Indio City Council
December 6, 2023

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2102 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Pond 5P: UIS-5 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-740 with cap length) Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 57.0" C-C Row Spacing
13 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.81' Cap Length x 2 = 94.18' Row Length +43.0" End Stone x 2 = 101.34' Base Length
7 Rows x 51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 6 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 34.75' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 30.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 4.25' Field Height 91 Chambers x 45.9 cf = 4,180.5 cf Chamber Storage
14,967.1 cf Field - 4,180.5 cf Chambers = 10,786.6 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 4,314.6 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 8,495.2 cf = 0.195 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 56.8%
Overall System Size = 101.34' x 34.75' x 4.25'
91 Chambers
554.3 cy Field
399.5 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2103 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 Pond 5P: UIS-5 - Chamber Wizard Field B
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-740 with cap length) Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 12 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.81' Cap Length x 2 = 87.06' Row Length +43.0" End Stone x 2 = 94.22' Base Length
1 Rows x 51.0" Wide + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 5.25' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 30.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 4.25' Field Height 12 Chambers x 45.9 cf = 551.3 cf Chamber Storage
2,102.4 cf Field - 551.3 cf Chambers = 1,551.1 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 620.4 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,171.7 cf = 0.027 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 55.7%
Overall System Size = 94.22' x 5.25' x 4.25'
12 Chambers

77.9 cy Field

57.4 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2104 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 32 Pond 5P: UIS-5 - Chamber Wizard Field C
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-740 with cap length) Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 57.0" C-C Row Spacing
12 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.81' Cap Length x 2 = 87.06' Row Length +37.0" End Stone x 2 = 93.22' Base Length
5 Rows x 51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 4 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 25.25' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 30.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 4.25' Field Height 60 Chambers x 45.9 cf = 2,756.4 cf Chamber Storage
10,004.0 cf Field - 2,756.4 cf Chambers = 7,247.6 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,899.1 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 5,655.5 cf = 0.130 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 56.5%
Overall System Size = 93.22' x 25.25' x 4.25'
60 Chambers
370.5 cy Field
268.4 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2105 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 33 Pond 5P: UIS-5
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)
2 1
0 Inflow Area=0.837 ac
Peak Elev=486.20'
Storage=0.126 af

2.23 cfs

0.07 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2106 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Hydrograph for Pond 5P: UIS-5
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.02 0.000 484.74 0.00

5.50 0.02 0.001 484.75 0.01

6.00 0.03 0.001 484.76 0.02

6.50 0.04 0.001 484.76 0.03

7.00 0.06 0.002 484.77 0.04

7.50 0.07 0.002 484.78 0.05

8.00 0.08 0.003 484.79 0.06

8.50 0.12 0.004 484.81 0.06

9.00 0.18 0.008 484.88 0.06

9.50 0.29 0.015 485.00 0.06

10.00 1.97 0.055 485.59 0.07

10.50 0.35 0.079 485.79 0.07

11.00 0.24 0.088 485.87 0.07

11.50 0.21 0.095 485.92 0.07

12.00 0.18 0.100 485.97 0.07

12.50 0.17 0.104 486.01 0.07

13.00 0.15 0.108 486.04 0.07

13.50 0.13 0.111 486.07 0.07

14.00 0.12 0.113 486.09 0.07

14.50 0.11 0.115 486.10 0.07

15.00 0.11 0.117 486.12 0.07

15.50 0.11 0.118 486.13 0.07

16.00 0.10 0.120 486.14 0.07

16.50 0.10 0.121 486.15 0.07

17.00 0.10 0.122 486.16 0.07

17.50 0.09 0.123 486.17 0.07

18.00 0.09 0.124 486.18 0.07

18.50 0.09 0.125 486.19 0.07

19.00 0.08 0.125 486.19 0.07

19.50 0.08 0.126 486.20 0.07

20.00 0.08 0.126 486.20 0.07

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2107 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 Summary for Pond 6P: UIS-6
[82] Warning: Early inflow requires earlier time span
Inflow Area = 1.964 ac, 76.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.97" for INDIO event Inflow = 4.89 cfs @ 10.00 hrs, Volume= 0.486 af
Outflow = 0.16 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.176 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 600.0 min Discarded = 0.16 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.176 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 484.84' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 0.289 ac Storage= 0.310 af Plug-Flow detention time= 241.7 min calculated for 0.175 af (36% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 80.8 min ( 790.6 - 709.7 )

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2108 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 482.95' 0.042 af 37.67'W x 47.75'L x 3.08'H Field A

0.127 af Overall - 0.022 af Embedded = 0.105 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 483.70' 0.022 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 66 Inside #1 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 66 Chambers in 11 Rows
#3B 482.95' 0.048 af 20.50'W x 101.43'L x 3.08'H Field B

0.147 af Overall - 0.026 af Embedded = 0.121 af x 40.0% Voids #4B 483.70' 0.026 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 78 Inside #3 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 78 Chambers in 6 Rows
#5C 482.95' 0.011 af 17.17'W x 26.39'L x 3.08'H Field C

0.032 af Overall - 0.005 af Embedded = 0.027 af x 40.0% Voids #6C 483.70' 0.005 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 15 Inside #5 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 15 Chambers in 5 Rows
#7D 482.95' 0.016 af 17.17'W x 40.63'L x 3.08'H Field D

0.049 af Overall - 0.008 af Embedded = 0.041 af x 40.0% Voids #8D 483.70' 0.008 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 25 Inside #7 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 25 Chambers in 5 Rows
#9E 482.95' 0.033 af 27.17'W x 51.59'L x 3.08'H Field E

0.099 af Overall - 0.016 af Embedded = 0.083 af x 40.0% Voids #10E 483.70' 0.016 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 48 Inside #9 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 48 Chambers in 8 Rows
#11F 482.95' 0.026 af 27.17'W x 40.63'L x 3.08'H Field F

0.078 af Overall - 0.014 af Embedded = 0.065 af x 40.0% Voids #12F 483.70' 0.014 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 40 Inside #11 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 40 Chambers in 8 Rows
#13G 482.95' 0.015 af 13.83'W x 47.75'L x 3.08'H Field G

0.047 af Overall - 0.008 af Embedded = 0.039 af x 40.0% Voids #14G 483.70' 0.008 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 24 Inside #13 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 24 Chambers in 4 Rows
#15H 482.95' 0.025 af 20.50'W x 53.37'L x 3.08'H Field H

0.077 af Overall - 0.014 af Embedded = 0.063 af x 40.0% Voids #16H 483.70' 0.014 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 42 Inside #15 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 42 Chambers in 6 Rows
#17I 482.95' 0.025 af 10.50'W x 104.71'L x 3.08'H Field I

0.078 af Overall - 0.014 af Embedded = 0.064 af x 40.0% Voids

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2109 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 37 #18I 483.70' 0.014 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 42 Inside #17 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 42 Chambers in 3 Rows
#19J 482.95' 0.051 af 21.00'W x 104.71'L x 3.08'H Field J

0.156 af Overall - 0.028 af Embedded = 0.127 af x 40.0% Voids #20J 483.70' 0.028 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 84 Inside #19 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 84 Chambers in 6 Rows

0.451 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group C created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group D created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group E created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group F created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group G created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group H created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group I created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group J created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 482.95' 0.210 in/hr Exfiltration-ADS over Wetted area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 420.00'
#2 Discarded 482.95' 0.04 cfs Exfiltration- DRYWELL X 2.00 at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.16 cfs @ 20.00 hrs HW=484.84' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration-ADS ( Controls 0.08 cfs)
2=Exfiltration- DRYWELL (Exfiltration Controls 0.08 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2110 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 38 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
6 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 43.92' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 47.75' Base Length
11 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 10 + 9.0" Side Stone x 2 = 37.67' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 66 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 973.0 cf Chamber Storage
5,546.0 cf Field - 973.0 cf Chambers = 4,573.0 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,829.2 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 2,802.2 cf = 0.064 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.5%
Overall System Size = 47.75' x 37.67' x 3.08'
66 Chambers
205.4 cy Field
169.4 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2111 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 39 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field B
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
13 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 93.76' Row Length +46.0" End Stone x 2 = 101.43' Base Length
6 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 5 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 20.50' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 78 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 1,149.9 cf Chamber Storage
6,411.0 cf Field - 1,149.9 cf Chambers = 5,261.1 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,104.5 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 3,254.3 cf = 0.075 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.8%
Overall System Size = 101.43' x 20.50' x 3.08'
78 Chambers
237.4 cy Field
194.9 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2112 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 40 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field C
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
3 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 22.56' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 26.39' Base Length
5 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 4 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 17.17' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 15 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 221.1 cf Chamber Storage
1,397.0 cf Field - 221.1 cf Chambers = 1,175.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 470.4 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 691.5 cf = 0.016 af
Overall Storage Efficiency = 49.5%
Overall System Size = 26.39' x 17.17' x 3.08'
15 Chambers

51.7 cy Field

43.6 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2113 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 41 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field D
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
5 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 36.80' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 40.63' Base Length
5 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 4 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 17.17' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 25 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 368.5 cf Chamber Storage
2,150.7 cf Field - 368.5 cf Chambers = 1,782.2 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 712.9 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,081.4 cf = 0.025 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.3%
Overall System Size = 40.63' x 17.17' x 3.08'
25 Chambers

79.7 cy Field

66.0 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2114 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 42 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field E
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
6 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 43.92' Row Length +46.0" End Stone x 2 = 51.59' Base Length
8 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 7 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 27.17' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 48 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 707.6 cf Chamber Storage
4,321.1 cf Field - 707.6 cf Chambers = 3,613.5 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,445.4 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 2,153.0 cf = 0.049 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 49.8%
Overall System Size = 51.59' x 27.17' x 3.08'
48 Chambers
160.0 cy Field
133.8 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2115 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 43 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field F
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
5 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 36.80' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 40.63' Base Length
8 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 7 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 27.17' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 40 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 589.7 cf Chamber Storage
3,403.6 cf Field - 589.7 cf Chambers = 2,813.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,125.6 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,715.2 cf = 0.039 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.4%
Overall System Size = 40.63' x 27.17' x 3.08'
40 Chambers
126.1 cy Field
104.2 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2116 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 44 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field G
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
6 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 43.92' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 47.75' Base Length
4 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 3 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 13.83' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 24 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 353.8 cf Chamber Storage
2,036.8 cf Field - 353.8 cf Chambers = 1,683.0 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 673.2 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,027.0 cf = 0.024 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.4%
Overall System Size = 47.75' x 13.83' x 3.08'
24 Chambers

75.4 cy Field

62.3 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2117 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 45 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field H
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
7 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 51.04' Row Length +14.0" End Stone x 2 = 53.37' Base Length
6 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 5 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 20.50' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 42 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 619.2 cf Chamber Storage
3,373.6 cf Field - 619.2 cf Chambers = 2,754.5 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,101.8 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,721.0 cf = 0.040 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 51.0%
Overall System Size = 53.37' x 20.50' x 3.08'
42 Chambers
124.9 cy Field
102.0 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2118 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 46 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field I
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
14 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 100.88' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 104.71' Base Length
3 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 2 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 10.50' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 42 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 619.2 cf Chamber Storage
3,390.1 cf Field - 619.2 cf Chambers = 2,770.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,108.4 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,727.5 cf = 0.040 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 51.0%
Overall System Size = 104.71' x 10.50' x 3.08'
42 Chambers
125.6 cy Field
102.6 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2119 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 47 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field J
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
14 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 100.88' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 104.71' Base Length
6 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 5 + 9.0" Side Stone x 2 = 21.00' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 84 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 1,238.3 cf Chamber Storage
6,780.2 cf Field - 1,238.3 cf Chambers = 5,541.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,216.7 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 3,455.1 cf = 0.079 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 51.0%
Overall System Size = 104.71' x 21.00' x 3.08'
84 Chambers
251.1 cy Field
205.3 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2120 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 48 Pond 6P: UIS-6
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)
5 4
3 2
1 0
Inflow Area=1.964 ac
Peak Elev=484.84'
Storage=0.310 af

4.89 cfs

0.16 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2121 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 49 Hydrograph for Pond 6P: UIS-6
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.05 0.000 482.95 0.00

5.50 0.07 0.001 482.96 0.05

6.00 0.08 0.002 482.97 0.07

6.50 0.10 0.002 482.97 0.09

7.00 0.14 0.003 482.98 0.12

7.50 0.17 0.004 482.98 0.14

8.00 0.19 0.005 483.00 0.14

8.50 0.29 0.009 483.03 0.14

9.00 0.43 0.018 483.10 0.14

9.50 0.66 0.034 483.24 0.14

10.00 4.89 0.110 483.80 0.15

10.50 0.92 0.189 484.17 0.15

11.00 0.60 0.212 484.28 0.15

11.50 0.51 0.228 484.36 0.15

12.00 0.45 0.242 484.43 0.15

12.50 0.40 0.253 484.49 0.16

13.00 0.36 0.262 484.54 0.16

13.50 0.32 0.270 484.58 0.16

14.00 0.28 0.276 484.62 0.16

14.50 0.27 0.281 484.64 0.16

15.00 0.26 0.285 484.67 0.16

15.50 0.25 0.289 484.69 0.16

16.00 0.24 0.293 484.72 0.16

16.50 0.24 0.296 484.74 0.16

17.00 0.23 0.299 484.76 0.16

17.50 0.22 0.302 484.78 0.16

18.00 0.21 0.304 484.79 0.16

18.50 0.20 0.306 484.81 0.16

19.00 0.20 0.308 484.82 0.16

19.50 0.19 0.309 484.83 0.16

20.00 0.18 0.310 484.84 0.16

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2122 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 50 Summary for Pond 7P: UIS-7
Inflow Area = 2.424 ac, 45.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.04" for INDIO event Inflow = 4.32 cfs @ 9.98 hrs, Volume= 0.411 af
Outflow = 0.13 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.129 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 601.3 min Discarded = 0.13 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.129 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 488.48' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 0.097 ac Storage= 0.282 af Plug-Flow detention time= 263.5 min calculated for 0.128 af (31% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 93.8 min ( 840.8 - 747.1 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 484.45' 0.158 af 19.42'W x 216.77'L x 6.75'H Field A

0.652 af Overall - 0.258 af Embedded = 0.394 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 485.20' 0.258 af ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap x 104 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap 104 Chambers in 2 Rows
Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 2 rows = 158.0 cf

0.416 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 484.45' 1.170 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 460.00'
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 20.00 hrs HW=488.48' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.13 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2123 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 51 Pond 7P: UIS-7 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap (ADS StormTech® MC-4500 with cap volume) Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 2 rows = 158.0 cf
100.0" Wide + 9.0" Spacing = 109.0" C-C Row Spacing
52 Chambers/Row x 4.02' Long +2.73' Cap Length x 2 = 214.77' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 216.77' Base Length
2 Rows x 100.0" Wide + 9.0" Spacing x 1 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 19.42' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 60.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 6.75' Field Height 104 Chambers x 106.5 cf + 39.5 cf Cap Volume x 2 x 2 Rows = 11,233.0 cf Chamber Storage 28,410.0 cf Field - 11,233.0 cf Chambers = 17,177.0 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 6,870.8 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 18,103.8 cf = 0.416 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 63.7%
Overall System Size = 216.77' x 19.42' x 6.75'
104 Chambers
1,052.2 cy Field
636.2 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2124 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 52 Pond 7P: UIS-7
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)
4 3
2 1
0 Inflow Area=2.424 ac
Peak Elev=488.48'
Storage=0.282 af

4.32 cfs

0.13 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2125 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 53 Hydrograph for Pond 7P: UIS-7
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.00 0.000 484.45 0.00

5.50 0.00 0.000 484.45 0.00

6.00 0.00 0.000 484.45 0.00

6.50 0.01 0.000 484.45 0.00

7.00 0.03 0.000 484.46 0.02

7.50 0.05 0.001 484.47 0.04

8.00 0.08 0.001 484.49 0.06

8.50 0.14 0.002 484.51 0.11

9.00 0.25 0.006 484.59 0.11

9.50 0.45 0.015 484.83 0.12

10.00 4.22 0.083 485.85 0.12

10.50 0.80 0.142 486.59 0.12

11.00 0.56 0.163 486.87 0.13

11.50 0.49 0.179 487.07 0.13

12.00 0.43 0.193 487.25 0.13

12.50 0.39 0.205 487.41 0.13

13.00 0.36 0.215 487.54 0.13

13.50 0.32 0.224 487.66 0.13

14.00 0.28 0.231 487.76 0.13

14.50 0.27 0.237 487.84 0.13

15.00 0.26 0.243 487.92 0.13

15.50 0.26 0.248 487.99 0.13

16.00 0.25 0.253 488.06 0.13

16.50 0.24 0.258 488.13 0.13

17.00 0.24 0.262 488.19 0.13

17.50 0.23 0.267 488.25 0.13

18.00 0.22 0.270 488.31 0.13

18.50 0.21 0.274 488.36 0.13

19.00 0.20 0.277 488.40 0.13

19.50 0.20 0.280 488.44 0.13

20.00 0.19 0.282 488.48 0.13

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2126 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Project Specific
Water Quality Management Plan
For: The Greens Indio- Golf Course
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
DEVELOPMENT NO. APN: 692-670-001, 004, 011, 014, 017
DESIGN REVIEW NO.

Prepared for:

Can Do LLC
31791 Los Rios Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Telephone: 949.800.8069
Prepared by:

Thomas Hawksworth, PE, QSD
10870 W Fairview Ave, Ste 102-1187
Boise, ID 83713-3925
Telephone: (949) 939-3322
Original Date Prepared: September 11, 2023
Revision Date(s):

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2127 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio

OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
This project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for:

Can Do LLC
by C3 Civil Engineering
for the project known as The Greens Indio at NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42.

This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of Riverside County for APN: 692-670-001, 004, 011, 014, 017, which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a projectspecific WQMP.

The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the impl100ementation of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party (or parties) having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity.

The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementation of this WQMP is enforceable under Error! Reference source not found. Water Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Section ).

If the undersigned transfers its interest in the subject property/project, the undersigned shall notify the successor in interest of its responsibility to implement this WQMP. "I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the property that is the subject of this WQMP, and that the provisions of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest."
ATTEST
Owner's Signature

Owner's Printed Name

Owner's Title/Position

Date
Error! Reference source not found.

San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.800.8069

THIS FORM SHALL BE NOTARIZED BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OF THE

FINAL PROJECT SPECIFIC WQMP
Notary Signature

Printed Name

Title/Position

Date

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2128 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-i
Contents

SECTION PAGE
I. Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 1 II. Site Characterization ..................................................................................................................... 4 III. Pollutants of Concern..................................................................................................................... 6 IV. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern .............................................................................................. 7 V. Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................... 8 V.1 SITE DESIGN BMP CONCEPTS, LID/SITE DESIGN AND TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS ...... 8 V.1.A SITE DESIGN BMP CONCEPTS AND LID/SITE DESIGN BMPS ................................. 10 V.1.B TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS ................................................................................ 16 V.1.C MEASURABLE GOAL SUMMARY ............................................................................. 18 V.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS ................................................................................................. 19 V.3 EQUIVALENT TREATMENT CONTROL BMP ALTERNATIVES ............................................ 21 V.4 REGIONALLY-BASED BMPS ............................................................................................. 21 VI. Operation and Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs .......................................................... 22 VII. Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 23 TABLES
TABLE 1. POLLUTANT OF CONCERN SUMMARY 6
TABLE 2. BMP SELECTION MATRIX BASED UPON POLLUTANT OF CONCERN REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 9 TABLE 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF SITE DESIGN BMP CONCEPTS 11
TABLE 4. LID/SITE DESIGN BMPS MEETING THE LID/SITE DESIGN MEASURABLE GOAL 15 TABLE 5: TREATMENT CONTROL BMP SUMMARY 17
TABLE 6: MEASURABLE GOAL SUMMARY 18
TABLE 7. SOURCE CONTROL BMPS 19

APPENDICES
A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
B. VICINITY MAP, WQMP SITE PLAN, AND RECEIVING WATERS MAP C. SUPPORTING DETAIL RELATED TO HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN (IF APPLICABLE) D. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
E. SOILS REPORT (IF APPLICABLE)
F. STRUCTURAL BMP AND/OR RETENTION FACILITY SIZING CALCULATIONS AND DESIGN DETAILS G. AGREEMENTS – CC&RS, COVENANT AND AGREEMENTS, BMP MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS AND/OR

OTHER MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING ONGOING OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FUNDING AND

TRANSFER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT-SPECIFIC WQMP H. PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT – SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND

USE RESTRICTIONS
I. PROJECT-SPECIFIC WQMP SUMMARY DATA FORM

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2129 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-1
I. Project Description
Project Owner: Can Do LLC
31791 Los Rios Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
WQMP Preparer: Thomas Hawksworth, PE, QSD
10870 W Fairview Ave, Ste 102-1187
Boise, ID 83713-3925
(949) 939-3322
Project Site Address: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, CA 92203
Planning Area/
Community Name/
Development Name: Golf Course at Indio
APN Number(s): APN: 692-670-001, 004, 011, 014, 017
Latitude & Longitude: 33.744833, -116.215089
Receiving Water: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
Project Site Size: 1.30 acres
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: 5812: Eating Places Formation of Home Owners' Association (HOA)
or Property Owners Association (POA): Y N

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2130 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-2
Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:

AGENCY Permit required
State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game
Code §1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Y N
State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Y N
US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA Section 404 permit Y N
US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7
biological opinion
Y N
Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage Y N
Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage Y N
Other (please list in the space below as required)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2131 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-3
The proposed development of the site will include construction of a parking lot and landscape.

