Appendix E Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality ...

1600 W. Lincoln Avenue Project

Appendix E

Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality Improvements, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development and Parking Structure, 1600 W.

Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., May 2018

May 8, 2018 J.N.: 2623.00

Mr. Josh Haskins Development Advisors, LLC 2400 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 800 Anaheim, California 92806 Subject: Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality Improvements, Proposed Multi-

Family Residential Development and Parking Structure, 1600 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California.

Dear Mr. Haskins, Pursuant to your request, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. has completed an infiltration study for proposed water quality improvements. The scope of this investigation consisted of the following:

Exploratory drilling, soil sampling and test well installation Field percolation testing Laboratory testing of selected soil samples Engineering analysis of the data Preparation of this report

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Site Location and Description

The site is located at 1600 W. Lincoln Avenue, within the city of Anaheim, California. The property is irregular in shape and comprises approximately 5.3 acres of land. The location of the site is depicted on Figure 1. The site is currently occupied by an auto dealership with an auto mechanics shop. The site is bordered by West Lincoln Avenue to the north, South Loara Street to the east, Loara Elementary School, a single family residence, and commercial development to the south, and a multi-family residential community to the west. At the time of this evaluation, the southern portion of the site was occupied by two buildings that house an automotive body shop and RV repair facility; the northern portion of the site is currently occupied by a used car dealership. A paved parking lot occupies the remainder of the property. Free standing walls were located along the perimeter of the property except on the northern portion of the site. The north is bordered by planters and sidewalks. The site is relatively level with elevations, based on GoogleEarth 2018, varying from approximately 129 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 135 feet above MSL. Drainage at the site appears to be directed as sheet flow towards the east within the southern portion of the site and to the north within the norther portion. Vegetation at the site consists of a few palm trees and shrubs along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site

Development Advisors, LLC May 8, 2018 J.N. : 2623.00

Page 2

ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

© 2017 Google

SITE LOCATION MAP N

The Olson Company Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development and Parking Structure

1600 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, California

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 1

SITE


Page 3


Proposed Development

We understand the site will be developed for residential use. We anticipate the proposed site development will consist of 35 three-story townhomes and either a four- or five-story apartment building with a six- to seven-level parking structure. We also anticipate that all proposed structures will be constructed on grade (i.e. no subterranean elements). Associated interior driveways, perimeter/retaining walls, underground utilities and a storm water infiltration system are also anticipated. No grading or structural plans were available in preparing of this report. However, we anticipate that minor rough grading of the site will be required to achieve future surface configuration and we expect the proposed residential dwellings will be wood-framed structures with concrete slabs on grade yielding relatively light foundation loads. The multi-level parking structure is anticipated to be a concrete and masonry block supported by conventional foundations.

SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

Subsurface Investigation

Subsurface exploration for this investigation was conducted on July 18, 2017, and consisted of drilling six (6) soil borings to depths ranging from approximately 15 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted, continuous flight, hollow-stem-auger drill rig. Representatives of Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. logged the exploratory borings. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encountered, and their descriptions are presented in the Exploration Logs in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations completed by this firm are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.

Bulk, relatively undisturbed and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples were obtained at selected depths within the exploratory borings for subsequent laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch O.D., 2.5-inch I.D., California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. SPT samples were obtained from the boring using a standard, unlined SPT soil sampler. During each sampling interval, the sampler was driven 18 inches with successive drops of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler was recorded for each six inches of advancement. The total blow count for the lower 12 inches of advancement per soil sample is recorded on the exploration log. Samples were placed in sealed containers or plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for analyses. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of sampling. Borings B-1 and B-4 were converted into percolation test wells (P-1 and P-2) at the completion of drilling. Two-inch-diameter casings were installed in each boring for subsequent percolation testing. The locations of the percolation wells are depicted on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Well screens having a length of approximately 10 feet where installed at the bottom of the percolation wells with solid pipe extending the remainder of the distance to the ground surface. The annular space of the well screen sections was filled with sand. Subsequent to completion of testing, the well casings were removed and the boring was refilled with drill cuttings. Percolation Testing


Page 4


Percolation testing was performed on July 18, 2017, in general conformance with the constant-head test procedures outlined in the referenced Well Permeameter Method (USBR 7300-89). A water hose attached to a water source on site was connected to an inline flow meter to measure the water flow. The flow meter is capable of measuring flow rates up to 10 gallons per minute and as low as 0.1 gallons per minute. A valve was connected in line with the flow meter to control the flow rate. A filling hose was used to connect the flow meter and the test wells. Water was introduced by the filling hose near the bottom of the test wells. A water level meter with 1/100-foot divisions was used to measure the depths to water surface from the top of well casings. Flow to the wells was terminated upon either completion of testing of all the pre-determined water levels or the flow rate exceeded the maximum capacity of the flow meter. Measurements obtained during the percolation testing are provided on Plates C-1 and C-2. Laboratory Testing

Selected soil samples of representative earth materials were tested to assist in the formulation of conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. Tests consisted of grain-size analysis. Laboratory testing relevant to percolation characteristics are presented in Appendix B.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface soils observed within the site are comprised of up to approximately 4 feet of artificial fill overlying alluvial deposits. The artificial fill is comprised of loose to medium dense silty sand. The alluvial deposits are comprised of loose to dense interlayers of silty sand and sand with variable amounts of gravel. Some discontinuous layers and lenses comprised of sandy silt were occasionally observed within the alluvium. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during this firm’s subsurface explorations to a maximum explored depth of 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. A review of the CDMG Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03 indicates that historical high groundwater levels for the general site area have been estimated to be greater than 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the referenced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report for the property, the groundwater depth is inferred to be approximately 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) based on the subsurface investigation conducted on a nearby property (1631 West Lincoln Avenue and Closed Case #083004014T).


