Attachment 3.9.2 - Appendix I2 Water Suply Assessment_Redacted.pdf — Chula Vista City Council, November 18, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

Hydrologic Soil Group-San Diego County Area, California Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI HuC Huerhuero-Urban land D 30.9
complex, 2 to 9
percent slopes
Md Made land 13.6
Totals for Area of Interest 44.4
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (AID, 8/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, 8/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
USDA Natural Resources
~ Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey

69.4%

30.6%
100.0%
7/27/2023

Page 3 ends

Hydrologic Soil Group-San Diego County Area, California !lill
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
7/27/2023

Page 4 ends

Nati·onal Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette FEMA
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
2,000 1:6,000
8ascmap Imagery So1m:ei !JSGS National Map 2023
Legend
SEE Fl!; AEPOJIT FOR DEfAllID LEGEND AND I EX !'IMP, FOIR iFiRM l'A'NEl. l.Jil'o\iT ~PEciAL f1.0QI)

HAZARD AREAS
OTH:E:R AREAS Of
fLOOD HAZARD
Wlitirloqi Bass-Hood 'Elevation (BF'E) Zvho A. ~- .ol99 With ElF:E III lil1Bpth.la.,.4 AO, ,IH ,
F'legtllalo[}' FtooelWBf

0..2%, 1i11Jal Chance, Flood Hazard, Areas
t1f 1% a nu chance flood with avexag.0
dep.til less 111.an o.ne foot or wllfl, dra1na,;,e
-~r111as of MS than ooe square mlla /. ~
Rrture Co11dttlons :1~ An·nual
CilllllCB Flood Haz:a:lld 1<,..,, l
.Area w til Reduced Flood Risi! due to
levee . . See Notes, z,,, X
Are,ll With Flood Riskdl!e to le""".l:M•D
No -smttli Area 111 nlmal Rlood Haiz.ard ~•n• ~
c:::::::::J Eltl!'CUve LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area ilf Undet ermined Flood Harald &,,• o
G.ENERAiL ell.In e<I, Cvl..-cott, 0r Slo!lil So:wo:r
SffilJCfURES 1 1 , 1 , Levee, Oik~, qr fl00dwr1U
CJOH Settioni; willt 1·% nu Ch fltlt
OlH~Fl

FEATURES
W;i er S1:0-face• Et~•iitfo;n
t - - - t:q~,m,i Tf!!l\$@¢1
....., N._., S~Sie Flood E»evallon Urie l'~ I
= Limit of St 1:1d)'
1ur1sllfl(;l1011 Botmlllary
--- --- Coil . I Tti'JM <:<lt Ba el "
F'ro Ile Ba,se 111a
1-l'r(lro~phl(; Fe~tl!rt:

N
MAP PANELS Unmapped + o p!n dli;playoo oo lhe m._,jp Is an approximate pomt selected lly the user and do.es not r~res,a:nt.
an a11itl'{lrltatl\-e property k>catlon.

This map compiles Yrith FEMA's standards Ol' ilH! use o dlgltal ilood .map!i I~ not 'l'c>ld: as descitbed be!ow.

The lla~ap shown complies wrl,h FEMA's basemap
accur1;1c:y standards
The fJood hail-ii rd ·In ormation Is derived dlJBCJ y f.rom the authoritalille F'HL web sel'\llces ·provided by l'EMA, ms ma;p was eitpOil'led on 7 / 16/ 2M3 at 10:54 AM and d'oes no! reflect ohang~ or amendmenl!i subsequent lo this date and li'me. The FHL 11111l effecwre :informs 011 mar change or become superseded by new data over time,
Thi'S map ·ma.go is ,•oid it the -on or m ore, of tlte following map e'9men-ts do n<it appear: basemap-,lmagol')', 'll'ood zo11e labels, lc,gsnd, sca!e bar map creation dat<1,, commun'lty identl ers, FIRM pall I m11mber, .and FIRM effectlv-e date. Map [mage:s for ijnmapp11d and 11nmodemlz.edl areas eannol be usod f.or regulat111y -pui-poses,
APPENDIX2
Existing Conditions Rational Method Computer Output
EXISTING 100-YEAR RATIONAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM 100
****************************************************************************

RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2016 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 23.0 Release Date: 07/01/2016 License ID 1509
Analysis prepared by:

FILE NAME: S100E100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:30 07/19/2023
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE= 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES:

MANNING

WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- I OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE I SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT)
--------- ----------------- ====== ======
=======
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 1.50 0.0313
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:

1. Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint= 0.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
HIKE
(FT)

0.125
FACTOR
(n)

0.0150
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 9.49
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 9.38
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.11
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) 3.207
WARNING: THE MINIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 0.5%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 9.38 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 54.12 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.19 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 3.65

4.75 2.04

0.44 8.94

0.0081
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

8.38 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 8.94
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.36
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 104.12 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 6.64 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 5.81 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 166.76 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 5.06
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.94
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE

0.55 Tc(MIN.) =
100.00 TO NODE

4.20 103.00 270.88 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.20
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.54 3.0
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

9.49 18.43
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 5.81 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 4.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 302.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.04
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 18.43
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.83 Tc(MIN.) = 5.03
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 105.00 572.88 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.822
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.03
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.02 4.0
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

6.26 24.62
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.822
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.03
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.66 5.7
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

10.19 34.81
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 114.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.822
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.03
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.80 7.5
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

11.05 45.86
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 4.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 200.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 26.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.60
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 45.86

0.44 Tc(MIN.) = 5.47
1 3.31
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 106.00 772.88 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.464
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.47
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.79 8.3
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

4.60 48.05
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 106.00 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.) 5.47
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.46
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.26
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 48.05
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 108.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 13.83
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 12.89
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.94
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

2.063

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 12.89 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 166.90 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

11.50 0.0083
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) =
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.19 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 3.42

5.02 2.05

1.36 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.45

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.47

8.94 9.49
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 109.00 = 216.90 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 8.57 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 7.86 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 112.90 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 5.62
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.49
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.33 Tc(MIN.) = 3.76
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 110.00 329.80 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.88 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 3.76

5.43 14.92
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 7.86 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 7.05 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 130.10 MANNING'S N 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.22
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 14.92
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 4.10
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 111.00 459.90 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 111.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.10
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.43 3.8
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

8.82 23.74
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 113.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 7.05 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 3.43 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 578.20 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.85
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 23.74
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.41 Tc(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE

5.51 113.00 1038.10 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 113.00 TO NODE 113.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.433
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 11.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 33.81
TC(MIN.) = 5.51
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 112. 00 TO NODE 112.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.433
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 4.49 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.51

26.00 59.81
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 113. 00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 3.43 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 529.50 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 39.0 INCH PIPE IS 30.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 8.72
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 39.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 59.81

1.01 Tc(MIN.) = 6.52
1 0.12
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 106.00 1567.60 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 113. 00 TO NODE 106.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>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.) 6.52
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 10.33
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 59.81
** CONFLUENCE DATA**

STREAM RUNOFF

NUMBER (CFS)
1 48.05
Tc
(MIN.)

5.47 INTENSITY
(INCH/HOUR)

6.464
AREA
(ACRE)

8.26 1
2 59.81 6.52 5.770 10.33

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE**

STREAM RUNOFF

NUMBER (CFS)
1 98.21
2 102.70
Tc
(MIN.)

5.47 6.52

INTENSITY
(INCH/HOUR)

6.464

5.770
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 102.70 Tc(MIN.) = 6.52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 18.6

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES)

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
107.00 TO NODE
18 . 6 TC (MIN. ) =
102.70

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
106.00

6.52 1567.60 FEET.

EXISTING 100-YEAR RATIONAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM 200
****************************************************************************

FILE NAME: S200E200.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 08:46 07/20/2023
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE= 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES:

MANNING

1. Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb)

2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint= 0.0 (FT*FT/S)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
HIKE
(FT)

0.125
FACTOR
(n)

0.0150
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.16
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 13.47
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.69
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

2.286

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.23
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 13.47 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 149.00 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.18 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 3.25

5.58 2.58

0.96 11.47

0.0134
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.41 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

8.69 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 9.93
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.94
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 199.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 10.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 10.29 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 147.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 4.55
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.93
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.54 Tc(MIN.) = 3.79
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 203.00 346.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 2.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 3.79

16.65 26.57
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 10.29 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 228.10 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 5.76
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 26.57

0.66 Tc(MIN.) = 4.45
1 9.50
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 204.00 574.10 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 204.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 2.75 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.45

16.95 43.53
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 9.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 641.50 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 29.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.04
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 43.53

NUMBER OF PIPES

1.52 Tc(MIN.) =
1 6.61
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE

5.97 205.00 1215.60 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 205.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.112
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.97
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

2.43 9.5
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

13.37 52.20
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 211.00 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.) 5.97
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.11
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.49
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 52.20
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 207.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 10.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) 8.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) 1.20
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) 1.901
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 207.00 TO NODE 208.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 8.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 127.10 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.21 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 3.30

4.32 1.51

1.40 8.30

0.0039
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

7.15 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 7.89
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 1.75
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 208.00 = 177.10 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 209.00 TO NODE 209.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 2.64 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 3.30

16.28 24.17
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 208.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 5.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 2.96 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 345.50 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.89
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 24.17
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.73 Tc(MIN.) = 4.03
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 210.00 522.60 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.78 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.03

4.81 28.98
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.03

22.50 51.48
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 211.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS= 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:

TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) 4.03
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.35
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 51.48
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 52.20 5.97 6.112 9.49
2 51.48 4.03 6.850 8.35

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 86.75 4.03 6.850
2 98.13 5.97 6.112
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES)

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
NODE

98.13 Tc (MIN.) =

17.8 200.00 TO NODE
1 7 . 8 TC (MIN. ) =

98.13 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

5.97 211. 00

5.97 1215.60 FEET.

APPENDIX3
Proposed Conditions Rational Method Computer Output
PROPOSED 100-YEAR RATIONAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM 100
****************************************************************************

FILE NAME: S100D100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:38 07/27/2023
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE= 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES:

MANNING

1. Relative Flow-Depth= 0.10 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.*
HIKE
(FT)

0.167
FACTOR
(n)

0.0150
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.63
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 13.70
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.93
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) 2.070
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 13.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 55.00 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.16 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 2.63

3.02 1.63

0.56 13.35

0.0064
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

5.18 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 5.61
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.21 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 1.97
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 105.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 102.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 11.35 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 8.85 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 392.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.9 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 4.99
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.61
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) 1.31 Tc(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE

3.94 103.00 497.00 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 3.94
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.72 1.6
= 0.8779

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

4.19 9.80
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 104.00 TO NODE 103.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8804
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 3.94

1.29 11.10
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 103.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 8.85 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 256.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.04
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.10

NUMBER OF PIPES

0.61 Tc(MIN.) =
1 6.24
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE

4.55 105.00 753.00 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8716
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.75 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.55

4.37 15.46
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 107.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8832
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.78 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.55

10.97 26.44
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 106.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8851
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.55

3.45 29.89
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 108.00 TO NODE 105.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8857
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.55

1.29 31.19
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 105.00 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 6.24 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 4.28 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 351.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.22
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 31.19
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.81 Tc(MIN.) = 5.36
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 109.00 1104.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 109.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.550
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.36
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.32 6.5
= 0.8784

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

7.35 37.17
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 4.28 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 3.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) 90.30 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)

ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH)
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 37.17

8.42 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.18 Tc(MIN.) =
1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE

5.54 110.00 1194.30 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 109.00 TO NODE 110.00 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.) 5.54
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.41
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 6.46
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 37.17
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 112.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.23
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 13.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.73
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

2.244

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.37
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 112.00 TO NODE 113.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 13.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 53.10 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

12.60 0.0169
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) =
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.14 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 2.59

3.70 2.58

0.34 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.08

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.86

6.66 7.03
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 113.00 = 103.10 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 113.00 TO NODE 114.00 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) 8.44 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 468.50 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 4.94
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.03
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.58 Tc(MIN.) = 4.17
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 114.00 571.60 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 114.00 TO NODE 114.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8782
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.88 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.17

5.12 12.15
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 114.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 7.31 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 540.90 MANNING'S N 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.05
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.15

1.49 Tc(MIN.) = 5.66

3.60 1
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 111.00 TO NODE 110.00 1112.50 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 115.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.327
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.66
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.32 2.3
= 0.8744

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

1.72 12.94
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 116.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.327
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.66
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.26 2.6
= 0.8719

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

1.40 14.34
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 117.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.327
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.66
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.00 3.6
= 0.8658

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

5.38 19.72
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 118. 00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.327
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.66
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.28 3.9
= 0.8683

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

1.59 21.31
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 119 . 0 0 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.327
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8706
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.66

1. 71

23.02 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11 7 . 0 0 TO NODE 110 . 0 0 IS CODE = >>>>>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.) 5.66
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.33
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.18
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 23.02
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 37.17 5.54 6.413 6.46
2 23.02 5.66 6.327 4.18

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
1 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 59. 71 5.54 6.413
2 59.69 5.66 6.327
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 59.71 Tc(MIN.) =
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE

5.54 110.00 1194.30 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110. 00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 3.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 1.46 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 433.30 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 30.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 8.06
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 59.71
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.90 Tc(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE

6.43 120.00 1627.60 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.822
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8739
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.63 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)
TC(MIN.) = 6.43
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE

3.12 59. 71
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110. 00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.822
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.8731
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.98
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 59.71
TC(MIN.) = 6.43
NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 120.00 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.) 6.43
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.82
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 11.67
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 59.71
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 122.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 11.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 10.75
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.25
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) 3.207
WARNING: THE MINIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 0.5%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.92
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.92
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 122.00 TO NODE 123.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 10.75 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 99.00 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850

10.17 0.0059
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.13 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 4.39

1.82 1.39

1.19 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.29

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)

1.79 2.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE

1.49 123.00 = 149.00 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 123.00 TO NODE 124.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.7643
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.19 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.39

0.59 3.30
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 124.00 TO NODE 125.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 7.34 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 124.10 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 4.29
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.30

NUMBER OF PIPES

0.48 Tc(MIN.) =
1 6.59
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE

4.88 125.00 273.10 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 125.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.6520
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0
TC(MIN.) = 4.88

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

1.08 4.38
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 126.00 TO NODE 125.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.7509
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.88

4.01 8.38
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 127.00 TO NODE 125.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.88
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.19 2.8
= 0.8138

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

7.34 15.72
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 6.59 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 1.46 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) 219.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 10.52
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 15.72
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35 Tc(MIN.) = 5.22
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 121.00 TO NODE 120.00 492.10 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 125.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>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.) 5.22
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.66
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.82
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 15.72
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 59. 71 6.43 5.822 11. 67
2 15. 72 5.22 6.661 2.82

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 67.92 5.22 6.661
2 73.45 6.43 5.822
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 73.45 Tc (MIN.) = 6.43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.5
1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 120.00 1627.60 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 128.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1.46 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 0.45 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 264.70 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 34.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.72
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 73.45
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.57 Tc(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE

7.00 128.00 1892.30 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 129.00 TO NODE 128.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.511
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8594
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.25 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 17.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 7.00

15.23 84.03
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 128.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 109.60 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 42.0 INCH PIPE IS 33.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 10.17
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 42.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 84.03

0.18 Tc(MIN.) = 7.18
1 0.16
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 130.00 2001.90 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 128.00 TO NODE 130.00 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.) 7.18
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.42
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 17.74
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 84.03
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 131.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 13.73
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 13.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.73
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

2.244

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.37
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 132.00 TO NODE 133.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 13.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 407.00 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.493
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.19 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 7.04

3.29 1.41

4.80 11.40

0.0039
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

5.73 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 6.03
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 1.66
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 133.00 = 457.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 133.00 TO NODE 134.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 8.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 132.20 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.10

4.60 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.03
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE

0.24 Tc(MIN.) =
130.00 TO NODE

7.28 134.00 589.20 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 134.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.374
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 7.28
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

4.27 5.5
= 0.8611

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

19.51 25.41
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 135.00 TO NODE 134.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>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.) 7.28
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.37
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.49
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 25.41
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 84.03 7.18 5.422 17.74
2 25.41 7.28 5.374 5.49

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 109.09 7.18 5.422
2 108.69 7.28 5.374
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 109.09 Tc (MIN.) = 7.18
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 23.2
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 134.00
1 2001.90 FEET.

END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES)

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)

23.2 TC(MIN.) =
109.09

END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

7.18 PROPOSED 100-YEAR RATIONAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM 200
****************************************************************************

FILE NAME: S200D200.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:41 07/27/2023
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE= 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES:

MANNING

1. Relative Flow-Depth= 0.10 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.*
HIKE
(FT)

0.167
FACTOR
(n)

0.0150
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.63
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.63
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) 2.357
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.62
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.62
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 14.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 64.20 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.19 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 2.77

6.29 2.56

0.42 13.20

0.0125
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

11.34 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 11.96
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.99
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 114.20 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 11.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 7.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 503.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.71
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.96
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.25 Tc(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE

4.02 203.00 617.20 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 204.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.02
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.32 2.3
= 0.9000

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

1.97 13.93
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 205.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.02

1.05 14.98
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 7.32 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 151.10 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.94
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 14.98

NUMBER OF PIPES

0.32 Tc(MIN.) =
1 5.51
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE

4.34 206.00 768.30 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 203.00 TO NODE 206.00 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.) 4.34
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 14.98
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 207.00 TO NODE 208.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.30
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

3.018

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 2.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.35 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.16
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 208.00 TO NODE 209.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 14.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 205.00 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) 5.95
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.60 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.19 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) 1.31
Tc(MIN.) = 4.33

11.30 0.0141
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 7.58
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.900
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 9.74
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 3.01
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 207.00 TO NODE 209.00 = 255.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 209.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.33

0.80 10.54
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 211.00 TO NODE 209.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.33
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.46 2.2
= 0.8894

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

2.68 13.22
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 209.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 6.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 5.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 79.80 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.35
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 13.22
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.21 Tc(MIN.) = 4.54
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 207.00 TO NODE 206.00 334.80 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 209.00 TO NODE 206.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>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.) 4.54
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.17
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 13.22
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 14.98 4.34 6.850 2.43
2 13.22 4.54 6.850 2.17

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 27.62 4.34 6.850
2 28.20 4.54 6.850
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 28.20 Tc (MIN.) = 4.54
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 206.00
1 768.30 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 206.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 5.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 286.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.0 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.72
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 28.20

NUMBER OF PIPES

0.71 Tc(MIN.) =
1 4.10
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE

5.25 212.00 1054.30 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 212.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.638
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.25
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.97 5.6
= 0.8959

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

5.79 33.12
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 4.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 62.30 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.1 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 6.84
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 33.12

0.15 Tc(MIN.) =
1 3.80
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE

5.40 213.00 1116.60 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 212.00 TO NODE 213.00 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.) 5.40
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.52
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.57
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 33.12
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 214.00 TO NODE 215.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.22
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 13.93
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.29
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

3.815

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.70
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.70
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 215.00 TO NODE 216.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 13.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 40.90 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.14 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 4.25

2.21 1.58

0.43 13.60

0.0073
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.52 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.850

3.03 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 3.73
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 1.86
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 214.00 TO NODE 216.00 = 90.90 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 216.00 TO NODE 217.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 8.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 186.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 4.40
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.73
1 7.10
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE

0.71 Tc(MIN.) =
214.00 TO NODE

4.95 217.00 276.90 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 217.00 TO NODE 217.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 4.95
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.22 1.9
= 0.8500

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

7.10 10.83
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 217.00 TO NODE 218.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 7.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 6.10 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 186.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.4 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 5.36
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 10.83
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.58 Tc(MIN.) = 5.53
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 214.00 TO NODE 218.00 462.90 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 218.00 TO NODE 218.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.418
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.53
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.47 2.3
= 0.8500

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

2.56 12.71
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 218.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 6.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 144.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 8.35
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.71
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 214.00 TO NODE

5.82 213.00

3.80 1
606.90 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 218.00 TO NODE 213.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>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.) 5.82
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.21
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.33
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 12.71
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 33.12 5.40 6.517 5.57
2 12. 71 5.82 6.212 2.33

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 44. 92 5.40 6.517
2 44.28 5.82 6.212
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 44.92 Tc (MIN.) = 5.40
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.9
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 213.00
1 1116.60 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 213.00 TO NODE 219.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 3.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 2.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 257.80 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7.44
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 44.92
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.58 Tc(MIN.) = 5.98
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 219.00 1374.40 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 219.00 TO NODE 219.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.104
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.98
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

1.35 9.3
= 0.8776

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

7.00 49.55
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 219.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 2.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 1.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 114.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 28.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 8.21
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 49.55
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.23 Tc(MIN.) = 6.21
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 220.00 1488.40 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 219.00 TO NODE 220.00 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.) = 6.21
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.96
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.25
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 49.55
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 221.00 TO NODE 222.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 14.90
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 11.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.40
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

1.344

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.37
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.37
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 222.00 TO NODE 223.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 11.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 106.60 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.12 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 2.31

1.91 1.84

0.97 10.20

0.0131
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

3.08 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 221.00 TO NODE

2.25 223.00 =

3.45 156.60 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 224.00 TO NODE 225.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.53 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 2.31

3.27 6.72
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 223.00 TO NODE 225.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8216
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.23
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3
TC(MIN.) = 2.31

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.71 7.43
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 225.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 7.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 6.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 158.70 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.5 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 5.21
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 7.43
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.51 Tc(MIN.) = 2.82
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 221.00 TO NODE 226.00 315.30 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 227.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8447
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 2.82

3.39 10.82
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 226.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8065
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 2.82

0.62 11.44
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 6.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 1.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 181.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 9.82
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 11.44
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.31 Tc(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 221.00 TO NODE

3.12 220.00 496.30 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 228.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8200

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 3.12

0.35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) =

2.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

2.16 13.59
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 229.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

VEGETATED SLOPES (FLAT) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .4500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8026
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.5
TC(MIN.) = 3.12

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.37 13.96
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 226.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>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.) 3.12
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.54
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 13.96
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 49.55 6.21 5.956 9.25
2 13.96 3.12 6.850 2.54

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 57.04 3.12 6.850
2 61. 69 6.21 5.956
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 61. 69 Tc (MIN.) = 6.21
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.8
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 220.00
1 1488.40 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE= 31 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 1.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 59.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 24.7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 11.94
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 61.69
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 6.29
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 230.00 1547.40 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 230.00 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.) 6.29
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.91
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 11.79
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 61.69
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 231.00 TO NODE 232.00 IS CODE= 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 15.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 15.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.40
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.)
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)

2.742

6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc= 5-MINUTE.

