./ TECH DTW MEASURE DATE DTW (FEET BTOC) CALC. GW EL (FEET MSL) NOTES B-17 35 34 2/28/2020 28 6 B-17 35 34 4/17/2020 27.7 6.3 B-18 50 33 2/28/2020 18 15 B-18 50 33 4/17/2020 19 14 B-19 55 36 2/28/2020 24 12 B-19 55 36 4/17/2020 22.2 13.8 B-22 55 30 2/28/2020 dry - B-22 55 30 4/17/2020 dry - B-22 55 30 ARH 5/28/2024 55.26 -25.3 WELL TD 55.40' B-23 35 20 2/28/2020 dry - B-23 35 20 4/17/2020 dry - B-23 35 20 ARH 5/28/2024 34.77 -14.77 WELL TD 34.96' B-24 40 28 2/28/2020 24 4 B-24 40 28 4/17/2020 18.4 9.6 B-24 40 28 ARH 5/28/2024 18.52 9.5 WELL TD 40.12' (soft) NOTES: TD = TOTAL DEPTH EL = ELEVATION DTW = DEPTH TO WATER MSL = MEAN SEA LEVEL BTOC = BELOW TOP OF CASING 1. DATA OBTAINED BY CARL KIM GEO IS IN BOLD. 2. SURFACE AND DATUM ELEVATIONS ESTIMATED BASED ON MAPS. 3. THE DATUM IS A MEASURING POINT AT TOP OF PIEZOMETER CASING. Proposed Wavegarden Cove Geotechnical Exploration B-7 APPENDIX B - ATTACHMENTS EXPLORATION LOGS (Current Investigation) CKG CPT-1 through CKG CPT-7 Well Permit EXPLORATION LOGS (Prior Investigation - Moore Twining Associates, Inc. (2019, 2020) Borings B-1 through B-26 CPT-1 through CPT-4 Piezometer Sounding Data Well Permit for Temporary Piezometer Installation EXPLORATION LOGS (Off-Site – Baca Associates (1989) Borings BB-1 through BB-4 Project: Carl Kim Geotechnical Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 50.423100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CKG CPT-1 ft, Date: 5/28/2024Location: Cone resistance HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 60 05004003002001000 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 1086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 40200-20 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Po re pressure u Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 876543210 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fr iction ratio Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Clay Organic soil Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Sand Very dense/stiff soil Sand Sand Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/29/2024, 6:55:57 AM 1 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\CarlKim-NewportBeach5-24\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt - - ~ -I"-. I /~ 1 "'-:: ii!:.. \ • I!! -r ~ C --....... ~ > 11 .1:::: -\ • >- ~ ' ~ -- ~ / • ~ ,~ ,.~ l -( ~ ~ ., ,.ir-i==- -{. r-' ·~ < ~ -..... ' ·~ ~ ~ .. .. ~ z: ~ l... .. ~~ ~ _.::l T ~ ~ c:::::::::::. -I:> ~ ·~ _,... -t:> ,~ -IC:::: ~-_;:.~ > C~=---., .,.._;: i-c::::. t:::!,,,,. I~ ~ < i---\ '-..... ~ ).. --. Project: Carl Kim Geotechnical Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 50.483100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CKG CPT-2 ft, Date: 5/28/2024Location: Cone resistance HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 60 05004003002001000 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 1086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 40200-20 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Po re pressure u Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 876543210 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fr iction ratio Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Sand Sand Sand Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Sand Sand Sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/29/2024, 6:55:57 AM 2 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\CarlKim-NewportBeach5-24\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt - ----- ~ --- J ~► l / \ \ ~ , ( ,,, T~ ~ ~ ~ -.~ ~ ~ ... ~ ") { -"IC r> ~ -f,c!:.. i..... ' "'i ..... _/,. "!; -;t t!_ -L --.{ ~ --~ -~ .I l'l... r-a--..,, -~ ..... .... ~ ... 1.--~ "I_ .. :=---7 fc::::: ,a ~ --I< -- C """-i"""2 ~ ~ ~ -r-~ ,-~ i:::-=-- l '-ltC't , , Project: Carl Kim Geotechnical Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 75.293100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CKG CPT-3 ft, Date: 5/28/2024Location: Cone resistance HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 60 05004003002001000 De pt h ( f t ) 75 7 0 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 1086420 De pt h ( f t ) 75 7 0 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 40200-20 De pt h ( f t ) 75 7 0 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Po re pressure u Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 876543210 De pt h ( f t ) 75 7 0 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Fr iction ratio Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De pt h ( f t ) 75 7 0 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Soil Behaviour Type Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay Clay Clay & silty clay Very dense/stiff soil Clay Clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/29/2024, 6:55:58 AM 3 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\CarlKim-NewportBeach5-24\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt ' -c;;;. ~ r--. - ( -~~ l _l.,iii" -- '-, ,.....--..... / ' lll ~ f -? ' -J ~ f I I ' ' ~~ • ,> ~ I \ r--,_ '1 -- • ' ""'!; ~· ..... I ...__ 'Ii ~ -_!m r ..,,z. ;;:► ~ ' --~ -.. ----~ .l.3 -~ ~ (__ e-- l r L.;9 _ ... -c; -----..... r,;_ _w:- ~ --- -r l -c! -- .a5 I -- ~ ~ ,,, ·7 ~ --,ii \i:.. Project: Carl Kim Geotechnical Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 50.273100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CKG CPT-4 ft, Date: 5/28/2024Location: Cone resistance HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 60 05004003002001000 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 1086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 40200-20 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Po re pressure u Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 876543210 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fr iction ratio Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay & silty clay Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty clay CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/29/2024, 6:55:59 AM 4 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\CarlKim-NewportBeach5-24\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt - -, ---,p -~ I -L I ~- I ---> • ~ -, ~ ---........ --~ -- 1 r - L l ( ·~ iP"' .,.--~ C ~ --~ \ ~ r· ? 7 ----. ........ -I , i: I r I -'? I ir-- ~ c:::::;; -r-C> - ,~ ci--~ <:: -"'Ir--~ F; I r i--- t -~ / ·~ '),, 'I -J 11::; u ---> I - l::: ~ '-~ > Project: Carl Kim Geotechnical Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 50.343100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CKG CPT-5 ft, Date: 5/28/2024Location: Cone resistance HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 60 05004003002001000 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 1086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 40200-20 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Po re pressure u Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 876543210 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fr iction ratio Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Clay Organic soil Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand Sand Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/29/2024, 6:56:00 AM 5 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\CarlKim-NewportBeach5-24\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt - - 1---- ? --~ .., '\ < ~ ~ I .-- ◄ "' ~ . ◄• ~ 7 r (" .... ~ "\ 1' ~ ,:' - ----;;; ':at_ -~ ~ =-.., :, -,-;;;;; -:;;► -~ c;;... c;jz ,_ -... J r ,,,- > --- '" <... ..._ i:: --. ' ~ -----., == f ~ ... , J f .: !:: ... =--.. i.,.., -e ► .. -~ 'C 1::1, -- Project: Carl Kim Geotechnical Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 50.273100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CKG CPT-6 ft, Date: 5/28/2024Location: Cone resistance HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 60 05004003002001000 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 1086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 40200-20 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Po re pressure u Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 876543210 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fr iction ratio Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Very dense/stiff soil Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Sand & silty sand Very dense/stiff soil Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/29/2024, 6:56:01 AM 6 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\CarlKim-NewportBeach5-24\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt - - ~ -> ,-~ ,. ~ c:~ L } ) I"'? :;;__ --. > l> "!: ► ( (- ") • "'l;,. ") c; ~~· ' ~ I I 'l ~ ~ --.., t' (' - L '► , <. ""=• f ~ .a::::'.' - ~ • . -r--,, -.::= _t c; ....... ~ .. > "'I ,- . I ~ r--h.. ~ .... -·=- -:a I"\.. l .. ~ ... Project: Carl Kim Geotechnical Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 50.343100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CKG CPT-7 ft, Date: 5/28/2024Location: Cone resistance HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 60 05004003002001000 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 1086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 40200-20 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Po re pressure u Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 876543210 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Fr iction ratio Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420 De pt h ( f t ) 50 4 8 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt Sand & silty sand Sand Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Clay & silty clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay Clay CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/29/2024, 6:56:02 AM 7 Project file: C:\Users\stevek\OneDrive - Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Data\CarlKim-NewportBeach5-24\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt - - 7 ' J l) , l r-(~ c:: -----.. ~ ['?-r----~ \. -r r < ,a::!!=" -r ...... I 1 ::: --I I. ~ . 1--:::::..... <II ~ -c;: e~ ~ ,.J ' I -IJ .,J r .,.J 1. ·t, ~ > ,_ <': - <:) ~ ' -~ ~ ....... -- ~ \.. -r ~ I-So ___,, ..... r r ., l_~ \ ~ - Carl Kim Geotechnical 3100 Irvine Ave. Newport Beach, CA CPT Shear Wave Measurements S-Wave Interval Tip Geophone Travel S-Wave Velocity S-Wave Depth Depth Distance Arrival from Surface Velocity Location (ft)(ft)(ft)(msec)(ft/sec)(ft/sec) CKG CPT-3 9.97 8.97 9.19 11.04 832 20.05 19.05 19.15 22.48 852 871 30.02 29.02 29.09 34.56 842 822 40.06 39.06 39.11 46.76 836 822 50.03 49.03 49.07 61.24 801 688 60.04 59.04 59.07 72.98 809 852 70.05 69.05 69.08 82.64 836 1036 75.07 74.07 74.10 87.46 847 1041 Shear Wave Source Offset -2 ft S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival Interval S-Wave Velocity = (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1) TEST ID: CKG CPT-3 PRESSURE (psi) TIME: (MINUTES) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 DEPTH (ft) 55.908 APPLICATION FOR WELL/EXPLORATORY BORING PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY 1241 E. DYER ROAD, SUITE 120 EHOCWELLS@OCHCA.COM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION SANTA ANA, CA 92705-5611 714-433-6000 For multiple cities, addresses, or locations, complete a separate permit application. WE L L P E R M I T N O . CITY WELL LOCATION / STREET INTERSECTION LONGTITUDE (DECIMAL) LATITUDE (DECIMAL) OVERSIGHT AGENCY (if applicable) EMAIL PERMIT TO: ☐Consultant ☐Driller ☐Well Owner SERVICE ☐Construction ☐Destruction (Fee is per well) WATER WELLS (complete one permit application for per water well) ☐Public Domestic/Municipal ☐Private Domestic & No. of connections ___☐Irrigation ☐CATHODIC WELL (complete one permit application for per cathodic well) NON-PRODUCTION WELLS Iee LV WKe VDPe DV PRQLWRULQJ well FRQVWUXFWLRQ Total No. of Wells _____________ ☐Monitoring ____☐Air Sparge ____☐Soil Vapor Extraction ___ ☐ Electrical Grounding Well __ ☐Water Extraction ____ ☐ Inclinometer ____☐Injection/Recharge ____☐Geothermal Heat Exchange __ ☐Piezometer ____☐Horizontal ____☐Soil Vapor Probes ____☐Other ____________________ ☐Probe Survey (CPT or Direct Push Only) ___ ☐3UREe 6XUYe\ Soil Vapor Probes 'LUeFW 3XVK ___ ☐Soil Boring (hoOOow VteP aXJer, mud rotary, sonic, or bucket auger etc) ___ FOR ACCOUNTING USE ONLY HSO NO_______________ CHECK NO. _______________ DATE __________________ AMOUNT_________________ INTL _____________ DISPOSITION OF PERMIT (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) ☐APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTIFY THIS AGENCY AT LEAST 48 HOURS: ☐ PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES OF THE WORK PLAN. ☐PRIOR TO SEALING THE ANNULAR SPACE. ☐PRIOR TO FILLING OF CONDUCTOR CASING. ☐SUBMIT TO THIS AGENCY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF WORK, A COPY OF THE WELL COMPLETION REPORT 6 AND/OR DRILLING LOG S . 3/($6( 5()(5(1&( 3(50,7 12. ☐SECURE ALL WELLS TO PREVENT TAMPERING. ☐NOTIFY WHEN ALL WORK IS COMPLETED AND INCLUDE THE DEPTH TO FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER, PHOTO DOCUMENTATION AND/OR COPIES OF CEMENT TICKETS/CALCULATIONS. ☐WORK COMPLETED PRIOR 72 SUBMITTING PERMIT APPLICATION TO THIS AGENCY ☐OTHER ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ PERMIT ISSUED BY DATE _______________________________________________________________________________ PRINT NAME PHONE NUMBER APPROVAL BY OTHER AGENCIES JURISDICTION _____________________________________ REMARKS____________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY NO PERMIT IS DEEMED COMPLETED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING ARE MARKED AND SIGNED OFF: ☐NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION RECEIVED ☐FINAL INSPECTION ☐ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED __________________________________________________________________ PRINT NAME PHONE NUMBER W HEN SIGNED BY AN ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE, THIS APPLICATION IS A VALID PERMIT. (R/21) (;3/25$725< %25,1*6 FRPSleWe VeSDUDWe SeUPLWV IRU SUREe VXUYe\ DQG VRLl ERULQJ $lVR FRPSleWe WKe W(// (;3/25$725< %25,1* '(6758&7,21 VeFWLRQ RQ WKe Qe[W SDJe PROPOSED START DATE PERMIT EXPIRES ON 05-10-2025 JUAN ANZORA 05-09-2024 714-433-6287 $382.00 CA WELL STANDARDS & OC WELL ORDINANCE USE A TREMIE PIPE OR EQUIVALENT TO BACKFILL THE PROBES WITH AN APPROVED SEALING MATERIAL FROM BOTTOM TO WITHIN 5 FEET B.G.S.: - FREEFALL IS PROHIBITED. - SOIL CUTTINGS AND UNAPPROVED SEALING MIXTURES ARE PROHIBITED TO BE USED AS BACKFILL. X X X X X 33.658857 APN 119-200-41NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE 3100 IRVINE AVE. 24 - 0 5 - 2 2 I t\ tYl..Q.) ,,~ 786163 CARL KIM GEOTECHNICAL, INC. BACK BAY BARRELS, LLC I hereby agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Health Care Agency and with all ordinances and laws of the County of Orange and of the State of California pertaining to well construction, reconstruction and destruction , including the requirements to maintain the integrity of all significant confining zones. A violation of the California Well Standards and the local Well Ordinances may constitute a misdemeanor (County Well Ordinance Sec. 4-5 -31 ). WELL OWNER WELL OWNER 'S NAME EMAIL ADDRESS llaEl Ila¥ llflffel§ bbe Atlam@§Yfffilfffl:eijffl WELL OWNER 'S ADDRESS/ CITY /STA TE/ ZIP CODE I TELEPHONE NUMBER HJ4'1 eOO!iReRlid Aw mli M~ €% ~~1 (949) 836-30S5 WELL Owg SIGNATURE DATE 5-9-24 \ CONSUL TING FIRM NAME OF CONSUL TING FIRM '---' BUSINESS ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE PROFESSIONAL LICENSE NUMBER eaFJ Itim €ieeteEhHiEali JH€: 945 Baileyana Road PG 7720; CEG 2366 Hillsborough, CA 94010 CONSULTANTS SIGNATURE I DATE EMAIL ADDRESS ~drew R Hl• llstrand Digitally signed by Andrew R. Hillstrand 5/8/2024 geoandy@gmail.com • Oate: 2024.05 .09 09:43 :42 -07'00' DRILLING CONTRACTOR NAME OF DRILLER EMAIL ADDRESS C-57 LICENSE NUMBER Kehoe Testing & Engineering, Inc. lte3@leR8ete§tiR§:E8m 1§els3 DRILLER'S SIGNATURE DATE ~f/(.,1...._ Digitally signed by Steven P. Kehoe 05/09/2024 Date: 2024.05 .0 9 10:09:15 -07'00' REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WATER & STORMWATER DRY INJECTION WELL CONSTRUCTION D An approval from the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for public or municipal water wells. D A cross-section well diagram detailing total depth, borehole diameter, depth and thickness of the sanitary seal(s), type(s) of casing(s), and length(s ) of screen(s) /slotting.A top view is required for nested wells that demonstrate the radial thickness separation. D Indicate the number of water aquifers the well will be screened through. D A site map using a 250 -foot radius from the proposed water well location that includes locations and distances to: • All existing, active, inactive, and/or abandoned water wells . • All existing, abandoned, and/or proposed sewer lines, recycled water lines, and storm drain lines . • All active and /or abandoned leach fields, cesspits , and septic tanks . • All animal enclosures (e.g., stables, coops, kennels, etc .) . • All water courses and /or bodies of water, including, but not limited to: rivers, creeks, ponds, retention ponds, and/or swimming pools . • All other underground storage tanks and open (regulated) remediation sites . • All nearby structures (e.g., commercial and residential buildings , houses, storage sheds) sanitary hazards and their locations . NON -PROD UCTION WELL CONSTRUCTION D Written work plan . For regulated sites, an approved work plan by the overseeing regulatory agency must be included for the installation of any type of nested wel I. □ ite map(s) showing the locations of the proposed wells (no topographical maps). D A cross-section well diagram detailing total depth , borehole diameter, depth and thickness of the sanitary seal(s), type(s) of casing(s), and len gth(s) of screen(s) / slotting. A top view is required for nested wells that demonstrates a 2-inch radial thickness separation between casings and casing and wall of the borehole . WELL & EXPLORATORY BORING DESTRUCTION ■ Written work plan . For regulated sites , an approval of the work plan by the overseeing regulatory agency must be included. ■ Site map(s) showing the locations of the wells to be destroyed (no topographical maps). ■ Type and amount of sealant (show calculations for water wells): Total depth 40 -70 feet Borehole diameter 1.44 inches Sealing material lsENTONITE-CEMENT ■ Method of destruction: D Pressure grout / removal of top 5 feet casing / removal of well boxes D Overdrill D Excavation ■ Other Approved sealing materials will be place via tremie from total depth to ground surface. (RI 0/21) CARL KIM GEOTECHNICAL, INC . 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 949-441-8143 May 8, 2024 Project No. PWAS_20240507 Orange County Health Care Agency 1241 East Dyer Road, Suite 120 Santa Ana, CA 92705-5611 Attn.: Water Quality, Wells Section ( EHOCWells@ochca.com ) RE: “Work Plan” for Geotechnical Boring Permit, 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 119-200-41 Dear Sir or Madam, Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. (Carl Kim Geo) is planning geotechnical explorations that will include approximately nine (9) cone penetration test soundings to depths of 40 to 70 below ground surface (BGS). The CPT subcontractor is currently scheduled to commence the work on or about May 20, 2024. Carl Kim Geo’s staff and subcontractors will use industry standard techniques to seal boreholes to surface. We will adhere to the requirements of the Orange County Well/Boring Permit and California Well Standards. As such, borings will be sealed with neat cement (Portland cement-bentonite grout) using positive displacement methods (tremie pipe) across the intervals explored. For convenience, the map below was excerpted from https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/landrecords/ and includes the approximate locations of the proposed explorations, all of which are within parcel number 119-200-41. Note that depths and locations will be adjusted based on field conditions and other technical factors. 119-200-41 Page 2 The proposed work will be observed and documented by qualified staff or directly by the undersigned. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 805-573-0315 or geoandy@gmail.com. Respectfully submitted, Andrew R. Hillstrand PG 7720, CEG 2366 Senior Engineering Geologist Enclosure DR A F T B-1 E40550.01 APPENDIX B LOGS OF BORINGS This appendix contains the final logs of borings. These logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of the field and laboratory tests. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at these locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these test boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in changes in the soil conditions at these test boring locations. In addition, an explanation of the abbreviations used in the preparation of the logs and a description of the Unified Soil Classification System are provided at the end of Appendix B. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 4/6 4/6 3/6 7/6 7/6 7/6 5/6 8/6 12/6 9/6 13/6 15/6 8/6 11/6 12/6 9/6 7/6 10/6 SM SP CL SILTY SAND; loose, moist, fine, dark-brown Medium dense, fine to medium grained, trace fine gravel Weakly cemented POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, red-brown, trace fine gravel Iron oxide staining SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, blue and brown Bottom of boring DD = 100.7 pcf DD = 85.5 pcf 7 14 20 28 23 17 3.9 33.7 Test Boring: B-1 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 29, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 11/6 10/6 7/6 7/6 12/6 8/6 8/6 10/6 9/6 1/6 2/6 10/6 3/6 6/6 8/6 2/6 4/6 8/6 2/6 5/6 9/6 SM CL SIlTY SAND; medium dense, damp, fine to medium grained, brown, with rootlets, some clay Moist, weakly cemented Increase in sand content, decrease in fines, trace fine gravel SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low plasticity, olive- green Stiff, low to medium plasticity, iron oxide staining Dark-brown staining DD = 92.6 pcf 17 20 19 12 14 12 14 3.3 6.0 6.8 21.8 22.3 25.3 24.5 Test Boring: B-2 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 30, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 2/6 5/6 8/6 2/6 7/6 10/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 15/6 24/6 40/6 15/6 27/6 27/6 15/6 20/6 28/6 SP With sea shells Slight increase in moisture content, blue Medium stiff POORLY GRADED SAND; dense, moist, fine to medium grained, gray Very dense, fine sand Dense DD = 91.7 pcf LL =42 PI = 25 13 17 7 65 54 48 26.1 35.6 1.6 Test Boring: B-2 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 30, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % . . . . . . MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 60 65 70 75 80 85 3/6 4/6 4/6 3/6 5/6 5/6 3/6 3/6 6/6 CL LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark-gray Stiff, black, 2 inch sandy silt lens Bottom of boring Sand = 2.0% -#200 = 98.0% LL = 40 PI = 17 8 10 9 35.7 Test Boring: B-2 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 30, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 3/6 8/6 10/6 6/6 7/6 7/6 2/6 1/6 1/6 4/6 7/6 9/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 5/6 10/6 12/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 0/6 2/6 3/6 5/6 14/6 14/6 FIll CL SM SANDY LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark- brown, with rootlets, trace fine gravel, weak to moderate cementation Stiff, brown to black SANDY LEAN CLAY; Soft, moist, low plasticity, black, organics Gray to black, iron oxide stains Tan-brown, iron oxide stains Stiff, bluish-gray to black, with seams of black Bluish-gray Medium stiff, dark-brown SILTY SAND with Clay; very stiff, moist, fine to medium grained, dark- gray DD = 87.8 pcf DD = 96.6 pcf DD = 92.5 pcf Gravel= 11.0% Sand = 76.9% -#200 = 12.1% c = 380 psf ø = 36° 18 14 2 16 9 22 11 5 28 6.5 9.1 60.5 34.6 23 35.7 20.4 46.0 20.3 Test Boring: B-3 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 22, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 4/6 6/6 12/6 11/6 33/6 50/5 7/6 7/6 11/6 SM CL SILTY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine sand, dark- gray, 2 inch clay lens Very dense, trace clay, trace gravel SANDY LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark- gray Bottom of boring Sand = 82.9% -#200 =17.1% DD = 107.4 pcf 18 >83 18 10.5 24.4 Test Boring: B-3 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 22, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 7/6 9/6 11/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 9/6 11/6 14/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 8/6 12/6 16/6 5/6 8/6 10/6 CL SP CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low plasticity, dark-brown, weak to moderate cementation Soft, with rootlets, iron oxide staining Very stiff, low to medium plasticity, gray to black Stiff, bluish-gray, iron oxide stains POORLY GRADED SANDS; medium dense, moist, fine sand, bluish-gray LEAN CLAY; very stiff, very moist, low plasticity, dark-gray DD = 102.0 pcf 20 8 25 9 28 18 6.4 18.8 21.0 27.2 10.5 24.7 Test Boring: B-4 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 22, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:30 feet Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 9/6 17/6 23/6 SP POORLY GRADED SAND; dense, wet, fine to medium grained, dark- gray Bottom of boring 40 21.4 Test Boring: B-4 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 22, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:30 feet Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. I DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 3/6 4/6 3/6 2/6 2/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 5/6 4/6 6/6 10/6 5/6 11/6 14/6 FILL CL SM SP SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, brown to black Soft, black, with rootlets, organics SANDY LEAN CLAY: medium stiff, low plasticity, olive green Stiff, brown to blue SILTY SAND; loose, moist, fine to medium grained, dark gray POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, dark-gray, trace coarse gravel, 2 inch clay lens DD = 69.0 pcf LOI=14.1% DD = 95.2 pcf Sand = 72.7% -#200 = 27.3% c = 350 psf ø = 30° LL = NV PI = NP 7 6 8 9 16 25 43.4 21.1 Test Boring: B-5 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 22, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 8/6 15/6 36/6 9/6 13/6 7/6 2/6 6/6 4/6 CL Dense, 2 inch clay lens Medium dense SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark-gray, 2 inch sandy silt lens Bottom of boring DD = 112.5 pcf 51 20 10 9.1 2.9 35.8 Test Boring: B-5 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 22, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % ....... t ..... "[J MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C . -··········· I DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 4/6 4/6 4/6 3/6 5/6 8/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 7/6 14/6 18/6 4/6 6/6 8/6 3/6 5/6 7/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark- brown, weakly cemented, with rootlets Stiff, trace gravel, increase in sand content, Stiff, trace fine to coarse gravel, 1 inch poorly graded sand lens Very stiff, brown, iron oxide stains Stiff, light-brown to brown, iron oxide staining Bluish-brown Medium stiff, blue, interbedded mica DD = 95.6 pcf 8 13 11 32 14 12 7 25.9 Test Boring: B-6 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 23, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 2/6 2/6 2/6 Soft, dark-gray Bottom of boring 4 Test Boring: B-6 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 23, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. >-~ >- >- >- >- >- DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 2/6 2/6 4/6 3/6 5/6 5/6 4/6 6/6 9/6 2/6 5/6 6/6 11/6 22/6 35/6 10/6 15/6 16/6 2/6 2/6 4/6 CL SM SP CL LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, olive-brown, iron oxide staining Stiff, low plasticity, bluish- grown, iron oxide stains Low plasticity, gray to dark-gray Low to medium plasticity, blue, iron oxide staining SILTY SAND; dense, moist, fine to medium grained, olive- brown, trace clay POORLY GRADED SAND; dense, moist, fine to medium, brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, blue, iron oxide staining DD = 86.8pcf LL = 47 PI = 23 DD =105.6 pcf Sand = 81.3% -#200 = 18.7% 6 10 15 11 57 31 6 25.5 7.8 Test Boring: B-7 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 29, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 3/6 6/6 5/6 1/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 6/6 6/6 5/6 6/6 8/6 3/6 5/6 6/6 ML CL Stiff, very moist, 3 inches of interbedded muscovite Medium stiff, low to medium plasticity, dark-gray Stiff, 2 inches of interbedded sandy silt SANDY SILT; stiff, moist, non- plastic, dark-gray SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low plasticity, dark-gray, with organics Bottom of boring 11 5 12 14 11 Test Boring: B-7 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 29, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 4/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 7/6 7/6 4/6 8/6 7/6 2/6 3/6 5/6 5/6 11/6 13/6 3/6 5/6 8/6 CL SP CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark- brown Stiff Red-brown, trace fine gravel POORLY GRADED SAND; loose, moist, fine to coarse grained, red- brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low plasticity, olive brown, iron oxide staining Stiff, low to medium plasticity, brown, iron oxide staining, seams of sand Bottom of boring DD = 109.2 pcf DD = 94.2 pcf 8 14 15 8 24 13 11.8 28.8 Test Boring: B-8 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 29, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % . . . . . . MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 3/6 4/6 7/6 2/6 5/6 5/6 3/6 5/6 7/6 6/6 9/6 12/6 6/6 10/6 13/6 3/6 9/6 17/6 2/6 3/6 2/6 SM ML SM SP CL SILTY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium dense, brown Trace gravel, 2 inch thick clay lens in sample Sandy Silt; stiff, moist, slight plasticity, red-brown, iron oxide staining SILTY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, red-brown POORLY GRADED SAND; moist, medium dense, fine to medium 2 feet of heave at 18 feet Wet, bluish-gray SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, wet, low plasticity, grayish- blue, with weathered interbedded muscovite Sand = 49.6% -#200 = 50.4% DD = 96.7 pcf Sand = 96.8% -#200 = 3.2% LL = NV PI = NP 11 10 12 21 23 26 5 4.2 Test Boring: B-9 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 29, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:18 feet Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 3/6 4/6 4/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 1/6 3/6 5/6 6/6 11/6 17/6 13/6 23/6 25/6 ML SP Low to medium plasticity, dark-gray SANDY SILT; stiff, moist, low plasticity, dark-gray, organic odor, some clay Medium stiff, low plasticity, increase in clay content POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, wet, fine to medium grained, dark gray, trace organics Dense Bottom of boring 8 9 8 28 48 Test Boring: B-9 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pacific Drilling Date:July 29, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:18 feet Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. I\ >-~ ~ >-~ -............ ~ >-~ >--............ . . .. :~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >-:~ . . .. >- DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 8/6 10/6 12/6 11/6 14/6 17/6 13/6 20/6 29/6 3/6 9/6 12/6 4/6 8/6 8/6 4/6 8/6 12/6 AC SP CL 2.0 inches of Asphaltic CONCRETE over 6.5 inches of AGGREGATE BASE POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, light-brown Dense LEAN CLAY; hard, moist, low plasticity, brown Very stiff, low to medium plasticity, bluish-brown, moderately cemented, iron oxide staining Bottom of boring DD = 108.0 pcf 22 31 49 21 16 20 2.4 Test Boring: B-10 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 16, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 8/6 9/6 10/6 4/6 4/6 8/6 9/6 9/6 9/6 7/6 9/6 9/6 7/6 11/6 15/6 6/6 5/6 6/6 AC FILL FILL FILL SM SP CL 2.0 inches of ASPHALTIC CONCRETE over 6 inches of AGGREGATE BASE CLAYEY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, red-brown to black Very stiff SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low plasticity, bluish-gray, iron oxide staining SILTY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, brown, trace clay POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, wet, fine to coarse, bluish- gray SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, wet, low to medium plasticity, blue, sea shells DD =104.5 pcf Sand = 95.5% -#200 = 4.5% LL = NV PI = NP 19 12 18 18 26 11 20.6 Test Boring: B-11 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 16, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:20 Feet Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 3/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 6/6 8/6 20/6 24/6 22/6 6/6 12/6 29/6 CL CL ML LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, wet, low to medium plasticity, bluish-gray, 1 inch poorly graded sand lens SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, bluish-gray (3 feet of heave during drilling) Seam of poorly graded sand SANDY LEAN CLAY; hard, moist, low to medium plasticity, bluish-gray SANDY SILT; hard, moist, non plastic, gray, 1" clay lens Bottom of boring 8 14 46 41 Test Boring: B-11 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 16, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:20 Feet Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 8/6 6/6 12/6 10/6 12/6 11/6 10/6 15/6 15/6 AC SC CL 2.5 inches of ASPHALTIC CONCRETE over 6.0 inches of AGGREGATE BASE CLAYEY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, red- brown to brown, weakly cemented SANDY LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, brown, moderate cementation With 1" clayey sand lens Bottom of boring 20 23 30 Test Boring: B-12 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 15, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. ~ -............ -0.~·-··· ·······················-· I .:·.0 -......................... % Sfh t- I t- t- t- t- DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 5/6 5/6 6/6 6/6 12/6 18/6 4/6 6/6 6/6 6/6 9/6 9/6 4/6 9/6 13/6 AC CH CL ML SP 2.3 inches of ASPHALTIC CONCRETE over 6.0 inches of AGGREGATE BASE FAT CLAY; stiff, moist, medium to high plasticity, light-brown LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low plasticity, light-brown Stiff, decrease in plasticity, olive SILT; very stiff, moist, non plastic, red-brown POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, trace coarse sand, brown, iron oxide staining Bottom of boring 11 30 12 18 22 Test Boring: B-13 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 15, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 5/6 5/6 5/6 7/6 8/6 11/6 3/6 4/6 6/6 5/6 16/6 21/6 4/6 6/6 8/6 AC SC SP CL CL 2.1 inches of ASPHALTIC CONCRETE over 7.5 inches of AGGREGATE BASE CLAYEY SAND; loose, moist, fine to medium grained, dark brown to red- brown, gravel noted in cuttings Medium dense, slight increase in fines content POORLY GRADED SAND; loose, moist, fine to coarse, tan brown, trace clay fragments SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark-brown, 1 inch clayey sand lens LEAN CLAY; Very stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark-brown to red- brown, trace sand Stiff, gray to brown Bottom of boring DD = 124.3 pcf 10 19 10 37 14 11.0 Test Boring: B-14 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 15, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 3/6 4/6 5/6 5/6 6/6 7/6 6/6 13/6 26/6 5/6 6/6 7/6 2/6 2/6 3/6 2/6 2/6 4/6 AC SC CL CH 2.8 inches of ASPHALTIC CONCRETE over 5.0 inches of AGGREGATE BASE CLAYEY SAND; loose, moist, fine to medium grained, dark- brown to black SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low plasticity, dark-brown Very stiff, increase in sand content, 2" clayey sand lens Very stiff, low plasticity, dark-brown Low to medium plasticity Medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, light-gray to light-green FAT CLAY; stiff, moist, medium to high plasticity, bluish-green, interbedded tan, sea shells DD = 112.0 pcf 9 13 39 13 5 6 11.6 Test Boring: B-15 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 15, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation: Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 4/6 6/6 8/6 10/6 17/6 21/6 5/6 7/6 9/6 5/6 7/6 9/6 CL SP ML SP SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark-blue POORLY GRADED SAND; dense, moist, fine sand, gray SANDY SILT; very stiff, moist, non- plastic, dark-gray POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, moist, fine, gray Bottom of boring DD = 84.5 pcf 14 38 16 16 33.2 Test Boring: B-15 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 15, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation: Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. -············ ~ DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 2/6 4/6 4/6 6/6 8/6 10/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 2/6 1/6 2/6 2/6 6/6 8/6 7/6 11/6 13/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 CL CL ML CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, black, with rootlets, weak to moderate cementation Stiff Increase in sand content Soft, decrease in plasticity SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low plasticity, black, organics SANDY SILT; very stiff, moist, non- plastic, brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, bluish-gray DD = 83.2 pcf c = 230 psf ø = 30° 8 18 9 3 14 24 9 13.8 29.5 28.7 60.2 37.7 7.9 20.0 Test Boring: B-16 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 23, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 0/6 2/6 2/6 2/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 6/6 8/6 5/6 6/6 7/6 SM Soft, trace gravel Medium stiff, bluish-gray SILTY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, bluish-gray, with trace clay Bottom of boring 4 8 14 13 29.0 20.5 15.8 9.7 Test Boring: B-16 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Allen B. Date:July 23, 2019 Drill Type:CME 75 Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes: Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 SM CL SM SP SILTY SAND; moist, fine to medium grained, brown Dark-brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; moist, low plasticity, dark-brown Increase in sand content Grayish-blue, low to medium plasticity Greenish-blue, slight increase in moisture SILTY SAND; moist, fine to medium grained, red-brown POORLY GRADED SAND; moist, fine to medium grained, red-brown Test Boring: B-17 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 24, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater not encountered during drilling on February 24, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 26 feet BSG on February 25, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 CL LEAN CLAY; moist, low plasticity, grayish-blue Slight increase in moisture, Bottom of boring B-17 at 35 feet BSG Test Boring: B-17 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 24, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater not encountered during drilling on February 24, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 26 feet BSG on February 25, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. I\ >-•. : : -~ : : ••••• ■ ••••• ■ -............ >- ~ ~ >- >- >- >- DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 4/6 3/6 4/6 4/6 5/6 7/6 8/6 10/6 4/6 6/6 8/6 3/6 3/6 3/6 SP-SM CL SP-SM CL SP-SM CL POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT; loose, moist, fine to coarse grained, brown LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low plasticity, brown POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT; loose, moist, fine to coarse grained, brown, some fine subangular gravel SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, grayish-blue POORLY GRADED SAND with Silt; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, brown LEAN CLAY; stiff, very moist, low to medium plasticity, grayish-blue, iron oxide staining Medium stiff, with shells Sand=92.2% -#200=7.8% DD=88.1 pcf 9 7 9 18 14 6 34.8 Test Boring: B-18 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 24, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:35 Feet Notes:Groundwater encountered at about 35 feet BSG during drilling on February 24, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 18 feet BSG on February 25, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 7/6 8/6 8/6 6/6 11/6 11/6 12/6 16/6 10/6 3/6 4/6 4/6 3/6 4/6 7/6 ML CL Stiff SANDY SILT; very stiff, very moist, non-plastic, dark-gray LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, wet, medium plasticity, dark-gray Stiff Bottom of boring B-18 at 51.5 feet BSG DD=75.5 pcf 16 22 26 8 11 37.7 Test Boring: B-18 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 24, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:35 Feet Notes:Groundwater encountered at about 35 feet BSG during drilling on February 24, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 18 feet BSG on February 25, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 7/6 8/6 8/6 6/6/ 5/6 5/6 11/6 15/6 17/6 4/6 7/6 9/6 6/6 13/6 17/6 5/6 8/6 11/6 SM SP-SM CL FILL - SILTY SAND; moist, fine to medium grained, brown to red brown, moderate resistance to hand auger, plastic debris POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT; medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, brown to red- brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low plasticity, brown, iron oxide staining Very stiff, low to medium plasticity, green-brown Dark greenish-brown, decrease in sand content LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, greenish-brown DD=103.9 pcf DD=96.9 pcf 16 10 32 16 30 19 5.0 20.7 21.1 24.2 23.5 Test Boring: B-19 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 24, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:38.5 Feet Notes:Groundwater encountered at 38.50 feet BSG during drilling on February 24, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 29 feet BSG on February 25, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 9/6 12/6 15/6 5/6 6/6 9/6 4/6 3/6 2/6 3/6 3/6 3/6 6/6 8/6 13/6 6/6 8/6 12/6 Bluish-gray to greenish-brown Stiff, dark-gray Medium stiff, wet Very stiff, grayish-blue Bottom of boring B-19 at 56.5 feet BSG DD=97.6 pcf LL=49 PI=31 DD=81.0 pcf ø=19° C=320 psf DD=89.9 pcf 27 15 5 6 21 20 25.1 29.7 34.9 32.6 30.6 24.2 Test Boring: B-19 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 24, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:38.5 Feet Notes:Groundwater encountered at 38.50 feet BSG during drilling on February 24, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 29 feet BSG on February 25, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 10/6 6/6 5/6 3/6 5/6 6/6 5/6 6/6 8/6 10/6 12/6 16/6 5/6 7/6 10/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 SP CL POORLY GRADED SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to coarse grained, brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low plasticity, brown Low to medium plasticity, decrease in sand content Very stiff, iron oxide staining Medium stiff, grayish-blue, interbedded shells DD=94.6 pcf 11 11 14 28 17 8 26.3 Test Boring: B-20 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 25, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:42.5 Feet Notes:Groundwater encountered at 42.5 feet BSG during drilling on February 25, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 37 feet BSG on February 26, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 8/6 9/6 10/6 8/6 7/6 5/6 19/6 35/6 50/5.5 13/6 20/6 26/6 18/6 26/6 28/6 20/6 24/6 30/6 CH SP-SM FAT CLAY; Stiff, moist, high plasticity, gray blue POORLY GRADED SAND with Silt; medium dense, wet, fine-grained, light-gray to brown, 1 inch layer of clay Very dense, dry, light-gray Dense Very dense DD=83.5 pcf ø=18° C=700 psf LL=69 PI=47 Sand=7.0% -#200=93.0% Sand=90.6% -#200=9.4% LL=NV PI=NP 19 12 >85 46 54 54 32.4 2.7 Test Boring: B-20 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 25, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:42.5 Feet Notes:Groundwater encountered at 42.5 feet BSG during drilling on February 25, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 37 feet BSG on February 26, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING A S S O C I A TES, I N C. I\ >- /j ~ -··· ~ >-1/ -··· :'I ';': r:: :~ ·H,fH ·,1 : 1: r r. l :1 :1: 1: i 1 ....... ,1 ;1; 1: l' I :1 ·.1: r. r \ ...... • .I' .1•. t. 1; l >-·.1: 1: , L l =1=1=1:1 f~ ....... . 1 ;1; 1: L' I :·1 ·:1: r: f \ ....sz_ • r ., •. r. ,: t -·.1: 1: , L l ...... :1. :1: r ., .t .1 :1; 1: L' I >-:'1':1: i: j 't~ • r .,·. r. ,: t :-1 :.1: ~ f \ ; L 'J: ' J.t ., :1: 1: i· / ...... :1 :1: 1: l t • t :r. r. t'L :-1 :.1: ~ f \ >- :; ::. : l;~~ ·,I : 1: ~ f, j :1 :1: 1: l t 'i :1·. j. '1.' I ...... :1 ·,1: t, J' \ :~~:f~-1 ·,I: I: r t, j >-:1 :1: 1: l t ·i:1•,j. '1.'f ~ ...... :1 ·.1: r. r \ :~·~:f~-i ·,1 : 1: r r. l :1 :1: 1: i 1 ....... ,1 ;1; 1: l' I :1 ·.l\r. r \ DR A F T 60 65 70 75 80 85 13/6 35/6 13/6 5/6 7/6 7/6 Dense, wet Medium dense, 1 inch layer of clay in sample shoe Bottom of boring B-20 at 66.5 feet BSG 48 14 Test Boring: B-20 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 25, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:42.5 Feet Notes:Groundwater encountered at 42.5 feet BSG during drilling on February 25, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 37 feet BSG on February 26, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING A S S O C I A TES, I N C. I\ ~ :1 ·.1: ~ r \ :~~:f~-i~ 'l "I• I• r 1 ...... :1 :1: 1: l t 'J/i:'t.'1 :1 ·.1: r. r \ :r :1:_~1:[ ',I : 1: t l l ~ : I, :1: ~ ,i) ~ ,1 ;1: 1: l' I :1 ·.1: r. ( \ ~ ~ ~ ~ DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 10/6 5/6 4/6 16/6 20/6 14/6 4/6 3/6 7/6 14/6 50/6 5/6 7/6 9/6 5/6 6/6 8/6 ML CL SANDY SILT; medium stiff, moist, non-plastic, red-brown Very stiff SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, brown Hard Very stiff, low plasticity, blueish- green, decrease in sand content Stiff Bottom of boring B-21 at 21.5 feet BSG DD=122.0 pcf 9 34 10 >50 16 14 6.4 5.7 15.8 Test Boring: B-21 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 27, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 27, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 5/6 2/6 2/6 3/6 3/6 5/6 3/6 5/6 7/6 6/6 7/6 8/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 5/6 8/6 9/6 ML CL SANDY SILT; soft, moist, non plastic, dark-brown LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low plasticity, brown Olive-gray Olive-brown, with shells Stiff, bluish-green Very stiff DD=96.7 pcf 4 8 12 15 11 17 21.8 Test Boring: B-22 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 28, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 28, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 5/6 6/6 6/6 5/6 8/6 29/6 17/6 22/6 23/6 16/6 23/6 22/6 0/6 5/6 6/6 8/6 9/6 10/6 SM CL Stiff, gray, with shell SILTY SAND; dense, moist, fine to medium grained, gray LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, dark-brown Very stiff, gray DD=100.5 Sand=72.6% -#200=27.4% LL=48 PI=19 ø=24° C=340 psf 12 37 45 45 11 19 14.3 Test Boring: B-22 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 28, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 28, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 60 65 70 75 80 85 2/6 4/6 3/6 8/6 10/6 8/6 3/6 10/6 27/6 15/6 33/6 35/6 SC SP SP Medium stiff Stiff CLAYEY SAND; dense, moist, fine grained, dark-brown POORLY GRADED SAND; dense, moist, fine to medium grained, gray Very dense, fine to coarse gravel Bottom of boring B-22 at 76.5 feet BSG 7 18 37 68 Test Boring: B-22 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 28, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 28, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 4/6 2/6 2/6 1/6 1/6 1/6 0/6 0/6 1/6 0/6 4/6 5/6 6/6 6/6 8/6 20/6 23/6 21/6 CL SC LEAN CLAY; soft, moist, low plasticity, dark-brown Very soft Olive to dark-brown Stiff, low to medium plasticity, gray CLAYEY SAND; stiff, moist, fine to medium grained, light- brown Medium dense 4 2 1 9 14 44 Test Boring: B-23 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 27, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 27, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 4/6 6/6 8/6 7/6 13/6 28/6 CL SC LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, gray CLAYEY SAND; dense, moist, fine to medium grained, gray Bottom of boring B-23 at 36.5 feet BSG 14 41 Test Boring: B-23 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 27, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 27, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. I\ >-... . . -............ ~~ >-~ -............ %~::::::~ ... 0 >- >- >- >- DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 10/6 3/6 6/6 9/6 9/6 8/6 15/6 13/6 10/6 9/6 12/6 14/6 4/6 5/6 8/6 5/6 8/6 10/6 CL SC CL SM CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low plasticity, brown Very stiff, weakly cemented, trace fine gravel CLAYEY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, brown, trace fine gravel SANDY LEAN CLAY; very stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, brown to blue SILTY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, dark red- brown SANDY LEAN CLAY; stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, blue, iron oxide staining, some organics Stiff, no organics DD=102.3 pcf DD=96.8 pcf 9 17 23 26 13 18 16.8 26.9 Test Boring: B-24 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 26, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:30 Feet Notes:Groundwater was encountered at 30.00 feet BSG during drilling on February 26, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 24 feet BSG on February 27, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 5/6 5/6 5/6 2/6 3/6 3/6 11/6 50/6 SP W et, dark-gray Medium stiff Hard POORLY GRADED SAND; very dense, moist, fine to medium grained, light-gray Bottom of boring B-24 at 39.5 feet BSG 10 6 >50 Test Boring: B-24 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 26, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:30 Feet Notes:Groundwater was encountered at 30.00 feet BSG during drilling on February 26, 2020. Groundwater was measured at 24 feet BSG on February 27, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 3/6 2/6 4/6 2/6 2/6 2/6 0/6 0/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 6/6 2/6 2/6 5/6 8/6 7/6 17/6 7/6 6/6 CL SC LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low plasticity, brown Soft, dark-brown Low to medium plasticity Medium stiff Medium stiff, gray, with sand CLAYEY SAND; medium dense, moist, fine to medium grained, gray 6 4 2 10 7 24 20 Test Boring: B-25 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 26, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 26, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 30 35 40 45 50 55 14/6 Bottom of boring B-25 at 30 feet BSG Test Boring: B-25 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Amanda T. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 26, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 26, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. >-~ >- >- >- >- >- DR A F T 0 5 10 15 20 25 2/6 3/6 3/6 3/6 6/6 6/6 2/6 2/6 2/6 1/6 2/6 2/6 7/6 9/6 11/6 5/6 4/6 7/6 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY; medium stiff, moist, low plasticity, dark brown, with rootlets Medium stiff Soft, low to medium plasticity, black Stiff, moist, low to medium plasticity, bluish-gray Stiff, black to gray Bottom of boring B-26 at 25 feet BSG DD=103.5 pcf LL=31 PI=18 DD=106.1 pcf 6 12 4 4 20 11 13.0 22.6 18.8 18.7 Test Boring: B-26 Project:Proposed Drive Shack - Restaurant and Golf Driving Range Project Number:E40550.01 Logged By:Jovany C. Drilled By:Pac Drill Date:February 26, 2020 Drill Type:Fraste L.A.R. Elevation:N/A Auger Type:6-5/8" Hollow Stem Augers Depth to Groundwater Hammer Type:140 LB Auto Trip Hammer First Encountered During Drilling:N/E Notes:Groundwater was not encountered during drilling on February 26, 2020. Figure Number ELEVATION/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL SYMBOLS SAMPLER SYMBOLS AND FIELD TEST DATA USCS Soil Description Remarks N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content % MOORE TWINING ~ A S S O C I A TES, I N C. DR A F T 1. Test borings were drilled between July 15, 2019 and July 30, 2019 using a CME-75 drill rig equipped with 6-5/8" inch outside diameter hollow-stem augers and using a limited access rig (L.A.R.) equipped with 6 inch outside diameter hollow stem augers. Additional soil borings were drilled between Febraury 24, 20 and February 28, 20 using a limited acess rig equipped with 6 inch outisde diameter hollow stem augers. 2. Groundwater was encountered during drilling (see logs). 3. Boring locations were located by pace with reference to the existing site features. 4. These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report. 5. The "N-value" reported for the California Modified Split Barrel Sampler is the uncorrected field blow count. This value shold not be interpreted as an SPT equivalent N-value. 6. Results of tests conducted on samples recovered are reported on the logs. Abbreviations used are: AMSL = Above mean sea level O.D. = Outside diameter DD = Dry density (pcf) -#200 = Percent passing #200 sieve (%) N/A = Not applicable N/E = None encountered pcf = pounds per cubic foot psf = pounds per square foot BSG = below site grade LL = Liquid Limit PI = Plasticity Index C = Cohesion ø = Angle of Internal Friction NV = No Value NP = Non Plastic Notes: Symbol Description Strata symbols SM: Silty sand SP: Poorly graded sand CL: LEAN CLAY Symbol Description Fill ML: Silt ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SC: Clayey sand KEY TO SYMBOLS II . . . ~ DR A F T Symbol Description Strata symbols CH: FAT CLAY SP-SM: Poorly graded sand with silt Misc. Symbols Boring continues Water table during drilling Soil Samplers Standard penetration test California Modified split barrel ring sampler Undisturbed thin wall Shelby tube KEY TO SYMBOLS ....sz._ □ Project:Moore Twining Associates Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 26.13 ft, Date: 7/23/2019Newport Beach Golf Course CPT-1 Location: CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/26/2019, 10:04:57 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\MooreTwining-NewportBeach7-19\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 l '1 6 8 10 12 1-1 16 18 lO 2 22 .._, l -1 ..c. 0.26 Q.J 0 l8 30 12 1-1 16 18 -10 ,1.!_ ,1-1 -16 -18 50 0 Cone resistance qt j ~ ~ ··················t····················t····················t···················· .................. t·· .. ················t· .. ·················t ................... . r I r ..... . ......... t .................... t .................... t ................... . ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.----r.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.L.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.J.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. •• .... ·············1····················r ····················r •••••••••••••••••••• ...... ~ .................... t .................... t··'"'"'"''"'"'"''" : :r: ! r ····················t····················t····················t···················· ! ! ! ····················r····················r····················r···················· r r r 100 mo 100 lip resistance (tsf) '100 Sleeve friction 0 .--=----,---,---,---, Pore pressure u 0 --r----.----r----.-----, 2 : : : : ~ •• ········!·············t············t·············!············· 6 .......... i··· .. ········t············t· ............ ! ............ . l 1 1 : ::::::::::::::::r:::::::::::::: .... ::::::::::::r::::::::::::: --:--1--r-r-- ........... t·········· .. t· .. ··· .. ··· .. i···· ........ . 8 10 1 2 1 -1 :: --r····r--r- 1 "1 ................ t .............. t···· .. ··· .. ··· .. t· .............. .. ........... r··········--r-·········--r-··········--i--··········· 15 l 8 : : ···············+-····· ·····-+·············-+··············· . ·······--·1···········-+·········-+··········+··········· ............ .. ........ t ............ t ............. ! ............ . rrrr ............. ! ............. t' ........... t ............. ! ............ . 2.0 ,-._ 2 l 4:: .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0.25 Q.J 0 28 10 12 1-1 2 ;: ···············+·····. ····+·············-+··············· ~ l "1 ................ t .............. t ................ t ............... .. i;; ·············r·············•1··············r············· J-1 ................ t ................ t ................ t ............... .. rrrr 36 18 -10 :: r r r ·············r··········-+·········-+··········--i--··········· '12 -1-1 : : ···············+············-+·············-+··············· rrrr -15 -18 50 :: ·············r·············1·············r············· 50 ___ .,... __ .,... ____ _ 0 2 3 -1 5 • 2.c, -10 0 10 2.0 Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) 0 2 -1 6 8 10 1 2 1 '1 16 1 !l 2.0 2 22 .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0. 26 Q.J 0 28 10 12 1-1 36 l!l -10 -1 2 '1-1 '16 -18 50 0 Friction ratio ~~-i--~· .... · ....... · ....... · ...... . ·····;·······;·······i······· ·······i·······t·······i······· l :; r::: ;::; !:: .. ..... !........ ..(·· .. ·r·· .... i ....... t' ...... ! ....... ::::::r:::::r:::::r····~·····1:::::r:::r:::: ·.·.·.·.·.J.·.·.·.·.·.·t······· ·······~·········-.-r·········J···········-.-r············· ·······1···· ·······t·······i·······t·······i······· 1 1 rri++ ·······1·······t·······i·······t·······i·······t·······i······· !l !l!r! ·····+···-+····+···-+····+···-+····+····· rrrrrrr 21-15678 Rf(%) Soil Behaviour Type : ·········t·········f •••• t :t ~~Y/"~t,~t -1-········· .... t' ........ t ......... t ......... ! ......... l ......... t ......... ! ........ .. 0 l '1 6 .... ?···· .. ···?· .. ·•· .. ·? .. · .. ····!··· .. ··· .. ! .. ·•· .. ···?· .. ·•· .. ·!· ........ . !!!"ff!! 8 10 ····~·········+·········+···•.C l~-.S .,il k <I•~·+·······+········ I I Cllt( 5 ,ily d or I I 1 2 1 '1 ·········t·········t····t :t~:i~&J:~'r ~ilt··1·········· 15 .... ? ......... ? ......... ? .. ··· .. ··!··· .. ·····! .... · ..... ?· .. ······!· ........ . 1 !l j j j Cl~ j j j ••••0 ·········t-········t····e1;[!"·5·;,1y ·<1 ~. ·t-········:·········· ......... l. ........ l .... J,!~ .. ~.:-,.i.l_k .~~~.l. ...... ..:. ........ . .... ~ ......... L ...... L..I:t .... .J. ........ L ..... L ...... . _j---====111=····l. ........ l .... 1:t Hiih.J ~ilt..i. ........ . 20 ,-._ l l 4:: .._, 2'1 ' : s.hd .;1 ,;iti "'"' : .1·""···""···"'1"'··""····""···""r "'···~···!!'l. •• r •••••• r·r~9 ·1 1········· ......... t' ........ t' ........ t ......... t' ........ ! .......... ! .......... t ......... ! ........ .. ..c. 0. 26 Q.J 0 2.8 10 12 3'1 rrrr! rrr 16 1 !l -10 ·······---r······-+······-+······-+······+······+······-+······+········ -1 2 -1-1 r1 rrrrrr -16 -18 50 C 2. '1 6 8 10 1 2. 1-1 16 18 S BT (Robertson, 2010) Project:Moore Twining Associates Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 29.14 ft, Date: 7/23/2019Newport Beach Golf Course CPT-2 Location: CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/26/2019, 10:05:39 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\MooreTwining-NewportBeach7-19\CPT Report\Plots.cpt Cone resistance qt 0 --r-,...-----c----,-----,-----, l i i i -1 ••••• ·············t····················t····················t···················· 6 .•..•.•........... t·· .. ················t· .. ·················t ................... . :: •··•••••··••••••••••1••••••••••••••••1••••••••••••••••1•••••••••••• 1 -1 ................. t·· .. ····· ........... t .................... t ................... . : : ••••••.. ·········-+·················-+··················+-·················· 2 : : ··················1····················r ····················r •••••••••••••••••••• 7 2"1 .................. ? .................... t .................... t ................... . I :: ····························1·····················r···················· 30 i i i ····················t····················t····················t···················· :: r ! ! : : ····················r····················r····················r···················· :: ····················i················r···················1············ 50 -f--.....------------- 0 1 00 mo 300 lip resistance (tsf) -1 00 Sleeve friction 0 .......,c--,---,---,---,----, l I I I : ·········t---:::::::::r:::::::::r::::::::::: :: r r 1-1 ··-r···········t·········· :: ·······1··········-+··········+··········· 2 : : r··········--r-·········--r-··········+··········· 7 2-1 !··· .. ········t············t· .. ••• .. ••• .. 1············· 1 ii ············r :: : I :; : l-1 ·············1·············t············t·············1············· :: ············r·······1··········r··········1··········· : : ·············r··········-+·········-+··········--i--··········· : : ············r·······1··········r··········1··········· 50 ----------,--0 2 3 '1 5 Friction (tsf) Pore pressure u 0 --r----.----..-----.-----, 0 l I I 2 : :::::::::::::::J::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::r::::::::::::::: -1 ,f, :: ··············1···············;················r··············· l --1 ················t········· ·····t················t················· 8 1 0 L! 1 -1 : : ···············+-······· .. ···-+·············-+··············· 16 1 !l 2 :: ···············+············ r-············+··············· ~ l --1 ................ t............... . ............... t ............... .. i;; ·············r·············.,·•········r············· J-1 ················t················t················t················· 2 0 ll 2 '-"" 2 -1 ..c. 0.. 25 a) 0 28 30 32 :H :: r r r 36 38 -1 0 : : ···············+············-+·············-+··············· -1 l -1-1 :: ·············r·············1·············r············· 50 ___ .,... __ .,... ____ _ -16 -18 50 -2c, -10 0 1 0 20 Pressure (psi) 0 Friction ratio 21-156 78 Rf(%) 0 l -1 6 8 1 0 1 l 1 -1 15 1 !l 20 ,-.. l l q:: '-"" l -1 ..c. 0.. 26 a) 0 28 30 32 1-1 35 3 !l -1 0 -1 2 -1-1 -16 -18 50 Soil Behaviour Type ,:: 2 -1 6 !l 1 0 1 2 1-1 16 18 S BT (Robertson, 2010) Project:Moore Twining Associates Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 47.58 ft, Date: 7/23/2019Newport Beach Golf Course CPT-3 Location: CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/26/2019, 10:06:02 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\MooreTwining-NewportBeach7-19\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 l '1 6 8 10 12 1-1 16 18 2.0 2 22 .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0.26 Q.J 0 2.8 30 12 1-1 16 18 -10 ,1.!_ ,1-1 -16 -18 50 0 Cone resistance qt j ~ ~ ···t····················t····················t···················· .......... t·· .. ················t· .. ·················t ................... . i r r ......... t·· .. ····· ........... t .................... t ................... . ......... ·.·········•----r•········································L·································J········································· •.•.•.•.• .. ·.····················T·······································r-·································J········································· .................. t .................... t .................... t··'"'"'"''"'"'"''" r r r ••• ···············t····················t····················t···················· ! ! ! • ·················r····················r····················r···················· .••••••••••••••• j ••••••••••••••••••••• j ••••••••••••••••••••• !····················· 100 mo 100 lip resistance (tsf) '100 Sleeve friction 0 --rr--,---,---,---,----, 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ • ············t············t·············!············· 6 • .. •••• ! ............. t············t· ............ i············· 8 10 1 2 1 -1 15 l 8 2.0 ,-.. 2 2 4:: .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0.25 Q.J 0 28 10 12 1-1 36 18 -10 '12 -1-1 -15 -18 50 0 T f f f ............ t ............. i········· ... . 1·············1··········--r-············r············ ·············1···········-+·········-+··········+··········· ............. 1·· ········t············t· ............ ! ............ . : 1 J : r :r: ..... ······i·············t············t·············i············· rrrr •• ·······+-·········-+·········+··········+··········· r ; ; r 2 3 -1 5 Friction (tsf) Pore pressure u 0 -r----.-----o-a---.-----, l ················-··············· ················-················· --1 ................ t ............................... t ............... .. ,f. ................ t ............... : ................ t ............... .. :: --r-·---r- 1'1 ················t············ ···············-r··············· : : ················1············ .... :················1················· 2 ;: ···············+········. ·+·············-+··············· ~ l --1 ................ t .............. t .. ············ .. t· .. ··· ......... .. ! ;; : r : r : r : J--1 ................ t .............. t ................ t ............... .. :: ·············r·.··········1·············r············· : : ···············+···. ·······-+·············+··············· :: ·············r·············.i··············r············· 50 ___ .,... __ .,... ____ _ • 2.c, -10 0 10 2.0 Pressure (psi) 0 2 -1 6 8 10 L! 1 '1 16 1 !l 2.0 2 22 .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0. 26 Q.J 0 28 10 12 1-1 36 l!l -10 -12 '1-1 '16 -18 50 0 Friction ratio i i j ~ ~ ~ ····t·······i·······t·······i······· ····t·······i·······t·······i······· "!""'----=··~rr! ! .. ..... !.... . .... !' ...... ! ....... ·······r····· . :::::~::::::::::::::: ·.·.·.·.·.J.·.·.·.·.J.·.. 1·.·.·.·.·.J.·.·.·.·.·.-.-r.·.·.·.·.·.·. ·······1·······t·· i·······t·······i······· fl , j:j f ....... !... i ....... ! ....... !' ...... ! ....... •••••• !!f ! ::::: ····--i:::::::i:::::::r::J::::::: ....... . ·····1····· .. t······· i i i i i i i 21-15678 Rf(%) 0 l '1 6 8 10 1 2 1 '1 LS 1 !l 20 ,-.. l l 4:: .._, 2'1 ..c. 0. 26 Q.J 0 2.8 10 12 3'1 16 1 !l -10 -1 2 -1-1 -16 -18 50 ,:: Soil Behaviour Type l I l ! I ·········t····-s.r·;3 ·;;it; ....... t ········1·········· ····r········t····-s ;1 ~··,;-;.-;,;i 1~··;;;.~~·•iff t········· ····+·········+····~il \-..-a m!&.,.,nd\,.;1+-i-········· : ;;:.f,d ~ ,i("\!• ... ,/" : ··········1·····sf ~··;\+;·~·~·~········-r······· I ;;:.~ -s ,i \\· ... ~ I i eS:it r ••r>l :5 "'"°r ,ilt i ·········y-·······-r····d t ··h ·1t <i .r·t-········:·········· . . . . . . ......... + ......... +·····c1; ......... ! .. ··· ..... + ......... j ......... . ·········!·········!····Cir ········!··········!·········!·········· ·······-+······-+······+······+······-+······+········ ·········y-·······-t····-c 1;t-·.f;.*··a.;,;·y-········j·········· : : : : : : rrrrrr I I eS:il "' ••r>l i-S ,..,;, ,ilt I ......... T ........ T ......... r ........ r ........ T .. : ..... r ....... . ......... t ......... t' ....... l ......... ! .......... t ........ l ....... .. ......... r ......... r ........ i .......... i .......... r ......... i ........ .. ·········t········t ···T1¥·5·;;rf ·a•:r t········i·········· ! ! ! ! ! ! ·········r--·······r--······r······-r·········r--······r······· ......... l... ...... l.._._s.;1 ► .. ~.~.~i9 .. ~~dJ.~.i.1.tJ ....... . ········· 1 ········· 1 ········· 1 ·········I···· ~~r ·;:I:; =~~l •ilt ·I·········· 2. '1 6 8 10 1 2. 1-1 16 18 S BT (Robertson, 2010) Project:Moore Twining Associates Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Total depth: 34.40 ft, Date: 7/23/2019Newport Beach Golf Course CPT-4 Location: CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.8 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 7/26/2019, 10:06:28 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\MooreTwining-NewportBeach7-19\CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 l '1 6 8 1 0 12 1-1 16 18 l O 2 22 .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0.26 Q.J 0 l8 30 32 1-1 16 38 -1 0 ,1.!_ ,1-1 -16 -18 50 0 Cone resistance qt ... . ........... :·····················!········ .. ···········r······ .. ············ ··············+····················t····················t···················· ::==~---r-:··••❖ .................. .. : : i r r .................... t .................... t ................... . ................. + ................... ! ................... + ................ .. ....... ·.··················T··················.-.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.L.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.J.-.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. ................. t .................... t .................... t··'"'"'"''"'"'"''" r r ........................................... . .............................. . ····················t··················· ! ! ! .................... 1 ..................... 1 ..................... I ................... .. r r r 1 00 mo 100 lip resistance (tsf) '1 00 Sleeve friction 0 2 ~ ~ ~ -1 .. . ...... -:,, ............. !············· ......... i············· 8 1 0 1 2 ... r 1 -1 ............. i············· 15 l 8 ... : ............. ! ........... .. 2.0 ,-.. 2 2 4:: .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0. 26 Q.J ... r ............. ! ............ . -+, ............ !············· =----i.. .. !············· 0 28 30 ..................... 32 1-1 i i i 36 38 -1 0 rrrr '12 -1-1 ............. l ............. l ............ 1 ............. 1 ............ . -15 -18 50 rrrr 0 2 3 -1 5 Friction (tsf) Pore pressure u 0 --r----.----.------.-----, 0 l I I 2 : ::::::::::::::::r::::::::::::. ,::::::::::::::::r::::::::::::: -1 ,f, :: ··r···r: 8 1 0 1 2 l "1 ................ t .. ·· ......... t···· .. ········ .. t· .............. .. 1 '1 : : ................ 1 ............... r ................ 1 .............. .. 16 1 !l 2 :: ................ r ............... l ................ r .............. .. ~ l "1 ................ t ......... ·····t·············· .. t· .............. .. 1 ;; : I : ; : I : 3-1 ................ t"' ............................ t" ............ .. 2.0 22 2 .._, 2 -1 ..c. 0. 26 Q.J 0 28 30 32 l-1 :: r r r 16 38 -1 0 : : ................ l ................ l ................ l .............. .. -1 2 '1-1 :: ·············r·············1·············r············· 50 ___ .,... __ .,... ____ _ '16 -18 50 -10 0 1 0 2.0 0 Pressure (psi) Friction ratio ....... ·-······ ........ . ·······\·······+······· : ······!······· ·······t·······1·······t·······!······· ·····r r ··· ........ · ........• :···;· ·······1······· • ·····••❖••·····!······· ....... ! ....... t... . .. ":' ...... i ....... ! ...... . ....... !...... . ...... : .. ·· ... ! ....... ! ....... ! ..... .. ·······1·· ••i••·····t·······!·······t·······!······· ······:· ... ; ••.•.•.• •! :1•·•·•·•·•1·•· !······r ······!·······t·······!·······t·······!······· !l !l!r! ....... l ....... l ....... 1 ....... 1 ....... 1 ....... l ....... l ....... rrrrrrr 23-156 78 Rf(%) 0 Soil Behaviour Type l '1 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 '1 LS 1 !l 20 ,-.. l l 4:: .._, 2'1 ..c. 0. 26 Q.J 0 2.8 30 12 l-1 36 3 !l -1 0 -1 2 -1-1 -16 -18 50 ,:: 2. '1 6 !l 1 0 1 2. 1-1 16 18 S BT (Robertson, 2010) Project Name: Drive Shack Driving Range and Restaurant Project No.: E40550.01 Location: 3100 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, CA Boring Location Well Depth, Feet BSG Date Measured Depth to Water, Feet BSG Estimated Surface Elevation* (Feet AMSL) Approximate Groundwater Elevation (Feet AMSL) B-17 35 2/28/2020 28 34 6 B-18 50 2/28/2020 18 33 15 B-19 55 2/28/2020 24 36 12 B-22 55 2/28/2020 Dry 30 N/A B-23 35 2/28/2020 Dry 20 N/A B-24 40 2/28/2020 24 28 4 B-17 35 4/17/2020 27.7 34 6.3 B-18 50 4/17/2020 19 33 14.0 B-19 55 4/17/2020 22.2 36 13.8 B-22 55 4/17/2020 Dry 30 N/A B-23 35 4/17/2020 Dry 20 N/A B-24 40 4/17/2020 18.4 28 9.6 *Surface elevations estimated from topographic survey provided by Kimley-Horn Temporary Piezometers Groundwater Depth APPLICATION FOR WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CITY ORANGE COUNTY HEAL TH CARE AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH DIVISION Newpqrt Beac h 1241 E. DYER ROAD, SUITE 120 (714) 433-6000 SANTA ANA CA 92705-5611 FAX: (714) 433-6481 DATE 1/31/20 WELL LOCATION (ADDR ESS IF AVAILABLE) 3100 Irvine Avenue , Newport Beach , CA NAME OF WELL OWNER Brett Feuerstein ADDRESS 8294 Mira Mesa Blvd CITY Z IP TELEPHONE San Diego, CA 92126 (858) 271-4682 NAME OF CONSUL TING FIRM Moore Twinin & Associates, Inc BUSINESS ADDRESS 2527 Fresno Street CITY Fresno NAME OF DRILLIN G CO . Pac ifi c Dr illi ng Co. c1TYs D. an Iego ZIP 93721 TELEPHONE 559-268-7021 C-57 LICENSE NO. 681380 ZIP TELEPHONE 92110 619-294-3682 DIAGRAM OF WELL SITE (Use additional sheets and/or attachments) See attached ~ITE PLAN ATTACHED FOR ACCOUNTING USE ONLY: HSONO. 401 qg lo CHECK NO . bOloO? olloqt~ DATE en./ 0~ / 2 0 AMOUNT __,j :...i.1.µ, l,._,]...,,,S .....,.:....::0:....:0::...__ __ INTL. _ ___,S .... L"'------- APPROVAL BY OTHER AGENCIES: JURISDICTION __________________ _ REMARKS ___________________ _ TYPE OF WELL (CHECK) PROBE SURVEY PRIVATE DOMESTIC D MONITORING PUBLIC DOMESTIC D SOIL BORING IRR IGATION D OTHER CATHOD IC D TOTAL NUMBER 6 A. WELLS -SUBMIT A WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM (INCLUDE DIMENS IONS) B. SO IL BORINGS AND PROBES - D ~ ·□ TOTAL DEPTH depths range from 30' to 55 ' SEALING MATERIAL Bentonite & Concrete • C. PROPOSED START DATE 2/24 _.=;-=-'--------- I hereby agree to comply in every respect with all requirements of the Health Care Agency and with all ordinances and laws of the County of Orange and of the State of California pertaining to well construction, reconstruction and destruction , including the require• ments to maintain the integrity of all significant confining zon A t2 APPLICANrs SIGNATURE DATE 1 Zubair Anwar PRINT NAME 559-268-7021 x258 PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMB ER DISPOSITION OF PERMIT (DO NOT FILL IN): ~ APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COND ITION S: A. NOTIFY THIS AGENCY AT LEAST 48 HOURS )a PRIOR TO START. ~~3 5; a.~~~- 0 PRIOR TO SEALIN G THE ANNULAR ~ACE OR FILLING OF THE CONDUCTOR CASING. B. 0 SUBMIT TO THE AGENCY WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF WORK, A WELL COMPLETION REPORT AND/OR DRILLING LOGS. PLEASE REFERENCE PERM IT NO. C . ~ SECURE ALL MONITORING WELLS TO PREVENT TAMPERING . ~ m r r -u m ';JJ s:: ~ z C s:: CD m ';JJ D. ~ OTHER ~~~~lt.Sl.~~~~:i_U;a:ttij~~.m!~$Dc.j D WHEN SIGNED BY ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE, THIS APPLICATION IS A PERMIT. @.F272-09 .0803 (R11/01) GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL 23 ' to 48' l'l=,') ,,,,---Flush-Mount Well Box I ~--Lawn ✓ -■--i-....1-1-. -------Locking Well Cap ✓ ... ,.:· ~·; ;_,__ ____ _ .... , Backfill Material : Concrete J < •• ..... ---------Backfill Material : Concrete J --------Bentonite Seal j ---+--------Casing : 1-inch , Schedule 40 Pvc J . -.;,.·· .... -. ::. .. , .. " - " .. -:·•. ··, -.•. ___ , .. . --:--., -~-. :.~:•. -= ,;-,T ...... -.·."''.: : __ .. _-.. : ·. .. "" ~,. _-··,:· ~:-.. _-'.< ,., -· \,-•~ == /;-. .--------Filter Pack : #3 SAND ../ ·.:_;: -_ ::·\ • ., -:,.:. •'\:· _ ..... . -: .. _.--. _-.:·:· ··""-· -.-. -.-... ,_":· . 0 .-·: ___ .... ·+--------Well Screen : 1-in ch, Schedul e 40 PVC : 0 .02" Slot ~ • ~: -> ... -·:. --·;,--.-.. -:· - . '"' --·'· _ ... --... __ ·, • -:·~. _,__ __ .1:. .. :....· -_.