Page 5


Percolation Data Analyses were performed to evaluate permeability using the flow rate obtained at the end of the constant-head stage of field percolation testing for the data obtained from percolation test well P-1 and P-2. These analyses were performed in accordance with the procedures provided in the referenced USBR method as presented on Plates C-4 through C-6 and summarized below in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Summary of Back-Calculated Permeability Coefficient from Constant Head Test

Location Total Depth

of Well (ft)

Depth to Water in

Well (ft)

Height of Water in

Well (ft)

Static Flow Rate

(gal./min.)

Estimated Permeability,

ks

(in/hr.) P-1 (B-1) 25 20 5 2.0 3.27 P-2 (B-4) 15 13.5 1.5 6.25 68.23

Using the Kozeny-Carman equation, we estimated permeability rates based on laboratory testing consisting of particle-size analyses. The estimated permeability based on correlations with particle-size analyses are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Summary of Estimated Permeability Coefficient Based on Gradation

Location USCS

Classification Depth

(ft)

Dry unit

weight (pcf)

Specific Gravity


ks

(in/hr) B-1 SM 20 - 2.65 2.71 B-4 SP 10 99.1 2.65 61.6

Design of Dry Well

Infiltration in a dry well was modeled using the software Seep/W, version 2007, by Geo-Slope International. The program allows for modeling of both partially-saturated and saturated porous medium using a finite element approach to solve Darcy’s Law. The program can evaluate both steady-state and transient flow in planer and axisymmetric cases. Boundaries of the model can be identified with various conditions including fix total head, fix pressure head, fix flow rate, and head as a function of flow. Soil conductivity properties can be modeled with either Fredlund et al (1994), Green and Corey (1971), or Van Genuchten (1980). The Van Genuchten parameters were selected for use in our models and were based on test results of particle-size analyses and estimated in-place densities. The saturated conductivities for the infiltration zones were selected based on the results obtained from back-calculation of the percolation tests.


Page 6


A Seep/W model was setup with the bottom of the dry well at a depth of 20 feet below ground surface. The total depth of the dry well was assumed to be 6 feet in diameter and contain a settling chamber 18 feet in depth, have an inside diameter of 4 feet, and an outside diameter of 4.5 feet. Annular space around the chamber and below the chamber is assumed to consist of gravel. A more detailed model of the dry well design can be found on Plate 2. The model consisted of three zones of material to represent the general soil profile. The upper zone (Material # 1) was modeled to be relatively impermeable to represent artificial fill and to ignore contributions from this layer. The second zone (Material No. 2) was modeled to represent the poorly-graded sands encountered during our subsurface investigation that extend to the depth of 17 feet near Borings 1 and 4. The conductivity of this zone is based on the back-analyzed percolation tests as well as results of correlations with lab testing. The conductivity of the bottom zone (Material No. 3) was modeled to represent the interbedded sands and silty sands that were encountered during our subsurface investigation below a depth of 17 feet. The conductivity of this zone is based on the back-analyzed percolation tests as well as results of correlations with lab testing. A summary of the properties for each zone is provided in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Summary of Characteristic Curve Parameters

Material No.

Depth (ft)

USCS Ks

(in/hr)

Van Genuchten Parameters

a (1/cm)

n m Sat.

Water Content

Residual Water

Content

1 Impermeable Soils 0.001 0.0001 1.22 0.18 0.42 0.01 2 Sand 50.0 59.63 1.25 0.20 0.31 0.025 3 Silty Sand & Sand 3.0 3.00 1.36 0.27 0.33 0.025

Steady state analyses were performed to estimate the maximum inflow that a well can accommodate. The water head was set at 5 feet below the ground surface in the well. Using the well configuration described above, we obtain a peak static total flow of 0.29 ft³/sec. A plot depicting the resulting pressure head contours and flow vectors for the model are provided on Plate C-5. To evaluate the time required to empty the well once no more water is introduced, the model was reanalyzed with a variable head condition that was dependent upon the volume of water leaving the well. As water infiltrates into the surrounding soil, the volume of water remaining in the well is reduced as well as the resulting water head. A graph of the well head versus exit volume for the well configuration is provided in Figure 2. The function assumes a void ratio of 0.4 within the zones occupied by gravel. If some other well configuration is used, then the analyses will require updating.


Page 7


Figure 2 –Well Head Function

The analyses were performed as a transient case over a total time of approximately 4 hours. The water is evacuated from the chamber portion of the well in approximately 3 hours assuming the well utilizes a chamber 18 feet in depth. Plots depicting the resulting pressure head contours and flow vectors at selected times during the drawdown phase is provided in Appendix C on Plates C-6 through C-10.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General

Based on results of our testing, infiltration of storm water at the site is feasible using a shallow chamber system such as Stormtech chambers or dry wells. Recommendations pertinent to each type of system is provided below. The use of shallow chamber systems or dry wells is not anticipated to result in worsening any adverse conditions or hazards that may be present for the proposed site development or adjacent properties including subsidence, landsliding, or liquefaction. As discussed above, the groundwater is approximately 100 feet deep and is anticipated to remain below a depth of 50 during the design life of the project. Therefore, chambers systems founded within the upper 10 feet and a dry well having a total depth of 20 will maintain the minimum clearance of 10 feet above groundwater as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Shallow System

The infiltration rate of a shallow chamber system will be dependent upon the depth and width of the system as well as the depth of water contained in the chambers. For purposes of developing an infiltration rate, we have conservatively assumed a negligible ponding depth in the chambers. Since the soil profile consists of a higher permeability layer (SP) over a lower permeability layer (SM), the overall infiltration rate will depend essentially on the vertical clearance of the chamber bottom from the lower SM soil layer and the width of the system. We have assumed the infiltration rate can be

80

85

90

95

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Total H

ead

(ft)

Volume (ft3)


Page 8


estimated by using a weight average of the permeabilities of the upper SP layer with a permeability of 50 in/hr. and lower SM layer with a permeability of 3 in/hr. depending upon the depth and width of the system. The weighting is based on the giving full weight to the upper layer when the clearance is 3 times the system width. Where the clearance is less than 3 times the system width, the permeabilities are weighted according to the ratios of the permeabilities to 3 times the system width. The results of weighting of these two factors is summarized in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 Summary of Measured Infiltration Rates for Shallow Chamber Systems

Depth to Bottom of Chamber

System Width (ft)

6 ft 8 ft 10ft

10 20 in/hr. 17 in/hr. 14 in/hr. 20 12 in/hr. 10 in/hr. 9 in/hr. 30 9 in/hr. 8 in/hr. 7 in/hr.