Appendix A of this project-specific WQMP includes a complete copy of the final Conditions of Approval. Appendix B of this project-specific WQMP includes:
a. A Vicinity Map identifying the project site and surrounding planning areas in sufficient detail; and
b. A Site Plan for the project. The Site Plan included as part of Appendix B depicts the following project features:
 Location and identification of all structural BMPs, including Source Control, LID/Site Design and Treatment Control BMPs.
 Landscaped areas.
 Paved areas and intended uses (i.e., parking, outdoor work area, outdoor material storage area, sidewalks, patios, tennis courts, etc.).
 Number and type of structures and intended uses (i.e., buildings, tenant spaces, dwelling units, community facilities such as pools, recreation facilities, tot lots, etc.).
 Infrastructure (i.e., streets, storm drains, etc.) that will revert to public agency ownership and operation.
 Location of existing and proposed public and private storm drainage facilities (i.e., storm drains, channels, basins, etc.), including catch basins and other inlets/outlet structures. Existing and proposed drainage facilities should be clearly differentiated.
 Location(s) of Receiving Waters to which the project directly or indirectly discharges.
 Location of points where onsite (or tributary offsite) flows exit the property/project site.
 Delineation of proposed drainage area boundaries, including tributary offsite areas, for each location where flows exit the project site and existing site (where existing site flows are required to be addressed). Each tributary area should be clearly denoted.
 Pre- and post-project topography.

Appendix I is a one page form that summarizes pertinent information relative to this projectspecific WQMP.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2132 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-4
II. Site Characterization
Land Use Designation or Zoning: Current Zoning as mixed Community Commercial and Residential Low
Current Property Use: Undeveloped
Proposed Property Use: The proposed development of the site will include construction of a parking lot and landscape.

Availability of Soils Report: Y N Note: A soils report is required if infiltration BMPs are utilized. Attach report in Appendix E.

Phase 1 Site Assessment: Y N Note: If prepared, attached remediation summary and use restrictions in Appendix H.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2133 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-5
Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from Site
Receiving
Waters
EPA Approved 303(d)
List Impairments
Designated
Beneficial Uses
Proximity to RARE Beneficial
Use Designated Receiving
Waters
None Site design includes 100%
retention of storm water - -

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2134 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-6
III. Pollutants of Concern
Table 1. Pollutant of Concern Summary
Pollutant Category Potential for Project
and/or Existing Site
Causing Receiving Water
Impairment
Bacteria/Virus X
Heavy Metals X
Nutrients X
Toxic Organic Compounds X
Sediment/Turbidity X
Trash & Debris X
Oil & Grease X
Other (specify pollutant):

Other (specify pollutant):

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2135 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-7
IV. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
Local Jurisdiction Requires On-Site Retention of Urban Runoff:

Yes The project will be required to retain urban runoff onsite in conformance with local ordinance (See Table 6 of the WQMP Guidance document, "Local Land use Authorities Requiring Onsite Retention of Stormwater"). This section does not need to be completed; however, retention facility design details and sizing calculations must be included in Appendix F.

No This section must be completed.

This Project meets the following condition:

Condition A: 1) Runoff from the Project is discharged directly to a publicly-owned, operated and maintained MS4 or engineered and maintained channel, 2) the discharge is in full compliance with local land use authority requirements for connections and discharges to the MS4 (including both quality and quantity requirements), 3) the discharge would not significantly impact stream habitat in proximate Receiving Waters, and 4) the discharge is authorized by the local land use authority.

Condition B: The project disturbs less than 1 acre and is not part of a larger common plan of development that exceeds 1 acre of disturbance. The disturbed area calculation must include all disturbances associated with larger plans of development.

Condition C: The project's runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post-development condition do not exceed the pre-development condition for the 2- year, 24-hour and 10-year 24-hour rainfall events. This condition can be achieved by, where applicable, complying with the local land use authority's on-site retention ordinance, or minimizing impervious area on a site and incorporating other SiteDesign BMP concepts and LID/Site Design BMPs that assure non-exceedance of pre-development conditions. This condition must be substantiated by hydrologic modeling methods acceptable to the local land use authority.

None: Refer to Section 3.4 of the Whitewater River Region WQMP Guidance document for additional requirements.

Supporting engineering studies, calculations, and reports are included in Appendix C.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2136 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-8
V. Best Management Practices
This project implements Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address the Pollutants of Concern that may potentially be generated from the use of the project site. These BMPs have been selected and implemented to comply with Section 3.5 of the WQMP Guidance document, and consist of Site Design BMP concepts, Source Control, LID/Site Design and, if/where necessary, Treatment Control BMPs as described herein.

V.1 SITE DESIGN BMP CONCEPTS, LID/SITE DESIGN AND TREATMENT

CONTROL BMPS
Local Jurisdiction Requires On-Site Retention of Urban Runoff:

Yes The project will be required to retain Urban Runoff onsite in conformance with local ordinance (See Table 6 of the WQMP Guidance document, "Local Land use Authorities Requiring Onsite Retention of Stormwater). The LID/Site Design measurable goal has thus been met (100%), and Sections V.1.A and V.1.B do not need to be completed; however, retention facility design details and sizing calculations must be included in Appendix F, and '100%' should be entered into Column 3 of Table 6 below.

No Section V.1 must be completed.

This section of the Project-Specific WQMP documents the LID/Site Design BMPs and, if/where necessary, the Treatment Control BMPs that will be implemented on the project to meet the requirements detailed within Section 3.5.1 of the WQMP Guidance document. Section 3.5.1 includes requirements to implement Site Design Concepts and BMPs, and includes requirements to address Pollutants of Concern with BMPs. Further, sub-section 3.5.1.1 specifically requires that Pollutants of Concern be addressed with LID/Site Design BMPs to the extent feasible.

LID/Site Design BMPs are those BMPs listed within Table 2 below which promote retention and/or feature a natural treatment mechanism; off-site and regionally-based BMPs are also LID/Site Design BMPs, and therefore count towards the measurable goal, if they fit these criteria.

This project incorporates LID/Site Design BMPs to fully address the Treatment Control BMP requirement where and to the extent feasible. If and where it has been acceptably demonstrated to the local land use authority that it is infeasible to fully meet this requirement with LID/Site Design BMPs, Section V.1.B (below) includes a description of the conventional Treatment Control BMPs that will be substituted to meet the same requirements.

In addressing Pollutants of Concern, BMPs are selected using Table 2 below.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2137 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-9
Table 2. BMP Selection Matrix Based Upon Pollutant of Concern Removal Efficiency (1) (Sources: Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, dated September 2011, the Orange County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans, dated May 19, 2011, and the Caltrans Treatment BMP Technology Report, dated April 2010 and April 2008)
Pollutant of
Concern
Landscape Swale2, 3
Landscape Strip2, 3
Biofiltration
(with underdrain)2, 3
Extended Detention
Basin
2 Sand Filter Basin
2 Infiltration Basin
2 Infiltration Trench
2 Permeable
Pavement
2 Bioretention
(w/o underdrain)2, 3
Other BMPs Including
Proprietary BMPs4, 6
Sediment &
Turbidity M M H M H H H H H
Varies by Product
5 Nutrients L/M L/M M L/M L/M H H H H
Toxic Organic
Compounds M/H M/H M/H L L/M H H H H
Trash & Debris L L H H H H H L H
Bacteria & Viruses
(also: Pathogens) L M H L M H H H H
Oil & Grease M M H M H H H H H
Heavy Metals M M/H M/H L/M M H H H H
Abbreviations:

L: Low removal efficiency M: Medium removal efficiency H: High removal efficiency Notes:
(1) Periodic performance assessment and updating of the guidance provided by this table may be necessary. (2) Expected performance when designed in accordance with the most current edition of the document, "Riverside County, Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook". (3) Performance dependent upon design which includes implementation of thick vegetative cover. Local water conservation and/or landscaping requirements should be considered; approval is based on the discretion of the local land use authority.
(4) Includes proprietary stormwater treatment devices as listed in the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks, other stormwater treatment BMPs not specifically listed in this WQMP (including proprietary filters, hydrodynamic separators, inserts, etc.), or newly developed/emerging stormwater treatment technologies. (5) Expected performance should be based on evaluation of unit processes provided by BMP and available testing data. Approval is based on the discretion of the local land use authority. (6) When used for primary treatment as opposed to pre-treatment, requires site-specific approval by the local land use authority.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2138 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-10
V.1.A SITE DESIGN BMP CONCEPTS AND LID/SITE DESIGN BMPS This section documents the Site Design BMP concepts and LID/Site Design BMPs that will be implemented on this project to comply with the requirements detailed in Section 3.5.1 of the WQMP Guidance document.
• Table 3 herein documents the implementation of the Site Design BMP Concepts described in sub-sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.5.1.4.
• Table 4 herein documents the extent to which this project has implemented the LID/Site Design goals described in sub-section 3.5.1.1.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2139 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-11Table 3. Implementation of Site Design BMP Concepts Included
Brief Reason for BMPs
Indicated as No or N/A
Design
Concept Technique Specific BMP Yes No N/A
Site Design BMP Concept 1 Minimize Urban Runoff, Minimize Impervious Footprint, and Conserve Natural Areas (See WQMP Section 3.5.1.3) Conserve natural areas by concentrating or clustering development on the least environmentally sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural, undisturbed condition. Conserve natural areas by incorporating the goals of the MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation Plan or other natural resource plans.

Preserve natural drainage features and natural depressional storage areas on the site. Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. Use natural drainage systems. Where applicable, incorporate Self-Treating Areas Where applicable, incorporate Self-Retaining Areas Increase the building floor to area ratio (i.e., number of stories above or below ground). Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to minimum widths necessary, provided that public safety and a walkable environment for pedestrians are not compromised. Reduce widths of streets where off-street parking is available. Minimize the use of impervious surfaces, such as decorative concrete, in the landscape design. Other comparable and equally effective Site Design BMP concept(s) as approved by the local land use authority (Note: Additional narrative required to describe BMP and how it addresses site design concept).

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2140 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-12Table 3. Site Design BMP Concepts (continued) Included
Brief Reason for Each BMP
Indicated as No or N/A Design Concept Technique Specific BMP Yes No N/A Site Design BMP Concept 2 Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Area (See WQMP Section 3.5.1.4) Design residential and commercial sites to contain and infiltrate roof runoff, or direct roof runoff to landscaped swales or buffer areas.Drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios into adjacent landscaping.Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets.Use natural or landscaped drainage swales in lieu of underground piping or imperviously lined swales.

Where soil conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe or gravel filtration pits for low flow infiltration. Maximize the permeable area by constructing walkways, trails, patios, overflow parking, alleys, driveways, low-traffic streets, and other lowtraffic areas with open-jointed paving materials or permeable surfaces such as pervious concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and granular materials. Use one or more of the following:Rural swale system: street sheet flows to landscaped swale or gravel shoulder, curbs used at street corners, and culverts used under driveways and street crossings.Urban curb/swale system: street slopes to curb; periodic swale inlets drain to landscaped swale or biofilter.Dual drainage system: first flush captured in street catch basins and discharged to adjacent vegetated swale or gravel shoulder; high flows connect directly to MS4s.Other comparable and equally effective Site Design BMP concept(s) as approved by the local land use authority (Note: Additional narrative required to describe BMP and how it addresses site design concept).Use one or more of the following for design of driveways and private residential parking areas:Design driveways with shared access, flared (single lane at street), or wheel strips (paving only under the tires).Uncovered temporary or guest parking on residential lots paved with a permeable surface, or designed to drain into landscaping.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2141 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-13Table 3. Site Design BMP Concepts (continued) Included Brief Reason for Each BMP
Design Indicated as No or N/A
Concept Technique Specific BMP Yes No N/A
Site Design BMP Concept 2
(cont'd)
Minimize
Directly
Connected
Impervious
Area
(See WQMP
Section

3.5.1.4)
Other comparable and equally effective Site Design BMP concept(s) as approved by the local land use authority (Note: Additional narrative required to describe BMP and how it addresses site design concept).Use one or more of the following for design of parking areas:Where landscaping is proposed in parking areas, incorporate parking area landscaping into the drainage design. Overflow parking (parking stalls provided in excess of the Permittee's minimum parking requirements) may be constructed with permeable pavement.

Other comparable and equally effective Site Design BMP (or BMPs) as approved by the local land use authority (Note: Additional narrative required describing BMP and how it addresses site design concept).

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2142 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course- Indio
September 11, 2023 1-14
Project Site Design BMP Concepts:

DA-7 include the parking lot of an existing Golf Course. Runoff sheet flows over the asphalt into an area drain that convey runoff to an underground infiltration system.

Alternative Project Site Design BMP Concepts:

Not Applicable.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2143 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-15Table 4. LID/Site Design BMPs Meeting the LID/Site Design Measurable Goal (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

DRAINAGE

SUB-AREA
ID OR NO.

LID/SITE DESIGN BMP
TYPE*

POTENTIAL

POLLUTANTS OF

CONCERN WITHIN

DRAINAGE SUB-AREA

POTENTIAL

POLLUTANTS
WITHIN SUBAREA CAUSING

RECEIVING
WATER

IMPAIRMENTS

EFFECTIVENESS OF

LID/SITE DESIGN BMP

AT ADDRESSING

IDENTIFIED

POTENTIAL

POLLUTANTS

BMP MEETS
WHICH
DESIGN
CRITERIA?
TOTAL
AREA
WITHIN

DRAINAGE

SUB-AREA
(See Table 2) (Refer to Table 1) (Refer to Table 1) (U, L, M, H/M, H; see Table 2) (Identify as VBMP OR QBMP) (Nearest 0.1 acre)
7 OTHER BMPS SEE TABLE 1 SEE TABLE 1 VARIED BY PRODUCT
VBMP 2.5
TOTAL PROJECT AREA TREATED WITH LID/SITE DESIGN BMPs (NEAREST 0.1 ACRE) 1.3 * LID/Site Design BMPs listed in this table are those that completely address the 'Treatment Control BMP requirement' for their drainage sub-area.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2144 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-16
Justification of infeasibility for sub-areas not addressed with LID/Site Design BMPs Not Applicable.

V.1.B TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS
Conventional Treatment Control BMPs shall be implemented to address the project's Pollutants of Concern as required in WQMP Section 3.5.1 where, and to the extent that, Section V.1.A has demonstrated that it is infeasible to meet these requirements through implementation of LID/Site Design BMPs.

The LID/Site Design BMPs described in Section V.1.A of this project-specific WQMP completely address the 'Treatment Control BMP requirement' for the entire project site (and where applicable, entire existing site) as required in Section 3.5.1.1 of the WQMP Guidance document. Supporting documentation for the sizing of these LID/Site Design BMPs is included in Appendix F. *Section V.1.B does not need to be completed.

The LID/Site Design BMPs described in Section V.1.A of this project-specific WQMP do NOT completely address the 'Treatment Control BMP requirement' for the entire project site (or where applicable, entire existing site) as required in Section 3.5.1.1 of the WQMP. *Section V.1.B must be completed.

The Treatment Control BMPs identified in this section are selected, sized and implemented to treat the design criteria of VBMP and/or QBMP for all project (and if required, existing site) drainage subareas which were not fully addressed using LID/Site Design BMPs. Supporting documentation for the sizing of these Treatment Control BMPs is included in Appendix F.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2145 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-17Table 5: Treatment Control BMP Summary (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

DRAINAGE

SUB-AREA
ID OR NO.

TREATMENT

CONTROL BMP
TYPE*

POTENTIAL

POLLUTANTS OF

CONCERN WITHIN

DRAINAGE SUB-AREA

POTENTIAL

POLLUTANTS

WITHIN SUB-AREA

CAUSING

RECEIVING
WATER

IMPAIRMENTS

EFFECTIVENESS OF

TREATMENT

CONTROL BMP AT

ADDRESSING

IDENTIFIED

POTENTIAL

POLLUTANTS

BMP MEETS
WHICH
DESIGN
CRITERIA?
TOTAL
AREA
WITHIN

DRAINAGE

SUB-AREA
(See Table 2) (Refer to Table 1) (Refer to Table 1) (U, L, M, H/M, H; see Table 2) (Identify as

VBMP OR QBMP)
(Nearest 0.1
acre)
7 OTHER BMPS VARIED BY PRODUCT
VBMP 2.5
TOTAL PROJECT AREA TREATED WITH TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs (NEAREST 0.1 ACRE) 1.3

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2146 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-18
V.1.C MEASURABLE GOAL SUMMARY
This section documents the extent to which this project has met the measurable goal described in WQMP Section 3.5.1.1 of addressing 100% of the project's 'Treatment Control BMP requirement' with LID/Site Design BMPs. Projects required to retain Urban Runoff onsite in conformance with local ordinance are considered to have met the measurable goal; for these instances, '100%' is entered into Column 3 of the Table.

Table 6: Measurable Goal Summary
(1) (2) (3)
Total Area Treated with
LID/Site Design BMPs
Total Area Treated with
Treatment Control BMPs % of Treatment Control BMP
Requirement addressed with
LID/Site Design BMPs (Last row of Table 4) (Last row of Table 5)

2.5 2.5 100%

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2147 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-19
V.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS
This section identifies and describes the Source Control BMPs applicable and implemented on this project.

Table 7. Source Control BMPs
BMP Name
Check One
If not applicable, state
Included brief reason Not
Applicable
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Education for Property Owners, Operators,
Tenants, Occupants, or Employees
Activity Restrictions
Irrigation System and Landscape Maintenance
Common Area Litter Control
Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots
Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance
Structural Source Control BMPs
Storm Drain Inlet Stenciling and Signage
Landscape and Irrigation System Design
Protect Slopes and Channels
Provide Community Car Wash Racks No Car Wash
Properly Design*:

Fueling Areas N/A
Air/Water Supply Area Drainage N/A
Trash Storage Areas N/A
Loading Docks N/A
Maintenance Bays N/A
Vehicle and Equipment Wash Areas N/A
Outdoor Material Storage Areas N/A
Outdoor Work Areas or Processing Areas N/A
Provide Wash Water Controls for Food
Preparation Areas N/A
*Details demonstrating proper design must be included in Appendix F.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2148 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-20
Provide a narrative describing how each included Source Control BMP will be implemented.

Appendix D includes copies of the educational materials (described in Section 3.5.2.1 of the WQMP Guidance document) that will be used in implementing this project-specific WQMP.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2149 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-21
V.3 EQUIVALENT TREATMENT CONTROL BMP ALTERNATIVES
Insert text describing utilized off-site LID/Site Design and/or Treatment Control BMPs, or state "Not applicable." Note: The project-specific WQMP preparer should refer to Section 3.5.3 of the Whitewater River Region WQMP Guidance document
Not applicable.

V.4 REGIONALLY-BASED BMPS
Insert text describing utilized regionally-based LID/Site Design and/or Treatment Control BMPs, or state "Not applicable." Note: The project-specific WQMP preparer should refer to Section 4.0 of the Whitewater River Region WQMP Guidance document.

Not applicable.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2150 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-22
VI. Operation and Maintenance Responsibility for
BMPs
Appendix G of this project-specific WQMP includes copies of CC&Rs, Covenant and Agreements, BMP Maintenance Agreement and/or other mechanisms used to ensure the ongoing operation, maintenance, funding, transfer, and implementation of the project-specific WQMP requirements.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2151 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
September 11, 2023 1-23
VII.Funding
The owner of the property is responsible for anything and all funding for the operation and maintenance of each LID/ Site Design and/ or Treatment Control BMP included in this project site.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2152 of 3061

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2153 of 3061

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2154 of 3061 Vicinity Map
nts

PROJECT SITE

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2155 of 3061

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2156 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
Appendix C
Supporting Detail Related to Hydrologic Conditions of Concern

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2157 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
Appendix D
Educational Materials
In the Whitewater River Region WQMP Guidance, section 3.5.2.1, it mentions that employee training material may be derived from educational materials available through the local land use authority such as “Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for Industrial and Commercial” (CASQA, 2003).