__.J'~~--------Bottom Plug : 1X6-in ch Schedu le 40 PVC J GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL DIAGRAM 3100 IRVINE AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA FILE NO . DATE DRAWN : 40550-01-01 1/31/20 , DRAWN BY : APPROVED BY : RM PROJECT NO . DRAWING NO. E40550 .01 2 NOTTO SCALE .MOORE TWINING ASSOC/A TES, INC. + PIEZOMETER WELL LOCATION PROPOSED TEST BORING LOCATION MAP NEC OF MESA DRIVE AND IRVINE AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORINA FILE NO. DATE DRAWN : 40550-01-01 11/18/19 DRAWN BY : APPROVED BY : RM PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO . E40550 .01 1 0 150 I I APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET MOORE TWINING ASSOC/A TES, INC. 134S61 l ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION HEALTH SERVICE ORDER ¼/«lls 4029s6 Date 2 /c /20 lnitials_<:s_\ ___ _ Client Na~ ?>Ie\i fe\lers1e\n Address 'alqy M\t"g Mel a swd Seu, P\ego I Cl\ qllllo Ph# ____ _ Paid By Moore Twin\D~ ss~oc\CUe~, mc. Address 15 )3 fre~n O ~"tree\ £©no , Ct\ q~:i2, Ph#-------,---,--,--- Please circle the respective service code(s) 01 CEQ/HSF (Acct/Bat#_____ $ ___ _ 02 CEQ Plan Check/Foods (PC#____ $ ___ _ 03 CEQ Plan Check/Pools (PC#_____ $ ___ _ 04 Food Vehicles Cat________ $ ___ _ Decal No(s) ________ _ 05 CEO/Court Restituti on /Judgment $ ___ _ Name __________ _ Case# __________ _ 06 Hotels/Motels (Acct/Bat#______ $ ___ _ 07 Massage Parlor (Acct/Bat# _____ $ ___ _ 08 Noise $ ___ _ 09 Liquid Waste Hauler $ ___ _ 1 O Farm Labor Camp Reg istration $ ___ _ 11 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act $ ___ _ 12 Hazardous Waste (Acct/Bat#____ $ ___ _ 13 Hazardous Waste Fines______ $. ___ _ 14 Hazardous Waste Restitution/Judgment $ ___ _ Name __________ _ Case# __________ _ 15 Hazardous Waste Clean-up_____ $ ___ _ 16 Med ical Waste/Body Art ______ ) $ ___ _ 17 UST/HSF(Acct/Bat# _______ ) $ ___ _ 18 USTPlanCheck (PC# ______ ) $ ___ _ 19 UST State Surcharge $ ___ _ 20 UST Restitution/Judgme nt $ ___ _ Name __________ _ r:::,. Case#_~---------0 We lls(ConstXRecon_Destr __ ) $ ,,r,s.oo Water_ Gath_ lnit. Monit. ___ ) Add. Monit._ #Well s ___ _ Driller __________ _ Consu ltant ________ _ 22 Backflow/Cross Connection ____ _ Client(s) _________ _ 23 Small Water Systems 24 CUPA -Base Fee 25 CUPA-CalArp 26 FOG-OC Sanitation D istrict 27 Tierred Permitting OTHER __________ _ OTHER __________ _ OTHER __________ _ OTHER _____ ~~~--- PAID BY CHECK NO : \o\)\aQS clllt-ed : O'l / 0 'I I 2 0 $. ___ _ $. ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ $ ___ _ 1 ) • • • • • • I ·• ..____ Exist. Office. Bl~ and Parking c ) • Prop. Two Story Office Bldg. 0 Test.· Borings -Approx. ! . I I • ' • 3 I"= 30' PLAN BACA ASSOCIATES Project: A-0675-F Plate: B • • • • • • • • • • LOG OF BORING NI I DATE DRILLED 8/5/89 l DRILLING EQUIPMEt,T Hollow-Stem Flight Auger DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30" drop I SURFACE ELEVATION 1S4 5- I 2; 12E ro- 25 I !S ' . aG ' 2~ SAND, fine to medium, brc,.,.n rroist rrod. variable clayey to ccrrp. sl. clayey, scat. gravels 109 'amp'- to . dry 104 -----------CJ.Ef, very silty, gray very. fixrn .nurerous veins and and . rroist lenses of fine. gray sand and silty sand brown 85 .• .. .. 93 Fnd@ 15.0 ft. ... Notes: ( l) .No ground water ., .. Acacia Plaza III Santa Ana Heights, california SH£Afl flES,STANt£ @ ANTICIPATEO PRESSURE .. KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT A i z ~ 4 s MOISTURE CONTENT• •4 DRY WEIIHT • ,o 2 1 0 so ~ ~a • I II I I I I I I I I I I II I 11 I 11 I I ti I I I ' I I I I I I 11 I I I 11 PROJECT No. A-0675-F PLATE C BACA ASSOCIATES C9.'iS!S~TING FOU!jD~Tl~N ENGINEERS ' !=NG~ERIH8 8E_OLOGISTS L,~ty 01 r\lewpor1 [tjeacn . . . ~ . . • -LOG OF BORING NI 2 OAT£ DRILLED 8/5/89 I DRILLING EQUIPMENT Ho~•-Stem Flight Auger DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30" drop I SURFACE ELEVATION • -0 " SHEAII RESISTANCE @ ANTICIPA.TED • C'o+. <t>-~. 0 ~ PRESSURE -KIPS PEit SQUARE F'ODT -SOILS "o< 0<r,: ,rl'.r • ~ <,+, • I I C Q. i CLASSIFICATION °-P <,-,~ ,.~ ~,p,. ~ • i z ; .. $ -E "'">-~"'~,~~ ~~ • MOISTURE CONTENT• •t. DRY WE18HT A • l' .,. • .... • 10 20 30 I -, 0 iii ~ ,o • ~.ND, fine to medit:rn, light dcy loose variable clayey to [brcMtl --------- t3 E sl. clayey, scat. sl. rrod. 118 gravels lrroist carp . ...---- bro\-.n .. • . . 5- I t3.; .. 1.10 0 ----I • fine to rrediun~ ~-I -silty to slight silty .. BE 118 It 10-I •• ---·---I I I ---- I CI..AY, silty, nUIT"l'...rous gray very fi.l:m I veins and lenses with ITT"Oist to I 11 of sand and silty red stiff • ~= sand brCMn 97 I .10 I 1!5-stairu • II •. I .. . .. I . .. I I I 2~ 102 :o I I I 2: I I I Flld@ 20.0 ft. I 11 . N:ltes: ( 1) NJ ground water I . I I I 2: I ) Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No. A-0675-F Santa Ana Heights, California PLATE D BACA ASSOCIATES c;..oJtsU ~TINO FOUJID.\!l q_N ENGINEERS t ,EN~,N~ERING 9EOLOGISTS vll y u• l"CVV IL Uc;dl,U I -LOG OF BORING N• 3 DATE DRILLED 3/5/89 I DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hal.low-Stan Flight Aug1:r. DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30" drop I SURFACE ELEVATION ) • 0 • ~~O+ <":1-• SHEAR RESISTANC! @ ANTICIPATED •• C> PRES SUR£• KIPS PE" SOUAftE FOOT ..... -SOILS "o< 0<r~ .r✓.r~ • .o~+,,,. A I I I 4 ' c:IQ l CLASSIFICATION 0-9 (I-,~ '°+c:-,-'9 ~ •◊-I z :, , -e IC Q • ~r"" MOCSTURE CONTENT· •J. ORY WEl8HT a.~ "' "~ .,. I I I 1 • 0 • 10 20 30 410 so 0 ii J SA."ID, fine to rrediun, brown rmist CXJll). silty, sl. clayey, !ti scat. gravels 116 ~---fine to cx:>arse, mxl. sl. clay binder, CCITP• • variable scat. to to 5-i2E rroderate gravels carp . J.16 . " ~--- sl. .. nnist • ~( 109 4 ~ 10-I I • I I I • 2E 108 u I 15-. .. ------· ---- fine to ne:liun~. • tan m:,ist dense clean, occasional • with clay/silt veins pale gray • veins 1Bj 103 I ( 2G .. I I 11 • - I I 11 . I I 5E 101 I 2· End@ 25.0 ft. Notes: ( 1} No ground water • Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No. A-0675-F santa Ana Heights, Califomia PLATE E BACA ASSOCIATES • COHstJLTINO FOUNDATION ENGINEERS t EN81NEERIN8 8EOLOGISTS City qt New_port Beach . LOG OF BORING N14 DATE DRILLED U/5/89 I DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hollow-Stem Flight Auger DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30ff drop I SURFACE EL£VATION • ii C SHEAR RESISTANCE @ ANTICIPATED ·-0 ,It, c-o.,...r <l' (/, PRESSURE• KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT "-~ -SOILS C-ot 0~,: i ~.r~ • "°~ ~.,~ 4 i I I t\ ~ C a. CLASSIFICATION o-, ""'e e..,.c-, ~~•~ 2 :, -E ~~ • ll'I~~ MOISTURE CONTENT• •/4 OflY W[IIHT ... • t .,. • D • 10 20 30 f 0 iii 40 so SAND, fine to rrediun, bro-,,,n dry loose I Silty, variable -------- 12( clayey to sl. clayey, sl. rrod. 109 0 scat. gravels m:>ist caq,. ,_;........;_ ---- ) rroist carp. I ~-3E ll5 .. . . I --------rrediun to coarse, red sl. • variable sl. clay brown rroist s= binder to clean, ill I heavy gravels I I 10-I I • -------I very fine to fine, pale noi.st 13~ sl. silty, with gray 101 I I minor silt veins • brcMn . • 1!5 End@ 15.0 ft. Notes: ( 1) t-£> ground water . t • 2G-I I I .. . ., • . . . I 2~ I • Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No. A-0675-F Santa Ana Heights, California PLATE F BACA ASSOCIATES • CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS ~ ENOINEERIN9 8EOL00lSTS City .of PWAS_20230915 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTS C-1 E40550.01 APPENDIX C RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS This appendix contains the individual results of the following tests. The results of the moisture content and dry density tests are included on the test boring logs in Appendix B. These data, along with the field observations, were used to prepare the final test boring logs in Appendix B. These Included:To Determine: Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) Moisture contents representative of field conditions at the time the sample was taken. Density Determination (ASTM D2216) Dry unit weight of sample representative of in-situ or in-place undisturbed condition. Grain-Size Distribution (ASTM D422) Size and distribution of soil particles, i.e., sand, gravel and fines (silt and clay). Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) Determines the moisture content where the soil behaves as a viscous material (liquid limit) and the moisture content at which the soil reaches a plastic state Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) Swell potential of soil with increases in moisture content. Consolidation (ASTM 2435) The amount and rate at which a soil sample compresses when loaded, and the influence of saturation on its behavior. Direct Shear (ASTM D3080) Soil shearing strength under varying loads and/or moisture conditions. R-Value (CTM 301) The capacity of a subgrade or subbase to support a pavement section designed to carry a specified traffic load. Moisture-Density Relationship (ASTM D1557) The optimum (best) moisture content for compacting soil and the maximum dry unit weight (density) for a given compactive effort. Sulfate Content (ASTM D4327) Percentage of water-soluble sulfate as (SO4) in soil samples. Used as an indication of the relative degree of sulfate attack on concrete and for selecting the cement type. Chloride Content (ASTM D4327) Percentage of soluble chloride in soil. Used to evaluate the potential attack on encased reinforcing steel. Resistivity (ASTM D1125) The potential of the soil to corrode metal. pH (ASTM D4972) The acidity or alkalinity of subgrade material. Particle Size Distribution Report % COBBLES 0.0 __ o/o_G_R_AV_E_L_--+~----'½_oSA_ND ____ +---__ 0_1/o SI_LT __ __, 98.0 0.0 2.0 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Material Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Lean clay #8 100.0 #16 100.0 #30 99.9 #50 99.5 #JOO 98.8 #200 98.0 PL= 23 Atterberg Limits LL= 40 Pl= 17 Coefficients 050= 050= 015= D10= Cc= Classification USCS= CL AASHTO= Remarks % CLAY • (no ~pccification provided) Sample No.: H-2 Location: Source of Sample: Date: 7/29/19 Elev./Depth: 60-61.5' t. e Twining Associates, Inc. I cne_m: • . • • •• • . . . ~--- Pro1ect: Proposed Dnvc Shack Restaurant & Go!f Dnvmg Range Fresno, CA p • t N E4osso.01 F. ro ec o: 1gure_ Particle Size Distribution Report 1:+1 , _Jiji I-~ 'i : ~--1·;., hi :4-JI~ -! lii¾-i l-- "t1 1 ._j1i:111+t-1i ~· : 1 ~-1titf'1 1 +H*m L 111nr1 i- ~ 6° ·, : mm1c-r-1::: 1 iT 1 1i:J11· -:11 11 ,1·-!; I ""iliii;·· ;Ii •• i ~ , T immtL-;-1i ot1T -m 1 m11, ~,-: 1 ; 4®,, 1 11 i i 1-1 :p,,r: , 1 +-~ .. + ITT ··1ttti ···u111 +i-it (~ hr 1 ;-+,1 1T 1 - 30-1.--J htt~ -U ', !m \ H • l~h ~iillitH i - 0 . : • : . ;: : : : : : ' : • ' • I : :: :, I · ', 500 100 1 0.1 0 .01 0.001 GRAIN S IZE -mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL 0.0 11.0 S IEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) J-l/2 in. 100.0 I in . 94.3 3/4 in. 94.3 1/2 in . 92.8 3/8 in. 91.6 114 89.0 118 83.9 1116 78.7 iJ30 67.3 1#50 42.3 1!100 20.5 11200 12.1 .. (no speci fication provided) Sample No.: B-3 Location: Source of Sample: %SAND % SILT % CLAY 76.9 12.1 Material Description Silty sand Atterberq Limits p~ L~ p~ Coefficients D85= 2.73 Dea= 0.477 D50== D30= 0.213 015= 0. 105 D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO = Remarks Date ; 7/22/19 Elev./Depth: 2 5-26.5' E .-· '] ·-· _ .. ·-· -. T • . A . t I Client: re wmm ssoc1a es, nc. . . . . g ProJect: Proposed Dnve Shack Res taurant & Golf D rivmg R a nge Fresno CA . . _ ' Pro ect No: F.40 55 0.01 _ Figure ] Particle Size Distribution Report 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 % COBBLES %GRAVEL 0.0 0,0 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) #4 100.0 #8 95.9 #16 94.7 #30 90.4 #50 75.5 #100 43.1 #200 17.1 GRAIN SIZE -mm %SAND 82.9 Silty sand PL= Da5= 0.420 D30= 0.109 Cu= uses= sM %SILT %CLAY 17.1 Material Description Atterberq Limits LL= P\= Coefficients 0 60= 0.212 0 50= 0.173 D15= 010= Cc= Classification AASHTO= Remarks • (no sp~~ilication provided) Sample No.: B-3 Location: Source of Sample: Date: 7/22/19 Elev./Depth: 30-31.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno1 CA Client: • -·· -· 7 Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range J>roject No: E40550.0l Fig11re __ . 0::: w z u:: f-z UJ u 0:: UJ n.. 100 90 80 70 --_,._ ... 60 I 50 40 30 20 + 10 0 500 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 O O 0 -S-O i ~ ~ \·:' .. ---.------'~ um-. _11-•-t~i, ~t H---'. ~-. -i--..... i ,--i . !----' " ., ·~--J !i ' k ! l j i ' I 1 ' : :: ' i i' 100 1 0.1 0.01 Q_OQ1 GRAIN SIZE -mm 1---•-'---1/o_C_O_B_BL_E_S_-+-__ ¾_G_R_A_V_E_L __ +--------'-o/c-'---o S_A_N_D ____ --+--% SILT 0.0 0.0 72.7 % CLAY 27.3 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) #4 100.0 #8 96.0 #16 91.6 #30 80.9 #50 62.9 #100 44.2 #200 27.3 • (no specifii;alion provided) Sample No.: B-5 Location: Source of Sample: Silty sand Pl= NP 0 85= o.737 D30"' 0.0840 Cu= uses= sM Material Description Atterberg Limits LL= NV Coefficients D50= 0.270 D15= Cc= Classification AASHTO"' Remarks Pl= NP 050= D10= Date: 7/22/19 Elev./Depth: 18.S-20.0' iMoo~e Twining Associates, Inc. \___ Fresno, CA Client: --:] Project: Proposed Drive Shack Rt:slaurant & Golf Driving Range Pro·ect No: E40550.0l ~i_gure . Particle Size Distribution Report 500 100 10 1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE -mm 1---o/,_.C_O_B_B_LE_S_+-__ o/._0G_R_A_VE_L __ , _____ %SAND %SILT %CLAY 0.0 0.0 81.3 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC,* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (Xe.NO) #4 100.0 #8 99.8 #16 99.3 #30 92.9 #50 51.0 #100 26.5 #200 18.7 • (no speci!il;ation provided) Sample No.: I3-7 Location: Source of Sample: Silty sand PL== uses= SM 18.7 Material Description Atterberg Limits LL= Pl= Coefficients D50= 0.354 050= 0.294 D15"' D10= Cc= Classification AASHTO= Remarks Date: 7/29/19 Elev./Depth: 15-16.5' E -.. ~ ---~ . . A . t I Client: wmm ssoc1a es nc. . . . .. g ' Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golt Dnvmg Ra1-1ge Fresno CA . . ' __ P~~Ject No: E405?_Q:0l __ Figure .... -. Particle Size Distribution Report D ,;; ·:: j I I ' 1~' ·_ • 1 .. ~.-i • .l~-, ··+ I i .~dlt 1 • •• ·--i--- 80 TTD ! • ·• •mttf l i •l: tfttul :-ti ~-- 70P.I I ,: --•:: __ mn·: •,_:_· ·•.:~-: --,-:. . . ,' T witt1--•/. __ j '! _; : !! i I I •. • ! i I 0::: : ; ' ' ; ·: ' : f---~ 60 -• • ;... : I-:-: • ' '------4-'-+---l'-,-I. ' ' i' I i I I . ! -I ; 50>-+--+---1 i j':1 ( ! -i ·: i --·n4++ • • 1111 • [I ~ 40 I ' i : I -: ' : -~, i' ·••-'-+-+-'---,! •• ' : ,ftr ' •. : . ~· I : 30 ·· ;-! ' -'--'-+' -+--I 20 .·!·· ._._: • ,+ ! +._: i': --I ·1 I-H- • ' : ' I' ' ' . ' I I I OL.L....1---'--~__u..1~·...w.....1.....J.__;_...L.-J.J..L.J....L'~:l~i--'----'-'.-J;~!~•..J....1.Ji___.J...,_'~,_!_.J.J•~!---'-.L...J...,---'----'---j'--,'-'l....._;_--'--~·--'--1~~ 500 100 1 0 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE -mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL %SAND 0.0 0.0 49,6 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Sandy silt #4 100.0 #8 94.8 #16 92.4 #30 88.1 #50 76.8 #100 61.5 PL= #200 50.4 uses= ML • (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-9 Location: Source of Sample: !Moore Twining Associates, In~] [_ Fresno, CA %SILT % CLAY 50.4 Material Description Atterberg Limits LL= Pl= Coefficients 0 60= o.139 Dso= D15= D10= Cc= Classification AASHTO= Remarks Date: 7 /29/19 Elev./Depth: 5-6.5' Particle Size Distribution Report 100 % COBBLES 0.0 SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER #4 100.0 i/8 99.9 1116 99.6 /t30 96.0 1150 73.5 #100 10,l i/200 3.2 . 10 % GRAVEL 0.0 SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN S\ZE -mm ¾SAND % SILT % CLAY 96.8 3.2 Material Description Poorly graded sand PL= NP 035= 0.364 D30= 0.191 Cu= 1.73 uses= sP Atterberg Limits LL= NV Pl"' NP Coefficients 0 60= o.2s1 0 50= 0.232 D15= 0.161 D10= 0.149 Cc= 0.96 Class ifi cation AASHTO"' Remarks (no specification provilkd) Sample No.: B-9 Location: Source of Sample: Date: 7/29/19 Elev./Depth: 15-16.5' E~ Twining Ass~ciates, Inc. Fresno, CA 0:: w z Li: I-z w 0 0:: w a.. Particle Size Distribution Report 100 : ! : : 90 ' ' ' ' 80 • 70 • 60 50 -IBJ·l!:i-;ttt:!ii!1· ' ' I Ii I . ,i : i i i ' : I. : : : : : : • I ii l 17i ,''1 1,j'· i: I __ I I il_:i J :"---+---I: ~ f-'-+--+-'1+tt-· • 11 tt1+' • , -• ; iw-1 l1i!i,, ! 40 30 20 1------,--------· I I I-• • ' • I ' I • i . --· · '· .. .. · · • ·; ·•+-i:,': 4 -, : 1·. Ii lfr, ++-1 1:1 1•' ~ 1 ·ltt\ 10 0 ,, ! Ii! ! Ii , , , ,; , . 500 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE -mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY _ _:_:_=-=-:::.==--l-------'-=-='-=--'-'=---+-----:_:_:..:...:..:..:c=---------1---_;_::_-=-=-;__-.. -.__....:....:_ __ 0.0 0.0 95.5 4.5 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* SIZE FINER PERCENT 114 100.0 118 99.l //16 94.3 1130 68.9 #50 20.5 #100 7.8 #200 4.5 PASS? (X==NO) Material Description Poorly graded sand PL= Da5= 0.829 030= 0.353 Cu= 2.52 USCS= SP Atterberg Limits LL= Pl= Coefficients D50= 0.527 050= 0.462 D15= 0.262 D10= 0.209 Cc= 1.13 Classification AASHTQ:c= Remarks • {no specification provid1:d) Sample No.: B-11 Location: Source of Sample: Date: 7/15/19 Elev./Depth: 20-21.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA Client: Project: l'roposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range P_roject No: 840550.0 I Figure J LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60r---------------------,-----,---,---,-----,-----,-,r----. >< w 0 ~ 50 - 40 i; 30 - 0 ~ 5 Cl. 20 -- 10 • Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils I ML 9r OL I 10 30 50 LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL • Sandy lean clay 42 17 - Project No. E40550.0l Client: Project: Propos(;d Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range ---+-----· ' . ----·-···-· 70 Pl 25 i MH or O H 90 %<#40 Remarks: • %<#200 •source: Sample No.: B-2 Elev./Depth: 35-36.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA Fi ure 110 uses CL LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 / , Dashed line indicates the approximate :/ I upper limit boundary for natural soils I . I 50 ---t~-- '!,.o 01 ct ; 40 ... •· j -j----... ···-----.. ·· . i'5 0 ~ I,_ ~ 30 --- 0 l ~ 5 l a.. ; / / 20 -/ ··-··. / ' / I ; / 10 --·· i l 7 I 4 ML 9r OL ! ; I 10 30 50 70 LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL Pl • Lean clay 40 23 17 -· Project No. t:40550.01 Client: Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range •Source: Sample No.: B-2 Elev.fDepth: 60-61.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA I i I ! +---- L i Ml-I o r OH I 90 %<#40 99.7 Remarks: • %<#200 98.0 Fi ure 110 uses CL LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60.-------------------....... -----.-----,---....----.r-----, X w 0 z 50 40 ~ 30 0 i== (J) 5 Cl. 20 - 10 Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils -~-----+--___, I -. -; ,, // / • --. i ~ . ~; ML q rOL 1- 1 I MH or OH ; I I --+--! 10 30 50 70 90 L\QUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL Pl %<#40 ------+------+-------l----+-----'----I • Silty sand NV NP NP 72.5 Project No. 1::40550.01 Client: Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Remarks: • • Source: Sample No.: B-5 Elev./Depth: 18.5-20.0' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA %<#200 27.3 Fi ure 110 uses SM LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 50.-------------------------......--.---...----........ --..... 50 -- Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils / -+ 40 -f-. --- >< w 0 z £:: 30 --- 0 j::: (f) :::i [l_ 20 - 10- 7 I ML Qr OL 10 30 i . _ ___j_ ----1- i -----+--- I -----,· ---+--I ~- I MH or OH I 50 70 90 LIQUID LIMIT I ! ····-r--·· 110 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL Pl %<#40 %<#200 uses • Lean clay 47 24 Project No. E4U550.0l Client: Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range • Source: Sample No.: B-7 Elev./Depth: 5-6.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA 23 Remarks: • CL Fi ure LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60.-------------------T----,---,-----,----.......,---. >< w 0 z 50 · - 40- ~ 30 <.) f'.= (I) ::i Q. Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils I 20 --L -+ ' ..... _______ -.... 10 7 10 . / I i . /l ,, ;;refL;,/ 0 ML or O L I 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I-+------ • Poorly graded sand .. Project No. E40550.0l Client: + 50 LIQUID LIMIT LL PL NV NP Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range 70 Pl NP •source: Sample No.: 13-9 Elev./Depth: 15-16.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA MH Q r OH 90 %<#40 90.6 Remarks: • %<#200 3.2 Fi ure 110 uses -~-,-~--- SP LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60r----------------------.-----.------,----,-------,,----, >< LlJ 0 z 50 40- ~ 30 0 i== (/) ~ Cl. 20 10 7 . 4 Dashed llne indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils / / ___ , i ML or OL I 10 30 50 LIQUID LIMIT I i ---1 ' ··-·-······ ··••.------ I . --1----. I i MIi or OH 70 90 110 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL Pl ,_ _ __::_::%_<:..:..._#4-'-'0~l--'%--=---o<_#-=-2O.:...c0'-------l USCS I-+----------------1-------1----+-----,-----1 • Silty sand NV NP NP SM Project No. E40550.01 Client: Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Remarks: • • Source: Sample No.: B-11 Elev./Depth: I 5-16.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA Fi ure MTA PROJECT NAME: MTA PROJECT NO.: SAMPLE I.D.: SAMPLED BY: SAMPLE DATE: MATERIALS DESCRIPTION: % PASSING# 4 SIEVE Initial Moisture Determination: Pan+ Wet Soil Wt., gm Pan+ Dry Soil Wt., gm Pan Wt., gm Initial % Moisture Content Initial Expansion Data: Ring+ Sample Wt., lbs Ring Wt., lbs Remolded Wt., lbs Remolded Wet Density, pcf Remolded Dry Density, pcf Expansion Data: Initial Gage Reading, in: Final Gage Reading, in: Expansion, in: Expansion Index MOORE TWINING / EXPANSION INDEX TEST, ASTM D4829 Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant REPORT DATE: and Golf Driving Range TEST DATE: 8/19/2019 7/12/2019 E40550.01 B-2@0-5' JC 7/29/2019 TESTED BY: MA Silty sand 100 250.0 231.8 0.0 7.9 0.9250 0.0000 0.9250 127.2 117.9 0.0500 0.0496 -0.0004 0 ---- Final Moisture Determination: Wet Soil Wt., lbs Dry Soil Wt., lbs Final % Moisture Content Final Expansion Data: Ring + Sample Wt., lbs Ring Wt., lbs Remolded Wt., lbs Remolded Wet Density, pcf Remolded Dry Density, pcf Initial Volume 0.00727222 Final Volume 0.007269 0.9714 0.8577 13.3 0.9714 0.0000 0.9714 133.6 118.0 Comments: Very Low Expansion Potential Classification of Expansive Soils. (Table No. f From ASTM D4829) Expansion Index 0-20 21-50 51-90 91-130 >130 Potential Expansion Very Low Low Medium Hlgh Very High wv.-w. 11100, e lwi111nq . cum l'H. _o::,•1'} 26}_i _ 702 I n:· 'i~,9 7t18. / I lt1 ] ~) 7 r r ,~'.-0\) ')lr,~,~t f,,~•,no, i"/\ '.1.l7J.1 MTA PROJECT NAME: MTA PROJECT NO.: SAMPLE I.D.: SAMPLED BY: SAMPLE DATE: MATERIALS DESCRIPTION: % PASSING# 4 SIEVE Initial Moisture Determination: Pan+ Wet Soil Wt., gm Pan + Dry Soil Wt., gm Pan Wt., gm Initial % Moisture Content Initial Expansion Data: Ring + Sample Wt., lbs Ring Wt., lbs Remolded Wt., lbs Remolded Wet Density, pcf Remolded Dry Density, pcf Expansion Data: Initial Gage Reading, in: Final Gage Reading, in: Expansion, in: Expansion Index EXPANSION INDEX TEST, ASTM D4829 Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant REPORT DATE: and Golf Driving Range TEST DATE: E40550.01 B-4 @ 3-5' JC 7/22/2019 TESTED BY: MA Sandy lean clay 100 250.0 205.8 0.0 21.5 0.7024 0.0000 0.7024 96.6 79.5 ---- Final Moisture Determination: Wet Soil Wt., lbs Dry Soil Wt., lbs Final% Moisture Content Final Expansion Data: Ring + Sample Wt., lbs Ring Wt., lbs Remolded Wt., lbs Remolded Wet Density, pcf Remolded Dry Density, pcf 8/19/2019 7/12/2019 0.8018 0.5782 38.7 0.8018 0.0000 0.8018 108.2 78.0 Initial Volume 0.00727222 Final Volume 0.007412 0.0500 0.0692 0.0192 19 Comments: Very Low Expansion Potential Classification of Expansive Soils. (Table No.1 From ASTM 04829) Expansion Index 0-20 21-50 51-90 91-130 >130 Potential Expansion Very Low Low Medium High Very High WWW. rno,11 ('/Will 1119. ( om f'H. S,.1') 26f.:i./l)'/] flc 5'.,9 "J68 _/I H1 :J'.l) 7 ru•·.n n ')lr,:d f,.~<:no, CA 1.'.17J.1 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT -1.25 I i I I I I I 1.25 2.50 : 3.75 i C: -~ U) c 5.00 Q) : I : u L. Q) 0.. i ; 6.25 --~. -~-- ·, ' I ; I I i i 7.50 I ! ; , .. I : I 8.75 i l 10.00 --~ --1 ' '' ·" , I I I [ .. I i i I i i .5 Natural Dry Dens. LL Pl Sp. i 1 2 Applied Pressure -ksf Overburden (ksf) Pc (ksf) 5 10 Cc Cs Sat. Moist. (pcf) Gr. t-----+---1-------+---+---t------f-----l-----+----+--l 84.3 % 14.7 % 113. 1 2.65 2 ,64 0.13 0.03 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION --· Sandy lean clay -·-···- I ! -I ' \. ~-,' ! ; ! I ! 20 Swell Press. (ksf) 2.26 uses .... CL Project No. E40550.0l Client: Remarks: Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Source: Sample No.: 13-4 Elev./Depth: 8.5-10' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA I I I I Swell eo % . 1.3 0.462 AASHTO ---~--· Figure .2 .5 1 2 5 Applied Pressure -ksf Natural Dry Dens. Sat. Moist. (pcf) LL 10.2 % 2.0 % 109.1 Pl Sp. Gr. 2.65 Overburden (ksf) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ---------- Sandy lean clay Project No. E40550.0l Client: Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Pc (ksf) 3.46 Source: Sample No.: B-8 Elev./Depth: 5-6.5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA Cc 0.12 10 20 Cs Swell Press. Clpse. eo (ksf) % 0.01 0.1 0.517 uses AASHTO -~ ·-- CL -·· -·~· Remarks: Figure C c 0 ~ E .E (I) 0 ro u t a> > ,o,f#:1~ i~~ ·~u 1 --' I -. l i • -0.02 IE~~ -i : ~-I ~--+-~~1-•-I : -+- -1 -I I •-I -:-1--,- -• _,_ __ .I_ I i I --- ! ] I I I J -0.01 ---1-++-+~+-+-J : --:: ~----1 Dllatiot1 • l ___ ._:------:--_ 3 ; i --. --\+-+-+-"-l 0.02 -1-1-+-i +-+-li-+-1 •• -l-------l-----1---l-1--·---... •-•- 0.03 -~--C-J. ! ,J-•tffl4: 2 -IJ) .It: vi IJ) ~ u5 I.. (I) <!) .s::: Cf) 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Horiz. Displacement, in. -----+-+-+-'--< -1--'--++-+-'-+-l-__ I_. ---1-+-r--+-t-+-,-+- 1-l-.. I ····---1-1-+---+----,-1--1--1- i i">_.,' <l-r---!_-:1_~~~';:::!:::_,__·-_,__· -1-i-l----J._L_I-. _-1-__ _ 2 ~,l.........'...I_I:: ··1·-: I I ~i--___ J ~-'1". _ ___,. __ ...,.,,,i-;...±, __ +_ >:-+_ ~-~ =----'~_; ~--1---l 3 .. _ • l+-+-+--+-1--;..-~-ll_ : , _ '...._ I ... -·--''---+-+-1-+-+--1-1-,!"-- ··-I·--,.......:__ 1. 5 1-+-+--,d--l-+--'-----1---+-'l---li .. . .. . l 2 7 -t ~ --:-·-. ! ---1-+-' -'----+--1-l 1 ,,_,,,=.Jc...," A-+' ---4'-ci---+-----l-'---· -·· .• -• '. . __ : --~-,__ 1 Z++_;~--:i::::+'='=t=i=-1=---"'---++-;-1 j) •• -_--, _+_+,-::=::'::::' :--+--~ -; ! 0. 5 l+-'-1 --+--'-+-----· ___ ,_ --l-----+--l----+-__,____,_.__. -1-+--f-+-+-+,-+-+·-.. i .. --1--1-;_ I +-- I , _____ ' •---- I i I I 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Horiz. Displacement, in. Sample Type: Description: Sandy lean clay LL=42 PL= 17 Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure Pl= 25 Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf ro Saturation, % +' ·c Void Ratio Diameter, in. Heiaht, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pct iii ~ Saturation, % ~ Void Ratio Diameter, in. Heiaht, in. Normal Stress, ksf Peak Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Ultimate Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Strain at peak,% Client: 1 26.0 96.4 96.2 0.7154 2.42 1.00 24.6 99.6 98.7 0.6605 2.42 0.97 l.00 1.00 0.13 5.2 2 3 27.5 27.7 95.6 98.9 99.6 109.2 0.7311 0.6730 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 24.3 24.5 99.6 103.9 97.6 109.9 0.6610 0.5918 2.42 2.42 0.96 0.95 2.00 3.00 1.49 2.09 0.10 0.14 4.1 5.6 Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Sample Number: B-2 Depth: 35-36.5' Proj. No.: £40550.01 Date Sampled: 7/22/19 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno CA -0.03 ~Fftl_:_ J I : L .... -6 -1-~ :L~ I '--~! ... I Results '-'-~J-!·!~ ; -······ ·--~LU I ~ ... . .. .. C, ksf 0.38 .. ,_ '-:... d ·,_,__ t-,:--0.02 I ,_ --•--I--$, eg_ __ . 36 .. _ .. _ . ' ·-. ~l.:. I ' ./ ,-~r~ -.!.._ Tan($) 0.72 •1 '-r--., ;,4 I • ' ~~~-;-i, --... ""!"'' . _;_ I I -~ -I I I--. 'i r-:-~:--··--P-~1-1 • ---i---~ 1 ii i -,.._ i'--; --±i = • -~---r -0.01 -"'--, ·-·--1-'-4 c I j '-..... =;=ri-:-1·· 0 -; •'--'""-' Cl) ,---• ··1 -- ~ !/,-..... .... K: 2 _y_ I . ---··· ···'~· Oilatlt111 ' . ·--·-··-' ---i-vi ; ---·····-· ! .!. D I-~--, .. , ... ! , ~ E 7 j I ;;61 ··' 3 C/) ·-·. ,_.,_ .. '. ! .. :-· ---.... ~ -E o-~---' .;, . -I ; i (l) 'I. .. ··-·-u5 "-·-· ; -j,,Y ! . ·-1-1-1-·- ~ ·-4'··:··· .. :. 0 ' ; ' I ..I<: -1-"i .. --,,f)' .. ,. ~ Consol. -+-;_:_1-Cll I-+-·-· -·-' 1---i-' ! ······i Q) --.. ···:·· V, -···. ! ·-- I ' i ··--: I H ------. 0... . r·-t 0.01 --1 . . , .. I 2---_!. ... .. : ·-·• .. ; .,,_ Q) ' L,, .L > : : ··----'-... .. --' ... ; .. ; ! j i : ,-; D; ; ! -··---·· i .... y ... ·-__ I_ . .... ; I !/1,:" i . ',_!..._ f-e--;--1-'.-... -·-. ··-.. • ' 1-1-L i .. --+--f--.. I . -j . ·------····-· 0.02 ! I --1-: .. -· ···• . ·---'-'-'. ,.,,. ' ... Cl ·-\-- ... ·--~~! i ... ' 1· ; I .°! ' • 1:i-lT. l . ,_ j .. L. ... - r . ... 11 -. -l -' : --1 I I i -· ·-I ,-+ I • ·;·_J 0 i I -!----:---·-··· 0.03 ' ' 0 2 4 6 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Horiz. Displacement, in. Normal Stress, ksf 3 I ' ! .. : ____ + ~1 7 ' , I Sample No. 1 2 3 ! I • ' ·- ! I ,-G-- . ·-Water Content, % 18.4 12.6 14.9 2.5 ' II,__ N --·-· -· . ·•- : ' --··· . -·· --'-Dry Density, pcf 99.8 97.2 93.4 'j, I\ 1--: 1ii Saturation, % 74.2 47.5 51.4 : -· :;::, r"f-1~ I'-. 3 ·c:: Void Ratio 0.6576 0.7016 0.7712 2 -: ... -..... 1 '· (/) ' -~-'---'-Diameter, in. 2.42 2.42 2.42 .::.:. ,I 1--··- vi I . ···-- Cl) =i --1~-I'\ ·--Heioht, in. 1.00 1.00 1.00 ~ "/ ! ' ci5 1.5 I ·--.. ,. ···-· Water Content, % 23.3 24.0 26.4 -~ .1 ' -----<-+-ro .. -· _J ___ . ;,., I 2 ')0 ' ·1-Dry Density, pcf 101.5 99.5 96.2 Q.) ···-..c: '\ :-! I·-00 (/) 1 I ' w Saturation, % 98.0 96.2 97.3 {' K ... .I. i ! : 1-- !"\.-' ... -~---..,.------..--·· ' ----7--:--~ Void Ratio 0.6303 0.6619 0.7193 . / i ~--' ·:t,. -·-· ·-. i 1-1 (·-... ' I Diameter, in. 2.42 2.42 2.42 I ; 0.5 ·-;-,···· Heiaht, in. 0.98 0.98 0.97 -···-· ·--i ' ··r i i-:-' Normal Stress, ksf 1.00 2.00 3.00 .. I --I Peak Stress, ksf 1.18 1.66 2.62 0 i I ' 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Displacement, in. 0.12 0.18 0.12 Horiz. Displacement, in. Ultimate Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Strain at peak, % 5.0 7.3 5.0 Sample Type: Client: Description: Silty sand Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Specific Gravity= 2.65 Sample Number: 13-3 Depth: 25-26.5' Remarks: Proj. No.: E40550.0I Date Sampled: 7/22/19 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Figure Fresno CA : :-1 • I··!·-++-i--++-+-1 -0. 005 ···-'--'-_,_, ____ ::::~==:::::=~.,_I-· _ · --r,-- • I i i Dll,tloi, 1 _-..,_t_...,___, __ 1 _,__ 1 __ --l-l-.L...+-..J.....+-1-·i-.--- 0. 01 l-+--.-+-+-1----..• •.. --1-++...c..1 -1-'1'..-+-+-i---'----l ' ·--~---1 ···'··--'---'-_ .. -'-_-'-'.-1-1--1--L-1-!! '. -j· ,. 0.015,_ ; i •• ; I , I ,-,-- 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Horiz. Displacement, in. I_J....-'---'--'--'-'--'--, ... --------;-- 2 ~+=+~:::~~~-"+-·....,··b-· +-+~f-+++·r--::-= /r--i-t! n=r-~E1~1;b.!.__L.. 3 ---a-. h ' I° _, ,, T i .. _ 1.5 • ;/--/ ...... ~-1_::,~'=t=:!==>l---UJ...~:J-2 -i i ..• ····-1-+-+-, -+-,1-+-+-+-+-·--~r-· --... i. i ···-fi_,. 1-+-+-++-'-I t I 1 J!-t✓11=~:tt:tt· ·t··-·j· =·. !.~ ~ - ···-/:. I .... ··-., -r, I 1 J....'-./1----1-1-l--; ---' Q.5 I I : ' : : ~ :_ :::;~-1=- .__--_-··+ .. -+-·-·· -+-,f-1(_;_ ! . -. . i-- 0 L.....l-• ...J.. .....,,-..J,-··'~~~~'--'1· ~-;:::~~,::;1-__L...L-l.,J-..J 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 .6 Horiz. Displacement, in. Sample Type: Description: Silty sand LL=NV Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure ................ . Pl=NP 3 Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf ~ Saturation, % c -Void Ratio Diameter, in. Heiaht, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf t; w Saturation, % I- ~ Void Ratio Diameter, in. Heiqht, in. Normal Stress, ksf Peak Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Ultimate Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Strain at peak, % Client: 1 35.0 83.3 94.l 0.9868 2.42 LOO 34.2 86.3 99.0 0.9165 2.42 0.96 1.00 0.86 (}.15 6.2 2 3 32.2 31.8 88.7 89.2 98.7 98.6 0.8658 0.8536 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 29.5 29.1 92.3 93. l 98.7 99.1 0.7929 0.7765 2.42 2.42 0.96 0.96 2.00 3.00 1.67 2.04 0.16 0.15 6.4 6.2 Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Sample Number: B-5 Depth: 18.5-20.0' Proj. No.: E40550.0l Date Sampled: 7/22/19 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno. CA --~~ .!:: C: 0 ~ E ..... .2 Q) 0 ~ 'E Q) -0.03 ! ... ----'-'--'-'----'-'--'~----·· . _,__·-I -0.01 ,__,___,__.~'-+--1--+--'-l-1 . ···-I-+-.+, --'---+-l --t--,-- ·1-++-+-+-+-+--'--i'H;----Dll:rtlo11-·-··· 3 > I', I ~ -------· , -••• ·--~,~; ..+---c-1 2 0.02 1--<i-+-+-+-·,_ ·-•~'-'--'·-'-'--'--~ -• T : · · · · ·····'-1-1--++-++-f-l . L .... ,-~ -----t----- _J!-'-. _--'--+-11-+--·-I-,'-~ --1 l 0. 03 L...L ........ 1.__ ........ l....;.._,__.__...J...,!_.___,___,·_· '~·· .L...-'-;-'-' 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 Horiz. Displacement. in. 2.5 3 --i I I 1-__ :_1-+-i-I: -fl-+-+--c-+-1-+ I __ 1-+-j.._;_-Hf--'--l -----I I 1-- . ! i-+-~--1--+-1-'-, __,_ ---• : .• ; _ __1 i·· .. I : ! • ...... --+-+-i--+-1--------i-----l . -·---~~-----.- i ---,--..• 1··· l-+--1=-l,-+-·1--• • 0.5 ~ '-+--+-<~-l--+--'-'-1-<1_ -··- -~,~1-+-+-+-1-+-+-+-+-1--++-J---1-j '--...,·f-·· ;...-'--t-'=J4=,tl t-:t=\:ttj:jj -fr-·: ······-2 ----·!· -!-- ili\-+.-i-~"'-k:d-..._~--· ···· ·· · ._::·-I_-.. ;-, +-+-,+f=l'-t._ -!=d±,jb-, i 1 0 ...........+-+-:-e-.-=:-+-L...L--+---1----'·-1-·._ :--· 1 !, ·-:r T 0 0.15 0 3 045 0.6 Horiz. Displacement, in. Sample Type: Description: Lean clay LL= 47 PL= 24 Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure ___ _ Pl= 23 ..... (/) ~ (I) (I) ~ Cl) ~ ro ~ 6 ·1· . :- ~---·--i-; .. -·---_; __ 0 2 4 6 Normal Stress, ksf Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf ]j Saturation, % ·1: Void Ratio Diameter, in. Height, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf 00 0> Saturation, % I- ~ Void Ratio Diameter, in. Height, in. Normal Stress, ksf Peak Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Ultimate Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Strain at peak, % Client: 1 34.5 83.8 93.8 0.9750 2.42 1.00 35.1 85.2 98.9 0.9406 2.42 0.98 1.00 0.82 0.06 2.5 2 3 36.2 33.4 83.3 86.6 97.4 97.4 0.9849 0.9097 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 35.4 33.4 85.0 88.6 99.2 I 02.1 0.9452 0.8680 2.42 2.42 0.98 0.98 2.00 3.00 1.28 1.86 0.07 0.08 2.7 3.1 Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Sample Number: B-7 Depth: 5-6.5' Proj. No.: E40550.0l Date Sampled: 7/22/19 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno CA .s C 0 ~ E ~ D rn 0 ·-e Cl) > -0.009 I I -~+--+---'-----+-+-f--' I .,, I I ' ·1 ·.1 1 .1·H± -0 . 0 06 L-J_-'-J___J___l_i • •• • -t-+-+--+-i--+-+-+-.._ +:~-· 0.009 -+ -1 •. · +-+-+-; +-+-+--+-+-l-i iT·~ 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 Horiz. Displacement, in. 3 <--J_ _-,',-1 _-f-'-+-+--l-+--+-l--;-l-<-~l: J:r -i-++++-+--!--1. -: I 2.5 :::!: i __ ;_ ~-<·-+-1--'-+-··,_ ~LIT~ I I i I ~--, ~~h -~·~--+-, .. i 2 ;-+1+-1'-+-"-l'-"~~pf ~ ~ _;-/ 1.s ~-L • -1-+~f-'-+---1--1-'-;....;:-+· ~~ -~~ !--~~ -'-/, ',,.I _1_,. -~ :::;:::1 f~!.'.';'j'.:"1-~·,..oi;.:~,_; 23 3 2 ,, !-·' i ;+-+--+-a---+-','-'--1 o.s , Y--'-+-+----1-+-1-+-+-1-,--r-:-~ T -+ · i , -+->--+-+-+---' T·-·1· 0 Ll.__;,__J__..!..I ..L.J..--'-l.....J....L·-,-'--,...J.--....1.1....;· I__L.L ... L ... ,L.lLJ- 0 0.15 Q3 0.45 0,6 Horiz Displacement, in. Sample Type: Description: Silty sand Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure __ _ 0 Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf "iii Saturation, % :E i:: Void Ratio Diameter, in. Hei ht, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf U) ~ Saturation, % ~ Void Ratio Diameter, in. Hei ht, in. Normal Stress, ksf Peak Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Ultimate Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Strain at peak, % Client: 2 Normal Stress, ksf 1 2 3 16.6 I 0.7 17.6 80.6 87.2 87.9 41.8 31.5 52.8 1.0524 0.8978 0.8817 2.42 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 37.2 31.5 30.2 81.7 88.7 89.7 96.1 96.4 95.0 l.0259 0,8648 0.8439 2.42 2.42 2.42 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.73 1.30 2.09 0.16 0.19 0.16 6.7 7.7 6.5 Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Sample Number: B-9 Depth: 10-11 .5' Proj. No.: E40550.0I Date Sampled: 7/22/19 DlRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno CA ----f-+---'---+---'--f-+--1 +++-I I l-- Dil11otiori1-___ . J.. i ,·-·-____ ; ____ 1-+-+i~--1 0 •r-.··-t,...------i .. ;=-.;_:;:-.:::;-,~;:-:.=;=~,_-.' :·.· . ----~i ___ :i __ Consol. ••• .... :::.::· ~ ".."'": J------+-+--'-----+----'-, --1l-- -,--+-~k""+-+' -1-1"--+«e-...._ r-··. ··-·-- 0.01 , -y-1+~1'..:~-:--l--l--++--l~--.d,-.:,'--'i--,+-1 t_-+1-__ 1_-_ _ I ---• : I [',,._I" ' : -~+---+··--+-····!'--+--+..J.-··, ·----~' -··· --~ 1 0. 02 ----·-' --I-I-+--'-! ~1--1-_,_____,__J_J_-..c,,._~L ••••• -23 --_,__ -1-1--+--+-+-+-+--I-----. 1-+--+-;--l-•--·-+·- ---1-+--'--+-f-++-'-i I , __ , -,_ ~ 0.03 : \ ---I -I , •• -I ' ' "o-----'--'--'-o..,_ 1-'-s-'--'---'-o .... 3_._-'---'---...Lo--'.4-5L...L-'--'-o._,6 Horiz. Displacement, in. ---I--~-++-+-'----. ,~-+-+-I->-. --· ·--f-1-+-+-+' -+' -I -+-+-+-;,I ""'1--+-++-_! I r·· 2 ..,~ ' -• i Ir -'-------f==!="P--..-k<c-.. -1-7-··-: i --· --~-+-, ++'--1 •• -+-~---3 1.5 -,, I 1 ---1-+--+I -+-,',-+-+' -'-------1--I--= i _,__,_/_,__,_-+..J.--1---. : £_ : -1~, 4---4-+--1-'- I !--I . I' I-<-~-+----I---'-, --i---i 0 ---_-h , 1 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 , , 2 ; i _____ _____!__ ' -1 i ; . ·•-,----;- l 0.6 Horiz. Displacement, in. Sample Type: Description: Sandy lean clay Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Figure 0 Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Jg Saturation, % E Void Ratio Diameter, in. Heiaht, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf 1ii w Saturation, % I- ~ Void Ratio Diameter, in. ,___.