The system width should be based on the total minimum dimension across the chamber area regardless of how many individual chambers are used or the spacing between chambers. The project civil engineer should incorporate an appropriate factor of safety to the measured values indicated in Table 3 to develop the design infiltration rate. Excavation bottoms should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that appropriate soils are present. Any soils that do not meet the anticipated minimum infiltration rate should be excavated and replaced with a granular material that meets or exceeds a permeability rate of 50 in./hr. Such a material may consist of a Caltrans Class II permeable base or other material approved by the geotechnical engineer. Chambers should be placed at least 20 feet horizontally from any building or property line. Once WQMP plans and calculations are developed, they should be reviewed by this office to confirm the intent of this report has been properly incorporated into the project. We also recommend that a representative of this office be present during construction to confirm the exposed soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide recommendations in the event they differ. Dry Well

Results of our work indicate a storm water disposal system consisting of dry wells is feasible at the site. Based on results of percolation testing and analyses, a well configuration as depicted on Plate 2 may utilize an unfactored peak flow rate of 0.29 ft³/sec. in proximity to the infiltration test well locations (B-1 and B-4) indicated on Plate 1. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the flow rate as required by the governmental authority. Wells with differing diameters or lengths will result in differing infiltration rates. As such, this value should not be used for evaluation of other well configurations. The wells should be located at least 15 feet horizontally from any habitable structure or property line. Should you require multiple dry wells across the site, the wells should be spaced at least 70 feet, center


Page 9


to center, to avoid cross influence. Provided the recommendations above are incorporated into the design of the drywell, permanent groundwater mounding is not anticipated to occur. The actual flow capacity of the dry well could be more or less than the estimated value. As such, provisions should be made to accommodate excess flow quantities in the event the dry well does not infiltrate the anticipated amount. The design also assumes that sediments will be removed from the inflowing water through an upper chamber or other device. Sediments that are allowed to enter the dry well will tend to degrade the flow capacity by plugging up the infiltration surfaces. In general, the dry well may consist of a concrete inner chamber surrounded by ½-inch open graded gravel. The concrete chamber should have perforations to allow the chamber to drain. The holes should be sized to prevent piping of the gravel into the chamber. A sand/cement slurry should be used as backfill outside the entire diameter of the drilled shaft within the upper 5 feet of the wells to restrict water from entering the upper 5 feet. A general diagram of the dry well is provided on Plate 2. In general, the dry well shaft is anticipated to be prone to sloughing and caving due to the layers of granular materials encountered during the subsurface investigation. We anticipate that casing will be required to install the well. Workers should not enter the shaft unless the excavation is laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. The placement and compaction of backfill materials, including the gravel should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant.

LIMITATIONS

This report is based on the geotechnical data as described herein. The materials encountered in our boring excavations and utilized in our laboratory testing for this investigation are believed representative of the project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil and bedrock materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observations by a geotechnical consultant during the construction phase of the storm water infiltration systems are essential to confirming the basis of this report. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Development Advisors to assist the project consultants in the design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental agency.


Page 10


We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you should have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely,


Mark Principe David E. Albus

Staff Engineer Principal Engineer G.E. 2455 Enclosures: Plate 1- Geotechnical Map Plate 2 – Typical Dry Well Exhibit Appendix A - Exploratory Logs

Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Appendix C - Percolation Testing and Analyses


Page 11


REFERENCES

Publications California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Report 03, “Seismic

Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California”, 1998.

State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Zones,

Anaheim and Newport Beach Quadrangle, dated April 17, 1997. Procedure for Performing Field Permeability Testing by the Well Permeameter Method, by United

States Department of The Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR 7300-89). Saxton, K.E., W.J. Rawls, J.S. Romberger, and R.I. Papendick. 1986. Estimating generalized soil-

water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50(4):1031-103 Reports Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1600 West Lincoln, 1600 West Lincoln Avenue, City

of Anaheim, California, prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., dated April 28, 2017 (Partner Project No. 16-177713.1).

W. L

INCOLN A

VE.

S.

LO

AR

A S

T.

PROJECT

LIMIT

B-2

B-3

B-6

B-5

B-1/P-1

B-4/P-2

W. PAMPAS LN.

ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS

GEOTECHNICAL MAP

2623.00Job No.:

Plate: 1

Date: 05/08/18© Google 2017

EXPLANATION

(Locations Approximate)

- Exploratory Boring

B-6

- Exploratory Boring &

Percolation Test Boring

B-1/P-1

0 50 100 200

APPROX. SCALE : 1" = 100'

CALCULATING MAXWELL IV REQUIREMENTSThe type of property, soil permeability, rainfall intensity and local drainage ordinances determine the number and design of MaxWell Systems. For general applications draining retainedstormwater, use one standard MaxWell IV per the instructions below for up to 3 acres of landscaped contributory area, and up to 1 acre of paved surface. For larger paved surfaces,subdivision drainage, nuisance water drainage, connecting pipes larger than 4" Ø from catch basins or underground storage, or other demanding applications, refer to ourMaxWell® PlusSystem. For industrial drainage, including gasoline service stations, our Envibro® System may be recommended. For additional considerations, please refer to “Design Suggestions ForRetention And Drainage Systems” or consult our Design Staff.

COMPLETING THE MAXWELL IV DRAWINGTo apply theMaxWell IV drawing to your specific project, simply fill in the blue boxes per instructions below. For assistance, please consult our Design Staff.

