- 1 -
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
A Template for Projects located within the Santa Ana Watershed Region of Riverside County
Project Title: Public Storage
Development No : TBD
Design Review/Case No: PEN24-0154/LWQ24-0034
Original Date Prepared
: July 29, 2024
Revision Date(s) : January 30, 2025, October 14, 2025
Prepared for Compliance with
Regional Board Order No . R8-2010-0033
Template revised June 30, 2016
Contact Information:
Prepared for: Public Storage Inc., 701
Western Avenue Glendale CA 91201,
Andres Friedman 818-405-0011
Prepared by: DRC Engineering Inc., 160
South Old Springs Road #210 Anaheim
Hills CA 92808, Kenny Hostetler, P.E.
Project Manager 714-685-6860 x 339
Preliminary
Final
- 2 -
A Brief Introduction
This Project-Specific WQMP Template for the Santa Ana Region has been prepared to help guide you in documenting compliance for your project. Because th is document has been designed to specifically document compliance, you will need to utilize the WQMP Guidance Document as your “how-to” manual to help guide you through this process. Both the Template and Guidance Document go hand-in-hand, and will help facilitate a well prepared Project-Specif ic WQMP. Below is a flowchart for the layout of thi s Template that will provide the steps required to document compliance.
Section A
Project and Site
Information
Section B
Optimize Site
Utilization
Section C
Delineate Drainage
Management Areas
(DMAs)
Section G
Source Control
BMPs
Section I
Operation,
Maintenance, and
Funding
Section F
Hydromodification
Section E
Alternative
Compliance
Section D
Implement LID
BMPs
Section H
Construction Plan
Checklist
- 3 -
OWNER’S CERTIFICATION
This Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Public Storage Inc. by DRC Engineering Inc. for the Public Storage - Indian Street project.
This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Moreno Valley for Ordinance No. 827 which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a Project-Specific WQMP.
The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the implementation and funding of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. In addition, the property owner accepts responsibility for interim operation and maintenance of Stormwater BMPs until such time as this responsibility is formally transferred to a subsequent owner. 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 the City of Moreno Valley Water Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10).
"I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of law that the provisions of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest."
Owner’s Signature Date
Owner’s Printed Name Owner’s Title/Position
PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION
“The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control measures in this plan meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0033 and any subsequent amendments thereto.”
Preparer’s Signature Date
Preparer’s Printed Name Preparer’s Title/Position
Preparer’s Licensure:
Vice President o/b/o PS Southern Califrornia One, LLC (aka Public Storage) 10/14/2025
Sharon Linder
- 4 -
Table of Contents
Section A: Project and Site Information........................................................................................................ 6 A.1 Maps and Site Plans ............................................................................................................................ 6 A.2 Identify Receiving Waters ................................................................................................................... 7 A.3 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: .................................................................... 7 Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) ..................................................................................... 8 Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) ....................................................................... 10 Section D: Implement LID BMPs ................................................................................................................. 12 D.1 Infiltration Applicability .................................................................................................................... 12 D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment ............................................................................................................ 13 D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment .................................................................................... 15 D.4 Feasibility Assessment Summaries ................................................................................................... 16 D.5 LID BMP Sizing .................................................................................................................................. 17 Section E: Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program) .......................................................................... 18 E.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern .......................................................................................................... 19 E.2 Stormwater Credits ........................................................................................................................... 20 E.3 Sizing Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 20 E.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection .................................................................................................... 21 Section F: Hydromodification ..................................................................................................................... 22 F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis .......................................................................... 22 Section G: Source Control BMPs ................................................................................................................. 24 Section H: Construction Plan Checklist ....................................................................................................... 27 Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding ........................................................................................ 28
- 5 -
List of Tables
Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters ................................................................................................ 7 Table A.2 Other Applicable Permits .............................................................................................................. 7 Table C.1 DMA Classifications ..................................................................................................................... 10 Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas ....................................................................................................... 10 Table C.3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas ..................................................................................................... 10 Table C.4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas ...................................................................... 11 Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs ............................................................................................... 11 Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 12 Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix ............................................................................................. 16 Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs ................................................................................................... 17 Table E.1 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type ........................................................................................ 19 Table E.2 Water Quality Credits .................................................................................................................. 20 Table E.3 Treatment Control BMP Sizing .................................................................................................... 20 Table E.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection .............................................................................................. 21 Table F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary .............................................................................. 22 Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures ............................................................. 24 Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference ............................................................................................. 27
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans ................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix 2: Construction Plans .................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix 3: Soils Information ..................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions ........................................................................................................ 32 Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility ........................................................................................................................ 33 Appendix 6: BMP Design Details ................................................................................................................. 34 Appendix 7: Hydromodification .................................................................................................................. 35 Appendix 8: Source Control ........................................................................................................................ 36 Appendix 9: O&M ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix 10: Educational Materials ......................................................................................................... - 6 -
- 6 -
Section A: Project and Site Information
PROJECT INFORMATION
Type of Project: Commercial
Planning Area: N/A
Community Name: N/A
Development Name: N/A
PROJECT LOCATION
Latitude & Longitude (DMS): 33°55'06"N 117°14'03"W
Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed: Sunnymead Mast er Drainage Plan, Santa Ana River Gross Acres: 3.1
APN(s): 482-190-022
Map Book and Page No.: Map Book 237, Pages 13 and 14
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Proposed or Potential Land Use(s) Self Storage
Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s) 4225
Area of Impervious Project Footprint (SF) 110,913
Total Area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Footprint (SF)/or Replacement 110,913 Does the project consist of offsite road improvemen ts? Y N Does the project propose to construct unpaved roads ? Y N Is the project part of a larger common plan of deve lopment (phased project)? Y N
EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Total area of existing Impervious Surfaces within t he Project limits Footprint (SF) 6,300 Is the project located within any MSHCP Criteria Ce ll? Y N If so, identify the Cell number: N/A
Are there any natural hydrologic features on the pr oject site? Y N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? Y N
If no Geotech. Report, list the NRCS soils type(s) present on the site (A, B, C and/or D) - What is the Water Quality Design Storm Depth for th e project? 0.66 A.1 Maps and Site Plans
When completing your Project-Specific WQMP, include a map of the local vicinity and existing site. In addition, include all grading, drainage, landscape/plant palette and other pertinent construction plans in Appendix 2. At a minimum , your WQMP Site Plan should include the following:
• Drainage Management Areas
• Proposed Structural BMPs
• Drainage Path
• Drainage Infrastructure, Inlets, Overflows
• Source Control BMPs
• Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts
• Impervious Surfaces
• Standard Labeling
• BMP Locations (Lat/Long)
Use your discretion on whether or not you may need to create multiple sheets or can appropriately accommodate these features on one or two sheets. Ke ep in mind that the Co-Permittee plan reviewer must be able to easily analyze your project utilizing this template and its associated site plans and maps.
- 7 -
A.2 Identify Receiving Waters
Using Table A.1 below, list in order of upstream to downstream, the receiving waters that the project site is tributary to. Continue to fill each row with the Receiving Water’s 303(d) listed impairments (if an y), designated beneficial uses, and proximity, if any, to a RARE beneficial use. Include a map of the receiving waters in Appendix 1.
Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters
Receiving Waters EPA Approved 303(d) List
Impairments
Designated
Beneficial Uses
Proximity to RARE
Beneficial Use
Heacock Channel -
Sunnymead Channel
Line B
- - Not a water body classified as RARE
Perris Valley Channel
Hu #802.11 - REC 1, REC 2, WARM, WILD,
RARE 5.1 MILES
San Jacinto River Reach
3, HU #802.11 - AGR, GWR, REC1, REC2,
WARM, WILD, RARE 10.15 MILES
Canyon Lake, HU
#802.11, 802.12 Nutrients MUN, AGR, GWR, REC1,
REC2, COMM, WARM, WILD Not a water body classified as RARE San Jacinto River Reach
1, HU #802.31, 802.32 - MUN, AGR, GWR, REC1,
REC2, WARM, WILD, RARE 16.97 MILES
Lake Elsinore, HU
#802.31
DDT, Nutrients, Organic
Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen,
PCBs, Toxicity
REC1, REC2, COMM, WARM,
WILD, RARE 18.68 MILES
A.3 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project:
Table A.2 Other Applicable Permits
Agency Permit Required
State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Alter ation Agreement Y N State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Ac t (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Cert. Y N US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA Section 404 Permit Y N US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Sectio n 7 Biological Opinion Y N Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage Y N
Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage Y N
Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency Approval (e.g., JPR, DBESP) Y N Other (please list in the space below as required)
City Grading and Building Permit Y N
If yes is answered to any of the questions above, t he Co-Permittee may require proof of approval/coverage from those agencies as applicable including documentation of any associated requirements that may affect this Project-Specific WQMP.
- 8 -
Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles)
Review of the information collected in Section ‘A’ will aid in identifying the principal constraints o n site design and selection of LID BMPs as well as opportu nities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate LID Principles into the site and landscape design. For example, constraints might include impermeable soils, high groundwater, groundwater pollution or contamin ated soils, steep slopes, geotechnical instability, high-intensity land use, heavy pedestrian or vehicu lar traffic, utility locations or safety concerns.
Opportunities might include existing natural areas, low areas, oddly configured or otherwise unbuildable parcels, easements and landscape amenities includin g open space and buffers (which can double as locations for bioretention BMPs), and differences i n elevation (which can provide hydraulic head).
Prepare a brief narrative for each of the site opti mization strategies described below. This narrative will help you as you proceed with your LID design and explain your design decisions to others.
The 2010 Santa Ana MS4 Permit further requires that LID Retention BMPs (Infiltration Only or Harvest and Use) be used unless it can be shown that those BMPs are infeasible. Therefore, it is important that y our narrative identify and justify if there are any con straints that would prevent the use of those catego ries of LID BMPs. Similarly, you should also note opportunities that exist which will be utilized during project design. Upon completion of identifying Constraints and Opportunities, include these on your WQMP Site plan in Appendix 1.
Consideration of “highest and best use” of the disc harge should also be considered. For example, Lake Elsinore is evaporating faster than runoff from natural precipitation can recharge it. Requiring infiltration of 85% of runoff events for projects tributary to Lake Elsinore would only exacerbate current water quality problems associated with Pollutant concentration due to lake water evaporation. In cases where rainfal l events have low potential to recharge Lake Elsinore (i.e. no hydraulic connection between groundwater to Lake Elsinore, or other factors), requiring infi ltration of Urban Runoff from projects is counterproductive to the overall watershed goals. P roject proponents, in these cases, would be allowed to discharge Urban Runoff, provided they used equally effective filtration-based BMPs.
Site Optimization
The following questions are based upon Section 3.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document. Review of the WQMP Guidance Document will help you determine how best to optimize your site and subsequently identify opportunities and/or constraints, and document compliance.
Did you identify and preserve existing drainage patterns? If so, how? If not, why? The site currently drains to the southwest into an existing v-gutter and parkway drain being released to Indian Street. The proposed site will continue to release larger flows that cannot infiltrate onto In dian Street
Did you identify and protect existing vegetation? If so, how? If not, why? There is no existing vegetation to protect.
Did you identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? If so, how? If not, why? Infiltration capacity has been utilized in the proposed underground infiltration chambers Did you identify and minimize impervious area? If so, how? If not, why?
- 9 -
impervious areas have been mimizied to the maximum extent possible.
Did you identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas? If so, how? If not, why? Drainage leads to infiltration chambers. Not Applicable.
- 10 -
Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas
(DMAs)
Utilizing the procedure in Section 3.3 of the WQMP Guidance Document which discusses the methods of delineating and mapping your project site into indi vidual DMAs, complete Table C.1 below to appropriately categorize the types of classificatio n (e.g., Type A, Type B, etc.) per DMA for your pro ject site. Upon completion of this table, this informati on will then be used to populate and tabulate the corresponding tables for their respective DMA classifications.
Table C.1 DMA Classifications
DMA Name or ID Surface Type(s) 12 Area (Sq. Ft.) DMA Type 1 Roofs 44001 Type D
2 Asphalt 63311 Type D
3 Concrete 3601 Type D
4 Ornamental
Landscaping
15950 Type D
5 Ornamental
Landscaping
597 Type D
6 Ornamental
Landscaping
2672 Type D
7 Ornamental
Landscaping
646 Type D
1Reference Table 2-1 in the WQMP Guidance Document to populate this column 2If multi-surface provide back-up
Table C.2 Type ‘A’, Self-Treating Areas
DMA Name or ID Area (Sq. Ft.) Stabilization Type Irrigation Type (if any)
Table C.3 Type ‘B’, Self-Retaining Areas
Self-Retaining Area
Type ‘C’ DMAs that are draining to the Self- Retaining
Area
DMA
Name/ ID
Post-project
surface type
Area
(square
feet)
Storm
Depth
(inches) DMA Name /
ID
[C] from Table C.4 =
Required Retention Depth
(inches)
[A] [B] [C] [D]
= +
∙
- 11 -
Table C.4 Type ‘C’, Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas DMA Receiving Self-Retaining DMA
DMA Name/ ID
Area
(square feet)
Post -project
surface type
Impervious
fraction
Product
DMA name /ID
Area (square
feet) Ratio
[A] [B] [C] = [A] x [B] [D] [C]/[D]
Table C.5 Type ‘D’, Areas Draining to BMPs
DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID
1 Underground Infiltration Chamber (INF)
2 Underground Infiltration Chamber (INF)
3 Underground Infiltration Chamber (INF)
4 Underground Infiltration Chamber (INF)
5 Underground Infiltration Chamber (INF)
6 Underground Infiltration Chamber (INF)
7 Underground Infiltration Chamber (INF)
Note: More than one drainage management area can drain to a single LID BMP, however, one drainage management area may not drain to more than one BMP.
- 12 -
Section D: Implement LID BMPs
D.1 Infiltration Applicability
Is there an approved downstream ‘Highest and Best Use’ for stormwater runoff (see discussion in Chapter
2.4.4 of the WQMP Guidance Document for further details)? Y N If yes has been checked, Infiltration BMPs shall not be used for the site; proceed to section D.3 If no, continue working through this section to imp lement your LID BMPs. It is recommended that you contact your Co-Permittee to verify whether or not your project discharges to an approved downstream ‘Highest and Best Use’ feature.
Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment may be required by the Copermittee to confirm present and past site characteristics that may affect the use of Infiltration BMPs. In addition, the Co-Permittee, at their discretion, may not require a geotechnical report for small projects as described in Chapter 2 of the WQMP Guidance Document. If a geote chnical report has been prepared, include it in Appendix 3. In addition, if a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared, include it in Appendix 4.
Is this project classified as a small project consi stent with the requirements of Chapter 2 of the WQM P Guidance Document?
Y N
Infiltration Feasibility
Table D.1 below is meant to provide a simple means of assessing which DMAs on your site support Infiltration BMPs and is discussed in the WQMP Guid ance Document in Chapter 2.4.5. Check the appropriate box for each question and then list affected DMAs as applicable. If additional space is needed, add a row below the corresponding answer.
Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility
Does the project site… YES NO
…have any DMAs with a seasonal high groundwater mark shallower than 10 feet? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any DMAs located within 100 feet of a water supply well? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have any areas identified by the geotechnical report as posing a public safety risk where infiltration of stormwater could have a negative impact?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have measured in-situ infiltration rates of less than 1.6 inches / hour? X If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…have significant cut and/or fill conditions that w ould preclude in-situ testing of infiltration rates at the final infiltration surface?
X
If Yes, list affected DMAs:
…geotechnical report identify other site-specific factors that would preclude effective and safe infiltration? X Describe here:
If you answered “Yes” to any of the questions above for any DMA, Infiltration BMPs should not be used for those DMAs and you should proceed to the assessment for Harvest and Use below.
- 13 -
D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment
Please check what applies :
☐ Reclaimed water will be used for the non-potable water demands for the project. ☐Downstream water rights may be impacted by Harvest and Use as approved by the Regional Board (verify with the Copermittee).
☒The Design Capture Volume will be addressed using I nfiltration Only BMPs. In such a case, Harvest and Use BMPs are still encouraged, but it w ould not be required if the Design Capture Volume will be infiltrated or evapotranspired.
If any of the above boxes have been checked, Harvest and Use BMPs need not be assessed for the site. If none of the above criteria applies, follow the step s below to assess the feasibility of irrigation use , toilet use and other non-potable uses (e.g., industrial use).
Irrigation Use Feasibility
Complete the following steps to determine the feasi bility of harvesting stormwater runoff for Irrigati on Use BMPs on your site:
Step 1: Identify the total area of irrigated landsc ape on the site, and the type of landscaping used.
Total Area of Irrigated Landscape : Insert Area (Acres) Type of Landscaping (Conservation Design or Active Turf) : List Landscaping Type Step 2: Identify the planned total of all imperviou s areas on the proposed project from which runoff might be feasibly captured and stored for irrigatio n use. Depending on the configuration of buildings and other impervious areas on the site, you may consider the site as a whole, or parts of the site, to evaluate reasonable scenarios for c apturing and storing runoff and directing the stored runoff to the potential use(s) identified in Step 1 above.
Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: Insert Area (Acres)
Step 3: Cross reference the Design Storm depth for the project site (see Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document) with the left column of Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 to determine the minimum area of Effective Irrigated Area per Tributary Impervious Area (EIATIA).
Enter your EIATIA factor : EIATIA Factor
Step 4: Multiply the unit value obtained from Step 3 by the total of impervious areas from Step 2 to develop the minimum irrigated area that would be required.
Minimum required irrigated area : Insert Area (Acres)
Step 5: Determine if harvesting stormwater runoff f or irrigation use is feasible for the project by comparing the total area of irrigated landscape (Step 1) to the minimum required irrigated area (Step 4).
Minimum required irrigated area (Step 4) Available Irrigated Landscape (Step 1) Insert Area (Acres) Insert Area (Acres)
- 14 -
Toilet Use Feasibility
Complete the following steps to determine the feasi bility of harvesting stormwater runoff for toilet flushing uses on your site:
Step 1: Identify the projected total number of dail y toilet users during the wet season, and account for any periodic shut downs or other lapses in occupancy:
Projected Number of Daily Toilet Users: Number of daily Toilet Users Project Type: Enter 'Residential', 'Commercial', ' Industrial' or 'Schools' Step 2: Identify the planned total of all imperviou s areas on the proposed project from which runoff might be feasibly captured and stored for toilet us e. Depending on the configuration of buildings and other impervious areas on the site, you may consider the site as a whole, or parts of the site, to evaluate reasonable scenarios for c apturing and storing runoff and directing the stored runoff to the potential use(s) identified in Step 1 above.
Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: Insert Area (Ac res) Step 3: Enter the Design Storm depth for the projec t site (see Exhibit A) into the left column of Table 2- 2 in Chapter 2 to determine the minimum number or toilet users per tributary impervious acre (TUTIA).
Enter your TUTIA factor: TUTIA Factor
Step 4: Multiply the unit value obtained from Step 3 by the total of impervious areas from Step 2 to develop the minimum number of toilet users that would be required.
Minimum number of toilet users: Required number of toilet users Step 5: Determine if harvesting stormwater runoff f or toilet flushing use is feasible for the project by comparing the Number of Daily Toilet Users (Step 1) to the minimum required number of toilet users (Step 4).
Minimum required Toilet Users (Step 4) Projected nu mber of toilet users (Step 1) Insert Area (Acres) Insert Area (Acres)
Other Non-Potable Use Feasibility
Are there other non-potable uses for stormwater runoff on the site (e.g. industrial use)? See Chapter 2 of the Guidance for further information. If yes, describe below. If no, write N/A.
Insert narrative description here.
Step 1: Identify the projected average daily non-po table demand, in gallons per day, during the wet season and accounting for any periodic shut downs or other lapses in occupancy or operation.
Average Daily Demand: Projected Average Daily Use (gpd) Step 2: Identify the planned total of all imperviou s areas on the proposed project from which runoff might be feasibly captured and stored for the ident ified non-potable use. Depending on the configuration of buildings and other impervious areas on the site, you may consider the site as a whole, or parts of the site, to evaluate reasonab le scenarios for capturing and storing runoff and directing the stored runoff to the potential use(s) identified in Step 1 above.
Total Area of Impervious Surfaces: Insert Area (Acres)
- 15 -
Step 3: Enter the Design Storm depth for the projec t site (see Exhibit A) into the left column of Table 2- 4 in Chapter 2 to determine the minimum demand for non-potable uses per tributary impervious acre.
Enter the factor from Table 2-4: Enter Value
Step 4: Multiply the unit value obtained from Step 3 by the total of impervious areas from Step 2 to develop the minimum number of gallons per day of non-potable use that would be required.
Minimum required use: Minimum use required (gpd)
Step 5: Determine if harvesting stormwater runoff f or other non-potable use is feasible for the project by comparing the projected average daily use (Step 1) to the minimum required non-potable use (Step 4).
Minimum required non-potable use (Step 4) Projected average daily use (Step 1) Minimum use required (gpd) Projected Average Daily Use (gpd)
If Irrigation, Toilet and Other Use feasibility ant icipated demands are less than the applicable minim um values, Harvest and Use BMPs are not required and y ou should proceed to utilize LID Bioretention and Biotreatment per Section 3.4.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document.
D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment
Other LID Bioretention and Biotreatment BMPs as des cribed in Chapter 2.4.7 of the WQMP Guidance Document are feasible on nearly all development sites with sufficient advance planning.
Select one of the following:
☐ LID Bioretention/Biotreatment BMPs will be used for some or all DMAs of the project as noted below in Section D.4 (note the requirements of Section 3.4.2 in the WQMP Guidance Document). ☐ A site-specific analysis demonstrating the technic al infeasibility of all LID BMPs has been performed and is included in Appendix 5. If you pla n to submit an analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of LID BMPs, request a pre- submittal meeting with the Copermittee to discuss this option. Proceed to Section E to document your alternative compliance measures.
- 16 -
D.4 Feasibility Assessment Summaries
From the Infiltration, Harvest and Use, Bioretention and Biotreatment Sections above, complete Table D.2 below to summarize which LID BMPs are technically f easible, and which are not, based upon the established hierarchy.
Table D.2 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix
DMA
Name/ID
LID BMP Hierarchy No LID
(Alternative
Compliance) 1. Infiltration 2. Harvest and use 3. Bioretention 4. Biotreatment 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 For those DMAs where LID BMPs are not feasible, provide a brief narrative below summarizing why they are not feasible, include your technical infeasibility criteria in Appendix 5, and proceed to Section E below to document Alternative Compliance measures for tho se DMAs. Recall that each proposed DMA must pass through the LID BMP hierarchy before alternative compliance measures may be considered.
- 17 -
D.5 LID BMP Sizing
Each LID BMP must be designed to ensure that the De sign Capture Volume will be addressed by the selected BMPs. First , calculate the Design Capture Volume for each LID BMP using the V BMP worksheet in Appendix F of the LID BMP Design Handbook. Second , design the LID BMP to meet the required V BMP using a method approved by the Copermittee. Utilize the worksheets found in the LID BMP Design Handbook or consult with your Copermittee to assist you in correctly sizing your LID BMPs. Complete Table D.3 below to document the Design Capture Volume and the Propo sed Volume for each LID BMP. Provide the completed design procedure sheets for each LID BMP in Appendix 6. You may add additional rows to the table below as needed.
Table D.3 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
Post-
Project
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, I f
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Areas x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
1 44,001 Roofs 1 0.89 39248.9
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume
on Plans
(cubic
feet)
2 63,311 Asphalt 1 0.89 56473.4
3 3,601 Concrete 1 0.89 3212.1
4 15,950 Landscape 0.1 0.11 1761.8
5 597 Landscape 0.1 0.11 65.9
6 2,672 Landscape 0.1 0.11 295.1
7 646 Landscape 0.1 0.11 71.4
AT =
Σ[A]
130,778
Σ= [D]
101128.6
[E]
0.66 F = DxE
12 5562.1
[G]
21,313
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.3.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is obtained from Exhibit A in the WQMP Guidance Document [G] is obtained from a design procedure sheet, such as in LID BMP Design Handbook and placed in Appendix 6
- 18 -
Section E: Alternative Compliance (LID Waiver Program) LID BMPs are expected to be feasible on virtually a ll projects. Where LID BMPs have been demonstrated to be infeasible as documented in Section D, other Treatment Control BMPs must be used (subject to LID waiver approval by the Copermittee). Check one of the following Boxes:
☒ LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all Drainage Management Areas. No alternative complianc e measures are required for this project and thus this Section is not required to be completed.
- Or -
☐ The following Drainage Management Areas are unable to be addressed using LID BMPs. A site- specific analysis demonstrating technical infeasibility of LID BMPs has been approved by the Co- Permittee and included in Appendix 5. Additionally, no downstream regional and/or sub-regional LID BMPs exist or are available for use by the proj ect. The following alternative compliance measures on the following pages are being implement ed to ensure that any pollutant loads expected to be discharged by not incorporating LID BMPs, are fully mitigated.
- 19 -
E.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern
Utilizing Table A.1 from Section A above which noted your project’s receiving waters and their associated EPA approved 303(d) listed impairments, cross refer ence this information with that of your selected Priority Development Project Category in Table E.1 below. If the identified General Pollutant Categori es are the same as those listed for your receiving wat ers, then these will be your Pollutants of Concern and the appropriate box or boxes will be checked on the last row. The purpose of this is to document compliance and to help you appropriately plan for m itigating your Pollutants of Concern in lieu of implementing LID BMPs.
Table E.1 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type
Priority Development
Project Categories and/or
Project Features (check those
that apply)
General Pollutant Categories
Bacterial
Indicators Metals Nutrients Pesticides
Toxic
Organic
Compounds
Sediments Trash &
Debris
Oil &
Grease
Detached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P
Attached Residential
Development P N P P N P P P (2)
Commercial/Industrial
Development P
(3) P P (1) P (1) P (5) P (1) P P
Automotive Repair
Shops N P N N P (4, 5) N P P
Restaurants
(>5,000 ft
2) P N N N N N P P
Hillside Development
(>5,000 ft
2) P N P P N P P P
Parking Lots
(>5,000 ft
2) P(6) P P (1) P (1) P (4) P (1) P P
Retail Gasoline Outlets N P N N P N P P
Project Priority Pollutant(s)
of Concern
P = Potential
N = Not Potential
(1) A potential Pollutant if non-native landscaping exists or is proposed onsite; otherwise not expected (2) A potential Pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas; otherwise not expected (3) A potential Pollutant is land use involving animal waste (4) Specifically petroleum hydrocarbons
(5) Specifically solvents
(6) Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff
- 20 -
E.2 Stormwater Credits
Projects that cannot implement LID BMPs but neverth eless implement smart growth principles are potentially eligible for Stormwater Credits. Utiliz e Table 3-8 within the WQMP Guidance Document to identify your Project Category and its associated Water Quality Credit. If not applicable, write N/A.
Table E.2 Water Quality Credits
Qualifying Project Categories Credit Percentage 2
Total Credit Percentage 1
1Cannot Exceed 50%
2Obtain corresponding data from Table 3-8 in the WQMP Guidance Document
E.3 Sizing Criteria
After you appropriately considered Stormwater Credi ts for your project, utilize Table E.3 below to appropriately size them to the DCV, or Design Flow Rate, as applicable. Please reference Chapter 3.5.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document for further information.
Table E.3 Treatment Control BMP Sizing
DMA
Type/ID
DMA
Area
(square
feet)
Post-
Project
Surface
Type
Effective
Impervious
Fraction, I f
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA
Area x
Runoff
Factor
Enter BMP Name / Identifier Here
[A] [B] [C] [A] x [C]
Design
Storm
Depth
(in)
Minimum
Design
Capture
Volume or
Design Flow
Rate (cubic
feet or cfs)
Total Storm
Water
Credit %
Reduction
Proposed
Volume
or Flow
on Plans
(cubic
feet or
cfs)
AT =
Σ[A]
Σ= [D] [E] F = DxE
G [F] X (1-[H]) [I]
[B], [C] is obtained as described in Section 2.3.1 from the WQMP Guidance Document [E] is for Flow-Based Treatment Control BMPs [E] = .2, for Volume-Based Control Treatment BMPs, [E] obtained from Exhibit A in the WQMP Guidance Document
[G] is for Flow-Based Treatment Control BMPs [G] = 43,560, for Volume-Based Control Treatment BMPs, [G] = 12 [H] is from the Total Credit Percentage as Calculated from Table E.2 above [I] as obtained from a design procedure sheet from the BMP manufacturer and should be included in Appendix 6
- 21 -
E.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Treatment Control BMPs typically provide proprietary treatment mechanisms to treat potential pollutants in runoff, but do not sustain significant biological processes. Treatment Control BMPs must have a removal efficiency of a medium or high effectiveness as quantified below:
• High : equal to or greater than 80% removal efficiency • Medium : between 40% and 80% removal efficiency
Such removal efficiency documentation (e.g., studies, reports, etc.) as further discussed in Chapter 3 .5.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document, must be included in Appendix 6. In addition, ensure that proposed Treatment Control BMPs are properly identified on the WQMP Site Plan in Appendix 1.
Table E.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection
Selected Treatment Control BMP
Name or ID 1
Priority Pollutant (s) of
Concern to Mitigate 2
Removal Efficiency
Percentage 3
1 Treatment Control BMPs must not be constructed within Receiving Waters. In addition, a proposed Treatment Control BMP may be listed more than once if they possess more than one qualifying pollutant removal efficiency. 2 Cross Reference Table E.1 above to populate this column. 3 As documented in a Co-Permittee Approved Study and provided in Appendix 6.
- 22 -
Section F: Hydromodification
F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis
Once you have determined that the LID design is ade quate to address water quality requirements, you will need to assess if the proposed LID Design may still create a HCOC. Review Chapters 2 and 3 (including Figure 3-7) of the WQMP Guidance Document to determ ine if your project must mitigate for Hydromodification impacts. If your project meets one of the following criteria which will be indicated by the check boxes below, you do not need to address H ydromodification at this time. However, if the project does not qualify for Exemptions 1, 2 or 3, then additional measures must be added to the design to comply with HCOC criteria. This is discussed in further detail below in Section F.2.
HCOC EXEMPTION 1: The Priority Development Project disturbs less than one acre. The Copermittee has the discretion to require a Project-Specific WQ MP to address HCOCs on projects less than one acre on a case by case basis. The disturbed area calculation should include all disturbances associated with larger common plans of development.
Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N If Yes, HCOC criteria do not apply.
HCOC EXEMPTION 2 : The volume and time of concentration 1 of storm water runoff for the post- development condition is not significantly different from the pre-development condition for a 2-year return frequency storm (a difference of 5% or less is considered insignificant) using one of the following methods to calculate:
• Riverside County Hydrology Manual
• Technical Release 55 (TR-55): Urban Hydrology for S mall Watersheds (NRCS 1986), or derivatives thereof, such as the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method • Other methods acceptable to the Co-Permittee
Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption?
Y N
If Yes, report results in Table F.1 below and provi de your substantiated hydrologic analysis in Appendix 7.
Table F.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Summary
2 year – 24 hour
Pre-condition Post-condition % Difference
Time of
Concentration
INSERT VALUE
INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE
Volume (Cubic Feet) INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE INSERT VALUE 1 Time of concentration is defined as the time after the beginning of the rainfall when all portions of the drainage basin are contributing to flow at the outlet.
- 23 -
HCOC EXEMPTION 3: All downstream conveyance channels to an adequate sump (for example, Prado Dam, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Santa Ana Ri ver, or other lake, reservoir or naturally erosion resistant feature) that will receive runoff from the project are engineered and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity; no sensi tive stream habitat areas will be adversely affected; or are not identified on the Co-Permittees Hydromodification Susceptibility Maps.
Does the project qualify for this HCOC Exemption? Y N If Yes, HCOC criteria do not apply and note below w hich adequate sump applies to this HCOC qualifier:
Heacock Channel improvements have been completed which was the only watercourse that was defined as a potentially susceptible stream channel on the Riverside County HCOC Map. Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore will provide adedquate sumps downstream of the site as they are engineered and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity. Therefore, this project would qualify for HCOC Exemption 3.
- 24 -
Section G: Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs include permanent, structural features that may be required in your project plans — such as roofs over and berms around trash and recycling areas — and Operational BMPs, such as regular sweeping and “housekeeping”, that must be implement ed by the site’s occupant or user. The MEP standard typically requires both types of BMPs. In general, Operational BMPs cannot be substituted for a feasible and effective permanent BMP. Using the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist in Appendix 8, review the following procedure to specify Source Control BMPs for your site:
1. Identify Pollutant Sources : Review Column 1 in the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist. Check off the potential sources of Pollutants that apply to your site.
2. Note Locations on Project-Specific WQMP Exhibit : Note the corresponding requirements listed in Column 2 of the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Ch ecklist. Show the location of each Pollutant source and each permanent Source Control BMP in you r Project-Specific WQMP Exhibit located in Appendix 1.
3. Prepare a Table and Narrative : Check off the corresponding requirements listed in Column 3 in the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist. In the left column of Table G.1 below, list each potential source of runoff Pollutants on your site (from those that you checked in the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist). In the middle column, list the corresponding permanent, Structural Source Control BMPs (from Columns 2 and 3 of the Pollutant Sources /Source Control Checklist) used to prevent Pollutants from entering runoff. Add additional narrative in this column that explains any special features, materials or methods of construction that will be used to implement these permanent, Structural Source Control BMPs.
4. Identify Operational Source Control BMPs: To complete your table, refer once again to the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist. List in the right column of your table the Operational BMPs that should be implemented as long as the anticipated ac tivities continue at the site. Copermittee stormwater ordinances require that applicable Source Control BMPs be implemented; the same BMPs may also be required as a condition of a use permit or other revocable Discretionary Approval for use of the site.
Table G.1 Permanent and Operational Source Control Measures Potential Sources of Runoff
pollutants
Permanent Structural Source
Control BMPs
Operational Source Control BMPs
On-site storm drain inlets Mark all inlets with the words “Only Rain Down the Storm
Drain” or similar.
Maintain and periodically repaint or
replace markings. Verify annually.
Provide stormwater pollution
prevention information to new site
owners, lessees, or operators.
Include the following in lease
agreements: “Tenant shall not allow
anyone to discharge anything to
storm drains or to store or deposit
materials so as to create a potential
discharge to storm drains.”
- 25 -
Interior floor drains and
elevator shaft sump pumps
State that interior floor drains
and elevator shaft sump
pumps will be plumbed to
sanitary sewer.
Inspect and maintain drains to
prevent blockages and overflow
monthly.
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide
Use
State that final landscape
plans will accomplish all of the
following.
Preserve existing native trees,
shrubs, and ground cover to
the maximum extent possible.
Design landscaping to
minimize irrigation and runoff,
to promote surface infiltration
where appropriate, and to
minimize the use of fertilizers
and pesticides that can
contribute to stormwater
pollution.
Where landscaped areas are
used to retain or detain
stormwater, specify plants
that are tolerant of saturated
soil conditions.
Consider using pest-resistant
plants, especially adjacent to
hardscape.
To insure successful
establishment, select plants
appropriate to site soils,
slopes, climate, sun, wind,
rain, land use, air movement,
ecological consistency, and
plant interactions.
Maintain landscaping using
minimum or no pesticides.
See applicable operational BMPs in
“What you should know
for…..Landscape and Gardening” at
http://rcflood.org/stormwater/Error !
Hyperlink reference not valid.
Provide IPM information to new
owners, lessees and operators.
Landscape areas should be inspected
monthly or according to an
established maintenance schedule.
Refuse Areas State how site refuse will be
handled and provide
supporting detail to what is
shown on plans.
State that signs will be posted
on or near dumpsters with the
words “Do not dump
hazardous materials here”
Provide adequate number of
receptacles. Inspect receptacles
regularly; repair or replace leaky
receptacles. Keep receptacles
covered. Prohibit/prevent dumping
of liquid or hazardous wastes. Post
“no hazardous materials” signs.
Inspect and pick up litter daily and
clean up spills immediately. Keep
spill control materials available on-
- 26 -
Show how designated area will
be covered, graded and paved
to prevent run-on.
site. See Fact Sheet SC -34, “Waste
Handling and Disposal” in the CASQA
Stormwater Quality Handbooks at
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Trash lids and dumpster areas should
be inspected daily. Structural
elements can be inspected monthly.
Miscellaneous drain or Wash
Water or Other Sources
Condensate drain lines may
discharge to landscaped areas
if the flow is small enough that
runoff will not occur.
Condensate drain lines may
not discharge to the storm
drain system.
Roof top equipment with
potential to produce
pollutants shall be roofed
and/or have secondary
containment.
Avoid roofing, gutters, and
trim made of copper or other
unprotected metals that may
leach into runoff.
N/A
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking
lots
Sweep plazas, sidewalks, and parking
lots regularly to prevent
accumulation of litter and debris.
Collect debris from pressure washing
to prevent entry into the storm drain
system. Collect washwater
containing any cleaning agent or
degreaser and discharge to the
sanitary sewer not to a storm drain.