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2158 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
Appendix E
Soils Report

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2159 of 3061

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MULTI-TENANT DEVELOPMENT
NEC JACKSON STREET & AVENUE 42

INDIO, CALIFORNIA
SALEM PROJECT NO. 3-222-0678
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
PREPARED FOR:

MR. TOM CARPENTER

CAN DO LLC
31791 LOS RIOS STREET
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
PREPARED BY:

SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
8711 MONROE COURT, SUITE A
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
P: (909) 980-6455
F: (909) 980-6435
www.salem.net
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
GEOTECHNICAL ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● GEOLOGY ● MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ● FORENSIC ● LABORATORY

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2160 of 3061 8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone (909) 980-6455
Fax (909) 980-6435
LOS ANGELES • SAN JOSE • FRESNO • STOCKTON • BAKERSFIELD DALLAS • SEATTLE • DENVER
September 20, 2022 Project No. 3-222-0678
Mr. Tom Carpenter
Can Do LLC
31791 Los Rios Street
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MULTI-TENANT DEVELOPMENT
NEC JACKSON STREET & AVENUE 42

INDIO, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Carpenter
At your request and authorization, SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. (SALEM) has prepared this Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report for the Proposed Multi-Tenant Development to be located at the subject site.

The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of designing and constructing the project as presently proposed. In our opinion, the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have questions regarding this report or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Ibrahim Foud Ibrahim, PE Clarence Jiang, GE
Senior Managing Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RCE 86724 RGE 2477

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2161 of 3061

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................. 1

3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 2

4. FIELD EXPLORATION..................................................................................................... 2

5. LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................ 3

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

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..................................................................................................... 3

7.1 Faulting and Seismicity...........................................................................................................3

7.2 Surface Fault Rupture .............................................................................................................4

7.3 Ground Shaking......................................................................................................................4

7.4 Liquefaction............................................................................................................................4

7.5 Lateral Spreading....................................................................................................................5

7.6 Landslides...............................................................................................................................5

7.7 Tsunamis and Seiches.............................................................................................................5

8. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................. 5

8.1 Subsurface Conditions............................................................................................................5

8.2 Groundwater...........................................................................................................................6

8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening ........................................................................................................6

8.4 Infiltration Testing ..................................................................................................................7

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 8

9.1 General ...................................................................................................................................8

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................................10

9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics......................................................................................11

9.4 Materials for Fill...................................................................................................................11

9.5 Grading.................................................................................................................................12

9.6 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................................16

9.7 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade......................................................................................................17

9.8 Pedestrian Concrete Pavement..............................................................................................18

9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance .................................................................19

9.10 Retaining Walls....................................................................................................................20

9.11 Temporary Excavations........................................................................................................21

9.12 Underground Utilities...........................................................................................................22

9.13 Surface Drainage ..................................................................................................................22

9.14 Pavement Design ..................................................................................................................23

9.15 Concrete Paver Design..........................................................................................................24

9.16 Temporary Fire Access Road................................................................................................24

10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING........................ 25

10.1 Plan and Specification Review..............................................................................................25

10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services....................................................................25

11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS........................................................... 25

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2162 of 3061 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
APPENDIX A – FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 through A-10, Logs of Exploratory Soil Borings B-1 through B-10 Percolation Testing Results, P-1 through P-16
Liquefaction Analysis
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING
Consolidation Test Results
Direct Shear Test Results
Gradation Curves
Corrosivity Test Results
Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Proctor Test Results R-Value Test Results
APPENDIX C – EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2163 of 3061 8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone (909) 980-6455
Fax (909) 980-6435
Project No. 3-222-0678 - 1 -

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED MULTI-TENANT DEVELOPMENT
NEC JACKSON STREET & AVENUE 42

INDIO, CALIFORNIA

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Proposed MultiTenant Development located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in the city of Indio, California (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The purpose of our geotechnical engineering investigation was to observe and sample the subsurface conditions encountered at the site, and provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of constructing the project as presently proposed.

The scope of this investigation included a field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Our field exploration was performed on July 7, July 8, September 6 and September 7 of 2022 and included the drilling of ten (10) small-diameter soil borings to a maximum depth of 51½ feet at the site. Additionally, sixteen (16) percolation tests were performed at depths of approximately 5 to 40 feet below existing grade for determination of the infiltration rates. The locations of the soil borings and percolation tests are depicted on Figure 2, Site Plan. A detailed discussion of our field investigation, exploratory boring logs, and percolation tests are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to evaluate pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses. Appendix B presents the laboratory test results in tabular and graphic format. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, SALEM should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report. Earthwork and Pavement Specifications are presented in Appendix C. If text of the report conflict with the specifications in Appendix C, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the Site Plan provided to us, we understand that the proposed development of the site will include construction of a ±3,600 square-foot Drive Thru (D//T) Restaurant (Building 1), a ±16,900 square-feet 2-story office (Building 2), a ±3,900 square-feet restaurant (Building 3) with ±2,400 squarefeet patio, a ±4,823 D/T Restaurant (Building 4), and a ±980 square-feet D/T Restaurant (Building 5) on

6.34 acres of vacant land. Maximum wall load is expected to be on the order of 5 kips per linear foot.

Maximum column load is expected to be on the order of 50 kips. Floor slab soil bearing pressure is expected to be on the order of 150 psf. Parking and landscaping are also planned to be associated with the proposed development.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2164 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 2 -
A site grading plan was not available at the time of preparation of this report. As the site area is slightly sloping towards the southeast, we anticipate that cuts and fills during earthwork will be minimal and limited to providing level pads and positive site drainage. In the event that changes occur in the nature or design of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of our report are modified. The site configuration and locations of proposed improvements are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

3. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site is irregular in shape and encompasses approximately 6.34 acres. The site is located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Jackson Street and Avenue 42 in the city of Indio, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). An Arco gas station and an AutoZone store are located at the northeast corner of the intersection. A vacant land owned by the site city located east of the project site (not part of the project site) will be developed to an 87-stall parking lot for the existing golf course.

At the time of our field investigation, the site was mostly vacant with an asphalt paved parking lot located within the eastern portion of the project site. The project site area is gently sloping towards the southeast with elevations ranging between 7 to 14 feet below mean sea level based on Google Earth imagery. The city owned vacant land (east of the project site) is slightly elevated above the project site and Avenue 42 with elevations ranging between 3 to 10 feet below mean sea level based on Google Earth imagery.

4. FIELD EXPLORATION
Our field exploration consisted of site surface reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The exploratory test borings (B-1 through B-10) were drilled on July 7, 2022 at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The test borings were advanced with a 6½-inch diameter hollow stem augers rotated by a truck-mounted CME 45C drill rig. The test borings were extended to a maximum depth of 51½ feet below existing grade.

The materials encountered in the test borings were visually classified in the field, and logs were recorded by a field engineer and stratification lines were approximated on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. Visual classification of the materials encountered in the test borings were generally made in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488).

A soil classification chart and key to sampling is presented on the Unified Soil Classification Chart, in Appendix "A." The logs of the test borings are presented in Appendix "A." The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol.

The location of the test borings were determined by measuring from features shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants.

The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted. Soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths shown on the logs of borings.

The MCS samples were recovered and capped at both ends to preserve the samples at their natural moisture content; SPT samples were recovered and placed in a sealed bag to preserve their natural moisture content. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings after completion of the drilling.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2165 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 3 -

5. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory-testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, density, shear strength, consolidation potential, maximum density and optimum moisture determination, R-Value, and gradation of the materials encountered.

In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the corrosivity of the soils to buried concrete and metal. Details of the laboratory test program and the results of laboratory test are summarized in Appendix "B." This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix "A."

6. GEOLOGIC SETTING
Regionally, the proposed site is situated within the northern portion of the Coachella Valley of Southern California. Near-surface material consists of alluvial fan deposits of sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles derived from erosion of the Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks of the adjacent San Jacinto Mountains. A significant feature within this geomorphic province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest-trending structural depression that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. A large portion of this depression in the vicinity of the Salton Sea is below sea level.

The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough and contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that are Miocene to Recent in age. Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rocks. Tectonism of the region is dominated by the interaction of the East Pacific Plate and the North American Plate along a transform boundary.

The Coachella Valley has been filled with a variable thickness of relatively young, heterogeneous alluvial deposits. Deposits encountered on the subject site during exploratory drilling are discussed in detail in this report.

7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

7.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on the proximity of several dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively high seismicity. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground-shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. Moderate to large earthquakes have affected the area of the subject site within historic time. There are no known active fault traces in the project vicinity. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault (Special Studies) Zone and will not require a special site investigation by an Engineering Geologist. Soils on site are classified as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 16 of the California Building Code. The proposed structures are determined to be in Seismic Design Category E. To determine the distance of known active faults within 100 miles of the site, we used the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web-based application 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters. Site latitude is 33.7449° north; site longitude is -116.2152° west. The closest active faults are summarized below in Table 7.1.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2166 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 4 -
TABLE 7.1

REGIONAL FAULT SUMMARY
Fault Name Distance to
Site (miles)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude, Mw
S. San Andreas;
PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO 0.9 8.2
S. San Andreas;
PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG 3.5 8.1
Burnt Mtn 16.5 6.8
Eureka Peak 16.6 6.7
San Jacinto; SBV+SJV+A+C 24.3 7.8
San Jacinto; SBV+SJV+A+CC+B+SM 24.6 7.9
San Jacinto; CC+B+SM 26.7 7.4
Pinto Mtn 27.6 7.3
So Emerson-Copper Mtn 28.5 7.1
Pigsah-Bullion Mtn-Mesquite Lk 29.6 7.3
The faults tabulated above and numerous other faults in the region are sources of potential ground motion. However, earthquakes that might occur on other faults throughout California are also potential generators of significant ground motion and could subject the site to intense ground shaking.

7.2 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low.

7.3 Ground Shaking
Seismic coefficients and spectral response acceleration values were developed based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The CBC methodology for determining design ground motion values is based on the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps, which incorporate both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion. Based on the 2019 CBC, a Site Class D represents the on-site soil conditions. A table providing the recommended design acceleration parameters for the project site, based on a Site Class D designation, is included in Section 9.2.1 of this report. Based on the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps, the estimated design peak ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) was determined to be 1.138g (based on both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion).

7.4 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particles suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are: moderate to strong

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2167 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 5 -
ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater). Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile.

The soils encountered within the depth of 51½ feet on the project site consisted predominately of loose to dense silty sand and stiff to hard sandy silt with various amounts of clay. Low to very low cohesion strength is associated with the sandy soil. A seismic hazard, which could cause damage to the proposed development during seismic shaking, is the post-liquefaction settlement of the liquefied sands. Free groundwater was not encountered in our borings during this investigation. The historically highest groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of 35 feet below ground surface according to regional groundwater data. The Riverside County Office of Information Technology GIS website shows the subject site is located within a moderate potential liquefaction zone. The potential for soil liquefaction during a seismic event was evaluated using LiqIT computer program (version 4.7.5) developed by GeoLogismiki of Greece. For the analysis, a maximum earthquake potential magnitude of 8.2 MW, a peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of 1.14g (with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years), and a groundwater depth of 35 feet were considered appropriate for the liquefaction analysis. The liquefaction analysis indicated that the site soils had a low potential for liquefaction under seismic conditions. The total liquefaction-induced settlement was calculated to be less than 0.1 inches. The liquefaction analyses are included in Appendix A.

7.5 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which soils move laterally during seismic shaking and is often associated with liquefaction. The amount of movement depends on the soil strength, duration and intensity of seismic shaking, topography, and free face geometry. Due to the relatively flat site topography, we judge the likelihood of lateral spreading to be low.

7.6 Landslides
There are no known landslides at the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides.

We do not consider the potential for a landslide to be a hazard to this project.

7.7 Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is not located within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major water-retaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding from a seismically-induced seiche is considered unlikely.

8. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.1 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the soils within the depth of exploration consisted predominately of loose to very dense silty sand and stiff to hard sandy silt with various amounts of clay. No significant fill soils were encountered during this investigation. Fill soils may be present onsite between our test boring locations. Undocumented fill materials are not suitable to support any future structures and should be replaced with Engineered Fill. The

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2168 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 6 -
extent and consistency of the fills should be verified during site construction. Prior to fill placement, Salem Engineering Group, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify the fill condition.

The soils were classified in the field during the drilling and sampling operations. The stratification lines were approximated by the field engineer on the basis of observations made at the time of drilling. The actual boundaries between different soil types may be gradual and soil conditions may vary. For a more detailed description of the materials encountered, the Boring Logs in Appendix "A" should be consulted.

The Boring Logs include the soil type, color, moisture content, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System symbol. The locations of the test borings were determined by measuring from feature shown on the Site Plan, provided to us. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants.

8.2 Groundwater
The test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling operations. Free groundwater was not encountered in our borings during this investigation. The historically highest groundwater is estimated to be at a depth of approximately 35 feet below existing grade according to regional groundwater data. It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, localized pumping, and climatic conditions as well as other factors. Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.

8.3 Soil Corrosion Screening
Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete and the soil. The 2014 Edition of ACI 318 (ACI 318) has established criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. A soil sample was obtained from the project site and was tested for the evaluation of the potential for concrete deterioration or steel corrosion due to attack by soil-borne soluble salts and soluble chloride. The water-soluble sulfate concentration in the saturation extract from the soil sample was detected to be 2,833 mg/kg. ACI 318 Tables

19.3.1.1 and 19.3.2.1 outline exposure categories, classes, and concrete requirements by exposure class.

ACI 318 requirements for site concrete based upon soluble sulfate are summarized in Table 8.3 below.

TABLE 8.3

WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE EXPOSURE REQUIREMENTS
The water-soluble chloride concentration detected in saturation extract from the soil samples was 182 mg/kg. This level of chloride concentration is considered to be mildly corrosive. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, applicable manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection of buried metal pipe be closely followed.

Water Soluble
Sulfate (SO4) in
Soil, % by Weight
Exposure
Severity
Exposure
Class
Maximum
w/cm Ratio
Min. Concrete
Compressive
Strength
Cementations
Materials
Type

0.2833 Severe S2 0.45 4,500 psi V

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2169 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 7 -

8.4 Infiltration Testing
Sixteen (16) percolation tests (P-1 through P-16) were performed on-site and were conducted in accordance with the guidelines established by the County of Riverside. The approximate locations of the percolation tests are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2.

The boreholes were advanced to the depths shown on the percolation test worksheets. The holes were pre-saturated before percolation testing commenced. Percolation rates were measured by filling the test holes with clean water and measuring the water drops at a certain time interval. The percolation rate data are presented in tabular format at the end of this Report. The difference in the percolation rates are reflected by the varied type of soil materials at the bottom of the test holes. The test results are shown on the table below.

Test
No.

Depth
(Feet)
Tested
Infiltration Rate1
(inch/hour)
Design
Infiltration Rate2
(inch/hour)
Soil Type3
P-1 9.8 0.26 0.09 Silty Clayey SAND (SM/SC)
P-2 5 0.63 0.21 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-3 10 0.47 0.16 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-4 5 3.51 1.17 Silty SAND (SM)
P-5 40 1.15 0.38 Silty SAND (SM)
P-6 34 1.21 0.40 Silty SAND (SM)
P-7 20 0.46 0.15 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-8 38 1.16 0.39 Silty SAND/Sandy SILT (SM/ML)
P-9 17.5 0.75 0.25 Silty SAND (SM)
P-10 30 0.54 0.18 Silty SAND (SM)
P-11 17 0.71 0.24 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-12 34.5 1.38 0.46 Silty SAND (SM)
P-13 17 0.52 0.17 Silty SAND (SM)
P-14 38 1.38 0.46 Silty SAND (SM)
P-15 26 1.09 0.36 Sandy SILT (ML)
P-16 17 0.69 0.23 Silty SAND (SM)
1 Tested infiltration Rate = (∆H 60 r) / (∆t(r + 2Havg)) 2 FS=3 according to the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook 3 At bottom of drilled holes
The soil infiltration rates are based on test conducted with clear water. The infiltration rates may vary with time as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. The infiltration rate will deteriorate over time due to the soil conditions and an appropriate factor of safety (FS) may be applied. SALEM recommends a minimum factor of safety of 3 be used in design. The soils may also become less permeable to impermeable if the soil is compacted. Thus, periodic maintenance consisting of clearing the bottom of

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2170 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 8 -
the drainage system of clogged soils should be expected. An overflow outlet from the infiltration system should be designed to convey runoff to the public storm drain system.

The infiltration rate may become slower if the surrounding soil is wet or saturated due to prolonged rainfalls. Additional infiltration tests should be conducted at bottom of the drainage system during construction to verify the infiltration rate. Groundwater, if closer to the bottom of the drainage system, will also reduce the infiltration rate.

The scope of our services did not include a groundwater study and was limited to the performance of infiltration testing and soil profile description, and the submitted data only. Our services did not include those associated with septic system design. Neither did services include an Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring logs regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessment.

The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, has been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice, which existed in the geographic area at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

Please be advised that when performing infiltration testing services in relatively small areas that the testing may not fully model the actual full scale long term performance of a given site. This is particularly true where infiltration test data is to be used in the design of large infiltration areas such as those proposed for the site. Subsurface conditions, including infiltration rates, can change over time as fine-grained soils migrate. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites.

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 General

9.1.1 Based upon the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction of improvements at the site as planned, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. Conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on our review of available literature, analysis of data obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing program, and our understanding of the proposed development at this time.

9.1.2 The primary geotechnical constraints identified in our investigation is the presence of potentially compressible soil, and severely corrosive soil at the site. Recommendations to mitigate the effects of these soils are provided in this report.

9.1.3 Site demolition activities shall include removal of all surface obstructions not intended to be incorporated into final site design. In addition, underground buried structures and/or utility lines

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2171 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 9 -
encountered during demolition and construction should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that possible demolition activities of the existing structures may disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted.

9.1.4 Fill soils may be present on-site between our test boring locations. Undocumented fill materials are not considered suitable to support any future structures and should be replaced with Engineered Fill. The extent and consistency of the fills should be verified during site construction. Prior to fill placement, Salem Engineering Group, Inc. should inspect the bottom of the excavation to verify the fill condition.

9.1.5 Surface vegetation consisting of grasses and other similar vegetation should be removed by stripping to a sufficient depth to remove organic-rich topsoil. The upper 2 to 4 inches of the soils containing vegetation, roots, and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the surface. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. The stripped vegetation will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill or within 5 feet of building pads or within pavement areas. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape areas or exported from the site.

9.1.6 The water-soluble sulfate concentrations were detected to be severe. Therefore, Type V cement with a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.45 and a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi should be used for concrete in contact with onsite soil.

9.1.7 The surficial soils are moisture-sensitive and exhibited moderate collapse potential under saturated conditions. The collapsible or weak soils should be removed and recompacted according to the recommendations in the Grading section of this report (Section 9.5).

9.1.8 Based on the subsurface conditions at the site and the anticipated structural loading, we anticipate that the proposed buildings may be supported using conventional shallow foundations and that the provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.

9.1.9 SALEM shall review the project grading and foundation plans, and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. If SALEM is not provided plans and specifications for review, we cannot assume any responsibility for the future performance of the project.

9.1.10 SALEM shall be present at the site during site demolition and preparation to observe site clearing/demolition, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.

9.1.11 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2172 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 10 -
actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.

9.2 Seismic Design Criteria

9.2.1 For seismic design of the structures, and in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2019 CBC, our recommended parameters are shown below. These parameters were determined using Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Seismic Design Maps by location website (https://seismicmaps.org/), in accordance with the 2019 CBC. The Site Class was determined based on the soils encountered during our field exploration.