DRAINAGE PIPEThis dimension also applies to the PureFlo® Debris Shield, the FloFast® Drainage Screen,and fittings. The size selected is based upon system design rates, soil conditions, andthe need for adequate venting. Choices are 6", 8", or 12" diameter. Refer to “DesignSuggestions for Retention and Drainage Systems” for recommendations on which sizebest matches your application.

BOLTED RING & GRATEStandard models are quality cast iron and available to fit 24" Ø or 30" Ø manholeopenings. All units are bolted in two locations with wording “Storm Water Only” in raisedletters. For other surface treatments, please refer to “Design Suggestions for Retentionand Drainage Systems.”

INLET PIPE INVERTPipes up to 4" in diameter from catch basins, underground storage, etc. may be connectedinto the settling chamber. Inverts deeper than 5 feet will require additional settlingchamber depth to maintain effective overflow height.

"Ø

"Ø

"Ø

®

TORRENT RESOURCES (CA) INCORPORATED

phone 661~947~9836

CA Lic. 886759 A, C-42

www.TorrentResources.com

An evolution of McGuckin Drilling

The referenced drawing and specifications are available on CAD either through our office or web site. This detail

is copyrighted (2004) but may be used as is in construction plans without further release. For information on

product application, individual project specifications or site evaluation, contact our Design Staff for no-charge

assistance in any phase of your planning.

1. Manhole Cone - Modified Flat Bottom.

2. Moisture Membrane - 6 Mil. Plastic. Applies only whennative material is used for backfill. Place membranesecurely against eccentric cone and hole sidewall.

3. Bolted Ring & Grate - Diameter as shown. Clean cast ironwith wording “Storm Water Only” in raised letters. Boltedin 2 locations and secured to cone with mortar. Rim elevation±0.02' of plans.

4. Graded Basin or Paving (by Others).

5. Compacted Base Material - 1-Sack Slurry except inlandscaped installtions with no pipe connections.

6. PureFlo® Debris Shield - Rolled 16 ga. steel X 24" lengthwith vented anti-siphon and Internal .265" Max. SWOflattened expanded steel screen X 12" length. Fusionbonded epoxy coated.

7. Pre-cast Liner - 4000 PSI concrete 48" ID. X 54" OD. Centerin hole and align sections to maximize bearing surface.

8. Min. 6' Ø Drilled Shaft.

9. Support Bracket - Formed 12 Ga. steel. Fusion bondedepoxy coated.

10. Overflow Pipe - Sch. 40 PVC mated to drainage pipe atbase seal.

11. Drainage Pipe - ADS highway grade with TRI-A coupler.Suspend pipe during backfill operations to preventbuckling or breakage. Diameter as noted.

12. Base Seal - Geotextile or concrete slurry.

13. Rock - Washed, sized between 3/8" and 1-1/2" to bestcomplement soil conditions.

14. FloFast® Drainage Screen - Sch. 40 PVC 0.120" slottedwell screen with 32 slots per row/ft.Diameter varies 120"overall length with TRI-B coupler.

15. Min. 4' Ø Shaft - Drilled to maintain permeability ofdrainage soils.

16. Fabric Seal - U.V. resistant geotextile - to be removedby customer at project completion.

17. Absorbent – Hydrophobic Petrochemical Sponge.Min. to 128 oz. capacity.

18. Freeboard Depth Varies with inlet pipe elevation. Increasesettling chamber depth as needed to maintain all inletpipe elevations above overflow pipe inlet.

19. Optional Inlet Pipe (Maximum 4", by Others). Extendmoisture membrane and compacted base material or1 sack slurry backfill below pipe invert.

ITEM NUMBERS

MAXWELL® IV DRAINAGE SYSTEM DETAIL AND SPECIFICATIONS

The watermark for drainage solutions.®1/12

Manufactured and Installed by

TORRENT RESOURCESAn evolution of McGuckin Drilling

www.torrentresources.com

ARIZONA 602/268-0785NEVADA 702/366-1234

CALIFORNIA 661/947-9836

®Manufactured and Installed by



ARIZONA 602/268-0785NEVADA 702/366-1234


AZ Lic. ROC070465 A, ROC047067 B-4, ADWR 363CA Lic. 528080, C-42, HAZ.

NV Lic. 0035350 A - NM Lic. 90504 GF04

U.S. Patent No. 4,923,330 - TM Trademark 1974, 1990, 2004

®

114188a:084318a1 1/10/12 8:17 AM Page 2

20 ft

20 ft

20 feet ESTIMATED TOTAL DEPTHThe Estimated Total Depth is the approximate depth required to achieve 10 continuous feet of penetration into permeable soils. Torrent utilizes specialized “crowd” equipped drill rigs to penetrate difficult, cemented soils and to reach permeable materials at depths up to 180 feet. Our extensive database of drilling logs and soils information is available for use as a reference. Please contact our Design Staff for site-specific information on your project.

18 feet SETTLING CHAMBER DEPTHOn MaxWell IV Systems of over 30 feet overall depth and up to 0.25cfs design rate, the standard Settling Chamber Depth is 18 feet . For systems exposed to greater contributory area than noted above, extreme service conditions, or that require higher design rates, chamber depths up to 25 feet are recommended.

' OVERFLOW HEIGHTThe Overflow Height and Settling Chamber Depth determine the effectiveness of the settling process. The higher the overflow pipe, the deeper the chamber, the greater the settling capacity. For normal drainage applications, an overflow height of 13 feet is used with the standard settling chamber depth of 18 feet. Sites with higher design rates than noted above, heavy debris loading or unusual service conditions require greater settling capacities

TORRENT RESOURCES INCORPORATED1509 East Elwood Street, Phoenix Arizona 85040~1391phone 602~268~0785 fax 602~268~0820Nevada 702~366~1234

AZ Lic. ROC070465 A, ROC047067 B-4; ADWR 363CA Lic. 528080 A, C-42, HAZ ~ NV Lic. 0035350 A ~ NM Lic. 90504 GF04

18 ft

15 m

il M

EM

BR

AN

E D

EP

TH


APPENDIX A

EXPLORATORY LOGS

Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests

Laboratory TestsSamples

Material Description

E X P L O R A T I O N L O G

Water

Core

Bulk

5

10

15

20

EXPLANATION

Solid lines separate geologic units and/or material types.