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.55
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 232.00 TO NODE 233.00 IS CODE= 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 15.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 299.50 CHANNEL SLOPE CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 3.00 "Z" FACTOR= 50.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.727
PAVED SURFACE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .9000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"

TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.13 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 5.14

2.46 2.08

2.40 11.10

0.0130
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.64 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)

0.900

3.87 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 4.42
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:

DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 231.00 TO NODE

2.38 233.00 = 349.50 FEET.
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 233.00 TO NODE 234.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.727
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF

SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.14
IS "D"

COEFFICIENT

0.10 0.8
= 0.8940

SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =

0.57 4.99
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 234.00 TO NODE 235.00 IS CODE= 81 >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.727
COMMERCIAL AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .8500
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.8757
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.59 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN.) = 5.14

3.37 8.36
**************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 235.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE=
>>>>>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.) 5.14
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.73
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.42
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE= 8.36
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 61. 69 6.29 5.905 11. 79
2 8.36 5.14 6. 727 1.42

RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 62.52 5.14 6. 727
2 69.03 6.29 5.905
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =

LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:

TOTAL AREA(ACRES)

PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
NODE

69.03 Tc (MIN.) =

13.2 200.00 TO NODE
13 . 2 TC (MIN. ) =

69.03 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS

6.29 230.00

6.29 1
1547.40 FEET.

APPENDIX4
Hydraulic Calculations
To be completed during Final Engineering
APPENDIX5
Drainage Exhibits
,.
(0.20 AC)~
11 1::
• II
. .11
,: i------------,, ~ ' ! I
11 11
I 11
-,- ~
........ --s-=--..::;, ?-
., ~' •, / -~-
lllille,---
1 I I ~
I ll----Hf-.-------- 1' I
2IXJ
I~~
i .,
I
ii! .
..
l~ I07 '
""
...;
,......_
'
JIXJ ~
CRfATID: 7/12/2J
LEGEND:
---- PR<PfRTY BOON{)ARY