TABLE 9.2.1

SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Seismic Item Symbol Value 2016 ASCE 7 or
2019 CBC Reference
Site Coordinates (Datum = NAD 83) 33.7449 Lat
-116.2152 Lon
Site Class -- D ASCE 7 Table 20.3
Soil Profile Name -- Stiff Soil ASCE 7 Table 20.3
Risk Category -- II CBC Table 1604.5
Site Coefficient for PGA FPGA 1.1 ASCE 7 Table 11.8-1
Peak Ground Acceleration
(adjusted for Site Class effects) PGAM 1.138g ASCE 7 Equation 11.8-1 Seismic Design Category SDC E ASCE 7 Table 11.6-1 & 2
Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SS 2.406 g CBC Figure 1613.3.1(1-6) Mapped Spectral Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) S1 1.024 g CBC Figure 1613.3.1(1-6)
Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fa 1 CBC Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Class Modified Site Coefficient Fv *1.7 CBC Table 1613.3.3(2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(Short period - 0.2 sec) SMS = Fa SS
SMS 2.406 g CBC Equation 16-37
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(1.0 sec. period) SM1 = Fv S1
SM1 *1.741 g CBC Equation 16-38
Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SDS=⅔SMS (short period - 0.2 sec) SDS 1.604 g CBC Equation 16-39 Design Spectral Response Acceleration
SD1=⅔SM1 (1.0 sec. period) SD1 *1.161 g CBC Equation 16-40 Short Term Transition Period (SD1/SDS),
seconds TS 0.724 ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.6
Long Period Transition Period (seconds) TL 8 ASCE 7-16, Figure 22-14 * Determined per ASCE Table 11.4-2 for use in calculating TS only.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2173 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 11 -

9.2.2 Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis was not included in the scope of this investigation. Per ASCE 11.4.8, structures on Site Class D with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 may require Site Specific Ground Motion Analysis. However, a site specific motion analysis may not be required based on Exceptions listed in ASCE 11.4.8. The Structural Engineer should verify whether Exception No. 2 of ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, is valid for the site. In the event that a site specific ground motion analysis is required, SALEM should be contacted for these services.

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

9.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics

9.3.1 Based on the soil conditions encountered in our soil borings, the onsite soils can be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment.

9.3.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements. Temporary excavations are further discussed in a later Section of this report.

9.3.3 The upper soils within the project site are identified primarily as silty sand with clay and sandy silt with clay. The clayey soils, in their present condition, possess a risk to construction in terms of possible post-construction movement of the foundations and floor systems if no mitigation measures are employed. Accordingly, measures are considered necessary to reduce anticipated expansion potential.

9.3.4 The near surface soils identified as part of our investigation are, generally, damp to moist due to the absorption characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations may encounter very moist unstable soils which may require removal to a stable bottom. Exposed native soils exposed as part of site grading operations shall not be allowed to dry out and should be kept continuously moist prior to placement of subsequent fill.

9.4 Materials for Fill

9.4.1 Excavated soils generated from cut operations at the site are suitable for use as general Engineered Fill in structural areas provided they do not have an Expansion Index greater than 20 (EI≤20) and do not contain deleterious matter, debris, organic material, or rock material larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.

9.4.2 The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since they have complete control of the project site.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2174 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 12 -

9.4.3 Import soil shall be well-graded, slightly cohesive silty fine sand or sandy silt, with relatively impervious characteristics when compacted. A clean sand or very sandy soil is not acceptable for this purpose. This material should be approved by the Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the soil characteristics summarized below in Table 9.4.3.

TABLE 9.4.3

IMPORT FILL REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 20
Maximum Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 50
Minimum Percent Passing No. 4 Sieve 80
Maximum Particle Size 3"
Maximum Plasticity Index 12
Maximum CBC Expansion Index 20

9.4.4 Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be considered.

9.4.5 Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by SALEM prior to its transportation to the site.

9.5 Grading

9.5.1 A SALEM or certified testing and inspection engineer (typical) representative should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Geotechnical Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements.

Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section as well as other portions of this report.

9.5.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

9.5.3 Site preparation should begin with removal of existing surface/subsurface structures, underground utilities (as required), any existing uncertified fill, and debris. Excavations or depressions resulting from site clearing operations, or other existing excavations or depressions, should be restored with Engineered Fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

9.5.4 Surface vegetation consisting of grasses and other similar vegetation should be removed by stripping to a sufficient depth to remove organic-rich topsoil. The upper 2 to 4 inches of the soils containing, vegetation, roots and other objectionable organic matter encountered at the time of grading should be stripped and removed from the surface. Deeper stripping may be required in

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2175 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 13 -
localized areas. In addition, existing concrete and asphalt materials shall be removed from areas of proposed improvements and stockpiled separately from excavated soil material. The stripped vegetation, asphalt and concrete materials will not be suitable for use as Engineered Fill or within 5 feet of building pads or within pavement areas. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas or exported from the site.

9.5.5 Site demolition activities shall include removal of all surface obstructions not intended to be incorporated into final site design. In addition, underground buried structures and/or utility lines encountered during demolition and construction should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that possible demolition activities of the existing structures may disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted.

9.5.6 Tree root systems in proposed improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than ½ inch in diameter.

Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface.

Backfill of tree root excavations is not permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction.

Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.

9.5.7 Any undocumented fill materials encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. The actual depth of the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction.

9.5.8 Structural building pad areas should be considered as areas extending a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the outside dimensions of buildings, including footings and non-cantilevered overhangs carrying structural loads.

9.5.9 To minimize post-construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the proposed building areas, it is recommended that overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building area be performed to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grade or two (2) feet below proposed footing bottom, whichever is deeper. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 5 feet beyond the outer edges of the proposed footings except in the area where lateral extension is restricted by the existing building. Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 10 to 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.

9.5.10 Within the pavement areas of the city owned vacant land (east of the project site), overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to a minimum depth of two (2) feet below existing grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. Any undocumented fill materials encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 2 feet beyond the pavement edges. Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 10 to 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2176 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 14 -

9.5.11 Within the pavement areas of the project site, overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to a minimum depth of one (1) foot below existing grade or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. Any undocumented fill materials encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally to a minimum of 2 feet beyond the pavement edges. Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 10 to 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moistureconditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method.

9.5.12 To minimize potential soil movement, it is recommended that interior slabs-on-grade be underlain by six (6) inches of compacted granular aggregate subbase and exterior flatwork areas be underlain by four (4) inches of aggregate base.

9.5.13 All Engineered Fill (including scarified ground surfaces and backfill) should be placed in thin lifts to allow for adequate bonding and compaction (typically 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness).

9.5.14 Engineered Fill soils should be placed, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.

9.5.15 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM or certified testing and inspection engineer (typical) field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and shall be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.

9.5.16 An integral part of satisfactory fill placement is the stability of the placed lift of soil. If placed materials exhibit excessive instability as determined by a SALEM field representative, the lift will be considered unacceptable and shall be remedied prior to placement of additional fill material. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.

9.5.17 Final pavement subgrade should be finished to a smooth, unyielding surface. We further recommend proof-rolling the subgrade with a loaded water truck (or similar equipment with high contact pressure) to verify the stability of the subgrade prior to placing aggregate base.

9.5.18 The most effective site preparation alternatives will depend on site conditions prior to grading.

We should evaluate site conditions and provide supplemental recommendations immediately prior to grading, if necessary.

9.5.19 We do not anticipate groundwater or seepage to adversely affect construction if conducted during the drier months of the year (typically summer and fall). However, groundwater and soil moisture conditions could be significantly different during the wet season (typically winter and spring) as surface soil becomes wet; perched groundwater conditions may develop. Grading during this time period will likely encounter wet materials resulting in possible excavation and fill placement difficulties.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2177 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 15 -
Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during construction should be performed. If the construction schedule requires grading operations during the wet season, we can provide additional recommendations as conditions warrant.

9.5.20 Wet soils may become non conducive to site grading as the upper soils yield under the weight of the construction equipment. Therefore, mitigation measures should be performed for stabilization.

Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material or placement of slurry, crushed rocks or aggregate base material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product.

The most common remedial measure of stabilizing the bottom of the excavation due to wet soil condition is to reduce the moisture of the soil to near the optimum moisture content by having the subgrade soils scarified and aerated or mixed with drier soils prior to compacting. However, the drying process may require an extended period of time and delay the construction operation.

To expedite the stabilizing process, slurry or crushed rock may be utilized for stabilization provided this method is approved by the owner for the cost purpose. If the use of slurry, crushed rock is considered, it is recommended that the upper soft and wet soils be replaced by 6 to 24 inches of 2-sack slurry or ¾-inch to 1-inch crushed rocks. The thickness of the slurry or rock layer depends on the severity of the soil instability. The recommended 6 to 24 inches of crushed rock material will provide a stable platform.

It is further recommended that lighter compaction equipment be utilized for compacting the crushed rock. A layer of geofabric is recommended to be placed on top of the compacted crushed rock to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock, resulting in soil movement. Although it is not required, the use of geogrid (e.g. Tensar TX7) below the slurry or crushed rock will enhance stability and reduce the required thickness of crushed rock necessary for stabilization.

Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to provide appropriate recommendations.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2178 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 16 -

9.6 Shallow Foundations

9.6.1 The site is suitable for use of conventional shallow foundations consisting of continuous footings and isolated pad footings bearing in properly compacted Engineered Fill.

9.6.2 The bearing wall footings considered for the structure should be continuous with a minimum width of 15 inches and extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. Isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and extend a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent soil grade. Footing depth should be measured at the time of footing trench excavation not to include any future material (e.g. base, concrete, asphalt, etc.) over the subgrade.

9.6.3 The bottom of footing excavations should be maintained free of loose and disturbed soil. Footing concrete should be placed into a neat excavation.

9.6.4 Footings proportioned as recommended above may be designed for the maximum allowable soil bearing pressures shown in the table below.

Loading Condition Allowable Bearing
Dead Load Only 2,000 psf
Dead-Plus-Live Load 2,500 psf
Total Load, Including Wind or Seismic Loads 3,325 psf

9.6.5 For design purposes, total settlement due to static loadings on the order of 1 inch may be assumed for shallow footings. Differential settlement due to static loading, along a 20-foot exterior wall footing or between adjoining column footings, should be ½ inch, producing an angular distortion of 0.002. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied.

However, additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete.

9.6.6 Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable coefficient of friction factor of 0.35 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting native subgrade.

9.6.7 Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an equivalent fluid passive pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical native footing faces.

The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. An increase of one-third is permitted when using the alternate load combinations that includes wind or earthquake loads.

9.6.8 Underground utilities running parallel to footings should not be constructed in the zone of influence of footings. The zone of influence may be taken to be the area beneath the footing and within a 1:1 plane extending out and down from the bottom edge of the footing.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2179 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 17 -

9.6.9 The foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition without significant shrinkage cracks as would be expected in any concrete placement. Prior to placing rebar reinforcement, foundation excavations should be evaluated by a representative of SALEM for appropriate support characteristics and moisture content. Moisture conditioning may be required for the materials exposed at footing bottom, particularly if foundation excavations are left open for an extended period.

9.7 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade

9.7.1 The following recommendations are intended for lightly loaded interior slabs on grade not subject to vehicular traffic. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading. We recommend that non-structural slabs-on-grade be at least 4 inches thick and underlain by six (6) inches of clean crushed aggregate base (CAB) over the depth of engineered fill recommended in section 9.5 of this report. The CAB should meet the Greenbook requirements and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction.

9.7.2 Crushed Miscellaneous or Recycled Base (CMB) containing recycled materials should not be used as granular aggregate subbase within the building areas.

9.7.3 We recommend reinforcing slabs, at a minimum, with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center, each way. The concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi.

9.7.4 Slabs subject to structural loading may be designed utilizing a modulus of subgrade reaction K of 150 pounds per square inch per inch. The K value was approximated based on interrelationship of soil classification and bearing values (Portland Cement Association, Rocky Mountain Northwest).

9.7.5 The spacing of crack control joints should be designed by the project structural engineer. In order to regulate cracking of the slabs, we recommend that construction joints or control joints be provided at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction for 5-inch thick slabs and 12 feet for 4-inch thick slabs.

9.7.6 Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement.

The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system.

9.7.7 It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the structures is recommended.

9.7.8 Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and/or ASTM guidelines, whichever is more stringent. In addition, ventilation of the structure is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2180 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 18 -

9.7.9 In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness where moisture-sensitive coverings are anticipated, construction should have a suitable waterproof vapor retarder (a minimum of 15 mils thick polyethylene vapor retarder sheeting, Raven Industries “VaporBlock 15, Stego Industries 15 mil “StegoWrap” or W.R. Meadows Sealtight 15 mil “Perminator”) incorporated into the floor slab design. The water vapor retarder should be decay resistant material complying with ASTM E96 not exceeding 0.04 perms, ASTM E154 and ASTM E1745 Class A. The vapor barrier should be placed between the concrete slab and the compacted granular aggregate subbase material. The water vapor retarder (vapor barrier) should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-94.

9.7.10 The concrete may be placed directly on vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be inspected prior to concrete placement. Cut or punctured retarder should be repaired using vapor retarder material lapped 6 inches beyond damaged areas and taped.

9.7.11 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement. This is common for project areas that contain expansive soils since designing to eliminate potential soil movement is cost prohibitive. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

9.7.12 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.

9.8 Pedestrian Concrete Pavement

9.8.1 We recommend that pedestrian concrete pavements be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24 inches on center, each way or 6x6-w2.9xw2.9 welded wire fabric, placed at mid-height. The concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,500 psi.

9.8.2 The spacing of crack control joints should be at a maximum spacing of 15 feet in each direction.

Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement.

9.8.3 The subgrade soils should be non-expansive (EI≤20), moisture conditioned to no less than the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction prior to placement of concrete.

9.8.4 The recommendations are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of concrete pavement due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, concrete pavement may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2181 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 19 -
may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals.

9.8.5 Proper finishing and curing should be performed in accordance with the latest guidelines provided by the American Concrete Institute, Portland Cement Association, and ASTM.

9.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Frictional Resistance

9.9.1 Active, at-rest and passive unit lateral earth pressures against footings and walls are summarized in the table below:

Lateral Pressure Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf Active Pressure, Drained 40
At-Rest Pressure, Drained 60
Passive Pressure 300
Related Parameters
Allowable Coefficient of Friction 0.35
In-Place Soil Density (lbs/ft3) 120

9.9.2 Active pressure applies to walls, which are free to rotate. At-rest pressure applies to walls, which are restrained against rotation. The preceding lateral earth pressures assume sufficient drainage behind retaining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure.

9.9.3 The top one-foot of adjacent subgrade should be deleted from the passive pressure computation.

9.9.4 A safety factor consistent with the design conditions should be included in their usage.

9.9.5 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted solely by the passive pressure, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.5.

9.9.6 For stability against lateral sliding, which is resisted by the combined passive and frictional resistance, a minimum safety factor of 2.0 is recommended.

9.9.7 For lateral stability against seismic loading conditions, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.1.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2182 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 20 -

9.9.8 For dynamic seismic lateral loading the following equation shall be used:

Dynamic Seismic Lateral Loading Equation
Dynamic Seismic Lateral Load = ⅜γKhH
2 Where: γ = In-Place Soil Density
Kh = Horizontal Acceleration = ⅔PGAM
H = Wall Height

9.10 Retaining Walls

9.10.1 Retaining and/or below grade walls should be drained with either perforated pipe encased in freedraining gravel or a prefabricated drainage system. The gravel zone should have a minimum width of 12 inches wide and should extend upward to within 12 inches of the top of the wall. The upper 12 inches of backfill should consist of native soils, concrete, asphaltic-concrete or other suitable backfill to minimize surface drainage into the wall drain system. The gravel should be completely wrapped in nonwoven polypropylene geotextiles (filter fabric) to minimize migration of soil particles into the voids of the crushed rock.

9.10.2 Prefabricated drainage systems, such as Miradrain®, Enkadrain®, or an equivalent substitute, are acceptable alternatives in lieu of gravel provided they are installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If a prefabricated drainage system is proposed, our firm should review the system for final acceptance prior to installation.

9.10.3 Drainage pipes should be placed with perforations down and should discharge in a non-erosive manner away from foundations and other improvements. The top of the perforated pipe should be placed at or below the bottom of the adjacent floor slab or pavements. The pipe should be placed in the center line of the drainage blanket and should have a minimum diameter of 4 inches.

Slots should be no wider than 1/8-inch in diameter, while perforations should be no more than ¼-inch in diameter.

9.10.4 If retaining walls are less than 5 feet in height, the perforated pipe may be omitted in lieu of weep holes on 4 feet maximum spacing. The weep holes should consist of 2-inch minimum diameter holes (concrete walls) or unmortared head joints (masonry walls) and placed no higher than 18 inches above the lowest adjacent grade. Two 8-inch square overlapping patches of geotextile fabric (conforming to the CalTrans Standard Specifications for "edge drains") should be affixed to the rear wall opening of each weep hole to retard soil piping.

9.10.5 During grading and backfilling operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures.

Within this zone, only hand operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact the backfill soils.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2183 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 21 -

9.11 Temporary Excavations

9.11.1 We anticipate that the majority of the sandy site soils will be classified as Cal-OSHA “Type C” soil when encountered in excavations during site development and construction. Excavation sloping, benching, the use of trench shields, and the placement of trench spoils should conform to the latest applicable Cal-OSHA standards. The contractor should have a Cal-OSHA-approved “competent person” onsite during excavation to evaluate trench conditions and make appropriate recommendations where necessary.

9.11.2 It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide sufficient and safe excavation support as well as protecting nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements which may be damaged by earth movements. All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load.

9.11.3 Temporary excavations and slope faces should be protected from rainfall and erosion. Surface runoff should be directed away from excavations and slopes.

9.11.4 Open, unbraced excavations in undisturbed soils should be made according to the slopes presented in the following table:

RECOMMENDED EXCAVATION SLOPES
Depth of Excavation (ft) Slope (Horizontal : Vertical)
0-5 1:1
5-10 2:1

9.11.5 If, due to space limitation, excavations near property lines or existing structures are performed in a vertical position, slot cuts, braced shorings or shields may be used for supporting vertical excavations. Therefore, in order to comply with the local and state safety regulations, a properly designed and installed shoring system would be required to accomplish planned excavations and installation. A Specialty Shoring Contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of such a shoring system during construction.

9.11.6 Braced shorings should be designed for a maximum pressure distribution of 30H, (where H is the depth of the excavation in feet). The foregoing does not include excess hydrostatic pressure or surcharge loading. Fifty percent of any surcharge load, such as construction equipment weight, should be added to the lateral load given herein. Equipment traffic should concurrently be limited to an area at least 3 feet from the shoring face or edge of the slope.

9.11.7 The excavation and shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from the borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. SALEM Engineering Group, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. Slope height, slope

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2184 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 22 -
inclination, or excavation depth should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulation, (e.g. OSHA) standards for excavations, 29 CFR part 1926, or Assessor’s regulations.

9.12 Underground Utilities

9.12.1 Underground utility trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material. The material excavated from the trenches should be adequate for use as backfill provided it does not contain deleterious matter, vegetation or rock larger than 3 inches in maximum dimension.

Trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction at or above optimum moisture content.

9.12.2 Bedding and pipe zone backfill typically extends from the bottom of the trench excavations to approximately 6 to 12 inches above the crown of the pipe. Pipe bedding and backfill material should conform to the requirements of the governing utility agency.

9.12.3 It is suggested that underground utilities crossing beneath new or existing structures be plugged at entry and exit locations to the building or structure to prevent water migration. Trench plugs can consist of on-site clay soils, if available, or sand cement slurry. The trench plugs should extend 2 feet beyond each side of individual perimeter foundations.

9.12.4 The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.

9.13 Surface Drainage

9.13.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change to important engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.

9.13.2 The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet.

9.13.3 Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the buildings foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project.

Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over-irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed.

9.13.4 Roof drains should be installed with appropriate downspout extensions out-falling on splash blocks so as to direct water a minimum of 5 feet away from the structures or be connected to the storm drain system for the development.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2185 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 23 -

9.14 Pavement Design

9.14.1 Based on site soil conditions and laboratory test results, an R-value of 35 was used for the preliminary flexible asphaltic concrete pavement design. The R-value may be verified during grading of the pavement areas.

9.14.2 The asphaltic concrete (flexible pavement) is based on a 20 year pavement life for traffic indexes of 5.0 (light duty for vehicular parking and drive), 5.5 (medium duty for vehicular traffic with 1- 2 semi-trucks per week) and 6.0 (heavy duty for truck traffic with 1-2 semi-trucks per day). If higher traffic loading is anticipated, SALEM should be contacted to provide revised pavement thickness recommendations.

TABLE 9.14.2

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Traffic Index Asphaltic
Concrete
Crushed
Aggregate Base*
Compacted
Subgrade*

5.0 (Light Duty) 3.0" 4.0" 24.0"

5.5 (Medium Duty) 3.0" 5.5" 24.0"

6.0 (Heavy Duty) 3.0" 7.0" 24.0"
*95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

9.14.3 The following recommendations are for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.

TABLE 9.14.3

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Traffic Index Portland Cement
Concrete*
Crushed
Aggregate Base**
Compacted
Subgrade**

5.0 (Light Duty) 5.0" 4.0" 24.0"

5.5 (Medium Duty) 5.5" 4.0" 24.0"

6.0 (Heavy Duty) 6.0" 4.0" 24.0"
* Min Compressive Strength of 4,500 psi; Min Reinforcement of #4 bars at 18" O.C., E.W. ** 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557 Test Method

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2186 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 24 -

9.15 Concrete Paver Design

9.15.1 The following recommendations are for concrete paver sections.

TABLE 9.15.1

CONCRETE PAVER
Traffic Index Concrete Paver*
Crushed Aggregate
Base**
Compacted
Subgrade**

5.0 (Light Duty) 80 mm 6.0" 24.0"

5.5 (Medium Duty) 100 mm 8.0" 24.0"

6.0 (Heavy Duty) 100 mm 10.0" 24.0"
* Minimum Compressive Strength of 8,000 psi
** 95% compaction based on ASTM D1557-07 Test Method

9.15.2 A layer of Tensar NX850 geogrid should be placed on top of the prepared subgrade prior to placement of Aggregate Base.