__H_e~iq_ht, in. Normal Stress, ksf Peak Stress. ksf Displacement, in. Ultimate Stress, ksf Displacement, in. Strain at peak, % Client: Normal Stress, ksf 1 2 3 30.9 31.9 33.2 79.1 80.6 80.8 75. l 80.2 84.0 1.0922 1.0524 1.0482 2.42 2.42 2.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 38.6 36.8 35.3 81.5 83.2 83.9 99.3 98.6 96.1 1.0305 0.9888 0.9726 2.42 2.42 2.42 0.97 0.97 0.96 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.82 1.42 1.99 0.14 0.20 0.20 5.8 8.1 8.1 Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Sample Number: B-16 Depth: 3.5-5' Proj. No.: E40550.01 Date Sampled: 7/22/19 DIRECT SHEAR TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno. CA R-VALUE TEST REPORT 100 -5 -; ' ······---4-I! I --t+'' ..... I - -i I I - ..... -___ _: - f--. I 1-·-···-- ..... i --i ' i I --. --I ... i .... ; i - 80 ---.. , . ···-4 -i - - I - -L I --; -■ •• M • ---·. -- --m --X -0 -; -m 60 ---··----3 :J -~~ (J) - Litt -er (I) --::I ::I -- al ' -0 -·--·· ... --' ·····-~ iil :::--- 0::: -I -Ul -i I ! I I i -"' • ..... -C 40 ---.. -·· . -------2 ill ..... I . -'u ...... ! -..... ' -"' ..... i ' -= ' i----r--··· ...... ----· ·-· ---····-. -... -j i --- ---i i -- 20 _, .... i .. ----· .. 1 -! - -iii---I ' --; ; I -I -. ---~ -. -· ·---------. i ! I ( ; : - ---- ---' ' I , I , I I I i I I I I i I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I LU I i I ' I I I , ' I I - 0 II I I I I! I I I I I I I I I I I I I,-Q 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Exudation Pressure -psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure w ASTM D 2844 Compact. Moist. Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R No. Pressure Density Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure R Value pct % Value psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Corr. 1 50 115.1 15.7 1.00 127 2.46 603 10 10 2 30 110.4 17.8 0.79 139 2.57 169 6 6 3 30 112.6 16.7 0.91 134 2.51 291 7 7 Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure;; 8 Sandy lean clay Exp. pressure at 300 psi exudation pressure = 0.92 psi Project No.: E40550.0I Tested by: Project:Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Checked by: Sample Number: B-12 Depth: 0.7-5' Remarks: Date: 9/13/2019 R-VALUE TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Figure R-VALUE TEST REPORT 100 1 ' : I i -r-I I I I r-I ; I ! J_ - ,-; ' ! - r-- -·-···· .. -·· .. --I - I-~ - f-- i - I------- 80 f~ ---·· -...... --T -0.8 -- - i -■ ir· -·--· --····--' I - r-i i -m r- ; - .--I i ->< "Cl I---Ill 60 t----·--·--·· -·---... .. -.. -·· ' ·----·· 0.6 :::J f-- : -Ul f---5· (I) f---::, :J -I -] f-----·--· .... -····· --··· 7J -' : -ro ~ I--' -(/) .---(/) C • -i 1 I ; -ro 40 -... . -·-•·-... : ' 0.4 I I f--I ' -'c f--i - -; ' -~ -- ..... .... ... -·-... ~ -- ---: - -- 20 . ···--·-·· ·····-~ 0.2 ............-------·-. -·. i -' --; ----! ---... . ------·-·---··· ... --- --- ''I' i I' I Ii' I I I l, I I I -.. --- 1111L,,, I I I I I 1 ! 1 ! - 0 II I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I,-0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Exudation Pressure -psi Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure -ASTM D 2844 Compact. Expansion Horizontal Sample Exud. R No. Pressure Density Moist. Pressure Press. psi Height Pressure R Value pcf % Value psi psi @ 160 psi in. psi Corr. l 100 99.7 25.8 0.85 130 2.52 325 10 10 2 30 96.7 28.2 0.70 139 2.61 102 6 7 3 50 97.9 27.0 0.76 135 2.57 183 8 8 Test Results Material Description R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = IO Lean clay Exp. pressure at 300 psi exudation pressure= 0.83 psi Project No.: E40550.01 Tested by: Project:Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range Checked by: Sample Number: B-7 Depth: 0-5' Remarks: Date: 9/13/2019 R-VALUE TEST REPORT Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Figure ________ 'u a_ i:, ";jj C Cl) "O i:':' a COMPACTION TEST REPORT 142 --1=+-!---+1--_ -+-1----+--f------L: ____,_i ~------11----+i-----+-l---l---1 - 1 ~ tr~L : >_~:----+--------1---=------+----+----I I ! i I ~ ' 1-4--~-'!~---·· -. --·-+--+----'----,-; -+· i _,I_'--_,____,___. ___ . I ' i . I I ! ---,--+-- 1 37 1--+--+----+-i ----1--1--~-+---1-----1--1--~--li-_,___--+-~--l--i ~--,-, ----1--1--+--+---!---l--1--...,____-+---+----l--i ! 132 127 122 117 -.. ·-··I-+--+--+--+---+--·-··-·I-+--+--+---+-. ---··--1---+--+----+--i,_ .. ' -,-+--f:--·-I 1--···--·-··· ! ! i i 0 +--+--+---+--. -· i ..... -··· -+-~--+--,-+----+----I-'--· -··--! i -... 1--+---+-____,__---C-1---·· . -i 1- •• ' , ----~, -1-- ---I--+--+--+----'',,_ I_ ··---\ -----' -+-' ~!_l_ - 1 /------I--',---+--, -'1---~ --'~ , -----+---'----+-----, I ! "·---+-1-+-~-,-. . ....... ~.,___,__,__ __ -...... [.. . ~----+-+---·-····. ,_·iv·------i , • i i I I --' i-+--i1-+; ___ , . ! --+--1-----'---L j i I I l---1--+--+---+----!----. --1--+--+---+-11----· .. ,___,___,_-+-_J ... I ,-Irr ;;---- ; ..... ---1----1---~---+---- i ·-·--·· ! i _..__,_ _ __J __ ·-···· I i : I I • ! 1-·-! ···-. ·-[--+-----1---+--1----·•· ... . __ ,_._! ___ : __ .. I ---· . i-. . I I -1 .. i I-+--~--+--··-· 1---i . -. --+----1-'-----... 2 4 6 8 10 12 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified Classification Nat. Moist. Sp.G. LL Pl %> No.4 %< No.200 Elev/ Depth l----"--+---------+---------+-----1------1------1-----l-------l------< uses AASHTO 0-5' 1.4 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1---------------------------·~·-·-·-·-------'----··~--~---------·---·-- Silty sand Maximum dry density = 134.3 pcf Optimum moisture ,:.=: 7 .0 % ·--·~-- Project No. E40550.0l Client: Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Range • Source: Sample No.: B-2 Elev./Depth: 0-51 Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA Remarks: Figure COMPACTION TEST REPORT I ! .. ----1---+'-1--------+--~ ·,. 1---1----1--1--:i.... .. -· ····-···+--+----l-...... I ; ' : : I •• ·--~· --+---+---1------S-j-i '----'-,~I---'---: • ·--+- 11s . J I ' I i ! I ····-· : ! I ; t---+---j-.--.-~!--~-~,-·-·· -t-i . ,-: I i ! . .1_ ----+----+.-···-·. ,i_ -, ---!f--·'--:·---+'---1--, ~. --- 116 1------1-···---_-_---+-1-._~; ~~I!--_.__-------+-·=~-+(---.-.... =.=.-.-+--·-·~·--~ -I---+-! -----1, ~:----+--------~l-=-:-___ -.1 -----1---: ::~1~=: :·I·-_-·-_;_·---·+-· ---i--~-+:--_+-i ~i i i ! .. ~---I -·· ··-·. -I----'--~·· •••• ' .. j ... i I --------·-··· : ! ; 114 I--+--+----,..' ----!--t--+--+-----'-; ---+'-t--+--+----+--+-1--+--'-----r--+-l--+--+----+--+~t---;--+--+--i · v 1 ~~.--t"-.-~c-+--+-+--l,_--_-_,_~--+--·,_r·-=I-+--+--·-_ .. _·~! ,~, ' ' I I ~..--..,::..i.--: • ••• ~' ••• - -1---1-----'~~:+---... ·-···-·-•-+--_.__--!---l-••-. . '. ----1---+---+--i ...... -.. . L ··-~-·· .. .,._· .____,_' --1----!----··· .. . ... -·r------+-1-----+---+--I I : i -··- ,., ; I i i ~ ; ! ! i 1121-···--+·-;--+_i_-__ .;,._1! .. --+. i-+---+--+---:~1~::.__·=~~~~::~~~11__._l=:· :::_,'=~-'---+-~ .-_-+.:=--=-1~+----l···lf---·._;_;·__;_i -l----ll:- ' j i i --f ---: I . j_-1---_,__-1-_ ----1· , ··-·-LI ----'---__J___J___J' __ --i ·--+----!I----,'~ ; i I I __ J ' I I i I : ' I ' ·---- I I l ! 1--+--c-----+----i·--· ·-I : ! 1101--+--+----+-----!--l--+--+--i--+-l--+--+--+---'~+--,--+-+-~+---ij--;----+--+-------+----I ! I ' i l---_.__-+----+--1---------1---'---+---1---········· ----1---1-------+-----+---l---• -! -··--! I ... ·- I I ... I I ... ··i :· ··I--+----'---+--+--!-I . ·•-1---i __,___,__I--'·······'·· ·····-1-+--+-r-· I --I--~!----+-'-+-----!-l---l---+'-1---L-i _,__--+--J-----'---! ---'··- 108 --t·-.. -T ... i I -~_.__--!---+--+· --! :-+ 1 -l--+i --1--i'---"-: ; 1 •• ; ·--,. - I ···- ! I I 13 9 11 15 17 19 21 Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified Elev/ Classification Nat. Depth uses AASHTO 1--~---+---~ Moist. 0-5' Sp.G. LL Pl %> No.4 0.8 %< No.200 TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Maximum dry density= 113.7 pcf Optimum moisture= 15.2 % Project No. E40550.0l Client Project: Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant & Golf Driving Rangt; • Source: Sample No.: B-7 Elev./Depth: 0-5' Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Fresno, CA Lean clay Remarks: Figure /;JJ MCJPRf. ~llY!Nfr:f <? California ELAP Certificate #1371 August 14, 2019 Zubair Anwar MTA Geotechnical Division 2527 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721 RE: Proposed Drive Shack & Golf Driving Range 2527 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721 (559) 268-7021 Phone (559) 268-0740 Fax Work Order#: FH07003 Enclosed are the analytical results for samples received by our laboratory on 08/07/19 reference, these analyses have been assigned laboratory work order number FH07003. For your All analyses have been performed according to our laboratory's quality assurance program. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety, Moore Twining Associates, Inc. (MTA) is not responsible for use of less than complete reports. Results apply only to samples analyzed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the number listed above. Sincerely, Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Susan Federico Client Services Representative Page 1 of 5 ;;:;;::} MOORE TWINING lilffiJJ ,..; :: \ , ~ i ~ , "~ l I . / ~ f N (_~ California ELAP Cerlificate #1371 MTA Geotechnical Division 2527 Fresno Street Project: Proposed Drive Shack & Golf Driving Range Project Number: E40550.01 Fresno CA, 93721 Sample ID B4@3-5 B9 @0-5 Project Manager: Zubair Anwar Analytical Report for the Following Samples Notes Laboratory ID FH07003-01 FH07003-02 Matrix Soil Soil Date Sampled 08107119 00:00 08/07119 00:00 2527 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721 (559) 268-7021 Phone (559) 268-0740 Fax Reported: 08/14/2019 Date Received 08/07/19 09:18 08/07/19 09:18 Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Juliane Adams, Director of Analytical Chemistry The results in this report spply lo the samples analyzed in accordance wllh tile chain of custody documont. This analytical report must be reproduced in ils entirety. Page 2 of 5 MOORE TWINING \ • ~•• t t 'o r \ ' .> ( l -l I , > ~ i f I l . , California ELAP Cerlificate #1371 MTA Geotechnical Division 2527 Fresno Street Project: Proposed Drive Shack & Golf Driving Range Project Number: E40550.01 Fresno CA, 93721 Project Manager: Zubair Anwar 84@3-5 FH07003-01 {Soil) Sampled: 08/07/19 00:00 Analyte lnorganics Chloride Chloride Sulfate as S04 pH Sulfate as S04 Flag Result 42 0.0042 0.029 7.8 290 Ro porting Units DIiution Batch Limit 6.0 mg/kg 3 89H0712 0.00060 % by Weight 3 [CALCJ 0.00060 % by Weight 3 [CALCJ 0.10 pH Units 1 B9H0712 6.0 mg/kg 3 B9H0712 B9@0-5 FH07003-02 (Soil) Sampled: 08/07/19 00:00 Analyte lr10rganlcs Chloride Chloride Sulfate as S04 pH Sulfate as S04 Flag Result 180 0.018 0.054 8.6 540 Reporting Units DIiution Limit 12 mg/kg 6 0.0012 % by Weight 6 0.0012 % by Weight 6 0.10 pH Units 1 12 mg/kg 6 Notes and Definitions pg/L micrograms per liter (parts per billion concentration units) mg/L milligrams per liter (parts per million concentration units) mg/kg milligrams per kilogram (parts per million concentration units) ND Analyte NOT DETECTED al or abovo the reporting limit RPD Relative Percent Difference Batch B9H0712 (CALC) (CALC] B9H0712 B9H0712 Analysis of pH, filtration, and residual chlorine is to take place immediately after sampling in the field. If the test was performed in the laboratory, the hold time was exceeded. (for agueous matrices only) Prepared 08/07/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/07/19 08/07/19 Prepared 08/07/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/07/19 08/07/19 252 7 Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93721 (559) 268-7021 Phone (559) 268-0740 Fax Analyzed 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 Analyzed 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 08/09/19 Reported; 08/14/2019 Method ASTM D4327-84 ASTM D4327-84 ASTM D4327-84 ASTM D4972-l\9 Mod ASTM D4327 Method ASTM D4327 -84 ASTM 04327-84 ASTM 04327-84 ASTM D4972-89 Mod ASTM 04327 Moore Twining Associates, Inc. Juliane Adams, Director of Analytical Chemistry The results in this reporl apply to the samples analyzed In accordance with the chain of cusrody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. Page 3 of 5 OORE TWINING . '~ ~-·· ~:, .~ . . ." '." .: . . .. CHAIN Of CUSTODY / ANALYSIS RIQUEST 252.7 Fl!UNO STJ!'UT • FUSNO, CA 937':.!1 • PHONE (5.59) 263-71l;;l1 • FAX, (SS9) 260#0740 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY DIVISION CALIFORNIA El.AP CERTIFICATION# 1371 Rl!PORTTO! ATTI!tlTION: 7.u \:J...-f: r An01A'lo.., COMPANY N MIE, 'l\ /IOOMSS! \ \ f'HONli: \ ~/MtL/ FAX: . SAMPLE INFORMATION - SAJ\\PtlD l>Y (Pl<lNT): 0 INVOICE TO• . 0 REPORT COPY TO• . REPQR.TJNG• . ATTENfJON: '!S7$TANDARD FORMAT □PDP 0 EDT (SWRCB) 0 EXCEL COMPAN'/ NAM"' \. 0 GE0TRACKER/COELT (LUFT) GLOBAL ID: ACDIIESS1 \ 0 COUNTY ENVIRONM~NTAL HEALTH: \ 0 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD: PHON.l!i \ 0 OTHER: fMM,/fAX: SAMPLE TY\>ES PROJECT INFORMATION SOU!): CONTRAa' / P.O. NO., BS -BIOSOLID CR• CERAMIC SIGNATUR,: SL -SOIL/SOLID Pao,<t;T~~.~~ dY'.v--c, sh.cede. 'i(~~~ 0..'"I 0- I llOU!b; 9 .-,v ·~ {Z.o-, A.R.., 0 PUBLIC SYSTEM °B ROUTINE DW-DRINKING WATER PllDJECT NUMBEll: tz 'fO'v~O-o l 0 PRIVATEW6LL 0 REPEAT GW -GROUND WATER 01-OIL 0 0TH£R 0 REPU\CEMENT SF -SURFACE WATER PaOJECT MANAGE~: ?.ubct\ r-Ansv~,,,..,. ST -STORM WATER T~~N AiOUNI> TUA! WW-WASTEWATER ~ TANDAll:D S-d~,S ANALYSIS REQUESTED RUSH, DUE ON: - C" NOTES ON RECEIVED CONDIT!Ot-1; ~ L -.. □ CUSTODY S£At($) BROKEN 0 SAMPLES(S) DAMAGED V'\ Ill A Q !I ~ 0 J.. u 0 ONICE 0 AMBIENT TEMP. 0 INC0Rl1'ECT PRESERVATION z u lo. 0 s ~ i E u CLIENT SAMPLE ID DATE TIME TYPE I I~ Lr e 3-S-8/, l<t NIA. I')', 2 'B9 e n -<:_;-fJ/7 f <'.f NIA S(..... ":> -,, ·, ··-.., --. , .. ,,. ~-~ ... ---.. .._, __ .............. '·---~ ... ··~--•-, .. -...., . . . .__ ~---~ --·•--... ...._._ ~-----. ·-··-----~-,., ... , -·-··· -·-..... -~-- ·-. COMMl:NTS / ADDITIONAL INSTRUCT! ONS: . RELINQUISHED BY COMPANY DATE TIME RECEIVED B~',' COMPANY N JCl.l 10 ,I Alrqra7 WA/MAT Ct //ll F, ( /·i··} ·rr 1, ,.._r , c1'1•:>f-··" . i. (·t;:z:-.j if/ ,J{) .... ,., ''X'f ,.,_-_, /, . (· p., ''\ I t u• • .•,.r : J ~-.-·, ' ., .. ) .. Poymont for servlces rendered OS no1ed herein or,, due ,n lull w,th,n 30 dor-, from 11,e dote Invoiced. If nol so pold, occount boloncos ore deemed dehnquenl. Delinquent bolonces are sub Jed to monthly soovlce chorges and interest specified in MTA's current Stondord Tem,s and Conditions for loborolory Se,vTces, The person signing for the Otenl/Compony odmowledges that they ore either the Client or on oulhori,ed ogent to tho Client, thot the Client agrees lo be rosponsible for payment for the service, on this Cho in of Custody and ogroes to MTA', terms and conditions for !oborotory seivicos vnles, confroctuolly bound oiherHise, MTA's current terms end condition, con be obloined by contoding our occounttng deportmenl at (559) 268-7021. FL-SC-0005-04 A Page 4 of 5 .E .s (.I 0 u 't:I cu ~ cu u cu rr: ID .. ... 0 Ill "' ... .... '; ~ ;;?~ (0 ro CJl 0 """ CJl - Sample Integrity <=.") ., ......... \ Page er of c:7- Was temperature within range? ' " Moore Twining ~2-~oc~a)7s_7 . , ...-::, WO# /--ff v· I ((· . __ ) •-...,_ , .., ... -------... , MTA Bottles_: ___ Vev or No {)id aH bottle labels agree with CDC? 1_ • Yes Jio N/A Were there bubbles in VOA ,,;: ................. Chemistry ~6•c Micro <10°C Temp ·c Yes No ~t,t_f/5; -was a sufficient amount of sample / :::-{i No N/A vials? {Volatlles Only) Yes No-N/A ;; ---~ Was PM notified of If samples were taken today, is there evidence Yef~ N/A received? that chilling has begun? Recvd co Were correct containers and ,.:--~-....... -. .._,. .. ~ (~~ No N/A discrepancies? Yes No::::.,N/A-Did all bottles arrive unbroken and intact? /' .. Yes' No N/A preservatives received for the tests PM: ~~-' Do samoles have a hold time <72 !,ours? • Ve~_.-N(j N/A requested? By/Time: 125ml (A) 250ml {B} lliter (C) 40ml VOA (V) / ~-·- Bacti NaiS~03 - None jP) Cr6 Buffer (Pj Borate carbonate Buffer HNO3 (P) H2SO4 (P) NaOH (P} NaOH+ZnAc (PJ Dissolved Oxygen 300ml (P) None {AG) ., None (CG) 500ml Na2SiO3 250ml (Brown P) 549 Na2S2O3 (AG) Na2S203 {AG) Thio/K Citrate NH4CJ (AG) 552 HCI (AG) None(CG)S00ml H3PQ4 (AG) Other; Plastic Bag ii Low Level Hg/Metals Double Bag Client Own Glass Jar: 125/ 250/ 500 Soil Tube: Brass/ Steel/ Plastic s g Encore Ascorboc Acid (AG) Voa !gallon Cubitainer -Container Preservative Date/Time/Initials - 'ii S P F 11' ... S P F 0 .. SP F QJ ... 5 P F li: S P F ~-:-'/ wf/~-./ fir.tr /__.,--/ /,/ @ /'-~1...11 I_-,_,,J "j(_ labeled by: labels checked by: /[.!::..-/ @ Lr I r \ F L-SC-0003-06 . .,. ( _,,. -·-~ Project Name: Project Number: Subject: Material Description: Location: MOORE TWINING Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant and Golf Driving Range E40550.01 Minimum Resistivity, ASTM G187 Clayey sand B-4@ 3-5' / Report Date: Sample Date: Sampled By: Tested By: Test Date: Laboratory Test Results, Minimum Resistivity w ASTM G187 f' l 8/22/2019 7/22/2019 JC MA 8/20/2019 Total Water Added, mis Resistivity, Ohm-cm 50 mis ---10-0-mls 150 mis 200 mis 250 mis 300 mis 350 mis 400 mis 450 mis Remarks: Min. Resistivity is 66,700 57,362 40,687 30,015 13,340 8,671 6,337 2,868 2,935 ___ 2_,,_86_8 ___ Ohm-cm MOORE TWINING Project Name: Project Number: Subject: Material Description: Location: 5 S Proposed Drive Shack Restaurant and Golf Driving Range E40550.01 Minimum Resistivity, ASTM G187 Clayey sand B-9@0-5' 1 Report Date: Sample Date: Sampled By: Tested By: Test Date: Laboratory Test Resu Its, Minimum Resistivity -ASTM G187 Total Water Added, mis 50 mis ----100 mis 150 mis 200 mis 250 mis 300 mis 350 mis 400 mis Remarks: Min. Resistivity is Resistivity, Ohm-cm 62,698 41,354 27,347 18,009 13,340 10,005 7,337 8,004 ___ 7_!,_33_7 ___ Ohm-cm 8/23/2019 7/22/2019 JC MA 8/20/2019 ♦ JJJ a 9►• - • 41 .. \A.. --3100 Irvine Ave PC/Jf3'49G-98 ! City of Newport Beach I ~ I '--... . . 1Ji5@£J!-i I : . NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 'lumbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 Q .._. May 3, 1999 Project Number 7533-98 Duran Construcli'Jn Co1T1o c1·-,y 22901 Savi Ranch Parkw':iy, Suite A Yorba Linda, California 9.:.~87 Att11. Mr. Ray Duran ::::.a r' Re: Foundation Excavation Observations -Proposed Leonard's Go[f Shop Expansion -Located at 3100 Irvine Avenue, In the City of Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Duran: Pursuant to your request , this firm has observed and appro"c!CI foL1nu .. -, ..1vations for the above referenced project. The foundation excavations fi..::-. , .. •• ---!~ition have been excavated Into competent native soils and are conS,r"'. -~ • .. _.:~ .: their intended use. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Keith 0 . Tuck Pr. ject Engin R.~.E. 841 '· . J2/31/0 :;, .,_' OF c :,L\"r~· ~4'·-;.,::,. .,. Gregory H. Bennett Project Manager City of Newport Beach ... May 6, 1999 -• NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotecbnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 Project Number 7533-98 Duran Construction Comrany 22901 Savi Ranch ?=!r!~way. Suite A Yorba Linda, California 928R7 Attn: Mr. Ray OL;;an RE: Observation and Testing of Rough Grading Operations -Proposed Leonard's Golf Shop Expansion -Located at 3100 Irvine Avenue, in the City of Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Duran: Pursuant to your request, this firm has observed and tested rough grading operations at the above referenced project. Results of the compaction tests are attached and locations of these tests are shown on the accompanying Site Plan. All work was performed in a~rdance with our Geotechnical Investigation dated July 16, 1998, Prolect Number 7533-98 and all present day standards of the Geotechnical Engineering Industry. Site Grading AU vegetation and demolition debris was stripped and removed from the fill area prior to grading operations. The existing low density soils were removed to competent native soils. the exposed subgrade scarified moisture conditioned and then recompacted to a minimum of 90% relatlvo compaction. All excavations were-observed and approved by this firm prior to placemt!nt of fill material. The overexeavation consisted of a minimum of five hotiZontal feet or to the depth of fill placed. whichever is greater beyond the outside edge of all proposed foundations With exception. City of Newport Beach • ll May Et, 1999 Page2 o ·§IL ::azzaz __ Project Number 8078-99 C ,lld\J2 Fill soils placed were compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory standard in lifts not in excess c.if eight :, ,..;hes in thickness. The maximum depth of fill placed was 2 feet. A track loader was utilized for compaction control. A water hose provided moisture control. The approximate limits of compacted fill are indicated on the attached Site Plan. Laboratory/Field Testing The relative compaction was determined by Sand Cone Method (ASTM: D1556-82) and by the Drive Tut-?. Method (ASTM: D29~"i). The maximum density cf the fill soils was obtained by the laboratory standard (ASTM : 01557-91) and results are shown on Table I. Compaction tests were performed a minimum of every 500 cubic yards placed and every two feet in depth of fill placed. Results of field density tests are presented in Table II . Conclusions The geotechnical engineering aspects of the grading have been observed and are in compliance with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations . The development has been graded to the approval of this firm and is suitable for its intended use. We appreciat~ this opportunity to be of service to you. If you hne any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERING ~-t\. Keith 0. Tucker Project Engineer R.G.E. 841 NorCal Engineering City of Newpo Scott D. Spensiero Project Manager each v: • :}, __ ............. . May 6, 1999 Page3 Soil Type OZ.AS Project Number 8078-99 TABkE 1 MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM: D-1S§.!-91) Classification Clayey SILT TABLE II Optimum Moisture 15.5 Maximum Ory Density (lbs./cu.ft.) 116.5 SUMMARY OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Date of Test Percent Unit Wt Relative Soil Test ~ ~ Moisture lbs.Icy.ft. Compaction Type 4/29/99 101 2.0--2 .5 18.9 105.2 90 4/29/99 102 1.0--1.5 17.1 116.1 90 4/29/99 103 0.0--0.5 14.3 107.1 g2 •Depth below finished grade .. Retest of falling tests after area reworked C ·t No Cal En8i:neering B ch 1 yo ewpo ea __ _... ___ --. t.· • 2<r m u a osz:s t;-fP' r ---------------- J [!] EXISTING PRO SHOP a APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF COMPACTED FILL Q a --------------0 ---J1 l:nt:iol SHOP N SI ON Cl a -. I ' I t INCH • 10 FEET NorCal Engineering SOILS AND OEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS SITE PLAN DmAN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF COMPACTION tHf9 PIUCT 7533-sB ·- l I \ t i ! I I l I I l ! l • ... ---·---_____ .._._ Cit Soilsfnvestfgatfon Proposed Leonard's Golf Shop Expansion 3100 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, California APF'~OVF.O Ff",.. ~r ;, ~-.,r 1<;~1 • 1-..rre SCOTT f A..d..AS & A-,30-...1.;., res. INC. Project Number 7533-98 July 16, 1998 each • r .. .. . r ( ( ( _)JE!!,J•-·· •== usv NorCal Engineering SOILS At'ID GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 10641 HUMBOLT STREET LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 (512)799-9469 FAX (S62)799-94S9 •• ,z:.s p July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 Duran Construction Corpor&ticn 22<101 Savi Ranch Parkw='}', Suite A Yorba Linda, California 92887 Attn: Mr. Ray Duran RE: Soils Investigation -P~·.1posed Leonard's Golf Shop Expansion • Located at 3100 Irvine Avenue, in the City of Newport Beach, Califomia Dear Mr. Duran: Pursuant to your request, this firm has performed a Sails Investigation for the above referenced project in accordance with your authorization. The purpose cf this investigat, _ • Is to evaluate the geotechnical conditions cf the subject site and to provide recomn,endations for the proposed golf shop expansion. This soils engineering report presents the finding of our study alor.g with conclusions and recommendations for development. We appreciate this opportunity to bE> of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitt NORCAL ENGINEER! Keith 0. Tuckor Project Eng1neer A.G.E. 841 7-l-il l,,iUlf Mark A. Burkholder Project Manager City of Newport Beach r C a _Qj!k42-* ms a cqs @ PStS t,> July 16, 1998 Page2 Stnactural Considerations Project Number 7533-AB This geotechnical engineering report presents the findings of our study along with engineering analysis and recommendations for the proposed development. It is proposed to construct a one story, 1,300 square feet addition to the existing golf shop facility. Other improvements may consist of asphaltic and/or concrete parking and driveway areas and landscaping. Final building plans shall be reviewed by this finn prior to submittal for city approval to determine the need for any additional study and revised recommendations pertinent to the proposed development, if necessary. Site Description The property lies within the Irvine Goff Course in the city of Newport Beach. The proposed expansion area is CIJtrently covered with asphaltic concrete pavement and planter areas. Fjeld fnvestfgatlon The purpose of the investigatiJn was to explore the subsurface conditions &nd to provide preliminary geotechnical engineering design parameters for evaluation of the site with respect to the proposed development. The Investigation consistei::! of the placement of two subsurface exploratory borings by hand auger to a maximum depth of 12 fee, placed at accessible locations on the site. The explorations were visually classified and logged by a field engineer with locations of the subsurface explorations shown on the attached Site Plan. NorCal Engineerin City of Newport each .. • r (" ( e .,.zp July 16, 1998 Pagel Project Number 7533-98 The exploratory explorations revealed the existing earth materials to consist of surficial fill and natural soil zones. A detailed description of the subsurface conditions is listed on the excavation logs in Appendix A These soils are described as follows: Fin: Surficial fill soils consisting of slightly clayey SAND were encountered in both borings to a depth of approximately 12 inches. These soils were noted to be moist and loose. Natural: Native, undisturbed soils also classifying as slightly clayey SAND were observed beneath the upper fill soils. The native soils were observed to be dense and moist. Clayey SILT materials were then encountered beneath the sandy soils. GroundWater was encountered at a depth of 7 feet below existing grades. L&boratory Tests Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained to perfonn laboratory testing and analysis for direct shear, consolidation tests, and to detennine in-place moisture/densities. These undisturbed samples consisted of one inch rings with iriside diameter of 2.5 inches. Bulk bag samples were obtained in the upper soils far expansion index fa3ts and maximum density tests. Wall laadlng9 an the order of 2,000 lbs.Jlin.ft. and maximum compression loads on the order of 21J kips were utilized for testing and design purposes . All test results are included in Appendix 8, unless otherwise noted. • (, (_ \ . 'V o .esµz July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 Page4 A. The field moisture content (ASTM:O 2216) and the dry densities cf the ring samples were determined in the laboratory. This data is listed on the logs of borings. B. c. Maximum density tests (ASTM: 0-1557•78) were performed on typical samples of the upper soils. Results of these tests are shown on Table I. Expansion index tests in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 2g.2 were performed on remolded samples of the upper soils to determine the expansive characteristics and to proviae any necessary recommendations for reinforcement of the slabs.en.grade and the foundations . Results of t.'iese tests are provided on Table II. D. Direct shear tests (ASTM: 0-3080) were performed on undisturbed and disturbed samples of the subsurface soils. These tests were performed to determine parPmeters for the calculation of the safe bearing capacity. The test is performed under saturated ccnditions at loads of 500 lbs./sq.ft., 1,000 lbs./sq.ft., and 2,000 lbs./sq.ft. with results shown on Plate A. E. Consolidation tests (ASTM: 0•2435) were performed on undisturbed samples to determine the differential and tctal sewement which may be anticipated based upon the proposed loads. Water was added to the samples at a surcharge of one KSF and the settlement curves are plotted on Plate B. NorCal Engineering City of Newport each .... "' • r ('· C ( ... la. .• _'--•-•··. .. .:_ may t e4_:::s?' . July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 Pages F. The potential corrosive effects of the on-site soils to concrete are being detenninad in the laboratory par EPA test method 9038. The test results will be provided in an addendum to this report. Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon our evaluations, the proposed development is acc9ptable from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. By following the recommendations and guide:ines set forth in our repo,t, the structures will be safe from excessive settlements under the anticipated design loadings and conditions. The proposed development shall meet all requirements of the City Building Ordinance and will not impose any adverse effect on existing adjacent structures. It is recommended that site inspections be performed by a representative of this firm during au grading and construction of the development to verify the findings and recommendations documented in this report. Any unusual conditions which may be encountered in the course of the project development may require the need fer additicnal study and revised recommendations. Sita Grading Recommendations Any vegetation shall be removed and hauled from proposed grading areas prior to the start of grading operations. Afly removed soils may be reutilized as compacted fill once any defeteriaus material or oversized materials (in excess of eight inches) are removed. All grading operations shall be perfcrmed in accordance with the attached •specifications for Compacted Fill Operations." NorCal Engineerin City of Newport each q r .. ("• ( . ( ( as vs 4 t. as 4t1-t July 16, 1998 Pages Project Number 7533-98 F. The potential corrosive effecis of the on-site soils tn concrete are being determined in the laboratory per EPA test method 9038. The test results will be provided in an addendum to this report. Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon our evaluations, the proposed development is acceptable from a geotechnical engineeri ng standpoint. By following the recommendations and guidelines set forth in our report, the strudures will be safe from excessive settlements under the anticipated design loadings and conditions . The proposed development shall meet all requirements of the City Building Ordinance and will not impose any adverse effect on existing adjacent structures. It is recommended that site inspections be performed by a representative of this finn during an grading and construction of the development to verify the findings and recommendations documented in this report. Any unusual conditions which may be encountered in the course of the project development may require the need for additional study and revised recommendations. Site Grading Recommendations Any vegetation shall be removed and hauled from proposed grading areas prior to the start of grading operations. Any removed soils may be reutilized as compacted fill once any deleterious material or oversized materials (in excess of eight i!lches) are removed. 411 grading operations shalt be performed in accordance With the attached •specifications fer Compacted Fill Operations." NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach - Ir ~ l I I r . ' • (. ( ( l July 16, 1998 Pages ws '<f' oz a CS Project Number 7533-98 All upper disturbed soils (!12 inches) in areas to provide structural support shall be removed to competent native material, the exposed surface scarified to a depth of 12 inches, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory standard (ASTM: 0-1557-78) prier to placement of any additional compacted fill soils, foundations, slabs-on-grade and pavement. Grading shall extend a minimum of five horizontal feet or to the depth of vertical overexcavation, whichever is greater, beyond the outside edge of the perimeter foundation where possible. A diligent search shall be conducted during grading operations in an effort to uncover any underground strudures, irrigation or utility lines. If found, these structures and fines shall be either removed or properly abandoned prior to the proposed construction. Care should be taken to provide or maintain adequate lateral support for all adjacent improvements and structures at all times during the grading operations and construction phase. Adequate drainage away from the structures, pavement and sf opes should be provided at all times. Temporary Excavations Temporary unsurcharged excavaticns over 4 feet in height in the existing site materials may be trimr::ad at a 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient Cuts over 8 feet in height must bo assessed by this firm prior to excavation activities. In areas where soil with little or no binder is encountered, where adverse geofogical conditions are exposed, or where excavauons are adjacent to existing structures. shoring, slot-cutting, or flatter excavations may be requlrGd . The temporary cut slope gradients given above do not preclude local raveling and sloughing. All excavat;ons shall be made in accordance with the requirements of CAL-OSHA and other public agenctes having jurisdiction. :r C ( ... July 16, 1998 Page 7 Foundation Design Project Number 7533-98 The foundations may be designed utilizing safe being capacity of 1,500 psf for an embedded depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade into approved compacted fill soils or competent native soils. All continuous foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of one #5 bar, top and bottom. A representative of this firm shall inspect all foundation excavations prior to pouring concrete. Care should be taken when excavating foundations adjacent to the existing structure so that proper lateral support is not removed from existing foundations. This may require the slot-cutting of new foundations in the area. Lateral Resistance The following values may be utilized in resisting lateral loads imposed on the structure. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code should be adhered to when the coefficient of friction and passive pressures are combined. Coefficient of Friction • 0.35 Equivalent Passive Fluid Pressure = 200 lbs./cu.ft. Maximum Passive Pressure = 2,000 lbs./cu.ft. The passive pressure recommendations are valid only for either competent native soils and/er compacted fill soils. Settlement Analysfs Resultant pressure curves for the consclidatian tests are shown on Plate B. Computations utilizing these curves and the recommended safe bearing capacities reveal that the foundations Will experience settlements on the order of 1/2 inch and differential settlements of less than 1/4 inch. C . No 1ty 0 .,r. I I I ' I ' \c . ( • QC410F July 16, 1998 Page a Project Number 7533-98 Retaining Wall Design Parameters Active earth pressures against retaining walls will be equal to the pressures developed by the following fluid densities . These values are for granular backfill material placed adjacent to the walls at various ground slopes above the walls . Surface Slope of Retained Materials {Horizontal to Vertical) Level 5to 1 4to 1 3to 1 2 to 1 Equivalent Fluid Density (lb./cu.ft.l 30 35 38 40 45 Any applicable short-term construction surcharges and seismic forces should be added to tti9 above lateral pressure values. All walls shall be waterJJroofed as needed and protected from hydrostatic pressure by a reliable pennanent subdrain system . Slab Recommendations All concrete sf abs-on-grade shall be a minimum of four inChes in thickness and may be placed on approved compacted fill soils. A vapor barrier should be utilized in areas which would be sensitive to the infiltration of moisture. This membrane should be placed beneath a 4 inch thick sand fayer and not directly beneath the concrete due to the possibility of curling of the slab. Slabs shall be reinforced with a minimum of #3 bars. placed 18 inche. an center in both directions, positioned mid-height in the slab. All concrete slab areas to receive floor coverings should be moisture tested to meet alt manufacturer requirements prior to placement. NorCal Engineerln City of Newport each (. ( ( ( L ,-.... ..._ ___ . . JS!(#-· WH !.(PBS OJA .a ~§2 July 16, 1998 Page9 Project Number 7533-aa Slab subgrade soils shall be moisture conditioned to approximately 120% of optimum moisture levels immediately prior to placement of concrete. Closure The recommendations and conclusions contained in this report are based upon the soil conditions uncovered in our test excavations. No warranty of the soil condition between our excavations is implied. NorCal Engineering should be notified for possible further recommendations if unexpected to unfavorable conditions are encountered during ccnstrudion phase. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all information within this report is submitted to the Architect and appropriate Engineers for the project. This firm should have the opportunity to review the final plans to verify that all our recommendations are incorporated. This report and all conclusions are subject to the review of the contrnllfng authorities for the project. A preconstruction conference should be held between the developer, ger, • al contractor, grading contractor, city inspector, architect, and soil engineer to clarify any questions relating to the grading operations and subsequent construction. Our representative should be present during the grading operations and construction phase to certify that such recommendations are complied within the field. This soils investigation has been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill exercised by members of our profession currently practicing 1.1nder similar conditions in the Southem Califomia area. No other warranty, expressed er implied, is made. NorCal Engineering City of Newport each .. 'f.· .•.. t ' I i I I ' ( C. . \j!G.21! . '' .!.&\# July 16. 1998 Page 10 Project Number 7533-98 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FfLL Preparation Any existing low density soils and/or saturated soils shall be removed to competent natural soil under the inspection of the Soils Engineering Firm. After the exposed surface has been cleansed of debris and/or vegetation, it shall be scarified until it is uniform in consistency, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in accordance with ASTM: D-1557-78). Material For FIii The on-site soils or approved import soils may be utilized for the compacted fill provided they are free of any deleterious materials and shall not contain any rocks, brick, asphaltic concrete, concrete or other hard materials greater than eight incttes in maximum dimensions. Any import soil must be approved by the Sails Engi'teering firm a minimum of 24 hours prior to importation of site. Placement of Compacted F111 Soils The approved fill soils shall be placed in layers not excess of six ir1che'.. in thickness. Each lift shall be uniform in thickness and thoroughly bfended. The fill sails shall be brought to Within 15% of the optimum moisture content, unless otherwise specified by the Soils Engineering firm. Each lift shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in acccrdance with ASTM: D-1557-78) and approved prior to the placement of the next layer of soil. Compaction tests shall be obtained at the discretion of the Sails Engineering firm but to a minimum of one test for every 500 cubic yards pf aced and/or for every 2 feet of compacted flO placed. NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach ( ( a____ a .. :. <> @Qi!_& (jiL July 16, 1998 Page 11 Project Number 7533-98 The minimum relative compaction shall be obtained in accordance with accepted methods in the ccnstruction industry. The final grade of the structural areas shall be in a dense and smooth condition prior to placement cf slabs-on-grade or pavement areas. No fill soils shall be placed, spread .,, compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When the grading is interrupted by heavy rains , compaction operations shall not be resumed until approved by the Sails Engineering firm. Grading Observations The controlling governmental agencies should be notified prior to commencement of any grading operations. This finn recommends that the grading operations be conducted undE'r the observation of a Soils Engineering fi1 11 as deemed necessary. A 24 hour notice must be provided to this finn prior to the time of our initial inspection. Observation shall include the clearing and grubbing operations to assure that all unsuitable materials have been properly removed; approve the exposed subgrade in aregs to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished grade and designaie areas of overexcavation; and perform field compaction tests to determine relative compaction achieved during fill placement In addition, all foundation excavations shall be observed by the Soils Engineering finn to confirm that appropriate bearing materials are present at the design grades and recommend any modifications to construct footings. NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach ~ i .. i ' \ ( ( ( ,,. '- .. J (!J EXISTING PRO SHOP 0 • a 12,lnl RO SHOP A N SI -0 N a • eye I I -.! !$ JS t) I • r -,J::::r.....---..&-..i.---==-===--;;a;l;i:;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;l!I --]0 o:::::ro .... \ NorCal Engineering sotts AND OEOTECffNtCAL CONSULTANTS ~ AS'P~OXIMATE OF FIELD exPLOAATlON9 eacn I I I r . i c I I (. ( . l • V Q AP . }# July 16, 1998 Projed Number 7533-98 APPENDICES (In order of appearance) Appendix A -Logs of Exploratory Exploratfons •Logs of Test Borfngs B1 and B2 Appendix B • Laboratory Analysis -Table I • Maximum Dry Density Tests -Table II • Expansion Index Tests •Prate A • Direct Shear Tests •Plate B • ConsoHdatlon Tests NorCal Engineering City o I e por.: Beach • r July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 C APPENDIX A ( ( C C ·t Nore I I y 0 1 each C ( ( ( ( zys • 4 . ► MAJOR OIVISIONS iYPICA(. NAMES COARSE GRAINED SOILS 1110111 "'"" 10" • U """""' 4 Ullfl~ tltU ~tJO 111'11 ltllJ SAND$ CLEAN SANDS •f .. ,;.t4;~,; :1Jt1~;.I. g~"v(:,. • IANO IIJZt'UlfO, ;.: • .•;. ~ ~" . .-; 1 1.vt s 1100/l~T OIi,,, :,c~ •11~~;.S OIi •ll~'llt:, • S4MO Jltr'!'I/AtS. (.11''!'1.I "" NO ,11tts. ,,,~, u110,# UN:n. 4/IAlft.,r UNOS, l.ltrt.6 fM 110 '1N~$. • ' SP /IOOIII.I MA/JO $AMJI o• •.c111rur 1ANa1, • U,,U o• NO '1/G, IIIOIII 1NAII to,C t-----➔..--~~➔--------------t o, COA/116 IIU4• 1ldll IIIIUUO fNAII tltl N0.4 IIIVI 11111 SANDS : :sM WITH FINES~Mi---+----------.. 1»,11nu1u AMt ~~ SC '"""'"' . ~ . lltdA~ Al'I' Ull 111/W '1111 ~I.AOC/t ML ''°"~,an""~'"'' #1141 • t:I.Atff U# '11111 II.MIit' "-UIIIJIW. SILTS AND CLAYS IIIOAIAIIII: f:LA'IS o, I.ff ,0 IIUNII ,,.,,mt:117. oA'ft.U' cun, I.Ul#f ,un, ,,,.,., C'L,11'1, 1,,1,A/1 t:1,.,1'/#, ('1tJUIII '1111' LIii 1IUN $OJ FINE GRAINED OIIIAIIII IILn Alltl M~ IUr tJU7# • $011.S :: OL IMO/II 1IIAII.I01' t------------h'ril~➔---------------t IIU l/10.fll/fC 4Jl.,S~ tJA IJlaOIIMltllll l1' IIAtNI.U. II IW7 ltlll INtllr 0# l&1'r IOU, 11.A#II l4tt. lll,IIJ.OtllAJI 100 llffl 41ZI SILT$ AND CLAYS IIJOf/10 lJllff' ltlOAI fHAN iOJ HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS (Jll~~NI~ ~A'!'I o, 111311/M fO 11,o,- ~A$~1e1~, Oll~~Nlt llt.:'I. IIAIN~AII, ~u111,1tAIIOHI. 401.1 ,01111111• t:NAIIA~1t.•·1~.r:1 "' !'"10 IIOU~I AAt OtllC.YAtto Ir =111uur1a111 1111 ''""' lrJJt =~, NorCal Eng neer1ng SOILS AND OEOTECHMCALCONSUL TA1'flS llf U 1£0 SOIL cUSSH'ICATJ~ SYSTEM r-::flUCT~---.~~~-~~"~,-e-f ~~po rt Bea ch I ' ' i I , . ' ,;, ( (_ C. 10.s 119. 7 1s.s 114.2 19.7 109.S 17.7 108.7 14.6 111.6 MUfflU I locl CGNI Stlftafd Sp1tt Spoo11 llfftt SMplt R/E R R .A}J@SSL -'{P OE!S~IPnQN OF SU8SUAFACE MAT&AIAI.S fj_-..... ---------------------1 ! -n111 ~· '""'' ONlY Af rlll \.GC:&flOJI o, ,... IQIIINO IUIO ., !.,. n111 C. QIIIU.,ld, UIIIU.-.:11 «IIOlflOIII -OIIIU d GNU 1,0CAftCIIII UO IIAI' ~~ o\t Ml UICAftQII .,nt flCI IUSAOI C,, nvt. flll QAto\ NUIHtlO •t • 11td\lllCAflON Q 0# .CTVi&. CIIIOiftQIII ~IVIITIIICO. -. . ill -Sli<Jhtly clayey SAND, =---'• --mgwn . . -~ rroist,lOOS;! : i\ ,, Native -Sligt.tly clayey SAND, reddish s-1 \ brown, rmist, dense . f ·r----,..._ Clayey SILT, bra-,r11, stiff, rroist R : . ~--------·------"""""'.,....,_--t Medium to c:carse grained, SAND, reddish R - 10 -. . . ·,11.. J I . -. . ~ .. . . . . zs .. . . . . 30 .. . . . 3S \ brown, dense, wet Clayey SAND, re&lish brc,.,m, dense, wet DA1E ottU.t!h 7-13-98 tQUfltDf usm: Hand Auger ..,.1E1l l.ffll.: 1.0• NorCal Engineerine . SOtt.SANDO!o,'ECHM&CONSULTAJ.frs t.OG o,· BORJHQ1 t1 • •. PR01EC'r 7533-98 l IOAtlrl r'll ;~~\ 11/nort Beach • I ,, ' ; I ;, • 1,- i I \ I l I : ( (" ( (. .. iu ~ 11 i~ -i 1-i. I . tJ.9 122.4 R 15.9 t 14.f R ! ' OESCAIPT10N QF SU8SUAFAC& MAT6AIAI.S ~;"-----~--------.! ! _. ""' w_, UN.Ill OIII.• AJ , .. IAC,t,no,e ci, Ml tollll<O All!I "' nic ftWC o, Q11111,1NQ. ........,aQI o:IIIOlftGIII .a.Y Ol"U 61 OfWCII ~IICNI .0 """ ~11.t./tell .. , 1-1 ''IC.lflOII '""' fl(9 "'llolGI GI flllL ft<e o,n .. ,u11,,o •• & 11111\1.••CAtlCIM ci, -CfllM. <IGl!OtflGllt CIICClllNTIIIID, O Fill -Slightly clayey SAND, r :~ brown, noist, loose • ~ Native -S1 ~-.. 1 y Clayey ~, . -~ dense brown, m:>ist, s- :. '\ 10• . . . . . . . . . . 30 .. . . . Clayey SILT grey/brown, mist, stiff -increase in sand content with depth ,__,_ ________ jS---1.-------------------i--t SNl'l.£fflts l lod CON Suftdafd s,11t Spoon .. ,. -·· ti] lu1t Salp1e [l)JarS-,1e GA1E WWO: 7-13-98 tQUtftlll' usm: Hand Auger ..,.1!11 UVtt.: None encountered NorCal Englneerlnej ,SOtLSANDO!arECHNtCALCONSULTAR.is LOG o,· aoiiiN'a' f2 . m:mm 7533-98 ,-, OAT£,. "+ ~•o, \tnnrt R~~~h GSJJ. czys ♦ZZ!.V \¼' ' July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 APPENDIXB r (. (_ C. NorCal Engineering City o, ~e p Beach -------·-·-· •••••••••• ..... .., • . . Project Number 7533-98 I July 16, 1998 l I : I . . ( TABLEI MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM: D-1557-78) :r Optimum Maximum Ory Sampfe Classification Moisture Density llbs./cu.fl} i 81 @0-2' slightly clayey SANO 9.0 128.0 82@2.5-3 clayey SILT 15.5 116.5 TABLE II : ( EXPANSION INDg T&SIS I (U.B.C. STD. 29·2) I Expansion ~ample Classification Index ( 81 @0-2' slightly cfayey SAND 05 82@2.5-3 ctayeySILT 74 ( NorCal Engineering City of ewport Beach !.,_ •· ·-.... -_____._. -. C zsoo...,.._-,-.-.-.-.-.-.-r-----r-.-.-.. -.-.-.-.-. -r-. -. -.. -.-.-.-."T"".-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. r-. -. -.. -... _-"!"1· . . . . . . . . . . . -•-. -... -··· -· .. -· --·. zoco +...;...---J----+-----+----,r----,;-----1 ,..._.. __ ... -•• 4 , !---••-··· •••••• r----··-.. _ .. -· --·------·-•-~----~----· 500 0 r-----•• ...... i,--. --·. -··-.... --. ·--· t----· --· -··· -···--.._,,...--·. ·---·~ 1:-:.-:..-:..-:..-·------+------•·-·----+----1---+--_-_~,_!"",_-..r_;--1-•1 ~:::::-~~=~~::::::::::: ::: '::::.::=:~=-::~~ :~-. I ' 0 . ' . ' I .I I -.J ..I i .• • r • I I I i l •. ' • • 1 I I I I ' ' , Ii • • I • If 1 I I r T 1 r r I . I soo 1000 1500 2000 2500 11111W. STIIESS (PSF) 801111& DEPnl -C DAI IIIISTIIRE SflllOI. IJEIISm canur lltla£R (FttTJ DEGAEES (PSF) (PCF) (S) I 1 2.0 35 100 119.7 10.s 0 2 2.0 33 75 122.4 13.9 A 2 4.0 27 375 114.8 16.9 D ROTE: TESTS PEAFOIMD ON SATURATED SAMPLES UNLESS SHOW SELO!il. (FM) FlELO MOISTURE TESTS PEAFOAM!D OH UH01STUA8!0 SAMPLES UNLESS SHONH BELON, (A) SAM9LtS W40UIEO AT 901 OF MlUMUM DAY DENSITY 3IMIO ·----------NorCal Engineerfng-! SOILS AND OEOTECHNfCAL CONSULTANTS PAOJECf 7S33-98 1ty Of ewpo OtAt&T Sff£AA TEST RESut.TS Plate A ....._____ _____ , .... - ... -•y • -2 I I i ' ' I I I I I T r i I I I I lfOTE: IIATER AOOED AT MRW. I I I PRESSURE AT 1.0 KSF i I I ' I ! I 0 I I I I I I I I i -. - f -L ~ --...... t-..... ... p,.. r 2 ~f ~ " ~ ~ " .... ~ ' , .. 1, • " ' ~ 6 C 8 10 0.1 1.0 5 10 20 40 IIOIIW. NESSUIIE (ISF) (. ICIWIG IIEl'TH DAY IIJISlURE UQUID PlASTJCln S1IN. ... (FEET) ous1n carmrr LIIUT llllll (,C,) CSJ CS) (SJ I 1 4.0 114.2 15.S <.:. 0 1 8.0 108.7 11.1 A a -t.allESSlCII Cfll) FtlUI IOIS'lllll -■ 1111d M1ED ---IIEICUID (II) SMft£ .... AT 9Dt rJI Mil_. OU OEJISlff NorCal Engineering SOll,SANDOEOTECHNICALCONSULTANTS CONSOUOATJOH TEST R£SUL1'S PROJECT - t, • . • ,.J li no 7$APJ&J __ ,i ·•~-.. ,_ Prepared For: Duran Construction Corporation 22901 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite A Yorba Linda, Califomla 92887 Project Number 7533-98 July 16, 1998 1v52 Cit} Nor6al ginee Ing Beach e a.a\>· all • ' za: __ "V a NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNJCAL CONSULT ANTS 10641 HUMBOLT STREET LOS ALAMITOS. CA 90720 (S62)799-9469 FAX (S62)799-9459 $ .QW \# July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 Durar, Construction Corporation 22901 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite A Yorba Linda, California 92887 Attn: Mr. Ray Duran RE : Solls Investigation -Proposed Leonard's Golf Shop Expansion - Located at 3100 Irvine Avenue, in the City of Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Duran: Pursuant to your request, this finn has performed a Sails Investigation for the above referenced project in accordance with your authorization. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the geotechnical conditions of the subject site and to provide recommendations for the proposed golf st,op expansion. This soils engineering report presents the finding of our study along With conclusions and recommendations for development We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. lf you have any further quest ions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, ~,:::.~~ NORCAL ENGINEERIN ~l Keith 0. Tucker Project Engineer R.G.E. 841 No. G41 p, 12/3 1/00 o,fCH~,c.'i:: 1tlJUM Mark A. Burkholder Project Manager City of Newport Beach .... -----··•··----·-----·· t I ... 2½@JJ§J & s. Q2 § QJ A!S (&.& July 16, 1998 Page2 Project Number 7533-98 Structural Considerations This geotechnical engineering report presents the findings of our study along with engineering analysis and recommendations for the proposed development. It Is proposed to construct a one story, 1,300 square feet addition to the existing golf shop facility. Ott-ier improvements may consist of asphaltic and/or concrete parking an~ driveway areas and landscaping. Final building plans shall be reviewed by this firm prior to submittal for city approval to determine the need for any additional study and revised recommendations pertir.ent to the proposed development, if necessary. Site Description The property lies within the Irvine Golf Course in the city of Newport Beach. The proposed expansion area is currently covered with asphaltlc concrete pavement and planter areas. Field Investigation The purpose of the investigation was to explore the subsurface conditions and to provide preliminary geotechnical engineering design parameters for evaluation of the site with respect to Ula proposed development. The investigation consisted of the placement of two subsurface exploratory borings by hand auger to a maximum depth of 12 feet placed at accessible locations on the site. The explorations were visually classified and logged by a field eng ineer with locations of the subsurface explorations shown on the attached Site Plan . NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach ... t, . £5 '<F . os~a 99v July 16, 1998 Page3 Project Number 7533-98 The exploratory explorations revealed the existing earth materials to consist of surficial fill and natural soil zones. A detailed description of the subsurface conditions is listed on the excavation logs in Appendix A. These soils are described as follows: Fill: Surficial fill soils consisting of slighUy clayey SAND were encountered in both borings to a depth of approximately 12 inches. These soils were noted to be moist and loose. Natural: Native, undisturbed soils also classifying as slightly clayey SANO were observed beneath the upper fill soils. The native sails were observed to be dense and moist. Clayey SILT materials were then encountered beneath the sandy sons. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 7 feet below existing grades. Laboratory Tests Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained to perform laboratory testing and analysis for direct shear, consolidation tests, and to determine in.place moisture/densities. These undisturbed samples consisted of one inch rings with inside diameter of 2.5 inches. Bulk bag samples were obtained in the upper soils for expansion index tests end maximum density tests. Wall loadings on the order of 2,000 lbs./lin.ft. and maximum compression loads on the order of 20 kips were utilized for testing and design purposes. All test results are included in Appendix B, unless otherwise noted. NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach V <► ,Q&l .Sf.#3 July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 Page4 A The field moisture content (ASTM:O 2216) and the dry densities of the ring samples were determined in the laboratory. This data is listed en the logs of borings. B. Maximum density tests (ASTM: D-1557-78) were performed on typical samples of the upper soils. Results of these tests are shown on Tabre I. C. Expansion index tests in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2 were performed on remclded samples of the upper soils to determine the expansive characteristics and to provide any necessary recommendations for reinforcement of the slabs-on.grade and the foundations. Results of these tests are provided on Table II. D. Direct shear tests (ASTM: 0-3080) were performed on undisturbed and disturbed samples of the subsurface soils. These tests were performed to determine parameters for the calculation of the safe bearing capacity. The test is performed under saturated conditions at loads of 500 lbs./sq.ft., 1,000 lbs./sq.ft., and 2,000 lbs./sq.ft. with results shown on Plate A E. Consolidation tests (ASTM: D-2435) were perfonned on undisturbed samples to determine the differential and total settlement which may be anticipated based upon the proposed roads. Water 1,-.,~s added to the samples at a surcharge of one KSF and the settlement curves are plotted on Plate B. NorCal Engineering 4 .. _, July 16, 1998 Pages F. Qb!iP{jP, Project Number 7533-98 The potential corrosive effects of the on•site soils to concrete are being determined in the laboratory per EPA test method 9038. The test results will be provided in an addendum to this report. Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon our evaluations, the proposed development is acceptable from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. By following the recommendations and guidelines set forth in our report, the structures will be safe from excessive settlements under the anticipated design loadings and conditions. The proposed development shall meet all requirements of the City Building Ordinance and will not impose any adverse effect on existing adjacent structures. lt is recommended that site inspections be performed by a representative of this firm during all grading and construction of the development to verify the findings and recommendations documented In this report. Any unusual conditions which may be encountered in the course of the project development may require the need for additional study and revised recommendations. Site Grading Recommendations Any vegetation shall be removed and hauled from proposed grading areas prior to the start of grading operations. Any removed soils may be reutmzed as compacted fill once any deleterious material or oversized materials (in excess of eight inches) are removed. All grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the attached •specifications for Compacted Fill Operations." NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach ' _) July 16, 1998 Page a Project Number 7533·98 All upper disturbed soils (:!:12 inches) in areas to provide structural support shall be removed to competent native material, the exposed surface scarified to a depth of 12 inches, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory standard (ASTM: D-1557-78) prior to placement of any additional compacted fill soils, foundations, slabs-on-grade and pavement. Grading shall extend a minimum of five horizontal feet or to the depth of vertical overexcavation , whichever is greater, beyond the outside edge of the perimeter foundation where possible. A aiiigent search shall be conducted during grading operations in an effort to uncover ~ny underground structures, irrigation or utility lines. ff found. these structures and lines shall be either removed or properly abandoned prior to the proposed construction. Care should be taken to provide or maintain adequate lateral support for an adjacent improvements and structures at all times during the grading operations and construction phase. Adequate drainage away from the structures, pavement and slopes should be provided at all times. Temporarv Excavations Temporary unsurcharged excavations over 4 feet in height in the existing site materials may be trimmed at a 1 to 1(horizontal to vertical) gradient. Cuts over 8 feet in height must be assessed by this firm pri , • to excavation activities. rn areas where soil with little or no binder is encountered. where adverse geological conditions are exposed, or where excavations are adjacent to existing structures, shoring, slot-cutting, or flatter excavations may be required. The temporary cut slope gradients given above do not preclude local raveling and sloughing. All excavations shall be made In accordance with the requirements of CAL-OSHA and other public agencies having jurisdiction. NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach I _, ii July 16, 1998 Page7 Foundation Design Project Number 753~98 The foundations may be designed utilizing safe be ing capacity of 1,500 psf for an embedded depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade into approved compacted fill soils er competent native soils. All continuous foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of one #5 bar, top and bottom. A representative of this firm shall inspect all foundation excavations prior to pouring concrete. Care should be taken when excavating foundations adjacent to the existing structure so that proper lateral support is not removed from existing foundations . This may require the slot-cutting of new foundations in the area. Lateral Resistance The following values may be utilized in resisting lateral loads imposed on the structure. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code should be adhered to when the coefficient of friction and passive pressures are combined. Coefficient of Friction -0.35 Equivalent Passive Fluid Pressure= 200 lbs./cu.ft. Maximum Passive Pressure= 2,000 lbs./cu.ft. The passive pressure recommendations are valid only for either competent native soirs and/or compacted fill soils. Settlement Analysis Resultant pressure curves for the consolidation tests are shown on Prate B. Computalions t.1Uiiing these curves and the recommended safe bearing capacities reveal that the foundations Will experience settlements on the order of 1/2 Inch and differential settlements of fess than 1/4 inch. NorCal Englneerin City of Newport each --. .. .) July 16, 1998 Page a Retaining Wall Design Parameters Project Number 7533-98 Active earth pressures against retaining walls will be equal to the pressures developed by the following fluid densities. These values are for granular backfill material placed adjacent to the walls at various ground slopes above the walls. Surface Slope of Retained Materials (Horizontal to Vertical) Level 5to 1 4to 1 3to 1 2to 1 Equivalent Fluid Density (lb./cu.ft.) 30 35 38 40 45 Any applicable short•term construction surcharges and seismic farces should be added to the abow lateral pressure values. AH walls _shall be waterproofed as needed and protected from hydrostatic pressure by a reliable permanent subdrain system. Stab Recommendations All concrete slabs-on-grade shall be a minimum of four inches in thickness and may be placed on approved compacted fill soils. A vapar barrier should be utilized in areas which woul:I be sensitive to the infiltration of moisture. This membrane should be plae:.'Ct beneath a 4 inch thick sand layer and not directly beneath the concrete due to the possibility of curling of the stab. Stabs shall be reinforced wm, a minimum of #3 bars , placed 18 Inches on center in both directions, positioned mid-height in the slab. All concrete slab areas to receive floor coverings should be moisture tested to meet all manufacturer requirements prior to placemen,. NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach ___ _......._ _______ _ L' I J July 16, 1998 Page9 ccz.z:,i· • .-a_.,V-'W.@fa P.2.1 -·~-v·· <J2' 0-.z a ,Jl· Project Number 753J.98 Slab subgrade soils shall be moisture wnditioned to approximately 120% of optimum mo isture levels immediately prior to placement of concrete. Closure The recommendations and conclusions contained in this report are based upon the soil conditions uncovered in our test excavatic.fls. No warranty of the soil condition between our excavations is implied. NorCal Engineering should be notified for possible further recommendations if unaxpected to unfavorable conditions are encountered during construction phase. u is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all information within this report is submitted to the Architect and appropriate Engineers for the project. This firm should have the opportunity to review the final plans to verify that all our recommendations are incorporated. This report and all conclusions are subject to the review of the controlling authorities for the project. A preconstruction conference should be held between the developer, general contractor, grading contractor, city inspector, architect, and soil engineer to clarify ar.1 questions relating to the grading operations and subsequent construction. Our representative should be present during the grad ing operations and construction phase to certify that such recommendation£ are complied within the field. This soils investigation has been conducted In a manner consistent with the level of care and skill exercised by members of our profession currently siracticing under similar conditions in the Southam California area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. NurCal Engineering City of Newport Beach .... • .$JA&-.-£${ij&jW (P @! 12 \-.ID July 16, 1998 Page 10 Project Number 7533-98 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL Preparation Any existing low density soils and/or saturated soils shall be removed to competent natural soil under the inspection of the Soils Engineering Firm. After the exposed surface has been cleansed of debris and/or vegetation, it shall be scarified ur1til it is uniform in consistency, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in accordance with ASTM: 0-1557-78). Material For FIii The on-site soils or approved import soils may be utilized for the compacted fill provided they are free of any deleterious materials and shall not contain any racks, brick, asphaltic concrete, concrete or other hard materials greater than eight inches in maximum dimensions. Any import soil must be approved by the Soils Engineering firm a minimum of 24 hours prior to importation of site. Placement of Compacted FIii Sons The approved fill soils shall be placed in layers not excess of six inches in thickness. Each lift shall be uniform in thickness and thoroughly blended. The fill soils shall be brought to within 15% of the optimum moisture content, unless otherwise specified by the Soils Engineering firm. Each lift shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in accordance with ASTM: D-1557-78) snd approved prior to the placement of the next layer of soil. Compaction tests shall be obtained at the discretion of the Soils Engineering firm but to a minimum of one test for every 500 cubic yards placed and/or for every 2 feet of compacted fill placed. NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach ... .7---·-----------1!1!11!!!.¾J$L¾i••. ■m!'11!e••••v•••--•--~•y2 ' . July 16, 1998 Page 11 Project Number 7533-98 The minimum relative compaction shall be obtained in accordance with accepted methods in the construction industry. The final grade of the structural areas shall be in a dense and smooth condition prior to placement of stabs-on-grade or pave,,,ent areas. No fill soils shall be placed, spread or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When the grading is interrupted by heavy rains, compaction operations shall not be resumed until approved by the Solis Engineering firm . Grading Observations The controlling govemmental agencies should be notified prior to commencement of any grading operations. This firm recommends that the grading operations be conducted under the observation of a Soils Engineering firm as deemed necessary. A 24 hour notice must be provided to this firm prior to the time of our initial inspection. Observation shall include the clearing and grubbing operations to assure that all unsuitable materials have been properly removed; approve the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in th~ desired finished grade and designate areas of overexcavation; and perfonn field compaction tests to determine relative compaction achieved during fill placement. rn addition, all foundation excavations shall be observed by the Soils Engineering firm to confirm that appropriate bearing materials are present at the design grades and recommend any modifications to construct footings. NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach .. ., ' . wl a I I I I I I I I I I I I I -==-I I I I I I - I I I I I t I I I I I ]0 - @@J!•-· E&L.2 i(P J (!] EXISTING PRO SHOP a Q a 02 pis -("..J Cl 0 0 0 0 □ a Cl D a n Cl a~-a 0 , □ : t---ttt--0 • s § l \ ; --ace ·-□c . --··---------·--Cl l:u(#J RO SHOP XPANSION a o -+ Bl Cl , r g r \ n I C I 0 I 8 ., r:l I B I [l I I ("J I g I d □aa 1 I □ ■ I fl I I g : I O I I □ t I CJ I CJ J _t-_ g _ .. ~e □o □□□□□oa □ooooaooo99000 □□□□ NorCal Engineering SOILS AND G£OTECHN1CAL CONSULTANTS APPAOMIMATt: LOCATION Of: f:U:LO EXPLORA1fON9 ch ,. • ' ' ' I -·--------------•~_~..ijf.S&Ll§A ::W.C:. '<f" l July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 APPENDICES (In order of appearance) Appendix A -Logs of Exploratory Explorations •Logs of Test Borings B1 and B2 Appendix B -Laboratory Analysis --Table I -Maximum Dry Density Tests il'f able II -Expansion Index Tests •Plate A -Direct Shear Tests *Plata B -Consolldatlon Tests NorCal Engineering City of Ne ort Beach t-' .• - I • • July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 A~PENDIXA . , NorCal Engineering .. l City of Newport Beach ete !s..idk • I f • ..... MA:JOR DIVISIONS ir'PICAt. NAME'S COARSE' GRAINED SOILS IIIOAI IHAM 101' · o, 11.ltlAu, d £,IAlllf tlUN ,oo ltlVI IJIO FINE CLEAN GRAVEt.~• •! .. 4~-":(; ~44't1(~J, ,-1~vf4 •IAlfO Mllrl,Jllft, ;.. • ,•. t ~~ .9, -'t.vt I ~0411;,r 411,.~t:, l.f4'1'r.,I OIi IIIAtl(~ • IAl/0 11:lf'IIAtl, 1.1rt4t Olf NO hHtl. GRAVELS '':,'~~:,~ I GP (1#1111 '"'" IO"J------t'fl-151---t--------------J ,,, t:04All ll,C• ,,o,, II &dllll IIUN ntt IIO. • lll'lr $111/ SAND$ CLEAN SANDS \){sw ·········-· • SP • •t~, UA#IO UN,.t, flbt:," IAN:I, ,,rrt.l OA HO ,IHtl. ~'1 WOO 4AIIJI Olf 1-CAlfl'U.I ~Ill, &trn.l di NO n/0, IIIOlfl fflNI ,ot, a-----➔ir·~~➔-------------f 0, COUil llUI• "°" II IIUU,111 rtlA/1 1111 N6,I IJffl IIIIJ SANDS : :sM WITH FINEStb-1~...-------------t tu,AteUl&.I ur. ~ SC (1' '1Nffl t ~ • tJtO•&IJltC a.,1· A/Ill tlllft '11114UOl1 110Ut ML ,1.tRJA, u.n o• cu,n ,,NI.,,,,,, 011 cum 1,n .,,,, ,,11Jtr ,u.n1t1m. SILT$ AND CLAYS IJfO"J./llf: t:Un o, '°' 10 lltllflll ,u111ll,r, wmu tun, IMJW cl.A'#, l1'r, ftAl.11 I.IA/I el. .. tl . IL/O(J/0 ,11111 l.111 I/Wt IOI . GIJ?J~rJD : : OL ,11,111c 1.,,. 011 MW/11 an CW$ IIIOlfl t#A/1 .IOM t------------u,.,.11---1------------...... o, IIArlAUL U l,f/ IIIOAU/tl# 6/Ltt~CIOUI o• IJIA10IUUrJIJI IIU&l.111 '1UJI ''"' IUl'J' OIi l&W HU, 1un1~ Ill.Pl. 100 ,,,,,, 1111 SI/JS AND CLAYS IUtflJJO &lltr IIOAt ,11AN laJ HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS OAl,INtl C:.ArJ o, 11r,11111 :-o ,11011 #'..,ll~lllf'r, oll:ANll lfl.1'1. ,tAJN~A•r t,,111,,1eAt10NJ . IOU 1011111111 tNAAA~rt.•·1~.e, o, r1t1 IAetJJt AAI or1,,:.•"'"' ,, lOIIIJHJttOIIJ o, 1•ouJ Jn1J:~1 orCal Eng1neer1ng son.s AND OEOTcCHNICAL CONSULTANTS ,. l#flFl£0 SOIL Ct.ASSlttcATUW SYST£M ' • I• q = I I l.,: I I \ I . .J h 10.s 119.1 15.5 114.2 19.7 109.5 17.7 108.7 14.6 111.6 R/E R R R R ., . \ . s-. r . ........._ . . oeSCAtPTION OP SU8SUAFACE MATERIAI.S Native -Sli9htly clayey SAND, reddish br~, rroist, dense Clayey SILT, brown, stiff, trolSt Medium to coarse grained, Sl\ND, reddish brmm, dense, \<let 10-+---+------------------t . Clayey SJ\ND, reddish bn71m, dense, wet . i~ \'J-----------------1 . . . . ' . . . . . 30- . 11---------------39----'-------------------ii----1 NorCal Engineering · I .SOILS ANDOEOTECffmCAL toNSULTAf;l'S Mtt OAJLLED: 7-13-98 tQUJMllf usto: Hand Auger t~1£11 ltV£L: 7. o• LOI OF° IIOiilHa' t1 PIOJEX:1' 7533-98 I OAT! -"' " _ • ~ --L. ,. ,,,. I . '\ -....J =• la j ~ in r 0ESCRIPflON CF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS Ii .. i;: ;-gi i I ,,.. &IIIUIM• Uf\lH Ole\• AT lilt l,OC,,TJGN Of fMlt fQIIINO AIICI &f IMI n .. , 0-I -1111,"rllQ, 1111,11111.c, CCll<OlftOIII IIA'I OlflCA &f GTIIIII '-"CAflONt MO "'"' CttAIIQI •• no UICAflOII en""' ... IAGI o• 1111&. fHI 0.lf& MUl .. flO ,1 • ......... ,c.i.,,c,. 0 o, AC"14 CG1101n0111 INC0"'1•1 .. o. Fill -Slightly clayey SAND, reacusn 13.9 122.4 R \ bra...n, tooist, loose . 15.9 114.e R . Native -Sll.ghtly Clayey=• -. brown, rroist, dense s- ~\ Clayey SILT greyjbro..m, n-oist, stiff -ir -::rease in sand content with depth 10-. . . . . . . . . 1---"-_____ _.._ .. 3s----.a..--------------------. MTE OAfllto: 7-13-98 £QUttlaf t1S£0: Hand Auger ---ttll lhO.: None encountered NorCal Engineering I _SOILSANDOEOJEatNICALt'ONSULTAtm, t.09 Gt " aoiiifta ' 12 • Hmm1' 7533-981' lOA!I J n -r ·"-&:;.;;l\j ,nnrt Re::1ch -.. ---• ,.. V '· ; July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 APPENDIXB NorCal Engineering City of Newport Beach .. • . J:j!ijtl ... && 12 qpa:a: a \.P July 16, 1998 Project Number 7533-98 TABLEI MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM: D-1557-78) Sample Classification Optimum Moisture 81 @ 0-2' slightly clayey SANO 9.0 15.5 82@ 2.5-3 clayey SILT TABLE II EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (U.8.C. STD. 29-2) Sample crassification 81@0-2' slightly clayey SAND 82@2.5-3 clayey SILT NorCal Engineering Maximum Ory Density (lbs./cu.ft.) 128.0 116.5 Expansion Index 05 74 City of Newport Beach 1 .... ..... ..J 1h 2soo------,-----.,.......,....---...------,l"""""'-~--,,---T"..,.""' • t • • • • • • • • • ' • • f • , • • • • • • • • I • • ♦ • • • t ! f •-,-&,.. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ·-· ' ' .... -~ •,•I --·. ---· .. 2000 +-----+-----+-----,1-----1----..... --..,..-... -.... -•• ··-• -• • .. • • -• • ••• -♦ • -• • -·· ••• t •-►+ ~--•·-·· -···· ~•·-·····• ........ . • • .. • .. :.:_:.: _:::.:..: :~:__:_ ~.:_:_:_ ~ ~· ...---· _. 1.._' •!'--· ~· ---+-1~~, I I ...................... - 500 1000 1500 ~ IIDIIIAl. STlltSS (PSF) Botllfl& omu ' C DRY IIIISTURE Sfll!OI. 0£1S1Tf CCllmll lltleER (mt) OlGREES) (PSF) (PCF) CS) • 1 2.0 35 100 119. 7 10.s 0 2 2.0 33 75 122.4 13.9 6 2 4.0 27 375 114.8 16.9 0 NOTE : TESTS PEAFOMIEO Off SAttJRAT£0 SAMPLES UNLESS SHOIIH BELOW. (FM) FIELD MOISTURE ~500 TESTS PEA,oAAeo OH UND.STU.RSEO SAMPLES UHLESS SHOW BELOW. (A) SA'-PLES R£MOLOEO AT 90t OF ~AXtHUH DRY DENSITY NorCal Engineering · t SOILS AND Ol!OTECHNICAt CONSULTANTS fJUl!CT SHEAR ttST A£SUI. TS Plate t,. ' . 3IIO PAOJECT 7:i33-98 ~..!:O~A1~E-~-.---~~=-~,-,~~:=t:~---------, y ot ewport eacn _,_ f,, I .J .J --.:~-yszCQJO,.:;_ C&LZ<J"' HI --~-• '0'4""'™ '7" I ' I I I I I I I NOTE: KATER ADll£D AT lfOIIIW. ' PRESSURE AT I .O KSF I I I 0 . --~---~ -r-t--,. ..... 2 -.. - ~ ·~ "' ~ 1, ... " i'-. " ' 1, ' ' 6 8 10 0.1 o.s 1.0 5 10 20 flOIIM1. PRESSURE CW) IGlHIQ OEmf ORY IIJISTUIIE llQUIO PI.A$TICtTY Sfflllll. .... (FmJ OEISllY CClfl'Elf LbUT IIIIEJl (PCF) (I) (1) (1) • 1 4.0 114.2 15.S 0 1 e.o 108.7 11.1 4 Cl -CNllSSlat (fl) hD.I MJJSNIE .. _, 6111d Mira --..., ,., MU ..... At tDI OF Ml!O au omtn NorCal Engineering sott.s ANDOEOTECHNtCAL CONSULTANTS CONSOUOATtOH TEST RESUI. TS .._ ______ .-11 ... --------------···········--········-····--·--··-·· 40 I . • •• • • • BACA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Soils • Foundalfons • Geology 1141 N. LEMON STREET. AN.AHEJM, CAUFOANIA 92801 (714) 778·0702 Project: A-0675-F DeMille and Healy Development 20301 Acacia Street Suite 240 Santa Ana Heights, CA. 92701 Attention: Mr. Dari DeMille Gentlemen:· Submitted ·herewith ·. is the report · of a geotechnical soils and _foundation investigation' conducted by this office for the proposed • Acacia Plaza '.•III · office building · project located on Acacia Street in the Orange .County district .of Santa Ana _Heights, California. · The project ·. site is . currently ·occupied · by several one-story residence a _nd garage buildings, as well as other associated features . such as paved drives, fences and yard walls, walkways, various moderate to large size trees, etc. It is possible that subterranean waste disposal structures (septic tanks, cesspools, etc.) may also occur within the property. Partial excavation and recompaction is :recommended to provide for a firm, uniform, subgrade support -::ondition under the building, particularly in view of the considerable amount of site demolition clearing and associated disturbance to be performed. • Conventional shallo.._ footings will provide adequate foundation support: for proposed buildings and other. structures. • • • The iuvestigation was made in accordance with generally accepted engineering procedures and included such field and laboratory tests considered necessary in the circumstances. In the opinion of the undersigned, the accompanying report has been substantiated by mathematical data in conformity with generally accepted engineering principles and presents fairly the design information requested by your organization. Respectfully submitted, Baca, RCE #28927, .· GE 1106 AB/se Distribution: (5) DeHille and Healy Development (1) Nuttall-Uchizono Associates City 9f Newport Beach ---------- Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F INTRODUCTION -1- The primary objectives of this study were to explo_re subaurface condi~ions • beneath • the project site and· evaluate the existing . ' . . • ' ·. •• . • ·_-. '· . earth materials relative to foundation support, • lateral pressu=e design • considerations, floor slab •• support and A. C .. • pavement. ), design. Also presented in ~his ~epo~t are general observations, .: data and recommendations relat'ing to' site preparation,· grading and earthwork compaction,.