DRAINAGE BOUNDARY

DRAINAGE SYSTEJI
--------;,.----- (MRI.AND FLOrl DIR£C7/0N
EXISTING STOOi DRAIN O\£R 12" DIAIE'lcR
--- EJfJSTING STORM DRAIN UNDER 12" DfAMfTER
(0.17AC) DRAINAGEAREJ.
[}Q£] DRNNAGE NODE
~ PIIOJEcr DHIGN coN ULTANTB I ~; Pln,ngll.andlolpel«illlllclnl~ISlnwy 1 I~ ,,,\,,! iii 1' ,, r , 1 ~ l \ XISTING 54" STO/?M 0/?AIN 0/SCHA/?G[S ;,, TO SLOUGH W1-IICH CONN[CTS TO
e, SAN Dl[GO BAY
~ I
TO
..
~~~/
I
I ,,,
;Q.,
,,
'
I
(
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
-+-
I
I
I
FF-15""
( 3.24 AC ) L-<llifi<!..Jlllll=JLl'.!Wc.Bl!.Jlf/u!lir4...-1.J.II ,,.
-..:=,..-..::::,,--=-- --=-- I I 1 - -_;:~ "\
. I ~7).JB P[~ DI WG ,( 1D14 ,. ,, ,, . \\('~,\ \ ~.;-, 1 , \\.,, I Fl, Nome P:\"508\fi,g,\Reportd' \D,vii'l!JVII-Pmff11\E"»i\.f.508 DR-PropoHd.dwg, B/J/2023 1:11:24 PM /1---c--sAC
AC
-~~-~--
Jal~ '508
~ATED: 7/12/23
- - - - PR<PERTY 80.JNDARY
DRAINAGE. BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE. S~TDI
--------c)------ 0'1ERl..4J(1fl0111DfR£C'fltJI
( 0.17 AC) filAINACC A11CA
~ DRAINAGE NO«
I
-q I. 'j SCAJ..£: ,· ... so·
PREPARED BY:

D PROJECT DE81GN CON8ULTANT8 I r Plnq llllldlolpel«IIIMclnl~I.....,.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA
YARDS AT THE BAY • PARCEL B
PROPOSED DRAINAGE EXH/BfT
EXH/BfTB
Yards at the Bay
Project Name/ _________________________ _
ATTACHMENT 6
Project's Geotechnical and Groundwater
Investigation Report
Attach project's geotechnical and groundwater investigation report. Refer to Appendix C.4 to determine the reporting requirements.

CCV BMP Manual
PDP SWQMP Template Date: March 2019 ~Vt-
-•.: .. .. . -CllYOf

CHULA VISTA

UPDATED LIMITED

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

COLLINS AEROSPACE

REDEVELOPMENT SITE - PARCEL B

NORTHEAST CORNER OF

H STREET AND MARINA PARKWAY

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR
DECEMBER 17, 2021
PROJECT NO. G2560-52-01
GEOCON

INCORPORATED
G E OT E CHNICAL NV RONMENTAL ■ MAT E RIA L S
Project No. G2560-52-01
December 17, 2021
PW Wohl G Street LLC
c/o Wohl Property Group
1081 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 115
San Diego, California 92108
Attention: Mr. Emil Wohl
Subject: UPDATED LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

COLLINS AEROSPACE REDEVELOPMENT SITE - PARCEL B

NORTHEAST CORNER OF H STREET AND MARINA PARKWAY

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Wohl:

In accordance with your request and authorization of our Proposal No. LG-20158 dated June 3, 2020, we herein submit the results of our updated limited geotechnical investigation for the subject project.

We performed our limited investigation to evaluate the underlying soil and geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards, and to assist in the design of the proposed site improvements. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and preliminary conclusions and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the proposed project.

Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

GEOCON IN CORPORA TED
MRL:SFW:MCE:arm:kv
( e-mail) Addressee
GE2714
Michael C. Ertwine
CEG
6960 Flanders Drive ■ Son Diego, California 9212 1-297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fox 858.558.6159

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................... ........................................................................ 1

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2

3. GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 3

4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 4

4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) .................................................................................................... 4 4 .2 Bay Deposits ( Qb) ................................................................................................................. 5

4.3 Old Paralic Deposits (Qop ) .................................................................................................... 5

4.4 San Diego Formation (Tsd) ................................................................................................... 5

5. GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................................... 5

6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 6

6.1 Faulting and Seismicity ......................................................................................................... 6

6.2 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................................... 7

6.3 Liquefaction Potential and Seismically Induced Settlement ................................................. 7

6.4 Storm Surge, Tsunamis, and Seiches ..................................................................................... 9

6.5 Hazardous Subsurface Materials ......................................................................................... 11

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. ....................................................................... 12

7.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 12 7 .2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics .................................................................................... 13

7.3 Grading ................................................................................................................................ 14 7 .4 Settlement Considerations ................................................................................................... 17

7.5 Mitigation ofLiquefaction ................................................................................................... 18

7.6 Mitigation of Fill-Load Related Settlement ......................................................................... 19

7. 7 Seismic Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 19

7.8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................................................................ 21 7 .9 Testing and Observation Services During Construction ...................................................... 21 7 .10 Grading and Foundation Plan Review ................................................................................. 22

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Geologic Map

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION

APPENDIXB

PREVIOUS FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

APPENDIXC

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

APPENDIXD

GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical investigation related to the planned improvements to the subject property currently identified as Collins Aerospace - Parcel B in the City of Chula Vista, California (see Vicinity Map).

Vicinity Map
The pwpose of this limited geotechnical investigation is to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions and general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that may affect development of the property including faulting, liquefaction and seismic shaking based on the 2019 CBC seismic design criteria. In addition, we provided recommendations for remedial grading, shallow foundations, concrete slab-on-grade, concrete flatwork, and retaining walls.

We reviewed the following plans and reports in preparation of this report:

1. Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Collins Aerospace Redevelopment Site - Parcel A, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated October 12, 2020 (Project No. G2559-52-01).

2. Geotechnical Investigation, OMPPA Project on Goodrich Property, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 12, 2005 (Project No. 07050-22-30).

3. Limited Geotechnical Investigation, B.F. Goodrich Site Development, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 24, 1999 (Project No. 06327-22-01).

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 1 - December 1 7, 2021

4. Soil Investigation, Sauder Furnace Foundation, Building No. I, Column Ell-FIi, Chula Vista, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 14, 1980 (Project No. 02080-02-02).

The scope of this investigation included reviewing readily available published and unpublished geologic literature (see List of References), performing engineering analyses and preparing this report.

We also advanced 5 exploratory Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPTs) to a maximum depth of 80 feet.

Appendix A presents the CPT soundings and details of the field investigation. Appendix B presents the exploratory boring logs and laboratory testing from investigations previously performed on or adjacent to the property. The locations of the current CPTs and previous borings/CPTs at the property are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1. Appendix C presents the results of our current liquefaction analysis along with pertinent results from the Parcel A site.

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Collins Aerospace - Parcel B property consists of the western portion of the existing Collins Aerospace facility (also identified as Rohr Industries, B. F. Goodrich and/or UTC Aerospace property). The Existing Site Map shows the current site conditions.

Existing Site Map
The property is bounded by H Street to the south, Marina Parkway and the future Gaylord Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center to the west, and the remainder of the Collins Aerospace facility to the east and north. An existing rail line is present along the eastern border of the property. The site is currently occupied by a large industrial warehouse building along with several small ancillary Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 2 - December 1 7, 2021 buildings and structures, and an on-grade asphalt concrete and Portland Cement concrete parking lots along with other associated improvements. Additionally, a San Diego Gas & Electric substation is located on the northeast comer of the property. Existing grades are relatively flat with elevations of approximately 8 to 12 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) on the west and east, respectively.

Based on discussions with you, we understand the proposed development will consist of demolition of the existing warehouse building and ancillary structures and construction of new concrete-tilt-up style warehouse buildings and a hotel building along with other associated improvements. We do not expect the site will require storm water management devices. No other information is known at this time.

3. GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The province is bounded by the Transverse Ranges to the north, the San Jacinto Fault Zone on the east, the Pacific Ocean coastline on the west, and the Baja California on the south. The province is characterized by elongated northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by straight-sided sediment-filled valleys. The northwest trend is further reflected in the direction of the dominant geologic structural features of the province that are northwest to west-northwest trending folds and faults, such as the nearby Rose Canyon fault zone.

Locally, the site is within the coastal plain of San Diego County. The coastal plain is underlain by a thick sequence of relatively undisturbed and non-conformable sedimentary bedrock units that thicken to the west and range in age from Upper Cretaceous age through the Pleistocene age which have been deposited on Cretaceous to Jurassic age igneous and volcanic bedrock. Geomorphically, the coastal plain is characterized by a series of 21, stair-stepped marine terraces (younger to the west) that have been dissected by west flowing rivers. The coastal plain is a relatively stable block that is dissected by relatively few faults consisting of the potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone and the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone.

The site is located on the western portion of the coastal plain. Artificial fill, young alluvial flood-plain deposits (Bay Deposits), and marine sedimentary units consisting of Pleistocene-age Old Paralic Deposits (formerly known as the Bay Point Formation) make up the geologic sequence at the site. The Old Paralic Deposits are shallow marine deposits generally consisting of sand and silty sand units interfingered with layers of silt and clay. Based on published geologic information, we expect this unit to be in excess of 150 to 160 feet deep and extend below the current sea level. The mapped geologic conditions at the site is presented on the Regional Geologic Map.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 3 - December 1 7, 2021 Artiliclol fill (late Holocene)
Young alluvial llood;>laln daposi!S (Holoce~• end lals Plolslocene) Old parallo dopo,115, undivided (lall! 10 mld~lo Plalstocsno) ,.,~_,, ___ ,~ ---, Qop
Chula
Oya
Regional Geologic Map

4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
. Qvop
1sta
Based on our review of published geologic maps, and the current and previous investigations at the site, we expect the site is underlain by two surficial soil types ( consisting of undocumented fill and Holocene-age Bay Deposits) and two formational unit ( consisting of Old Paralic Deposits and the San Diego Formation). The occurrence, distribution, and description of each unit encountered is shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1 and on the boring logs in Appendix B. The geologic units are discussed herein in order of increasing age.

4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf)
We expect that undocumented fill associated with the existing site improvements is present across the majority of the site to depths of about 5 to 10 feet. In general, the fill consists of loose to medium dense, moist to wet, silty sand and possesses a "very low" to "low" expansion index ( expansion index of 50 or less). The fill located below the groundwater elevation possesses a potential for liquefaction.

Additionally, we understand that a zone of debris fill is located along the previous shoreline of the bay (along the western edge of the property). These materials are composed of concrete and trash debris mixed with soil that extend to depths of 5 to 10 feet. The upper portion of the undocumented fill is likely unsuitable for the support of proposed structures or structural fill and will require remedial grading. However, we expect the remedial grading operations will be limited to the groundwater elevation and/or saturated soil conditions.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 -4- December 1 7, 2021

4.2 Bay Deposits (Qb)
The Bay Deposits (bay mud) exist below the undocumented fill or at-grade to a maximum depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet on the western portion of the site and 20 to 30 feet on the eastern portion of the site. The bay deposits generally consist of very loose to medium dense, silty and clayey sand and soft, wet to saturated, sandy silt and clay. Sandy portions of the Bay Deposits are potentially liquefiable when subjected to strong ground motion. Additionally, the soft muds within the Bay Deposits are subject to consolidation settlement. The amount of settlement that could occur is a function of how thick the layer is, how compressible the layer is and the magnitude of the new vertical load (weight of new fill or future building loads). We consider these materials unsuitable for the support of structures or structural fill in their present condition.

4.3 Old Paralic Deposits (Qop)
The Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (formally called the Bay Point Formation) exist below the undocumented fill and/or Bay Deposits across the site. The Old Paralic Deposits consist of medium dense to very dense sand layers interbedded with stiff clay and silt layers. The Old Paralic Deposits are considered suitable for the support of the proposed structures. However, we do not expect the Old Paralic Deposits will be encountered during the construction of the planned improvements.

4.4 San Diego Formation (Tsd)
Based on published geologic information, we expect the San Diego Formation underlies the Old Paralic Deposits. Based on our experience in the area, the top of the San Diego Formation is at about 150 to 160 feet deep (an elevation of -140 to -150 MSL). The San Diego Formation consists of dense to very dense silty, to clayey sandstone and siltstone. We do not expect to encounter the San Diego Formation during the construction of the planned improvements.

5. GROUNDWATER
We previously encountered groundwater at depths ranging from about 8 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface (approximate elevation of 1 to 7 feet above MSL). In addition, we encountered groundwater during our current study within the CPTs at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface (approximate elevation of 2 to 5 feet above MSL). Several groundwater monitoring wells have been installed on and adjacent to the property. Based on review of our existing information in the vicinity of the site, the groundwater depths range from about 3 to 11 feet below grade. The water elevations fluctuate due to tidal influences. The groundwater should be considered brackish due to the close proximity to the San Diego Bay and Pacific Ocean. Groundwater will be a factor in development especially in liquefaction remediation, deep foundation design and construction, grading operations and utility installation. A groundwater elevation of 6 feet above MSL should be incorporated into the design and construction operations. In addition, the soil about 2 to Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 5 - December 1 7, 2021 3 feet above the groundwater elevation may be saturated. Groundwater and seepage is dependent on seasonal precipitation, tidal influence, irrigation, land use, among other factors, and varies as a result.

Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project.

6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

6.1 Faulting and Seismicity
A review of the referenced geologic materials and our knowledge of the general area indicate that the site is not underlain by active, potentially active, or inactive faults. An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for activity within the last 11,700 years. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone.

The USGS has developed a program to evaluate the approximate location of faulting in the area of properties. The following figure shows the location of the existing faulting in the San Diego County and Southern California region. The fault traces are shown as solid, dashed and dotted that represent well-constrained, moderately constrained and inferred, respectively. The fault line colors represent faults with ages less than 150 years (red), 15,000 years (orange), 130,000 years (green), 750,000 years (blue) and 1.6 million years (black).

Faults in Southern California
The San Diego County and Southern California region is seismically active. The following figure presents the occurrence of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 2.5 from the period of 1900 through 2015 according to the Bay Area Earthquake Alliance website.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 6 - December 1 7, 2021 0 •
S.:i11 Cle,we11I e
Comfl fitn,1lu.~n
• t"' •·~ ,,, e,..
0 •
••
0 Oce 11 s1de
•
•
0 0 ooOQ
0 e O e
q~u_.1 •000----rnso 1000-1990 ·990-2Joo 2~2010 2010-n1s IA I/
Earthquakes in Southern California
Considerations important in seismic design include the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of structures should be evaluated in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the local agency.

6.2 Ground Rupture
Ground surface rupture occurs when movement along a fault is sufficient to cause a gap or rupture where the upper edge of the fault zone intersects the ground surface. The potential for ground rupture is considered to be very low due to the absence of active faults at the subject site.

6.3 Liquefaction Potential and Seismically Induced Settlement Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are cohesionless or silt/clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil densities are less than about 70 percent of the maximum dry densities. If the four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations.

The surficial soil (undocumented fill and Bay Deposits) at the site is generally loose/soft and considered to possess a potential for liquefaction below the groundwater elevation. The MultiJurisdictional-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) maps the site as having zones of liquefiable layers.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 7 - December 1 7, 2021 Earthquake Faults:
-- Fault
- Zoned Earthquake Fault
Liquefaction Layers
Im Liquefaction Layers
Liquefaction Hazard Map
The current standard of practice, as outlined in the Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 A, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction.

We performed liquefaction analyses with our CPT soundings using the program CLiq (Version

3.0). This program utilizes the 2001 NCEER method of analysis. We used a static groundwater elevation of 6 feet MSL, a modal magnitude of 6.12 earthquake (attributed to the Rose Canyon Fault), and a peak horizontal site acceleration, PGAM, of 0.636g calculated from ASCE 7-16 Section 11.8.3. This semi-empirical method is based on correlations with the data collected from the CPT soundings and field performance data.

The liquefaction analyses (included in Appendix C) indicate the surficial soils to depths between approximately 5 and 30 feet below the existing grade at the locations the CPTs could be prone to between about ¼ and 1 ¼ inches during ground motion. We estimate the differential settlement of ½ the total settlement ranging from about 0.2 to 0.9 inches over relatively small distances in accordance with SPl 17. Additionally, relatively thin and isolated lenses of soil within the Old Paralic Deposits between 30 and 50 feet are potentially liquefiable.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 8 - December 1 7, 2021 Sand boils occur where liquefiable soil is extruded upward through the soil deposit to the ground surface. Providing an increase in overburden pressure and a compacted fill mat can mitigate surface manifestation. Research presented by Ishihara (1985) indicates that the presence of a nonliquefiable surface layer typically results in the effects of at-depth liquefaction from reaching the surface. Modifications to Ishihara's chart have been made to include higher ground accelerations (Ishihara's 1985 chart was based on a 0.25g ground acceleration) by Youd and Garris (1995).

Based on Youd's modified curves and the thickness of the non-liquefiable soil layer (layer above the assumed groundwater table), the potential for surface manifestation is possible unless ground improvements are performed.

Lateral spreading occurs when liquefiable soil is in the immediate vicinity of a free face such as a slope. Factors controlling lateral displacement include earthquake magnitude, distance from the earthquake epicenter, thickness of liquefiable soil layer, grain size characteristics, fines content of the soil and SPT blow counts. Bartlett and Youd (1995) have concluded that lateral spreading is restricted to sediments with corrected SPT blow counts of 15 or less for earthquake magnitudes less than or equal to 8.0. The potential of lateral spreading in the liquefiable soil below the groundwater table is not considered an adverse impact to the proposed development due to relatively flat topography of the site and distance to the San Diego Bay from the site.

The mitigation of potential hazards due to liquefaction can be accomplished by the densification or removal of the potentially liquefiable soil or the use of foundation systems that still provide acceptable structural support should liquefaction occur. Soil densification can be accomplished by compaction grouting, vibrocompaction, soil mixing, and deep dynamic compaction ( among others). We understand the use of vibrocompaction or stone columns may be unacceptable due to the creation of potential vertical pathways for contamination and potential distress to existing structures. Soil densification is generally used to increase the density and provide liquefaction mitigation of sensitive soil to relatively shallow depths over large areas. Deep foundation systems may be used to transmit structural loads to bearing depths below the liquefiable zones and may consist of driven piles or drilled piles. Deep foundations are designed to mitigate damage to the structures supported on the piles; however, they do not generally reduce the potential for damage to underground utilities and peripheral site improvements. The effects of differential settlement between ridged structures and attached settlement-sensitive surface improvements can be mitigated by designing the utilities to accommodate differential movement at the connections.

6.4 Storm Surge, Tsunamis, and Seiches
Storm surges are large ocean waves that sweep across coastal areas when storms make landfall.

Storm surges can cause inundation, severe erosion and backwater flooding along the water front.

The site is located approximately 800 feet from San Diego Bay, is at an elevation of about 10 feet or greater above Mean Sea Level (MSL) and is protected from ocean waves by the Silver Strand Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 9 - December 1 7, 2021 to the west. Based on historic and predicated wave heights and runout lengths, the proposed site elevation with neighboring topographic features is likely sufficient to mitigate the risk; therefore, the potential of storm surges affecting the site is considered low.

A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore slope failures. The first-order driving force for locally generated tsunamis offshore southern California is expected to be tectonic deformation from large earthquakes (Legg, et al., 2002). Historically, tsunami wave heights have ranged up to 3.7 feet in the San Diego area. Wave heights and run-up elevations from tsunamis along the San Diego Coast have historically fallen within the normal range of the tides. The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017) maps zones of possible tsunami inundation for coastal areas throughout the county. The site is not included within one of these high-risk hazard areas. Therefore, we consider the risk of a tsunami hazard at the site to be low.

LEGEND:

Tsunami Layers
0 Historic Tsunami Effect Fel l
CJ Maxi11um Tsunami Projec.ted Runup
Erosion/Coastal Stom1 Layers :
- FEMA VE Zone (H,;ih Risk)
Base Layers:
c::J Incorporated City Boondary
Freeways
Major Roads
streams
D Lakes (/'
SITE [
Tsunami Inundation Map
A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide-induced ground displacement. The site is located approximately 800 feet from San Diego Bay, is at an elevation of about 10 feet or greater above Mean Sea Level (MSL) and is protected from ocean waves by the Silver Strand to the west. Based on historic and predicated wave heights and runout lengths, we expect the proposed site elevation is sufficient to mitigate the risk; therefore, we consider the potential for seiches to impact the site low.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 10 - December 1 7, 2021

6.5 Hazardous Subsurface Materials
We understand contaminated soil and groundwater have been encountered at locations in the vicinity of the property associated with past and current uses as an industrial facility (AECOM, 2017). Where proposed remedial grading, installation of utilities or other improvements extend into areas identified as containing contaminated soil and/or contaminated groundwater, special provisions may be required for the health and safety of workers and to limit movement of the contamination in accordance with the project environmental consultant. Construction techniques to limit movement of contaminates may be required. Additionally, we understand the use of certain ground improvement techniques (i.e. stone columns or wick drains, modifying the use of pipe bedding and certain types of deep foundations) may be restricted due to the existing contaminated soil.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 11 - December 1 7, 2021

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General
7 .1.1 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, we opine the subject site is suitable for proposed improvements provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in design and construction of the project.
7 .1.2 The site may be subject to geologic hazards, including moderate to strong seismic shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement and consolidation settlement. We included recommendations for the mitigation of these geologic hazards herein. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, we opine soil or geologic conditions do not exist at the subject site that is considered adverse to proposed improvements at the site, assuming they are designed to accommodate the potential geologic hazards at the site or be mitigated during the construction operations.
7 .1.3 Based on a review of the referenced documents and our experience in the area, we expect the site is underlain by undocumented fill and Bay Deposits overlying Old Paralic Deposits and San Diego Formation. The existing formational units are considered suitable for support of structural loads from the proposed development. However, remedial grading and possible ground modification of the surficial materials situated may need to be performed.

7.1.4 We encountered groundwater at a depth of approximately 5 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface (approximate elevation of 2 to 5 feet above MSL). Groundwater will likely have a significant influence on construction of deep utilities (if constructed), and during remedial grading. Dewatering will likely be required for excavations below the fluctuating groundwater elevation. The project should be designed with a groundwater elevation of 6 feet MSL.

7.1.5 We expect that grading of the site will consist of removal of the upper portions of the surficial materials (undocumented fill and/or Old Paralic Deposits) within areas that are to receive new fill or structures supported on shallow foundations. These removals will likely be limited to within 2 to 3 feet above groundwater elevations due to saturated soil conditions. Removals within the proposed pavement areas can likely be limited to the upper 1 to 2 feet of existing soil.
7 .1.6 Proposed structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing in compacted fill, assuming that the estimated seismic and static load settlements can be accommodated by the structure. Alternatively, we expect the settlement-sensitive structures would be supported by a deep foundation system or by a shallow foundation system over ground that Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 12 - December 1 7, 2021 has been modified to mitigate the liquefaction potential (i.e. ground improvements). We should be contacted to provide foundation recommendations when the proposed structures are planned.
7 .1. 7 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative to the performance of the development. Site drainage should be maintained to direct surface runoff into controlled drainage devices.

Positive site drainage should be maintained away from structures and pavements and tops of slopes and directed to storm drain facilities.
7 .2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics
7 .2.1 Excavation of the fill, Bay Deposits and Old Paralic Deposits should generally be possible with moderate to heavy effort using conventional, heavy-duty equipment during grading and trenching operations.

7.2.2 Based on the soil encountered during previous investigations for the site, we expect the soil is considered to be "non-expansive" and "expansive" ( expansion index [EI] of 20 or less and greater than 20, respectively) as defined by 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table 7.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. We expect a majority of the soil encountered possess a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (El of 50 or less).

TABLE 7.2.1

EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (El) ASTMD4829 2019 CBC
Expansion Classification Expansion Classification
0-20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91- 130 High Expansive
Greater Than 130 Very High

7.2.3 Previously reported laboratory water-soluble sulfate content test results indicate the on-site materials possess "SO" to "S2" sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Chapter 19. Table 7.2.2 presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of watersoluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 13 - December 1 7, 2021 Exposure Class
so
Sl
S2
S3 Option 1
Option 2
TABLE 7.2.2

REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO

SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Water-Soluble Cement Maximum
Sulfate (SO4) Type(ASTMC Water to
Percent Cement Ratio
by Weight 150) by Weight1
SO4<0.10 No Type Restriction n/a

0.l0<SO4<0.20 II 0.50

0.20<SO4<2.00 V 0.45
V+Pozzolan or Slag 0.45
SO4>2.00
V 0.40
1 Maximum water to cement ratio limits do not apply to lightweight concrete Minimum
Compressive
Strength (psi)
2,500
4,000
4,500
4,500
5,000

7.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements susceptible to corrosion are planned.

7.3 Grading
7 .3 .1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report, the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix D and the local grading ordinance. Where the recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix D, the recommendations of this section take precedence. Geocon Incorporated should observe the grading operations on a full-time basis and provide testing during the fill placement.

7.3.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the regulatory agency inspector, developer, grading and underground contractors, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
7 .3 .3 Grading of the site should commence with the demolition of existing structures, removal of existing improvements, vegetation, and deleterious debris. The depth of vegetation removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and site demolition should be exported from the site. Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill soil unless approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.

7.3.4 We expect the future buildings and ancillary structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing in compacted fill, assuming that the estimated seismic and static Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 14 - December 1 7, 2021 load settlements can be accommodated by the structures. Alternatively, we expect that other settlement-sensitive structures would be supported by a deep foundation system or by a shallow foundation system over ground that has been modified to mitigate the liquefaction potential (i.e. ground improvements).

7.3.5 For structures situated on a shallow foundation system, the upper 5 feet of materials or 2 feet below proposed foundations (whichever results in a deeper removal) should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill. However, the removals should be limited to a depth of approximately 2 to 3 feet above groundwater. The removals should extend at least 10 feet outside of the proposed foundation zones.

7.3.6 The removal excavations can be limited to the upper 2 feet of the surficial soils prior to additional fill placement in areas where the planned structures will be supported by deep foundations. Alternatively, the removals can also be limited to the upper 3 feet subsequent to performing ground modification techniques, as necessary and where appropriate

7.3.6 In areas of proposed improvements outside of the building areas, the upper 1 to 2 feet of existing soil should be processed, moisture conditioned as necessary and recompacted.

Deeper removals may be required in areas where loose or saturated materials are encountered. The removals should extend at least 2 feet outside of the improvement area, where possible. Table 7.3.1 provides a summary of the grading recommendations.

TABLE 7.3.1

SUMMARY OF GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Area Removal Requirements
Supported by Shallow Foundation System Removal of Upper 5 Feet of Existing (without Ground Improvements) Materials or 2 Feet Below Footings (Limited to 2 to 3 feet Above Groundwater)
Structures Supported by Deep Foundations Removal of Upper 2 Feet of Existing Materials Structures Supported by Shallow Foundation Removal of upper 3 Feet of Materials After System (with Ground Improvements) Ground Improvements Performed Site Development Process Upper 1 to 2 Feet of Existing Materials Grading Limits 10 Feet Outside ofBuildings/2 Feet Outside of Improvement Areas, Where Possible
Exposed Bottoms of Remedial Grading Scarify Upper 12 Inches

7.3.7 Prior to fill soil being placed, the existing ground surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a depth of at least 12 inches. Deeper removals Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 15 - December 1 7, 2021 may be required if saturated or loose fill soil is encountered. A representative of Geocon should be on-site during removals to evaluate the limits of the remedial grading.

7.3.8 Some areas of overly wet and saturated soil could be encountered due to the existing landscape and pavement areas. The saturated soil would require additional effort prior to placement of compacted fill or additional improvements. Stabilization of the soil would include scarifying and air-drying, removing and replacement with drier soil, use of stabilization fabric ( e.g. Tensar TX7 or other approved fabric), or chemical treating (i.e. cement or lime treatment).

7.3.9 The contractor should be careful during the remedial grading operations to avoid a "pumping" condition at the base of the removals. Where recompaction of the excavated bottom will result in a "pumping" condition, the bottom of the excavation should be tracked with low ground pressure earthmoving equipment prior to placing fill. If needed to improve the stability of the excavation bottoms, reinforcing fabric or 2- to 3-inch crushed rock can be placed prior to placement of compacted fill.

7.3.10 7.3.11
The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill compacted in layers. In general, soil native to the site is suitable for use from a geotechnical engineering standpoint as fill if relatively free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness and no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill materials placed below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil underlying pavement should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content shortly before paving operations.

Import fill (if necessary) should consist of the characteristics presented in Table 7.3.2.

Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 16 - December 1 7, 2021 TABLE 7.3.2

SUMMARY OF IMPORT FILL RECOMMENDATIONS
Soil Characteristic Values
Expansion Potential "Very Low" to "Medium" (Expansion Index of90 or less) Maximum Dimension Less Than 3 Inches
Particle Size
Generally Free of Debris
7 .4 Settlement Considerations
7 .4.1 As previously discussed, the site is underlain by undocumented fill and Bay Deposits that extend below the groundwater table which may be subjected to settlement from consolidation and seismically induced liquefaction. We expect that heavily loaded structures would be supported on deep foundation system or by a shallow foundation system over ground that has been modified to mitigate the liquefaction potential (i.e. ground improvements). It is generally not practical to mitigate liquefaction induced settlements for improvements such as parking lots, roadways, utilities or other improvements not directly related to life safety.

7.4.1 The soft clays within the Bay Deposits at the site are potentially subject to consolidation settlement ( densification by the removal of water within the soil) under loads imposed by placement of fill. The amount of settlement that could occur is a function of how thick the layer is, how compressible the layer is and the magnitude of the new vertical load (weight of new fill).We understand that site grades will likely be raised about 5 feet to accommodate future sea level rise concerns, and have provided estimated settlement based on that assumption. We should provide updated consolidation settlement estimates once structural plans and site grading plans are available.

Table 7.7 provides a summary of the estimated static and seismic settlements for the project.

We should provide updated estimates once building locations and loads are designed.

TABLE 7.7

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT DUE TO STATIC AND SEISMIC LOADING E t• t d T t l E t· t d C l"d t· Assumed Static s ima e o a s ima e onso i a ion S ttl t O t Foundation Type Seismic Settlement Settlement due to New Fill Ne eFmen d ut~ 0 . . ew oun a ion
(mches) (mches) L d (" h )
Shallow
Foundations
( without Ground
Improvements)
1¼
* Assuming site grades are raised 5 feet.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01
oa s me es
½
- 17 - December 1 7, 2021
7 .5 Mitigation of Liquefaction
7 .5 .1 Based on our analysis discussed herein, we estimate a potential of up to 1 ¼ inches of total liquefaction settlement during PGAM ground motion. Mitigation of liquefiable soil may be necessary for settlement-sensitive structures. Several alternatives are generally available for mitigation including deep foundations, ground improvements and structural mitigation.

7.5.2 Ground improvement techniques mitigate liquefaction by densifying existing soil through the use of stone columns, deep dynamic compaction, compaction grouting, soil mixing or other densification method. We do not recommend that deep dynamic compaction be used for densification due to the proximity of adjacent facilities and biologically sensitive areas, and the limited influence depth of the method in fine grained materials. In addition, compaction grouting may not be economical due to the expected depth and the area of the required improvements.

7.5.3 Ground improvement using stone columns may be used from a geotechnical engineering standpoint that consist of densifying existing soils with a vibrating probe and placing crushed rock. However, the amount of fine-grained material may limit the effectiveness of the stone columns. The pattern and depth of ground improvements may vary depending on the purposes of mitigation and stratigraphic conditions but the depths of improvement would be approximately 30 feet with spacing of approximately 8 to 10 feet and a diameter of 30 inches. The specialty contractor should determine the final spacing and diameter to obtain the necessary densification as outlined below. Following stone column construction, CPTs should be performed to check if the soil mitigation is successful. The post-production CPTs should show a maximum of 1 inch of total settlements using generally accepted calculation parameters, unless noted otherwise by the structural engineer.

7.5.4 Soil/cement mixing is a soil improvement technique of mechanically blending a cementitious binder into existing unsuitable soils to create load bearing columns. As the soil mixing tool is advanced into the ground, cement-based slurry is pumped through the hollow stem of the shaft and injected into the soil through jets located on the backside of the leading rotating mixing blades. The mixing blades on the tool mix the soil with the slurry. Injection and mixing will continue to design depth. When design depth is reached, the mixing tool is withdrawn, leaving behind stabilized soil mix columns. Soil mix piles are typically designed and installed by a specialty geotechnical contractor.

7.5.5 Following soil modification construction, the upper 3 feet of the upper soils will be disturbed and should be removed and recompacted as discussed herein.

7.5.6 The liquefaction stone column mitigation should extend at least 15 feet laterally outside the edge of planned building structures, where practical. Mitigation within non-structure areas Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 18 - December 1 7, 2021 will be limited to that improvement obtained by nearby remediation within structure areas.

We can provide additional recommendations for the ground improvement techniques when the improvement has been selected.
7 .6 Mitigation of Fill-Load Related Settlement

7.6.1 We expect that site grades will be raised and that additional settlement due to fill-load related consolidation would occur. The actual magnitude of fill-load related settlement should be evaluated once grading plans are available. Areas for proposed buildings, roadways and other settlement sensitive improvements will be subject to consolidation settlement where site grades are being raised. We expect the consolidation settlement due to the placement of new fill to take 2 to 8 months. This time could be reduced through the use of surcharge fill loading or the installation of wick drains, if possible. The use of surcharge fill may be advantageous for the proposed buildings supported on shallow foundations, while surcharging the portions of the site planned for non-structural improvements may not be necessary. Surcharge fill is additional fill material placed on above finish grade (in building pad areas) to decrease the settlement time for consolidation prior to construction of improvements. The use of surcharge fill requires double handling of the surcharge soil and is generally 5 to 10 feet thick plus the thickness of the proposed fill extending slightly outside the building footprint. Surcharging does not generally provide mitigation of liquefaction potential but does reduce the potential for surface manifestation. We should provide additional recommendations regarding the surcharging and the potential need for settlement monitoring once grading plans are available.

7. 7 Seismic Design Criteria

7.7.1 Table 7.4.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7- 16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the Structural Engineers Association (SEA) to calculate the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. However, we expect the proposed buildings will possess a period of less than 0.5 second; therefore, the building improvements can be designed based on the soil conditions (ASCE 7-16, Section 20.3.1). The values presented herein are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER), Sites designated as Site Class D, E and F may require additional analyses if requested by the project structural engineer and client.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 19 - December 1 7, 2021 TABLE 7.4.1
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference
Site Class E Section 1613.2.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response 1.234g Figure 1613.2.1(1) Acceleration - Class B (short), Ss MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response 0.41 lg Figure 1613.2.1(2) Acceleration - Class B (1 sec), S1 Site Coefficient, FA 1.200 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv 2.377* Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response 1.481g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36) Acceleration (short), SMs Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response 0.978g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37) Acceleration - (1 sec), SM1 5% Damped Design 0.987g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), Sos 5% Damped Design 0.652g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39) Spectral Response Acceleration (l sec), Sm * Using the code-based values presented in this table, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed by the project structural engineer. Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis should be performed for projects for Site Class "E" sites with Ss greater than or equal to l.0g and for Site Class "D" and "E" sites with SI greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed.

7.7.2 Table 7.4.2 presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16.

TABLE 7.4.2
ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference
Mapped MCEa Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.556g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.144 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG 0.636g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM

7.7.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 20- December 1 7, 2021

7.8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection

7.8.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.

7.8.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.

7.8.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. We recommend that area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material.

7.9 Testing and Observation Services During Construction

7.9.1 Geocon Incorporated should provide geotechnical testing and observation services during the grading operations, foundation construction, utility installation, retaining wall backfill and pavement installation. Table 7 .13 presents the typical geotechnical observations we would expect for the proposed improvements.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 21 - December 1 7, 2021

7.10 7.10.1
TABLE 7.13

EXPECTED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
Construction Phase Observations Expected Time Frame
Ground Modification Installation Full Time
Ground Modification
Confirmation Testing Part Time to Full Time
Base of Removal Part Time During
Grading Removals
Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Full Time
Foundations Foundation Excavation Observations Part Time Utility Backfill Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Part Time to Full Time Retaining Wall Backfill Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Part Time to Full Time Subgrade for Sidewalks, Soil Compaction Part Time Curb/Gutter and Pavement Base Placement and Compaction Part Time
Pavement Construction Asphalt Concrete Placement and
Compaction Full Time
Grading and Foundation Plan Review
Geocon Incorporated should review the project foundation plans pnor to final design submittal to check if additional analysis and/or additional recommendations are required.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 - 22 - December 1 7, 2021

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.

3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

4. The findings ofthis report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 December 1 7, 2021
THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH. SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENT'S USE OR RELIANCE AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT.

CLIENT SHALL INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULT OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT.

COLLINS AEROSPACE REDEVELOPMENT

PARCELB

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
o· 100' 200' 300' 400'
SCALE 1"=200'{on 11x17)

GEOCON LEGEND
Qudf. ....... uNDocuMENTED FILL
Qb ........ BAY DEPOSITS
(Dotted Where Buried)
Qop ........ OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
(Dotted Where Buried)
CPT-11
@ ........ APPROX. LOCATION OF CPT
(Current Study)
CPT-6
() ........ APPROX. LOCATION OF CPT
(Geocon, 2020)
B-11 ~ ........ APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING
(Geocon, 2005)
B-6
@ ......... APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING
(Geocon, 1999)
B-7_,:b_
y ......... APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING
(Geocon, 1980)
Qudf - 0-4 ......... PREVIOUSLY ENCOUNTERED
Qb - 4-23
Qop- 23-26 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS (In Feet)
Qudf = Undocumented fill

GEOLOGIC MAP
Qb = Bay Deposits
Qop = Old Paralic Deposits
!Gw -15! ......... GROUNDWATER DEPTH (In Feet)
GEOCON

INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159
PROJECT NO. G2560 - 52 - 01
FIGURE 1
DATE 12 - 17 - 2021
Plotted:03/01/2021 9:18AM I By:RUBEN AGUILAR I File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2560-52-01 Collins Parcel B\SHEETS\G2560-52-01 GeoMap-BoringLocationMap.dwg

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION
We performed our field investigation on February 11, 2021 that consisted of performing 5 CPTs (CPT-7 through -11). The CPTs extended to a maximum depth of approximately 80 feet, and the locations of the CPTs are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1. The CPT soundings are presented herein. We located the CPTs in the field using a measuring tape and existing reference points; therefore, actual locations may deviate slightly.

Kehoe Testing & Engineering performed the CPTs. The soil conditions encountered during the field investigation were automatically logged in a nearly continuous profile of penetration resistance as each CPT sounding was being conducted. The recorded tip stress, sleeve stress, and pore pressure of the soil is used to develop a stratigraphic interpretation of the soil profile.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 December 1 7, 2021
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Geocon / Collins Parcel B
Location: 850 Lagoon Dr, Chula Vista, CA
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
0 Cone resistance
~
't
\.
..,
~
"">
~
~
~
' •t
~'
.ii_
----- -.a
,,--
c...
~
~
c..,_ - ~J ~-
,----
,-~
~
,-- ~
~
~
_
.JI~
... I
I ~
L'"
100 200 300 400 500
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
b 38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Sleeve friction
,;:.
' ........
~
..... - -~
........ ·-
' "!
..i
~~
~
..;.
... _ ---~ .......
..
---- - - l.....JI - I
r
-:a
- i""'
,~
-- I
I
-~ '
Ic;.. -
c.......;, ..
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Friction (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Pore pressure u
' J
r
'I,
,
-
I
l
~
'
i,..
..
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Pressure (psi)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/12/2021, 2:28:34 PM Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-ChulaVista2-21 \CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
bJs
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
0 Friction ratio
-... :........
•I"'--,,
...._,__
~ ~
-
~
I- - :iilL
J
I
~
~
....
-- ::iii=
il
-~
-..... ,..__
- ~
~ - -~ -::---
·-
,_;,~
"-
2 4 6
Rf(%)
8 10
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
CPT-7
Total depth: 80.46 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Soil Behaviour Type
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~ 4 2 7 .............. ....;:~~---j-Si
O 4 4 ..,--+~+-+----11----+--i
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68,~==:::!=:~ s:=~ ~~o=i 70-f
72 74
76 7-----== :C::---f=---t---:~~ 78
8 0 -:...-...,-,...--+""--..,..-...,1-_,-_--+1--..... -...,1-_,--"tf--__ - -;+_'-.... --"tf--__ - -;+--.... - --t1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Geocon / Collins Parcel B
Location: 850 Lagoon Dr, Chula Vista, CA
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Cone resistance
,.
\._
~
<'
-...
(
~
.......
-=::;;;.__
\ - ~
... ...._ ~
t'"
.,
' -
l ' .
0 100 200 300 400 500
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
b 38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Sleeve friction
_.~
....
- ·-
....a
-c_
1-....
---- ~
-~
c:: ....
,....-
- r-.. ~

1.r
... -
c::::: I>
-,---- -~
~
·-
'IE - >
,,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Friction (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Pore pressure u
~
I
I
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Pressure (psi)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/12/2021, 2:29:14 PM Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-ChulaVista2-21 \CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
bJs
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
0 Friction ratio
~
- - _;!; -
i=:
~
., C:
~ -~ - - <"" ---- -- .. ~
--- ~
~
2 ,J~
4 6
Rf(%)
8 10
CPT-8
Total depth: 50.53 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Soil Behaviour Type
0 -,-- = ;;;i;;;;;=i:=
2 ~ ......t---t----;;;;;r::-::::jf-;;-::::::±:-:c;;ct--1 4 6
8 10, ..... iiiiiiii - -+-+-;;rl',.,,...,.,,!,,,-,,,,,,+-+--i 12 14
16 18,--::c:;:::t=D : 20-r
22 24
26 28
30 --J=:::::::=:::=:!==:--~ i
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52 -+--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
54 ---+---+--+---+-----<>----+---+--+--l
56 +--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
58 -+--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
60 ---+---+--+---+-----<>----+---+--+--l
62 -+--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
64 -+--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
66 -+--+---+--+---+-----<>----+---+--+--l
68 +--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
70 +--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
72 -+--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
74 -+--+---+--+---+-----<>----+---+--+--l
76 +--t---+--+-+---11---+--+--+--I
78 -+--+---+--+---+-----<>----+---+--+--l
8 0 1-...,-,...--+--..,..-...,1-_,-_--+--..,..-...,1-_,--"tf--__ --;+--.... --"tf-_-__ --;+--.... - --t1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Geocon / Collins Parcel B
Location: 850 Lagoon Dr, Chula Vista, CA
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Cone resistance
-~
-~
--
__,.
i..--
; ,,.
l....
)
~
...,.
~
' ""--
... _
< ..., - """"' ,.,.... I ..;;:i
J
.,.,,.. I
I~
0 ,:,,
r--
..............
., ~
n... ~
,,,---
....... C:
.
100 200 300 400 500
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
b 38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Sleeve friction
.... ->
_,,
.s.
'i
C.
~
.:---
_.,_.
.....
,_ ~
1-.
....::. -- ~ =-
·~ ~
;:::::-
- ~
-- ~
.... ::::::...~
- __;;; ....
• ....,,_
- == =--
--
IT
,_If
--~
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Friction (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Pore pressure u
I
\
~
..
•
~
"
.,.
/
. -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Pressure (psi)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/12/2021, 2:29:38 PM Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-ChulaVista2-21 \CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
bJs
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Friction ratio
~
->-
)
I~
c::;._
-
--- ~
..._

1......-.i -
----- ~
'(
--:::
~
.J
i'
C.
- --
...-
-~-
~-
<;...

IT
~
- =2 =- """ -- -- 0 2 4 6
Rf(%)
8 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 ,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
I
I
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
10 0
CPT-9
Total depth: 80.46 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Soil Behaviour Type
--------sfiy"sari"asaiiiiysiit-=i
Sil y san & san y silt
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Geocon / Collins Parcel B
Location: 850 Lagoon Dr, Chula Vista, CA
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Cone resistance
.,,,,..,,..
'----
1£
~
Ill.:

Ci.
- -----'
-,___
.. ...
,,,
c::::
- ~ ~-
"'C""
""Ii ...
/
-- ~ ~
... ,----- .. _
r
...__
,_
~ I
--~
r
-,. ,_
0 100 200 300 400 500
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
b 38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Sleeve friction
- ~
~~
r
"-~
.. ~ §,
IC:::~
~ ...
'-~
~
,....
__. .....
---
- --
-
-
C"
l'"'IL....
r.)
~
~
1,r
j~
""? - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Friction (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Pore pressure u
,
'
' l
1 l
...
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Pressure (psi)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/12/2021, 2:26:44 PM Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-ChulaVista2-21 \CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
bJs
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Friction ratio
~
--
--- -
Si ~
...
- - !! - II" - -
~
r
':lo
~
~
~
- r----, -,
-
.....___
-==- -=--
~
- ...

I
-..... --
l
0 2 4 6
Rf(%)
8 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 ,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 I
I
52 54
56 58
60 62
64 66
68 70
72 74
76 78
80 10 0
CPT-10
Total depth: 80.46 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Soil Behaviour Type
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Project: Geocon / Collins Parcel B
Location: 850 Lagoon Dr, Chula Vista, CA
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Cone resistance
,--
\
"\
...._
__,,
~
rj""
~
r- ~
' r - .,,. < - ~
""'\...._
-;-
-
0 100 200 300 400 500
Tip resistance (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
b 38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Sleeve friction
--
~
( -)
-....-- r-""" - I"""\
-,_
.!
......;;: ;:► _!!
I -
.r -
-a -- .a:~
<E.
--~
I,_
-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Friction (tsf)
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
Pore pressure u
I
,
~
~
'1
~
I
I
-
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Pressure (psi)
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/12/2021, 2:28:13 PM Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Geocon-ChulaVista2-21 \CPT Report\Plots.cpt 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,....., 36
bJs
.c 40 .....
c. 42 QJ
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
0 Friction ratio
~
.i..--
~
....._
-
-
~ .----
- '""
C
,..._
-~ _..:s::- -
r __..;..,
~
~
~- _.,,-
-
--
2 4 6
Rf(%)
8 0
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 ,....., 36
~38
.c 40 .....
~42
O 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
10 0
CPT-11
Total depth: 50.41 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Soil Behaviour Type
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 APPENDIX

APPENDIX B

PREVIOUS BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
FOR

COLLINS AEROSPACE REDEVELOPMENT SITE - PARCEL B

NORTHEAST CORNER OF H STREET AND MARINA PARKWAY

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G2560-52-01
PROJECT NO 07050-22·30
0:: BORING B 1 ~ UJ,,.., >-- UJ /:: UJ~ I -~I- DEPTH CJ SOIL ~ ~ ii50 0:: !z SAMPLE 0 ~~~ zu. IN §~ ..J IJJ(.) 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) ~16.5' DATE COMPLETED 07-12-2005 O· FEET NO. i!: z wu5 9 >--e::. oz :) (USCS) Z wCil ts :J 0 :ES CME75 ~a::: ~ 0:: EQUIPMENT CJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ,... 0 ORA VEL 4" thick
:-1. 1-l ' - - FILL - Bl-1 i:I ! SM
Loose moist moderate brown. Siltv. fine SAND - 2 - Bl-2 V -/ BAY POINT FORMATION 76 124.0 11 .7 f.- - I- . / Hard, moist, medium brown, Sandy CLAY f-- 4 - V/_. I-
;- - V;: IBl-3 / CL 50/6" 120.2 13.4 I- 6 -
/;/; II- - ,-
.... 8 - /'.j{ 17· --:-· f-- -------------------~-------~---- ----- ---- --- ;-/J; Dense, mobi, moderate olive brown, Clayey, fine SAND with l " to 2" thick, ;- - //. s1iff to hard clay layers If-- 10 - 1 -/./' IBl-4 ;,// SC 41
- ti✓ f--
12 - :$7- I- V / / -Groundwater depth of 12' nt the .end of drilling //"' - ,// I14 - j// l'- - ;//' -Groundwater depth of 14' during drilling - I / IBl-5 j',// 39 105.7 20.l 16 - BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
: Backfilled with approximately 5.5 cu. ft of hydrated bentonite chips Figure A-1, 07050-22-30. GPJ
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SI\MPLE
[l ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ .. CHUNK SAMPLE
■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.:,'. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
'1 : ..
>- 0:: BORING B 2 Zw- ~ !!ti UJ
(!) ~~t: I- en~ DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL <( .i:- zu.. ;:2!z IN SAMPLE ...J I= 1--' (/) 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) -12.3' DATE COMPLETED 07-12-2005 U)~ ~~ !:Q~ NO. FEEr :c z w- o >- !!:, I- ::::> (USCS) z (/) -I oz , ., ., :J UJ LU Ill n:: ~s ~ EQUIPMENT CME75 a..O:: ~ 0 I' (!) ' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 ~ 4"ASPHALT I- - '< /./ \ 4" AGGREGATE BASE ~
B2-l ,_. ' /, / BAY POINT FORMATION 2 - '/"/ .... 82-2 . /j SC Vcry de11se, moist, moderate yellowish brown, Clayey SAND 74 120.4 13.l ;... - /! / ~ ! i3 ~-,..·_,/ ./
4 - x ·:,._·L ,__ -------------~------------------ ..,_ ___ ---- --- 132-3 7/ Very hard, moist; moderate brown, CLAY with sand 92/10" 117,7 12.5 ' - _, _1/_ ~
6 - / • CL ~
- /;/ '-
i • . / /
8 - (:_;{_· .... ------------------------------- i..- - --t----- --- -~ Vety dense, wet, pale yellowish brov,n, poorly graded, fine to medium SAND - - ~ y_ -Groundwater deplh of9' at the end of drilling
- 10 - ~
B2-4 SP -Groundwater depth of 10' during drilling 52 .;... - ~ !
,... 12 - L..
:
,:__ - ,-,.;_:~--~ ------------------------------- L-.--- f----- --- ' Ve1y dense, wet to saturated, pale yellowish bro,vt1, well graded, fine to ~· 14 - conrseSAND '-
i SW
~ - L...
i 132-5 54 112.l 15.1
' - 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
Backfilled wiih approximately 5.5 cu. ft. of hydrated bentonite grout, capped l with concrete
:
f
I
i
'
!
!
'
I
Figure A-2J 07050-22-30.GPJ
i,..og of' Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE i:.J ... CHUNK SAMPLE _J'. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

ITIS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
0:: BORING B 3 Zw~ t UJ ~
~ UJ Q () i-: f- r. z !:'::: u5-:-- o::~ DEPTH i SOIL ii: ;:5 (/) iij II., ::J fIN SAMPLE 1-Z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) ~12' DATE COMPLETED 07-11-2005 f- (/) s □ q ~~ FEET NO. z w-o >- e:,. ~ ::J (USCS) z(/) ....J oz ::J ~ UJ w co ~ ::.E8
EQUIPMENT CME75 n. 0:: '-'
(!)
MATERIAL DESCR IPTION .... 0 ASPHALT 4" thick
.-1 1
• I· ' , ,_ - F1LL '-
B3-l :1·.t ·1 SM
- 2 - Loose, moist, medium brown, Silty SAND I-
~-- B3-2 "' , 1 ~ A
,_ - l(z:··:- BAY DEPOSITS '-
CL _ Hard, moist, moderate brov.n, CLAY with fine sand __________ I- 4 - ~7-,( ,_ ..._ ___ 1----- ---- ·1. ·l Very dense, moist, moderate yellowish bro"''II, Silty, fine SAND :... r - B3-3 l-l ·1 92 102.9 20.9 r 6 - _.j .I 1- SM '-
- - - I '-
.-1- l IY .... 8 - ~:...J- ---~---------------------------- t,_..._._.._._ t---- --- Medium dense_. wet to saturated, mod(,rate yellovvish brown, poorly grnded, f,- - fule to medium SAND with silt L... ,... 10 -
I:. IB3-4 SP-SM 18
..... - I-
,_ 12 - -2" clay layer It- - -
~ 14 - ~ .. ....,,_.-... - -- ----------------------------~-- ~--- ---- --- Dense, saturnted, medium yellow brovm, poorly gmded, tine to medium. I- - SAND IB3-5 41 1!4.6 16.1 ,,. 16 - I- ~
- - ,,. 18 - ~·

I- - '-
SP I- 20 - L...

B3-6 34
I- - L...
1-- 22 - I-
,.. - '-
'"' 24 - ... b' - I ..... "" ,M,_, ,,,., 0 B3-7 ,_. 26 ·/ l'T BAY POINT FORMATION ! \ I·ford, moist, moderate olive brown and dark yellowish ornnge, CLAY with sand I
BORING TERMINA'rnD AT 26 FEET
Bnckfilled with apprnximntely 9 cu. fl. of hydrated bentonite grout, capped with concrete
Figure A-3, 07050-22-30.GPJ
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I] ... STANDARD f·'ENETRATION TEST
liiiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE ( UNDISTURBED)
.'f_ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. ,---
PROJECT illO 07050-22-30 -
Q'. BORINGS 4 Z w ~ ~ ~@: 8 UJ Q o 1;:: DEPTH ~ SOIL t- z -- SAMPLE !2 i7 ~!z ..J 3:· ~ ~Cl) W(.) IN 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) ~12.3' DATE COMPLETED 07-11-2005 t- (/) 0 $ O· ~I:!! NO. ::c z w- FEET >- !!:. oz (liSCS) z (/) ..J t- ::, WW Cll ~ :\? 8 :J ~ EQUIPMENT CME75 a. a:: ~ <!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 ASPHALT3" thick
»
-/- \ /
. - . - FILL !34-l
.½z :·_:

Hard, moist, moderate brown, mottled black, Sandy CLAY - 2 - - B4-2 CL 98 94.2 13.3 - - - * . • - -/
4 - ~·»·7:.: BAY DEPOSITS
- - X -
Hard, moist, moderate to dark yellowish brown, CLAY with sand ~ B4-3 ::1 CL 60
- 6 . - / - . -
- 8 . /-,{ - -------------------------------- i----- r- - - - - ---- -;)/ Medinm dense, moist, moderate to dark yellowish brov.11, Clayey SAND - - '//· - - rn - . -/// - B4-4 ~~// 18 - - • //' - - 12 - ; /;, - ~// _,._ SC f- - - ·-/~ ' 14 - //'/ f- ;./· - -Wctto saturated below 13 feet
- - B4-5 ·•//' - 32 110.4 19.3
- 16 - ,,,// - ,-- - '.:<(j. - - rn - /,'._/_j --------- ----------------------- --- - ------ ---- Medium dense, saturated, pale yellowish brown, poorly graded, fine to - medium SAND - 20 -
r - B4-6 SP -Possible slough 11 - -
- 22 - ""
l - I ½ BAY POINT FORMATION
r 24 - Hard, moist, moderate olive brown, CLAY - CL - - ½ - B4-7 72 102.8 21.5 - 26 BORING TERMINA'IED AT 26 FEET
Backfilled with approximntdy 9 cu. ft. of hydrated bentonite grout, cappe(I with concrete
Figure An4, 07050-22-30.GPJ
Log oif Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □ ... SAMP\.ING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I) ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
iJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE· THE \.OG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
er BORINGS 5 Zw ~ ~ w~ >-- UJ Qoi--:

Cl f-- I- Z LL u; ~ er~ DEPTH g ~ SOIL , .. ,. ni j:S u5 ZIL ::, IIN SAMPLE •.•;_ W(.) f--z ' 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) -11.5' DATE COMPLETED 07-11-2005 1-ws O· (.l)w NO. I z w-o Fl:ET z (/) -I >--e:.. o!z f- ~ (USCS) wwoo 0:: :;i;g ::J
EQUIPMENT', CME75 0.. 0:: ~ 0 );;":,,
Cl
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I- 0
.·I. ' l ASPHALT 4" 1hick - FILL · - BS-1 :i:l 1 SM
2 - Loose. moist moderate brown Siltv SAND
BS-2 / r ,/ 50/6" 106.l 7.6 _;- / • BAY DEPOSITS - - .··/ Dense, moist, moderate brown, Clayey SAND I- '- 4 - t>/ I-
/ "/ - - v/· - B5-3 // 42 115.2 14.7
- 6 - :,/// Il- - ✓// Ii '//·
f-. 8 - < ;,_,., I- // / SC ~ - /// 1/. I- .,,· / l / /. r-- 10 - ·/// I-
,: B5-4 y/// 34 l. - I- i, _;✓-- H
tr 12 - ✓:/'// I-
~ ·/ •
- .!'. . /.// I-
//'· •
14 - . / // I-
/· _ ·/· ;,/ .
r - "-''7-L ,.. -------------------------------- 1-----r----- --- 85-5 .·I l Dense, wet to saturated, modernte brov.~1, Silty SAND 41 103.2 23 .6 ,-- 16 - r·I ·1 I- - .·1 I. 1· I-
;.,.. 18 - I . I-
:-1 .• ·l I- l 11 ~
SM
r 20 - .111 II B5-6 39 ~ - . -I • - 1 ·l I- 22 - r·l 1 - ,._ - . j 1_.1· "" ;,.y, 24 - . ·I . I- ,.,. .I- ,·l
BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET
! Backfilled with approximately 8.5 en. ft. of hydrated bentonite gront, capped with concrete i
!
I
~ Figure A~5, 07050-22-30.GPJ
log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SI\MPLE
I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
)i;:j ... CHUNK SAMPLE
■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
:f .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
a:::: BORING 8 6 Zw ~ >- ~ ~l UJ Quti::· DEPTH Cl !;;: f-Z V5-:-, g ~ $OIL g~µj Z lL ~~ IN SAMPLE
0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) ~11.5' DATE COMPLETED 07-11-2005 (/'.)~ ~~ (l)W NO. z w-o >- (!;., - 1- FEET :r :::i (USCS) z (/) J oz
::J
f- wWro a:::: ~s ~ EQUIPMENT CME75 n.~~ Cl
Cl
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 ASPHALT3" thick ½ \ I
- - BAY DEPOSITS - B6-l Very stiff to hard, moist, moderate to dark yellowish brown, CLAY with sand t- 2 ½ - -
0 -
i- 4 - -
// CL ;- - - B6-2 76 115.4 16.4 t- 6
½z·•·•.·••··
-
- - - - 8 - -
- - . • L "I' -------------------------------- ---- ----- ---- 7// Medium dense, wet, moderate yellowish brown, Clayc.-y SAND with layers - 10 - /,;/· (I" to 2") of clay, 111icaccous - !36-3 /// SC 30 - - // - 12 - /// - .// - - / . ,..
- - 'f;___/j -------------------------------- ----- ---- ---- Medium dense, wet, dark yellowish brown, poorly graded, fine SAND, - 14 - micaceous -
I- - - B6-4 25 109.3 17.4 t- 16 - -
- - - SP - 18 - -
,- - - ;.. 20 -
I _••· .
tB6-5 20 ;.. - - l 22 - -
[ -

V/ BAY POINT FORMATION
24 - Hard. moist, pale yellowish brown, CL.A Y - CL
- - 1½ - B6-6 40 103.8 21.5
"" 26 BORING TERMlNA TED AT 26 FEET
Backfilled with approximately 9 cu. ft. of hydrated bentonite grout, capped with concrete
Figure A-6, 07050-22-30.GPJ
Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
§.l'! ... DISTURBl;D OR BAG SAMPLE
I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ . . CHUNK SAM PLE
■ .. DRIVE SAMPLE ( UNDISTURBED)
_'f ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DA TE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OHiER LCCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
0:: BORING B10 i5 w .,.., /'.: wl LU >- I- - (_) ti: DEPTH ~~ (9 ~ SOIL I-~ z - 0:: ISAMPLE g i'.5 U) W(j j:!z IN 0 D CLASS DATE COMPLETED 07-27-2005 I-(/) $0 (/)W ELEV. (MSL) -10.5' • 0~ NO. I z FEET UJ - >- e:, :::, (USCS) z (/) ..J I- ' wwco a::: 2 8 I• ::l ~ EQUIPMENT ' CME75 ll. I!:~ 0
Ii Cl
: MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~ 0 BlO-l
·.i~// \ ASPHALT 2'' 1hick I
- FILL ,-
' 'rL[7 .. .:C ~ SC Medium dense damn li<>ht to dark brown. Clavev SAND - 2 - . B10-2 - / BAY DEPOSITS 15 100.9 23.9 .... - .. :// Stiff, moist, dark yellowish brown, CLAY with sand IIt-:- 4 - -/1/;-_ - - -/ '- - ~ .. - Bl0-3 CL 31 116.2 16.3 ~ 6 - -
- - ,/ - ;
~
/- 8 - [77~ ,- -------~------------------------ ---- 1----- ---- I/;/ / Medium dense, moist, moderate yellov,ish brown, Clayey SAND - ·- / / - I
r 10 -· 1/ /.// ,-.

Bl0-4 ;,// _J: SC 21
- - . _/ / ,-
'
-· 12 - :~.;~-- ------------------------------- t----- ----~- ---- _. 1 • I Medium dense, wet to saturated, dark yellowish brown, Silty, medium ~ - ., -11 -grnined SAND ,- !
~ 1.4 - .-j -I_ 1- SM ,-
-· - . I ,- Bl0-5
~ - --------------------------------- r----- -.J.04..~ -,:ZZ,Q... ~ 16 - Stiff; moist, dmk reddish brown, Silty CLAY t- - CL t-
.... 18 - i BAY POINT FOHMA TION
!- -
I½ Hard, moist, light olive gray, CLAY ,-
20 - ,_ Bl0-6 30 ;- - ' / - i-,, 22 / / CL t-
< / / -
I½ t-
;
~- 24 - - I - : LI_/ ..- r -
L Bl0-7 -------------------------------- _ ,$()A'!.- --W+.2- --2-l-,J26 - :1- I Very dense, moist, olive brown and reddish brown mottled, Silty SAND - l h - l l !. : - ,- . -j -~ -1 ·28 - SM - i- . -I - :1- -1- ,- ' l 1 f ' t- 30 - ,- Bl0-8 _jJ I 50/6" t-
' BORING TERMINATED AT 31 FEET
.l Backfilled with approximately 10 .5 cu. ft. of hydrated bcntonitc chips, i capped with concrete
i
Figure A~10, 07050,22,30.GPJ
log of Boring B 10, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) IBl ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y, ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: TH E LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
a:: BORING B 11 Zw~
>- w Oo • ~ wl
8 t- i= z l:i:: ~ii a:: t- DEPTH
~ SOIL
~ ;:!:iii =>z IN SAMPLE ...J ~q ~I=! ~ 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 07-27-2005 (/) ~ NO. z w-O FEET >-~ :::, (USCS) zW ...J o z ::::; ~ ww ca 0:: ~s EQUIPMENT CME75 a.. 0:: - 0
C)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
r 0 Bll-1 ··:-:~
... _--:-:---'.-,.:...;...: FILL CL - ..._-'i'-'-' 1--IT:--- ___ Stiff.Ary, browi.1 Sandv CLAY _________________ .J L---- ---- --- ':-1 • ·l I- 2 - l 1·1
Loose to medium dense, dry, reddish browi1, fine-grnined Sil1y SAND ,_ B11-2 6.4
i'-- - . l 11 SM ~
~ 4 - • l I i ,_
- ' 1/- / ./ BAY DEPOSITS ~
Bll-3 ?/,· Medium dense, dry to damp, browi1 with white, Clayey, medium-grained 56 112.0 5.5 i'- 6 - -//· ,_ /// SAND
- ~(/ -
8 - .// - 1):// - r '// - ;_/./
10 - ·/// SC - r Bll-4 23
- /. ,/ - )//'
12 - '// '- / . ,.,, -Beoomes moist to wet /// - ;,,..>(>,,,. ~ 14 ·- '// - _·./·_;, / ..
"- - /'.,, / - Bll-5 /_//,, -Medium- to coarse-grained sand 27 114,0 15.4 ·- 16 /·/ ..

BORING TFRMINA TED AT 16 FEET
Backfilled with approximately 5..5 cu. ft. of hydrated bentonite chips l
l
Figure A-11, 07050-22-30.GPJ
Log of Boring B 11, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
§§ , .. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
[l ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) iJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE _'f ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES.

PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
'
a:: BORING B 12 Zw~ >- w ~ wl
(!) ~~ti: I- w~ DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL ~~ ii~I ZIL
IN SAMPLE _J
~~ 1-w
~ Cl CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COM PLETED 07-27-2005 !.11- NO. z t:i !!2 0 FEET >- e,, I- ::> (USCS) zY.l_j oz :::; ~ wWai !5 ::.ES EQUIPMENT CME75 0. 0:: - (!)
'

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 Bl2-l >~/ FILL i- -- - -- ,!~..:- ___ Loos§. w~liglitbrowq., __ Clny__ey,._finll::8!]ined SAND _________ J 1----- ____ .. --- ,_ 2 - ,~ CL Stiff moist. dark brown Siltv CLAY Bl2-2 ;/· BAY DEPOSITS 18 93.9 5.2 ,-.. - ·'.// Medium den.'le, damp, brov-11, Clayey SAND - • /. /'' - 4 ·- ~ // j SC t-
-- - / /~/ t812-3 • ~'.i !.. ✓ - ------------~------- ------------- .... -,_1-0,.- ---4-0+.4- -4.-5- ~ 6 -- 1~ Very stiff, damp, dmk brown, Sandy CLAY t- - - CL
8 - ./'/'· - / .
~ - // t-
. ./
~ 10 - . ;,;~;c - -------------------------------- 1---- i----- --- ii Bl2-4 -k~l i Very hard, damp, dark brov-11, Silty CLAY with sand 50/6" [ -· CL - ,l ,:<t 12 - !~~,:::.v - I -------------------------------- ---- 1-,--- --- 1 1:11/
Very stiff, wet to saturated, dark grayish brov-11, Sandy, Silty CLAY ... - -- .

L ·"-
14 ·- / ,_ I '/1/' CL ~ - A·_;..: >--
BJ2 .. 5 ·· A 32 100.9 22.6
r- 16 . .J .. YBORING TERMINA 1ED AT 16 FEET
Bitckfilled with approximately 5.5 cu. ft. of hydrated bentonite chips i
,
'
Figure A-12, 07050-22-30.GPJ
l,..og of Boring B 12, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] .. . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I] .. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~ .. CHUNK SAMPLE
■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
,!. .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: TH E. LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRAITTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES PROJECT NO 07050-22-30
n:: BORING B 13 Zw~ >- ~ ~l UJ Q c.., ...,:
8 ~ ~ Z!!;: U)--:-- DEPTH SOIL Z IL :::, t- SAMPLE ~ ~ i:S (I) Ul(j t- z II~ ...J (/) ~ !:21!:! ~ CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) ~11.5' DATE COMPLETED 07-12-2005 Cl . NO. z w- 0 FEET >- e::, oz t- :::, (USCS) Z (/) ...J LU W CD n:: :i?O ::i 0 CME75 o..O::: ~ 0 0 n:: EQUIPMENT 0

MATE RIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0 ASPHALT 3" thick
·~
' I
- - BAY DEPOSITS - Bl3-1 Hard, moist, moderate brown, Sandy CLAY; trace gravel 2 - IBl3-2 39 109.6 184 - -
.1/0 - - 4 - -
- - ./ I--
BB-2 ./ CL 77 11 1.9 18.0
- 6 -
.// I--
- - 1--
- 8 -
½ '5l
-Groundwater depth of8' at the end of drilling - - - - ·.://. .!- - 10 - ./ • . IB13-3 X -Groundwat<,-r depth of 10' during drilling 20 - - -Becomes finn, with 3"-6" interbeds ofloose clay~·y sm1d - - 12 - ,/ - ; /. / ·/ - /' - I :
! TT" 14 - x·/ . -
/ ~ L:·~ I--
Bl3-4 58
16 BORJNG TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
Backfilled with approximately 5.5 cu. fl. of hydrated bentonite grout, capped with concrete
Figure A-1 3, 07050-22-30.GPJ
l.og of Boring B 13, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYM BOLS □ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
l!fil ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I] .. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
iiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
■ .. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
,!. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS MOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 06327-22-0 I
Q::
>- w BORING B 1 Zw'"' >- " (!) 1-- Ou. ~" w~ 0 (t
DEPTH _J ::J: SOIL Hzl-- (/) . Q:'. '-'
SAMPLE 0 D 1-- (t lJ... zu... ::::>1-- IN NO. ::r: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DAT OMPLETED 6/2/99 Q:'. <I:1--'- w· t--z (/) (/)
FEET 1-- ::::> (USCS) 1--H::J: □~ (/)w H 0 H1-- _J Q:'. W(l)O >-Q.. Dz EQUIPMENT lR A-300 Zw-1 (!) ~Q::~
Q:'. '-' Eo
D u

MATERIAL DE RIPTIO
- 0
~ GW 3" A PHALT
- - ._
_-1 I ·1 BASE MATERIAL
!-- - 2 - Bl- I l I ·1 Medium dense, browni h gray, moist, Silty SAND and Sandy angular GRAVEL Lo I "
119.0 10.9 - - B1 -2 .·1 .t_ ,- SM ALLUVIUM AND TIDAL FLAT DEPOSIT ._ 27 - 4 - -t ' Medium den e, reddish brown, m i t, Silty, coarse ._ :l ·l ·1 ·I -I SAND - - I -~ - Bl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ------- -,A 11/j - - 6 - Very Liff, light gray to pale br wn , moist, pla tic >- - -
~ LAY ,--
81 -4 ~ H
- 8 - ,--
- v,:;• - - 10 - - - - --------- --- -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - B1 -5 ~t;rt 31 - - vXVj Den e, medium grayish brown , mouled, weL, layey ,-- )f:--1: y
and illy, micaceous SA D. Grainsize and grading
- 12 - 1Vtv.rV. M varie widely in thin layer - - - %·1- ,-- ViK-y - 14 - ~ttJ. - - - , / ---- -- ----- -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- BI -6 l
~
25 16 V MH Very Liff, grayi h LO olive brown , weL, layey , - - --., // ✓ micaceou SILT, laminate with cauered chalky - - - / , -, , __ CJr_b~nJt~ .!:)~d~l£ r V' / --------------- _______ , v~ ,
- 18 ✓ MH Very tiff, grayish 10 olive brown, wet , Clayey , --., // micaceou ILT, laminate with cauered chalky - - - v., / carbonate n dule - - 20 v~ • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- B1 -7 l~ Stiff LO very tiff, medium browni h gray and reddish 17 - - - ~ '.
moulcd , wcL , ilty , plastic LAY with fine SA D - 22 - - L - - tlli -
- 24 -
~ -
- - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- B1 -8 r~~~ MH Stiff 10 very Liff, medium browni h gray , wet, I - 26 - Clayey, micaceous, pla tic I T with variable fine - SAND I
BORI G TERMI AT DAT 26.5 FEET
Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1 BFGR
AMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ,! ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHO\.IN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 06327-22-0 I
a:::
>- w BORING B 2 Zw '"' >- (!) I- Ou• ""'
~'-: w~ 0 <I: DEPTH ...J 3 SOI L Hzl- a:::'-'
SAMPLE 0 Cl I- <I: LL zLL =>1- IN NO . I z CLASS V. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 6/2/99 <I:1- '- w· 1-z I- :::) a::: (J) (/) FEET L! cnw H 0 (USCS) I-H3 HI- ...J a::: WcnO >-a.. Oz QUIPMENT 1R A-300 Zw...J (!) ~a:::~ a:::'"" :Co
Cl u
MATERIAL D SCRIPTION .... 0
~ GW 3" ASPHALT
- - -
X ~ 12 " BASE MATERIAL
- 2 - Medium dense, grayi h brown, moi t, Silty and Sandy .... 82-1 angular gravel to I " - - CL ALLUVIUM AND TIDAL FLAT DEPOSITS - 17
- 4 - ½i;/·:· Stiff, medium reddish brown, moi. t, fine Sandy, - . . plastic LAY .... - ----------------------- ----- --- -- - - - 1 82- 1 'l Dense, medium brown, moi t to wet, Silty, micaccou., 4 - 6 - • ,_, ·, - fine lO medium A D .... - :· I ~ !· M - - 8 .·1 l ~ - ·1 I ·1 - - . I t 1· - - 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ 82-4 .·1 '-l SM Med ium den e, medium brown , m i t to wet, Silty, 16 - - ·1 1 , micaccous, fine to coarse SAND ....

BORI G TERMINAT DAT 11.5 FEET
Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2 BFGR
AMPLE SYMBOL □ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I;':§ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPL E J ... WA TER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATI ON AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSUR FACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO 06327-22-0 1
a::
>- w BORING B 3 Zw"" >- t!) .... Ou• "" t=;r. wX 0 <I: DEPTH _j 3 SOJL Hzf- (/) . a:: '-' SAMPLE 0 0 .... <I: u. zu. :::::,._ IN ::r: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 6/2/99 <I:._ , w· f-z NO. .... :::::, 0:. (/) (/) FEET (USCS) f-H3 0~ (/)w H 0 H._ _j 0:. W(f)O >-n. Oz
t!) EQ IPM ENT IR A-300 Zw_j
~o:.~
a:: '-' :Co
0 u

MATERIAL D CRIPTIO
- 0 3" ASPHALT
~ ,\ J
I- - 3" BASE MATERIAL - I- 2 - 83-1 Medium den e, gray i h brown, moi t, Silty and andy - B3-2 H l ANGULAR gravel to I" I - - 6
I~
ALLUVIUM AND TIDAL FLAT DEPOSITS - I- 4 - Soft to firm, medium reddish brown, and grayish B3-3 brown mottled, moi t to wet, plastic LAY, with fine - 17 - - to coar e SA D, common fine roots - I- 6 -
~ - - -
1 - I- 8 -
~ - I- - - - 10 - V/ ------- -- --- --- -- -- -- - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - 83-4 PU MH Very tiff, medium grayi h to olive brown, wet, 33 - - Clayey , micaceous SILT - ' BORI GT RMI TED AT 11.5 FE T
Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3 BFGR
AMPLE YMBOLS □ ... SAMP LING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) rt!l!J ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABL E OR SEEPAG E NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDJTIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT 0 . 06327-22-01
0::
>- w BORING B 4 zw,,.... >- ,,.... (.!) I- Ou• ~--: w~ 0 <I: DEPTH ....I :I SOIL Hzl- 0:: '-' SAMPL E 0 C) I- <I: IJ.. zl..L. =>1- IN NO. I z CLASS EL V. (M L.) DATE OMPLETED 6/2/99 <I: 1--' w· f-z I- ::::, 0::: (/) (/) C)~ (/)Iii FEET H 0 (USCS) f-H:::I HI-
.....I 0::: W(l)O >-a.. Oz QUIPMENT JR A-300 Zw.....1 (.!) ~O:::~
0:: '-' Ea
C) u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ._ 0
~~ \ 3" ASPHALT I ._ - BASE MATERIAL - 84-1 GW ' . Medium dense, gray, moi t, Silty SAND and - 2 GRAVEL, strong hydrocarbon or solvent odor I BORI G TERMI ATED AT2 E T
Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 4 BFGR
SAMPLE SYMBOL 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ . . . DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ... CHUN~ SAMPLE ! .. . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES.

PROJECT NO. 06327 22-01
a:: >- w BORING B 5 z w '"' >- '"' (!) I0 <I: Ou. ~ ...... w~ DEPTH SAMPLE ...J :3: SOIL Hzl- (/) . a::'-' IN 0 D CLASS I- <I: LL zLL =>1-
NO. ::r: z EL V. (M L.) DATE COMPLETED 6/2/99 <I:1-'- lJ.J • t-z FEET I- ::::, (USCS) a::(/)(/)
0~ (/)w H 0 1-H:3: H1- ...J a:: EQUIPM ENT
LJ.J(/)0 >- Q. Oz (!) m A-300 Zw...J a::'-' :Eo ~ a::~ D u MAT RIALD SCRIPTIO - 0 4 -4 8"CONCRETE ... ~; ~ ....
2 - 85-1 GW BASE MAT RIAL ... Medium den c dark gray, m i L, Silty and Sandy .... angular ORA VEL, strong hydrocarbon or solvent odor I
BORI G TERM! ATED AT 2.5 FEET
Figure A-5, Log of Boring B 5 BFGR
SAMPLE SYMB LS D ... SAMPL ING UNSUCCESSFUL (] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) §l!i ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... YATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDI TIONS SHOYN HEREON AP PLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE IND ICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

PROJECT NO . 06327-22-0 1
~
>- w BORING B 6 Z W'"' >- (..!) I- Ou• '"'
~~ a w~ <I: DEPTH .....J 3 SOIL Hzl- ~....,
IN SAMPLE a 0 CLASS
I- 0:LL zLL =>1-
NO. :r: z ELEV . (MSL.) DA TE COMPLETED 6/2/99 0:1-' w · 1-z I- ::> ~ (/) (/)
FEET (USCS) I-H3 o<-: (/) w H a HI-
.....J ~ W(l)O >-a.. Oz
(..!) EQU IPM ENT ffi A-300 Zw.....l
~~~ ~...., Ea
0 (_)
MAT RIAL D SCRIPTlON
- 0
m 3" ASPHALT ,- - 12 " BASE MATERJAL - ,- 2 -
~ Medium dense, medium grayish brown, moist, Silty - B6-l SC and Sandy angular GRAVEL I- - B6-2 ALLUVIUM AND TIDAL FLAT DEPOSITS t- 16 114.9 19. 1 - 4 - v;. Firm to tiff, medium reddish brown , moist, line to Imedium Sandy , plastic CLAY I- - I ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 86-3 Very stiff to hard , medium reddi h brown , moi t to 35 I- 6 - Iwet , Clayey and fine Sandy SILT ,- - I- ! ML
- 8 - ,-
,- - II- lO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 86-4 1.-1 • l Medium dense, pale brown and grayish brown , 15 - - ·i _·I I mollled , wet, Silty, micaceous, fine SAND. Faint tI- 12 - .·i t 1· hydrocarbon or solution odor I- . ·1 . ML I- - .-1 ·l - - 14 - j I ·1 • -~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B6-5 /' v / Stiff to very stiff, pale brown and olive brown , wet, 26 /V ,, I- 16 - )/ V Clayey , micaceou SlL T with common chalky - Vv MH I- - ✓ c// carbonate nodules ,- 1/V
I- 18 - r) / V
1/v - v, I/ I- - VI/ )' ,-
I/
>- 20 - / /
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B6-6 I - . . Medium dense, pale brown , wet, Silty, micaceous, 17 I- - I ..• Ifine to medium SAND. Spitty dark staining and faint - 22 - hydrocarbon or solvent odor >-
SM >- - . . I-
- 24 - - I- - ---------- --------------------------- B6-7 I~
lcl\s,f Medium dense , pale to medium brown , wet, Silly, ') 1 26 'I 61 T I I- - I Y l 11 ,l micaceous, fine to medium ~ \\ - - 11 SAND IJ ,_
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·, ~ CH ~ Stiff, medium brown and orange mottled , wet, I
~ 28 - ~ ___ l~yy_, 2:11l c~c~<?_u~ ~I!,! ________________ _____ '. ,- I- - Stiff to very tiff, olive brown to olive gray , wet, I- 1/ plastic CLAY Figure A-6, Log of Boring B 6 BFGR
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □ ... SAMP LING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UND ISTURBED) ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE iiii;;J ... CHUNK SAMPLE J .. . WATER TAB LE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSUR FACE COND ITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDI TIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES .

PROJE T NO. 06327-22-01
a:: >- LiJ BORING B 6 z LiJ'"' >- (.!) t- '"'
0 (C Ou. ~~ LIJ~
DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hzt- a::'-'
IN SAMPLE 0 0 CLASS
t- <Cu. zu. ::J t- :x: z EL V. (MSL.) DATE OMPL 6/2/99 <Ct- " NO. t- :::i T D a:: Cl) Cl) LiJ • t-z FEET H 0 CUSCS) t-H:::I 0~ Cl) LiJ
Ht-
...J a:: LiJ Cl) 0 >-0.. Oz (!) EQUIPMENT IR A-300 z LIJ...J ~a::~ a::'-' :Eo
0 u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I- 30 I ·1 B6-8 .·1. ·l SM 41
- - l·l -1 Medium dense to dense, medium brown and olive - brown , mottled , wet, wet, Silty, micaceous, fine I- 32 - .·1 t. 1· SAND. Much sand slough in hole t- - - : 1. ·t.-j. - I- 34 - L°1 ·1 t-
_j t_ 1· - - ---------- - -- - - - ------------ - ---- - --- - B6-9 1-- :. i ·::· Medium dense, pale brown and gray mottled , wet, 25 - 36 - tSilly, micaceous, fine SAND. Much sand slough in I- - _' j .t_ 1· hole tI t I M
- 38 - - I- - l I I t-
. j t_ j· I- 40 -
I
V·''./ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B6-10 (// Medium den e, medium brown , wet, slightly Clayey , 16 - - - /
~// micaceou , fine to medium SAND. Much sand laugh
- 42 - ~// in hole tSM
- - /./ - / /' - 44 - // - ///.
- - :/✓ - B6- 11
,~/; -Little sand in hole at 45 feet 21
- 46 - - /.// - - ~// -
- 48 - / / - ·./·· /· _/ - - /.//'/ -
- 50 - /.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - B6- 12 1.-1- 1 l SM Medium den e, medium brown , wet, Silly, mi caceous, 20 - - ,. 1 , fine to medium SAND . Little slough in hole tBORING TERMINATED AT 51.5 F ET Figure A-7, Log of Boring B 6 BFGR