Dashed lines indicate unknown depth of geologic unit change or material type change.

Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California Split Spoon sampler (2.5in ID, 3in OD).

Double triangle in core column represents SPT sampler.

Solid black rectangle in Bulk column respresents large bag sample.

Other Laboratory Tests:

Max = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content

EI = Expansion Index

SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content

DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded

DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed

SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve)

Hydro = Particle Size Analysis (SA with Hydrometer)

200 = Percent Passing #200 Sieve

Consol = Consolidation

SE = Sand Equivalent

Rval = R-Value

ATT = Atterberg Limits

Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. Plate A-1

Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab Tests




1600 W Lincoln Ave, Anaheim, CA 92801

2623.00 7/18/2017

AJAHollow-Stem Auger

Development Advisors, LLC

B-1

134.8

Wate

r

Core

Bu

lk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20

25

Asphalt Concrete (AC): 2 inches

Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB): 2 inches

ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, Micaceous

ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, Micaceous

Silty Sand (SM): Brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, Micaceous, Trace Fine gravel

Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp to moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, Micaceous

@ 10 ft, trace fine to coarse gravel, decreased fines

Silty Sand (SM): Pale brown, moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, Micaceous

Boring ended at 25ft. No groundwater was encountered. Boring was converted into percolation test well (P-1)

18

17

18

16

12

11

13

2.5

2.9

8.5

4.8

98.3

101.7

91.9

94

Hydro 200


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-2

131.2

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20

Asphalt Concrete (AC): 1 inch

Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB): 4 inch



ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous

Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, damp to moist, loose, fine grained sand, micaceous

@ 10 ft, medium dense, increased fines, few pinhole pores

@ 15 ft, loose, decreased fines, grades to sand in tip

@ 20 ft, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, decreased fines

13

12

10

11

25.4

22.7

15.3

16.6

95.1

97.6

Dist.

101.1

Consol

Consol

Consol


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-2

131.2

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

30

35

40

45

@ 25 ft, Sample grades to sandy silt then back to silty sand

@ 30 ft, loose

Sand (SP): Pale brown, dry to damp, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous

@ 40 ft, dense, fine to medium grained sand

@ 45 ft, fine to coarse grained sand

Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained sand, micaceous, trace iron oxide stains

14

8

22

26

34

11.519.712

16.8

Dist.Dist.Dist.

Dist.


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-2

131.2

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand, micaceous

Boring ended at 51.5 feet.No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt concrete.

17


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-3

129.5

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20



ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, moist, loose, fine grained sand, trace construction debris (i.e.:clay pipe fragments)

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, moist, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceaous

Silty Sand (SM): Olive brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous, Iron oxide stains, grades to dark brown fine sand in tip

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand,micaceous, trace iron oxide, trace pinhole pores

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Pale gray, damp, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

@ 20 ft, Brown

Boring ended at 21.5 feet.No groundwater encountered.Backfilled with cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt concrete.

14

10

12

12

9

25.1

4.4

20

96.9

97.5

98 Consol


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-4

132.0

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Silty Sand (SM): Olive brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, some palm tree roots

@ 4 ft, medium dense, some small sand lenses

Sand (SP): Pale brown, dry to damp, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous, no roots present

@ 10 ft, damp, medium dense

Boring ended at 15 feet. No groundwater encountered. Converted into percolation test well (P-2).

18

12

10

15

9

2.7

7.2

10.9

2.2

99.1

92.3

98.5

93.7

Hydro 200


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-5

134.8

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20

Asphalt Concrete (AC):

Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB):

ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Olive brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown, damp to moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, micaceous, trace amounts of fine gravel

@ 10 ft, fine to coarse gravel, thin sandy silt lens

@ 15 ft, medium to coarse grained sand, no silt lenses, no gravel

@ 20 ft, dense, trace fine to coarse gravel

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, medium stiff, finegrained sand, micaceous. trace iron oxide staining

16

35

11

24

7

16

10.4

2.2

21.8

15.1

2.6

95.9

100.3

96.6

101.7

93.6

Max EI SO4 DS

pH Resist

Consol


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-5

134.8

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

30@ 30 ft, Olive brown, very moist, very stiff

Sand (SP): Light brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

Boring ended at 31.5 feet.No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with cuttings.Patched with cold patch asphalt concrete.

6

15


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-6

133.1

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20



ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, thin silty sand lense in tip

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

Sand (SP): Brown, damp, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous

@ 10 ft, same


@ 15 ft, Silty Sand (SM): grades to silty sand

Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, very stiff, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous


5

6

18

10

14

22

2.7

2

19.2

3.1

97.4

95.1

98.7

95.4

Consol



APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES

2345678923456789234567892345678923456789234567892

Plate No: B

-1

Job No:

GR

AIN

SIZE

DIST

RIB

UT

ION

GRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAYCOARSE FINE MEDIUM

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

COARSE FINECOBBLES

CLASSIFICATIONPILLSYMBOLSAMPLELOCATION

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PERCENT RETAINED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

G

Job No:

Plate No: B-2DIRECT SHEAR

SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

B-5 @ 0-5 feet Remolded @ 90% of 121.5 pcf @ 12% Silty Sand (SM)

Strain Rate (in/min) 0.01Initial Moisture Content (%) 13.8 13.8 13.8Initial Dry Density (pcf) 107.6 107.6 107.6Ultimate Displacement (in) 0.25 0.25 0.25Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 0.636 1.128 2.208Peak Displacement (in) 0.008 0.005 0.01Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 0.72 1.296 2.256Normal Stress (ksf) 1 2 4

1 2 3Specimen No.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

NORMAL STRESS (ksf)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

SH

EA

R S

TR

ES

S (

ksf)

0 2 4 6 8 10Axial Strain (%)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

She

ar S

tres

s (k

sf)

0 2 4 6 8 10Axial Strain (%)

-0.025

0.000

0.025

Ver

tical

Dis

plac

emen

t (in

.)