· as well as soil concrete· corrosion pot~ntial. ·• The g~!le::-al scope of work directed at meeting the study objectives included the following: (1) Revi~w of· current tentative project plans, as well as periodic discussion of various project development featu~es e and considerations with the client. • • • • (2) Subsurface exploration by means of four test borings with a flight-auge~·drill rig . (3) Laboratory testing . to ·establish· earth material characceristics. • (4) Geotechnical evaluation and analysis of field and laboratory test data. (5) Preparation of report . City of Newport Beach ~---------- Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -2- This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and their consultants in the design of the proposed Acacia Plaza III office building development. SITE CONDITIONS The. rectangular. shaped, . approximate • one acre property is located . . > · · · on the northwest • side . of Acacia Street about 500 feet southwest cf • • • • • • • . . . its intersection with .orchard Drive in the unincorporated Orange . . . . . County .community of • Santa Ana Heights, California. The Newpo::-t Beach Golf Cr.>urse:borders,the rear property lin~ on the northwest. . The adjacent property to the northeast is occupied by an existi~; office· building complex (Acacia Plaza . II),. while lots to t.h~ southwest are occupied by older residences. The approximate site location with respect to surrounding streets and . highways, th~ general topographical setting of .the area, and other landmarks is shown on Plate A, Vicinity Map . Topographically, the subject property and adjacent lots to th~ northeast and southwest are • essentially level,. with a slig~::. southeast to northwest drainage gradient towards. the somewha.: lower golf cours~ area. The total on-site topographical relief is estimated to be on the order of 4 to 5 feet . ·.' The project site is occupied by several small one-story residence and garage structures. Other typical appurtenances include paved driveways, concrete walkways, yard fences and walls, lawns, ot.h~::: landscaped areas and numerous moderate to large size trees. Ic is understood that now abandoned on-site waste disposal syste:::s City of New port Beach • Acacia Plaza III Project: A-O675-F -3- (septic tanks, cesspools, etc.) may possibly occur within the property, probably in close proximity to the ehisting residences. •. PROPOSED CONSTBUCTION It • is • understood. that •. the : existing buildings and all · other appurtenant features will be. demolished and/or removed in the . . . . . • . ~ • • . ., . . . course of preparing the site for new constr~ction. ' ' '' ' . ' '' ' . ,': ' .·• . ·.' •. ''' .• . ' .· The primary element· of· the proposed development will consist of a •. two-sto:ry offic·e building. . The approximate. tentative building location i~ shown on .Plate B, Plot Plan. It is understood that the · planned · building structure will. probably be of t.ypical woodframe construction with lower level concrete floor slabs or. grade. Based on past experience with similar·types 6f construccion, iL is • •· estimated that structural foundation loads will be on the order of 1500 to 2500 pounds_ per lineal. foot·· along cont:inuous bea::-ing • • • • . . . ... walls, and/or 30 to 50 kips at isolated column supports.· The major portion of. remaining non-building site areas will be employed as A.C. paved driveways. and parking stalls with some local perimeter and interior planters . It is anticipated • that grading required to. prepare the site fo:: construction. will involv~ relatively modest ·grade changes, possibly on .the order • of 3 to 4 foot maximum depth cuts and/or fills (exclusive of subterranean excavation if any) . City of New port Beach - ) Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F lli:LP INVESTIGATION The field investigation consisted of subsurface exploration by means of four (4} test borings made with a hollow-stem, continuous flight auger drill rig. Exploration depths ranged between 15 to 25 feet:. • 'Approximate test boring locations are shown on Plate E. l , A continuous record of the e_arth materials encountered during ; • . • • exploratory drilling was made .· by . the field engineer 'and is presen~ed on Plates C and F, ~Logs of Borings". It· should be e • noted that the lines d~signating the interfaces between various strata on the boring logs represent appro~imate boundaries only since. the .actual transition. between materials may ,be• somewhat • gradual. • • • •"Undisturbed,.·samples were secured at selected depth intervals fer . . . . . laboratory e%amination and· testir,9. • Sampling· was • accomplished with a 2. 5 inch I. . D.· st:eel. barrel lined with a series of one-inch long thin brass rings. The sample barrel was driven appro:dmatell• . 12 • inches with· a·. 140-pound. weight· dropped 30 . inches. . Recorded . . : blow counts for·12 inches of sampler penetration are tabulated in the "Blows per Foottl column of the boring logs. Disturbedbulk samples. of the. various predominant materials observed were . also . obtained. It should be· noted • that the hollow-stem drilling equipment · employed uses continuous flight.auger sections resulting in full temporary casing of the test boring, thereby not allowing caving to occur . It is p::-obable that an open boring would have City of Newport Beach ------------ • • • • • Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -s- expe::-ienced only slight to occasional local moderate caving, however. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In addition to the e:dsting building· slabs, immediate aurface conditions include , various· walkway and drive · concrete pavements, . . lawri grass covers, other landscaping, and local areas of' exposed • earth. It is ~ossible that the upper, variable 1 to 3 foot zone may consist of fill and/or processed native materials associated with· the original development of the site. Natural deposits : beneach the project site are mapped ~s Pleistocene age marine terrace deposits reportedly consisting of essentially flat lying, interbedded silty/clayey sands and silty/sandy clays. These upper terrace •deposits have bee:-, estimated to be in excess of 100 feet thick ·in the site vicinity, followed by the . Niguel {Pliocene age) arid older Tertiary sedimentary formations (bedrock) which extend down .to the granitic basement complex at a depth estimated to be.about 15~000 feet . The soil profile as observed within the 25-foot maximum depth explored generally consisted. of · f:'.ne to medium grained· sands -·i'th a variable rnod~rate to very slight . clay content.· A silty clay . .. . . . deposit encountered in borings 1 and ·2 ,at ·a depth of about 7 feet and 12 feet,· respectively, apparently· feathers out to · the southeast, or at . least dips below the bottom of boring 3 and 4 . Also, the sand texture coarseness and clay/silt content appea~ ~o increase and decrease, respectively, toward the southeast . City of Newport Beach ---------- Acacia Plaza II! Project: A-0675-F -6- As reflected by the common moderate to high sampler blow counts recorded during exploratory drilling operations (see:Plates C to F, the site deposits exhibit a . firm to.· very f i:::m in-situ ) . consistency, generally improving gradually with depth. • • • • • • • • Nog::-oundwater or local perched seepage zones were observed within ' ' • the 25-foot ma:dmum depth explored . . • • • . . . • • . ' ' ' Mori·detailed descriptions of the soil profile as observed in the testborings are presented on Plates .c to F . LABORATORY TESTING • In-situ density and/or moisture content values · were determined for . . . . . all the undisturbed samples obtained during exploratory drilling operations. Test results are plotted and tabulated on Plates Ct~ F, Logs of Borings . Mechanical analyses by the hydrometer test method were performed on selected • samples . to ·confirm field classifications. Test results we=e as follows: Boring Depth Percent Percent · Percent . No. <feet) • sand Silt Clay 2 2.0 60 25 15 2 5.5 12 10 18 2 9.5 .75 12 13 2 14.5 27 31 42 2 19.5 15 40 . 45 * 4 2~5 65 18 17 *Bulk Sample City of Newport Beach • • • • • • Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -7- An Expansion Index test was performed on a bulk sample selected as being generally representative of the existing near surface clayey sand soils (boring 14@ 2.5 feet). Test results were as follows: (1) Moisture @ Compaction = 7.7 percent (2) . Dry ·.Unit Weight = 119.0 pc=f (3) Expansion .Index = 24 (Low expansive per UBC Tabt!:: 29) Direct shear . testing was concentrated on various "undisturbed" samples.representative of .the common clayey to slight clayey sands . . within the upper 5 to 10 foot. zone. • ~esti~g was perfor~ed und~= . . . various normal loads in the saturated-drained condition . Individual plotted test results, as well as the· estimated averag~ . . friction angle and cohesion values a.:.-e presented on Plate G. Consolidation (load-deformation) tests were • also performed on various typical undisturbed soil samples. Plotted · test. results are presented. on Plates H, 1, • J. and K. • A chemical analysis waS perfor,ned r.m a bulk sample: specimen obtained in boring i4 a~ a . depth of 2. 5 feet. • Test resulcs indicated a soluhl~ sulfate content of 169 ppm (Test Method No; Calif. 417A). .Based on this • test result, the site soils a=e characterized b}' a.very .low concrete corrosion potential and t:.he use of special sulfate resistant cement is not considered necessary . City of Newport Beach I: J Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0615-F COHCLUS!ONS AND.RECOMMENDATIONS . . • . . -8- Based on the findings of this investigationf it is concluded that develop~ent of the ~ite as planned is f~asible ~el~tive co soils foundation conditions. • • ' • :-Conventional shallow. spread • footings should provide adequate . . • foundation support for prop~sed building structure ... In view of the considerable amount of demolition,· site clearing and probabl't! . . . •. . , . . • . .. . . . •• attendant surficial disiurbance antici~aced to prepare the site • • • • • • for grading and construction, as well as • possible local . non- unifor.:iities of the upper clayey sand soils> par.tial excavation and recompaction is recommended for the building .. area in orde::-t.o secure a known uniform subgrade support condition. Following are more specific observations, conclusions, and design recomm~ndations .. • A. si~~ Preoararion Earthwork; Prior to grading, the . site should . be cleared of . existing buildings, pavement, slabs and other structures, as well as any significant vegetation, debris, demolition rubble; etc . roots should be rerno~ed to a depth of at least 3.0 feet below_ e:-:isting or finished·. grades,· whichever · is lower .. Any bu::-ied ·.:City qf ·J>J _ewport Beach • • • • • • Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -9- debris, rubble or other contaminated material e)tposed during subsequent earthwork operations should also be removed. Excavations made for removal of any existing foundations, utility lines, septic tinks, other subterranean structures, tree roots, etc., should be· cleared· of loose.· material • and backfilled with clean compacted soil. '. Existing· cesspools, if any, should·be brokeri off at a depth of at ' ' least 5. O feet,.· cleared of any significant bottom sludge,· mud, debris, etc.,. filled with clean pea gravel and covered over with . clean. compacted fill. Removal of bottom debris and/or sludge can . . . . . . . -. usua'11y be accomplished fairly readily by "drilling out II with a large diameter auger. In order to improve the ~eneral consistency and uniformity of the . = • . . . • • • . . upper subgrade soi.ls, expose and correct any possible e~isting loose and/o~ contaminate~ local backfills, shallow buried structures,· etc., and recompact any demolition disturbance, it is recommended that the building area be processed in the following manner to a distance of at least 5 feet . outside the e~terior building wall perimeter: (1) Remove the existing surface soils to a depth of at least 2.5 feet below the existing or final ground surface, whichever is . lower, and stockpile for subsequent recompaction. (2) The exposed over-cut surface should·then.be scarified to an ' ' ' additional depth of at least 6 inches, watered or aerated as required,·. thoroughly mixed to a uniform near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted·t~ at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard . City of Newport Beach -------- Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -10- (3) Backfill with the stockpiled excavation material and/or other approved native or import soils. All backfill should b~ spread, watered, mixed, and compacted by mechanical means in approximate 6-inch thick· lifts. • The degree. of compaction obtained should.be at least.90 percent of the ASTM D-1557-18 ' ' ' laboratory·test standard. (4). Continue filling as required to secure final building pad subgrade elevations .. Prior to placing new fill in other non-building areas, the e~poseci cleared •. surface • should be . plowed,· scarified, · or otherwise processed to a d~pthof at least.8 inches, watered and/or aerated as required, thoroughly mixed to•a uniform,·near optimum moistu:-:e condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM n- 1557-78 test standard., The final exposed surface within cut or "at grade" A.C. or concrete paved areas should also be processed in this manner. All new fill should· be spread, • watered, mi;~ed. and cornpact.ed by mechanical means in approximate 6-inch thick lifts to at least ~O • • . . •. . . . . . percent of the aforementioned s1:andard. Backfill placed in narrow, restricted areas, _such as along utility trenches, may be placed in 12-to 24-inch thick lifts. Backfill ' ' consolidatiol\ by flooding or jetting should not be allowed. All ' ' ' . . • . • • . . . . : • backfill should be mechanically compacted to at -least 90 perc-ent of the aforementioned test standard. Completed building, exterior concrete and A.C. pavement subgra~es should be trimmed and rolled to a firm smooth surface. Fi~a l City _ _0f Newoort Beach Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -11- watering and rolling should be performed immediately prior to placing concrete or paving. Imported fill material should • consist of· clean, granular soils free from· vegetation, debris, ·or rocks larger than 3 inches. Tl'le Expansion Index Value• should not exceed a maximum• of 20. • : . All earthwork operations should be subject to compacti<;>n control in.spection and testing by the . Soils Engineer. The Soils Enginee!" . ' ' • ~hould be notified at least· two -days in advance of the start of e grading. A joint meting between a representative of the client, • . ' • the contractor and ·· the Soils Engineer is recommended prior to grading to discuss specific procedures and scheduling . • B, foundation supoort; Assuming compliance with site preparation and earthwork compaction • recommendations, the proposed building structure may be supported • . . on conventional . shallow spread footings :bearing on the . new . . . compacted backfill-fill ione. A maximum ~llowable bearing valtie e of 2000 psf may be used· for design purposes.· The · recommended design bearing value is for dead plus live • loads • and may be increased one-third for combined dead, live and seismic forces . • • • . . . . • . • . • • Footings should be at least 12 inchei in width and should extend to a depth of at least • 1a inches below· the lowest adjace:1t. finished subgrade or interior floor slab surface . It · is a!.so recommended that nominal steel reinforcement at least equival::nt to one 15 bar both top and bottom be employed in all continuous bearing walls . City of Newport Beach --------- Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -12- Bearing value analysis by the "Terzaghi" method and using shear Strength values shown on Plate G indicates a safety factor of at least 4.4 for the recommended recommended 2000 psf design valu~. ) Also, the actual.safety factor will probably be somewhat greater due to the recommended excavation and recompaction. • Estimated average settlements· in inches for footings under the . . . full recommended loading condition are as follows: • Footing· Size Cfeetl 1.0 2.0 • . 3 .5 5 .0 c. Concrete Slabs: Continuous FQQtino 0.25 ·0~40 0.55 Square FQotino 0.25 0.35 0.45 .Based·on field observations and laboratory test results, the upper • clayey sand subgrade • soils are generally classified as "low" or •. • . . ·: .·, . • . . . slightly expansive. Although . not considered critical, it . is . . recorn.-nended that nominal reirtforcement such as 11 6x6-10/10" welded . ., . • wire mesh be employed·· for all concrete floor slabs. on grade • • • (properly placed at'near midpoint of the slab section}. Also, che e?.posed finished subgrade surface should be maintained or restored . . . . . . . . to a moist, near optimum.condition prior to placing concrete . It is recommended that a moisture barrier be provided under office floo::s, carpeted • areas, . or other concrete slabs where slab moisture would be detrimental. A 6-mil vinyl plastic membrane with 6 inch seal~d laps and 1 to 2 inches of protective clean sand bedding and cover should be adequate . c·ty of Newport Beach Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -13- It is recommended that concrete slabs which are placed directl'l over a native soil subgrade and are subject to vehicle traffic loads be at least 5.0 inches in thickness. It is also suggest~d ► that nominal reinforcement such as 11 6x6··10/10" welded wire mesh bE ernployed•in new exterior concrete slabs and paving. P, Lateral Pressure: . . An allowable lateral bearing value against the sides·or footings of 300 ·pounds per ·square foot per foot ·of depth to a maximum of •· 4500 pounds per square foot may be used provided there is positi~~ contact between the vertical bearing surface and the adjacen~ • • • • • • soil.· Friction between the base of footings and/or floor slabs and underlying soil may be assumed as 40 percent of ~he dead loa~. . . Friction and lateral pressure may be combined provided the assllr.l~::! lateral bearing resistance does .not exceed two-thirds of t~c allowable. Recor:unended active lateral soil pressure values for design of drained retaining walls. and/or depressed ramp walls are . as follows: *Slope of· Retained Earth Level 4:1 2:1 1-1/2:1 Equivalent Fluid Pressure cocf) 30 35 45 55 *Slope inclination in a direction perpendicular to the wall face . City of Newport Beach --------- Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F -14- A pipe and gravel drain (4-inch perforated PVC schedule 40 embedded in at least 3 cubic feet of filter gravel per lineal foot of pipe) should be provided on the retained eaith .side and near ) .the base.of.all retaining walls. Water intercepted near the base • • • • •• • • . . • ·. of the wall by the perforated. PVC pipe should be directed to appropriate outlets. Typical weep-holes leading out of the gravel drain (no pipe} .would be satisfactory for walls which face into open pat.io or yard.· areas. All backfill placed behind·. retaining walls. should be spread, . . . watered or aerated as • required, t11 oroughly mixed to a urlif orrn near optimum moisture condition and compacted by mechanical means to a~ least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard . E. A,C. Pavina; In view of the unknown grading changes to be made in the course of developing the .site, it is somewhat difficult to anticipate ac~ual final subgrade •• soil·· mixtures and stabilometer .· test we=e, therefore, not performed. In any case, however, it is estimaced that an "R" value of 30 would reasonably . represent the nea~ surface site soils . • Based on thi~ .·parameter, recommended pave:ne:1t. sections for probable traffic conditions and estimated Traffic • Inde:-: design values ·are as follows: Assumed A;C. • Rock Base I Traffic CtmditiQDS T. I, Ciccb~sl c incb~~\ (1) Driveways 5.0 3.0 6.0 (2) Parking Stalls. 4.0 2.5 4.0 .City of .Newport Beach I I . )' • • • Acacia Plaza III Project: A-0675-F • · · -15- It is recommended that the top 6 inches of the finished soil subgrade be watered, rolled and compacted at near the optimum moisture content to at least 90 percent of the· ASTM D".'"1557-78 . . : . laboratory compaction standard.• Final subgrade watering, rolling and compaction should be accomplished immediately prior to paving. The completed ·SUbgrade should be trimmed and rolled to a firm, smooth surface.· Base . course material should be at ·1east equivalent to 11 crushed . . miscellaneous base11 as defined by the Standard Specifications for Public Works Const~uction, 1985 Edition (section 200-2.4, page f84). ~.11 rock base ·should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ),.STM D-1551-78 laboratory .:est standard. REMM$$ . . ·. Conclusions and recommendations . presented in this report represent our best engineering judgement · only based on the available . . . preliminary design information and the data developed during the course of . our · st'udy. expressed or implied. No · other warranty or responsibility is Soil conditions have been interpreted from existing surface • e exposures and the materials encountered • in the' test borings. • • These conditions.may not necessarily represent other areas between or beyond the test borings . All shoring and bracing should be in accordance with current requirements to CAL-OSHA, and the Industrial Accident Commission Cl -Y: f)!'Jewport Beach Acacia Plaza III Project:· A-0675-F -16- •· • of the State of California, and all other public agencion having jurisdict~on. • • • • • • • A reasonable effort was made to restore drill hole sites to their . . original condition. This included.backfilling and tamping of the test borings and general surface cleanup. It should be noted that as with any backfill, residual consolidation and surface subsidence resulting in a possible hazardous condition could occur at t:he test borings. The client is cautioned to periodiall:y .· . . . . . . examine the test boring sites, and, if · nece~sary, backfill any resulting depressions. . . . . . . This office will be further available for consultation or to mas.e . . . . .· . . a final review of project plans ·and specifications to assist in assuring correct interpretation of.this report 1 s recommendations far use in applicable sections . . . . . . This report may be:stibject to review by the controlling public agencies for the project . City of Newport Beach ~ • • • • • • • • USGS 111 = 20001 SITE VICINITY MAP BACA ASSOCIATES Project: A-0675-F Plate: A 1 ) • • • • • • I ·• ..____ Exist. Office. Bl~ and Parking c ) • Prop. Two Story Office Bldg. 0 Test.· Borings -Approx. ! . I I • ' • 3 I"= 30' PLAN BACA ASSOCIATES Project: A-0675-F Plate: B • • • • • • • • • • LOG OF BORING NI I DATE DRILLED 8/5/89 l DRILLING EQUIPMEt,T Hollow-Stem Flight Auger DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30" drop I SURFACE ELEVATION 1S4 5- I 2; 12E ro- 25 I !S ' . aG ' 2~ SAND, fine to medium, brc,.,.n rroist rrod. variable clayey to ccrrp. sl. clayey, scat. gravels 109 'amp'- to . dry 104 -----------CJ.Ef, very silty, gray very. fixrn .nurerous veins and and . rroist lenses of fine. gray sand and silty sand brown 85 .• .. .. 93 Fnd@ 15.0 ft. ... Notes: ( l) .No ground water ., .. Acacia Plaza III Santa Ana Heights, california SH£Afl flES,STANt£ @ ANTICIPATEO PRESSURE .. KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT A i z ~ 4 s MOISTURE CONTENT• •4 DRY WEIIHT • ,o 2 1 0 so ~ ~a • I II I I I I I I I I I I II I 11 I 11 I I ti I I I ' I I I I I I 11 I I I 11 PROJECT No. A-0675-F PLATE C BACA ASSOCIATES C9.'iS!S~TING FOU!jD~Tl~N ENGINEERS ' !=NG~ERIH8 8E_OLOGISTS L,~ty 01 r\lewpor1 [tjeacn . . . ~ . . • -LOG OF BORING NI 2 OAT£ DRILLED 8/5/89 I DRILLING EQUIPMENT Ho~•-Stem Flight Auger DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30" drop I SURFACE ELEVATION • -0 " SHEAII RESISTANCE @ ANTICIPA.TED • C'o+. <t>-~. 0 ~ PRESSURE -KIPS PEit SQUARE F'ODT -SOILS "o< 0<r,: ,rl'.r • ~ <,+, • I I C Q. i CLASSIFICATION °-P <,-,~ ,.~ ~,p,. ~ • i z ; .. $ -E "'">-~"'~,~~ ~~ • MOISTURE CONTENT• •t. DRY WE18HT A • l' .,. • .... • 10 20 30 I -, 0 iii ~ ,o • ~.ND, fine to medit:rn, light dcy loose variable clayey to [brcMtl --------- t3 E sl. clayey, scat. sl. rrod. 118 gravels lrroist carp . ...---- bro\-.n .. • . . 5- I t3.; .. 1.10 0 ----I • fine to rrediun~ ~-I -silty to slight silty .. BE 118 It 10-I •• ---·---I I I ---- I CI..AY, silty, nUIT"l'...rous gray very fi.l:m I veins and lenses with ITT"Oist to I 11 of sand and silty red stiff • ~= sand brCMn 97 I .10 I 1!5-stairu • II •. I .. . .. I . .. I I I 2~ 102 :o I I I 2: I I I Flld@ 20.0 ft. I 11 . N:ltes: ( 1) NJ ground water I . I I I 2: I ) Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No. A-0675-F Santa Ana Heights, California PLATE D BACA ASSOCIATES c;..oJtsU ~TINO FOUJID.\!l q_N ENGINEERS t ,EN~,N~ERING 9EOLOGISTS vll y u• l"CVV IL Uc;dl,U I -LOG OF BORING N• 3 DATE DRILLED 3/5/89 I DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hal.low-Stan Flight Aug1:r. DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30" drop I SURFACE ELEVATION ) • 0 • ~~O+ <":1-• SHEAR RESISTANC! @ ANTICIPATED •• C> PRES SUR£• KIPS PE" SOUAftE FOOT ..... -SOILS "o< 0<r~ .r✓.r~ • .o~+,,,. A I I I 4 ' c:IQ l CLASSIFICATION 0-9 (I-,~ '°+c:-,-'9 ~ •◊-I z :, , -e IC Q • ~r"" MOCSTURE CONTENT· •J. ORY WEl8HT a.~ "' "~ .,. I I I 1 • 0 • 10 20 30 410 so 0 ii J SA."ID, fine to rrediun, brown rmist CXJll). silty, sl. clayey, !ti scat. gravels 116 ~---fine to cx:>arse, mxl. sl. clay binder, CCITP• • variable scat. to to 5-i2E rroderate gravels carp . J.16 . " ~--- sl. .. nnist • ~( 109 4 ~ 10-I I • I I I • 2E 108 u I 15-. .. ------· ---- fine to ne:liun~. • tan m:,ist dense clean, occasional • with clay/silt veins pale gray • veins 1Bj 103 I ( 2G .. I I 11 • - I I 11 . I I 5E 101 I 2· End@ 25.0 ft. Notes: ( 1} No ground water • Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No. A-0675-F santa Ana Heights, Califomia PLATE E BACA ASSOCIATES • COHstJLTINO FOUNDATION ENGINEERS t EN81NEERIN8 8EOLOGISTS City qt New_port Beach . LOG OF BORING N14 DATE DRILLED U/5/89 I DRILLING EQUIPMENT Hollow-Stem Flight Auger DRIVING WEIGHT 140 lbs. -30ff drop I SURFACE EL£VATION • ii C SHEAR RESISTANCE @ ANTICIPATED ·-0 ,It, c-o.,...r <l' (/, PRESSURE• KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT "-~ -SOILS C-ot 0~,: i ~.r~ • "°~ ~.,~ 4 i I I t\ ~ C a. CLASSIFICATION o-, ""'e e..,.c-, ~~•~ 2 :, -E ~~ • ll'I~~ MOISTURE CONTENT• •/4 OflY W[IIHT ... • t .,. • D • 10 20 30 f 0 iii 40 so SAND, fine to rrediun, bro-,,,n dry loose I Silty, variable -------- 12( clayey to sl. clayey, sl. rrod. 109 0 scat. gravels m:>ist caq,. ,_;........;_ ---- ) rroist carp. I ~-3E ll5 .. . . I --------rrediun to coarse, red sl. • variable sl. clay brown rroist s= binder to clean, ill I heavy gravels I I 10-I I • -------I very fine to fine, pale noi.st 13~ sl. silty, with gray 101 I I minor silt veins • brcMn . • 1!5 End@ 15.0 ft. Notes: ( 1) t-£> ground water . t • 2G-I I I .. . ., • . . . I 2~ I • Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No. A-0675-F Santa Ana Heights, California PLATE F BACA ASSOCIATES • CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS ~ ENOINEERIN9 8EOL00lSTS City .of > II. en • X w c., z ~ U) • II) w • • • • • • DIRECT SHEAR TESTS UPPER CLAYS{ SANDS 2~5 . , 2.0 I ~5 1.0 0 0 0.5 .. 1.0 .l.5 2.0 2.5 NORMAL LOAD {XSF) (l} Sat~rated-Drained Condition • ( 2) Friction Angle = ?8• ( 3) Cohesion· = 200 psf . Acacia Pla2a III PROJECT No. A-0675-F Santa Ana Heights, California· PLATE G BACA ASSOCIATES CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS t ENGINEE:RING GEOLOGISTS City 9f Newport Beach ----------- • CONSOLIDATION TESTS Load in kips per Square Foot .5 6 e . 2 3 5 6 8 10 15 20 30 ~ • I I I I ~ • • I I • I • ' I • ' • ' • I ' 2 • I • I ' I I I • ' ' I 3 r-.. I I I ..... ' • I ...... I I ' ' " I I I ' . ' ' 4 ' ~ I I I ,, . I ' I I ,, I I I I I .... I I I ' I ' ' ' ' • I • C 0 5 -I I I I '" I I I ' I I '-I I I I I I I .,._ I I I Ci I ' I ' . I '' ' I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I '\.. I I I 1 '0 6 • I I I I 1 I I '" I I I I I I I • I ' I '' I I I I 0 I I I I I I • I I I I'\,. t I I I I I I I I I I I I'-I I I ' u, 7 C I I I ' I I I I ... I I t I I ' ' I I I I'\. I I I -I I I • I I I I l "'-I t 0 ' I ' ' I I ' ,, I ' I t I . ' I I I I I I I I I I I I " Boring #2 @ 2.0 ft. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' u 8 • -I . I I I I ' I I I I I ' I I ' I . I ' ' ' I I I t I I ' I C 9 Cl) u I • I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I ' I ' I I I I ' I I I I t I I I ---, . I I • I . I I I I I I I I I I I ... 10 • G) CL I ' • I I I I ' I I I • I I . ' ' . I I I ' II I I ' I I t I I ' I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I t r t J ' I t I I I I I I I I I • . I • I I I I . I ' . ' I ' I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I • I I 12 • I • I . • ' ' I I ' • I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . I ' I ' ' I 13 ' ' I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I • I t I I I I ' I I I I I I ' ' I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I • 14 I I I I I I I I ' I I I I ' I I I I ! ' I 15 I I I . ' I I I . ' I e WATER PERMITTED TO CONTACT SAMPLE • Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No A-0675-F Santa Ana Heights, Califomia PLATE H BACA ASSOCIATES • CONSOLlDATION TESTS . Load in k i Es eer Sguore Foot .5 .6 .8 I 2 3 4 ~ 6 8 10 15 20 :so 40 I I I I -' I -I t i I I I I I 2 I I I I I I ' t I ' I I I I ... I I I 3 I ' I . • -..-' . I I " I I I ' I I ' I 4 I I I 1 ' ' ' .... ' I I I ' I C I I I I 0 I I I ..... I t I I I ' I I ' -5 t t I I !'lo. ' t ' I -I I I '-I 1 I 0 ' I lo. I I I I t I I ,, I I • "C 6 I ' I t ' I I " t ' I I I I I I t t ' I "' ' I I --I I I I I I I I I\. I I I I t t I I I I f I ' I I ' ' 0 I ' I ' I I . I ... ' I I I II) 7 I I I I I I ' I I I I t I I I I I I t t I '-I t ' I C I • I I • I I '-1 I ' I I 0 I I I I I I lo. I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I I I • u 8 I I I I I . t I I I I . ' ' • I I I I I ' t , ... I ' . . I I I -. I I I I I I T I I I -I I I I I .. Borina #2@ 9.5 ft: I I I I. I I C 9 I I I . I I I I t ' I ci> I I I ' . ' ' I I . I I t ' I I T I I I • CJ i I t ' I I t I I I I I I I I I I I ~ 10 I I I I I t I I ' t t ci> I I I I t i I • I I I I I I I t I I I I a. I t I t I I . . . I J I I I f I ' I I II t ' I I I I I I ' I . t I t . I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I t I I I ' I • 12 ' I I I I I I . . I • I I I I I ' I I t ' I I ' I I I I I I I I t ' t I I ' I I I I I ' I I I I I I f3 I I I I r I I I I t 1 ' ' I I I ' • r ' I ' I t ' I I t t 1 . I I i I I ' I I I ' I I I I ' ' I I I I I ' I j I I I I I 1 I I I ' I ' • 14 I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I ' . I . I I I I I I I ' I I I I ' ' I I I I I I ; I I i I I • I I I I I I I I I f I . I I 15 I ' r I ' I ' I t . ' . ., e W.ATER PERMJTTED TO CONTACT SAMPLE • Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No A_:0675-F Santa Ana Heights, califomia PLATE I BACA ASSOCIATES • CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS ~ ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS -City of Newport Beach CONSOLIDATION TESTS . Load in k i ~ s eer Sguore Foot .5 .6 .8 ' 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 15 20 30 4'0 j I ---I I ---I ' I ' ' I 2 '' t I ...... I I '' I I ' ' I ' I , .. 3 . . • . '" I I I I ' ' I I I •u I I ) 4 "' I I . ' . . • I . I ',: I I C I " I I I ' 0 I I '\.I I I I I I ' I I ' ·-5 ' • . ' ,, ' ' I ' • -I I I '\. I I I ' I ' • C ' , I ' ' I I I I I I I I " I ' ' I I "C 6 • ' ' ' .. I I ' t -I I I I I I I I '\. I I ' I ' -I I I I ' I I '\. I I I l I 0 I I I I I I I '\.1 ' I j r ' ' . I " I I I I I (It 7 I I I I I I I I'-I I I I I I I I ' I ' • I '-I I I I I I C I I I I I I I ' I I I I 0 I ; I ' I ' I I'\. I • I . ..._ ' I I I I I I I \.1 I I I • u 8 --. I ' f . ' I ' I ' I I I ' I ~-' I I I . I I I I "' I I I ' ·-I I I I I I I I ' " I I ' I -I .-• I I I I I I I I I I I I I .--........ I I I I I "' I I I C 9 I I I I ' I ' I I • Borin1J #3 @ 5.0 ft. Q) I I I . I I • I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I t ' I I I I I I ' I I ... 10 I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I . Q) ' I I I I I I t I I I I ' . I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I a.. I I • I ' . • I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I • ' ' ' t ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I • 12 I ' I I I . I ' ' ' t . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I ' I I I . I . I I ' t ' ' I I I I I ' I I j I ' I I ' I 13 I I I I ' I I I I I I ' I t I I I I I I I I I ' • I I 1 . I I t I I I I • I I I t I I I I I I I ' ' I ' I I I I I I I I t I I I I • I • 14 I I I t I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I , ' I ' t ' • • I . I ' I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I , t I : I I I I I I I ' t I I I I I I I I I ' I I IS I I I I I . • . ' I t ' . ' a WATER PERMITTED TO CONTACT SAMPLE • Acacia P:aza Ill PROJECT Na A~0675-F Santa Ana Heights, callfomia PLATE J BACA ASSOCIATES • CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS e ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS City of Newport Beach ) CONSOLIDATION TESTS . Load in k i 2 s eer Sguore Foot . .5 .6 .e I 2 3 4 s 6 8 10 15 20 30 '40 • I I t I I -----I I ' -I I -I I ~ • 2 I I - I I I I I I I - I -Borinc #3@ H.5 ft. T I I I . ·-I I I I I 3 I ' . ' . I I I I I I ' I I I I I • 4 I I ' I I I . . . I I I I I I C I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -5 ' I ' I I I • ' . -I I I I I I I C I I • I ' I I I t I I I I I • .,, 6 I I ' I I I -I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I j I • . • I I ' I • ' u, 7 I I I I I I I I I I r I I t I • I I I I • ' I I I • I j ' I C I I I I I I I I I I I I ' 0 • I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' • u 8 I I I . I I I ' I ' I t i I I ' ' ' • • ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I -' I I ' t I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I C 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I cu ' I ' . • . I ' I I I I ' I I I I I I ' • u I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I '-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' cu I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I ' . i I i I I I I I I I I I I I o_ I ' I ' I • I . I I ' • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I . I • I I I . I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • 12 t ' . I I I I ' I ' -. t . I I I I I ' I ' i I I ' I I I I I I I • I • ' I ' • I ' . i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 I I I I I ; ' I I I I j I I t ' I ' I I I I I ' I ' f I I I ' I I I I ' I I I ' I I i ' I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I f • 14 I I I I I ' I I I I j I I I I I I ' ' . ' I I --. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I t ' ., r I I ' I I I I I I I I I 15 I I I I I I ' I . I ' ' I I • W~TER PERMrrn:o TO CONTACT S.&MPLE • Acacia Plaza III PROJECT No A-0675-F santa Ana Heights, California PLATE K BACA ASSOCIATES • CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS t ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS t;1ty ot Newport ~eacn PWAS_20230915 APPENDIX D SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ~·~ rB C:ALlfOf!Nl,t, Newport Bay Terrace C, Coffee Dose q Irvine Ranch Market ~ e T ~ G o o g le e ·S ~~ Newport Beach ft G f Course Y Irvine Ave Lashsweep C, OS HPD Birch Heights C, Map data ©2024 .................................... Unied Hazard Tool Input U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical. Please also see the new USGS Earthquake Hazard Toolbox for access to the most recent NSHMs for the conterminous U.S. and Hawaii.  Edition Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (u… Latitude Decimal degrees 33.6587 Longitude Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -117.8826 Site Class 259 m/s (Site class D) Spectral Period Peak Ground Acceleration Time Horizon Return period in years 2475 Hazard Curve View Raw Data Hazard Curves Time Horizon 2475 years Peak Ground Acceleration 0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.20 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration 0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration 1.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 4.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 5.00 Second Spectral Acceleration 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Ground Motion (g) 1e-9 1e-8 1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 An n u a l F r e q u e n c y o f E x c e e d e n c e Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Spectral Period (s) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 Gr o u n d M o t i o n ( g ) Spectral Period (s): PGA Ground Motion (g): 0.6508 Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration Time Horizon 2475 years System Grid Interface 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 Ground Motion (g) 1e-9 1e-8 1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3 1e-2 1e-1 1e+0 An n u a l F r e q u e n c y o f E x c e e d e n c e ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Deaggregation Component Total ε = (-∞ .. -2.5) ε = [-2.5 .. -2) ε = [-2 .. -1.5) ε = [-1.5 .. -1) ε = [-1 .. -0.5) ε = [-0.5 .. 0) ε = [0 .. 0.5) ε = [0.5 .. 1) ε = [1 .. 1.5) ε = [1.5 .. 2) ε = [2 .. 2.5) ε = [2.5 .. +∞) 5 25 45 Clo s e s t D i s t a n c e , r R u p ( k m ) 65 85 105 9 8.5 8 7.5 Magni t u d e ( M w ) 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 5 % C o n t r i b u t i o n t o H a z a r d 10 15 20 5 25 45 65 Clo s e s t D i s t a n c e , r R u p ( k m ) 85 105 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 Magni t u d e ( M w ) 6 5.5 5 4.5 •• •• • • •• •• • • •• • • • • •• ■ ■ ■ □ □ □ □ □ ■ ■ ■ ■ Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total Deaggregation targets Return period:2475 yrs Exceedance rate:0.0004040404 yr⁻¹ PGA ground motion:0.65084062 g Recovered targets Return period:2949.8301 yrs Exceedance rate:0.00033900258 yr⁻¹ Totals Binned:100 % Residual:0 % Trace:0.1 % Mean (over all sources) m:6.7 r:10.93 km ε₀:1.24 σ Mode (largest m-r bin) m:7.69 r:5.67 km ε₀:0.44 σ Contribution:10.71 % Mode (largest m-r-ε₀ bin) m:6.89 r:3.35 km ε₀:0.29 σ Contribution:6.15 % Discretization r:min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, Δ = 20.0 km m:min = 4.4, max = 9.4, Δ = 0.2 ε:min = -3.0, max = 3.0, Δ = 0.5 σ Epsilon keys ε0:[-∞ .. -2.5) ε1:[-2.5 .. -2.0) ε2:[-2.0 .. -1.5) ε3:[-1.5 .. -1.0) ε4:[-1.0 .. -0.5) ε5:[-0.5 .. 