SAMPLE SYMBOLS
0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ■ ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ . .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

File No. D-2080 - T02
Julv 14, 1980
0£PrH S,'MPi.£ LOG 8 if't1M1ra/1M
IN NUMBER 1./XATION Rn,-
l'EET OF Blow¢,
SAMPLE

IN-PL-'CE

OE SCRIPT/ON ORY MOISTURE
0£NSITY CONTENT
P.e.f
BORING NO. 1 . 0 -1-------l-- - +-----l--- ----- --- - --- ----- ~ ----1---~ t>·# • 16 inch Cone re te Slab
... -
... 4 _
... 6-
-
8- 1-1
... -
10·1-2
'" 12- . .
18 I20 1-4 .
22 24
1-5 ► 2 6·
28 • ~ ►
I rf I·. 4 inch Asphalt
,, .. . ~ l·. 1·. I·;. FILL . ·. / .
: 1fi- · Moderately firm, moist, dark brown, ·>··· .•• 1:.r:,.n:; Sil ty, Clayey SAND ·(;(:
v~:. .1:; BAY POINT FORMATION
LLil-1-- Moderately firm, moist, rendishW- ·.· -~ brown to br own, Cl ayey , Silty SAND 11([{ 20 \__::n d y SI_L_T ____ ____ _
l()'.I~ Grading medium stiff to stiff,
~ ... i{. moist, brown to dark brown, Silty J\ ·\ 27 CLAY, with some sand, occasional ~ fine gravel
~ ..... ·: ---&--------------------- :t1; Grades to stiff, moist, light '~ '.i[: ~~r~ to brown, Sandy, Claye_y_ . v 7 Grading to medium stiff, moist,
1 ,/~ , greenish-grayish-brown, Sandy,
/ micaceous, Clayey SILT
·1 ~· ~ :·: 23 .. . ~
:. . /
•.. .,A .
' . -, . . • .. :> . . , . / . / .
~~:.>-- ~Grading to dense, saturated, gray1
. ;<·.: 62 brown, slightly Silty and Clayey,
1/ ,1.:I ·I~ well graded SAND .. ,: . / ,
; 1;r, I·.
i/ •. ·.,,
' l1{ : . /. . .
,j.:I ·.1;,
" 3 0• 1 - 6 I '/. 6 9 ,.____3_1..___ ) :· I: BORING TERMINATED AT 11 0 FFF.T Fiiure 7, Lor, of T st Boring 1
A-5
104 .8 22 . 5
107.9 21. 0
120.2 16 . 6

99. 9 27. 3
125.l 13 . 2
112.1 25.7
File No . D-2080-T02
July 14, 1980
OO'rH SAltlPLE LOG a An.,raf,t>n
IN NUMBER LOCArlON R..,.,,,,_
FEET OF Blows/ff
SAMPLE
0 ~· Q
...
2 4
6 2-1
2-2
8 10 2-3
12 14
2-4
16 2-5
18 20 2- 6
22 24
-i/· , , ''
. / ;.
2- 7
26 28
OESCRIPrlON
BORING NO. 2
12 inch Concrete Slab
6 inch Sand/Gravel Base
FILL
Moderately firm, moist, brown to
dark brown, Clayey, Silty SANDSilty, Sandy CLAY

BAY POINT FORMATION
Moderately firm, moist, brown
reddish-brown, Clayey, Silty SAND-
~ndy SILT
Grading medium stiff to stiff,
moist, brown, Silty CLAY, with
occasional fine gravel and some
sand
(grading dark brown below 10 feet)
Grading to stiff, moist, light
brown to brown, Sandy, Clayey

SILT --------
Grading to medium Stiff, light
greenish-gray to tan, slightly
Sandy, micaceous, Clayey SILT
Grading to stiff, moist, light
brown to brown, Sandy Clayey SILT
Grading to dense, saturated, brown,
Silty, Clayey, well graded SAND

IN-PLACE
ORY MOISr uRE
O£Nstr'f' CONT'ENr
% ttry wr

NO RE OVERY
100.2 25.2
110.4 20.1
113.1 18 . 2
103 . 4 23 .9

90. 1 32 .2
121. 14.7
Fi ure 8, Log of Test Boring 2 Continued next page
A-6
..