124

Strain Legend

Peak

Strength Legend

Ultimate

mprincipe

Typewritten Text

Peak: Friction Angle = 27 degrees Cohesion = 250 psf

mprincipe

Typewritten Text

Ultimate: Friction Angle = 28 degrees Cohesion = 100 psf

mprincipe

Rectangle


APPENDIX C

PERCOLATION TESTING AND ANALYSES

Client: Job. No.: 2623.00

Date Tested: Test by: MP

Location:

Top of Casing to Bottom of Well (ft): 25

Elev. of Ground Surface (ft): 134.8

Diam. of Test Hole (in): 6

Diam. of Casing (in): 2

Ht. to Top of Casing (ft): 0

Water Tempurature (C°): 21

Elapsed Time Depth to H2O Flow Rate Total H2O used

(minutes) (ft) (gal./min.) (gal.)

0 10:22 20 7.00 0.00

5 10:27 20 4.00 27.50

10 10:32 20 3.50 55.00

15 10:37 20 3.00 73.75

20 10:42 20 3.00 90.00

25 10:47 20 2.50 105.00

30 10:52 20 2.50 118.75

40 11:02 20 2.00 143.75

50 11:12 20 2.00 166.25

60 11:22 20 2.00 186.25

70 11:32 20 2.00 206.25

90 11:52 20 2.00 246.25

Constant Head

Time

Field Percolation Testing - Constent Head

7/18/2017

P-1

Development Services

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Accumulated Flow ‐Gallons

Time ‐Minutes

ALBUS-KEEFE ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-1



Location:


Elev. of Ground Surface (ft): 132






(minutes) (ft) (gal./min.) (gal)

0 12:55 13 6.25 0.00

10 13:05 13 6.25 62.50

20 13:15 13 6.25 125.00

30 13:25 13.2 6.25 187.50

40 13:35 13.3 6.25 250.00

50 13:45 13.4 6.25 312.50

60 13:55 13.5 6.25 375.00

70 14:05 13.5 6.25 437.50

80 14:15 13.5 6.25 500.00

90 14:25 13.5 6.25 562.50

Time



7/18/2017

P-2

Constant Head

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Time ‐Minutes


J.N.: 2623

Client: Development Services

Well No.: P‐1

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Units:

1

25 feet

20 feet

5 feet

3.0 Inches

Minimum Volume Required: 1243.8 Gal.

2 Gal/min.

21 Celsius

0.9647 ft^3/min.

Ignore Tᵤ

1

4.54E‐03 ft/min.

3.27 in./hr.

ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-3

Discharge Rate of Water Into Well for Steady‐State Condition (q):

INFILTRATION WELL DESIGNConstant Head

USBR 7300‐89 Method

Low Water Table

High Water Table & Water Below Bottom of Well

High water Table with Water Above the Well Bottom

Enter Condition (1, 2 or 3):

Ground Surface to Bottom of Well (h₁):

Depth to Water (h₂):

Height of Water in the Well (h₁‐h₂=h):

Radius of Well (r):

The presence or absence of a water table or

impervious soil layer within a distance of less than

three times that of the water depth in the well

(measured from the water surface) will enable the

water table to be classified as Condition I,

Condition II, Condtion III.

Low Water Table‐When the distance from the

water surface in the test well to the ground water

table, or to an impervious soil layer which is

considered for test puposes to be equivalent to a

water table, is greater than three times the depth

of water in the well, classify as Condition I.

High Water Table‐When the distance from the


table or to an impervious layer is less than three

times the depth of water in the well, a high water

table condition exists. Use Condition II when the

water table or impervious layer is below the well

bottom. Use Condition III when the water table or

impervious layer is above the well bottom.

Temperature (T):

(Viscosity of Water @ Temp. T) / (Viscosity of water @ 20° C) (V):

Unsaturated Distance Between the Water Surface in the Well and

the Water table (Tᵤ):

Factor of Safety:

Coefficient of Permeability @ 20° C (k₂₀):

Design k₂₀:

J.N.: 2623


Well No.: P‐2

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Units:

1

15 feet

13.5 feet

1.5 feet

3.0 Inches


6.25 Gal/min.

21 Celsius

0.9647 ft^3/min.

Ignore Tᵤ

1

9.48E‐02 ft/min.

68.23 in./hr.


Temperature (T):





Radius of Well (r):

























Factor of Safety:


Design k₂₀:



Low Water Table



Soil No. 3 - Silty Sand & Sand

Soil No. 1 - Imperm.

Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0

4

8

ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PLATE C-5

Contours are Pressure Head in Feet.

STEADY STATEFLOW ANALYSIS OF 20 ft DEEP, 6 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL

Arrows indicate direction of flow and relative magnitude of velocity.

Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

mprincipe

Rectangle

mprincipe

Typewritten Text

95 feet



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0

4

8



TRANSIENT @ 15 minutesFLOW ANALYSIS OF 20 ft DEEP, 6 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL


Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0

3.25 hr





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-10 -6

-2

0



TRANSIENT @ 1.5 hoursFLOW ANALYSIS OF 20 ft DEEP, 6 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL


Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

-2





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

May 8, 2018 J.N.: 2623.00

Mr. Josh Haskins Development Advisors, LLC 2400 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 800 Anaheim, California 92806 Subject: Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality Improvements, Proposed Multi-

Family Residential Development and Parking Structure, 1600 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California.