0.0) ε6:[0.0 .. 0.5) ε7:[0.5 .. 1.0) ε8:[1.0 .. 1.5) ε9:[1.5 .. 2.0) ε10:[2.0 .. 2.5) ε11:[2.5 .. +∞] Deaggregation Contributors Source Set  Source Type r m ε0 lon lat az % UC33brAvg_FM32 System 32.30 San Joaquin Hills [0]3.35 7.13 0.34 117.885°W 33.671°N 351.83 12.81 Newport-Inglewood alt 2 [0]6.89 7.48 0.77 117.937°W 33.619°N 228.64 6.48 Compton [0]16.72 7.35 1.27 118.043°W 33.702°N 288.18 2.70 Palos Verdes [6]25.33 7.46 1.98 118.119°W 33.544°N 239.84 1.87 Newport-Inglewood (Oshore) [0]8.15 6.55 1.37 117.915°W 33.591°N 201.47 1.83 San Joaquin Hills [1]4.61 6.93 0.52 117.845°W 33.669°N 72.20 1.21 UC33brAvg_FM31 System 27.76 San Joaquin Hills [0]3.35 7.52 0.29 117.885°W 33.671°N 351.83 8.25 Newport-Inglewood alt 1 [0]7.02 7.45 0.77 117.940°W 33.619°N 230.44 7.15 Compton [0]16.72 7.28 1.31 118.043°W 33.702°N 288.18 2.55 Newport-Inglewood (Oshore) [0]8.15 6.46 1.41 117.915°W 33.591°N 201.47 2.01 Palos Verdes [6]25.33 7.29 2.08 118.119°W 33.544°N 239.84 1.74 Whittier alt 1 [2]28.76 7.61 1.98 117.731°W 33.884°N 29.17 1.08 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt)Grid 20.02 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.699 6.78 5.66 1.34 117.883°W 33.699°N 0.00 3.30 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.699 6.78 5.66 1.34 117.883°W 33.699°N 0.00 3.30 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.717 8.09 5.68 1.53 117.883°W 33.717°N 0.00 2.09 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.717 8.09 5.68 1.53 117.883°W 33.717°N 0.00 2.09 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.735 8.95 5.94 1.54 117.883°W 33.735°N 0.00 1.55 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.735 8.95 5.94 1.54 117.883°W 33.735°N 0.00 1.55 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt)Grid 19.93 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.699 6.80 5.64 1.35 117.883°W 33.699°N 0.00 3.18 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.699 6.80 5.64 1.35 117.883°W 33.699°N 0.00 3.18 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.717 8.09 5.68 1.54 117.883°W 33.717°N 0.00 2.18 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.717 8.09 5.68 1.54 117.883°W 33.717°N 0.00 2.18 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.735 8.97 5.93 1.55 117.883°W 33.735°N 0.00 1.56 PointSourceFinite: -117.883, 33.735 8.97 5.93 1.55 117.883°W 33.735°N 0.00 1.56 L+ PWAS_20230915 APPENDIX E LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 carlkimgeo@gmail.com Overall Liquefaction Potential Index report Project title : Carl Kim Geotechnical Location : 3100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CPTu Name CK G C P T - 1 CK G C P T - 2 CK G C P T - 3 CK G C P T - 4 CK G C P T - 5 CK G C P T - 6 CK G C P T - 7 CP T - 1 CP T - 2 CP T - 3 CP T - 4 LP I v a l u e 17.00 16.00 15.00 14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.192 0.307 0.253 0.47 0.37 0.708 0.494 0.978 0.183 0.569 0.3 LPI color scheme Very high risk High risk Low risk Basic statistics Total CPT number: 11 100% low risk 0% high risk 0% very high risk CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq CKGEO ■ □ □ Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 carlkimgeo@gmail.com Overall Liquefaction Severity Number report Project title : Carl Kim Geotechnical Location : 3100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CPTu Name CK G C P T - 1 CK G C P T - 2 CK G C P T - 3 CK G C P T - 4 CK G C P T - 5 CK G C P T - 6 CK G C P T - 7 CP T - 1 CP T - 2 CP T - 3 CP T - 4 LS N v a l u e 12.00 11.50 11.00 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.85 0.851 0.265 1.216 1.136 4.272 1.035 2.688 0.783 1.341 0.736 Basic statistics Total CPT number: 11 100% little liquefaction 0% minor liquefaction 0% moderate liquefaction LSN color scheme Severe damage Major expression of liquefaction Moderate to severe exp. of liquefaction Moderate expression of liquefaction Minor expression of liquefaction Little to no expression of liquefaction 0% moderate to major liquefaction 0% major liquefaction 0% severe liquefaction CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq CKGEO ■ ■ ■ □ ■ □ Carl Kim Geotechnical, Inc. 945 Baileyana Road Hillsborough, CA 94010 carlkimgeo@gmail.com Overall vertical settlements report Project title : Carl Kim Geotechnical Location : 3100 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA CPTu Name CK G C P T - 1 CK G C P T - 2 CK G C P T - 3 CK G C P T - 4 CK G C P T - 5 CK G C P T - 6 CK G C P T - 7 CP T - 1 CP T - 2 CP T - 3 CP T - 4 Ve r t i c a l s e t t l e m e n t ( i n ) 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.073 0.096 0.115 0.135 0.115 0.34 0.13 0.238 0.138 1.189 0.089 CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq CKGEO This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CKG CPT-1 CRR plot HAND AUGER CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot HAND AUGER Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential HAND AUGER LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements HAND AUGER Settlement (in) 0.060.040.020 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements HAND AUGER Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:38 PM 1 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - - .. : -\ \ \ :::o-I \ E l -- - - -= I TI I I I - - - - - - - ■ □ □ □ ■ O 0 ~ ~ J pJ r-.. I - - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CKG CPT-2 CRR plot HAND AUGER CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot HAND AUGER Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential HAND AUGER LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements HAND AUGER Settlement (in) 0.080.060.040.020 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements HAND AUGER Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:39 PM 2 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - - .. -\ - - - - I - - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ □ ■ "0 -~o (/> ~ .--, I ~ I -11 _J I I - - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CKG CPT-3 CRR plot HAND AUGER CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot HAND AUGER Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential HAND AUGER LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements HAND AUGER Settlement (in) 0.10.080.060.040.020 De p t h ( f t ) 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements HAND AUGER Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:39 PM 3 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - - - -\ \ -\ \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ □ ■ ~ r ~ I I .- - - - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CKG CPT-4 CRR plot HAND AUGER CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot HAND AUGER Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential HAND AUGER LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements HAND AUGER Settlement (in) 0.10.050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements HAND AUGER Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:40 PM 4 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - - .. -\ \ - \ \ ' I - - - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ □ ■ AA y - - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CKG CPT-5 CRR plot HAND AUGER CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot HAND AUGER Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential HAND AUGER LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements HAND AUGER Settlement (in) 0.10.080.060.040.020 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements HAND AUGER Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:40 PM 5 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk -- CJ~ I ~ ll, ■ □ □ □ ■ ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CKG CPT-6 CRR plot HAND AUGER CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot HAND AUGER Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential HAND AUGER LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements HAND AUGER Settlement (in) 0.30.20.10 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements HAND AUGER Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:41 PM 6 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - - .. \ ~ -• ~-. Ill.. ~ ----... -, \ l - - - - I I I I i I 11 - - - -y - - - ■ □ □ □ ■ L--r"' ,, I / ~ - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CKG CPT-7 CRR plot HAND AUGER CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot HAND AUGER Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential HAND AUGER LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements HAND AUGER Settlement (in) 0.10.050 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements HAND AUGER Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:41 PM 7 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - .. - -- --- - - I - ~ - -ll> - - <><> -00 ~ -~ - - ■ □ □ □ ■ - - _r I .) ' I - - - - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CPT-1 CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements Settlement (in) 0.20.150.10.050 De p t h ( f t ) 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:41 PM 8 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - - r - - - I I ~ - - - -• - 0 r -~ ■ □ □ □ ■ I --I-- r· ::::::::=i I J - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CPT-2 CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements Settlement (in) 0.10.050 De p t h ( f t ) 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:42 PM 9 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk - - - ·r \ , - --- - - - - - -- :.~~ ■ □ □ □ ■ I f - 1 I I ) J I I - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CPT-3 CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements Settlement (in) 1.210.80.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:42 PM 10 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk .. \ \ - - - - \ \ ' -- - - - - ■ □ □ □ ■ ~ ----~ ~ ~ - ~ I J l.,/ - - - - - - ■ □ □ This software is licensed to: Carl Kim CPT name: CPT-4 CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 De p t h ( f t ) 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 CRR plot During earthq. Liquefaction analysis overall plots FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 De p t h ( f t ) 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FS Plot During earthq. Liquefaction potential LPI 20151050 De p t h ( f t ) 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements Settlement (in) 0.080.060.040.020 De p t h ( f t ) 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Vertical settlements Lateral displacements Displacement (in) 0 De p t h ( f t ) 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lateral displacements CLiq v.3.5.2.22 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 6/23/2024, 4:26:43 PM 11 Project file: C:\Users\carlk\OneDrive\Documents\CK BUSINESS\projects\Steve Coyne Wavegarden\analysis\wavegarden cove.clq F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: Depth to water table (insitu): NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.62 15.00 ft Depth to water table (erthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Fill height: 15.00 ft 1 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Fill weight: Transition detect. applied: Kσ applied: Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes Yes Sands only Yes 60.00 ft Almost certain it will liquefy Very likely to liquefy Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely Unlike to liquefy Almost certain it will not liquefy Very high risk High risk Low risk r 7 - - - -.. ,. -E \· -II , - == --11 --::::l ~ 4L = !.....J II I I .: I I II -- ~ L..J - - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ □ ■ <> - ) J - - - - - - - - - - ■ □ □ PWAS_20230915 APPENDIX F EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX G HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ABBREVATIONS LEGEND EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY 949.474.1960 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 fuscoe.com SNUG HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BACK BAY BARRELS, LLC 3857 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 521 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 8/8/2024 X X.XX A1 0.88 E1 0.36 D1 2.13 D2 1.25 E3 1.20 E4 1.80 E5 1.35 C1 0.69 B1 0.09 OS1.1 0.67 OS2 0.46 OS3 2.03 E6 1.44 A2 0.24 A4 0.80 A3 1.26 E2 0.72 E7 1.22 OS1.2 0.78 I I 1/ / • '7 "-.j!J/. ' t.'# ( v\; ',( / 7 / 7 7 // ,, / 0'/ • ~l li /· l - / 15 .'5TG 58"-1 Q2=5.74CFS ~' Tc,= 15.33MIN ♦ 0,s=14.98CFS 1 ♦ • Tc2s=13.73MIN t > 0,00=19.82CFS ., c,oo=13.35MIN ♦ 09AC ~-------♦ ·' ~-1------, . "' • / . • --------------- + + // ) r + • ■ . ..... ·/t I I I ♦ ♦ • \ I .-' ' I ' ' ' /; / 17 I / • ··-- 31.0TG 41 -29.01 , I ' •• \ \ ) \ / / I I I / / • / / / / I I \ 1/ '-'-'-' '-' ) ♦ ♦ I '-' ' ' ' '- ..... ..... ..... ..... l < ) ;:::::.,_~---J~ 2 YEAR ONSITE RUNOFF VOLUME -1.78 AC-FT AREA Q2 Q25 QlOO TC2 DMA {AC) {CFS) {CFS) {CFS) {MIN) A 3.18 3.30 8.01 10.59 8.92 OS (OFFSITE) 3.94 6.22 13.40 17.16 B 0.09 0.18 0.39 0.50 5.00 C 0.69 1.12 2.45 3.15 6.87 D 3.38 3.54 8.56 11.14 12.18 E 8.09 5.74 14.95 19.82 15.33 TOTAL 19.37 20.10 47.76 62.36 - TOTAL ON SITE 15.43 13.88 34.36 45.2 TOTAL OFFSITE 3.94 6.22 13.4 17.16 I s01L TYPE ·c-& ·o· I AC AC-FT CFS ELEV HP INV L MIN Q s T, CB ACRE ACRE-FOOT CUBIC FEET PER SECOND SURFACE ELEVATION HIGH POINT PIPE INVERT ELEVAllON LENGTH t.ilNUTES FLOW RATE SLOPE TIME OF CONCENTRATION CATCH BASIN - - - -PROPERTY LINE -----EXISTING STORM DRAIN -■ ■ -DRPJNAGE BOUNDARY -------DRAINAGE SUB-BOUNDARY @ NODE -----ON-SITE AA.EA DRAIN LINE TC25 (MIN) 8.25 5.00 6.87 11.51 13.73 - -----·---TIME OF CONCENTRATION FLOW PATH L=XXX' FLOW PATH LENGTH - - - - - - -SOIL TYPE DELINEATION ~ DRAINAGE BOUNDARY DESIGNATION \____./ AND AREA 25' 50' SCALE: 1" = 50' TCl00 (MIN) 8.06 5.00 6.87 11.40 13.35 - ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 15535 Sand Canyon Ave. Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SNUG HARBOR * * EXISTING CONDITION * * 2 YR * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: SNUG2EX.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:49 08/06/2024 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 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.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | SUBAREA A | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 55.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 33.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.339 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.180 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) Existing 2-year hydrology COMMERCIAL D 0.88 0.20 0.100 57 5.34 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.71 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.88 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.71 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.34 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.18 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.88 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.88 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.71 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.20 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 63.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 62.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.862 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.533 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.67 0.20 0.100 57 9.86 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.91 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.67 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.91 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.20 TO NODE 11.30 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 62.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 173.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.160 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.010 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.476 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.78 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.42 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.29 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.62 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.67 Tc(MIN.) = 10.53 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.78 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.02 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.45 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 Existing 2-year hydrology TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.90 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.42 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.41 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 0.90 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.30 = 503.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.30 TO NODE 11.40 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 55.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 38.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 52.00 MANNING'S N = 0.015 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.0 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.25 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.90 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 10.61 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.40 = 555.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.40 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 38.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 33.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 150.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0300 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.90 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.51 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.05 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.00 Tc(MIN.) = 11.60 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.00 = 705.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.60 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.40 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.45 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.45 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.90 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.50 TO NODE 11.60 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 265.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 62.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 55.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.859 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.067 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.46 0.20 0.100 57 5.86 Existing 2-year hydrology SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.85 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.60 TO NODE 11.70 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 53.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 38.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 52.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.70 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.85 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.07 Tc(MIN.) = 5.93 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.50 TO NODE 11.70 = 317.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.70 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 38.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 33.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 143.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0315 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.85 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.69 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.41 Tc(MIN.) = 7.34 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.50 TO NODE 11.00 = 460.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.34 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.82 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.85 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.71 5.34 2.180 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.9 10.00 2 1.90 11.60 1.396 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.5 11.10 3 0.85 7.34 1.817 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 0.5 11.50 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.82 5.34 2.180 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 1.9 10.00 2 3.84 7.34 1.817 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.3 11.50 3 3.64 11.60 1.396 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.8 11.10 Existing 2-year hydrology COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.84 Tc(MIN.) = 7.34 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.26 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.00 = 705.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 33.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 29.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 174.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0259 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.695 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.24 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.02 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.09 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.94 Tc(MIN.) = 8.27 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.36 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.84 NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.95 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 12.00 = 879.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.82 6.27 1.987 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.1 10.00 2 3.84 8.27 1.695 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.5 11.50 3 3.64 12.54 1.336 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 11.10 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.84 Tc(MIN.) = 8.27 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.50 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.27 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.70 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.50 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.03 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.84 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.20 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< Existing 2-year hydrology >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 270.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 58.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 54.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.626 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.926 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL C 2.03 0.25 0.100 50 6.63 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.03 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.20 TO NODE 12.30 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 52.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 17.69 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.47 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.19 Tc(MIN.) = 6.81 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.30 = 470.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.30 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 45.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 29.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 350.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0457 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.683 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 1.26 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.42 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.72 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.08 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.57 Tc(MIN.) = 8.38 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.26 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.89 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.29 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.91 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.08 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.04 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.00 = 820.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ Existing 2-year hydrology TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.38 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.68 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.29 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.29 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.91 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.82 6.27 1.987 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.1 10.00 1 3.84 8.27 1.695 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 2.5 11.50 1 3.64 12.54 1.336 0.20( 0.02) 0.10 3.0 11.10 2 4.91 8.38 1.683 0.23( 0.02) 0.10 3.3 12.10 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 8.18 6.27 1.987 0.22( 0.02) 0.10 4.6 10.00 2 8.73 8.27 1.695 0.22( 0.02) 0.10 5.7 11.50 3 8.75 8.38 1.683 0.22( 0.02) 0.10 5.8 12.10 4 7.53 12.54 1.336 0.22( 0.02) 0.10 6.3 11.10 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.75 Tc(MIN.) = 8.38 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.80 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.3 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 12.00 = 879.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 29.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 26.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 134.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0224 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.624 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.80 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 9.32 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.15 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.54 Tc(MIN.) = 8.92 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.15 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.60 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.52 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 13.00 = 1013.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER Existing 2-year hydrology NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 9.07 6.83 1.892 0.21( 0.02) 0.10 5.4 10.00 2 9.50 8.81 1.635 0.22( 0.02) 0.10 6.5 11.50 3 9.52 8.92 1.624 0.22( 0.02) 0.10 6.6 12.10 4 8.21 13.10 1.302 0.21( 0.02) 0.10 7.1 11.10 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.52 Tc(MIN.) = 8.92 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.60 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | SUBAREA B | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 122.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 30.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 15.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.000 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.264 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.09 0.20 0.100 57 5.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.18 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | SUBAREA C | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 266.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 31.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 22.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.870 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.886 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "8-10 DWELLINGS/ACRE" D 0.69 0.20 0.400 57 6.87 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.400 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.69 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.12 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | SUBAREA D | | | | | Existing 2-year hydrology +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 278.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 54.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 31.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.038 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.437 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" C 2.13 0.25 1.000 59 11.04 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.28 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 41.00 TO NODE 42.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 29.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 21.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 218.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.52 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.28 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.56 Tc(MIN.) = 11.60 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 42.00 = 496.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 42.00 TO NODE 42.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 11.60 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.397 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 1.25 0.20 1.000 66 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.25 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.35 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.54 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 42.00 TO NODE 43.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 21.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 18.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 354.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.15 Existing 2-year hydrology PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.54 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.58 Tc(MIN.) = 12.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 43.00 = 850.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | SUBAREA E | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 51.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 27.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 18.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.196 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.596 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.36 0.20 1.000 66 9.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.45 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.45 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 51.00 TO NODE 52.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 18.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 17.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 161.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0062 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.500 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.385 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 0.72 0.20 1.000 66 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.84 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.04 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.58 Tc(MIN.) = 11.77 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.08 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.15 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.18 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 52.00 = 311.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 52.00 TO NODE 52.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< Existing 2-year hydrology ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.77 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.38 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.08 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.15 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 54.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 54.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 37.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 12.996 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.308 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" C 1.20 0.25 1.000 59 13.00 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.14 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 54.00 TO NODE 55.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 37.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 32.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 204.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0245 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.191 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" C 1.80 0.25 1.000 59 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.91 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.46 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.32 Tc(MIN.) = 15.32 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.52 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.54 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 55.00 = 534.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 55.00 TO NODE 56.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< Existing 2-year hydrology >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 32.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 19.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 261.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0479 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.110 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 1.35 0.20 1.000 66 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.09 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.18 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.99 Tc(MIN.) = 17.31 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.35 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.43 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 56.00 = 795.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 56.00 TO NODE 52.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 19.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 17.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 110.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0227 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 15.00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.43 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.83 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.12 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.00 Tc(MIN.) = 18.31 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 52.00 = 905.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 52.00 TO NODE 52.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 18.31 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.35 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.43 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.15 11.77 1.385 0.20( 0.20) 1.00 1.1 50.00 2 3.43 18.31 1.075 0.23( 0.23) 1.00 4.3 53.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** Existing 2-year hydrology STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.17 11.77 1.385 0.22( 0.22) 1.00 3.9 50.00 2 4.28 18.31 1.075 0.23( 0.23) 1.00 5.4 53.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.28 Tc(MIN.) = 18.31 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.43 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.4 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 52.00 = 905.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 52.00 TO NODE 57.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 17.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 16.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 253.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0040 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.500 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 0.997 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 1.44 0.20 1.000 66 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.79 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.65 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.47 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.55 Tc(MIN.) = 20.87 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.03 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.87 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.79 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.47 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.65 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 57.00 = 1158.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 4.87 14.34 1.236 0.22( 0.22) 1.00 5.3 50.00 2 4.79 20.87 0.997 0.22( 0.22) 1.00 6.9 53.00 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.87 Tc(MIN.) = 14.34 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 5.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 57.00 TO NODE 58.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 16.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 15.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 107.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0047 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.500 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.190 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN URBAN FAIR COVER "TURF" D 1.22 0.20 1.000 66 Existing 2-year hydrology SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 5.42 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.80 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.48 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.99 Tc(MIN.) = 15.33 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.09 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.54 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.74 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.84 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 58.00 = 1265.