Fi le No. D-2080-T0 2
Jul y 14, 1980
OEPTH SAMPf..E LOG lJ IP._,.o,,o,, 0£S CRIPTION
IN Nl/iliBER LOCATION Rin,,,-
FEET OF 8l""'slft
SAMPLE
30 2-8
32-
-
BORING NO. 2 CONTINUED
f -
1· \) 65 >-'" --Grading with less SILT and CLAY
/·tJ. . /
~(I};,/ (Clay grading in and out below
· ·1 rt-' 32 feet) ,, ,/, .
.. 34 - ~ .. • -)~: '"r\_· _______________ _ ► - 2-9 -36 - -
38 •
~
-
40"
-
42·
-
44 -
I
. ,,L,:
1 • .. 29 Grading to stiff, moist, grayishbrown, with orange and tan streak- . .-1. ;( ing, s lightly Sandy, Si 1 ty CLAY/ V •· Clayey SILT .,.:f ' . ·,, ...
~--~·:_0-, lf. .. _1:
.f :V . 'v :
r,1."_:1·.
• ..I: .l;{'.I:: . ., .... . ,,
: i •.
(Grading with thin layers of heavy
shell fragments below 40 feet)
ORY MOIST/JR£
0£NSIT'I" CONTENT
% dry wf
107.5 20.8

98.2 26.8
46 2-10 •.. 51 :1::. . ' . '
:· :-1 •.

Grading to dense, saturated , gray- 101.5 22.2
brown, very fine, Sandy SILT-Silty ►
48 -
50 -
52 . ·,1· ,•
SAND (micaceous)
T :· ~➔.. - -~-------------------
Grading to stiff, saturated, graybrown, Silty, Clayey, fine to medium SAD
. ·, ..
llC
·:"1\ 1:
.. 54
2-11
56 BORING TERMINATED AT 56 FEET
Figure 9, Log of Test Boring 2 Continued
A-7
118.0 15.9
...
..
~
►
File No . D 2080-T0 2
Ju ly 14 , 1980
OEP1'H SAMPLE l .OG 8 ,,_,.ttl,af,on OESCR/Pf/ON
IN NUMBER LOCAr/ON ,.,_,,st'7nel
f'EET OF Blowr./ff
0 2.
4 6
.
8 10·
SAMPLE
BORING NO. 3
. ' 16 inch Concrete Slab
}1-1'- 6 inch Sand/Gravel Base
I"/. ' • ' .;
·: I 1)<· FILL
• .;, • • • Moderately firm, brown to dark ~1,'L L brown, rnois t, Clayey, Silty SAND •• I t:1 ·: ' :( ,: ·.: BAY r'UlN"I .l:•URRATTON i,)t" - Moderately firm mo ist brown 3-1 : 23 \ Clayey, Silty SAND -Sandy SILT'
r1· 1X: ~ading to medium stiff t o stiff, k(i.(~: moist, brown to dark brown, Sandy Silty CLAY
3-2 31
► 12
ox~>
14 ._ 16 ·
~ .
18 ~ .
20 22
..
.. .

1.: _I : :··
t, .. .. . -'I, 1---+--- ------ ----------
~ Grading to stiff, mo ist , light
3-3 I 1) ,.·, ... 7 5 brown, Sandy Clayey SILT
"' • • I:/· / "• 1.; .. " .... ,
~ ••'q. ---1--------- ----------
3-41 F 38
Grading to medium stiff , l ight
greenish-gray/tan, slightly Sandy,
micaceous, Clayey SILT
BORI G TERMINATED AT 21 . 0 FEET
Figure 10, Log of Te s t Borinp, 3
A-8

IN-PLACE
OR"t' MOISTURE
OENSIT"t' Ca-.lTE:NT
105.2 22 . 2
104.6 23.1
116.0 17.8

99.6 27.1
I
File No. D-2080-T02
July 14 , 1980
DEPTH SAMPLE LOfi 8 'hlldr(Jf10,,
IN NUMBE"R UXATION /?fw;J""""1
ffl:T OF 810.-v'ff
SAMPLE

IN-PLACE
OE"SCRIPTION OR'Y MOISTURE"
0£NStr'Y CONTENT
P.C.f % dry l¥f
O +----+---J---J--- --....::B~O..:.R:..::I:.:... N..:.G~NO.:_:_. _4.;___ ___ __ __.f-----1-----1 12 inch Concrete Slab
2 ''--...:5_ 1_· n;.:.c~h __ A:..=sJ. p_h_a.:...:l..:....t __________ _J ___ -1-__ --J I-
... 4
.. .
4-1 .. 6·
- 8·
.. -
12 14
4-3
16 18
20 4-4
22-
1ii .:·.
r ·.'< J)? 31
~
FILL
Moderately firm, moist, brown to
dark brown, Clayey, Silty, SAND/
Sandv CLAY

BAY POINT FORMATION
Moderately firm , moist, brown, - ~ayey, Silty SAND-Sandy SILT Grading to stiff, moist, brown to
dark brown, Slightly Sandy, Silty
CLAY
::/;;z I--'--"-"'- ---------....,..,.--------=-=-------~--- •• .,.:l Grading to stiff, moist, light tr1 lS brown, Sandy ,Clayey SILT ~· :1· :~1···;:- Grading to medium stiff, li_g_h_t
·>. ·. ~ greenish-gray to brown, s1 ightly
• • • San.dy, micaceous, Clayey SILT
/'• ' •
I _;_;;" w_-4--__ - - - ---------------
;- ,I\: :; Grading to stiff, moist, light .·. .· ~ brown to brown, Sandy Clayey SILT- /" · Silty CLAY < .· ✓.
l /(i-~1--1--Grading to dense, saturated-,-b-rown
_1 }~~- 80 Silty, Clayey, w 11 graded SAND
.. 26
BORING TERMINATED AT 26.0 FEET
Figure 11, Log of Test Borin~ 4
A-9
10 /. U IZl. Z
104.0 23.6
112.0 19.5

98.7 26.3
125.9 14.1
-
..
..
►
File o . D-2080-T02
July 14, 1980
DEPTH SAMPLE LOG 8 Pr,n~rql,(1(1 OE SCRIPT/ON
IN N/JAIBER LOCATION Rt,s,slanat
OF 8!ow$/'fl
SAMPLE
0 C>. ,,.
" ,
2- 0 l1 I · / . . 0
- :I I~; .. ·/ ..
4 ) '. j;_r. :
+tJ 6
- /,n:,·.- -
8 :0{ -
BORING NO. 5
20 inch Concrete Slab
l"ILL
Moderately firm, moist, dark brown
to brown, Clayey, Silty SAND, with
occasional gravel

BAY POINT FORMATION
Moderately firm, moist, brown to
reddish-brown, Clayey, Silty SAND - 4--~c~~~~7 SILT -
Grading to stiff, moist, brown to
dark brown, Sandy,Sitly CLAY
--10- 5-1 1k6' ·: .. • 32
/ .. I
-- 12
- %
14 ·s-2
16 18 5-3
20 22-
-
24 .,·,··v
!lr': /
' ' i~ 1/. :
. L;,
I, ..
/
v · . ·;
-
57 23
Grading to stiff, moist, light
brown to brown, Sandy,Clayey SILT
Grading to medium stiff, moist,
light greenish-gray to brown,
slightly Sandy, Clayey SILT
(micaceous)
r[· (·.:a. - ---1--G_r_a __ d_i_n_g_t_o_s_t_i_f_f_,_m_o_i_s _t ,-1-i_g_h_t_ :,l .·l~ brown to brown, Sandy, Clayey SILT
,..( 1·•1:_;-
.. _ 5-4 [1~(-. 2 5
26 v1 .1 V
Medium dense, Silty and Clayey,
well graded SAND
S-Sba lfi --+t:- -1--G-rading to dense, saturated-,-- 28 ,. • • · • • ,.' brown to gray, well graded SAND
·:u, . ,. •. •
0 _: some silt

IN-PLACE
OR'!' 41Ol$T/JRE
OEN SIT'f' COVTE'NT
p,c-.l % dry w,f
106.6 22 . 4
113.7 18.0

97.8 28.6
NO RE:OVERY
llp.5
-118 .i 17.;3
14·:2
Figure 12, Lop. of Test Boring 5 Cont inued next page
A-10
OEPTH
IN
FEET
30 ..
32 -
.. - .. 34 _
...
.. 36 _
- ... - ... -
-
- -
-
- - -
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
File No. D-2080 - T02
July 14, 1980
SAit/PL£ LOG 8 Al'H!lrOl10,,, OE SCRIPT/ON
Nt/M8£N llX..ATION IIM,stonc,
OF 8low$/'fl
SAMPLE
BORING NO . 5 CONTINUED
5- 6 I .. . 70
.. ..
/1·:-r,· - Grading to stiff , moist , greenish5- 7 1 l ··rx-1,'.:.·. 55 gray to brown, wi th tan streaking •. 1:: slight l y Sandy , Silty CLAY BORING TERMINATED AT 35 . 0 FEET
.
...

Figure 13, Lor. of Test Borinp 5 Continued
A-11

IN-PLACE

ONY MOISTURE

OEN SI TY CCNTCNT
P. <".I % dry 'If
105 .J 21. 7
101. 5 24.9
File No. D-2080-T02
Jul y 14, 1980
0EPrH SAl,lf>t.£ LOG 8 Pr,n~rtd,on 0£SCR/Prl0N
IN NUMBER LtJCAT/ON Ro1,$10ta
0 ►
2 -
~ .
.. 4
-
6 .. 8
1-10·
~1 2
14 16
►
18 20
OF 8/owt,/ff
SAMPLE
BORING NO. 6 ~c. : ~r: ........ ~~1---+----1~~6 inch Concrete Slab t;};]: Frt;ose to moderately firm, moist, ~1k brown to dark brown, Silty Clayey -~l.{.j:\ SAND, with gravel
6 1 v.o·.; :1: :~; - ·. / ... 16
;.;J:i: .

SAY POINT FORMATION
Moderately firm, moist, brown,
Clayey, Silty SAND to Sandy,
6-2 ~ 27 Silty CLAY
~--4-------------------
6-3 ~ 34 ~::ti~~o~,m;~!~. s~~f~y ~t_~t,
~ :.:I}~
;/. T 1:
6-4 11; 1r 64
~ .... !(1--_l/ Grades medium stiff, moist, light ·:.V ·r· gray to greenish-brown, Sandy

IN-PLACE
OR'!' 1,10/STURE
O£NSIT'I' CCNrF:NT
P. <'. f

NO REC OVERY
106.6 21.3
105.9 23.0
114.2 18.7

91.0 32.0 I .. · .. ·.: Silty CLAY -Clayey SILT
~--
6 - 5 1: · . .'~t 3 3
.;... · '""' / ;..: · -~· ..;;,.;:;.__-1---------------------1------1----1 22 BORING TERMINATED AT 21.0 FEET
.
.

I- .

Figure 14, Log of Test Borin?, 6
A-12
File No . D- 2080-T02
Ju ly 14 , 1980
OEPrH SAMPI..£ LOG 8 lfwndir ot,o,,
IN NUM8E;R U:X;ff/ON ~s,stana,
~T OF 8/aws/ff
SAMPLE
OE:SCR/PTION
IN-PL ACEOR r MOISTURE:

OENStrY CCYvTENr
P. C f % dry wf
BORING NO. 7
0 -1--- ----&,..--4---4---------------- ------t,__---+------1 A:,..o. A~ ...

If: 6 inch Concrete Slab
• 7 -l ·'":,jJi 48 \ 6 inch Sand/fine Grave 1 Base 2 - ,,_ .. . / :·1j;f h:.'ILL
~-f j:i_"; Moderately firm, damp to moist, -.: ·-/·. dark brown, slightly Clayey, Silty ·: ·/(. fine to medium SAND
6 : _ 7- 2 ~:-· ,· j:·: .• :·. ~,✓:'_._·.~',:_ 26 lBAY POINT FORMATION / Moderately firm, moist, brown, Clayey, Silty SAND to Sandy SILT . ,,. ..
8 - )·: :_I·:.
-
10 -- '1' 0
_12: 7-3~49
14 ~,/
Grading to stiff, moist, brown,
Silty CLAY, with occasional
fine gravel
►
I16 -
18 20
22 24
/
7-4 1 / V 71
~i
~~ .·,·.·.;~ -
(Grading with thin lense of browntan, Clayey SILT
Grades medium stiff , mois t, light
greenish gray , slightly Sand y , micaceous, Cl ayey SILT rading to dense, mo i~rown,
slightly Siltv , Clayey SANDSandy CLAY
BORING TERMINATED AT 26 .0 FEET
Figure 15, Lo p, of Te st Borinp, 7
A- 13
.. - ., ., . " .I.. - I J.. .L ..I.. • \.-
107 . 1 11.0
113.8 17.3
106 . 1 22. 1
114 . 0 18 . 2
93 . 9 35 . 6

86.7 124.5
35 . 6
12 . 8

APPENDIXB

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures, Selected soil samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content, shear strength, gradation, permeability, and compaction and consolidation characteristics. Selected soils samples were also tested for R-value, thermal resistivity, pH, resistivity, and water-soluble sulfate content. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Tables B-I through B-VI and on Figures B-1 through B-3. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs, Appendix A.

Sample
No.

B3-2
B3-7
B4-5
B5-5
B9-5
Sample
No.

B2-1
B9-1

TABLE B-I

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-03
Sample
Top Depth Dry Density Moisture Unit Cohesion
(feet) (pct) Content(%) (pst)
2 102.9 20.9 300
25 103.7 22.8 320
15 110.4 19.3 290
15 103.2 23.6 320
15 94.0 29.3 720
TABLE B-11

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-02
Angle of
Shear
Resistance
(degrees)
39 32
37 31
32 Sample Maximum Optimum
Top Depth Description Dry Density Moisture Content
(feet) (pct) (% dry wt.)
1 Dark brown, Clayey SAND, 131.2 9.2 trace gravel (SC)
1 Dark reddish brown, Sandy 127.6 8.6 CLAY, trace gravel (CL) Project No. 07050-22-30 September 12, 2005
i
TABLE B-111
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH)

AND RESISTIVITY TEST RES UL TS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643
Sample No. Sample Top Depth pH Resistivity
(feet) (ohm centimeters)
Bl-1 1 7.4 3380
Bl0-1 0 7.9 390

TABLE B-IV

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Sample Top Depth (feet) Water Soluble Sulfate(%) Sample
No.

B13-1
Sample
No.

B4-3
B7-3
B8-5
Bl-1 l 0.040
Bl0-1 0 0.290

TABLE B-V

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 301
Sample Top Depth Description R-Value (feet)
1 Dark reddish brown, Sandy CLAY, Less than 5 trace gravel

TABLE B-VI

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 5084-00
Sample Top Depth Description Permeability
(feet) (cm/sec)
5 Dark brown, Sandy, lean CLAY 4.99E-09
5 Dark yellowish brown, lean 6.36E-09 CLAY with sand
25 Olive, fat CLAY l.35E-08
Proj ect No. 07050-22-30 - B-2- September 12, 2005

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American ociety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content, shear trength characteristics, expansion potential, maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content, soluble sulfate content, pH and re istivity, grain ize di tribution and con olidation characteristics.

The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Tables B-J through B-V and Figures B-1 through 8-3. The in-place dry den ity and moi ture content results are indicated on the exploratory boring log .

TABLE B-1

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ample Dry Moisture Unit Angle of Shear
Density Content Cohesion Resistance
No. (pcf) (%) (pst) (degrees)
B1-2 119.0 10.9 600 37
B6-2 114.9 19.1 100 3 1
TABLE B-11

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample Moisture Content Dry Expansion
No. Before Test(%) After Te t (%) Density Index
(pct)
B 1-1 7.9 19.8 117.6 7
B6- 1 8.2 18.5 117.8 20
Project No. 06327-22-0 I - B-1 - June 24, 1999
Sample
o.

Bl - I
B2- 1
TABLE B-111

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY

AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RES UL TS
Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Density(pct) Content (0/4, dry wt.)
Red brown, Silty, coarse SAND 129.0 8.5
Brown, Clayey, fine SAND 128.0 I 0.5

TABLE B-IV

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS ample Water olublc ulfatc
No. (%)
Bl - I 0.005 (50 ppm)

TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY pH and RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
Sample pH Minimum Resi tivity
o. (ohm-centimeters)
Bl - I 8.5 1334
Project o. 06327-22-0 I - B-2 - J unc 24, 1999
,-. I
,--,
r-
,__
PROJECT NO. 07050-22-30

GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE COARSE! MEDIUM I FINE SILT OR CLAY
II
S2
w
s
>-
OJ
Cl::'.
w
z
u::

Iz
w
(.)
O::'.
w

0..
3 100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
" 1-1 /2" 3/4" 3/8"
·-1- j-·
I
I I
I
I
I - - ·-·- f--->---- I
I
I
--- II
I
_l
I
I
I ·- - ............ .... I
I
I ·I--··
I
I
II
I
I
I
II
I
I
---- ·-----fl-- --
I
I
.. t-- .... ~ I
ll
4 I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I --· ~
I
I
II
I
I
I
II
I
I
--1
I
I
II
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft)
84-4 10.0 SC
IEI 87-4 10.0 CL
88·4 20.0 SC
07050-22-30.GPJ
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
16 30 50
10 20 4,0 6,0 190 29~ . . ,_,,,_ -· ,_ ..

I
~i:;:lr--.._
- I I I I
!'-..._ r--.~ I
I\ r-,..' I
\~ Ill
~ I "' I
~ ~ ~ I ... ,r-- - - --
~\ I \ I
I
- "\; I
\ I
ll _ , ,.~
~ 1"1~
1, -.......
\ I r---....... __ --
'
i"f-- r-- I "---
I r--.., --- - • ~
"'"" ,,
I 'r--... ·--·- - I
I
I - f--· I
I
I
I
I
I
1 u .1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

CLASSIFICATION

GRADATION CURVE

GOODRICH OMPPA PROJECT

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
' ~ ...... ......... ~
u.

NATWC
-
·-.
... ... -- ~ ----
--- 1- -
- ----·~ ---
~ri-.1'-- h ei
·-
'I',
i--,._ ,,
'r, ~
-
1 LL
------
--.. ~---
....... r--........
~
..... ~
~
u. o 01
PL Pl
Figure B-1
r
r
r
l
f'--
r
l
i
I.. ....

I
Ii
'
PROJECT NO. 07050-22-30
SAMPLE NO. B3-7
- 6
- 4
- 2
0 ---r-- z r-- 0
i= r--... ~ <(
0 2 ::J
0 (/.)
z
0 (.)
L..
'z: 4 w
(.)
0::
w
!l..
6 I~
8 10
12 0 . 1
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Water Content (%)
07050-22-30.GPJ
:--,,
,,
'~
I
~
- "' '\ --~r----_ I\ r--r-- '\
- I ,
--l
'
.i. .LO liJO
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
103.4 Initial Saturation (%) 99.9

22.8 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .125
CONSOLIDATION CURVE .. .. ...

GOODRICH OMPPA PROJECT

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Figure B-2
PROJECT NO. 06327-22-01

GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE :OARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT OR CLAY
u. s. T ANDARD SIEVE SIZE
110
l f6 30 50
3" 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/ )" i 20 40 60 100 200
100 I l I I I I ---~ ~"" I I
I I ~"'""'"' I I
90 I ~"'~ I
I I ... ~ I
I I
~ I

I I I I
80 \ I I
~ I
I I I
t- I I I
::c 70 I 11 '~ I (.!)

H I I I I
w I I I I
3 60 I I 1 \ I
>- I I
:\ \ ~~ I
al I I .,
0:: I I I
w 50 \ z I I I \ I

H I I I I LL I I I I
t- 40 \
z I I I w
u I I I \ '~
0:: I I I I
w 30 I 11 I \ I a.. I I I I

I I I I
20 I I I I I

I I I I
~ I

I I I I
I I I ~"'
~
10 1, I

I I I I

I I I I
0 I I I I
10 1 0.1 0 . 01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MlLLIMETER
SAMPLE Depth (fl) CLASSIFICATION NAT WC LL PL Pl
• B6-4 10.0 (ML) Sandy SILT
Ill 86-6 20.0 (SM) Silty SAND
... 86- 10 40.0 (SM) Silty SAND

GRADATION CURVE

BF GOODRICH

AN DIEGO, ALIFORNIA
BFGR Figure 8-1
PROJ T NO. 06327-22-0 1
AMPLE 0 . 81 -2
- 4
- 2
0 -
----r--r--r-,
' ~ z ' 0 2 H
l""
I-
<I:
□
H
__J
0 (J)
z 4 ............. 0
u ........, I- ,_ z ~ ._,.. ~ ""t---- ""' IJJ r--- u ........ 0:

IJJ 6 ---._ - a..
8 10
12 0.1 1 10 100
APPLI D PRES URE (k I)
ln i1iaJ Dry Density (pc() 115.3 lnilial Saturation(%) 71.6 ln i1ial Water Content(%) 11.8 Samole Sa1ura1cd a1 (ks() 0.5

CONSOLIDATION CURVE

BFGOODRJ H

DIEGO, CALIFORNI
BF GR Figure 8-2
PROJECT NO. 06327-22-01
SAMPLE NO. B6-2
- 4
-2
0 ~ I"-. i"--...
z ~ 0 2 H
H
0 0
t-
__J
<I:
..__
~ ~ ~ r--....
en I'-.
z 4 ........ 0
u .....