Dear Mr. Haskins, Pursuant to your request, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. has completed an infiltration study for proposed water quality improvements. The scope of this investigation consisted of the following:

Exploratory drilling, soil sampling and test well installation Field percolation testing Laboratory testing of selected soil samples Engineering analysis of the data Preparation of this report

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Site Location and Description

The site is located at 1600 W. Lincoln Avenue, within the city of Anaheim, California. The property is irregular in shape and comprises approximately 5.3 acres of land. The location of the site is depicted on Figure 1. The site is currently occupied by an auto dealership with an auto mechanics shop. The site is bordered by West Lincoln Avenue to the north, South Loara Street to the east, Loara Elementary School, a single family residence, and commercial development to the south, and a multi-family residential community to the west. At the time of this evaluation, the southern portion of the site was occupied by two buildings that house an automotive body shop and RV repair facility; the northern portion of the site is currently occupied by a used car dealership. A paved parking lot occupies the remainder of the property. Free standing walls were located along the perimeter of the property except on the northern portion of the site. The north is bordered by planters and sidewalks. The site is relatively level with elevations, based on GoogleEarth 2018, varying from approximately 129 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 135 feet above MSL. Drainage at the site appears to be directed as sheet flow towards the east within the southern portion of the site and to the north within the norther portion. Vegetation at the site consists of a few palm trees and shrubs along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site


Page 2


© 2017 Google

SITE LOCATION MAP N

The Olson Company Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development and Parking Structure

1600 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, California

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE 1

SITE


Page 3


Proposed Development

We understand the site will be developed for residential use. We anticipate the proposed site development will consist of 35 three-story townhomes and either a four- or five-story apartment building with a six- to seven-level parking structure. We also anticipate that all proposed structures will be constructed on grade (i.e. no subterranean elements). Associated interior driveways, perimeter/retaining walls, underground utilities and a storm water infiltration system are also anticipated. No grading or structural plans were available in preparing of this report. However, we anticipate that minor rough grading of the site will be required to achieve future surface configuration and we expect the proposed residential dwellings will be wood-framed structures with concrete slabs on grade yielding relatively light foundation loads. The multi-level parking structure is anticipated to be a concrete and masonry block supported by conventional foundations.

SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

Subsurface Investigation

Subsurface exploration for this investigation was conducted on July 18, 2017, and consisted of drilling six (6) soil borings to depths ranging from approximately 15 to 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted, continuous flight, hollow-stem-auger drill rig. Representatives of Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. logged the exploratory borings. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encountered, and their descriptions are presented in the Exploration Logs in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations completed by this firm are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.

Bulk, relatively undisturbed and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples were obtained at selected depths within the exploratory borings for subsequent laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch O.D., 2.5-inch I.D., California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. SPT samples were obtained from the boring using a standard, unlined SPT soil sampler. During each sampling interval, the sampler was driven 18 inches with successive drops of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler was recorded for each six inches of advancement. The total blow count for the lower 12 inches of advancement per soil sample is recorded on the exploration log. Samples were placed in sealed containers or plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for analyses. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of sampling. Borings B-1 and B-4 were converted into percolation test wells (P-1 and P-2) at the completion of drilling. Two-inch-diameter casings were installed in each boring for subsequent percolation testing. The locations of the percolation wells are depicted on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Well screens having a length of approximately 10 feet where installed at the bottom of the percolation wells with solid pipe extending the remainder of the distance to the ground surface. The annular space of the well screen sections was filled with sand. Subsequent to completion of testing, the well casings were removed and the boring was refilled with drill cuttings. Percolation Testing


Page 4


Percolation testing was performed on July 18, 2017, in general conformance with the constant-head test procedures outlined in the referenced Well Permeameter Method (USBR 7300-89). A water hose attached to a water source on site was connected to an inline flow meter to measure the water flow. The flow meter is capable of measuring flow rates up to 10 gallons per minute and as low as 0.1 gallons per minute. A valve was connected in line with the flow meter to control the flow rate. A filling hose was used to connect the flow meter and the test wells. Water was introduced by the filling hose near the bottom of the test wells. A water level meter with 1/100-foot divisions was used to measure the depths to water surface from the top of well casings. Flow to the wells was terminated upon either completion of testing of all the pre-determined water levels or the flow rate exceeded the maximum capacity of the flow meter. Measurements obtained during the percolation testing are provided on Plates C-1 and C-2. Laboratory Testing

Selected soil samples of representative earth materials were tested to assist in the formulation of conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. Tests consisted of grain-size analysis. Laboratory testing relevant to percolation characteristics are presented in Appendix B.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface soils observed within the site are comprised of up to approximately 4 feet of artificial fill overlying alluvial deposits. The artificial fill is comprised of loose to medium dense silty sand. The alluvial deposits are comprised of loose to dense interlayers of silty sand and sand with variable amounts of gravel. Some discontinuous layers and lenses comprised of sandy silt were occasionally observed within the alluvium. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during this firm’s subsurface explorations to a maximum explored depth of 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface. A review of the CDMG Seismic Hazard Zone Report 03 indicates that historical high groundwater levels for the general site area have been estimated to be greater than 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the referenced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report for the property, the groundwater depth is inferred to be approximately 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) based on the subsurface investigation conducted on a nearby property (1631 West Lincoln Avenue and Closed Case #083004014T).


Page 5


Percolation Data Analyses were performed to evaluate permeability using the flow rate obtained at the end of the constant-head stage of field percolation testing for the data obtained from percolation test well P-1 and P-2. These analyses were performed in accordance with the procedures provided in the referenced USBR method as presented on Plates C-4 through C-6 and summarized below in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Summary of Back-Calculated Permeability Coefficient from Constant Head Test

Location Total Depth

of Well (ft)

Depth to Water in

Well (ft)

Height of Water in

Well (ft)

Static Flow Rate

(gal./min.)


ks

(in/hr.) P-1 (B-1) 25 20 5 2.0 3.27 P-2 (B-4) 15 13.5 1.5 6.25 68.23

Using the Kozeny-Carman equation, we estimated permeability rates based on laboratory testing consisting of particle-size analyses. The estimated permeability based on correlations with particle-size analyses are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Summary of Estimated Permeability Coefficient Based on Gradation

Location USCS

Classification Depth

(ft)

Dry unit

weight (pcf)

Specific Gravity


ks

(in/hr) B-1 SM 20 - 2.65 2.71 B-4 SP 10 99.1 2.65 61.6

Design of Dry Well

Infiltration in a dry well was modeled using the software Seep/W, version 2007, by Geo-Slope International. The program allows for modeling of both partially-saturated and saturated porous medium using a finite element approach to solve Darcy’s Law. The program can evaluate both steady-state and transient flow in planer and axisymmetric cases. Boundaries of the model can be identified with various conditions including fix total head, fix pressure head, fix flow rate, and head as a function of flow. Soil conductivity properties can be modeled with either Fredlund et al (1994), Green and Corey (1971), or Van Genuchten (1980). The Van Genuchten parameters were selected for use in our models and were based on test results of particle-size analyses and estimated in-place densities. The saturated conductivities for the infiltration zones were selected based on the results obtained from back-calculation of the percolation tests.