Tasks should be completed daily to
weekly.
- 27 -
Section H: Construction Plan Checklist
Populate Table H.1 below to assist the plan checker in an expeditious review of your project. The first two columns will contain information that was prepared in previous steps, while the last column will be populated with the corresponding plan sheets. This table is to be completed with the submittal of your final Project-Specific WQMP.
Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference
BMP No. or
ID
BMP Identifier and
Description
Corresponding Plan Sheet(s) BMP Location (Lat/Long)
INF ADS Stormtech
Infiltration Chamber
Conceptual
Grading/Conceptual Utility 33°55’06.31N, 117°14’02.62W
Note that the updated table — or Construction Plan WQMP Checklist — is only a reference tool to facilitate
an easy comparison of the construction plans to you r Project-Specific WQMP. Co-Permittee staff can advise you regarding the process required to propose changes to the approved Project-Specific WQMP.
- 28 -
Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding
The Copermittee will periodically verify that Stormwater BMPs on your site are maintained and continue to operate as designed. To make this possible, your Copermittee will require that you include in Appendix 9 of this Project-Specific WQMP:
1. A means to finance and implement facility maintenan ce in perpetuity, including replacement cost.
2. Acceptance of responsibility for maintenance from t he time the BMPs are constructed until responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred. A warranty covering a period following construction may also be required.
3. An outline of general maintenance requirements for the Stormwater BMPs you have selected.
4. Figures delineating and designating pervious and im pervious areas, location, and type of Stormwater BMP, and tables of pervious and impervio us areas served by each facility. Geo- locating the BMPs using a coordinate system of latitude and longitude is recommended to help facilitate a future statewide database system.
5. A separate list and location of self-retaining area s or areas addressed by LID Principles that do not require specialized O&M or inspections but will require typical landscape maintenance as noted in Chapter 5, pages 85-86, in the WQMP Guidan ce. Include a brief description of typical landscape maintenance for these areas.
Your local Co-Permittee will also require that you prepare and submit a detailed Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan that sets forth a maintenance schedule for each of the Stormwater BMPs built on your site. An agreement assigning responsi bility for maintenance and providing for inspection s and certification may also be required.
Details of these requirements and instructions for preparing a Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan are in Chapter 5 of the WQMP Guidance Document.
Maintenance Mechanism: The property owner, Public Storage, will record an agreement with the County of Riverside.
Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Home Owne rs’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA)?
Y N
Include your Operation and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Mechanism in Appendix 9. Additionally, include all pertinent forms of educational material s for those personnel that will be maintaining the proposed BMPs within this Project-Specific WQMP in Appendix 10.
- 29 -
Appendix 1: Maps and Site Plans
Location Map, WQMP Site Plan and Receiving Waters M ap
LOCATION
PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Isohyetal Map
for the 85th Percentile
24 hour Storm Event
July 2011
Rain Gage Locations
•
•
T
H
IS DRAINS TO RIV
ER
STORM DRAIN STENCIL
- 30 -
Appendix 2: Construction Plans
Grading and Drainage Plans
INDIAN STREET CL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
INDIAN STREET
CL
INDIAN STREET
CL
BOULEVARD
CL
ALESSANDRO
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MATCHLINE - SEE RIGHT
MATCHLINE - SEE LEFT
- 31 -
Appendix 3: Soils Information
Geotechnical Study and Other Infiltration Testing D ata
Geotechnical Engineering
Exploration and Analysis
Pr
oposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Prepar
ed for:
Public S
torage
Glendale, California
M
ay 23, 2024
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS
PROPOSED PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
SEQ INDIAN STREET AND ALESSANDRO BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2G-2404001
Description Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE ........................................................................................... 1
1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................. 3
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 3
2.1 Site Description ................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Proposed Project Description .............................................................................. 3
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .................................................................................... 4
3.1 Subsurface Exploration ....................................................................................... 4
3.2 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................ 5
3.3 Percolation Testing ............................................................................................. 6
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................... 6
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS ....................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Liquefaction ........................................................................................................ 8
5.2 Active Fault Zones .............................................................................................. 8
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 8
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................... 8
6.2 Site Development Recommendations ............................................................... 11
6.3 Construction Considerations ............................................................................. 14
6.4 Foundation Recommendations ......................................................................... 14
6.5 Floor Slab Recommendations ........................................................................... 16
6.6 New Pavement ................................................................................................. 17
6.7 Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services .................................. 19
6.8 Basis of Report ................................................................................................. 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Figures (7), Boring Logs (15), Liquefaction Analysis (1) and Dry Settlement (1) Appendix B – Field Procedures
Appendix C – Laboratory Testing and Classification
Appendix D – General Information (Modified Guideline Specifications) and Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS
PROPOSED PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
SEQ INDIAN STREET AND ALESSANDRO BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2G-2404001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINE
The executive summary is provided solely for the purpose of overview. Any party who relies on this report must read the full report. The executive summary omits a number of details, any one of which could be crucial to the proper application of this report.
Subsurface Conditions
• Site Class designation D is recommended for seismic design considerations. • Our review of the Geologic Map of the Sunnymead/South ½ of Redlands Quadrangles (Dibblee, Jr., 2003) indicate s that the subject site is underlain by Quaternary Surficial Deposits (Qa) consisting of alluvial sand, gravel and clay of valley areas, covered with thick soil. • Fill and possible fill soils were encountered in the test borings to depths of approximately zero to 3 feet below grade. Fill and native soils have very similar characteristics, and it was difficult to determine the exact geologic contact. Possible fill consisted of medium stiff to hard, moist, sandy silt, trace fine gravel, and medium dense silty sand, fine to medium grained, trace clay, with some mica.
• Beneath the possible fill, native soils were encountered within our test borings, which were generally loose to dense, silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and clayey sand, fine to medium grained, some coarse, some fine gravel, and stiff to hard sandy silt , silty clay, and sandy clay, fine sand, moist, some mica, and various amount of fine gravel and some mica. • Groundwater was encountered at approximately 36 feet below ground surface in the Test Boring B-8 drilled to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet bgs.
• The expansion index (EI) test of the upper soils indicates a very low expansion potential. • Based on our screening of corrosivity of the upper soils, t he results from the minimum resistivity test generally indicate that the tested soils have a moderately corrosive potential when in contact with ferrous materials and chloride. The test results for pH indicated the tested soil was neutral and the near surface soils contain approximately 0.0207 percent of water-soluble sulfates; therefore, no special sulfate resistant cement is considered necessary for concrete.
Site Development
• It is our understanding that Public Storage will be developing this site by constructing one, 3 -story building, with approximately 130,500 GSF with concrete slab -on-grade floor supported by spread footings or a mat foundation, and paved driveways and parking lot areas . The proposed building will have no basement level.
• New Building: Due to the variable and low strength characteristics of the near surface onsite soils and the estimated seismic -induced seismic dry sand settlement , and to develop uniformity of support, it is recommended that the soils within the proposed new building area s and an appropriate lateral distance beyond (5 feet minimum) be over-excavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below the proposed grade or 3 feet below bottom of foundations and floor slab, whichever is deeper. For the planned subgrade, the existing soils should be proofrolled to remove any unstable materials and the surface compacted to an in- place density of at least 90% of its maximum dry density per ASTM D -1557. The existing soils are considered suitable for foundation and floor support with the recommended 3-foot structural fill layer for the foundations only, and the existing Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
soils are also considered suitable for pavement support with recommended proofroll and geotechnical inspection/testing. The soils exposed after cutting to the structural fill subgrade should be examined by the geotechnical engineer to document that the soils are suitable for building support. Prior to placement of fill, the exposed surfaces approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned above optimum moisture content and then recompacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557).
Building Foundation
• The proposed structure may be supported by a shallow spread footing foundation system or a mat foundation for a maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) underlain by a minimum 3-foot structural compacted fill layer. Structural loads supported by a mat foundation may be designed for a maximum modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks) of 75 pounds per square inch per inch (psfi/in.).
• Foundation reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer.
Building Floor Slab
• It is recommended that an on-grade slab be a minimum 4-inch-thick slab-on-grade or turned-down slab, underlain by a minimum 4 -inch-thick granular base supported on a properly prepared subgrade consisting of a minimum 1-foot structural fill layer. • A minimum 15-mil vapor barrier is recommended to be directly below the floor slab or base course where required to protect moisture sensitive floor coverings.
New Pavement
• Asphalt Pavements: 3 inches of asphaltic concrete underlain by 4 or 6 inches of base course in parking stall and drive lane areas, respectively.
• Portland Cement Concrete: 6 inches in thickness underlain by 4 inches of base course in high stress areas such as entrance/exit aprons, drive-thru lane and the trash enclosure-loading zone.
Construction Considerations
• Due to anticipated on-site soils, loose to medium dense sandy soils, shallow excavations, up to 5 feet in vertical height, may be adequately sloped for bank stability, where sufficient space is available, temporarily unsurcharged embankments could be sloped back at a 2:1 (h:v) slope gradient. Deeper excavations or excavations where adequate back sloping cannot be performed may require some form of external support such as shoring or bracing.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
This report provides the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis that Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (“Giles”) conducted regarding the proposed development. The Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis included several separate, but related, service areas referenced hereafter as the Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program, Geotechnical Laboratory Services, and Geotechnical Engineering Services. The scope of each service area was narrow and limited, as directed by our client and in consideration of the proposed project. The scope of each service area is briefly explained in this report.
Geotechnical-related recommendations for design and construction of the foundation and ground- bearing floor slab for the proposed buildings are provided in this report. Geotechnical -related recommendations are also provided for the proposed driveways . Site preparation recommendations are also given; however, those recommendations are only preliminary since the means and methods of site preparation will depend on factors that were unknown when this report was prepared. Those factors include the weather before and during construction, the water table at the time of construction, subsurface conditions that are exposed during construction, and finalized details of the proposed development.
2.0 SITES AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Description
The subject property is at the southeast quadrangle of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard, in the city of Moreno Valley , Riverside County, California. Based on internet research, the subject property has a history of being an undeveloped v acant lot, covered with soils and some vegetation. The site is bounded on the north by an existing storage facility, on the east by residential structures, on the south a gas station, commercial buildings and Alessandro Blvd further south , and on the west by Indian Street. The neighboring development consists of a mixture of residential structures and commercial structures.
Based on Google Earth website, the site gently slopes with an approximately 4-ft elevation difference across the site, sloping toward the south (to approximate El. 1579) from the north area (approximately El. 1583).
2.2 Proposed Project Description
It is our understanding that Public Storage will be developing this site by constructing one, 3-story building, with approximately 130,500 GSF with concrete slab- on-grade floor supported by spread footings or a mat foundation, and paved driveways and parking lot areas . The proposed building will have no basement level. A Conceptual Site Plan was provided to Giles. Structural loads were not available at the time this report was prepared, but we have estimated maximum building loads, based Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
on a 10-foot by 10-foot column spacing, to be about 75 to 100 kips for interior columns and 2 to 3 kips per foot for walls. When design loading conditions are final, we should be notified to re- evaluate the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. The structure is anticipated to be concrete, masonry, and steel.
It is anticipated that the finished floor elevation of the new building will be near or at existing grade.
The finished floor elevation is anticipated to be approximately at El. 1583. Therefore, site grading is anticipated to include minor cut and fills to establish the necessary site grade to accommodate the assumed floor elevation, exclusive of site preparation or over -excavation requirements necessary to create a stable site suited for the proposed development.
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
3.1 Subsurface Exploration
Our subsurface exploration consisted of the drilling of 1 5 test borings (B-1 through B-15) to depths of approximately 10 to 51.5 feet below existing ground surface utilizing a truck rig with hollow -stem auger drilling equipment. The approximate test boring locations are shown in the Test Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). The Test Boring Location Plan and Test Boring Logs (Records of Subsurface Exploration) are enclosed in Appendix A. Field and laboratory test procedures are enclosed in Appendix B and C, respectively. The terms and symbols used on the Test Boring Logs are defined on the General Notes in Appendix D.
Standard split -spoon tests (SS), also called Standard Penetration Test (SPT), were performed at selected depth intervals in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Procedure D 1586. This method consists of mechanically driving an unlined standard split - barrel sampler 18 inches into the soil with successive 30- inch drops of the 140- pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6 -inch driving increment were recorded on the exploration logs. The number of blows required to drive the standard split -spoon sampler for the last 12 of the 18 inches was identified as the uncorrected standard penetration resistance (N). Disturbed soil samples from the unlined standard split -spoon samplers were placed in plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for testing. A representative bulk sample, consisting of composite soil materials from the upper soils, was obtained from all borings.
Our subsurface exploration included also the collection of relatively undisturbed soil samples of subsurface soil materials at selected depth intervals from the test borings for laboratory testing purposes. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected (per ASTM D 3550) using a 3 -inch outside diameter, modified California split -spoon soil sampler (CS) lined with 1 -inch-high brass rings. The sampler was driven with successive 30 -inch drops of a hydraulically operated, 140- pound automatic trip hammer. Blow counts for each 6- inch driving increment were recorded on the field exploration logs. The central portions of the driven core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
At the conclusion of drilling activities, each borehole was backfilled. Even with this service, however, it is important to note that some boreholes backfill settlement or expansion can and will occur over time. This settlement/expansion can create a hazard and should be carefully monitored by the client and/or property owner. The settlement/expansion can lead to the formation of a “trip joint” representing a threat of injury to persons or animals utilizing or accessing the subject property. Giles has not included a cost for monitoring borehole settlement/expansion after the initial drilling activities and will not be performing this service.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions as subsequently described have been simplified somewhat for ease of report interpretation. A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions at the test boring locations is provided by the logs of the test borings enclosed in Appendix A of this report.
Site Geology
Our review of the Geologic Map of the Sunnymead/South ½ of Redlands Quadrangles (Dibblee, Jr., 2003) indicates that the subject site is underlain by Quaternary Surficial Deposits (Qa) consisting of alluvial sand, gravel and clay of valley areas, covered with thick soil.
Soil
Fill and possible fill soils were encountered in the test borings to depths of approximately zero to 3 feet below grade. Fill and native soils have very similar characteristics, and it was difficult to determine the exact geologic contact. Possible fill consisted of medium stiff to hard, moist, sandy silt, trace fine gravel, and medium dense silty sand, fine to medium grained, trace clay, with some mica.
Beneath the possible fill, native soils were encountered within our test borings , which were generally loose to dense, silty sand, poorly graded sand with silt, and clayey sand, fine to medium grained, some coarse, some fine gravel, and stiff to hard sandy silt, silty clay, and sandy clay, fine sand, moist, some mica, and various amount of fine gravel.
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at approximately 36 feet below ground in the deep boring (B -8) during our field exploration. Based on a review of GeoTracker website, groundwater was found at 35 feet below grade from a well located approximately 400 feet southeast of our subject site. The historic groundwater level has not been mapped in this area.
Fluctuations of the groundwater table, localized zones of perched water, and rise in soil moisture content should be anticipated during and after the rainy season. Irrigation of landscape areas on or adjacent to the site could also cause fluctuations of local or shallow perched groundwater levels.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
3.3 Percolation Testing
It is our understanding that an on -site below grade storm water infiltration system is being considered for the subject site. Therefore, two percolation tests were performed to assess the infiltration characteristics of the site soils.
The percolation testing consisted of drilling an 8-inch-diameter hole using a hollow -stem auger, installing a 2- inch-diameter slotted pvc casing with a solid end cap and then surrounding the casing with a granular filter pack. The test holes (B -10 and B-12) were then pre-soaked to a minimum depth of 1 foot above the bottom of the boring. After pre- soaking, test water was added to the casing and refilled after each consecutive percolation test reading. The drop in water level over time is the percolation rate at the test location. The percolation test procedure outlined in the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health was used as a guide in our testing. A summary Table of the test results of the percolation tests is provided below.
The drop in water level over time is the pre -adjusted percolation rate at the test location. The percolation rate was reduced to account for the discharge of water from the sides and bottom of the boring. The Porchet Method, noted below, was used to calculate the design infiltration rate.
Tested Infiltration Rate = ∆H (60r) / ∆t (r + 2Havg)
Where: r is the radius of the test hole (in)
∆H is the change in height over the time interval (in)
∆t is the time interval (min)
Havg is the average head height over the time interval.
The results obtained fr om our percolation testing are summarized below. The infiltration rates noted below have not been reduced to account for a factor of safety.
Test
Number
Test Depth
(feet)
Design Infiltration Rate
(in/hr) Soil Type
B-10 10 4.38 (SP) – Poorly-graded Sand
B-12 10 2.83 (SP) – Poorly-graded Sand
It should be noted that the infiltration rate of the on- site soils represents a specific area and depth tested and may fluctuate throughout other parts of the site.
4.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Several laboratory tests were performed on selected samples considered representative of those encountered in order to evaluate the engineering properties of the on-site soils. The following is a brief description of our laboratory test results.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
In Situ Moisture and Density
Tests were performed on select samples from the test borings to determine the subsoils dry density and natural moisture contents in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 2216. The results of these tests are included in the Test Boring Logs enclosed in Appendix A.
Expansive Potential
To evaluate the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during our subsurface exploration, a representative bulk soil sample collected from the upper soils from the test borings was subjected to Expansion Index (EI) testing in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 4829. The result of our expansion index (EI) test indicates that the near surface sample has a very low expansion potential (EI < 5).
Sieve Analysis
Sieve Analyses (Passing No. 200 Sieve) were performed on selected samples to assist in soil classification. These tests were performed in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 1140. The results of the Passing No. 200 Sieve tests are presented in Test Boring Logs in Appendix A.
Soluble Sulfate Analysis and Soil Corrosivity
A representative bulk sample of the near surface soils which may contact shallow buried utilities and structural concrete was used to perform to determine the corrosion potential for buried ferrous metal conduits and the concentrations present of water -soluble sulfate which could result in chemical attack of cement. The following table presents the results of our laboratory testing.
Parameter Bulk Sample
0 to 5 feet
pH 7.1
Chloride 223 ppm
Sulfate 0.0207%
Resistivity 8,100 ohm-cm
The chloride content of near -surface soils was determined for a selected sample in accordance with California Test Method No. 422. The results of this test indicated that tested on-site soils have a moderate exposure to chloride.