Iz
LU
u
a::

LU 6
a..
8 10
12 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (kst)
Initial Dry Density (pct) l 25.9 Jnitial Saturation (%) 100 Initial Water Content (%) 13. 1 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5

CONSOLIDATION CURVE

BF GOODRICH

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
BFGR Figure B-3

APPENDIX

APPENDIX C

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
FOR

COLLINS AEROSPACE REDEVELOPMENT SITE - PARCEL B

NORTHEAST CORNER OF H STREET AND MARINA PARKWAY

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G2560-52-01
This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-7 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRRplot
0 ••••• •• •••••• •.••• ·········:············· . . 2 -------------~-- ---------~------------- . . 4 .... , ............ . 6 ············iy
8 10
12 .................. .
14 ............. c ..... .
16 18
20 22
·············'········
-------------'---------
' ............ ·'·........... ~ ............ . . .
. . ·············:············:· ·-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil 24 ....................................... .
26 ••••••••••••• 0 ········-----------------
28 ........................................ .
30 ·············c············ •••••••••••••
32 ........................................ .
34 ·············c············ •••••••••••••
,..._ 36
~ 38
.c 40
"ls. 42
~ 44
··············,············· ..... .
~~ ·::::::::::::::::::::::~.,,,,. .1~; ... ::-;;;:7:I
52 ··············:··········· ·1·············
54 56
58 60
. . -------------~---------- -,------------- . . ··············,··········· . . ·1············· . . -------------~--------- --,------------- ......................... . . ................ . . . 62 -------------~-------- ---~------------- 64 ........................ . . ................. . . . 66 -------------~-------- ---~------------- 68 ....................... . . ................. . . . 70 -------------~------- ----~------------- 72 ··············~······· ····:············· 74 -------------~------- ----~------------- 76 · ••••••••••••• ~ ··-·-·- -·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-·
78 ··············~······ ····:············· 80 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-· ·-·-·~·-·-·-·--- 0 0.2 0.4 0.E

CRR&CSR
Input parameters and analysis data
Ana~sis method: NCEER (1998)
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998)
Points to test: Based on le value
EarthQ.Jake magnitlde M w: 6.12
Peak ground acceleration: 0.64
Depth to water table 0nsitu): 5.00 ft
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,..._ 36
~ 38
.c 40
"ls. 42
~ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
FS Plot
0 0.5 1 1.5
Factor of safety
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
2 Liquefaction potential 1r =-
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
Z' 30 '+-
~ 32
"ls. 34
~ 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60]
62 64
0 Fil weigit:
5 10
LPI
Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
Yes
15 Sands only
No
N/A
Cliq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 3/1/2021, 1:42:33 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2560-52-01 Collins Parcel B.clq 20 Vertical settlements
0 ~ •. ~. ·=·=· .=.~ .. ~ .. =·=· .=.~ .. ~. ·=·=· ·=.~ .. ~. ·=·=· .=.~ .. ~. ·=.·=· . . . 2 -·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·-·-·-: ' . . . 4 ···········~···········~············:·· . . . 6 -·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·-·-·-: ' . . . 8 ···········~···········~············:·· 10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 ,..._ 36
~ 38
.c 40
"ls. 42
~ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
. . . •••••••••••L••••••••••• . . ••••••••••••'•••
. . -•-•-•-•-•-L-•-•-•-•-•- -•-•-•-•-•- '•-
. .
• . •••••••••••L••••••••••• . . ••••••••••••'•••
. . . -•-•-•-•-•-L-•-•-•-•- _ .. _•-•-•-•-•-•'-•- • . . . . . •••••••••••L••••••••• . . . ... ••••••••••••'••• . . . •-•-•-•-•-L-•-•-•- • _ .. _•-•-•-•-•-•'-•- • . . . . . •••••••••••L•••••• . . . •••• .. ••••••••••••'••• . . . •-•-•-•-•-L-•-•-• •-•- .. -•-•-•-•-•-•'-•- • . . . . . •••••••••••L . . . •••••••••• .. ••••••••••••'••• . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-r ·-·-·-·-·--,-·-·-·-·-·-·,-·- • . . . . ···········r . . . ···········,············,··· . . . -·-·-·-·-·-r ·-·-·-·-·--,-·-·-·-·-·-·,-·- • . . . . ···········r ···········,············,··· . . . . . -·-·-·- -·-r-·-·-·-·-·--,-·-·-·-·-·-·,-·- • . ....... ···r··········, . . . .......... , .. . . . . . . -·-·-·- -·-r-·-·-·-·-·--,-·-·-·-·-·-·,-·- • . ....... ···r··········, . . . .......... , .. . . . ······r··········, .......... , .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-r-·-·-·-·-·--,-·-·-·-·-·-,·- • . . . . ···········r··········, .......... , .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-r-·-·-·-·-·--,-·-·-·-·-·-,·- • . . . . ···········r··········, .......... , .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-r-·-·-·-·-·--,-·-·-·-·-·-,·- • . ..................................... . . . ,. .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-.. -·-·-·-·-·-·.-·- . . ..................................... . . . ,. .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-.. -·-·-·-·-·-·.-·- . . ..................................... . . . ,. .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-.. -·-·-·-·-·-·.-·- . . ..................................... . . . ,. .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-.. -·-·-·-·-·-·.-·- . . ..................................... . . . ,. .. . . . ..................................... . . . ,. .. . . . . . . -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-.. -·-·-·-·-·-·.-·- 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
Lateral displacements
0-··················· ................... . 2- ...................................... . 4-···················· ................... . 6- ...................................... . 8-···················· ................... . 10- ...................................... . 12-···················· ................... .
14- ...................................... .
16-···················· ................... .
18- ...................................... .
20-···················· ................... .
22- ...................................... .
24-···················· ................... .
26- ...................................... .
28-···················· ................... .
30- ...................................... .
32-···················· ................... .
34- ...................................... .
,..._ 36-···················· ................... .
~ 38- ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
i :F::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::
46- ...................................... .
48-···················· ................... .
50- ...................................... .
52-···················· ................... .
54- ...................................... .
56-···················· ................... .
58- ...................................... .
60-···················· ................... .
62- ...................................... .
64-···················· ................... .
66- ...................................... .
68-···················· ................... .
70- ...................................... .
72-···················· ................... .
74- ...................................... .
76-···················· ................... .
78-···················· ................... .
80- ...................................... .
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
2 This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-8 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRRplot FS Plot Liquefaction potential
0 ....... .
2 -------------~-- ---------:-------------
' ' ' ' 4 ............ -~ ....... .... ~- ........... . 6 ............ !;)
' ' ' ' 8 -------------~----- -----~---------- -- -
10 12 -------------~-------- ---:------------- , ' ' ' 14 ·············~---······ --~---·········· 16 ·············•:---········ .; ............ .
18 ------------.:::;:::==:t:-Z: •--=--=--:::: --::: ---=l-- 20 -------------~----------- :------------- , ' ' ' 22 ' ' -------------~----------- :------------- ,...._ ~ 24 -------------.------------ ' ' .. --------- ' ' .c ' ' "ls. 26 ~ 28 ' ' ----------·-·'-·-·-·-·-·-·------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 30 ·-------------·------------- ------------- 32 -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·
34 -------------,------------ -------------
36 ·-------------,------------- -------------
38 -------------c------------ -------------
40 _____________ , ____________ -------------
42 ····················-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·
44 -------------~------------:-------------
' '
46 ·-------------:------------ i-------------
48 -------------~----------- 1------------- , ' ' ' 50 -·-·-·------ -·-------- --- ·--- ------ -- -- 0 0.2 0.4 0.E

CRR&CSR
Input parameters and analysis data
Ana~sis method: NCEER (1998)
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998)
Points to test: Based on le value
EarthQ.Jake magnitl.de M w: 6.12
Peak ground acceleration: 0,64
Depth to water table Onsitu): 5.00 ft
--
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 ,...._
.....
:t;, 24 .c
"ls. 26
~ 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 0 0.5 1 1.5
Factor of safety
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22 ,...._
.....
:t;, 24 .c
"ls. 26
~ 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 2 0 5 10
LPI
Fil weigit:

Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

Cliq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 3/1/2021, 1:42:34 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2560-52-01 Collins Parcel B.clq N/A
Yes
Yes
15 Sands only
No
N/A
20 Vertical settlements
0 2 .............. ., ...................... . ' ' ' ' I I I 0 ' ' ' ' I I I 0 4 ............. ., ...................... . I I I 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 6 ------,-------.-------.-------,------ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I 0
...... ' ' ' ' L ...... .' ............... J ..... .
' ' ' ' 8 I I I 0
' ' ' ' I I I 0
....................................... 10 I I I 0
' ' ' ' I I I 0
' ' ' ' ------·---·-·""···------------.. ----- -- ' ' ' ' 12 14 ----·-·-·-•-•-o•-·-·-·--·-·-•--. ·-·-· -- ' ' ' '
' ' ' 16 ------,-------,-------.-------, ' ' ' ' ----- -- 18 ....................................... 20 I I I 0
' ' ' ' I I I 0
22 ' ' ' ' ,...._
.....
~ 24 .c
"ls. 26 -----,-------,-------.-------,------ ' ' ' ' -- ~ 28 ' ' '
-•---L---•-•-'•-•----'-------J------ -- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 30 -•-•-L-•-•-•-'•-•-•-•'-•-•-•-J-•-•-• -•
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 32 ' ' ' ' -----·------.. ·--------------.. ------ -- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 34 ------·-------,-------,--------.------ -- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 36 ------,-------,-------.-------,------ ' ' ' ' -- 38 ------,-------,-------.-------,------ ' ' ' ' --
40 •-•-•-L-•-•-•-'•-•-•-•'-•-•-•-J-•-•-• -•
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 42 ' ' ' ' ------·------.. ·--------------.. ------ -- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 44 ------·-------,-------,--------.------ ' ' ' -- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 46 ------,-------,-------.-------,------ ' ' ' ' -- 48 ------,-------,-------.-------,------ ' ' ' ' --
50 •-•-•-L-•-•-•-'•-•-•-•'-•-•-•-J-•-•-• -•
' ' ' '
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
,...._
.....

Lateral displacements
2- ------------------- --------------------
4- ------------------- --------------------
6-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
8- ------------------- --------------------
10-·------------------- --------------------
12- ------------------- --------------------
14- ------------------- --------------------
16-·------------------- --------------------
18- ------------------- --------------------
20- ------------------- --------------------
22- ------------------- --------------------
~ 24- ------------------- -------------------- .c
"ls. 26-·------------------- --------------------
~ 28- ------------------- --------------------
30-·------------------- --------------------
32-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
34- ------------------- --------------------
36-·------------------- --------------------
38- ------------------- --------------------
40- ------------------- --------------------
42-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
44- ------------------- --------------------
46-·------------------- --------------------
48- ------------------- --------------------
50-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
4 This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-9 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRRplot FS Plot Liquefaction potential
0 ••••• •• •••••• •.••• ·········:············· . . 2 -------------~-- ---------~------------- . . 4 .... , ............ . 6 8
10 ........... .
12 14
16 ··············:··········· ·l············· . . 18 ·············~··········· l············· . . 20 ............ . 22 ............ .
24 ..................................... .
26 ............. c ........................ .
28 ........................................ .
30 ·············c············ •••••••••••••
32 ........................................ .
34 ·············c············ •••••••••••••
,..._ 36
~ 38
.c 40
"ls. 42
~ 44
··············,············· ............ .
46 -------------'------------ ·------------- . . 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
··············,············ ............ . . . -·-·········-~-·-·······-, ............ . . . -·-·········-~-·-······· .,............ . . . ··············,··········· ., ............ . . . . . -·-·········-~-·-·····-.. , ............ . ......................... . ................ . . . . 62 -------------~-------- ---~------------- . . 64 ........................ ................. . . . 66 -------------~-------- ---~------------- 68 70 •.•.•.•.•.•.• ;_._ ....,===!::··!!:··!!:··!!:·!::: ··!::: ··!:!:1 ·· 72 ............. . .
74 -------------~------- ----~-------------
76 ..............•.......
78 ··············~··········:·············
80 -------------~------ -----~-------------
0 0.2 0.4 0.E

CRR&CSR
Input parameters and analysis data
Ana~sis method: NCEER (1998)
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998)
Points to test: Based on le value
EarthQ.Jake magnitlde M w: 6.12
Peak ground acceleration: 0.64
Depth to water table 0nsitu): 5.00 ft
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,..._ 36
~ 38
£ 40
a. 42
~ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
0 0.5 1 1.5
Factor of safety
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 Z' 30 '+-
~ 32 ....
a. 34
~ 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60]
62 64
2 0 5 10
LPI
Fil weigit:

Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

Cliq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 3/1/2021, 1:42:35 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2560-52-01 Collins Parcel B.clq N/A
Yes
Yes
15 Sands only
No
N/A
20 Vertical settlements ........................... ......... 0 . . _____________ _. .
______________ J
. ________ _ 2 . . . . 4 ·············-'··············J--------- . . _____________ _. .
______________ J
. ________ _ 6 . . . . 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24 . ..... ······-'··············J---------- . . . . ------ ______ _. ______________ J _________ _ 26 . . ............................ . , . ......... . 28 . . . . 30 ------ -------.--------------,---------- ............................ . , . ......... . 32 . . . . 34 ------ -------.--------------,---------- ,..._ 36
~ 38 . . . . --- ---------.--------------,----------
£ 40
a. 42
~ 44
. . . . -------------.--------------,---------- . . ············,··············1·········· . . 46 . . -------------.--------------,---------- . . 48 . . ·············,··············1·········· . . 50 . . --------------.--------------,---------- 52 . . ·············,··············1·········· . . 54 . . --------------.--------------,---------- 56 . . ·············,··············1·········· . . 58 . . --------------.--------------,---------- 60 ············· ..
.
··············'I·········· . 62 -------------.. --------------.. ---------- 64 ············· ..
.
··············'I·········· . 66 -------------.. --------------.. ---------- 68 ············· ..
.
··············'I·········· . 70 -------------.. --------------.. ---------- 72 ············· ..
.
··············'I·········· . 74 -------------.. --------------.. ---------- 76 ············· ..·············'I··········
. . 78 ......................................... . . 80 -------------.. --------------.. ---------- 0 0.5 1
Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
Lateral displacements
0-··················· ................... . 2- ...................................... . 4-···················· ................... . 6- ...................................... . 8-···················· ................... . 10- ...................................... . 12-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
14- ...................................... .
16-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
18- ...................................... .
20-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
22- ...................................... .
24-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
26- ...................................... .
28-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
30- ...................................... .
32-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
34- ...................................... .
,..._ 36-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
~ 38- ------------------- --------------------
i :F::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::
46- ...................................... .
48-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
50- ...................................... .
52-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
54- ...................................... .
56-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
58- ...................................... .
60-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
62- ...................................... .
64-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
66- ...................................... .
68-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
70- ...................................... .
72-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
74- ...................................... .
76-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
78-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
80- ...................................... .
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
6 This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-10 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRRplot FS Plot Liquefaction potential
0 ••••• •• •••••• •.••• ·········:············· . . 2 -------------~-- ---------~------------- 4 6
8 . .
············ -ip
·············'·
10 ............. c... . ........ .
12 14
16 18
20 22
·············'······ ......... . -------------'-------
.......................... t"'!""'--=t
-------------'--------
............. ·:· ........ -. . -i.~i"'· .-.-.. = .. =.= .. = . . =1. . . -------------'------------ . . J ____________ _ . . 24 ··············:············ l··········· . . 26 ·············~············ .••••••••••••• 28 ........................................ .
30 ·············c············ •••••••••••••
32 ............................... .... .
34 ·············c············ •••••••••••••
,..._ 36
~ 38
.c 40
"ls. 42
~ 44
··············,············· ....... .
46 -------------~----------- i-------------
48 50
52 54
56 58
60 . . ··············,············ , ............ . . . -------------~----------- ,------------- . . ··············,··········· . . ·1············· . . -------------~---------- -,------------- . . ··············,·········· . . ··1············· . . -------------.---------- ---.------------- ......................... . . ................ . . . 62 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-· 64 ........................ . . ................. . . . 66 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-· 68 ....................... . . .................. . . . 70 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·--·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-· 72 ··············~·········:·············
74 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-·- -·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-·
76 78
80 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·-· ·-·-·~·-
0 0.2 0.4 0.E

CRR&CSR
Input parameters and analysis data
Ana~sis method: NCEER (1998)
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998)
Points to test: Based on le value
EarthQ.Jake magnitlde M w: 6.12
Peak ground acceleration: 0.64
Depth to water table Onsitu): 5.00 ft
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,..._ 36
~ 38
£ 40
a. 42
~ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
0 0.5 1 1.5
Factor of safety
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 Z' 30 '+-
~ 32 ....
a. 34
~ 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60]
62 64
2 0 5 10
LPI
Fil weigit:

Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

Cliq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 3/1/2021, 1:42:36 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2560-52-01 Collins Parcel B.clq N/A
Yes
Yes
15 Sands only
No
N/A
20 Vertical settlements
0 .................................... . . .
. . 2 -·-·-·-·-·-J- . . ........... ._ ........... . . . 4 ••••••••••• J •••••••••••• , ••••••••••••• . . . . 6 -·-·-·-·-·-J- . . ........... ._ ........... - . . 8 ••••••••••• J •••••••••••• , •••••••••••• • . . . . 10 -·-·-·-·-·-J- . . ........... ._ ........... ·- . . 12 ••••••••••• J •••••••••••• , •••••••••••• •• . . . . 14 -·-·-·-·-·-J- . . ........... ._ ........... ·- . . 16 ••••••••• J •••••••••••• , ••••••• ••••• . . . . . . 18 -·-·-·-·-·-J-........... ._ .......... J .. . . . . . . 20 ••••••••••• J •••••••••••• , ••••••••••• J •• . . . . . . 22 -·-·-·-·-·-J- . ........... . . ._ -·-·-·-·-·J·- . . . 24 ••••••••••• J •••••••••••• , ••••••••••• J •• . . . . . . 26 -·-·-·-·-·-J- . ........... . . ._ -·-·-·-·-·J·- . . 28 ........... , . . . ............ , ........... , .. . . . 30 . . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-·~ -·-·-·-·-·,·- . . 32 34 ,..._ 36
~ 38
£ 40
a. 42
~ 44
. . . . . . ·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·,·- . . . . . ···········1············,············1·· . . . 46 . . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·1·· . . 48 . . . ···········1············,············1·· . . . 50 . . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·1·· . . 52 . . . ···········1············,············1·· . . . 54 . . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·1·· . . 56 . . . ···········1············,············1·· . . . 58 . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-· .. ·-·-·-·-·-·'1·· . . 60 . ........................................ . . . . . . 62 . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-· .. ·-·-·-·-·-·'1·· . . 64 . ........................................ . . . . . . 66 . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-· .. ·-·-·-·-·-·'1·· . . 68 . ........................................ . . . . . . 70 . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-· .. ·-·-·-·-·-·'1·· . . 72 .......................................... . . . . . 74 . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-· .. ·-·-·-·-·-·'1·· . . 76 .......................................... . . . . . 78 .......................................... . . . . . 80 . . -·-·-·-·-·-,-·-·-·-·-·-· .. ·-·-·-·-·-·'1·· 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
Lateral displacements
0-··················· ................... . 2- ...................................... . 4-···················· ................... . 6- ...................................... . 8-···················· ................... . 10- ...................................... . 12-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
14- ...................................... .
16-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
18- ...................................... .
20-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
22- ...................................... .
24-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
26- ...................................... .
28-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
30- ...................................... .
32-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
34- ...................................... .
,..._ 36-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
~ 38- ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
i :F::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::
46- ...................................... .
48-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
50- ...................................... .
52-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
54- ...................................... .
56-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
58- ...................................... .
60-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
62- ...................................... .
64-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
66- ...................................... .
68-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
70- ...................................... .
72-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
74- ...................................... .
76-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
78-···················· .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•
80- ...................................... .
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
8 This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-11 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRRplot
0 - - - - - - - -
FS Plot Liquefaction potential
2- ------------+-- ---------:------------- ' ' ' ' 4- -------------~-- ---------:------------- ' - ' 6- •· •· •· •· •· .. l:)ur lw:i.e;irt~ . ........... . ' -~ ' 8- ----------- - ; .... •
~::.:::::::::::: :[:::::: :\:: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: , 14- -------------~--------- -- -------------
16- ············+······ ···· · ............ .
18- -------------~---------.. -""' - i.-------------------t20-·-------------:------------ 22- ------------+----------- ,--, ' .... '
:!:, 24- -------------~---- --- - £ : c. 26- ............. ~ ............ ·····-·-·-·-· ~ '
28- -------------- · - ----1
30- __________ \__:·- --... -=-----------;.;.;, --.:.,;,j -- : .--
32- -------------~------------ -------------
34- -------------~------------ -------------
36-·-------------~------------ -------------
38- -------------~------------ -------------
40-• --------c--=-'•-;•;:~~~~~: -=-w:a-=-w:a-=-w:a-=-w:a-=-w:a-=l -w:1- 42- -------------~------------ -------------
44- -------------~------------ -------------
46- ··········-·+-·-·-·-·-·-
48- -------------~-----------
50- ----- - I I
0 0.2 0.4

CRR&CSR
Input parameters and analysis data
Ana~sis method: NCEER (1998)
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998)

0.E
Points to test: Based on le value
EarthQJake magnitu:le M w: 6.12
Peak ground acceleration: 0,64
Depth to water table 0nsitu): 5.00 ft
--
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 ,--,
....
:!:, 24 ..r::
ti. 26
~ 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 0 0.5 1 1.5
Factor of safety
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

5.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22 ,--,
....
:!:, 24 ..r::
ti. 26
~ 28
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 2 0 5 10
LPI
Fil weight:

Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

Cliq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 3/1/2021, 1:42:37 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2560-52-01 Collins Parcel B.clq N/A
Yes
Yes
15 Sands only
No
N/A
20 Vertical settlements
0 - ------.--~------. - - ' ' ' ' 2 ' ' ---------. ---------. ---------. -------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 4 ...................................... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 6 ·········r·········r·········,········ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
8 10
12 14 ...................................... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 16 ' ' ' ---------···-------····----·····------ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 18 ·········r·········r··· ' ' ·····,········· ' 20 •••••••••L•••••••••L •••••••• J •••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 22 ' ' ' ---------. ---------. --- -----. --------- ,--, ' ' ' .... ~ 24
' ' ' ' ' ' ..................................... ' ' ' ' ' ' ..r::
ti. 26
~ 28
' ' ' ' ' ---------···-------· ' ' ' --------·--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 30 ' ' ' 32 --- -----L---------L---------J--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 34 ' ' ' --- -----·---------·---------·--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 36 --- -----·---------·---------·--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 38 --- -----r---------r---------,--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 40 -- -----r---------r---------,--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 42 --------L---------L---------J--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 44 ' ' ' --------·---------·---------·--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 46 ' ' ' --------·---------·---------·--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 48 --------.---------.---------.--------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 50 ---------r---------r---------,--------- ' ' ' 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
,--,
....