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.74 15.33 1.190 0.21( 0.21) 1.00 6.5 50.00 2 5.48 21.86 0.971 0.22( 0.22) 1.00 8.1 53.00 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.74 Tc(MIN.) = 15.33 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.54 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.1 TC(MIN.) = 15.33 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 6.54 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 1.000 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.74 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 5.74 15.33 1.190 0.21( 0.21) 1.00 6.5 50.00 2 5.48 21.86 0.971 0.22( 0.22) 1.00 8.1 53.00 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS   Existing 2-year hydrology ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ============================================================================ (C) Copyright 1989-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 15535 Sand Canyon Ave. Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: SNUG HARBOR EXISTING CONDITION 2 YR HYDROGRAPH ============================================================================ *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 10.30 67.00 82.(AMC II) 0.200 0.349 2 5.13 100.00 82.(AMC II) 0.250 0.082 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 15.43 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.173 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.740 ============================================================================ Problem Descriptions: SNUG HARBOR EXISTING CONDITION 2 YR HYDROGRAPH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.89 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 15.43 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH/HR) = 0.173 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.740 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 15.33 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.85 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.78 **************************************************************************** TIME VOLUME Q 0. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.16 0.0000 0.00 Q . . . . 0.41 0.0012 0.12 Q . . . . 1 0.67 0.0037 0.12 Q . . . . 0.93 0.0061 0.12 Q . . . . 1.18 0.0086 0.12 Q . . . . 1.44 0.0111 0.12 Q . . . . 1.69 0.0137 0.12 Q . . . . 1.95 0.0163 0.12 Q . . . . 2.20 0.0189 0.12 Q . . . . 2.46 0.0215 0.13 Q . . . . 2.71 0.0242 0.13 Q . . . . 2.97 0.0268 0.13 Q . . . . 3.22 0.0296 0.13 Q . . . . 3.48 0.0323 0.13 Q . . . . 3.74 0.0351 0.13 Q . . . . 3.99 0.0380 0.14 Q . . . . 4.25 0.0408 0.14 Q . . . . 4.50 0.0437 0.14 Q . . . . 4.76 0.0467 0.14 Q . . . . 5.01 0.0497 0.14 Q . . . . 5.27 0.0527 0.14 Q . . . . 5.52 0.0558 0.15 Q . . . . 5.78 0.0589 0.15 Q . . . . 6.04 0.0621 0.15 Q . . . . 6.29 0.0653 0.15 Q . . . . 6.55 0.0686 0.16 Q . . . . 6.80 0.0719 0.16 Q . . . . 7.06 0.0753 0.16 Q . . . . 7.31 0.0788 0.16 Q . . . . 7.57 0.0823 0.17 Q . . . . 7.82 0.0858 0.17 Q . . . . 8.08 0.0895 0.17 Q . . . . 8.34 0.0932 0.18 Q . . . . 8.59 0.0970 0.18 Q . . . . 8.85 0.1009 0.18 Q . . . . 9.10 0.1048 0.19 Q . . . . 9.36 0.1089 0.19 Q . . . . 9.61 0.1130 0.20 Q . . . . 9.87 0.1173 0.20 Q . . . . 10.12 0.1216 0.21 Q . . . . 10.38 0.1261 0.21 Q . . . . 10.63 0.1307 0.22 Q . . . . 10.89 0.1354 0.23 Q . . . . 11.15 0.1403 0.24 Q . . . . 11.40 0.1453 0.24 Q . . . . 11.66 0.1505 0.25 Q . . . . 11.91 0.1559 0.26 Q . . . . 12.17 0.1618 0.30 Q . . . . 12.42 0.1685 0.34 Q . . . . 12.68 0.1758 0.36 Q . . . . 12.93 0.1834 0.37 Q . . . . 13.19 0.1914 0.39 Q . . . . 13.45 0.1997 0.40 Q . . . . 13.70 0.2084 0.43 Q . . . . 13.96 0.2177 0.45 Q . . . . 14.21 0.2277 0.50 .Q . . . . 14.47 0.2386 0.53 .Q . . . . 14.72 0.2504 0.59 .Q . . . . 14.98 0.2634 0.63 .Q . . . . 15.23 0.2779 0.75 .Q . . . . 15.49 0.2946 0.83 .Q . . . . 15.74 0.3192 1.50 . Q . . . . 16.00 0.3673 3.05 . Q . . . . 16.26 0.5460 13.88 . . . Q . . 16.51 0.7013 0.83 .Q . . . . 16.77 0.7173 0.68 .Q . . . . 17.02 0.7304 0.56 .Q . . . . 17.28 0.7412 0.47 Q . . . . 17.53 0.7505 0.41 Q . . . . 17.79 0.7589 0.38 Q . . . . 18.04 0.7665 0.35 Q . . . . 18.30 0.7729 0.26 Q . . . . 18.56 0.7783 0.25 Q . . . . 18.81 0.7834 0.23 Q . . . . 19.07 0.7881 0.22 Q . . . . 2 19.32 0.7926 0.21 Q . . . . 19.58 0.7968 0.20 Q . . . . 19.83 0.8009 0.19 Q . . . . 20.09 0.8047 0.18 Q . . . . 20.34 0.8084 0.17 Q . . . . 20.60 0.8120 0.17 Q . . . . 20.85 0.8155 0.16 Q . . . . 21.11 0.8188 0.16 Q . . . . 21.37 0.8220 0.15 Q . . . . 21.62 0.8251 0.15 Q . . . . 21.88 0.8282 0.14 Q . . . . 22.13 0.8311 0.14 Q . . . . 22.39 0.8340 0.13 Q . . . . 22.64 0.8368 0.13 Q . . . . 22.90 0.8395 0.13 Q . . . . 23.15 0.8422 0.12 Q . . . . 23.41 0.8448 0.12 Q . . . . 23.67 0.8473 0.12 Q . . . . 23.92 0.8498 0.12 Q . . . . 24.18 0.8523 0.11 Q . . . . 24.43 0.8535 0.00 Q . . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) ======================= ========= 0% 1441.0 10% 46.0 20% 30.7 30% 15.3 40% 15.3 50% 15.3 60% 15.3 70% 15.3 80% 15.3 90% 15.3 3 42.00FF 48.00FF 42.00FF 36. 0 0 F F 36. 5 0 F F 36.50FF E1 5.53ac A10 1.8ac A12 0.37ac A8 0.20ac A9 0.26ac A6 0.30ac A4 0.68ac A7 0.27ac A3 0.59ac A2 0.28ac A1 0.14ac B2 0.22ac B3 0.44ac C1 0.63ac C2 0.87ac D1 0.19ac A5 0.08ac C4 0.29ac C3 1.65ac B4 0.24ac B5 0.23ac B1 0.11ac A11 0.06ac 949.474.1960 15535 Sand Canyon Ave, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 fuscoe.com SNUG HARBOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BACK BAY BARRELS, LLC 3857 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 521 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 11/05/2024 ABBREVATIONS LEGEND PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY X X.XX 0 1/ / w , I ( fl:,( ~ 2J I = '-.,,_ -. Q,.=6. "'( G.i,-15.0C: 0.oo-19.2C / A:5.030 I ' I; "-I; ,, I; ' I; ' I t / I / / I / / \_ I --------------- A { 1 .,, El.El'.e<QJHPV iS'-9 ,,,, • I ' I ~ S PE '._ ___ --,0 \~ --so;;: TYPE •c" b~t,. ' ,$' ' '' ,--..,__,.. ___ \ \ \ \ ' ' ' ' ' "' ' ' ' ' ' ' ...... p // ~•/ 0 ti· r-..~~ •• ♦ . I I \ = • ' ·. . ' \ --.::....__ ~ ...... ' ' ~ ~ ~ -~,. -44.7 '.,~ " ' '· ' ' ' ' '-.. • ♦: :♦ ■ l!NGINl!l!RING 8 LAGOON TO DRAIN TO SANITARY SEWER -NOT CONTRIBUTING TO DRAINAGE ' ' ' C ,._ ~ ~ ,, '~ " --~ ~~ ~ ::::---=:.._~ ,.,~ I I / • / / / / + ' • 8 I I ..-<"'-=----, =-=--4\ ~--" -~ \ --~CC~~;-;-::!~~-".c"--:_-;::~ \, ---<-_e.C--'"'t , __ , '.,✓., \ /., \ . \ 1 ' I '-"''-.. I ,, /,1/ ✓'-~\ // y', t ,{ "-l-'' ./ tr.. (!' ' / \/ ~ ✓,, ·, ( , '-•,/ ~I '-', ... ) (_ 't , ', I I I I ( I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ I I " I I )' I I I I ) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' DRAINAGE MAP AREAS A 8 C D E (LAGOON) TOTAL ' " ' " " I SOIL TYPE "C" & "D" I AC ACRE AC-FT ACRE-FOOT CFS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ELEV SURFACE ELEVATION HP HIGH POINT INV PIPE INVERT ELEVATION L LENGTH MIN MINUTES Q FLOW RAlE S SLOPE Tc TIME OF CONCENTRATION CB CATCH BASIN --- ---PROPERTY LINE --- ---EXISTING STORM DRAIN -• ■ -DRAINAGE BOUNDARY • • • • • • • DRAINAGE SUB-BOUNDARY -------DRAINAGE SUB-AREAS @-NODE ------ON-SITE AREA DRAIN LINE --------TIME OF CONCENTRATION FLOW PATH --➔ ---OFFSITE FLOW PATH L=XXX1 FLOW PATH LENGTH - - - - - - -SOIL TYPE DELINEATION e DRAINAGE BOUNDARY DESIGNATION AND AREA PROPOSED CONDITION SUMMARY TABLE AREA (ACRES) Q2 (CFS) Q25 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) 5.03 6.8 15.0 19.2 1.24 1.3 3.0 3.8 3.44 5.7 12.6 16.2 0.19 0.3 0,8 1.0 5.53 15.43 14.1 31.4 40.2 50' o· 25• 50• SCALE: 1" = 50' ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Snug Harbor Surf Park * * Proposed Condition Hydrology * * 2-year storm event * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: PRSH2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:16 11/05/2024 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 2.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) I ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (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.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 55.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 55.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.329 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.416 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 1 of 15 LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL C 0.14 0.25 0.100 50 11.33 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.18 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 46.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 44.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 124.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.49 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.18 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.83 Tc(MIN.) = 12.16 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 454.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 12.16 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.359 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 0.28 0.25 0.100 50 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.34 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.50 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 44.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 37.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 212.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.00 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.50 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.71 Tc(MIN.) = 12.87 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 13.00 = 666.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 12.87 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.316 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 2 of 15 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 0.59 0.25 0.100 50 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.59 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.17 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 37.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 28.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 167.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.17 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.17 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.39 Tc(MIN.) = 13.25 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 14.00 = 833.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 13.25 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.294 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 0.66 0.25 0.100 50 COMMERCIAL D 0.02 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.68 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.78 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.69 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.93 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 28.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 25.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 267.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.47 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.93 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.00 Tc(MIN.) = 14.25 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 15.00 = 1100.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 81 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 3 of 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 14.25 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.241 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 0.02 0.25 0.100 50 COMMERCIAL D 0.06 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.09 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.77 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.94 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.25 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.24 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.77 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.94 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE 17.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 262.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 40.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 35.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.356 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.972 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.30 0.20 0.100 57 6.36 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.53 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE 17.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.36 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.972 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 4 of 15 DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.14 0.20 0.100 57 COMMERCIAL C 0.14 0.25 0.100 50 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.28 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.49 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.58 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.02 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE 17.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.36 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.972 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.20 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.35 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.78 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.37 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE 17.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.36 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.972 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.26 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.46 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.83 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 31.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 25.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 169.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.91 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.83 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.41 Tc(MIN.) = 6.76 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE 15.00 = 431.00 FEET. Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 5 of 15 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.76 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.90 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.04 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.83 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1.94 14.25 1.241 0.25( 0.02) 0.10 1.8 10.00 2 1.83 6.76 1.903 0.21( 0.02) 0.10 1.0 16.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.25 6.76 1.903 0.23( 0.02) 0.10 1.9 16.00 2 3.12 14.25 1.241 0.23( 0.02) 0.10 2.8 10.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.25 Tc(MIN.) = 6.76 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.88 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.8 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 15.00 = 1100.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 18.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 25.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 11.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 82.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.80 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.25 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.09 Tc(MIN.) = 6.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 18.00 = 1182.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 18.00 TO NODE 19.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 11.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 11.10 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 6 of 15 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.88 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.25 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.34 Tc(MIN.) = 7.20 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 19.00 = 1262.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 19.00 TO NODE 19.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.20 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.84 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.88 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.81 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.25 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 40.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 33.50 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 6.783 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.900 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 1.60 0.20 0.100 57 6.78 COMMERCIAL C 0.20 0.25 0.100 50 6.78 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.05 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.05 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.00 TO NODE 22.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 17.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 11.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 56.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.28 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.05 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 6.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 22.00 = 386.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 22.00 TO NODE 22.00 IS CODE = 81 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 7 of 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 6.86 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.888 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL FAIR COVER "GRASS" D 0.06 0.20 1.000 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.09 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.86 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.12 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 22.00 TO NODE 19.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 11.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 11.10 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 41.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.81 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.12 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.18 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 19.00 = 427.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 19.00 TO NODE 19.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 7.04 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.860 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN NATURAL FAIR COVER "GRASS" D 0.37 0.20 1.000 69 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 1.000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.37 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 2.23 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.62 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 19.00 TO NODE 19.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.04 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.86 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.06 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 8 of 15 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.27 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.23 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.62 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 3.25 7.20 1.836 0.23( 0.02) 0.10 1.9 16.00 1 3.12 14.69 1.219 0.23( 0.02) 0.10 2.8 10.00 2 3.62 7.04 1.860 0.20( 0.06) 0.27 2.2 20.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 6.84 7.04 1.860 0.21( 0.04) 0.20 4.1 20.00 2 6.82 7.20 1.836 0.21( 0.04) 0.19 4.1 16.00 3 5.46 14.69 1.219 0.21( 0.04) 0.18 5.0 10.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.84 Tc(MIN.) = 7.04 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 4.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.04 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.0 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 19.00 = 1262.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 19.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 11.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 11.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 26.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.24 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.84 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 7.14 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 23.00 = 1288.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 31.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 39.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 38.90 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 9.862 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.533 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL C 0.11 0.25 0.100 50 9.86 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 9 of 15 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.15 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 31.00 TO NODE 32.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 36.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 34.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 303.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.79 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.15 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.82 Tc(MIN.) = 12.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 32.00 = 633.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.00 TO NODE 32.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 12.68 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.327 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 0.22 0.25 0.100 50 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.26 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.33 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.03 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.25 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.39 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.00 TO NODE 33.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 34.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 34.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 133.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.34 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.39 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.95 Tc(MIN.) = 13.63 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 33.00 = 766.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.00 TO NODE 33.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 13.63 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.273 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 10 of 15 COMMERCIAL C 0.14 0.25 0.100 50 COMMERCIAL D 0.30 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.77 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.87 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.00 TO NODE 33.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 13.63 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.273 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL C 0.08 0.25 0.100 50 COMMERCIAL D 0.16 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.14 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 34.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 33.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 237.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.02 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.14 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.31 Tc(MIN.) = 14.94 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 34.00 = 1003.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 14.94 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.208 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.23 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.25 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.24 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.22 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.32 **************************************************************************** Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 11 of 15 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 35.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 33.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 18.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 335.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.0 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.02 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.32 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.80 Tc(MIN.) = 15.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 35.00 = 1338.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 51.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 55.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 32.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.268 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.197 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.63 0.20 0.100 57 5.27 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.23 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 51.00 TO NODE 51.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 5.27 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.197 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.87 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.87 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.70 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.94 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 51.00 TO NODE 52.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 32.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 27.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 247.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0202 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 20.000 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 12 of 15 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 10.00 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.960 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 1.65 0.20 0.100 57 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.38 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.56 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.16 Tc(MIN.) = 6.43 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.88 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.15 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.50 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 52.00 = 577.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 52.00 TO NODE 53.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 23.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 21.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 121.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.63 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.50 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.36 Tc(MIN.) = 6.78 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 53.00 = 698.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 53.00 TO NODE 54.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 21.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 20.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 102.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.0 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.12 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.50 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.24 Tc(MIN.) = 7.02 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 54.00 = 800.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 54.00 TO NODE 54.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ MAINLINE Tc(MIN.) = 7.02 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 1.863 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 0.29 0.20 0.100 57 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 13 of 15 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.48 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.44 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.70 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 54.00 TO NODE 55.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 20.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 16.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 36.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.37 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.70 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 7.07 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 55.00 = 836.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 54.00 TO NODE 55.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 20.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 16.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 45.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.29 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.70 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 7.13 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 55.00 = 881.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 61.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 145.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 31.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 15.00 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 5.461 * 2 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.152 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC I ): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) PUBLIC PARK D 0.19 0.20 0.850 57 5.46 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.19 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.34 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 TC(MIN.) = 5.46 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.17 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.850 Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 14 of 15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.34 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Snug Harbor Hydrology Proposed Condition 2-year Page 15 of 15 ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS ============================================================================ (C) Copyright 1989-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1355 Analysis prepared by: **************************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Problem Descriptions: Snug Harbor Proposed Condition Hydrograph 2-year storm event ============================================================================ *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC I: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 2.05 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 2.60 10.00 69.(AMC II) 0.250 0.801 2 6.70 10.00 75.(AMC II) 0.200 0.803 3 0.40 100.00 75.(AMC II) 0.200 0.018 4 0.20 85.00 75.(AMC II) 0.200 0.148 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 9.90 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.032 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.243 ============================================================================ Problem Descriptions: Snug Harbor Proposed Condition Hydrograph 2-year storm event (calibration coefficient = 0.7735) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.77 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 9.90 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH/HR) = 0.032 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.243 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.00 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 2 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.19 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.40 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.53 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.89 1 Snug Harbor Proposed Condition 2-year Hydrograph 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.22 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.06 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.63 **************************************************************************** TIME VOLUME Q 0. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.02 0.0000 0.00 Q . . . . 0.13 0.0009 0.19 Q . . . . 0.25 0.0027 0.19 Q . . . . 0.37 0.0045 0.19 Q . . . . 0.48 0.0063 0.19 Q . . . . 0.60 0.0081 0.19 Q . . . . 0.72 0.0099 0.19 Q . . . . 0.83 0.0118 0.19 Q . . . . 0.95 0.0136 0.19 Q . . . . 1.07 0.0155 0.19 Q . . . . 1.18 0.0173 0.19 Q . . . . 1.30 0.0192 0.19 Q . . . . 1.42 0.0211 0.20 Q . . . . 1.53 0.0230 0.20 Q . . . . 1.65 0.0249 0.20 Q . . . . 1.77 0.0268 0.20 Q . . . . 1.88 0.0287 0.20 Q . . . . 2.00 0.0307 0.20 Q . . . . 2.12 0.0326 0.20 Q . . . . 2.23 0.0345 0.20 Q . . . . 2.35 0.0365 0.20 Q . . . . 2.47 0.0385 0.20 Q . . . . 2.58 0.0405 0.21 Q . . . . 2.70 0.0424 0.21 Q . . . . 2.82 0.0444 0.21 Q . . . . 2.93 0.0465 0.21 Q . . . . 3.05 0.0485 0.21 Q . . . . 3.17 0.0505 0.21 Q . . . . 3.28 0.0526 0.21 Q . . . . 3.40 0.0546 0.21 Q . . . . 3.52 0.0567 0.22 Q . . . . 3.63 0.0588 0.22 Q . . . . 3.75 0.0609 0.22 Q . . . . 3.87 0.0630 0.22 Q . . . . 3.98 0.0651 0.22 Q . . . . 4.10 0.0672 0.22 Q . . . . 4.22 0.0694 0.22 Q . . . . 4.33 0.0715 0.22 Q . . . . 4.45 0.0737 0.23 Q . . . . 4.57 0.0759 0.23 Q . . . . 4.68 0.0781 0.23 Q . . . . 4.80 0.0803 0.23 Q . . . . 4.92 0.0826 0.23 Q . . . . 5.03 0.0848 0.23 Q . . . . 5.15 0.0871 0.24 Q . . . . 5.27 0.0893 0.24 Q . . . . 5.38 0.0916 0.24 Q . . . . 5.50 0.0939 0.24 Q . . . . 5.62 0.0962 0.24 Q . . . . 2 Snug Harbor Proposed Condition 2-year Hydrograph 5.73 0.0986 0.24 Q . . . . 5.85 0.1009 0.25 Q . . . . 5.97 0.1033 0.25 Q . . . . 6.08 0.1057 0.25 Q . . . . 6.20 0.1081 0.25 Q . . . . 6.32 0.1105 0.25 Q . . . . 6.43 0.1130 0.25 Q . . . . 6.55 0.1154 0.26 Q . . . . 6.67 0.1179 0.26 Q . . . . 6.78 0.1204 0.26 Q . . . . 6.90 0.1229 0.26 Q . . . . 7.02 0.1255 0.26 Q . . . . 7.13 0.1280 0.27 Q . . . . 7.25 0.1306 0.27 Q . . . . 7.37 0.1332 0.27 Q . . . . 7.48 0.1358 0.27 Q . . . . 7.60 0.1385 0.28 Q . . . . 7.72 0.1411 0.28 Q . . . . 7.83 0.1438 0.28 Q . . . . 7.95 0.1465 0.28 Q . . . . 8.07 0.1493 0.28 Q . . . . 8.18 0.1520 0.29 Q . . . . 8.30 0.1548 0.29 Q . . . . 8.42 0.1576 0.29 Q . . . . 8.53 0.1605 0.30 Q . . . . 8.65 0.1633 0.30 Q . . . . 8.77 0.1662 0.30 Q . . . . 8.88 0.1692 0.31 Q . . . . 9.00 0.1721 0.31 Q . . . . 9.12 0.1751 0.31 Q . . . . 9.23 0.1781 0.31 Q . . . . 9.35 0.1812 0.32 Q . . . . 9.47 0.1843 0.32 Q . . . . 9.58 0.1874 0.33 Q . . . . 9.70 0.1905 0.33 Q . . . . 9.82 0.1937 0.33 Q . . . . 9.93 0.1970 0.34 Q . . . . 10.05 0.2002 0.34 Q . . . . 10.17 0.2035 0.34 Q . . . . 10.28 0.2069 0.35 Q . . . . 10.40 0.2103 0.35 Q . . . . 10.52 0.2137 0.36 Q . . . . 10.63 0.2172 0.36 Q . . . . 10.75 0.2207 0.37 Q . . . . 10.87 0.2243 0.37 Q . . . . 10.98 0.2279 0.38 Q . . . . 11.10 0.2316 0.38 Q . . . . 11.22 0.2353 0.39 Q . . . . 11.33 0.2391 0.39 Q . . . . 11.45 0.2429 0.40 Q . . . . 11.57 0.2468 0.41 Q . . . . 11.68 0.2508 0.42 Q . . . . 11.80 0.2548 0.42 Q . . . . 11.92 0.2589 0.43 Q . . . . 12.03 0.2631 0.44 Q . . . . 12.15 0.2678 0.54 .Q . . . . 12.27 0.2731 0.55 .Q . . . . 12.38 0.2784 0.56 .Q . . . . 12.50 0.2839 0.57 .Q . . . . 12.62 0.2894 0.58 .Q . . . . 12.73 0.2950 0.59 .Q . . . . 3 Snug Harbor Proposed Condition 2-year Hydrograph 12.85 0.3008 0.60 .Q . . . . 12.97 0.3066 0.61 .Q . . . . 13.08 0.3126 0.63 .Q . . . . 13.20 0.3187 0.64 .Q . . . . 13.32 0.3249 0.66 .Q . . . . 13.43 0.3313 0.67 .Q . . . . 13.55 0.3378 0.69 .Q . . . . 13.67 0.3445 0.70 .Q . . . . 13.78 0.3514 0.73 .Q . . . . 13.90 0.3585 0.74 .Q . . . . 14.02 0.3658 0.77 .Q . . . . 14.13 0.3734 0.82 .Q . . . . 14.25 0.3816 0.88 .Q . . . . 14.37 0.3902 0.91 .Q . . . . 14.48 0.3992 0.96 .Q . . . . 14.60 0.4087 1.00 .Q . . . . 14.72 0.4186 1.07 . Q . . . . 14.83 0.4291 1.11 . Q . . . . 14.95 0.4403 1.21 . Q . . . . 15.07 0.4522 1.26 . Q . . . . 15.18 0.4650 1.39 . Q . . . . 15.30 0.4788 1.48 . Q . . . . 15.42 0.4933 1.53 . Q . . . . 15.53 0.5081 1.54 . Q . . . . 15.65 0.5247 1.90 . Q . . . . 15.77 0.5444 2.19 . Q . . . . 15.88 0.5707 3.26 . Q . . . . 16.00 0.6084 4.54 . Q. . . . 16.12 0.6982 14.10 . . . Q . . 16.23 0.7789 2.63 . Q . . . . 16.35 0.7997 1.70 . Q . . . . 16.47 0.8155 1.57 . Q . . . . 16.58 0.8294 1.32 . Q . . . . 16.70 0.8414 1.16 . Q . . . . 16.82 0.8519 1.03 . Q . . . . 16.93 0.8614 0.93 .Q . . . . 17.05 0.8700 0.85 .Q . . . . 17.17 0.8778 0.75 .Q . . . . 17.28 0.8848 0.71 .Q . . . . 17.40 0.8915 0.68 .Q . . . . 17.52 0.8979 0.65 .Q . . . . 17.63 0.9040 0.62 .Q . . . . 17.75 0.9099 0.60 .Q . . . . 17.87 0.9155 0.57 .Q . . . . 17.98 0.9210 0.55 .Q . . . . 18.10 0.9259 0.48 Q . . . . 18.22 0.9303 0.43 Q . . . . 18.33 0.9344 0.41 Q . . . . 18.45 0.9383 0.40 Q . . . . 18.57 0.9420 0.39 Q . . . . 18.68 0.9457 0.38 Q . . . . 18.80 0.9493 0.37 Q . . . . 18.92 0.9528 0.36 Q . . . . 19.03 0.9562 0.35 Q . . . . 19.15 0.9595 0.34 Q . . . . 19.27 0.9627 0.33 Q . . . . 19.38 0.9658 0.32 Q . . . . 19.50 0.9689 0.32 Q . . . . 19.62 0.9720 0.31 Q . . . . 19.73 0.9749 0.30 Q . . . . 19.85 0.9778 0.30 Q . . . . 4 Snug Harbor Proposed Condition 2-year Hydrograph 19.97 0.9807 0.29 Q . . . . 20.08 0.9834 0.29 Q . . . . 20.20 0.9862 0.28 Q . . . . 20.32 0.9889 0.28 Q . . . . 20.43 0.9915 0.27 Q . . . . 20.55 0.9941 0.27 Q . . . . 20.67 0.9967 0.26 Q . . . . 20.78 0.9992 0.26 Q . . . . 20.90 1.0017 0.26 Q . . . . 21.02 1.0041 0.25 Q . . . . 21.13 1.0065 0.25 Q . . . . 21.25 1.0089 0.24 Q . . . . 21.37 1.0112 0.24 Q . . . . 21.48 1.0135 0.24 Q . . . . 21.60 1.0158 0.23 Q . . . . 21.72 1.0180 0.23 Q . . . . 21.83 1.0203 0.23 Q . . . . 21.95 1.0224 0.23 Q . . . . 22.07 1.0246 0.22 Q . . . . 22.18 1.0267 0.22 Q . . . . 22.30 1.0289 0.22 Q . . . . 22.42 1.0309 0.21 Q . . . . 22.53 1.0330 0.21 Q . . . . 22.65 1.0350 0.21 Q . . . . 22.77 1.0370 0.21 Q . . . . 22.88 1.0390 0.21 Q . . . . 23.00 1.0410 0.20 Q . . . . 23.12 1.0430 0.20 Q . . . . 23.23 1.0449 0.20 Q . . . . 23.35 1.0468 0.20 Q . . . . 23.47 1.0487 0.20 Q . . . . 23.58 1.0506 0.19 Q . . . . 23.70 1.0524 0.19 Q . . . . 23.82 1.0543 0.19 Q . . . . 23.93 1.0561 0.19 Q . . . . 24.05 1.0579 0.19 Q . . . . 24.17 1.0588 0.00 Q . . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) ======================= ========= 0% 1442.0 10% 77.0 20% 21.0 30% 14.0 40% 7.0 50% 7.0 60% 7.0 70% 7.0 80% 7.0 90% 7.0 5 Snug Harbor Proposed Condition 2-year Hydrograph