9.15.3 The thickness of aggregate base should meet the manufacturer’s requirement. The aggregate base should consist entirely of crushed rock and rock dust (no recycled materials).

9.15.4 The bedding sand, joint sand, water sealer and stain sealer should be properly applied/installed per manufacturer’s specifications. The joint sand (e.g. HP Polymeric Sand) should be resistant to water erosion (rain, splashes, sprinklers, etc.), weed growth, and insect invasion. The joints should be resealed periodically to protect the paver.

9.16 Temporary Fire Access Road

9.16.1 The temporary access roads will support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighting 94,000 pounds for all-weather driving capabilities during the time of construction.

9.16.2 The temporary access road should consist of a minimum of 6 inches of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. The road should have a minimum un-obstructed width of 20 feet. The subgrade soil should be scarified to depths of 12 inches, moisture condition to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction prior to placing aggregate base.

9.16.3 All surface water should be directed away from the road. The road should be maintained, inspected and tested periodically. Additional moisture conditioning and recompaction will be required if the road conditions deteriorate. A bituminous surface treatment (seal coat) may be applied to the compacted aggregate base surface to minimize disturbance.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2187 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 25 -

10. PLAN REVIEW, CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

10.1 Plan and Specification Review

10.1.1 SALEM should review the project plans and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.

10.2 Construction Observation and Testing Services

10.2.1 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will continue as Geotechnical Engineer of Record throughout the construction phase. It is important to maintain continuity of geotechnical interpretation and confirm that field conditions encountered are similar to those anticipated during design. If we are not retained for these services, we cannot assume any responsibility for others interpretation of our recommendations, and therefore the future performance of the project.

10.2.2 SALEM or certified testing and inspection engineer (typical) should be present at the site during site preparation to observe site clearing, preparation of exposed surfaces after clearing, and placement, treatment and compaction of fill material.

10.2.3 SALEM's observations should be supplemented with periodic compaction tests to establish substantial conformance with these recommendations. Moisture content of footings and slab subgrade should be tested immediately prior to concrete placement. SALEM should observe foundation excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to assess whether the actual bearing conditions are compatible with the conditions anticipated during the preparation of this report.

11. LIMITATIONS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The report does not reflect variations which may occur between borings. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction is initiated. If variations then appear, a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report will be necessary after performing on-site observations during the excavation period and noting the characteristics of such variations. The findings and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present and for the proposed construction.

If site conditions change due to natural processes or human intervention on the property or adjacent to the site, or changes occur in the nature or design of the project, or if there is a substantial time lapse between the submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, the conclusions and recommendations contained in our report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by SALEM and the conclusions of our report are modified or verified in writing.

The validity of the recommendations contained in this report is also dependent upon an adequate testing and observations program during the construction phase. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts or recommendations unless we have been retained to perform the onPage 1650 of 2023 AGENDA ITEM #14.1 Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2188 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 - 26 -
site testing and review during construction. SALEM has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the owner and project design consultants.

SALEM does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. It is recommended that a qualified corrosion engineer be consulted regarding protection of buried steel or ductile iron piping and conduit or, at a minimum, that manufacturer’s recommendations for corrosion protection be closely followed. Further, a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of concrete slabs and foundations in direct contact with native soil.

The importation of soil and or aggregate materials to the site should be screened to determine the potential for corrosion to concrete and buried metal piping. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the area. No other warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.

If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 980-6455.

Respectfully Submitted,
SALEM ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Jared Christiansen, MS, EIT
Geotechnical Staff Engineer
Ibrahim Foud Ibrahim, PE Clarence Jiang, GE
Senior Managing Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
RCE 86724 RGE 2477

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2189 of 3061 Source Image: U.S. Geological Survey, Indio Quadrangle, Riverside County, California , 2021

VICINITY MAP

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, California
SCALE: DATE
:

NOT TO SCALE07/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY
:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. 3-222-0678
1 SITE LOCATION
N

SITE PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, California
SCALE: DATE
:

NOT TO SCALE09/2022
DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY
:

JC CJ
PROJECT NO. FIGURE NO. 3-222-0678 2
LEGEND:

Soil Boring Locations
Percolation Locations
All Locations Approximate B-1
N
B-2
B-1
B-3
P-1
B-4
B-6
P-1
B-7
B-8
P-2
B-5
B-9
P-3
P-4
B-10
P-5
P-9
P-12
P-11
P-16
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-10
P-13
P-14
P-15

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2192 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 A-1

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION
Fieldwork for our investigation (drilling) was conducted on July 7, July 8, September 6, and September 7, 2022 and included a site visit, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Boring logs for our exploration are presented in figures following the text in this appendix. Borings were located in the field using existing reference points.

Therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.

In general, our borings were performed using a truck-mounted CME-45C drill rig equipped with 6½-inch hollow stem augers. Sampling in the borings was accomplished using a hydraulic 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Samples were obtained with a 3-inch outside-diameter (OD), split spoon (California Modified) sampler, and a 2-inch OD, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches (or fraction thereof) of the 18-inch sampling interval were recorded on the boring logs. The blow counts shown on the boring logs should not be interpreted as standard SPT “N” values; corrections have not been applied. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with drill cuttings.

Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). This system uses the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) for soil designations. The logs depict soil and geologic conditions encountered and depths at which samples were obtained. The logs also include our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, drill rig penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the field logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2193 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
10/6
12/6
23/6
9/6
20/6
20/6
5/6
10/6
13/6
3/6
9/6
10/6
8/6
13/6
16/6
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. Grades as above; moist. Grades as above. Silty SAND Medium dense; very moist; light
brown; fine grain sand. Grades as above; slighty moist; mottled light gray/light brown. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG. 35 40
23 19
29 2.1

8.6 11.7

15.5 2.9

97.2 90.3
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-1 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -8' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number A1

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2194 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
3/6
11/6
14/6
8/6
10/6
11/6
8/6
14/6
14/6
6/6
6/6
11/6
9/6
12/6
14/6
4/6
8/6
8/6
SM
ML
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; very moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above; slightly moist;
mottled brown/light brown. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine to medium grain sand. Grades as above; very moist. Sandy SILT Very stiff; very moist; brown.
25 21
28 17
26 16

6.5 13.2

4.1 9.3

13.6 15.5
103.1

97.0 -
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-2 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -10' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
2

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2195 of 3061 30 35
40 45
50 55
60 -40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
8/6
13/6
13/6
7/6
11/6
14/6
3/6
6/6
9/6
12/6
24/6
26/6
8/6
10/6
20/6
SM
ML
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Medium dense; slightly moist;
mottled lgiht brown/gray; fine grain
sand. Grades as above. SILT
Stiff; wet; brown; with trace clay. Silty SAND
Dense; very moist; brown; fine to
medium grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; very moist; brown; fine
grain sand. End of boring at 51.5 feet BSG.
26 25
15 50
30 6.3

6.1 34.0

13.3 14.5
-
-
-
-
-

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Test Boring: B-2
Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks 2

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2196 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
5/6
14/6
16/6
8/6
17/6
22/6
7/6
12/6
14/6
6/6
12/6
10/6
6/6
9/6
10/6
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; light brown; dry. Grades as above; light brown. Silty SAND Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above. Grades as above. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG. 30 39
26 22
19 6.8

9.5 8.0

6.0 8.7
102.3
105.4
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-3 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -9' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2197 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
10/6
14/6
15/6
4/6
5/6
7/6
4/6
9/6
14/6
4/6
10/6
11/6
7/6
13/6
11/6
ML
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. Grades as above; stiff; moist; light
brown. Grades as above; very stiff; fine
grain sand. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above; mottled brown/
light gray. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG.
29 12
23 21
24 2.0

11.1 18.8

8.1 19.9

93.8 88.9
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-4 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -7' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2198 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
3/6
7/6
15/6
3/6
9/6
15/6
8/6
11/6
10/6
7/6
14/6
15/6
6/6
12/6
13/6
ML
SM
Sandy SILT
Very stiff; moist; brown; fine grain
sand. Grades as above; wet. Silty SAND
Medium dense; moist; light brown;
fine grain sand. Grades as above; slightly moist;
light brown/gray. Grades as above; moist. End of boring at 21.5 feet BSG. 22 24
21 29
25 9.7

20.3 8.7

3.5 6.6

96.2 96.2
-
-
-
Test Boring: B-5 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -11' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2199 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
3/6
4/6
7/6
3/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
3/6
3/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Loose; moist; light gray. Grades as above; very loose; wet; brown. Sandy Silt
Firm; very moist; brown; fine grain
sand. End of boring at 10 feet BSG.
11 4
6 5.8

18.5 15.2
113.1
-
-
Test Boring: B-6 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -8' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2200 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
6/6
6/6
7/6
3/6
3/6
3/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Loose; moist; mottled light brown/
light gray; fine grain sand. Sandy SILT
Firm; moist; mottled light brown/
light gray; fine grain sand. End of boring at 5 feet BSG. 13 6 17.9

11.0 90.2
-
Test Boring: B-7 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -6' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2201 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
16/6
16/6
18/6
7/6
8/6
10/6
ML Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; fine to medium grain
sand; with gravel. Grades as above; dry; fine grain
sand. End of boring at 5 feet BSG. 34
18 2.4

4.5 112.4
-
Test Boring: B-8 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -11' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2202 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
13/6
9/6
25/6
6/6
8/6
13/6
6/6
10/6
11/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Medium dense; dry; light brown;
fine grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; moist; light brown. Grades as above; with fine sand. End of boring at 10 feet BSG. 34 21
21 1.6

4.7 8.4
100.3
-
-
Test Boring: B-9 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -7' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2203 of 3061 0 5
10 15
20 25
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
14/6
19/6
29/6
7/6
10/6
14/6
SM
ML
Silty SAND
Demse; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. Sandy SILT
Very stiff; dry; light brown; fine
grain sand. End of boring at 5 feet BSG. 48
24 1.7

2.3 98.4
-
Test Boring: B-10 Page 1 Of:

Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date: 07/07/2022
Client: Can Do LLC
Project: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Location: NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 Indio, California Drilled By: SALEM Logged By: KY
Drill Type: CME 45C Elevation: -8' Auger Type: 6.5 in. Hollow Stem Auger Initial Depth to Groundwater: N/A Hammer Type: Automatic Trip - 140 lb/ 30 in Final Depth to Groundwater:

Notes:

Figure Number

ELEVATION/
DEPTH
(feet)

SOIL SYMBOLS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

AND FIELD TEST DATA
USCS Soil Description
N-Values blows/ft. Moisture Content %
Dry Density, PCF Remarks
1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2204 of 3061 Granular Soils Cohesive Soils
Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected) Blows Per Foot (Uncorrected)

MCS SPT MCS SPT
Very loose <5 <4 Very soft <3 <2
Loose 5-15 4-10 Soft 3-5 2-4
Medium dense 16-40 11-30 Firm 6-10 5-8
Dense 41-65 31-50 Stiff 11-20 9-15
Very dense >65 >50 Very Stiff 21-40 16-30
Hard >40 >30
MCS = Modified California Sampler
SPT = Standard Penetration Test Sampler
Notes:

Soil Samplers
California sampler
Standard penetration test

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2205 of 3061 Project: Job No.:

SM/SC Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-1 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 118 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 9.8 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:40 11:10 11.8 Y 0:30 9.00 9.32 3.84 30 7.8 34.0 30.2 32.1 0.45 11:10 11:40 11.8 N 0:30 9.32 9.55 2.76 30 10.9 30.2 27.4 28.8 0.36 11:40 12:10 11.8 N 0:30 9.55 9.75 2.40 30 12.5 27.4 25.0 26.2 0.34 12:10 12:40 11.8 N 0:30 9.75 9.90 1.80 30 16.7 25.0 23.2 24.1 0.28 12:40 13:10 11.8 N 0:30 9.90 10.05 1.80 30 16.7 23.2 21.4 22.3 0.30 13:10 13:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.05 10.18 1.56 30 19.2 21.4 19.8 20.6 0.28 13:40 14:10 11.8 N 0:30 10.18 10.30 1.44 30 20.8 19.8 18.4 19.1 0.27 14:10 14:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.30 10.42 1.44 30 20.8 18.4 17.0 17.7 0.29 14:40 15:10 11.8 N 0:30 10.42 10.52 1.20 30 25.0 17.0 15.8 16.4 0.26 15:10 15:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.52 10.62 1.20 30 25.0 15.8 14.6 15.2 0.28 15:40 16:10 11.8 N 0:30 10.62 10.71 1.08 30 27.8 14.6 13.5 14.0 0.27 16:10 16:40 11.8 N 0:30 10.71 10.79 0.96 30 31.3 13.5 12.5 13.0 0.26 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.26
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
Percolation Test Worksheet
7/7/2022
7/7/2022
7/8/2022
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, CA
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification:
3-222-0678

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-2 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 60 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 5.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:46 11:16 5.5 Y 0:30 2.78 3.32 6.48 30 4.6 32.6 26.2 29.4 0.83 11:16 11:46 5.5 N 0:30 3.32 3.72 4.80 30 6.2 26.2 21.4 23.8 0.75 11:46 12:16 5.5 N 0:30 3.72 4.04 3.84 30 7.8 21.4 17.5 19.4 0.72 12:16 12:46 5.5 N 0:30 4.04 4.30 3.12 30 9.6 17.5 14.4 16.0 0.69 12:46 13:16 5.5 N 0:30 4.30 4.51 2.52 30 11.9 14.4 11.9 13.1 0.67 13:16 13:46 5.5 N 0:30 4.51 4.69 2.16 30 13.9 11.9 9.7 10.8 0.68 13:47 14:17 5.5 Y 0:30 2.98 3.40 5.04 30 6.0 30.2 25.2 27.7 0.68 14:17 14:47 5.5 N 0:30 3.40 3.73 3.96 30 7.6 25.2 21.2 23.2 0.63 14:47 15:17 5.5 N 0:30 3.73 4.02 3.48 30 8.6 21.2 17.8 19.5 0.65 15:17 15:47 5.5 N 0:30 4.02 4.26 2.88 30 10.4 17.8 14.9 16.3 0.63 15:47 16:17 5.5 N 0:30 4.26 4.47 2.52 30 11.9 14.9 12.4 13.6 0.65 16:17 16:47 5.5 N 0:30 4.47 4.65 2.16 30 13.9 12.4 10.2 11.3 0.65 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.63
Percolation Test Worksheet
7/7/2022
7/7/2022
7/8/2022
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42
Indio, CA

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-3 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 10.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
11:25 11:55 12.0 Y 0:30 7.85 8.42 6.84 30 4.4 49.8 43.0 46.4 0.57 11:55 12:25 12.0 N 0:30 8.42 8.88 5.52 30 5.4 43.0 37.4 40.2 0.52 12:25 12:55 12.0 N 0:30 8.88 9.26 4.56 30 6.6 37.4 32.9 35.2 0.49 12:55 13:25 12.0 N 0:30 9.26 9.60 4.08 30 7.4 32.9 28.8 30.8 0.50 13:25 13:55 12.0 N 0:30 9.60 9.89 3.48 30 8.6 28.8 25.3 27.1 0.48 13:55 14:25 12.0 N 0:30 9.89 10.15 3.12 30 9.6 25.3 22.2 23.8 0.48 14:25 14:55 12.0 N 0:30 10.15 10.38 2.76 30 10.9 22.2 19.4 20.8 0.48 14:55 15:25 12.0 N 0:30 10.38 10.58 2.40 30 12.5 19.4 17.0 18.2 0.47 15:25 15:55 12.0 N 0:30 10.58 10.76 2.16 30 13.9 17.0 14.9 16.0 0.48 15:55 16:25 12.0 N 0:30 10.76 10.92 1.92 30 15.6 14.9 13.0 13.9 0.48 16:25 16:55 12.0 N 0:30 10.92 11.06 1.68 30 17.9 13.0 11.3 12.1 0.48 16:55 17:25 12.0 N 0:30 11.06 11.19 1.56 30 19.2 11.3 9.7 10.5 0.50 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.47
7/8/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 7/7/2022
Indio, CA
7/7/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-4 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 60 in.