Lateral displacements 0--------------~
2- ------------------- --------------------
4- ------------------- --------------------
6-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
8- ------------------- --------------------
10-·------------------- --------------------
12- ------------------- --------------------
14- ------------------- --------------------
16-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
18- ------------------- --------------------
20-·------------------- --------------------
22- ------------------- --------------------
~ 24- ------------------- -------------------- ..r::
ti. 26-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
~ 28- ------------------- --------------------
30-·------------------- --------------------
32- ------------------- --------------------
34- ------------------- --------------------
36-·------------------- --------------------
38- ------------------- --------------------
40-·------------------- --------------------
42- ------------------- --------------------
44- ------------------- --------------------
46-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
48- ------------------- --------------------
50- ------------------- --------------------
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
10 This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-02 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRRplot FS Plot Liquefaction potential
' ' 2 ------------+- ----------!-------------
4 ............. ~ ........... : ............ .
6 -------------.--' ---------···------------ '
' ' ' ' 8 ·-------------~- ----------:-------------
10 ------------+- ----------:------------- , ' 12 -+----~-+-----Z'-----------! 14 16
18 20
22 24 ·-------------:------- -----i-------------
26 -------------~------- ---- ,-------------
28 ·-----------.. ~-===t ti·====i
30 -------------~-------- ---:-------------
32 ·-------------:---------+-----""' i------------_____ -_-1_ 34 -------------~-------- -- ,----
,...., 36
~ 38
.r:: 40
b.. 42 (lJ
□ 44
··············,·········· ' .. ,' ............ . ' ' -------------~--------- ' --,------------- ' 46 -------------c---
48 50 -------------~-------- ---~-------------
52 ......................................... ' '
' ' 54 -------------~------- ----~-------------
56 58
60 62
......................................... ' '
' ' -------------.-------- ' -----.------------- '
........................................ ' '
' ' -------------.------- ' ------.------------- '
' ' ' ' 64 ·············~-·-·-· ·-·-·:·-·-·-·-·-·-·
66 -------------~------ -----:------------- , ' 68 ·············~····· ·-·-·:·-·-·-·-·-·-· 70 72
_____________ .. ' _____ ------·------------- '
' ' _____________ .. ' _____ ------·------------- '
' ' 74 ' ' -------------~----- ------:-------------
76 ······-·-·-·+-·-·--·-·-·:·-·-·-·-·-·-·
' ' 78 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·--·-·-·i·-·-·-·-·-·-·
80 _____________ , ' _____ ------·------------- '
0 0.2 0.4 0.€
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 ,...., 36
!b 38
£ 40
li} 42
□ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
2 30
~ 32 ....,
li} 34
□ 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60]
62 64
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10
CRR&CSR Factor of safety LPI
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: NCEER (1998)
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998)
Points to test: Based on le value
Earth(J.lake magnitu::le M w: 6.12
Peak ground acceleration: 0,63
Depth to water table Onsitu): 12.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

12.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fil weigit:

Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appled:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

Cliq v.3.0.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/6/2020, 3:09:56 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2559-52-01 Collins Aerospace.clq N/A
No
Yes
15 Sands only
Yes
50,00 ft
20 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 30
32 34
,...., 36
!b 38
£ 40
li} 42
□ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 80
0 Vertical settlements

I I O I I
-----···----.------ ' ' ' ' ' .. ------.-----·····-- ' ' ' ' ' I I O I I -----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O 0
I I O O I -----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I I I O O I -----·------ ' .. I -----·------ O .. O ·----·----- I

I I O O I
-----·------.. -----·-------------·----- ' I O O I I I O O I -----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I

I I O O I
-----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I I I O O I -----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I

I I O O I
-----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I I I O O I

I I O O I
-----,------.-- ---,------.------,----- ' I O O I

I I O O I
-----,------.------,------.------,----- 1 I O O I

I I O O I
-----.. ------.------.. ------.------.. ----- 1 I O 0
I I O I -----·-------------·-------------··---- 1 I O O I

I I O I
-----.. ------.------.. ------.------.. ----- 1 I O 0
I I O I -----·-------------·-------------··---- 1 I O O I

I I O I
-----.. ------.------.. ------.------.. ----- 1 I O O I

I I O O I
-----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I
' ' ' -----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I

I I O O I
-----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I

I I O I
-----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O O I

I I O O I
-----·-------------·-------------·----- ' I O I I
' ' ' -----., I -----_._ I -----., O -----_._ O -----., I ----- ' ' ' _____ ., ______ ._ _____ ., ______ ._ _____ ., ____ _ Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
Lateral displacements
2- ------------------- --------------------
4- ------------------- --------------------
6-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
8-·------------------- -------------------- 10- ------------------- -------------------- 12-·------------------- --------------------
14- ------------------- --------------------
16-·------------------- --------------------
18- ------------------- --------------------
20-·------------------- --------------------
22- ------------------- --------------------
24-·------------------- --------------------
26- ------------------- --------------------
28-·------------------- --------------------
30- ------------------- --------------------
32-·------------------- --------------------
34- ------------------- --------------------
,...., 36-·------------------- --------------------
:E, 38- ------------------- --------------------
! :~= ::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::: □ 44-·------------------- -------------------- 46- ------------------- --------------------
48-·------------------- --------------------
50- ------------------- --------------------
52-·------------------- --------------------
54- ------------------- --------------------
56-·------------------- --------------------
58- ------------------- --------------------
60-·------------------- --------------------
62- ------------------- --------------------
64-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
66- ------------------- --------------------
68-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
70- ------------------- --------------------
72-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
74- ------------------- --------------------
76-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
78-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
80- ------------------- --------------------
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
18 This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-04 CRRplot FS Plot
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements Lateral displacements ' ' 2 ------------+- ----------!-------------
4 ............. ~ ........... : ............ .
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 -------------.--' ---------···------------ '
' ' ' '
20 ·-------------:-------- ----!----------- , ' 22 -------------~------- ----:------------- , ' 24 ·-------------:--------- ---!------------- , ' 26 -------------~-------- ---:------------- , ' 28 ·-------------:---------- --i------------- 30 ------------- 0 ------- - -
32 ·-------------:---------- -i-------------
34 -------------~---------- -i-------------
,...., 36
~ 38
.r:: 40
b.. 42 (lJ
□ 44
46 48
50 52
··············,··········· ' ., '............ . -------------~---------- -~----== ··············,··········· ' ., ' ...
-------------.----------- ' ···--------- ' --
: : : : : : : : : : : : :~::::::::: : ::: ::;;;;;;~ ........................ ' ............... ' . ' ' 54 -------------~-------- ---!------------- 56 ············+········-·:·-·-·-·-·-·-·
58 -------------~------- ----:-------------
60 ············+··-·-·--·-·:·-·-·-·-·-·-·
62 -------------~------- ----:-------------
64 ············+-·-·-·-·-·:·-·-·-·-·-·-·
66 -------------~------ _____ ; ____________ _
' ' 68 -------------~------ -----:------------- , ' 70 ......................................... ' ' ' ' 72 _____________ ._ ___________ ,. ____________ _ ' ' ' ' 74 -------------~------ -----!------------- , ' 76 -·-·-·-·-·-·-~-·-·--·-·-·i·-·-·-·-·-·-· ' ' 78 _____________ ._ ___________ ,. ____________ _
' '
80 ·------------------- ------ -------------
0 0.2 0.4 0.€
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 ,...., 36
!b 38
.r:: 40
b.. 42 (lJ
□ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 2 30
~ 32 ...., la- 34
□ 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60]
62 64

0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10
CRR&CSR Factor of safety LPI
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: NCEER (1998)
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998)
Points to test: Based on le value
Earth(J.lake magnitu::le M w: 6.12
Peak ground acceleration: 0,63
Depth to water table Onsitu): 9.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

9.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fil weigit:

Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appled:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

Cliq v.3.0.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/6/2020, 3:09:58 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2559-52-01 Collins Aerospace.clq N/A
No
Yes
15 Sands only
Yes
50,00 ft
20 ' ' ' 2 •••••••••r•••••••••r•••••••••••••••••• ' ' ' ' ' ' 4 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ' ' '
' ' 6 ...................................... ' ' '
' ' '
8 ...................................... ' ' '
' ' ' 10 ............................... ' ' '
' ' 12
14 ...................................... ' '
' ' ' 16 ...................................... ' ' '
' ' ' 18 ...................................... ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' 20 •••••••••L ••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' 22 ......... L ........ L ......... J ........ . ' ' ' ' ' ' 24 •••••••••L ••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' 26 ......... L ........ L ......... J ........ . ' ' ' ' ' ' 28 •••••••••L ••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' 30 ...... ......... L ......... J ........ . ' ' ' ' ' 32 •••••• ··r·········r·········,········· ' ' ' ' ' ' 34 •••••• ··r·········r·········,········· ' ' '
' ' ,...., 36
!b 38
•••••• ··r·········r·········,········· ' ' '
' ' '
E 40
la- 42
□ 44
' ' ' •••• ····r·········r·········,········· ' ' '
' '
46 .................................... ' ' '
' ' 48
50 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' 52 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' ' 54 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' ' 56 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' '
58 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' ' 60 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' ' 62 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' ' 64 ' ' ' ··········-·-·····-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-···· ' ' ' 66 ....................................... ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' 68 ......... L ......... L ......... J ........ . ' ' ' ' ' ' 70 •••••••••L•••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' 72 •••••••••L•••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' 74 •••••••••L•••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' 76 •••••••••L•••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' '
78 •••••••••L•••••••••L•••••••••J•••••••••
' ' ' ' ' ' 80 ' ' '
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
2- ------------------- --------------------
4- ------------------- --------------------
6-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
8-·------------------- -------------------- 10- ------------------- -------------------- 12-·------------------- --------------------
14- ------------------- --------------------
16-·------------------- --------------------
18- ------------------- --------------------
20-·------------------- --------------------
22- ------------------- --------------------
24-·------------------- --------------------
26- ------------------- --------------------
28-·------------------- --------------------
30- ------------------- --------------------
32-·------------------- --------------------
34- ------------------- --------------------
,...., 36-·------------------- --------------------
:E, 38- ...................................... .
i:E:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
46- ------------------- --------------------
48-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
50- ------------------- --------------------
52-·------------------- --------------------
54- ------------------- --------------------
56-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
58- ------------------- --------------------
60-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
62- ------------------- --------------------
64-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
66- ------------------- --------------------
68- ------------------- --------------------
70- ------------------- --------------------
72-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
74- ------------------- --------------------
76- ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
78-··-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-
80 ·------------------- --------------------
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
40 This software is licensed to: Geocon Inc CPT name: CPT-06 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CRRplot FS Plot Liquefaction potential
' ' 2 ------------+- ----------!-------------
4 ............. ~ ........... : ............ .
6 8 ·------------i;,
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 -----------
24 ·-------------·- -- ---------- ---
26 ------------- 0 --------
28 ·-------------:----------- -!------------- , ' 30 -------------~---------- -:------------- 32 ············••:---········· ; •••••••••••••
34 -------------~----------- i-------------
,...., 36
~ 38
.r:: 40
b.. 42 (lJ
□ 44
46 48
50 52
·-------------,------------ ' ,------------- '
-------------.----------- ' --.------------- '
-------------.----------- ' -·------------- '
' '
·-------------.---------- ' ---.------------- '
' ' 54 -------------~--------- --!-------------
56 ------------+-------- ---:-------------
58 -------------~-------- ---:-------------
60 ------------+-------- ---:-------------
62 -------------~------- ----:-------------
64 ------------+------- ----:-------------
66 -------------~------- ____ ; ____________ _
' ' 68 -------------~------- ----:------------- , ' 70 _____________ ,_ ___________ ,. ____________ _ ' ' ' ' 72 _____________ ,_ ___________ ,. ____________ _ ' ' ' ' 74 -------------~------ -----!------------- , ' 76 -------------~------ -----:------------- ' ' 78 _____________ ,_ ___________ ,. ____________ _ ' '
80 ·-------------------- ----- -------------
0 0.2 0.4 0.€
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30 32
34 ,...., 36
!b 38
£ 40
li} 42
□ 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60
62 64
66 68
70 72
74 76
78 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 2 30
~ 32 ....,
li} 34
□ 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
58 60]
62 64

Average results interval:
le cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

7.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fil weigit:

Transition detect. applied:

K0 applied:

Clay like behavbr appled:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

Cliq v.3.0.3.2 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/6/2020, 3:10:00 PM Project file: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\CLiq\G2559-52-01 Collins Aerospace.clq N/A
No
Yes
15 Sands only
Yes
50,00 ft
20 Vertical settlements
' ' ' ---------.---------.----------,--------- ' ' ' 2
4 ............................. ., ........ .
-------·····------.----------.--------- ' ' '
' ' ' 6 ________ . _________ .. ________ ., ________ _
' ' ' 8
' ' ' ________ . _________ .. ________ ., ________ ... ' ' ' ' 10 ________ . _________ .. ________ ., ________ .. _ ' ' ' ' 12
' ' ' ' --------·---------""--------"'-------- ... ' ' ' ' 14 ......................................... 0 I I I ' ' ' ' 16
' ' ' ' --------·----------------·-·""···----- ... ' ' ' ' 18 0 I I I •••••••• J ................... .J •••••••• "· 20 0 I I I . ...... J ' ' ' ' ......... o_ ........ .' .... L.
' ' ' 22 ' 24 ····-'·········"·
' ' ' ' ________ J_ ------'----------'--------·"· ' ' ' ' 26 ' ' ' •••••• • J ................... .J ••••••••• 1.. 28 0 I I I ------ _J ' ' ' ' _________ ._ ________ _. _________ 1,_ ' ' ' ' 30 ' ' ' 32
34 ----- --,---------r---------,---------r- ' ' ' '
' ' ' ,...., 36
!b 38
----- --,---------,----------,---------r- ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ---- --,---------r---------,---------r-
' ' ' ' £ 40
li} 42
□ 44
---,---------,----------,---------r- ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' -------,---------r---------,---------r-
' ' ' ' ---------.---------.----------.---------·- ' ' ' ' 46 ---------.---------.----------,---------·- ' ' ' 48 ---------.---------.----------.---------·- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 50 ---------.---------.----------,---------·- ' ' ' 52 ---------.---------.----------.---------·- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 54 ---------.---------.----------,---------·- ' ' ' ' 56 ' ' ' ' ________ . _________ ._ ________ ., _________ .,_ ' ' ' '
58 --------·---------0.--------.0---------0.- , ' ' '
60 ' ' ' ' ________ . _________ ._ ________ ., _________ .,_ ' ' ' '
62 --------·---------0.--------.0---------0.- , ' ' '
64 ' ' ' ' ________ . _________ ._ ________ ., _________ .,_ ' ' ' '
66 --------·---------0.--------.0---------0.- , ' ' ' ' ' 68 --------.l---------'--•-•-•-•-'•--------L- ' ' ' '
70 •-•-•---.1---•-•-•-'--•-•-•-•-'•-•-•-•-•L•
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 72 --------J---------'----------'---------L- ' ' ' ' 74 •-•-•---.1---•-•-•-'--•-•-•-•-'•-•-•-•-•L•
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 76 --------J---------'----------'---------L- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 78 --------J---------'----------'---------L- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 80 -------- ' ----------------------------' - 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Settlement (in)
F.S. color scheme
■ Almost certain it will liquefy
D Very likely to liquefy
Lateral displacements
2- ------------------- --------------------
4- ------------------- --------------------
6-·------------------- --------------------
8-·------------------- -------------------- 10- ------------------- -------------------- 12-·------------------- --------------------
14- ------------------- --------------------
16-·------------------- --------------------
18- ------------------- --------------------
20-·------------------- --------------------
22- ------------------- --------------------
24-·------------------- --------------------
26- ------------------- --------------------
28-·------------------- --------------------
30- ------------------- --------------------
32-·------------------- --------------------
34- ------------------- --------------------
,...., 36-·------------------- --------------------
:E, 38- ------------------- --------------------
1 :E::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::
46- ------------------- --------------------
48-·------------------- --------------------
50- ------------------- --------------------
52-·------------------- --------------------
54- ------------------- --------------------
56-·------------------- --------------------
58- ------------------- --------------------
60-·------------------- --------------------
62- ------------------- --------------------
64-·------------------- --------------------
66- ------------------- --------------------
68- ------------------- --------------------
70- ------------------- --------------------
72-·------------------- --------------------
74- ------------------- --------------------
76- ------------------- --------------------
78-·------------------- --------------------
80 ·------------------- --------------------
0 Displacement (in)
LPI color scheme
■ Very high risk
0 High risk
D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
D Unlike to liquefy
D Low risk
■ Almost certain it will not liquefy
67 APPENDIX

APPENDIX D

GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR

COLLINS AEROSPACE REDEVELOPMENT SITE - PARCEL B

NORTHEAST CORNER OF H STREET AND MARINA PARKWAY

CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G2560-52-01

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL

1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.

1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.

1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed.

2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.

2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography.

2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.

GI rev. 07/2015

2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.

2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading.

2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply.

3. MATERIALS

3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below.
3 .1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size.

3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.
3 .1.3 Rock f"Ills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.

3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills.

3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 GI rev. 07/2015
and 1 O; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.

3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.

3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.

3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition.

4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED

4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1 ½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.

4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.

GI rev. 07/2015

4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.

4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration.

TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
........

Original Ground
........ ........

As Recommended By
Consultant Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
See Note 2
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.

4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications.

GI rev. 07/2015

5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content.

5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.

6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL

6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3 .1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.

6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.

6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.

6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified.

6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.

Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.

GI rev. 07/2015

6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.

6.1. 7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.

6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.

6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3 .1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.

6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.

6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment.

6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant.

GI rev. 07/2015

6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.

The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.

6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.

6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.

6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.

6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection GI rev. 07/2015
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.

6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.

6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.

6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.

6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant.

7. SUBDRAINS

7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.

GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL

SEE DETAL BELOW
NOTES:
1 ...... 8-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 80 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS IN EXCESS OF 100-FEET IN DEPTH OR A PIPE LENGTH OF LONGER THAN 500 FEET. 2 ...... 6-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS LESS THAN 100-FEET IN DEPTH ORA PIPE LENGTH SHORTER THAN 500 FEET.

BEDROCK
NOTE: FINAL 20' OF PIPE AT OIJTI..ET
SHALL BE NQN.PERFORA TED.
9 CUBIC FEET I FOOT OF OPEN

GRADED GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY
MIRAFI 140NC (OR EQUIVALENl)

FILTER FABRIC

NO SCALE

7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes.

GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
DETAIL
NOTES:

FORMATTONAL MATERIAL
1 ..... EXCAVATE BACKCLJT AT 1:1 INCLINI\TION (Ui'LESS OTHERWISE NO'Tcll). 2 .... .BASE OF STABILITY FILL TO BE 3 FEET INTO FORMATIONAL MATERIAL, SI.OPING A Ml,jlMUM 5% l,jTO SI.OPE. 3 ..... STABIUTY FLL TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLY COMPACTED GRANULAR SOIL 4 .. ... CHIMNEY DRAINS TO BE APPROVED PREFABRICATED CHIMNEY DRAIN PANELS (MIRADRAIN G200N OR EQUIVALENTI SPACED APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET CENTER TO CENTER ANO 4 FEET WICE. CLOSER SPACING W.Y BE REQUIRED IF SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED.
5 ..... FILTER MATERIAL TO BE 314-NCH, OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FL TER FABAIC (MIRAFl 140NCi 6 ..... COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH MINNUM DIAMETER, PERFORATED, THICK-WALLED PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT, AND SLOPED TO CRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINUJM TO APPROVED ounET.

NO SCALE
7 .3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.

7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric .

Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.

GI rev. 07/2015

7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe.

TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL

FRONT VIEW
'
• . . .-- ~-•·-:-:.-- ...
. .. :·:

CONCRETE _.,;.~;,;1~•·;~~ ---+--
CUT-OFF WAll.
--~ ~ "~ ~;-~::~; -~:. .S.> ~-::/ .; }:~~-~-.: ·:"

SIDE VIEW

CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WAll.

SOLID SUBDRMI PIPE
B" MIN, (TYP)
. . . . . . PE11RFO~TED ~ IN Pl•PE •
I!" MIN, (TYP)

NO SCALE

7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure.

GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL

FRONT VIEW

SIDE VIEW
e• ORS"

SUIDRAIN

CONCRETE

HEADWALL
8"0RB"

SUIORAIN
NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF FILL SLOPE

OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE

NO SCALE
12"

NO SCALE

7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains.

GI rev. 07/2015

8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING

8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted.

8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.

8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.

8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.

8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.

8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:

8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:

8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method.

GI rev. 07/2015

8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).

8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.

8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.

9. PROTECTION OF WORK
9 .1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.

9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.

10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS

10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.

10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.

GI rev. 07/2015

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. LIST OF REFERENCES
2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 2 4, Part 2, based on the 2018 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission, dated July 2019.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2017.

AECOM, Report of Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling - 2017, Rohr Inc., North Campus, Chula Vista, California, dated October 18, 2017 (Project No. 60509378).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996.

California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April 2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. http:/ /redirect. conservation. ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain. html County of San Diego, San Diego County Multi Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego, California - Final Draft, dated October 2017.

Geocon Incorporated, 2020, Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Collins Aerospace Redevelopment Site - Parcel A, Chula Vista, California, dated October 12, 2020 (Project No. G2559-52-01).

Geocon Incorporated, 2020, Geotechnical Reconnaissance, Collins Aerospace Redevelopment Site - Parcel A, Chula Vista, California, dated June 25, 2020 (Project No. G2559-52-01 ).

Geocon Incorporated, 2005, Geotechnical Investigation, OMPPA Project on Goodrich Property, Chula Vista, California, dated September 12, 2005 (Project No. 07050-22-30).

Geocon Incorporated, 1999, Limited Geotechnical Investigation, B.F. Goodrich Site Development, Chula Vista, California, dated June 24, 1999 (Project No. 06327-22-01).

Geocon Incorporated, 1980, Soil Investigation, Sauder Furnace Foundation, Building No. 1, Column El 1-Fl 1, Chula Vista, California, dated July 14, 1980 (Project No. 02080-02-02).

Historical Aerial Photos. http://www.historicaerials.com Jennings, C. W., 1994, California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 6.

Kennedy, M. P., and S.S. Tan, 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, USGS Regional Map Series Map No. 3, Scale 1:100,000.

Legg, M. R., J. C. Borrero, and C. E. Synolakis (2002), Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities, 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, dated January.

Special Publication 117 A, Guidelines For Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California 2008, California Geological Survey, Revised and Re-adopted September 11, 2008.

Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.

USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.

Unpublished reports and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.

Geocon Project No. G2560-52-01 December 1 7, 2021

Chula Vista City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Chula Vista City Council
November 18, 2025