The results of limited testing of soil pH and minimum resistivity were determined in accordance with California Test Method No. 643. The test results for pH indicated the tested soil was neutral. The results from the minimum resistivity test generally indicate that the tested soils have a moderately corrosive potential when in contact with ferrous materials. Therefore, special protection for underground cast iron pipe or ductile pipe may be warranted depending on the actual materials in contact with the pipe. We recommend that a corrosion engineer review these results in order to provide specific recommendations for corrosion protection as well as appropriate recommendations for other types of buried metal structures.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
A representative sample of the near surface soils which may contact shallow buried utilities and structural concrete was performed to determine the concentrations present of water -soluble sulfate which could result in chemical attack of cement. Our laboratory test data indicated that near surface soils contain approximately 0.0207 percent of water-soluble sulfates. Based on Section 1904.1 of the California Building Code (CBC), concrete that may be exposed to sulfate containing soils shall comply with the provisions of ACI 318, Section 4.3. Therefore, according to Table 4.3.1 of the ACI 318 a negligible exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with the tested on- site soils. No special sulfate resistant cement is considered necessary for concrete which will be in contact with the tested on-site soils.
5.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
5.1 Liquefaction
According to the City of Moreno Valley Safety Elements, Map S-2, Liquefaction Hazards, the site is located within a low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility zone. During our field exploration, drilled to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet bgs, groundwater was encountered at approximately 36 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based GeoTracker, groundwater was found be about 35 feet bgs from a nearby well. Silt and Clay soil type s interbedded with sandy layers were found at those depths based on our recent field exploration. Therefore, based on encountered groundwater level and soil type a liquefaction analysis for this site was performed.
5.2 Active Fault Zones
Based on the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County Seismic and Geologic Hazards, dated 2019, Map S-1, Fault Zones and the Special Studies Zones for the Sunnymead Quadrangle (CGS, 1974), the site is not located within any active faults zone. The potential for fault rupture through the site is, therefore, considered to be low. The site may however be subject to strong groundshaking during seismic activity.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conditions imposed by the proposed development have been evaluated on the basis of the assumed floor elevation and engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered during our subsurface investigation and their anticipated behavior both during and after construction.
Conclusions and recommendations presented for the design of building foundations , floor slab, and pavement along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations are discussed in the following sections of this report.
From a soils engineering point of view, the subject property is considered geotechnically suitable for the proposed new development provided the following recommendations are incorporated in the design and construction of the project.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
We recommend that Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. be involved in the review of the grading and foundation plans for the site to ensure our recommendations are interpreted correctly. Based on the results of our review, modifications to our recommendations or the plans may be warranted.
Effect of Proposed Grading and Construction on Adjacent Property
It is our opinion that the proposed construction and grading will be safe against geotechnical hazards from landslides, settlement, or slippage and the proposed work will not adversely affect the geologic stability of the adjacent property provided grading and construction are performed in compliance with the local city code and in accordance with the recommendations presented herein.
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations
Faulting/Seismic Design Parameters
The site is not located within any active fault zone. The potential for fault rupture through the site is, therefore, considered to be low. The site may however be subject to strong groundshaking during seismic activity. The proposed structure should be designed in accordance with the current version of the California Building Code (CBC) and applicable local codes. In accordance with ASCE 7, Chapter 20, a Site Classification D is recommended for this site based upon the mapped geological features of the site also verified by test borings.
According to the maps of known active fault near -source zones to be used with the CBC, the San Jacinto fault and its branches are the closest known active faults and located about 4 .9 and 6.8 miles from our subject site. The San Jacinto fault would probably generate the most severe site ground motions at the site with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.88 (Hanks).
The proposed structure should be designed in accordance with the current version of the California Building Code (CBC) , Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE 7 , and applicable local codes. The following values are determined by using the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Map Tool based upon the CBC 2022 and ASCE 7-16.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
CBC 2022, Earthquake Loads
Site Class Definition (Table 20.3-1 from ASCE 7-16) D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Ss (for 0.2 second) 1.579 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 (for 1.0 second) 0.613 Site Coefficient, Fa short period 1.00
Site Coefficient, Fv 1-second period 1.70
Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMS 1.579 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1 1.042 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS 1.052 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 0.695 MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for site class effects, PGAM 0.737
According to Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 for structural engineering considerations, a ground motion hazard analysis is required and should be performed in accordance with Section 21.2 for structures on Site Class D with S 1 greater than or equal to 0.2. However, as an exception to performing the ground motion hazard analysis, the value of the Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) must be determined by Equation (12.8-2) for values of the fundamental period of the building (T) ≤ 1.5Ts, and taken as 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Equation (12.8- 3) for TL ≥ 1.5Ts, or Equation (12.8-4) for T > TL.
Liquefaction
A Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report for the area where the subject site is located has not yet been prepared by the CGS (California Geological Survey). However, based on a review of the Moreno Valley Safety Elements, the site is located within a low to moderate liquefaction potential. Based on a review of groundwater information on the State of California GeoTracker website, the depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the site is approximately 35 feet below grade. Accordingly, a detailed liquefaction analysis was considered necessary and performed for this site.
Liquefaction analysis was performed based on the current California Building Code (2022 CBC) and was performed utilizing the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) data from Test Boring B -8. The NCEER method (1998) was applied as presented by Youd, et.al (2001). The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and modal magnitude were obtained from the USGS Seismic Ground Motion Design Parameter Tool and USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Deaggregation Tool, respectively. As per ASCE 7 -16 guidelines, the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCE G) peak ground acceleration
adjusted for the site effects (PGAM) equals to 0.737g and a predominant mean earthquake magnitude of 7.38 was used in our analysis.
The on-site fine-grained soils were evaluated to determine susceptibility to liquefaction during ground shaking in accordance with the criteria outlined within SP117A and the parameters and soil profile mentioned above. Based on our field exploration, laboratory test results, and soil type, the results of Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
our liquefaction evaluation indicate that the ground settlement resulting from the design- level earthquake will be negligible. The results of our liquefaction analysis are provided as Plate A -1 of Appendix A.
Seismic-Induced Settlement
Seismic-induced settlement is often caused by loose to medium dense granular soils densified during ground shaking. To evaluate the site -specific potential for seismic -induced settlement above the groundwater level ( assumed at 35 fee t), we used the same parameters used in the liquefaction analysis based on the 2022 CBC and ASCE 7- 16. Based on the results of our analysis, the seismic - induced settlement is estimated to be on the order of approximately 2.15 inches. However, as a result of over-excavating the upper 5 feet or 3 -ft below bottom of the footings, the dry settlement is reduced to 0.40 inches. Therefore, differential settlement may be assumed to be negligible. The results of our analysis performed at Test Boring B-8 are presented as Plate A-2 of Appendix A.
Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a free face (i.e. retaining wall, slope or channel) and to lesser extend on ground surfaces with a very gentle slope.
Due to absence of any slope or channel within or near the subject site, the potential for lateral spread occurring within the site is considered to be very low.
6.2 Site Development Recommendations
The recommendations for site development as subsequently described are based upon the conditions encountered at the test boring locations and the results of our laboratory testing.
Site Clearing and Preparation
Clearing and demolition operations should include the removal of all landscape vegetation and any existing structural features , within the area of the proposed new building and site improvements . All soils disturbed by grading operations should be removed and/or compacted to provide a competent subgrade, as determined by the project geotechnical engineer.
Should any unusual soil conditions or subsurface structures be encountered during clearing/demolition operations or during grading, they should be brought to the immedi ate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations.
Existing Utilities
All existing utilities should be located. Utilities that are not reused should be capped off and removed or properly abandoned in-place in accordance with city codes and ordinances. The excavations made for removed utilities that are in the influence zone of new construction are recommended to be backfilled with structural compacted fill. Underground utilities, which are to be reused or abandoned Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
in-place, are recommended to be evaluated by the structural engineer and utility backfill is recommended to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer, to determine their potential effect on the new development. If any existing utilities are to be preserved, construction operations must be carefully performed so as not to disturb or damage the existing utility.
Building Area
Due to the variable and low strength characteristics of the near surface onsite soils and the estimated seismic-induced seismic settlement, and to develop uniformity of support, it is recommended that the soils within the proposed new building areas and an appropriate lateral distance beyond (5 feet minimum) be over-excavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below the proposed grade or 3 feet below bottom of foundations and floor slab, whichever is deeper. For the planned subgrade, the existing soils should be proofrolled to remove any unstable materials and the surface compacted to an in- place density of at least 90% of its maximum dry density per ASTM D -1557. The existing soils are considered suitable for foundation and floor support with the recommended 3-foot structural fill layer, and soils are also suitable for pavement support with recommended proofroll and geotechnical inspection/testing. The soils exposed after cutting to the structural fill subgrade should be examined by the geotechnical engineer to document that the soils are suitable for building support. Prior to placement of fill, the exposed surfaces approved for fill placement should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned to above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D 1557).
Positive drainage devices such as sloped concrete flatwork, earth swales, and sheet flow gradients in landscape, setback, and easement areas should be designed for the site. The drainage system should drain to a suitable discharge area. The purpose of this drainage system is to reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils and to direct water away from buildings and site improvements.
All utility trench es backfill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in thickness, moisture conditioned above optimum moisture content and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the soil’s maximum density near the optimum moisture content. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer should observe and test the backfills to document adequacy of compaction.
Proofroll and Compact Subgrade
Following site clearing, removal or re-compaction of disturbed soils and lowering of site grades where necessary for the 3-foot structural fill layer in the building area, the subgrades within the proposed building, pavement and drive areas should be proofrolled in the presence of the geotechnical engineer with appropriate rubber -tire mounted heavy construction equipment or a loaded truck to detect very loose/soft yielding soil which should be removed to a stable subgrade, or stabilized in place. Any unsuitable materials discovered should be removed and backfilled with structural fill. Following proofrolling and completion of any necessary over -excavation, the subgrades in the building, parking Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
lot and drive areas should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum density. The upper 1 foot of the pavement subgrade should have minimum in-place density of at least 95% of the maximum dry density. Low areas and excavations may then be backfilled in lifts with suitable low- expansive structural compacted fill. The selection, placement and compaction of structural fill should be performed in accordance with the project specifications.
The Guide Specifications included in Appendix D (Modified Proctor) of this report are recommended to be used, at a minimum, as an aid in developing the project specifications. The floor slab subgrade may need to be recompacted prior to slab construction due to weather and equipment traffic effects on the previously compacted soil.
Reuse of On-site Soil
On-site material may be reused as structural compacted fill (if needed) within any new construction area provided they do not contain oversized materials and significant quantities of organic matter or other deleterious materials. All subgrade soil compaction as well as the selection, placement and compaction of new fill soils should be performed in accordance with the project specifications under engineering-controlled conditions.
Subgrade Protection
The near surface soils that are expected to comprise the subgrade are sensitive to water and disturbance from construction activities. Unstable soil conditions will develop if the soils are exposed to moisture increases or are disturbed (rutted) by construction traffic. If unstable soil conditions occur, recommendations for stabilization should be provided by the geotechnical engineer at the time of grading/construction based on the conditions encountered. The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding within construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Accumulated water must be removed immediately along with any unstable soil. Foundation concrete should be placed and excavations backfilled as soon as possible to protect the bearing grade. The degree of subgrade instability and associated remedial construction is dependent, in part, upon precautions taken by the contractor to protect the subgrade during site development.
Silt fences or other appropriate erosion control devices should be installed in accordance with local, state and federal requirements at the perimeter of the development areas to control sediment from erosion. Since silt fences or other erosion control measures are temporary structures, careful and continuous monitoring and periodic maintenance to remove accumulated soil and/or replacement should be anticipated.
Fill Placement
All fill should be placed in 8- inch-thick maximum loose lift, moisture conditioned above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then compacted to at least 90 percent , or 95 percent in the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade of the Modified Proctor maximum density. A representative of the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
project geotechnical consultant should be present on -site during grading operations to document proper placement and compaction of all fill, as well as to verify compliance with the other geotechnical recommendations presented herein.
Import Structural Fill
Any soils imported to the site (if required) for use as structural fill should consist of very low (EI less than 20) expansive soils. Materials designated for import should be submitted to the project geotechnical engineer no less than three working days for evaluation. In addition to expansion criteria, soils imported to the site should exhibit adequate shear strength characteristics for the recommended allowable soil bearing pressure, soluble sulfate content and corrosivity and pavement support characteristics.
6.3 Construction Considerations
Construction Dewatering
Groundwater was encountered at approximately 36 feet bgs during our subsurface exploration to the maximum depth explored ( 51.5 feet). However, the site may be susceptible to a shallower perched water table due to seasonal precipitation and runoff characteristics of the site. Conventional filtered sump pumps placed in excavations are expected to be suitable for dewatering should any excess water conditions be observed.
Soil Excavation
Some localized slope stability problems may be encountered in steep, unbraced excavations considering the nature of the subsoils. All excavations must be performed in accordance with CAL- OSHA requirements, which is the responsibility of the contractor. Due to anticipated on- site soils, loose to medium dense sandy soils , s hallow excavations , up to 5 feet in vertical height, may be adequately sloped for bank stability , where sufficient space is available, temporarily unsurcharged embankments could be sloped back at a 2 :1 (h:v) slope gradient. D eeper excavations or excavations where adequate back sloping cannot be performed may require some form of external support such as shoring or bracing.
6.4 Foundation Recommendations
Vertical Load Capacity – Shallow Foundation
Upon completion of the recommended building pad preparation, it is our opinion the proposed structures may be supported by a shallow foundation system and/or mat slab. Foundations underlain by a minimum 3-foot structural fill layer may be designed for a maximum, net, allowable soil -bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Structural loads supported by a mat foundation may be designed for a maximum modulus of subgrade reaction (Ks) of 75 pounds per square inch per inch Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
(psfi/in.). Minimum foundation widths for walls and columns should be 18 and 24 inches, respectively, for bearing considerations, regardless of actual soil pressure. The maximum bearing value applies to combined dead and sustained live loads. This allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short term wind and/or seismic loads.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. Passive pressure and friction may be used in combination, without reduction, in determining the total resistance to lateral loads. A one- third increase in the passive pressure value may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads.
A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces for footings placed on newly placed compacted fill soil. An allowable passive earth pressure of 400 psf per foot of footing depth (pcf) below the lowest adjacent grade may be used for the sides of footings placed against newly placed structural fill. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 3,500 psf.
Foundation Embedment
The California Building Code (CBC) requires a minimum 12- inch foundation embedment depth.
However, it is recommended that exterior foundations extend at least 18 inches below the adjacent exterior grade for bearing capacity and to provide greater protection of the moisture sensitive bearing soils. Interior footings may be supported at nominal depth below the floor. All footings must be protected against weather and water damage during and after construction and must be supported within suitable bearing materials.
Estimated Foundation Movement
Post-construction total and differential settlement of a shallow foundation system designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be less than 1 and ½ inch, respectively. The estimated differential movement is anticipated to result in an angular distortion of about 0.002 inches per inch on the basis of a minimum clear span of 20 feet for a standard foundation; and 0.001 in./in. on the basis of a minimum clear span of 40 feet for a mat foundation and 0.001 in/in.
Reinforcing
The determination of the actual quantity of steel reinforcing and dimensions should be performed by the project structural engineer.
Bearing Material Criteria
Soil suitable to serve as the structural fill sub grade should exhibit at least a loose relative density (average N value of at least 10) for non -cohesive soils, and an unconfined compressive strength of
1.75 tsf for cohesive soils, for the recommended 3 ,500 psf allowable soil bearing pressure. For Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
design and construction estimating purposes, suitable structural fill subgrade soils are expected to be encountered at the recommended 3 -foot structural fill depths following the recommended site preparation activities. However, field testing by the Geotechnical Engineer within the structural fill subgrade and the structural fill soils is recommended to document that the foundation support soils possess the minimum strength parameters noted above. Testing may consist of Dynamic Cone Penetration tests (per ASTM Special Publication 399), nuclear gauge, sand cone test, other tests as deemed suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered, they should be recompacted in-place, if feasible, or excavated to a suitable bearing soil subgrade and to a lateral extent as defined by Item No. 3 of the enclosed Guide Specifications, with the excavation backfilled with structural compacted fill to develop a uniform bearing grade.
6.5 Floor Slab Recommendations
Subgrade
The floor slab subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the appropriate recommendations presented in the Site Development Recommendations section of this report including a minimum 2- foot structural fill layer . Foundation, utility trenches and other below -slab excavations should be backfilled with structural compacted fill in accordance with the project specifications.
Design (Conventional Slab-on-Grade)
The floor of the proposed building is recommended to be designed as a conventional slab-on-grade where the floor slab is independent of the foundations . The at -grade floor slab may be designed based on a maximum modulus of subgrade reaction (k s) of 175 pounds per cubic inch ( pci), supported on a properly prepared subgrade consisting of a minimum 3-foot structural fill layer. If desired, the floor slab may be poured monolithically with foundations where the foundations consist of thickened sections thereby using a turned -down slab construction technique. The slab is recommended to be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness. A qualified structural engineer should perform the actual design of the slab to ensure proper thickness and reinforcing.
The floor slab is recommended to be underlain by a 4- inch-thick layer of granular base, which is not included as a portion of the recommended structural fill layer recommended in Section 6.2 Building Area. A 15-mil synthetic sheet should be placed below the floor slab to serve as a vapor retarder where required to protect moisture sensitive floor coverings (i.e. tile, or carpet, etc.) and control moisture through the floor slab. It is recommended that a structural engineer or architect specify the vapor retarder location with careful consideration of concrete curing and the effects of moisture. The vapor retarder is recommended to be in accordance with ASTM E 1745, which is entitled: Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs. If materials underlying the synthetic sheet contain sharp, angular particles, a layer of sand approximately 2 inches thick or a geotextile should be provided to protect it from puncture. An additional 2- inch-thick layer of sand may be needed between the slab and the vapor retarder to promote proper curing. Proper curing techniques are recommended to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking and slab curling.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Estimated Settlement
Post-construction total and differential movements of the floor slab designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be less than ½ and ⅓ inch, respectively. Movements on the order of those estimated for foundations should be expected when the foundation and floor slab are structurally connected or constructed monolithically. The estimated differential movement is anticipated to occur across the short dimension of the structure.
6.6 New Pavement
The following recommendations for the new pavement are intended for vehicular traffic associated with the restaurant development within the subject property.
New Pavement Subgrades
Following completion of the recommended subgrade preparation procedures, the subgrade in areas of new pavement construction is expected to consist of existing on-site soil that exhibit a very low expansion potential. An R-value of 30 has been assumed in the preparation of the pavement design.
It should, however, be recognized that the City of Moreno Valley may require a specific R-value test to verify the use of the following design. It is recommended that this testing, if required, be conducted following completion of rough grading in the proposed pavement areas so that the R-value test results are indicative of the actual pavement subgrade soils. Alternatively, a minimum code pavement section may be required if a specific R -value test is not performed. To use this R -value, all fill added to the pavement subgrade must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to the existing soils and must be placed and compacted in accordance with the project specifications.