Tested by: JC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 5.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:25 10:50 5.5 Y 0:25 3.38 4.72 16.08 25 1.6 25.4 9.4 17.4 3.98 10:51 11:16 5.5 Y 0:25 3.41 4.67 15.12 25 1.7 25.1 10.0 17.5 3.72 11:17 11:27 5.5 Y 0:10 3.54 4.09 6.60 10 1.5 23.5 16.9 20.2 3.56 11:27 11:37 5.5 N 0:10 4.09 4.50 4.92 10 2.0 16.9 12.0 14.5 3.59 11:37 11:47 5.5 N 0:10 4.50 4.80 3.60 10 2.8 12.0 8.4 10.2 3.54 11:48 11:58 5.5 Y 0:10 3.68 4.19 6.12 10 1.6 21.8 15.7 18.8 3.53 11:58 12:08 5.5 Y 0:10 4.19 4.57 4.56 10 2.2 15.7 11.2 13.4 3.54 12:08 12:18 5.5 N 0:10 4.57 4.85 3.36 10 3.0 11.2 7.8 9.5 3.51 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 3.51
7/8/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 7/7/2022
Indio, CA
7/7/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-5 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 40.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
8:07 8:32 43.0 Y 0:25 4.06 14.42 124.32 25 0.2 467.3 343.0 405.1 1.47 8:32 8:57 43.0 N 0:25 14.42 21.16 80.88 25 0.3 343.0 262.1 302.5 1.27 8:57 9:07 43.0 N 0:10 21.16 23.29 25.56 10 0.4 262.1 236.5 249.3 1.22 9:07 9:17 43.0 N 0:10 23.29 25.17 22.56 10 0.4 236.5 214.0 225.2 1.19 9:17 9:27 43.0 N 0:10 25.17 26.84 20.04 10 0.5 214.0 193.9 203.9 1.17 9:27 9:37 43.0 N 0:10 26.84 28.33 17.88 10 0.6 193.9 176.0 185.0 1.15 9:37 9:47 43.0 N 0:10 28.33 29.70 16.44 10 0.6 176.0 159.6 167.8 1.16 9:47 9:57 43.0 N 0:10 29.70 30.94 14.88 10 0.7 159.6 144.7 152.2 1.16 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.15
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-6 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 34.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
8:02 8:27 36.0 Y 0:25 3.95 12.93 107.76 25 0.2 384.6 276.8 330.7 1.55 8:27 8:52 36.0 N 0:25 12.93 18.69 69.12 25 0.4 276.8 207.7 242.3 1.36 8:52 9:02 36.0 N 0:10 18.69 20.38 20.28 10 0.5 207.7 187.4 197.6 1.22 9:02 9:12 36.0 N 0:10 20.38 21.89 18.12 10 0.6 187.4 169.3 178.4 1.21 9:12 9:22 36.0 N 0:10 21.89 23.26 16.44 10 0.6 169.3 152.9 161.1 1.21 9:22 9:32 36.0 N 0:10 23.26 24.51 15.00 10 0.7 152.9 137.9 145.4 1.22 9:32 9:42 36.0 N 0:10 24.51 25.63 13.44 10 0.7 137.9 124.4 131.2 1.21 9:42 9:52 36.0 N 0:10 25.63 26.64 12.12 10 0.8 124.4 112.3 118.4 1.21 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.21
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-7 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 20.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
8:04 8:29 23.0 Y 0:25 4.09 6.77 32.16 25 0.8 226.9 194.8 210.8 0.73 8:29 8:54 23.0 N 0:25 6.77 8.68 22.92 25 1.1 194.8 171.8 183.3 0.59 8:54 9:04 23.0 N 0:10 8.68 9.32 7.68 10 1.3 171.8 164.2 168.0 0.54 9:04 9:14 23.0 N 0:10 9.32 9.88 6.72 10 1.5 164.2 157.4 160.8 0.50 9:14 9:24 23.0 N 0:10 9.88 10.40 6.24 10 1.6 157.4 151.2 154.3 0.48 9:24 9:34 23.0 N 0:10 10.40 10.88 5.76 10 1.7 151.2 145.4 148.3 0.46 9:34 9:44 23.0 N 0:10 10.88 11.34 5.52 10 1.8 145.4 139.9 142.7 0.46 9:44 9:54 23.0 N 0:10 11.34 11.80 5.52 10 1.8 139.9 134.4 137.2 0.48 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.46
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM/ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-8 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 38.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 1.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:06 10:31 39.0 Y 0:25 4.02 13.35 111.96 25 0.2 419.8 307.8 363.8 1.47 10:31 10:56 39.0 N 0:25 13.35 19.56 74.52 25 0.3 307.8 233.3 270.5 1.31 10:56 11:06 39.0 N 0:10 19.56 21.47 22.92 10 0.4 233.3 210.4 221.8 1.23 11:06 11:16 39.0 N 0:10 21.47 23.12 19.80 10 0.5 210.4 190.6 200.5 1.17 11:16 11:26 39.0 N 0:10 23.12 24.60 17.76 10 0.6 190.6 172.8 181.7 1.16 11:26 11:36 39.0 N 0:10 24.60 25.96 16.32 10 0.6 172.8 156.5 164.6 1.18 11:36 11:46 39.0 N 0:10 25.96 27.20 14.88 10 0.7 156.5 141.6 149.0 1.18 11:46 11:56 39.0 N 0:10 27.20 28.31 13.32 10 0.8 141.6 128.3 134.9 1.17 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.16
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-9 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.5 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:11 10:36 20.0 Y 0:25 4.00 6.86 34.32 25 0.7 192.0 157.7 174.8 0.93 10:36 11:01 20.0 N 0:25 6.86 9.03 26.04 25 1.0 157.7 131.6 144.7 0.85 11:01 11:11 20.0 N 0:10 9.03 9.80 9.24 10 1.1 131.6 122.4 127.0 0.86 11:11 11:21 20.0 N 0:10 9.80 10.54 8.88 10 1.1 122.4 113.5 118.0 0.89 11:21 11:31 20.0 N 0:10 10.54 11.12 6.96 10 1.4 113.5 106.6 110.0 0.75 11:31 11:41 20.0 N 0:10 11.12 11.67 6.60 10 1.5 106.6 100.0 103.3 0.75 11:41 11:51 20.0 N 0:10 11.67 12.19 6.24 10 1.6 100.0 93.7 96.8 0.76 11:51 12:01 20.0 N 0:10 12.19 12.68 5.88 10 1.7 93.7 87.8 90.8 0.76 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.75
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-10 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 30.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:15 10:40 30.5 Y 0:25 4.09 7.75 43.92 25 0.6 316.9 273.0 295.0 0.71 10:40 11:05 30.5 N 0:25 7.75 10.52 33.24 25 0.8 273.0 239.8 256.4 0.62 11:05 11:15 30.5 N 0:10 10.52 11.46 11.28 10 0.9 239.8 228.5 234.1 0.57 11:15 11:25 30.5 N 0:10 11.46 12.32 10.32 10 1.0 228.5 218.2 223.3 0.55 11:25 11:35 30.5 N 0:10 12.32 13.15 9.96 10 1.0 218.2 208.2 213.2 0.56 11:35 11:45 30.5 N 0:10 13.15 13.94 9.48 10 1.1 208.2 198.7 203.5 0.55 11:45 11:55 30.5 N 0:10 13.94 14.67 8.76 10 1.1 198.7 190.0 194.3 0.54 11:55 12:05 30.5 N 0:10 14.67 15.40 8.76 10 1.1 190.0 181.2 185.6 0.56 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.54
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-11 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
10:18 10:43 20.0 Y 0:25 4.07 6.82 33.00 25 0.8 191.2 158.2 174.7 0.90 10:43 11:08 20.0 N 0:25 6.82 8.93 25.32 25 1.0 158.2 132.8 145.5 0.82 11:08 11:18 20.0 N 0:10 8.93 9.64 8.52 10 1.2 132.8 124.3 128.6 0.78 11:18 11:28 20.0 N 0:10 9.64 10.33 8.28 10 1.2 124.3 116.0 120.2 0.81 11:28 11:38 20.0 N 0:10 10.33 10.92 7.08 10 1.4 116.0 109.0 112.5 0.74 11:38 11:48 20.0 N 0:10 10.92 11.45 6.36 10 1.6 109.0 102.6 105.8 0.71 11:48 11:58 20.0 N 0:10 11.45 11.96 6.12 10 1.6 102.6 96.5 99.5 0.72 11:58 12:08 20.0 N 0:10 11.96 12.44 5.76 10 1.7 96.5 90.7 93.6 0.72 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.71
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-12 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 34.5 ft. Pipe Stick up: 0.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
12:15 12:40 35.0 Y 0:25 4.00 12.83 105.96 25 0.2 372.0 266.0 319.0 1.58 12:40 13:05 35.0 N 0:25 12.83 18.84 72.12 25 0.3 266.0 193.9 230.0 1.49 13:05 13:15 35.0 N 0:10 18.84 20.71 22.44 10 0.4 193.9 171.5 182.7 1.46 13:15 13:25 35.0 N 0:10 20.71 22.35 19.68 10 0.5 171.5 151.8 161.6 1.44 13:25 13:35 35.0 N 0:10 22.35 23.78 17.16 10 0.6 151.8 134.6 143.2 1.42 13:35 13:45 35.0 N 0:10 23.78 25.04 15.12 10 0.7 134.6 119.5 127.1 1.41 13:45 13:55 35.0 N 0:10 25.04 26.15 13.32 10 0.8 119.5 106.2 112.9 1.39 13:55 14:05 35.0 N 0:10 26.15 27.13 11.76 10 0.9 106.2 94.4 100.3 1.38 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.38
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-13 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
12:18 12:43 20.0 Y 0:25 4.00 6.21 26.52 25 0.9 192.0 165.5 178.7 0.70 12:43 13:08 20.0 N 0:25 6.21 7.92 20.52 25 1.2 165.5 145.0 155.2 0.63 13:08 13:18 20.0 N 0:10 7.92 8.48 6.72 10 1.5 145.0 138.2 141.6 0.56 13:18 13:28 20.0 N 0:10 8.48 9.00 6.24 10 1.6 138.2 132.0 135.1 0.55 13:28 13:38 20.0 N 0:10 9.00 9.52 6.24 10 1.6 132.0 125.8 128.9 0.57 13:38 13:48 20.0 N 0:10 9.52 10.00 5.76 10 1.7 125.8 120.0 122.9 0.55 13:48 13:58 20.0 N 0:10 10.00 10.43 5.16 10 1.9 120.0 114.8 117.4 0.52 13:58 14:08 20.0 N 0:10 10.43 10.86 5.16 10 1.9 114.8 109.7 112.3 0.54 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.52
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-14 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 38.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 2.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
15:12 15:37 40.0 Y 0:25 4.01 14.33 123.84 25 0.2 431.9 308.0 370.0 1.60 15:37 16:02 40.0 N 0:25 14.33 21.22 82.68 25 0.3 308.0 225.4 266.7 1.48 16:02 16:12 40.0 N 0:10 21.22 23.35 25.56 10 0.4 225.4 199.8 212.6 1.43 16:12 16:22 40.0 N 0:10 23.35 25.20 22.20 10 0.5 199.8 177.6 188.7 1.40 16:22 16:32 40.0 N 0:10 25.20 26.83 19.56 10 0.5 177.6 158.0 167.8 1.38 16:32 16:42 40.0 N 0:10 26.83 28.28 17.40 10 0.6 158.0 140.6 149.3 1.38 16:42 16:52 40.0 N 0:10 28.28 29.57 15.48 10 0.6 140.6 125.2 132.9 1.38 16:52 17:02 40.0 N 0:10 29.57 30.73 13.92 10 0.7 125.2 111.2 118.2 1.39 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.38
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: ML Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-15 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 26.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 4.5 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
15:05 15:30 30.5 Y 0:25 4.11 11.31 86.40 25 0.3 316.7 230.3 273.5 1.51 15:30 15:55 30.5 N 0:25 11.31 16.12 57.72 25 0.4 230.3 172.6 201.4 1.36 15:55 16:05 30.5 N 0:10 16.12 17.56 17.28 10 0.6 172.6 155.3 163.9 1.25 16:05 16:15 30.5 N 0:10 17.56 18.70 13.68 10 0.7 155.3 141.6 148.4 1.09 16:15 16:25 30.5 N 0:10 18.70 19.75 12.60 10 0.8 141.6 129.0 135.3 1.10 16:25 16:35 30.5 N 0:10 19.75 20.72 11.64 10 0.9 129.0 117.4 123.2 1.12 16:35 16:45 30.5 N 0:10 20.72 21.66 11.28 10 0.9 117.4 106.1 111.7 1.19 16:45 16:55 30.5 N 0:10 21.66 22.52 10.32 10 1.0 106.1 95.8 100.9 1.20 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 1.09
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

Project: Job No.: 3-222-0678
Date Drilled:

Soil Classification: SM Hole Radius: 4 in.

Pipe Dia.: 3 in.

Test Hole No.: P-16 Presoaking Date: Total Depth of Hole: 120 in.

Tested by: CC Test Date:

Drilled Hole Depth: 17.0 ft. Pipe Stick up: 3.0 ft.

Time Start
Time
Finish
Depth of
Test Hole
(ft)#
RefillYes or
No
Elapsed
Time
(hrs:min)
Initial
Water
Level# (ft)
Final
Water
Level# (ft)
Δ Water
Level (in.) Δ Min.

Meas.

Perc Rate
(min/in)
Initial
Height of
Water (in)
Final
Height of
Water (in)
Average
Height of
Water (in)
Tested
Infiltration Rate
It (in/hr)
15:24 15:49 20.0 Y 0:25 4.03 6.95 35.04 25 0.7 191.6 156.6 174.1 0.95 15:49 16:14 20.0 N 0:25 6.95 9.54 31.08 25 0.8 156.6 125.5 141.1 1.04 16:14 16:24 20.0 N 0:10 9.54 10.32 9.36 10 1.1 125.5 116.2 120.8 0.91 16:24 16:34 20.0 N 0:10 10.32 10.99 8.04 10 1.2 116.2 108.1 112.1 0.85 16:34 16:44 20.0 N 0:10 10.99 11.55 6.72 10 1.5 108.1 101.4 104.8 0.76 16:44 16:54 20.0 N 0:10 11.55 12.04 5.88 10 1.7 101.4 95.5 98.5 0.70 16:54 17:04 20.0 N 0:10 12.04 12.51 5.64 10 1.8 95.5 89.9 92.7 0.71 17:04 17:14 20.0 N 0:10 12.51 12.94 5.16 10 1.9 89.9 84.7 87.3 0.69 Tested Infiltration Rate, It 0.69
9/7/2022
Percolation Test Worksheet
Proposed Multi-Tenant Development
NEC Jackson Street & Avenue 42 9/6/2022
Indio, CA
9/6/2022

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
In-situ data type:

Analysis type:

Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Standard Penetration Test
Deterministic
NCEER 1998
Robertson & Wride
Depth to water table:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground accelaration:

User defined F.S.:

35.00 ft

8.20 1.14 g

1.30 Project title : 3-222-0678
Project subtitle : Indio
Salem Engineering Group, Inc.
8711 Monroe Court, Suite A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 980-6455
N1(60)cs
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CSR*

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 8
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve
No Liquefaction
Liquefaction
Shear stress ratio

CSR CRR
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
SPT data graph
Field SPT N1(60)
N1(60)cs
0 10 20 30 40 50
Depth (ft)

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Factor of safety
F.S. F.S.=1
0 1 2 3 4 5

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
Settlements (in)
Total Point

0.02 0.04 0.06

50.00 48.00

46.00 44.00

42.00 40.00

38.00 36.00

34.00 32.00

30.00 28.00

26.00 24.00

22.00 20.00

18.00 16.00

14.00 12.00

10.00 8.00

6.00 4.00

2.00 0.00
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 1

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2222 of 3061 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Field input data ::

Point ID Field NSPT
(blows/feet)
Depth
(ft)
Unit weight
(pcf)
Fines content
(%)
1 2.00 16.00 120.00 42.00
2 5.00 13.00 120.00 86.00
3 10.00 28.00 120.00 60.00
4 15.00 17.00 120.00 46.00
5 20.00 26.00 120.00 20.00
6 25.00 16.00 120.00 85.00
7 30.00 26.00 120.00 20.00
8 35.00 25.00 120.00 20.00
9 40.00 15.00 120.00 99.00
10 45.00 50.00 120.00 20.00
11 50.00 30.00 120.00 53.00
Depth :

Field SPT :

Unit weight :

Fines content :

Depth from free surface, at which SPT was performed (ft) SPT blows measured at field (blows/feet)
Bulk unit weight of soil at test depth (pcf)
Percentage of fines in soil (%)
:: Cyclic Stress Ratio calculation (CSR fully adjusted and normalized) ::

Point ID Sigma
(tsf)
Depth
(ft)
u
(tsf)
Sigma'
(tsf)
rd CSR MSF CSReq,M=7.5 Ksigma CSR*
1 2.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 1.00 0.74 0.80 0.93 1.00 0.93
2 5.00 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.99 0.73 0.80 0.92 1.00 0.92
3 10.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.98 0.72 0.80 0.91 1.00 0.91
4 15.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.97 0.72 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.90
5 20.00 1.20 0.00 1.20 0.95 0.71 0.80 0.89 0.97 0.91
6 25.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 0.94 0.70 0.80 0.88 0.93 0.94
7 30.00 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.93 0.69 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.97
8 35.00 2.10 0.00 2.10 0.89 0.66 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.95
9 40.00 2.40 0.16 2.24 0.85 0.67 0.80 0.85 0.86 0.99
10 45.00 2.70 0.31 2.39 0.81 0.68 0.80 0.85 0.85 1.01
11 50.00 3.00 0.47 2.53 0.77 0.67 0.80 0.85 0.84 1.01
Depth :

Sigma :
u :

Sigma' :
rd :

CSR :

MSF :

CSReq,M=7.5
Ksigma
CSR*
Depth from free surface, at which SPT was performed (ft) Total overburden pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf) Water pressure at test point, during earthquake (tsf)
Effective overburden pressure, during earthquake (tsf)
Nonlinear shear mass factor
Cyclic Stress Ratio
Magnitude Scaling Factor
CSR adjusted for M=7.5
Effective overburden stress factor
CSR fully adjusted
:: Cyclic Resistance Ratio calculation CRR7.5 ::

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 1 16.00 1.70 0.86 1.00 0.75 1.20 21.08 19.50 40.58 2.00 2 13.00 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.20 19.15 38.78 57.93 2.00 3 28.00 1.32 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.20 36.62 50.35 86.97 2.00 4 17.00 1.08 1.04 1.00 0.95 1.20 21.73 22.28 44.01 2.00 5 26.00 0.93 1.11 1.00 0.95 1.20 30.70 11.51 42.22 2.00 6 16.00 0.83 1.18 1.00 0.95 1.20 17.95 35.91 53.86 2.00 7 26.00 0.76 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.20 29.68 11.13 40.81 2.00 8 25.00 0.71 1.32 1.00 1.00 1.20 27.89 10.46 38.34 2.00 9 15.00 0.68 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 16.37 38.47 54.85 2.00 10 50.00 0.66 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 52.90 19.84 72.74 2.00 11 30.00 0.64 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 30.83 36.99 67.82 2.00 LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 2

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2223 of 3061 This software is licensed to : Salem Engineering Group Inc. :: Cyclic Resistance Ratio calculation CRR7.5 ::

Point ID C Field SPT N n Ce Cb Cr Cs 1(60) DeltaN CRR N1(60)cs 7.5 Cn :

Ce :

Cb :

Cr
:

Cs :

N1(60) :

DeltaN :

N1(60)cs :

CRR7.5) :

Overburden corretion factor
Energy correction factor
Borehole diameter correction factor
Rod length correction factor
Liner correction factor
Corrected NSPT
Addition to corrected NSPT value due to the presence of fines Corected N1(60) value for fines
Cyclic resistance ratio for M=7.5
:: Settlements calculation for saturated sands ::

Point ID N N1(60) 1 FSL ev
(%)
Settle.
(in)
1 40.58 33.81 1.66 0.02 0.00
2 57.93 48.27 1.67 0.02 0.00
3 86.97 72.47 1.69 0.02 0.00
4 44.01 36.68 1.71 0.02 0.00
5 42.22 35.18 1.68 0.02 0.00
6 53.86 44.88 1.63 0.03 0.00
7 40.81 34.01 1.59 0.03 0.00
8 38.34 31.95 1.61 0.03 0.00
9 54.85 45.70 1.56 0.03 0.02
10 72.74 60.62 1.53 0.04 0.02
11 67.82 56.52 1.52 0.04 0.01
Total settlement : 0.06
N1,(60):

N1:

FSL:
ev:

Settle.:

Stress normalized and corrected SPT blow count
Japanese equivalent corrected value
Calculated factor of safety
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain (%)
Calculated settlement (in)
:: Liquefaction potential according to Iwasaki ::

Point ID w FI z L
1 0.00 9.70 0.00
2 0.00 9.24 0.00
3 0.00 8.48 0.00
4 0.00 7.71 0.00
5 0.00 6.95 0.00
6 0.00 6.19 0.00
7 0.00 5.43 0.00
8 0.00 4.67 0.00
9 0.00 3.90 0.00
10 0.00 3.14 0.00
11 0.00 2.38 0.00
Overall potential IL : 0.00
IL = 0.00 - No liquefaction
IL between 0.00 and 5 - Liquefaction not probable
IL between 5 and 15 - Liquefaction probable
IL > 15 - Liquefaction certain
LiqIT v.4.7.7.1 - Soil Liquefaction Assesment Software 3

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2224 of 3061

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2225 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 B-1

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Caltrans, or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for in-situ dry density and moisture content, corrosivity, consolidation, shear strength, maximum density and optimum moisture content, R-value and grain size distribution. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in the following figures.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2226 of 3061

CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
02468
10 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED

CONSOLIDATION

REBOUND

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-2 @ 2'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:

Dry Density:

6.5%
103.1 pcf
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678

COLLAPSE

CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE TEST DATA
ASTM D2435
02468
10 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

VOLUME CHANGE IN PERCENT

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT
SOAKED

CONSOLIDATION

REBOUND

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0
Boring: B-4 @ 5'
20 30 40 50 60 80
Moisture Content:

Dry Density:

11.1%

88.9 pcf
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678

COLLAPSE

Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number:

Client:

Sample Location:

Sample Type:

Soil Classification:

Tested By:

Reviewed By:

Date:

Equipment Used:

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.000 2.000 3.000
Shear Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.720 1.464 1.946
Residual Shear Stress (ksf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height of Sample before Shear (in.) 1 1 1
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.416 2.416 2.416
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%) 27.1 30.1 30.6
Dry Density (pcf) 88.8 88.2 94.7
Slope 0.61
Friction Angle 31.5
Cohesion (psf) 151
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
3-222-0678

2.0 Peak Shear Strength Values
Can Do LLC
B-1 @ 2'
Undisturbed Ring
ML
M. Noorzay
CJ
7/12/2022
Geomatic Direct Shear Machine

0.004

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress

31.5 °
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear Stress psi)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1 ksf 2 ksf 3 ksf

Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number:

Client:

Sample Location:

Sample Type:

Soil Classification:

Tested By:

Reviewed By:

Date:

Equipment Used:

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Normal Stress (ksf) 1.000 2.000 3.000
Shear Rate (in/min)
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.864 1.308 2.076
Residual Shear Stress (ksf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Initial Height of Sample (in) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height of Sample before Shear (in.) 1 1 1
Diameter of Sample (in) 2.416 2.416 2.416
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%) 32.5 33.3 31.1
Dry Density (pcf) 96.4 92.2 92.7
Slope 0.61
Friction Angle 31.2
Cohesion (psf) 204
Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080)
3-222-0678

12.7 Peak Shear Strength Values
Can Do LLC
B-2 @ 5'
Undisturbed Ring
ML
M. Noorzay
CJ
7/13/2022
Geomatic Direct Shear Machine

0.004

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
0 1 2 3 4
Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress vs. Shear Stress

31.2 °
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shear Stress psi)
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Horizontal Displacement vs. Shear Stress
1 ksf 2 ksf 3 ksf

PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-1 @ 2'
#100 75.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 55.2%
-
#16 99.6%
#30 99.2%
#50 93.2%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.9%
0% 45% 55%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2231 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 2'
#100 77.4% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 41.8%
-
#16 99.9%
#30 99.8%
#50 96.9%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 58% 42%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2232 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 5'
#100 96.9% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 86.2%
-
#16 99.9%
#30 99.3%
#50 99.1%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 14% 86%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2233 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 15'
#100 64.2% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 46.4%
-
#16 99.8%
#30 96.4%
#50 80.3%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 54% 46%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2234 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 25'
#100 95.6% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 84.8%
-
#16 98.3%
#30 97.9%
#50 97.5%
#8 98.6%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.0%
1% 14% 85%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2235 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 40'
#100 99.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 99.3%
-
#16 99.7%
#30 99.6%
#50 99.6%
#8 99.9%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 1% 99%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2236 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-2 @ 50'
#100 75.5% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 52.8%
-
#16 96.2%
#30 93.9%
#50 89.6%
#8 97.8%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 99.4%
1% 47% 53%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2237 of 3061 PL= LL= PI=
D85= D60= D50=
D30= D15= D10=
Cu= N/A Cc= N/A
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Boring: B-4 @ 5'
#100 97.0% USCS CLASSIFICATION
#200 87.9%
-
#16 100.0%
#30 99.9%
#50 99.6%
#8 100.0%
Sieve Size Percent Passing Atterberg Limits
3/4 inch 100.0%
1/2 inch 100.0%
3/8 inch 100.0% Coefficients
#4 100.0%
0% 12% 88%

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
GRADATION TEST - ASTM C136
Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Silt/Clay
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2238 of 3061 Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date Sampled: 7/7/22 Date Tested: 7/14/22
Sampled By: KY Tested By: M. Noorzay
Soil Description: Silty SAND (SM)
2800 mg/kg 183 mg/kg
2900 mg/kg 183 mg/kg
2800 mg/kg 179 mg/kg
2833 mg/kg 182 mg/kg
SO4 - Modified CTM 417 & Cl - Modified CTM 417/422

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
1a.

Sample
Number
Sample
Location
Soluble Sulfate
SO4-S
Soluble Chloride
Cl pH

7.7 7.7
B-2 @ 0 - 3'

7.7 Average: 7.7
1b.
1c.

B-2 @ 0 - 3'
B-2 @ 0 - 3'

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2239 of 3061 Laboratory Compaction Curve
ASTM D1557
Project Name: Proposed Multi-Tenant Development- Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date Sampled: 7/7/22 Date Tested: 7/18/22
Sampled By: KY Tested By: M. Noorzay
Sample Location: B-2 @ 0 - 3' Soil
Description: Light Brown Silty SAND (SM)
Test Method: Method B
1 2 3 4
Weight of Moist Specimen & Mold, (g) 6118.6 6184.1 6227.8 6210.1 Weight of Compaction Mold, (g) 4280.2 4280.2 4280.2 4280.2 Weight of Moist Specimen, (g) 1838.4 1903.9 1947.6 1929.9 Volume of Mold, (ft3) 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333
Wet Density, (pcf) 121.6 125.9 128.8 127.6
Weight of Wet (Moisture) Sample, (g) 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 Weight of Dry (Moisture) Sample, (g) 184.8 181.0 177.4 173.9 Moisture Content, (%) 8.2% 10.5% 12.7% 15.0%
Dry Density, (pcf) 112.3 114.0 114.3 111.0
95 100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Dry Density, pcf
Moisture Content, % of Dry Weight
Maximum Dry Density: pcf
Optimum Moisture Content: %
114.5

12.0

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2240 of 3061 Date Tested: 7/13/22
Tested By: BD
Project Name: Multi Tenant Dev - Indio
Project Number: 3-222-0678
Date Sampled: 7/7/22
Sampled By: SEG
Sample Location: B-10 @ 0 - 3'
Soil Description: Silty SAND (SM)
1 2 3
642.8 296.8 166.4

10.2 11.2 12.4
118.7 118.7 117.4
290 173 30

4.8 6.2 7.3

2.7 1.6 0.3
52 38 27
Specimen
Resistance R-Value
and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils
ASTM D2844
Controlling R-Value 38
Exudation Pressure, psi
Moisture at Test, %
Dry Density, pcf
Expansion Pressure, psf
Thickness by Stabilometer, in.

Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in
R-Value by Stabilometer
R-Value by Expansion Pressure N/A
R-Value at 300 psi Exudation Pressure 38
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
R- Value
Exudation Pressure, psi

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0

6.0 7.0

8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0

12.0 13.0

14.0 15.0

16.0 17.0

18.0 19.0

20.0 21.0

22.0 23.0

24.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0
Cover Thickness by Stabilometer, in.

Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure, in.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2241 of 3061

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2242 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 C-1

APPENDIX C

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence.

1.0 SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials.

2.0 PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of SALEM Engineering Group, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect.

No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.

The Contractor shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers.

3.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to no less that 95 percent of relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils) based on ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition), UBC or CAL-216, or as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be determined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer.

4.0 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2243 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 C-2

5.0 DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill.

6.0 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site.

Tree root systems in proposed improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree root excavations is not permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.

7.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill and/or building or slab loads shall be prepared as outlined above, scarified to a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils).

Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture-conditioned as necessary and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction (90 percent for fine grained cohesive soils). All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any fill material.

8.0 EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements.

9.0 FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer.

10.0 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. Compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface-compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2244 of 3061 Project No. 3-222-0678 C-3

11.0 SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified.

12.0 DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term “Standard Specifications”: hereinafter referred to, is the most recent edition of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method (latest edition) or California Test Method 216 (CAL216), as applicable.

13.0 PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans.

The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% (90% for fine grained cohesive soil) based upon ASTM D1557. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.

14.0 AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class II material, ¾-inch or 1½-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon CAL-216. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.

15.0 AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class II Subbase material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based upon CAL-216, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with the Standard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.

16.0 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans.

The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be PG 64-10, unless otherwise stipulated or local conditions warrant more stringent grade. The mineral aggregate shall be Type A or B, ½ inch maximum size, medium grading, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel-wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in the Standard Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved selfpropelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2245 of 3061 2014 Whitewater River Region WQMP
Golf Course - Indio
Appendix F
Structural BMP and/or Retention Facility Sizing Calculations and Design Details

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2246 of 3061 DA-1
DA-1
DA-2
DA-2
DA-3
DA-3
DA-4
DA-4
DA-5
DA-5
DA-6
DA-6
DA-7
DA-7
1P
UIS-1
2P
UIS-2
3P
UIS-3
4P
UIS-4
5P
UIS-5
6P
UIS-6
7P
UIS-7
Routing Diagram for 22031- PR- Drainage
Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2247 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
CN Description
(subcatchment-numbers)

2.558 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4, DA-5, DA-6, DA-7)

5.329 98 Paved parking, HSG A (DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4, DA-5, DA-6, DA-7)

7.887 86 TOTAL AREA

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2248 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (all nodes)
Area
(acres)
Soil
Group
Subcatchment
Numbers

5.329 HSG A DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4, DA-5, DA-6, DA-7

2.558 HSG B DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4, DA-5, DA-6, DA-7

0.000 HSG C

0.000 HSG D

0.000 Other

7.887 TOTAL AREA

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2249 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Ground Covers (all nodes)
HSG-A
(acres)
HSG-B
(acres)
HSG-C
(acres)
HSG-D
(acres)
Other
(acres)
Total
(acres)
Ground
Cover
Subcatchment
Numbers

0.000 2.558 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.558 >75% Grass cover, Good DA-1, DA-2,
DA-3,
DA-4,
DA-5,
DA-6,
DA-7

5.329 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.329 Paved parking DA-1, DA-2,
DA-3,
DA-4,
DA-5,
DA-6,
DA-7

5.329 2.558 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.887 TOTAL AREA

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2250 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Time span=5.00-20.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 301 points
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN
Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Pond 1P: UIS-1 Peak Elev=495.82' Storage=0.048 af Inflow=0.71 cfs 0.066 af Outflow=0.02 cfs 0.018 af
Pond 2P: UIS-2 Peak Elev=493.06' Storage=0.178 af Inflow=2.75 cfs 0.252 af Outflow=0.06 cfs 0.075 af
Pond 3P: UIS-3 Peak Elev=487.30' Storage=0.071 af Inflow=1.60 cfs 0.143 af Outflow=0.07 cfs 0.076 af
Pond 4P: UIS-4 Peak Elev=486.86' Storage=0.107 af Inflow=2.48 cfs 0.221 af Outflow=0.11 cfs 0.120 af
Pond 5P: UIS-5 Peak Elev=486.20' Storage=0.126 af Inflow=2.23 cfs 0.201 af Outflow=0.07 cfs 0.075 af
Pond 6P: UIS-6 Peak Elev=484.84' Storage=0.310 af Inflow=4.89 cfs 0.486 af Outflow=0.16 cfs 0.176 af
Pond 7P: UIS-7 Peak Elev=488.48' Storage=0.282 af Inflow=4.32 cfs 0.411 af Outflow=0.13 cfs 0.129 af

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2251 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Pond 1P: UIS-1
[82] Warning: Early inflow requires earlier time span
Inflow Area = 0.300 ac, 66.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.62" for INDIO event Inflow = 0.71 cfs @ 9.96 hrs, Volume= 0.066 af
Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 602.5 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 495.82' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 0.013 ac Storage= 0.048 af Plug-Flow detention time= 243.7 min calculated for 0.018 af (27% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 68.3 min ( 789.6 - 721.3 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 490.32' 0.023 af 10.33'W x 55.77'L x 6.75'H Field A

0.089 af Overall - 0.031 af Embedded = 0.058 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 491.07' 0.031 af ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap x 12 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 1 rows = 79.0 cf

0.054 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 490.32' 1.170 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 10.00'
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 20.00 hrs HW=495.82' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.02 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2252 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Pond 1P: UIS-1 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap (ADS StormTech® MC-4500 with cap volume) Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 1 rows = 79.0 cf
12 Chambers/Row x 4.02' Long +2.73' Cap Length x 2 = 53.77' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 55.77' Base Length
1 Rows x 100.0" Wide + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 10.33' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 60.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 6.75' Field Height 12 Chambers x 106.5 cf + 39.5 cf Cap Volume x 2 x 1 Rows = 1,356.9 cf Chamber Storage 3,889.7 cf Field - 1,356.9 cf Chambers = 2,532.8 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,013.1 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 2,370.0 cf = 0.054 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 60.9%
Overall System Size = 55.77' x 10.33' x 6.75'
12 Chambers
144.1 cy Field

93.8 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2253 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Pond 1P: UIS-1
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)

0.8 0.75

0.7 0.65

0.6 0.55

0.5 0.45

0.4 0.35

0.3 0.25

0.2 0.15

0.1 0.05
0 Inflow Area=0.300 ac
Peak Elev=495.82'
Storage=0.048 af

0.71 cfs

0.02 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2254 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Hydrograph for Pond 1P: UIS-1
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.00 0.000 490.32 0.00

5.50 0.00 0.000 490.34 0.00

6.00 0.01 0.000 490.34 0.01

6.50 0.01 0.000 490.35 0.01

7.00 0.01 0.000 490.37 0.01

7.50 0.02 0.000 490.39 0.02

8.00 0.02 0.001 490.42 0.02

8.50 0.03 0.001 490.50 0.02

9.00 0.05 0.002 490.72 0.02

9.50 0.09 0.004 491.10 0.02

10.00 0.67 0.017 492.30 0.02

10.50 0.12 0.026 493.17 0.02

11.00 0.08 0.029 493.51 0.02

11.50 0.07 0.031 493.77 0.02

12.00 0.06 0.033 494.00 0.02

12.50 0.06 0.035 494.20 0.02

13.00 0.05 0.037 494.37 0.02

13.50 0.05 0.038 494.53 0.02

14.00 0.04 0.039 494.66 0.02

14.50 0.04 0.040 494.77 0.02

15.00 0.04 0.041 494.89 0.02

15.50 0.04 0.042 494.99 0.02

16.00 0.04 0.043 495.10 0.02

16.50 0.03 0.044 495.20 0.02

17.00 0.03 0.044 495.30 0.02

17.50 0.03 0.045 495.39 0.02

18.00 0.03 0.046 495.48 0.02

18.50 0.03 0.046 495.57 0.02

19.00 0.03 0.047 495.66 0.02

19.50 0.03 0.047 495.74 0.02

20.00 0.03 0.048 495.82 0.02

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2255 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Pond 2P: UIS-2
[82] Warning: Early inflow requires earlier time span
Inflow Area = 0.988 ac, 77.23% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.06" for INDIO event Inflow = 2.75 cfs @ 9.95 hrs, Volume= 0.252 af
Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.075 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 602.7 min Discarded = 0.06 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.075 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 493.06' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 0.053 ac Storage= 0.178 af Plug-Flow detention time= 242.3 min calculated for 0.075 af (30% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 67.5 min ( 771.5 - 704.0 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 488.07' 0.076 af 37.58'W x 50.80'L x 6.75'H Field A

0.296 af Overall - 0.105 af Embedded = 0.191 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 488.82' 0.105 af ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap x 40 Inside #1 Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap 40 Chambers in 4 Rows
Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 4 rows = 316.0 cf
#3B 488.07' 0.017 af 10.33'W x 38.73'L x 6.75'H Field B

0.062 af Overall - 0.019 af Embedded = 0.043 af x 40.0% Voids #4B 488.82' 0.019 af ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap x 7 Inside #3 Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 1 rows = 79.0 cf

0.218 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 488.07' 1.170 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 10.00'
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 20.00 hrs HW=493.06' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.06 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2256 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Pond 2P: UIS-2 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap (ADS StormTech® MC-4500 with cap volume) Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 4 rows = 316.0 cf
100.0" Wide + 9.0" Spacing = 109.0" C-C Row Spacing
10 Chambers/Row x 4.02' Long +2.73' Cap Length x 2 = 45.72' Row Length +30.5" End Stone x 2 = 50.80' Base Length
4 Rows x 100.0" Wide + 9.0" Spacing x 3 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 37.58' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 60.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 6.75' Field Height 40 Chambers x 106.5 cf + 39.5 cf Cap Volume x 2 x 4 Rows = 4,575.6 cf Chamber Storage 12,887.3 cf Field - 4,575.6 cf Chambers = 8,311.7 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 3,324.7 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 7,900.3 cf = 0.181 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 61.3%
Overall System Size = 50.80' x 37.58' x 6.75'
40 Chambers
477.3 cy Field
307.8 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2257 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Pond 2P: UIS-2 - Chamber Wizard Field B
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech MC-4500 b +Cap (ADS StormTech® MC-4500 with cap volume) Effective Size= 90.4"W x 60.0"H => 26.46 sf x 4.03'L = 106.5 cf Overall Size= 100.0"W x 60.0"H x 4.33'L with 0.31' Overlap Cap Storage= +39.5 cf x 2 x 1 rows = 79.0 cf
7 Chambers/Row x 4.02' Long +2.73' Cap Length x 2 = 33.64' Row Length +30.5" End Stone x 2 = 38.73' Base Length
1 Rows x 100.0" Wide + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 10.33' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 60.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 6.75' Field Height 7 Chambers x 106.5 cf + 39.5 cf Cap Volume x 2 x 1 Rows = 824.4 cf Chamber Storage 2,701.1 cf Field - 824.4 cf Chambers = 1,876.6 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 750.7 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,575.1 cf = 0.036 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 58.3%
Overall System Size = 38.73' x 10.33' x 6.75'
7 Chambers
100.0 cy Field

69.5 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2258 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Pond 2P: UIS-2
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)
3 2
1 0
Inflow Area=0.988 ac
Peak Elev=493.06'
Storage=0.178 af

2.75 cfs

0.06 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2259 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Hydrograph for Pond 2P: UIS-2
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.03 0.000 488.07 0.00

5.50 0.04 0.001 488.10 0.03

6.00 0.05 0.001 488.12 0.04

6.50 0.06 0.001 488.13 0.05

7.00 0.08 0.002 488.15 0.06

7.50 0.09 0.003 488.20 0.06

8.00 0.10 0.004 488.27 0.06

8.50 0.16 0.007 488.40 0.06

9.00 0.24 0.013 488.66 0.06

9.50 0.37 0.022 488.97 0.06

10.00 2.52 0.072 490.17 0.06

10.50 0.43 0.104 490.97 0.06

11.00 0.30 0.116 491.28 0.06

11.50 0.26 0.125 491.51 0.06

12.00 0.22 0.132 491.70 0.06

12.50 0.20 0.138 491.87 0.06

13.00 0.18 0.144 492.02 0.06

13.50 0.16 0.148 492.15 0.06

14.00 0.14 0.152 492.26 0.06

14.50 0.14 0.155 492.35 0.06

15.00 0.13 0.158 492.43 0.06

15.50 0.13 0.160 492.52 0.06

16.00 0.12 0.163 492.59 0.06

16.50 0.12 0.165 492.67 0.06

17.00 0.12 0.168 492.74 0.06

17.50 0.11 0.170 492.80 0.06

18.00 0.11 0.172 492.86 0.06

18.50 0.10 0.173 492.92 0.06

19.00 0.10 0.175 492.97 0.06

19.50 0.09 0.176 493.02 0.06

20.00 0.09 0.178 493.06 0.06

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2260 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond 3P: UIS-3
[82] Warning: Early inflow requires earlier time span
Inflow Area = 0.531 ac, 84.37% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.24" for INDIO event Inflow = 1.60 cfs @ 9.94 hrs, Volume= 0.143 af
Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 15.93 hrs, Volume= 0.076 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 359.6 min Discarded = 0.07 cfs @ 15.93 hrs, Volume= 0.076 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 487.30' @ 15.93 hrs Surf.Area= 0.155 ac Storage= 0.071 af Plug-Flow detention time= 233.5 min calculated for 0.076 af (53% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 95.2 min ( 791.8 - 696.6 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 486.35' 0.050 af 35.33'W x 73.67'L x 2.50'H Field A

0.149 af Overall - 0.025 af Embedded = 0.124 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 487.10' 0.025 af ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap x 160 Inside #1 Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 160 Chambers in 16 Rows
#3B 486.35' 0.030 af 31.50'W x 45.92'L x 2.83'H Field B

0.094 af Overall - 0.018 af Embedded = 0.076 af x 40.0% Voids #4B 487.10' 0.018 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 54 Inside #3 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 54 Chambers in 9 Rows
#5C 486.35' 0.003 af 10.33'W x 16.71'L x 2.50'H Field C

0.010 af Overall - 0.001 af Embedded = 0.009 af x 40.0% Voids #6C 487.10' 0.001 af ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap x 8 Inside #5 Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 8 Chambers in 4 Rows
#7D 486.35' 0.049 af 24.92'W x 102.15'L x 2.50'H Field D

0.146 af Overall - 0.024 af Embedded = 0.122 af x 40.0% Voids #8D 487.10' 0.024 af ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap x 154 Inside #7 Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 154 Chambers in 11 Rows

0.201 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group C created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group D created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 486.35' 0.160 in/hr Exfiltration- ADS over Wetted area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 420.00'

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2261 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 #2 Discarded 486.35' 0.04 cfs Exfiltration- DRY WELL at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 15.93 hrs HW=487.30' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration- ADS ( Controls 0.03 cfs)
2=Exfiltration- DRY WELL (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2262 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Pond 3P: UIS-3 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-160LP with cap length) Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 10 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.23' Cap Length x 2 = 71.67' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 73.67' Base Length
16 Rows x 25.0" Wide + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 35.33' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 12.0" Chamber Height + 9.0" Stone Cover = 2.50' Field Height 160 Chambers x 6.8 cf = 1,093.9 cf Chamber Storage
6,507.2 cf Field - 1,093.9 cf Chambers = 5,413.3 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,165.3 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 3,259.2 cf = 0.075 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.1%
Overall System Size = 73.67' x 35.33' x 2.50'
160 Chambers
241.0 cy Field
200.5 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2263 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Pond 3P: UIS-3 - Chamber Wizard Field B
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
6 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 43.92' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 45.92' Base Length
9 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 8 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 31.50' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 9.0" Stone Cover = 2.83' Field Height 54 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 796.1 cf Chamber Storage
4,098.4 cf Field - 796.1 cf Chambers = 3,302.3 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,320.9 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 2,117.0 cf = 0.049 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 51.7%
Overall System Size = 45.92' x 31.50' x 2.83'
54 Chambers
151.8 cy Field
122.3 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2264 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Pond 3P: UIS-3 - Chamber Wizard Field C
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-160LP with cap length) Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 2 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.23' Cap Length x 2 = 14.71' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 16.71' Base Length
4 Rows x 25.0" Wide + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 10.33' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 12.0" Chamber Height + 9.0" Stone Cover = 2.50' Field Height 8 Chambers x 6.8 cf = 54.7 cf Chamber Storage
431.6 cf Field - 54.7 cf Chambers = 376.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 150.8 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 205.5 cf = 0.005 af
Overall Storage Efficiency = 47.6%
Overall System Size = 16.71' x 10.33' x 2.50'
8 Chambers