Asphalt Pavements
The following table presents recommended thicknesses for a new flexible pavement structure consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base, along with the appropriate CALTRANS specifications for proper materials and placement procedures. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stall areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas.
However, care must be used so that truck traffic is excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used, since premature pavement distress may occur. In the event that heavy vehicle traffic cannot be excluded from the specific areas, the pavement section recommended for drive lanes should be used throughout the parking lot.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pavement recommendations are based upon CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty-year design period and assume proper drainage and construction monitoring. It is, therefore, recommended that the geotechnical engineer monitors and tests subgrade preparation, and that the subgrade be evaluated immediately before pavement construction.
Portland Concrete Pavements
Portland Cement Concrete pavements are recommended in areas where traffic is concentrated such as the entrance/exit aprons as well as areas subjected to heavy loads such as the trash enclosure loading zone. The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described in this report. Portland Cement Concrete pavements in high stress areas are recommended to be at least 6 inches thick containing No. 3 bars at 18- inch on-center both ways placed at mid- height. The pavement should be constructed in accordance with Section 40 of the CALTRANS Standard Specifications. A minimum 4 -inch-thick layer of base course (CALTRANS Class 2) is recommended below the concrete pavement. This base course should be compacted to at least 95% of the material’s maximum dry density.
The maximum joint spacing within all of the Portland Cement Concrete pavements is recommended to be 15 feet or less to control shrinkage cracking. Load transfer reinforcing is recommended at construction joints perpendicular to traffic flow if construction joints are not properly keyed. In this event, ¾ -inch diameter smooth dowel bars, 18 inches in length placed at 12 inches on- center are recommended where joints are perpendicular to the anticipated traffic flow. Expansion joints are recommended only where the pavement abuts fixed objects such as light standard foundations. Tie bars are recommended at the first joint within the perimeter of the concrete pavement area. Tie bars are recommended to be No. 4 bars at 42-inch on-center spacings and at least 48 inches in length.
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Materials Thickness (inches) CALTRANS
Specifications Parking Stalls
(TI=4.0)
Drive Lanes
(TI=5.0)
Asphaltic Concrete
Surface Course (b) 1 1 Section 39, (a)
Asphaltic Concrete
Binder Course (b) 2 2 Section 39, (a)
Crushed
Aggregate
Base Course
4 6 Section 26, Class 2 (R-value at least 78)
NOTES:
(a) Compaction to density between 95 and 100 percent of the 50-Blow Marshall Density (b) The surface and binder course may be combined as a single layer placed in one lift if similar materials are utilized.
Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis
Proposed Public Storage Facility
SEQ of Indian Street and Alessandro Boulevard
Moreno Valley, California
Project No. 2G-2404001
_________________________________________________________________________ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Considerations
Pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring and are based on traffic loads as indicated previously. Pavement designs are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs are also based on a routine pavement maintenance program and significant asphalt concrete pavement rehabilitation after about 8 to 10 years, in order to obtain a reasonable pavement service life. Due to the presence of variable strength characteristics of the near surface on -site soils , some increased pavement maintenance should be expected.
6.7 Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services
The report was prepared assuming that Giles will perform Construction Materials Testing (CMT) services during construction of the proposed development. In general, CMT services are recommended (and expected) to at least include observation and testing of foundation and pavement support soil and other construction materials. It might be necessary for Giles to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations based on the results of CMT services and specific details of the project not known at this time.
6.8 Basis of Report
This report is based on Giles’ proposal, which is dated April 2, 2024 and is referenced by Giles’ proposal number 2GP -2403019-R. The actual services for the project varied somewhat from those described in the proposal because of the conditions that were encountered while performing the services and in consideration of the proposed project.
This report is strictly based on the project description given earlier in this report. Giles must be notified if any parts of the project description or our assumptions are not accurate so that this report can be amended, if needed. This report is based on the assumption that the facility will be designed and constructed according to the codes that govern construction at the site.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on estimated subsurface conditions as shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration. Giles must be notified if the subsurface conditions that are encountered during construction of the proposed development differ from those shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration because this report will likely need to be revised.
General comments and limitations of this report are given in the appendix.
© Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 2024.
APPENDIX A
FIGURES AND TEST BORING LOGS
The Test Boring Location Plan contained herein was prepared based upon information supplied by Giles’ client, or others, along with Giles’ field measurements and observations. The diagram is presented for conceptual purposes only and is intended to assist the reader in report interpretation.
The Test Boring Logs and related information enclosed herein depict the subsurface (soil and water) conditions encountered at the specific boring locations on the date that the exploration was performed. Subsurface conditions may differ between boring locations and within areas of the site that were not explored with test borings. The subsurface conditions may also change at the boring locations over the passage of time.
INDIAN ST.
ACCESS ROAD
PHEASANT KNOLL LN.
ALESSANDRO BLVD.
ACCESS ROAD
GAS STATION(24500 ALESSANDRO BLVD.)AUTOZONE(24570 ALESSANDRO BLVD.) SELF STORAGE(13870 INDIAN ST.)
RESIDENTIAL
MEDICALBUILDING(13925 INDIAN ST.)
SIDEWALKPROPOSEDBUILDING
PROPOSEDCURBING
DATECAD No.05-20-242G-2404001
TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN
PROJECT NO.:MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIADESIGNEDWMLPROPOSED PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITYFIGURE 1DRAWNSCALEapprox. 1"=50'REVISED2g2404001-blp-- NEQ OF INDIAN ST. AND ALESSANDRO BLVD. 025'50'APPROXIMATESCALE
NOTES:1.) TEST BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.2.) PROPOSED FEATURES ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON THE "SITE PLAN", DATED 2-27-2024, PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT.
ILES NGINEERING SSOCIATES, INC.www.gilesengr.com733 W. TAFT AVENUEORANGE, CA 92865 (714)279-0817 LEGEND:GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING
APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARYPERCOLATION TEST BORINGGEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING / DIRECT SHEAR TEST (ASTM D3080)
Boring No. B-6 Depth 3.5 -ft
Soil Type: (SP-SM) - Poorly-graded Sand with Silt
Sample Condition: Saturated I nitial Specimen Properties:
Diameter (in.) 2.4
Height (in.) 1.0
In-Situ Moisture Content (%) 4.1
PROJECT: Public Storage Facility Remolded Density (pcf) N/A Moreno Valley, CA Dry Density (pcf) 104.3
CLIENT: Public Storage LL n/a
PROJECT NO.: 2G-2404001 PL n/a
DATE: May 2024 C (psf) 40
PHI (degrees)-Ultimate 35
FIGURE No.: 2
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
SHEAR STRENGTH (psf)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Peak
Ultimate
Classification (SP-SM) - Poorly-graded Sand with Silt
Boring No. B-6
Sample No. 2-CS Initial Moisture Content (%) 4.1
Depth (ft.) 3.5 ft Final Moisture Content (%) 13.2
Elevation (ft.) 1576 Natural Density (pcf) 111.2
Liquid Limit N/A Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.8
Plastic Limit N/A Final Dry Density (pcf) 107.0
Specimen Diameter (in.) 2.42 Collapse at 800 psf 0.20%
Initial Specimen Thickness (in.) 1.00
Sample inundated with water at 800 psf pressure
Project: Public Storage Facility
Moreno Valley, CA
Client: Public Storage
Project No.: 2G-2404001
Figure No.: 3
CONSOLIDATION / SWELL / COLLAPSE TEST ASTM D2435/ASTM D5333 OFFICE: 714-279-0817 FAX : 714-279-9687
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS- 733 W. TAFT AVENUE, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
-0.010
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
10 100 1000 10000 100000
CONSOLIDATION STRAIN (in/in)
VERTICAL LOAD (psf)
Classification (SM) - Silty Sand
Boring No. B-14
Sample No. 2-CS Initial Moisture Content (%) 9.3
Depth (ft.) 3.5 ft Final Moisture Content (%) 13.5
Elevation (ft.) 1579 Natural Density (pcf) 127.6
Liquid Limit N/A Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.8
Plastic Limit N/A Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.8
Specimen Diameter (in.) 2.42 Collapse at 800 psf 0.01%
Initial Specimen Thickness (in.) 1.00
Sample inundated with water at 800 psf pressure
Project: Public Storage Facility
Moreno Valley, CA
Client: Public Storage
Project No.: 2G-2404001
Figure No.: 4
CONSOLIDATION / SWELL / COLLAPSE TEST ASTM D2435/ASTM D5333 OFFICE: 714-279-0817 FAX : 714-279-9687
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS- 733 W. TAFT AVENUE, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
-0.010
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
10 100 1000 10000 100000
CONSOLIDATION STRAIN (in/in)
VERTICAL LOAD (psf)
Classification (SM) - Silty Sand
Boring No. B-15
Sample No. 3-CS Initial Moisture Content (%) 3.8
Depth (ft.) 6 ft Final Moisture Content (%) 13.5
Elevation (ft.) 1577 Natural Density (pcf) 115.4
Liquid Limit N/A Initial Dry Density (pcf) 111.2
Plastic Limit N/A Final Dry Density (pcf) 111.2
Specimen Diameter (in.) 2.42 Collapse at 800 psf 0.00%
Initial Specimen Thickness (in.) 1.00
Sample inundated with water at 800 psf pressure
Project: Public Storage Facility
Moreno Valley, CA
Client: Public Storage
Project No.: 2G-2404001
Figure No.: 5
CONSOLIDATION / SWELL / COLLAPSE TEST ASTM D2435/ASTM D5333 OFFICE: 714-279-0817 FAX : 714-279-9687
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS- 733 W. TAFT AVENUE, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
-0.010
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
10 100 1000 10000 100000
CONSOLIDATION STRAIN (in/in)
VERTICAL LOAD (psf)
Classification (SC) - Clayey Sand
Boring No. B-1
Sample No. 4-CS Initial Moisture Content (%) 10.0
Depth (ft.) 10 ft Final Moisture Content (%) 12.2
Elevation (ft.) 1573 Natural Density (pcf) 137.1
Liquid Limit N/A Initial Dry Density (pcf) 124.6
Plastic Limit N/A Final Dry Density (pcf) 124.6
Specimen Diameter (in.) 2.42 Collapse at 800 psf 0.02%
Initial Specimen Thickness (in.) 1.00
Sample inundated with water at 800 psf pressure
Project: Public Storage Facility
Moreno Valley, CA
Client: Public Storage
Project No.: 2G-2404001
Figure No.: 6
CONSOLIDATION / SWELL / COLLAPSE TEST ASTM D2435/ASTM D5333 OFFICE: 714-279-0817 FAX : 714-279-9687
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS- 733 W. TAFT AVENUE, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
-0.010
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
10 100 1000 10000 100000
CONSOLIDATION STRAIN (in/in)
VERTICAL LOAD (psf)
Classification (SM) - Silty Sand
Boring No. B-13
Sample No. 4-CS Initial Moisture Content (%) 2.4
Depth (ft.) 10 ft Final Moisture Content (%) 12.3
Elevation (ft.) 1571 Natural Density (pcf) 118.8
Liquid Limit N/A Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.0
Plastic Limit N/A Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.0
Specimen Diameter (in.) 2.42 Collapse at 800 psf 0.03%
Initial Specimen Thickness (in.) 1.00
Sample inundated with water at 800 psf pressure
Project: Public Storage Facility
Moreno Valley, CA
Client: Public Storage
Project No.: 2G-2404001
Figure No.: 7
CONSOLIDATION / SWELL / COLLAPSE TEST ASTM D2435/ASTM D5333 OFFICE: 714-279-0817 FAX : 714-279-9687
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
-GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS- 733 W. TAFT AVENUE, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
-0.010
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
10 100 1000 10000 100000
CONSOLIDATION STRAIN (in/in)
VERTICAL LOAD (psf)
P200=18%
Dd=121.0 pcf
21 13
4 40
28 Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
trace fine gravel, trace clay- Moist
Brown, Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained,
some coarse- Moist
Fine grained, some medium
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, some Clay,
some Mica, trace gravel- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1566.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-CS
5-SS 4.5
7 7
6 10
11 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
CS= California Split Spoon
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 1
1583 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1580
1575
1570
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
P200=3%
9 13
7 11
26 Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
some coarse, some Mica- Moist
Brown, fine grained, some Mica- Moist
Light Brown, Sand, fine to medium grained,
some coarse grain- Moist
Light Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, some coarse, some fine gravel-
Moist
Dark Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, trace
medium Sand, trace Clay, some Mica- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1565.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS
1.5 3.75
8 7
3 3
12 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 2
1582 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1580
1575
1570
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
2 4
4 7
13 Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, some medium,
trace Clay, some Mica- Moist
Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
trace Clay- Moist
Orange, Browm, fine to medium grained,
some coarse
Trace Gravel
Yellowish Brown, fine to medium grained,
some Mica
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1565.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS
15 14
11 12
16 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 3
1582 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1580
1575
1570
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
P200=5%
Dd=103.4 pcf
3 7
17 18
25 Orange, Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, trace Clay- Moist
Light Brown, poorly-graded Sand, fine to
medium grained, some coarse, trace Gravel-
Moist
Brownish Gray, fine to coarse grained, some
Silt, some fine Gravel- Moist
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, some Mica-
Moist
Some Clay- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1563.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-CS
4-SS
5-SS
1.5 2.25
16 11
5 19
21 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
CS= California Split Spoon
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 4
1580 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1575
1570
1565
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
4 5
7 19
17 17
Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
trace fine Gravel and Clay- Moist
Light Brown
Orange Brown, some Clay, fine to medium
grained
Yellowish Brown, poorly graded sand with
Silt, some coarse grained, trace fine Gravel-
slightly Moist
Brown, Clayey Silt, some fine Sand, some
Mica- Moist
Yellowish Brown, Sandy Clay, some Silt, fine
Sand, some Mica- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 20 feet (EL.
1559')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS
6-SS
4.0 2.5
8 6
7 3
13 11
Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 5
1579 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 20
Elevation
1575
1570
1565
1560
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
Dd=104.3 pcf
7 8
8 9
25 Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
some coarse, trace Clay- Moist
Light Brown
Orange Brown, fine to medium grained, some
coarse grained, trace fine Gravel
Light Brown, trace fine Gravel- slightly Moist
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, some Clay,
some Mica- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1563.5')
1-SS
2-CS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS 2.0
7 4
6 4
13 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
CS= California Split Spoon
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 6
1580 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1575
1570
1565
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
2 4
9 25
28 Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
some coarse, trace fine Gravel, some Mica-
Moist
Light Brown
Light Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, trace fine
Gravel, some Mica- Moist
Some Clay
Brown, Sandy Clay, some Silt, fine Sand,
some Mica- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1564.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS
1.0 2.5
4.5 9
5 7
9 13
Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 7
1581 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1580
1575
1570
1565
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
8 6
14 12
58 20
18 22
31 Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
some coarse, some Mica, trace Clay- very
Moist
Orange Brown
More coarse grained, trace fine Gravel
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, trace fine
Gravel, some Mica- Moist
Yellowish Brown, Sandy Clay, fine Sand,
some Mica- Moist
Yellowish Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, trace coarse- slightly Moist
Light Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, some
Mica, weakly cemented- Moist
Olive Brown, Lean Clay, trace fine Sand,
trace Silt, moderately plastic- very Moist
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS
6-SS
7-SS
8-SS
9-SS
4.5 1.0
9 7
5 5
9 13
4 10
23 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling: 36 ft.
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 8
1583 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
Elevation
1580
1575
1570
1565
1560
1555
1550
1545
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
P200=16%
P200=51%
23 22
32 Light Brown, Clayey Sand, fine to medium
grained, trace coarse- very Moist
Brown, Lean Clay, trace fine Sand, trace Silt,
moderately plastic- Very Moist
Brown, Sandy Clay, fine Sand, some medium
grained- very Moist
Boring Terminated at about 50 feet (EL.
1533')
10-SS
11-SS
12-SS
4.0 3.25
12 19
14 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling: 36 ft.
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 8
1583 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
45 50
Elevation
1540
1535
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
4 6
13 22
21 Orange Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained- Moist
Light Brown, fine to medium grained, trace
coarse, trace fine Gravel
More coarse grained
Brownish Gray, poorly graded Sand withSilt,
fine to medium grained, some coarse, trace
fine Gravel- slightly Moist
Brown, Sandy Clay, fine Sand, trace Calcium
Carbonate- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1563.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS >4.5
7 6
4 4
12 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B- 9
1580 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1575
1570
1565
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
P200=4%
3 6
10 16
Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
trace coarse, trace Clay- Moist
More fine Gravel
Light Brown, fine to medium grained, some
coarse grained, trace fine Gravel
Light Brown, poorly graded Sand, some Silt,
fine to medium grained, some coarse- slightly
Moist
Boring Terminated at about 10 feet (EL.
1569')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
7 6
5 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B-10
1579 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
Elevation
1575
1570
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
13 3
4 6
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, trace medium
Sand, some Mica, weakly cemented, fine
Gravel- Moist (Possible Fill)
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, trace fine
Gravel, trace Clay- Moist (Native)
Light Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, trace coarse- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 11.5 feet (EL.
1570.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
3.0 10
9 8
5 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B-11
1582 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
Elevation
1580
1575
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
P200=3%
7 2
5 4
Dark Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, some
medium- Moist
Brown, Silty Sand, fine grained, trace
medium, some Mica- Moist
Yellow, Brown, poorly graded Sand, some
Silt, fine to medium grained, some coarse-
Moist
Boring Terminated at about 10 feet (EL.
1572')
1-SS
2-SS
3-SS
4-SS
1.25 10
10 7
3 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B-12
1582 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
Elevation
1580
1575
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
Dd=112.5 pcf
41 2
21 18
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine to medium Sand,
trace fine Gravel- Moist (Possible Fill)
Brown, Sandy Silt, some Clay, fine Sand,
some Mica- Moist (Native)
Light Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, some coarse (No Recovery)
Yellow, Brown, fine to medium grained, some
coarse, some fine Gravel- slightly Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1564.5')
1-SS
2-SS
4-SS
5-SS
2.5 1.25
7 10
2 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B-13
1581 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1580
1575
1570
1565
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
15 8
N/A
9 37
Dark Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium
grained, some coarse, trace Clay, some
Mica- Moist (Possible Fill)
Brown, Silty Sand, fine to medium grained,
some coarse, some Clay- Moist
No Recovery
Light Brown- slightly Moist
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, some Mica,
trace Clay- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1566.5')
1-SS
2-CS
3-SS
4-SS
5-SS 2.0
3 9
3 15
Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
CS= California Split Spoon
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B-14
1583 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1580
1575
1570
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
Dd=115.6 pcf
6 4
11 7
31 Dark Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand, trace fine
Gravel, some mica- Moist (Possible Fill)
Brown, Sandy Silt, fine Sand -Moist (Native)
Light Brown, Silty Sand, fine grained, trace
Clay, fine Gravel- Moist
Yellow Brown, fine to medium grained, some
coarse- slightly Moist
Brown, Sandy Clay, fine Sand, weakly
cemented- Moist
Boring Terminated at about 16.5 feet (EL.