16.0 cy Field

14.0 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2265 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Pond 3P: UIS-3 - Chamber Wizard Field D
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-160LP with cap length) Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 14 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.23' Cap Length x 2 = 100.15' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 102.15' Base Length
11 Rows x 25.0" Wide + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 24.92' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 12.0" Chamber Height + 9.0" Stone Cover = 2.50' Field Height 154 Chambers x 6.8 cf = 1,052.9 cf Chamber Storage
6,362.9 cf Field - 1,052.9 cf Chambers = 5,310.0 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,124.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 3,176.9 cf = 0.073 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 49.9%
Overall System Size = 102.15' x 24.92' x 2.50'
154 Chambers
235.7 cy Field
196.7 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2266 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Pond 3P: UIS-3
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)
1 0
Inflow Area=0.531 ac
Peak Elev=487.30'
Storage=0.071 af

1.60 cfs

0.07 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2267 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Hydrograph for Pond 3P: UIS-3
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.02 0.000 486.35 0.00

5.50 0.03 0.001 486.36 0.02

6.00 0.03 0.001 486.36 0.03

6.50 0.04 0.001 486.37 0.04

7.00 0.05 0.001 486.37 0.04

7.50 0.06 0.001 486.37 0.05

8.00 0.07 0.002 486.38 0.06

8.50 0.10 0.002 486.39 0.07

9.00 0.14 0.005 486.42 0.07

9.50 0.22 0.009 486.50 0.07

10.00 1.34 0.038 486.97 0.07

10.50 0.23 0.053 487.16 0.07

11.00 0.16 0.058 487.20 0.07

11.50 0.14 0.062 487.22 0.07

12.00 0.12 0.064 487.25 0.07

12.50 0.11 0.067 487.26 0.07

13.00 0.10 0.068 487.28 0.07

13.50 0.09 0.069 487.29 0.07

14.00 0.08 0.070 487.29 0.07

14.50 0.07 0.070 487.29 0.07

15.00 0.07 0.070 487.30 0.07

15.50 0.07 0.071 487.30 0.07

16.00 0.07 0.071 487.30 0.07

16.50 0.07 0.070 487.30 0.07

17.00 0.06 0.070 487.30 0.07

17.50 0.06 0.070 487.29 0.07

18.00 0.06 0.070 487.29 0.07

18.50 0.06 0.069 487.29 0.07

19.00 0.05 0.069 487.28 0.07

19.50 0.05 0.068 487.28 0.07

20.00 0.05 0.067 487.27 0.07

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2268 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Pond 4P: UIS-4
[82] Warning: Early inflow requires earlier time span
Inflow Area = 0.843 ac, 81.26% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.15" for INDIO event Inflow = 2.48 cfs @ 9.94 hrs, Volume= 0.221 af
Outflow = 0.11 cfs @ 15.87 hrs, Volume= 0.120 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 355.6 min Discarded = 0.11 cfs @ 15.87 hrs, Volume= 0.120 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 486.86' @ 15.87 hrs Surf.Area= 0.145 ac Storage= 0.107 af Plug-Flow detention time= 230.0 min calculated for 0.119 af (54% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 92.7 min ( 792.6 - 699.9 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 485.49' 0.083 af 50.25'W x 76.67'L x 2.75'H Field A

0.243 af Overall - 0.036 af Embedded = 0.207 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 486.24' 0.036 af ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap x 230 Inside #1 Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 230 Chambers in 23 Rows
#3B 485.49' 0.030 af 50.25'W x 26.83'L x 2.75'H Field B

0.085 af Overall - 0.011 af Embedded = 0.074 af x 40.0% Voids #4B 486.24' 0.011 af ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap x 69 Inside #3 Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 69 Chambers in 23 Rows
#5C 485.49' 0.024 af 10.67'W x 103.48'L x 2.75'H Field C

0.070 af Overall - 0.009 af Embedded = 0.061 af x 40.0% Voids #6C 486.24' 0.009 af ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap x 56 Inside #5 Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 56 Chambers in 4 Rows

0.193 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group C created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 485.49' 0.160 in/hr Exfiltration-ADS over Wetted area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 420.00'
#2 Discarded 485.49' 0.04 cfs Exfiltration- Drywell X 2.00 at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 15.87 hrs HW=486.86' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration-ADS ( Controls 0.03 cfs)
2=Exfiltration- Drywell (Exfiltration Controls 0.08 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2269 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 Pond 4P: UIS-4 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-160LP with cap length) Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 10 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.23' Cap Length x 2 = 71.67' Row Length +30.0" End Stone x 2 = 76.67' Base Length
23 Rows x 25.0" Wide + 14.0" Side Stone x 2 = 50.25' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 12.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 2.75' Field Height 230 Chambers x 6.8 cf = 1,572.5 cf Chamber Storage
10,594.4 cf Field - 1,572.5 cf Chambers = 9,021.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 3,608.7 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 5,181.3 cf = 0.119 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 48.9%
Overall System Size = 76.67' x 50.25' x 2.75'
230 Chambers
392.4 cy Field
334.1 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2270 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Pond 4P: UIS-4 - Chamber Wizard Field B
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-160LP with cap length) Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 3 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.23' Cap Length x 2 = 21.83' Row Length +30.0" End Stone x 2 = 26.83' Base Length
23 Rows x 25.0" Wide + 14.0" Side Stone x 2 = 50.25' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 12.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 2.75' Field Height 69 Chambers x 6.8 cf = 471.8 cf Chamber Storage
3,707.1 cf Field - 471.8 cf Chambers = 3,235.4 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,294.1 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,765.9 cf = 0.041 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 47.6%
Overall System Size = 26.83' x 50.25' x 2.75'
69 Chambers
137.3 cy Field
119.8 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2271 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Pond 4P: UIS-4 - Chamber Wizard Field C
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-160LP +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-160LP with cap length) Effective Size= 18.0"W x 12.0"H => 0.96 sf x 7.12'L = 6.8 cf Overall Size= 25.0"W x 12.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 14 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.23' Cap Length x 2 = 100.15' Row Length +20.0" End Stone x 2 = 103.48' Base Length
4 Rows x 25.0" Wide + 14.0" Side Stone x 2 = 10.67' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 12.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 2.75' Field Height 56 Chambers x 6.8 cf = 382.9 cf Chamber Storage
3,035.4 cf Field - 382.9 cf Chambers = 2,652.5 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,061.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,443.9 cf = 0.033 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 47.6%
Overall System Size = 103.48' x 10.67' x 2.75'
56 Chambers
112.4 cy Field

98.2 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2272 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Pond 4P: UIS-4
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)
2 1
0 Inflow Area=0.843 ac
Peak Elev=486.86'
Storage=0.107 af

2.48 cfs

0.11 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2273 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Hydrograph for Pond 4P: UIS-4
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.03 0.000 485.49 0.00

5.50 0.04 0.001 485.50 0.04

6.00 0.04 0.001 485.50 0.04

6.50 0.06 0.001 485.50 0.05

7.00 0.08 0.001 485.51 0.07

7.50 0.09 0.001 485.51 0.08

8.00 0.10 0.001 485.51 0.09

8.50 0.15 0.002 485.53 0.10

9.00 0.21 0.005 485.58 0.10

9.50 0.33 0.012 485.70 0.10

10.00 2.07 0.057 486.37 0.11

10.50 0.36 0.080 486.59 0.11

11.00 0.25 0.088 486.66 0.11

11.50 0.22 0.093 486.72 0.11

12.00 0.19 0.098 486.76 0.11

12.50 0.17 0.101 486.79 0.11

13.00 0.16 0.103 486.82 0.11

13.50 0.14 0.105 486.84 0.11

14.00 0.12 0.106 486.85 0.11

14.50 0.12 0.106 486.85 0.11

15.00 0.11 0.107 486.86 0.11

15.50 0.11 0.107 486.86 0.11

16.00 0.11 0.107 486.86 0.11

16.50 0.10 0.107 486.86 0.11

17.00 0.10 0.107 486.86 0.11

17.50 0.10 0.106 486.85 0.11

18.00 0.09 0.106 486.85 0.11

18.50 0.09 0.105 486.84 0.11

19.00 0.08 0.104 486.83 0.11

19.50 0.08 0.103 486.82 0.11

20.00 0.08 0.102 486.81 0.11

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2274 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Summary for Pond 5P: UIS-5
[82] Warning: Early inflow requires earlier time span
Inflow Area = 0.837 ac, 73.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.89" for INDIO event Inflow = 2.23 cfs @ 9.95 hrs, Volume= 0.201 af
Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.075 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 603.1 min Discarded = 0.07 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.075 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 486.20' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 0.146 ac Storage= 0.126 af Plug-Flow detention time= 252.5 min calculated for 0.075 af (37% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 91.7 min ( 802.2 - 710.5 )
Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 484.74' 0.099 af 34.75'W x 101.34'L x 4.25'H Field A

0.344 af Overall - 0.096 af Embedded = 0.248 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 485.49' 0.096 af ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap x 91 Inside #1 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 91 Chambers in 7 Rows
#3B 484.74' 0.014 af 5.25'W x 94.22'L x 4.25'H Field B

0.048 af Overall - 0.013 af Embedded = 0.036 af x 40.0% Voids #4B 485.49' 0.013 af ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap x 12 Inside #3 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap #5C 484.74' 0.067 af 25.25'W x 93.22'L x 4.25'H Field C

0.230 af Overall - 0.063 af Embedded = 0.166 af x 40.0% Voids #6C 485.49' 0.063 af ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap x 60 Inside #5 Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 60 Chambers in 5 Rows

0.352 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group C created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 484.74' 0.400 in/hr Exfiltration- ADS over Wetted area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 420.00'
Discarded OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 20.00 hrs HW=486.20' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration- ADS ( Controls 0.07 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2275 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Pond 5P: UIS-5 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-740 with cap length) Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 57.0" C-C Row Spacing
13 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.81' Cap Length x 2 = 94.18' Row Length +43.0" End Stone x 2 = 101.34' Base Length
7 Rows x 51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 6 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 34.75' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 30.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 4.25' Field Height 91 Chambers x 45.9 cf = 4,180.5 cf Chamber Storage
14,967.1 cf Field - 4,180.5 cf Chambers = 10,786.6 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 4,314.6 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 8,495.2 cf = 0.195 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 56.8%
Overall System Size = 101.34' x 34.75' x 4.25'
91 Chambers
554.3 cy Field
399.5 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2276 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 Pond 5P: UIS-5 - Chamber Wizard Field B
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-740 with cap length) Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 12 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.81' Cap Length x 2 = 87.06' Row Length +43.0" End Stone x 2 = 94.22' Base Length
1 Rows x 51.0" Wide + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 5.25' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 30.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 4.25' Field Height 12 Chambers x 45.9 cf = 551.3 cf Chamber Storage
2,102.4 cf Field - 551.3 cf Chambers = 1,551.1 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 620.4 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,171.7 cf = 0.027 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 55.7%
Overall System Size = 94.22' x 5.25' x 4.25'
12 Chambers

77.9 cy Field

57.4 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2277 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 32 Pond 5P: UIS-5 - Chamber Wizard Field C
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-740 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-740 with cap length) Effective Size= 44.6"W x 30.0"H => 6.45 sf x 7.12'L = 45.9 cf Overall Size= 51.0"W x 30.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 57.0" C-C Row Spacing
12 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.81' Cap Length x 2 = 87.06' Row Length +37.0" End Stone x 2 = 93.22' Base Length
5 Rows x 51.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 4 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 25.25' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 30.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 4.25' Field Height 60 Chambers x 45.9 cf = 2,756.4 cf Chamber Storage
10,004.0 cf Field - 2,756.4 cf Chambers = 7,247.6 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,899.1 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 5,655.5 cf = 0.130 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 56.5%
Overall System Size = 93.22' x 25.25' x 4.25'
60 Chambers
370.5 cy Field
268.4 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2278 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 33 Pond 5P: UIS-5
Inflow
Discarded
Hydrograph
Time (hours)
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Flow (cfs)
2 1
0 Inflow Area=0.837 ac
Peak Elev=486.20'
Storage=0.126 af

2.23 cfs

0.07 cfs

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2279 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Hydrograph for Pond 5P: UIS-5
Time
(hours)
Inflow
(cfs)
Storage
(acre-feet)
Elevation
(feet)
Discarded
(cfs)

5.00 0.02 0.000 484.74 0.00

5.50 0.02 0.001 484.75 0.01

6.00 0.03 0.001 484.76 0.02

6.50 0.04 0.001 484.76 0.03

7.00 0.06 0.002 484.77 0.04

7.50 0.07 0.002 484.78 0.05

8.00 0.08 0.003 484.79 0.06

8.50 0.12 0.004 484.81 0.06

9.00 0.18 0.008 484.88 0.06

9.50 0.29 0.015 485.00 0.06

10.00 1.97 0.055 485.59 0.07

10.50 0.35 0.079 485.79 0.07

11.00 0.24 0.088 485.87 0.07

11.50 0.21 0.095 485.92 0.07

12.00 0.18 0.100 485.97 0.07

12.50 0.17 0.104 486.01 0.07

13.00 0.15 0.108 486.04 0.07

13.50 0.13 0.111 486.07 0.07

14.00 0.12 0.113 486.09 0.07

14.50 0.11 0.115 486.10 0.07

15.00 0.11 0.117 486.12 0.07

15.50 0.11 0.118 486.13 0.07

16.00 0.10 0.120 486.14 0.07

16.50 0.10 0.121 486.15 0.07

17.00 0.10 0.122 486.16 0.07

17.50 0.09 0.123 486.17 0.07

18.00 0.09 0.124 486.18 0.07

18.50 0.09 0.125 486.19 0.07

19.00 0.08 0.125 486.19 0.07

19.50 0.08 0.126 486.20 0.07

20.00 0.08 0.126 486.20 0.07

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2280 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 Summary for Pond 6P: UIS-6
[82] Warning: Early inflow requires earlier time span
Inflow Area = 1.964 ac, 76.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.97" for INDIO event Inflow = 4.89 cfs @ 10.00 hrs, Volume= 0.486 af
Outflow = 0.16 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.176 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 600.0 min Discarded = 0.16 cfs @ 20.00 hrs, Volume= 0.176 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 484.84' @ 20.00 hrs Surf.Area= 0.289 ac Storage= 0.310 af Plug-Flow detention time= 241.7 min calculated for 0.175 af (36% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 80.8 min ( 790.6 - 709.7 )

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2281 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description
#1A 482.95' 0.042 af 37.67'W x 47.75'L x 3.08'H Field A

0.127 af Overall - 0.022 af Embedded = 0.105 af x 40.0% Voids #2A 483.70' 0.022 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 66 Inside #1 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 66 Chambers in 11 Rows
#3B 482.95' 0.048 af 20.50'W x 101.43'L x 3.08'H Field B

0.147 af Overall - 0.026 af Embedded = 0.121 af x 40.0% Voids #4B 483.70' 0.026 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 78 Inside #3 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 78 Chambers in 6 Rows
#5C 482.95' 0.011 af 17.17'W x 26.39'L x 3.08'H Field C

0.032 af Overall - 0.005 af Embedded = 0.027 af x 40.0% Voids #6C 483.70' 0.005 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 15 Inside #5 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 15 Chambers in 5 Rows
#7D 482.95' 0.016 af 17.17'W x 40.63'L x 3.08'H Field D

0.049 af Overall - 0.008 af Embedded = 0.041 af x 40.0% Voids #8D 483.70' 0.008 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 25 Inside #7 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 25 Chambers in 5 Rows
#9E 482.95' 0.033 af 27.17'W x 51.59'L x 3.08'H Field E

0.099 af Overall - 0.016 af Embedded = 0.083 af x 40.0% Voids #10E 483.70' 0.016 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 48 Inside #9 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 48 Chambers in 8 Rows
#11F 482.95' 0.026 af 27.17'W x 40.63'L x 3.08'H Field F

0.078 af Overall - 0.014 af Embedded = 0.065 af x 40.0% Voids #12F 483.70' 0.014 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 40 Inside #11 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 40 Chambers in 8 Rows
#13G 482.95' 0.015 af 13.83'W x 47.75'L x 3.08'H Field G

0.047 af Overall - 0.008 af Embedded = 0.039 af x 40.0% Voids #14G 483.70' 0.008 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 24 Inside #13 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 24 Chambers in 4 Rows
#15H 482.95' 0.025 af 20.50'W x 53.37'L x 3.08'H Field H

0.077 af Overall - 0.014 af Embedded = 0.063 af x 40.0% Voids #16H 483.70' 0.014 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 42 Inside #15 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 42 Chambers in 6 Rows
#17I 482.95' 0.025 af 10.50'W x 104.71'L x 3.08'H Field I

0.078 af Overall - 0.014 af Embedded = 0.064 af x 40.0% Voids

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2282 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 37 #18I 483.70' 0.014 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 42 Inside #17 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 42 Chambers in 3 Rows
#19J 482.95' 0.051 af 21.00'W x 104.71'L x 3.08'H Field J

0.156 af Overall - 0.028 af Embedded = 0.127 af x 40.0% Voids #20J 483.70' 0.028 af ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap x 84 Inside #19 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap 84 Chambers in 6 Rows

0.451 af Total Available Storage
Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group B created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group C created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group D created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group E created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group F created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group G created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group H created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group I created with Chamber Wizard
Storage Group J created with Chamber Wizard
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Discarded 482.95' 0.210 in/hr Exfiltration-ADS over Wetted area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 420.00'
#2 Discarded 482.95' 0.04 cfs Exfiltration- DRYWELL X 2.00 at all elevations Discarded OutFlow Max=0.16 cfs @ 20.00 hrs HW=484.84' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration-ADS ( Controls 0.08 cfs)
2=Exfiltration- DRYWELL (Exfiltration Controls 0.08 cfs)

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2283 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 38 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field A
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
6 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 43.92' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 47.75' Base Length
11 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 10 + 9.0" Side Stone x 2 = 37.67' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 66 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 973.0 cf Chamber Storage
5,546.0 cf Field - 973.0 cf Chambers = 4,573.0 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,829.2 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 2,802.2 cf = 0.064 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.5%
Overall System Size = 47.75' x 37.67' x 3.08'
66 Chambers
205.4 cy Field
169.4 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2284 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 39 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field B
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
13 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 93.76' Row Length +46.0" End Stone x 2 = 101.43' Base Length
6 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 5 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 20.50' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 78 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 1,149.9 cf Chamber Storage
6,411.0 cf Field - 1,149.9 cf Chambers = 5,261.1 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 2,104.5 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 3,254.3 cf = 0.075 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.8%
Overall System Size = 101.43' x 20.50' x 3.08'
78 Chambers
237.4 cy Field
194.9 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2285 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 40 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field C
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
3 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 22.56' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 26.39' Base Length
5 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 4 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 17.17' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 15 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 221.1 cf Chamber Storage
1,397.0 cf Field - 221.1 cf Chambers = 1,175.9 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 470.4 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 691.5 cf = 0.016 af
Overall Storage Efficiency = 49.5%
Overall System Size = 26.39' x 17.17' x 3.08'
15 Chambers

51.7 cy Field

43.6 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2286 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 41 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field D
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
5 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 36.80' Row Length +23.0" End Stone x 2 = 40.63' Base Length
5 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 4 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 17.17' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 25 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 368.5 cf Chamber Storage
2,150.7 cf Field - 368.5 cf Chambers = 1,782.2 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 712.9 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 1,081.4 cf = 0.025 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 50.3%
Overall System Size = 40.63' x 17.17' x 3.08'
25 Chambers

79.7 cy Field

66.0 cy Stone

Resolution Nos. 10405, No. 10406, No. 10407, and No. 10409 and Ordinance... Page 2287 of 3061 22-031- Hydro CAD- Post Drainage Study
22031- PR- Drainage Type I 24-hr INDIO Rainfall=4.50"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 3/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 11911 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 42 Pond 6P: UIS-6 - Chamber Wizard Field E
Chamber Model = ADS_StormTech SC-310 +Cap (ADS StormTech® SC-310 with cap length) Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap

34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing = 40.0" C-C Row Spacing
6 Chambers/Row x 7.12' Long +0.60' Cap Length x 2 = 43.92' Row Length +46.0" End Stone x 2 = 51.59' Base Length
8 Rows x 34.0" Wide + 6.0" Spacing x 7 + 6.0" Side Stone x 2 = 27.17' Base Width

9.0" Stone Base + 16.0" Chamber Height + 12.0" Stone Cover = 3.08' Field Height 48 Chambers x 14.7 cf = 707.6 cf Chamber Storage
4,321.1 cf Field - 707.6 cf Chambers = 3,613.5 cf Stone x 40.0% Voids = 1,445.4 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage + Stone Storage = 2,153.0 cf = 0.049 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 49.8%
Overall System Size = 51.59' x 27.17' x 3.08'
48 Chambers
160.0 cy Field
133.8 cy Stone