1566.5')
1-SS
2-SS
3-CS
4-SS
5-SS
1.0 2.75
10 5
4 3
9 Water Observation Data
SS= Standard Penetration Test
CS= California Split Spoon
Drilling Equipment used: Hollow stem auger; 8-in diameter Elevations based on Google Earth
PROJECT NO: 2G-2404001
PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY
Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan.
BORING NO. & LOCATION:
SURFACE ELEVATION:
COMPLETION DATE:
FIELD REP:
NOTES
Water Encountered During Drilling:
Cave Depth After __ Hours: __ ft.
DOUGLAS CALLEJAS
N
NEQ OF INDIAN STREET & ALESSANDRO
BOULEVARD
MORENO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA GILES ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES, INC.
B-15
1583 feet
04/17/24
Depth (ft)
5 10
15 Elevation
1580
1575
1570
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sample
No. & Type
Qu
(tsf)
Qp
(tsf)
Qs
(tsf)
W
(%) PID
Water Level At End of Drilling:
Cave Depth At End of Drilling:
Water Level After __ Hours: __ ft.
Remarks:
TEST BORING LOG
GILES LOG REPORT 2G-2404001.GPJ GILES.GDT 5/23/24
None
B-8 (A)
8.0 (B)
100.0 (C ) Hammer Type Range 1 Recommend2
36.0 (D) Safety 42% - 72% 60%
35.0 (E) Donut 30% - 60% 50%
0.0 (F) Automatic-Trip 48% - 78% 80%
120 (G)
81.5 (H)
No (I)
12 (J) 0.0
0.737 (K)
7.38 (L)
1.3 (M)
2% in 50 yrs
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) Restricted Tokimatsu
Interval Total Fi
eld Estimated Estimated Relative Relative Interval Field Design Field Design Effective Hammer Borehole Rod Sampling Energy Cyclic Bottom Interval Unit SPT
Fines Plasticity Density Density Bottom Interval Effective Total Total Effective Effective Overburden Energy Diam eter Length Method Correction No Fines Clean Factor of Stress Volumetric Seismic Volumetric Seismic Depth Soil Weight N Value Content Index Dr Dr Elevation Thickness Unit Overburden Overburden Overburden Overburden Correction Correction Correction Correction Correction Only Correction S and Safety Liquefaction Ratio Strain Settlement Strain Settlement (ft) Type (pcf) N m FC (%) (%) (%) (%) (ft) (ft) Weight (pcf) (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) CN CE CB CR CS N60 (N1)60 (N1)60cs FS Susceptibility Comments CSR7.5 (%) (inches) (%) (inches) Feet 0 0 0.000 0 0.000
0.5 120 8 59 59 99.5 0.5 57.6 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 1.7 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 11 18 18 0.47 NO Above GWT 0.46 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 99.5 1 120 8 59 59 99.0 0.5 57.6 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 1.70 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 11 18 18 0.47 NO Above GWT 0.459 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 99.0
1.5 120 8 59 59 98.5 0.5 57.6 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 1.70 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 11 18 18 0.47 NO Above GWT 0.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 98.5 2 120 8 59 59 98.0 0.5 57.6 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 1.68 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 11 18 18 0.47 NO Above GWT 0.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 98.0
2.5 120 8 58 58 97.5 0.5 57.6 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.64 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 11 18 18 0.46 NO Above GWT 0.46 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 97.5 3 120 8 58 58 97.0 0.5 57.6 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 1.61 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 11 17 17 0.44 NO Above GWT 0.457 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 97.0
3.5 120 8 57 57 96.5 0.5 57.6 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.210 1.57 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 11 17 17 0.43 NO Above GWT 0.456 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 96.5 4 120 6 13 53 53 96.0 0.5 57.6 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240 1.54 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 8 12 15 0.38 NO Above GWT 0.456 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 96.0
4.5 120 6 13 53 53 95.5 0.5 57.6 0.270 0.270 0.270 0.270 1.51 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 8 12 15 0.37 NO Above GWT 0.455 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.5 5 120 6 13 52 52 95.0 0.5 57.6 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 1.48 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 8 12 14 0.37 NO Above GWT 0.454 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 95.0
5.5 120 6 13 52 52 94.5 0.5 57.6 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 1.46 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 8 12 14 0.36 NO Above GWT 0.454 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.5 6 120 6 13 52 52 94.0 0.5 57.6 0.360 0.360 0.360 0.360 1.43 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 8 12 14 0.36 NO Above GWT 0.453 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.0
6.5 120 14 13 75 75 93.5 0.5 57.6 0.390 0.390 0.390 0.390 1.40 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 19 26 29 3.71 NO Large factor of safety 0.453 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 93.5 7 120 14 71 71 93.0 0.5 57.6 0.420 0.420 0.420 0.420 1.38 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 19 26 26 0.97 NO Above GWT 0.452 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 93.0
7.5 120 14 70 70 92.5 0.5 57.6 0.450 0.450 0.450 0.450 1.35 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 19 26 26 0.90 NO Above GWT 0.452 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 92.5 8 120 14 69 69 92.0 0.5 57.6 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 1.33 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 19 25 25 0.85 NO Above GWT 0.451 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 92.0
8.5 120 14 69 69 91.5 0.5 57.6 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 1.31 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 19 25 25 0.81 NO Above GWT 0.451 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 91.5 9 120 14 68 68 91.0 0.5 57.6 0.540 0.540 0.540 0.540 1.29 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 19 24 24 0.78 NO Above GWT 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 91.0
9.5 120 14 68 68 90.5 0.5 57.6 0.570 0.570 0.570 0.570 1.27 1.36 1.15 0.75 1.15 19 24 24 0.75 NO Above GWT 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.5 10 120 14 69 69 90.0 0.5 57.6 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 1.25 1.36 1.15 0.80 1.15 19 25 25 0.85 NO Above GWT 0.449 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.0
10.5 120 12 7 64 64 89.5 0.5 57.6 0.630 0.630 0.630 0.630 1.23 1.36 1.15 0.80 1.15 16 21 21 0.60 NO Above GWT 0.449 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.5 11 120 12 7 64 64 89.0 0.5 57.6 0.660 0.660 0.660 0.660 1.21 1.36 1.15 0.80 1.15 16 21 21 0.59 NO Above GWT 0.448 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.0
11.5 120 12 7 63 63 88.5 0.5 57.6 0.690 0.690 0.690 0.690 1.19 1.36 1.15 0.80 1.15 16 20 21 0.58 NO Above GWT 0.448 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 88.5 12 120 12 7 63 63 88.0 0.5 57.6 0.720 0.720 0.720 0.720 1.17 1.36 1.15 0.80 1.15 16 20 20 0.56 NO Above GWT 0.447 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 88.0
12.5 120 12 7 62 62 87.5 0.5 57.6 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.750 1.15 1.36 1.15 0.80 1.15 16 20 20 0.55 NO Above GWT 0.446 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 87.5 13 120 12 7 62 62 87.0 0.5 57.6 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 1.14 1.36 1.15 0.80 1.15 16 20 20 0.54 NO Above GWT 0.446 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 87.0
13.5 120 12 7 63 63 86.5 0.5 57.6 0.810 0.810 0.810 0.810 1.12 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 16 21 21 0.58 NO Above GWT 0.445 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.5 14 120 12 7 63 63 86.0 0.5 57.6 0.840 0.840 0.840 0.840 1.10 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 16 20 21 0.57 NO Above GWT 0.445 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.0
14.5 120 12 7 62 62 85.5 0.5 57.6 0.870 0.870 0.870 0.870 1.09 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 16 20 20 0.56 NO Above GWT 0.444 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.5 15 120 12 7 62 62 85.0 0.5 57.6 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 1.07 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 16 20 20 0.55 NO Above GWT 0.444 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.0
15.5 120 58 134 100 84.5 0.5 57.6 0.930 0.930 0.930 0.930 1.06 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 94 94 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.443 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.5 16 120 58 133 100 84.0 0.5 57.6 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.960 1.04 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 92 92 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.443 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.0
16.5 120 58 132 100 83.5 0.5 57.6 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 1.03 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 91 91 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.442 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 83.5 17 120 58 132 100 83.0 0.5 57.6 1.020 1.020 1.020 1.020 1.02 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 90 90 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.442 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 83.0
17.5 120 58 131 100 82.5 0.5 57.6 1.050 1.050 1.050 1.050 1.00 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 89 89 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.441 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 82.5 18 120 58 130 100 82.0 0.5 57.6 1.080 1.080 1.080 1.080 0.99 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 88 88 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.441 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 82.0
18.5 120 58 129 100 81.5 0.5 57.6 1.110 1.110 1.110 1.110 0.98 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 87 87 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.440 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 81.5 19 120 58 128 100 81.0 0.5 57.6 1.140 1.140 1.140 1.140 0.97 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 86 86 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.439 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 81.0
19.5 120 58 127 100 80.5 0.5 57.6 1.170 1.170 1.170 1.170 0.95 1.36 1.15 0.85 1.15 79 85 85 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.439 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 80.5 20 120 58 134 100 80.0 0.5 57.6 1.200 1.200 1.200 1.200 0.94 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 79 93 93 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 80.0
20.5 120 20 78 78 79.5 0.5 57.6 1.230 1.230 1.230 1.230 0.93 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 32 32 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 79.5 21 120 20 78 78 79.0 0.5 57.6 1.260 1.260 1.260 1.260 0.92 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 31 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.437 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 79.0
21.5 120 20 77 77 78.5 0.5 57.6 1.290 1.290 1.290 1.290 0.91 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 31 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.437 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 78.5 22 120 20 77 77 78.0 0.5 57.6 1.320 1.320 1.320 1.320 0.90 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 31 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.436 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 78.0
22.5 120 20 76 76 77.5 0.5 57.6 1.350 1.350 1.350 1.350 0.89 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 30 30 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.436 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 77.5 23 120 20 76 76 77.0 0.5 57.6 1.380 1.380 1.380 1.380 0.88 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 30 30 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.435 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 77.0
23.5 120 20 76 76 76.5 0.5 57.6 1.410 1.410 1.410 1.410 0.87 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 30 30 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.435 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 76.5 24 120 20 75 75 76.0 0.5 57.6 1.440 1.440 1.440 1.440 0.86 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 29 29 3.88 NO Large factor of safety 0.434 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 76.0
24.5 120 20 75 75 75.5 0.5 57.6 1.470 1.470 1.470 1.470 0.85 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 29 29 2.79 NO Large factor of safety 0.434 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.5 25 120 20 74 74 75.0 0.5 57.6 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 0.84 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 27 29 29 2.24 NO Large factor of safety 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.0
25.5 120 18 70 70 74.5 0.5 57.6 1.530 1.530 1.530 1.530 0.83 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 26 26 0.95 NO Above GWT 0.433 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.5 26 120 18 70 70 74.0 0.5 57.6 1.560 1.560 1.560 1.560 0.82 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 25 25 0.91 NO Above GWT 0.432 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.0
26.5 120 18 69 69 73.5 0.5 57.6 1.590 1.590 1.590 1.590 0.81 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 25 25 0.88 NO Above GWT 0.431 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 73.5 27 120 18 69 69 73.0 0.5 57.6 1.620 1.620 1.620 1.620 0.81 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 25 25 0.86 NO Above GWT 0.431 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 73.0
27.5 120 18 69 69 72.5 0.5 57.6 1.650 1.650 1.650 1.650 0.80 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 24 24 0.83 NO Above GWT 0.430 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 72.5 28 120 18 68 68 72.0 0.5 57.6 1.680 1.680 1.680 1.680 0.79 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 24 24 0.81 NO Above GWT 0.430 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 72.0
28.5 120 18 68 68 71.5 0.5 57.6 1.710 1.710 1.710 1.710 0.78 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 24 24 0.79 NO Above GWT 0.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 71.5 29 120 18 68 68 71.0 0.5 57.6 1.740 1.740 1.740 1.740 0.77 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 24 24 0.77 NO Above GWT 0.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 71.0
29.5 120 18 67 67 70.5 0.5 57.6 1.770 1.770 1.770 1.770 0.77 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 24 24 0.76 NO Above GWT 0.428 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 70.5 30 120 18 67 67 70.0 0.5 57.6 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 0.76 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 24 23 23 0.74 NO Above GWT 0.428 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 70.0
30.5 120 22 74 74 69.5 0.5 57.6 1.830 1.830 1.830 1.830 0.75 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 30 28 28 1.78 NO Large factor of safety 0.426 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 69.5 31 120 22 73 73 69.0 0.5 57.6 1.860 1.860 1.860 1.860 0.74 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 30 28 28 1.61 NO Large factor of safety 0.424 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 69.0
31.5 120 22 73 73 68.5 0.5 57.6 1.890 1.890 1.890 1.890 0.74 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 30 28 28 1.49 NO Large factor of safety 0.422 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 68.5 32 120 22 73 73 68.0 0.5 57.6 1.920 1.920 1.920 1.920 0.73 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 30 27 27 1.39 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 68.0
32.5 120 22 72 72 67.5 0.5 57.6 1.950 1.950 1.950 1.950 0.72 1.36 1.15 0.95 1.15 30 27 27 1.31 NO Large factor of safety 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 67.5 33 120 22 74 74 67.0 0.5 57.6 1.980 1.980 1.980 1.980 0.72 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 28 28 1.91 NO Large factor of safety 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 67.0
33.5 120 22 73 73 66.5 0.5 57.6 2.010 2.010 2.010 2.010 0.71 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 28 28 1.73 NO Large factor of safety 0.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 66.5 34 120 22 73 73 66.0 0.5 57.6 2.040 2.040 2.040 2.040 0.70 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 28 28 1.59 NO Large factor of safety 0.413 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 66.0
34.5 120 22 73 73 65.5 0.5 57.6 2.070 2.070 2.070 2.070 0.70 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 28 28 1.48 NO Large factor of safety 0.411 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.5 35 120 22 72 72 65.0 0.5 57.6 2.100 2.100 2.100 2.100 0.69 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 27 27 1.39 NO Large factor of safety 0.409 0.198 0.012 0.000 0.000 65.0
35.5 120 31 86 86 64.5 0.5 57.6 2.130 2.130 2.130 2.114 0.68 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 38 38 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.410 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.5 36 120 31 85 85 64.0 0.5 57.6 2.160 2.160 2.160 2.129 0.68 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 38 38 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.411 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.0
36.5 120 31 85 85 63.5 0.5 57.6 2.190 2.190 2.174 2.143 0.68 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 38 38 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.412 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 63.5 37 120 31 85 85 63.0 0.5 57.6 2.220 2.220 2.189 2.158 0.67 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 37 37 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.413 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 63.0
37.5 120 31 85 85 62.5 0.5 57.6 2.250 2.250 2.203 2.172 0.67 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 37 37 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.5 38 120 31 85 85 62.0 0.5 57.6 2.280 2.280 2.218 2.186 0.67 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 37 37 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.415 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.0
38.5 120 31 84 84 61.5 0.5 57.6 2.310 2.310 2.232 2.201 0.66 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 37 37 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.415 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.5 39 120 31 84 84 61.0 0.5 57.6 2.340 2.340 2.246 2.215 0.66 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 37 37 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.0
39.5 120 31 84 84 60.5 0.5 57.6 2.370 2.370 2.261 2.230 0.66 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 37 37 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.5 40 120 31 84 84 60.0 0.5 57.6 2.400 2.400 2.275 2.244 0.66 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 42 37 37 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.417 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.0
40.5 120 23 16 78 78 59.5 0.5 57.6 2.430 2.430 2.290 2.258 0.65 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 27 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.5 41 120 23 16 77 77 59.0 0.5 57.6 2.460 2.460 2.304 2.273 0.65 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 27 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.0
41.5 120 23 16 77 77 58.5 0.5 57.6 2.490 2.490 2.318 2.287 0.65 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 27 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.419 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 58.5 42 120 23 16 77 77 58.0 0.5 57.6 2.520 2.520 2.333 2.302 0.65 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 27 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.419 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 58.0
42.5 120 23 16 77 77 57.5 0.5 57.6 2.550 2.550 2.347 2.316 0.64 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 27 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.419 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 57.5 43 120 23 16 77 77 57.0 0.5 57.6 2.580 2.580 2.362 2.330 0.64 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 26 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 57.0
43.5 120 23 16 77 77 56.5 0.5 57.6 2.610 2.610 2.376 2.345 0.64 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 26 31 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 56.5 44 120 23 16 77 77 56.0 0.5 57.6 2.640 2.640 2.390 2.359 0.64 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 26 30 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 56.0
44.5 120 23 16 76 76 55.5 0.5 57.6 2.670 2.670 2.405 2.374 0.63 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 26 30 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.5 45 120 23 16 76 76 55.0 0.5 57.6 2.700 2.700 2.419 2.388 0.63 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 31 26 30 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.0
45.5 120 22 51 19 82 82 54.5 0.5 57.6 2.730 2.730 2.434 2.402 0.63 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 25 35 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.5 46 120 22 51 19 82 82 54.0 0.5 57.6 2.760 2.760 2.448 2.417 0.63 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 25 35 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.0
46.5 120 22 51 19 82 82 53.5 0.5 57.6 2.790 2.790 2.462 2.431 0.62 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 25 35 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 53.5 47 120 22 51 19 81 81 53.0 0.5 57.6 2.820 2.820 2.477 2.446 0.62 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 25 34 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 53.0
47.5 120 22 51 19 81 81 52.5 0.5 57.6 2.850 2.850 2.491 2.460 0.62 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 24 34 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 52.5 48 120 22 51 19 81 81 52.0 0.5 57.6 2.880 2.880 2.506 2.474 0.62 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 24 34 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.419 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 52.0
48.5 120 22 51 19 81 81 51.5 0.5 57.6 2.910 2.910 2.520 2.489 0.61 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 24 34 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.419 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 51.5 49 120 22 51 19 81 81 51.0 0.5 57.6 2.940 2.940 2.534 2.503 0.61 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 24 34 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.419 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 51.0
49.5 120 22 51 19 81 81 50.5 0.5 57.6 2.970 2.970 2.549 2.518 0.61 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 24 34 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50.5 50 120 22 51 19 81 81 50.0 0.5 57.6 3.000 3.000 2.563 2.532 0.61 1.36 1.15 1.00 1.15 30 24 34 >4 NO Large factor of safety 0.418 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 50.0 Design fill/cut, H (ft): {Positive for fill, negative for cut} SPT hammer energy ratio (ER): {Enter percentage}
Soil boring number:
Approximate borehole diameter (inch):
Soil boring ground surface elevation (ft):
Hammer Energy Ratios
Groundwater depth during field exploration (ft):
Design groundwater depth (ft):
Risk Level
Total Settlement
Project name (number):
Engineer:
Date:
2G-2404001_PS - Moreno Valley
WL
05/22/24
Reviewer:
Elevation
Unit weight of fill/cut material (pcf):
Factor of safety criterion: {1.0 or higher}
2) for good-quality equipment and procedures
1) after recommendations by NCEER, 1997
conforming to ASTM D-1686.Liner used in sampler? {Yes or No} Tokimatsu & Seed (1987)
Plasticity index cutoff value for liquefaction (%)
Ishihara & Yoshimine (1992)
Design earthquake magnitude (Mw):
Peak horizontal ground acceleration (amax/g):
PLATE A-1
File No.: 2G-2404001
Project: PS - Moreno Valley
EVALUATION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED SETTLEMENTS IN DRY SANDY SOILS INPUT:
Boring No.: B-8
Groundwater Depth: 35.0 feet
EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION:
Earthquake Magnitude: 7.38
Peak Horiz. Acceleration (g): 0.74
From Tbl. 4-4 From Tbl. 4-5
Depth of Thickness Depth of Soil Overburden Mean Effective Average Maximum Volumetric Number of Corrected Base of of Layer USCS Mid-point o f Unit Weight Pressure at Pressure at Cyclic Shear Corrected Shear Mod. [geff]*[Geff] Strain Strain Cycles Vol. Strains Settlement Strata (ft) (ft) Classification Layer (ft) (pcf) Mid-point (tsf) Mid-point (tsf) Stress [Tav] [N1]60 [Gmax] (tsf) [Gmax] [geff] [geff]*100% [E15} (%) [Nc] [Ec] [S] (inches)
5.0 5.0 SM 2.5 120.0 0.15 0.10 0.072 12.0 324.427 2.11E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.50E+00 14.0524 1.4566 1.75
10.0 5.0 SM 7.5 120.0 0.45 0.30 0.214 27.0 736.330 2.53E-04 1.25E-03 1.25E-01 7.90E-02 14.0524 0.0767 0.09
15.0 5.0 SP-SM 12.5 120.0 0.75 0.50 0.354 18.0 830.424 3.42E-04 1.40E-03 1.40E-01 1.60E-01 14.0524 0.1554 0.19
20.0 5.0 ML 17.5 120.0 1.05 0.70 0.488 86.0 1654.902 2.20E-04 4.90E-04 4.90E-02 1.50E-03 14.0524 0.0015 0.00
25.0 5.0 CL 22.5 120.0 1.35 0.90 0.616 31.0 1335.465 3.23E-04 8.10E-04 8.10E-02 1.00E-04 14.0524 0.0001 0.00
30.0 5.0 SM 27.5 120.0 1.65 1.11 0.735 26.0 1392.338 3.49E-04 8.20E-04 8.20E-02 6.00E-02 14.0524 0.0583 0.07
35.0 5.0 ML 32.5 120.0 1.95 1.31 0.845 30.0 1587.581 3.35E-04 7.70E-04 7.70E-02 4.15E-02 14.0524 0.0403 0.05 ** Clay layers not included in the dry sand settlement analysis, unlikely to be affected by seismic ground shakings Reference: Tokimatsu, K., and Seed H.B. (1987). Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking." Total Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils (inches) = 2.15 Journal Geotechnical Engineer Division, ASCE, 113 (8), 861-878. Total Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils (inches) = 0.40 (By R&R 5-ft)
PLATE A-2
APPENDIX B
FIELD PROCEDURES
The field operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) designation D 420 entitled “Standard Guide for Sampling Rock and Rock” and/or other relevant specifications.
Soil samples were preserved and transported to Giles’ laboratory in general accordance with the procedures recommended by ASTM designation D 4220 entitled “Standard Practice for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples.” Brief descriptions of the sampling, testing and field procedures commonly performed by Giles are provided herein.
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL FIELD PROCEDURES
Test Boring Elevations
The ground surface elevations reported on the Test Boring Logs are referenced to the assumed benchmark shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Unless otherwise noted, the elevations were determined with a conventional hand-level and are accurate to within about 1 foot.
Test Boring Locations
The test borings were located on-site based on the existing site features and/or apparent property lines. Dimensions ill ustrating the approximate boring locations are reported on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1).
Water Level Measurement
The water levels reported on the Test Boring Logs represent the depth of “free” water encountered during drilling and/or after the drilling tools were removed from the borehole. Water levels measured within a granular (sand and gravel) soil profile are typically indicative of the water table elevat ion. It is usually not possible to accurately identify the water table elevation with cohesive (clayey) soils, since the rate of seepage is slow. The water table elevation within cohesive soils must therefore be determined over a period of time with groundwater observation wells.
It must be recognized that the water table may fluctuate seasonally and during periods of heavy precipitation. Depending on the subsurface conditions, water may also become perched above the water table, especially during wet periods.
Borehole Backfilling Procedures
Each borehole was backfilled upon completion of the field operations. If potential contamination was encountered, and/or if required by state or local regulations, boreholes were backfilled with an “impervi ous” material (such as bentonite slurry).
Borings that penetrated pavements, sidewalks, etc. were “capped” with Portland Cement concrete, asphaltic concrete, or a similar surface material. It must, however, be recognized that the backfill material may settle, and the surface cap may subside, over a period of time. Further backfilling and/or re-surfacing by Giles’ client or the property owner may be required.
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES
Auger Sampling (AU)
Soil samples are removed from the auger fl ights as an auger is withdrawn above the ground surface. Such samples are used to determine general soil types and identify approximate soil stratifications. Auger samples are highly disturbed and are therefore not typically used for geotechnical strength testing.
Split-Barrel Sampling (SS) – (ASTM D-1586)
A split-barrel sampler with a 2-inch outside diameter is driven into the subsoil with a 140- pound hammer free-falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer- blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of an 18-inch sample interval is defined as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value is an index of the relative density of granular soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils. A soil sample is collected from each SPT interval.
Shelby Tube Sampling (ST) – (ASTM D-1587)
A relatively undisturbed soil sample is collec ted by hydraulically advancing a thin-walled Shelby Tube sampler into a soil mass. Shelby Tubes have a sharp cutting edge and are commonly 2 to 5 inches in diameter.
Bulk Sample (BS)
A relatively large volume of soils is colle cted with a shovel or other manually-operated tool. The sample is typically transported to Giles’ materials laboratory in a sealed bag or bucket.
Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DC) – (ASTM STP 399)
This test is conducted by driving a 1.5-inch-diameter cone into the subsoil using a 15- pound steel ring (hammer), free-falling a vertical distance of 20 inches. The number of hammer-blows required to drive the cone 1¾ inches is an indication of the soil strength and density, and is defined as “N”. The Dynamic Cone Penetration test is commonly conducted in hand auger borings, test pits and within excavated trenches.
- Continued -
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ring-Lined Barrel Sampling – (ASTM D 3550)
In this procedure, a ring-lined barrel sampler is used to collect soil samples for classification and laboratory testing. This method provides samples that fit directly into laboratory test instruments without additional handling/disturbance.
Sampling and Testing Procedures
The field testing and sampling operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the field testing (i.e. N-values) are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Explanations of the terms and symbols shown on the logs are provided on the appendix enclosure entitled “General Notes”.
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION
The laboratory testing was conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer in accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Brief descriptions of laborat ory tests commonly performed by Giles are provided herein.
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION
Photoionization Detector (PID)
In this procedure, soil samples are “scanned” in Giles’ analytical laboratory using a Photoionization Detector (PID). The instrument is equipped with an 11.7 eV lamp calibrated to a Benzene Standard and is capable of detecting a minute concentration of certain Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapors, such as those commonly associated with petroleum products and some solvents. Results of the PID analysis are expressed in HNu (manufacturer’s) units rather than actual concentration.
Moisture Content (w) (ASTM D 2216)
Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water contained within a soil sample to the weight of the dry solids within the sample. Moisture content is expressed as a percentage.
Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) (ASTM D 2166)
An axial load is applied at a uniform rate to a cylindrical soil sample. The unconfined compressive strength is the maximum stress obtained or the stress when 15% axial strain is reached, whichever occurs first.
Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance (qp)
The small, cylindrical tip of a hand-held penetrometer is pressed into a soil sample to a prescribed depth to measure the soils capacity to resist penetration. This test is used to evaluate unconfined compressive strength.
Vane-Shear Strength (qs)
The blades of a vane are inserted into the flat surface of a soil sample and the vane is rotated until failure occurs. The maximum shear resistance measured immediately prior to failure is taken as the vane-shear strength.
Loss-on-Ignition (ASTM D 2974; Method C)
The Loss-on-Ignition (L.O.I.) test is used to determine the organic content of a soil sample. The procedure is conducted by heating a dry soil sample to 440°C in order to burn-off or “ash” organic matter present within the sample. The L.O.I. value is the ratio of the weight loss due to ignition compared to the initial weight of the dry sample. L.O.I. is expressed as a percentage.
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Particle Size Distribution (ASTB D 421, D 422, and D 1140)
This test is performed to determine the distribution of specific particle sizes (diameters) within a soil sample. The distribution of coarse-grained soil particles (sand and gravel) is determined from a “sieve analysis,” which is conducted by passing the sample through a series of nested sieves. The distribution of fine-grained soil particles (silt and clay) is determined from a “hydrometer analysis” which is based on the sedimentation of particles suspended in water.
Consolidation Test (ASTM D 2435)
In this procedure, a series of cumulative vertical loads are applied to a small, laterally confined soil sample. During each load increment, vertical compression (consolidation) of the sample is measured over a period of time. Results of this test are used to estimate settlement and time rate of settlement.
Classification of Samples
Each soil sample was visually-manually cl assified, based on texture and plasticity, in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2488-75). The classifications are reported on the Test Boring Logs.
Laboratory Testing
The laboratory testing operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the laboratory tests are provided on the Test Boring Logs or other appendix enclosures. Explanation of the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided on the appendix enclosure entitled “General Notes.”
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test ASTM D-1833
The CBR test is used for evaluation of a soil subgrade for pavement design. The test consists of measuring the force required for a 3-square-inch cylindrical piston to penetrate 0.1 or 0.2 inch into a compacted soil sample. The result is expressed as a percent of force required to penetrate a standard compacted crushed stone.
Unless a CBR test has been specifically requested by the client, the CBR is estimated from published charts, based on soil classification and strength characteristics. A typical correlation chart is below.
APPENDIX D
GENERAL INFORMATION
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration will be retained for a period of thirty days. If no instructions are received, they will be disposed of at that time.
This report has been prepared exclusively for the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. Copies of this report may be provided to contractor(s), with contract documents, to disclose information relative to this project.
The report, however, has not been prepared to serv e as the plans and specifications for actual construction without the appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. Reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Giles.
This report has been based on assumed conditions/characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available. It is recommended that the architect, civil engineer and structural engineer along with any other design professionals involved in this project carefully review these assumptions to ensure they are consistent with the actual planned development. When discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to ensure they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations provided herein. The project plans and specifications may also be submitted to Giles for review to ensure that the geotechnical related conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been correctly interpreted.
The analysis of this site was based on a subsoil profile interpolated from a limited subsurface exploration. If the actual conditions encountered during construction vary from those indicated by the borings, Giles must be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied.
With Dust
Palliative
With
Bituminous
Treatment
GW Good: tractor, rubber-tired, steel
wheel or vibratory roller
125-135 Almost none Good drainage,
pervious
Very stable Excellent Good Fair to
poor
Excellent
GP Good: tractor, rubber-tired, steel
wheel or vibratory roller
115-125 Almost none Good drainage,
pervious
Reasonably
stable
Excellent to
good
Poor to fair Poor
GM Good: rubber-tired or light
sheepsfoot roller
120-135 Slight Poor drainage,
semipervious
Reasonably
stable
Excellent to
good
Fair to poor Poor Poor to fair
GC Good to fair: rubber-tired or
sheepsfoot roller
115-130 Slight Poor drainage,
impervious
Reasonably
stable
Good Good to fair
**
Excellent Excellent
SW Good: tractor, rubber-tired or
vibratory roller
110-130 Almost none Good drainage,
pervious
Very stable Good Fair to poor Fair to
poor
Good
SP Good: tractor, rubber-tired or
vibratory roller
100-120 Almost none Good drainage,
pervious
Reasonably
stable when
dense
Good to fair Poor Poor Poor to fair
SM Good: rubber-tired or sheepsfoot
roller
110-125 Slight Poor drainage,
impervious
Reasonably
stable when
dense
Good to fair Poor Poor Poor to fair
SC Good to fair: rubber-tired or
shee
psfoot roller
105-125 Slight to
medium
Poor drainage,
im
pervious
Reasonably
stable
Good to fair Fair to poor Excellent Excellent
ML Good to poor: rubber-tired or
sheepsfoot roller
95-120 Slight to
medium
Poor drainage,
impervious
Poor stability,
high density
re
quired
Fair to poor Not suitable Poor Poor
CL Good to fair: sheepsfoot or rubber-
tired roller
95-120 Medium No drainage,
impervious
Good stability Fair to poor Not suitable Poor Poor
OL Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or rubber-
tired roller
80-100 Medium to high Poor drainage,
impervious
Unstable, should
not be used
Poor Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable
MH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or rubber-
tired roller
70-95 High Poor drainage,
impervious
Poor stability,
should not be
use
d
Poor Not suitable Very poor Not suitable
CH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller 80-105 Very high No drainage, impervious
Fair stability,
may soften on
ex
pansion
Poor to very
poor
Not suitable Very poor Not suitable
OH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller 65-100 High No drainage, impervious
Unstable, should
not be used
Very poor Not suitable Not
suitable
Not suitable
Pt Not suitable Very high Fair to poor
draina
ge
Should not be
used
Not suitable Not suitable Not
suitable
Not suitable
* "The Unified Classification: Appendix A - Characteristics of Soil, Groups Pertaining to Roads and Airfields, and Appendix B - Characteristics of Soil Groups Pertaining to Embankments and Foundations," Technical Memorandum 357, U.S. Waterways Ixperiment Station, Vicksburg, 1953. ** Not suitable if subject to frost.
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
CHARACTERISTICS AND RATINGS OF UNIFIED SOIL SYSTEM CLASSES FOR SOIL CONSTRUCTION * Value as Temporary
Pavement
Class Compaction
Characteristics
Max. Dry
Density
Standard
Proctor
(pcf)
Compressibility
and Expansion
Drainage and
Permeability
Value as an
Embankment
Material
Value as
Subgrade
When Not
Subject to
Frost
Value as Base
Course
Giles Engineering Associates, Inc.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487)
Major Divisions Group
Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classifi cation Criteria Coarse-grained soils
(more than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size) Gravels
(More than half of coarse fraction is larger
than No. 4 sieve size)
Clean gravels
(little or no
fi nes)
GW
Well-graded gravels,
gravel-sand mixtures,
little or no fi nes
Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve.Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve.
Depending on percentage of fi nes (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-Depending on percentage of fi nes (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-Depending on percentage of fi nes (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-Depending on percentage of fi nes (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-Depending on percentage of fi nes (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse- grained soils are classifi ed as follows:
Less than 5 percent: GW, GP , SW, SP Less than 5 percent: GW, GP , SW, SP Less than 5 percent: GW, GP , SW, SP Less than 5 percent: GW, GP , SW, SP More than 12 percent: GM, GC, SM, SC More than 12 percent: GM, GC, SM, SC More than 12 percent: GM, GC, SM, SC More than 12 percent: GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent: 5 to 12 percent: Borderline cases requiring dual symbolsb Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 GP
Poorly graded gravels,
gravel-sand mixtrues,
little or no fi nes
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
Gravels with fi nes
(appreciable amount of
fi nes)
GMa
d
Silty gravels, gravel-
sand-silt mixtures
Atterberg limits
below “A” line or P .I.
less than 4
Limits plotting within shaded
area, above “A” line with P .I.
between 4 and 7 are
borderline cases requiring
use of dual symbols
u
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-
sand-clay mixtures
Atterberg limits
above “A” line or P .I.
greater than 7
Sands
(More than half of coarse fraction is
smaller than No. 4 sieve size)
Clean sands
(Little or no
fi nes)
SW
Well-graded sands,
gravelly sands, little or
no fi nes
Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 SP
Poorly graded sands,
gravelly sands, little or
no fi nes
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
Sands with fi nes
(Appreciable amount
of fi nes)
SMa
d
Silty sands, sand-silt
mixtures
Atterberg limits
below “A” line or P .I.
less than 4
Limits plotting within shaded
area, above “A” line with P .I.
between 4 and 7 are
borderline cases requiring
use of dual symbols
u
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay Clayey sands, sand-clay Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
Atterberg limits
above “A” line or P .I.
greater than 7
Fine-grained soils
(More than half material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size) Silts and clays
(Liquid limit less than 50)
ML
Inorganic silts and
very fi ne sands, rock
fl our, silty or clayey fi ne
sands, or clayey silts
with slight plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low
to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy
clays, silty clays
OL
Organic silts and
organic silty clays of
low plasticity
Silts and clays
(Liquid limit greater than 50)
MH
Inorganic silts, mica-
ceous or diatomaceous
fi ne sandy or silty soils,
elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high
plasticity, fat clays
OH
Organic clays of
medium to high
plasticity, organic silts
Highly
organic
soils Pt Peat and other highly
organic soils
D = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; C60 = greater than 4; C60 = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; C 10 = greater than 4; C (D = between 1 and 3 (D = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3 2 D = between 1 and 3D = between 1 and 3 10 x D = between 1 and 3 x D = between 1 and 3 60 = between 1 and 3
D60 = greater than 4; C60 = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; C 10 = greater than 4; C (D = between 1 and 3 (D = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3 2 D = between 1 and 3D = between 1 and 3 10 x D = between 1 and 3 x D = between 1 and 3 60 = between 1 and 3
Plasticity Chart
Plasticity Index
0 10 50 1000 10 50 10020 900 10 50 1000 10 50 100800 10 50 10020 900 10 50 100800 10 50 1000 10 50 100700 10 50 10020 900 10 50 100700 10 50 1000 10 50 100600 10 50 10020 900 10 50 100600 10 50 1000 10 50 100400 10 50 10020 900 10 50 100400 10 50 1000 10 50 100300 10 50 10020 900 10 50 100300 10 50 1000 10 50
60 40
20 30
CH
OH and MHOH and MH
CL
ML and OLML and OL
CL-ML
“A” line
Liquid Limit
a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfi elds only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits, suffi x d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P .I. is 6 or less; the suffi x u is used when L.L. is greater than 28. b Borderline classifi cations, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group sympols. For example GW-GC, well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder.
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL NOTES
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
All samples are visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487-75 or D-2488-75)
DESCRIPTIVE TERM (% BY DRY WEIGHT) PARTICLE SIZE (DIAMETER) Trace: 1-10% Boulders: 8 inch and larger
Little: 11-20% Cobbles: 3 inch to 8 inch
Some: 21-35% Gravel: coarse - ¾ to 3 inch
And/Adjective 36-50% fine – No. 4 (4.76 mm) to ¾ inch Sand: coarse – No. 4 (4.76 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm)
medium – No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm)
fine – No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm)
Silt: No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (non-plastic)
Clay: No 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (plastic)
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
Dd: Dry Density (pcf) SS: Split-Spoon
LL: Liquid Limit, percent ST: Shelby Tube – 3 inch O.D. (except where noted) PL: Plastic Limit, percent CS: 3 inch O.D. California Ring Sampler PI: Plasticity Index (LL-PL) DC: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer per ASTM LOI: Loss on Ignition, percent Special Technical Publication No. 399 Gs: Specific Gravity AU: Auger Sample
K: Coefficient of Permeability DB: Diamond Bit
w: Moisture content, percent CB: Carbide Bit
qp: Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance, tsf WS: Wash Sample qs: Vane-Shear Strength, tsf RB: Rock-Roller Bit
qu: Unconfined Compressive Stre ngth, tsf BS: Bulk Sample qc: Static Cone Penetrometer Resistance Note : Depth intervals for sampling shown on Record of (correlated to Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf) Subsurface Exploration are not indicative of sample PID: Results of vapor analysis conducted on represen tative recovery, but position where sampling initiated samples utilizing a Photoionization Detector calibrated to a benzene standard. Results expressed in HNU-Units. (BDL=Below Detection Limit) N: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for a standard 2 inch O.D. (1⅜ inch I.D.) split spoon sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches. Performed in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications (ASTM D- 1586). N in blows per foot equals sum of N-Values where plus sign (+) is shown.
Nc: Penetration Resistance per 1¾ inches of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Approximately equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value in blows per foot.
Nr: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction th ereof, for California Ring Sampler driven with a 140 pound weigh t free-falling 30 inches per ASTM D-3550. Not equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value.
SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS
COHESIVE (CLAYEY) SOILS NON-COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS
UNCONFINED
COMPARATIVE BLOWS PER COMPRESSIVE RELATIVE BLOWS PER
CONSISTENCY FOOT (N) STRENGTH (TSF) DENSITY FOOT (N)
Very Soft 0 - 2 0 - 0.25 Very Loose 0 - 4
Soft 3 - 4 0.25 - 0.50 Loose 5 - 10
Medium Stiff 5 – 8 0.50 - 1.00 Firm 11 - 30
Stiff 9 – 15 1.00 - 2.00 Dense 31 - 50
Very Stiff 16 – 30 2.00 - 4.00 Very Dense 51+
Hard 31+ 4.00+
D E G R E E O F
DEGREE OF EXPANSIVE
PLASTICITY PI POTENTIAL PI
None to Slight 0 - 4 Low 0 - 15
Slight 5 - 10 Medium 15 - 25
Medium 11 - 30 High 25+
High to Very High 31+
- 32 -
Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or Other Info rmation on Past Site Use
- 33 -
Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility
LID Technical Infeasibility Analysis
- 34 -
Appendix 6: BMP Design Details
BMP Sizing, Design Details and other Supporting Doc umentation
Date
D85= 0.66 inches
DMA
Type/ID
DMA Area
(square feet)
Post-Project Surface
Type
Effective
Imperivous
Fraction, If
DMA
Runoff
Factor
DMA Areas x
Runoff Factor
Design
Storm
Depth (in)
Design Capture
Volume, VBMP
(cubic feet)
Proposed
Volume on
Plans (cubic
feet)
1 44001 Roofs 1 0.89 39248.9
2 63311 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 56473.4
3 3,601 Concrete or Asphalt 1 0.89 3212.1
4 15950 Ornamental
Landscaping 0.1 0.11 1761.8
5 597 Ornamental
Landscaping 0.1 0.11 65.9
6 2672 Ornamental
Landscaping 0.1 0.11 295.1
7 646 Ornamental
Landscaping 0.1 0.11 71.4
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 130778 101128.6 0.66 5562.1 21,313
Notes:
BMP Identification
Drainage Management Area Tabulation
Design Rainfall Depth
BMP NAME / ID INFILTRATION CHAMBER
Must match Name/ID used on BMP Design Calculation Sheet Designed by Kenny Hostetler Case No
Company Project Number/Name 24-077
Santa Ana Watershed - BMP Design Volume, VBMP
(Rev. 10-2011)
Legend:
Required Entries
Calculated Cells
(Note this worksheet shall only be used in conjunction with BMP designs from the LID BMP Design Handbook ) Company Name DRC Engineering Inc. 1/2/2025
Total
85th Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth,
from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E
Insert additional rows if needed to accommodate all DMAs draining to the BMP Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.FOR STORMTECHINSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONSVISIT OUR APPSiteAssist MC-3500 STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS1.CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-3500.2.CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCH-SHAPED AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENECOPOLYMERS.3.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATEDWALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 45x76 DESIGNATION SS.4.CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULDIMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION.5.THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURETHAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1)LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATIONFOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES.6.CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED, TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787,"STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE: 1) INSTANTANEOUS (<1 MIN) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2)MAXIMUM PERMANENT (75-YR) COVER LOAD AND 3) ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED (1-WEEK) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK.7.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION:·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKINGSTACKING LUGS.·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESSTHAN 3”.·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BEGREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBERDEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCEDFROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS.8.ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGNENGINEER OR OWNER, THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFOREDELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS:·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.·THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FORDEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.12 OF THE AASHTOLRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE.·THE TEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DEAD LOAD DESIGNEXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-YEAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN.9.CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEM1.STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED APRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS.2.STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".3.CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS.STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS:·STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED.·BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE.·BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR.4.THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS.5.JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE.6.MAINTAIN MINIMUM - 6" (150 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS.7.INLET AND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12" (300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS.8.EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3OR #4.9.STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING.10.THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH CHAMBER FOUNDATION MATERIALS BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGNENGINEER.11.ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACESTORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF.NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT1.STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".2.THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-3500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED:·NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS.·NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".·WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".3.FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING.USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLEBACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARDWARRANTY.CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. ©2024 ADS, INC.
PROJECT INFORMATIONADS SALES REPPROJECT NO.ENGINEERED PRODUCTMANAGER 24-077 PUBLIC STORAGEMORENO VALLEY, CA, USA
StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber System4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: KKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTION24-077 PUBLIC STORAGEMORENO VALLEY, CA, USA SHEETOF25 NOTES•MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH NOTE #6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE.•DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLDCOMPONENTS IN THE FIELD.•THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.•THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FORDETERMININGTHE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS. THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION ISPROVIDED.•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT & THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED):1583.00MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC):1577.00MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC):1576.50MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT):1576.50MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT):1576.50TOP OF STONE:1576.00TOP OF MC-3500 CHAMBER:1575.0024" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT:1571.4218" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT:1571.40BOTTOM OF MC-3500 CHAMBER:1571.25BOTTOM OF STONE:1570.50PROPOSED LAYOUT112STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS16STORMTECH MC-3500 END CAPS12STONE ABOVE (in)9STONE BELOW (in)40STONE VOID21313INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF)(PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED)(COVER STONE INCLUDED)(BASE STONE INCLUDED)6264SYSTEM AREA (SF)334.1SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft)*INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBERMAX FLOWINVERT*DESCRIPTIONITEM ONLAYOUTPART TYPE2.06" 24" BOTTOM CORED END CAP, PART#: MC3500IEPP24BC / TYP OF ALL 24" BOTTOMCONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSA PREFABRICATED END CAP1.77" 18" BOTTOM CORED END CAP, PART#: MC3500IEPP18BC / TYP OF ALL 18" BOTTOMCONNECTIONSB PREFABRICATED END CAPINSTALL FLAMP ON 24" ACCESS PIPE / PART#: MCFLAMPC FLAMP1.77" 18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD, ADS N-12D MANIFOLD20.9 CFS IN(DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)E CONCRETE STRUCTUREW/WEIR ISOLATOR ROW PLUS(SEE DETAIL)PLACE MINIMUM 17.50' OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDINGSTONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALLCHAMBER INLET ROWSBED LIMITS 01020
110.22'
56.83'
104.08'
54.83'DCBAE
StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber System ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEMS PLEASE NOTE:1.THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE".2.STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR.3.WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FORCOMPACTION REQUIREMENTS.4.ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.5.WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS 'A' OR 'B' THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20 "RECYCLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL".
NOTES:1.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 45x76DESIGNATION SS.2.MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".3.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATIONFOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS.4.PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS.5.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION:·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS.·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3”.·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OFASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOWCOLORS.
MATERIAL LOCATIONDESCRIPTIONAASHTO MATERIALCLASSIFICATIONSCOMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENTDFINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C'LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHEDGRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D'LAYERANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS.CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS.N/APREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVEDINSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL ANDPREPARATION REQUIREMENTS.CINITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THEEMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE TOP OF THECHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C'LAYER.GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES ORPROCESSED AGGREGATE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THISLAYER.AASHTO M145¹A-1, A-2-4, A-3ORAASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF MATERIAL OVERTHE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN12" (300 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FORWELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FORPROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.BEMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THEFOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONEOR RECYCLED CONCRETE5AASHTO M43¹3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57AFOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TOTHE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONEOR RECYCLED CONCRETE5AASHTO M43¹3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3 45"(1140 mm)18"(450 mm) MIN*8'(2.4 m)MAX
12" (300 mm) MIN77" (1950 mm)
12" (300 mm) MIN
6"(150 mm) MINDEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINEDBY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN DCBA
*TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVEDINSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR,INCREASE COVER TO 24" (600 mm). 6" (150 mm) MIN
PERIMETER STONE(SEE NOTE 4)EXCAVATION WALL(CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL)MC-3500END CAPSUBGRADE SOILS(SEE NOTE 3) PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNEDBY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER)**THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTSMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION.PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S) FORPROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
NO COMPACTION REQUIRED.
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALLAROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS 4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: KKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTION24-077 PUBLIC STORAGEMORENO VALLEY, CA, USA SHEETOF35
StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber System INSPECTION & MAINTENANCESTEP 1)INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENTA.INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT)A.1.REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAINA.2.REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLEDA.3.USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOGA.4.LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL)A.5.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.B.ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSB.1.REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUSB.2.USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPEi)MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRYii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLEB.3.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.STEP 2)CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESSA.A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERREDB.APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEANC.VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIREDSTEP 3)REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS.STEP 4)INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM.NOTES1.INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUSOBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS.2.CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY.
MC-3500 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAILNTS24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USEFACTORY PRE-CORED END CAPPART #: MC3500IEPP24BC OR MC3500IEPP24BW STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDSFLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAMSTRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATESCOVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADSGEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEMC-3500 CHAMBEROPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT MC-3500 END CAP
ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEENFOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS8.25' (2.51 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMSSUMP DEPTH TBD BYSITE DESIGN ENGINEER(24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED) INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" (600 mm) ACCESS PIPEPART #: MCFLAMP 4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: KKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTION24-077 PUBLIC STORAGEMORENO VALLEY, CA, USA SHEETOF45
StormTech888-892-2694 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM®Chamber System
MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAILNTS
NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTALFOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING.
MANIFOLD HEADERMANIFOLD STUBSTORMTECH END CAP
MANIFOLD HEADERMANIFOLD STUB12" (300 mm)MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm) MIN INSERTION12" (300 mm)MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm)MIN INSERTION
PART #STUBBC MC3500IEPP06T6" (150 mm)33.21" (844 mm)--- MC3500IEPP06B---0.66" (17 mm)MC3500IEPP08T8" (200 mm)31.16" (791 mm)--- MC3500IEPP08B---0.81" (21 mm)MC3500IEPP10T10" (250 mm)29.04" (738 mm)--- MC3500IEPP10B---0.93" (24 mm)MC3500IEPP12T12" (300 mm)26.36" (670 mm)--- MC3500IEPP12B---1.35" (34 mm)MC3500IEPP15T15" (375 mm)23.39" (594 mm)--- MC3500IEPP15B---1.50" (38 mm)MC3500IEPP18TC18" (450 mm)20.03" (509 mm)--- MC3500IEPP18TWMC3500IEPP18BC---1.77" (45 mm)MC3500IEPP18BWMC3500IEPP24TC24" (600 mm)14.48" (368 mm)--- MC3500IEPP24TWMC3500IEPP24BC---2.06" (52 mm)MC3500IEPP24BWMC3500IEPP30BC30" (750 mm)---2.75" (70 mm) NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)77.0" X 45.0" X 86.0" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 2184 mm)CHAMBER STORAGE109.9 CUBIC FEET (3.11 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*175.0 CUBIC FEET (4.96 m³)WEIGHT134 lbs.(60.8 kg)NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)75.0" X 45.0" X 22.2" (1905 mm X 1143 mm X 564 mm)END CAP STORAGE14.9 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*45.1 CUBIC FEET (1.28 m³)WEIGHT49 lbs.(22.2 kg)*ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION, 6" SPACING BETWEENCHAMBERS, 6" (152 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY MC-3500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONNTS
90.0" (2286 mm)ACTUAL LENGTH
86.0" (2184 mm)INSTALLED
BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL
LOWER JOINTCORRUGATIONWEBCRESTCRESTSTIFFENING RIBVALLEYSTIFFENING RIB BC
75.0"(1905 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)
25.7"(653 mm)
FOOT
77.0"(1956 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)
STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B"STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T"END CAPS WITH A WELDED CROWN PLATE END WITH "C"END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W" UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION22.2"(564 mm)INSTALLED
CUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS AREAVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZEAND 15-48" (375-1200 mm)ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOMINVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-3500END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOTRECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZESGREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THEINVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B'ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FORTHE PIPE SIZE.
PART #STUBBC MC3500IEPP06T6" (150 mm)33.21" (844 mm)--- MC3500IEPP06B---0.66" (17 mm)MC3500IEPP08T8" (200 mm)31.16" (791 mm)--- MC3500IEPP08B---0.81" (21 mm)MC3500IEPP10T10" (250 mm)29.04" (738 mm)--- MC3500IEPP10B---0.93" (24 mm)MC3500IEPP12T12" (300 mm)26.36" (670 mm)--- MC3500IEPP12B---1.35" (34 mm)MC3500IEPP15T15" (375 mm)23.39" (594 mm)--- MC3500IEPP15B---1.50" (38 mm)MC3500IEPP18TC18" (450 mm)20.03" (509 mm)--- MC3500IEPP18TWMC3500IEPP18BC---1.77" (45 mm)MC3500IEPP18BWMC3500IEPP24TC24" (600 mm)14.48" (368 mm)--- MC3500IEPP24TWMC3500IEPP24BC---2.06" (52 mm)MC3500IEPP24BWMC3500IEPP30BC30" (750 mm)---2.75" (70 mm) NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)77.0" X 45.0" X 86.0" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 2184 mm)CHAMBER STORAGE109.9 CUBIC FEET (3.11 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*175.0 CUBIC FEET (4.96 m³)WEIGHT134 lbs.(60.8 kg)NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONSSIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)75.0" X 45.0" X 22.2" (1905 mm X 1143 mm X 564 mm)END CAP STORAGE14.9 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m³)MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*45.1 CUBIC FEET (1.28 m³)WEIGHT49 lbs.(22.2 kg)*ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION, 6" SPACING BETWEENCHAMBERS, 6" (152 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY MC-3500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONNTS
90.0" (2286 mm)ACTUAL LENGTH
86.0" (2184 mm)INSTALLED
BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL
LOWER JOINTCORRUGATIONWEBCRESTCRESTSTIFFENING RIBVALLEYSTIFFENING RIB BC
75.0"(1905 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)
25.7"(653 mm)
FOOT
77.0"(1956 mm)45.0"(1143 mm)
STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B"STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T"END CAPS WITH A WELDED CROWN PLATE END WITH "C"END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W" UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION22.2"(564 mm)INSTALLED
CUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS AREAVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZEAND 15-48" (375-1200 mm)ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOMINVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-3500END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOTRECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZESGREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THEINVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B'ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FORTHE PIPE SIZE. 4640 TRUEMAN BLVDHILLIARD, OH 430261-800-733-7473DATE: DRAWN: KKPROJECT #: CHECKED: N/ATHIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATERESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.DATEDRWCHKDESCRIPTION24-077 PUBLIC STORAGEMORENO VALLEY, CA, USA SHEETOF55
Q= CiA
0.81 0.2 ft/s
1 acre
0.162 cfs
Explanation
Flowrate Calculation
Manning's Equation
The design calculations for the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event are based on the Rational Method, Q = CiA, for flow-based Treatment Control BMPs. According to the WQMP Guidance
Document for the Santa Ana Region of Riverside County, the rainfall intensity is 0.2 inches per hour for 85th percentile. This rainfall intensity value was then used to determine the composite rational method runoff factor, based on the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual. With 90% impervious area and Soil Group A, the
composite rational method runoff coefficient is determined to be
0.81. The flowrate in cfs is 0.162 cfs, the bypass capacity of a 24x24 drain inlet is 6.1. Since the drain inlet is design to capture 100 year storm event, we can determine that the size of the drain inlet is capable to capture the project site rainfall.
Composite rational
method runoff factor
Rainfall Intensiy
Area
Flowrate (Q)
- 35 -
Appendix 7: Hydromodification
Supporting Detail Relating to Hydrologic Conditions of Concern
- 36 -
Appendix 8: Source Control
Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist
- 37 -
Appendix 9: O&M
Operation and Maintenance Plan and Documentation of Finance, Maintenance and Recording Mechanisms (To be included in Final WQMP)
- 6 -
Appendix 10: Educational Materials
BMP Fact Sheets, Maintenance Guidelines and Other E nd-User BMP Information
(To be included in Final WQMP)