Page 6


A Seep/W model was setup with the bottom of the dry well at a depth of 20 feet below ground surface. The total depth of the dry well was assumed to be 6 feet in diameter and contain a settling chamber 18 feet in depth, have an inside diameter of 4 feet, and an outside diameter of 4.5 feet. Annular space around the chamber and below the chamber is assumed to consist of gravel. A more detailed model of the dry well design can be found on Plate 2. The model consisted of three zones of material to represent the general soil profile. The upper zone (Material # 1) was modeled to be relatively impermeable to represent artificial fill and to ignore contributions from this layer. The second zone (Material No. 2) was modeled to represent the poorly-graded sands encountered during our subsurface investigation that extend to the depth of 17 feet near Borings 1 and 4. The conductivity of this zone is based on the back-analyzed percolation tests as well as results of correlations with lab testing. The conductivity of the bottom zone (Material No. 3) was modeled to represent the interbedded sands and silty sands that were encountered during our subsurface investigation below a depth of 17 feet. The conductivity of this zone is based on the back-analyzed percolation tests as well as results of correlations with lab testing. A summary of the properties for each zone is provided in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Summary of Characteristic Curve Parameters

Material No.

Depth (ft)

USCS Ks

(in/hr)

Van Genuchten Parameters

a (1/cm)

n m Sat.

Water Content

Residual Water

Content

1 Impermeable Soils 0.001 0.0001 1.22 0.18 0.42 0.01 2 Sand 50.0 59.63 1.25 0.20 0.31 0.025 3 Silty Sand & Sand 3.0 3.00 1.36 0.27 0.33 0.025

Steady state analyses were performed to estimate the maximum inflow that a well can accommodate. The water head was set at 5 feet below the ground surface in the well. Using the well configuration described above, we obtain a peak static total flow of 0.29 ft³/sec. A plot depicting the resulting pressure head contours and flow vectors for the model are provided on Plate C-5. To evaluate the time required to empty the well once no more water is introduced, the model was reanalyzed with a variable head condition that was dependent upon the volume of water leaving the well. As water infiltrates into the surrounding soil, the volume of water remaining in the well is reduced as well as the resulting water head. A graph of the well head versus exit volume for the well configuration is provided in Figure 2. The function assumes a void ratio of 0.4 within the zones occupied by gravel. If some other well configuration is used, then the analyses will require updating.


Page 7


Figure 2 –Well Head Function

The analyses were performed as a transient case over a total time of approximately 4 hours. The water is evacuated from the chamber portion of the well in approximately 3 hours assuming the well utilizes a chamber 18 feet in depth. Plots depicting the resulting pressure head contours and flow vectors at selected times during the drawdown phase is provided in Appendix C on Plates C-6 through C-10.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General

Based on results of our testing, infiltration of storm water at the site is feasible using a shallow chamber system such as Stormtech chambers or dry wells. Recommendations pertinent to each type of system is provided below. The use of shallow chamber systems or dry wells is not anticipated to result in worsening any adverse conditions or hazards that may be present for the proposed site development or adjacent properties including subsidence, landsliding, or liquefaction. As discussed above, the groundwater is approximately 100 feet deep and is anticipated to remain below a depth of 50 during the design life of the project. Therefore, chambers systems founded within the upper 10 feet and a dry well having a total depth of 20 will maintain the minimum clearance of 10 feet above groundwater as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Shallow System

The infiltration rate of a shallow chamber system will be dependent upon the depth and width of the system as well as the depth of water contained in the chambers. For purposes of developing an infiltration rate, we have conservatively assumed a negligible ponding depth in the chambers. Since the soil profile consists of a higher permeability layer (SP) over a lower permeability layer (SM), the overall infiltration rate will depend essentially on the vertical clearance of the chamber bottom from the lower SM soil layer and the width of the system. We have assumed the infiltration rate can be

80

85

90

95

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Total H

ead

(ft)

Volume (ft3)


Page 8


estimated by using a weight average of the permeabilities of the upper SP layer with a permeability of 50 in/hr. and lower SM layer with a permeability of 3 in/hr. depending upon the depth and width of the system. The weighting is based on the giving full weight to the upper layer when the clearance is 3 times the system width. Where the clearance is less than 3 times the system width, the permeabilities are weighted according to the ratios of the permeabilities to 3 times the system width. The results of weighting of these two factors is summarized in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 Summary of Measured Infiltration Rates for Shallow Chamber Systems

Depth to Bottom of Chamber

System Width (ft)

6 ft 8 ft 10ft

10 20 in/hr. 17 in/hr. 14 in/hr. 20 12 in/hr. 10 in/hr. 9 in/hr. 30 9 in/hr. 8 in/hr. 7 in/hr.

The system width should be based on the total minimum dimension across the chamber area regardless of how many individual chambers are used or the spacing between chambers. The project civil engineer should incorporate an appropriate factor of safety to the measured values indicated in Table 3 to develop the design infiltration rate. Excavation bottoms should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that appropriate soils are present. Any soils that do not meet the anticipated minimum infiltration rate should be excavated and replaced with a granular material that meets or exceeds a permeability rate of 50 in./hr. Such a material may consist of a Caltrans Class II permeable base or other material approved by the geotechnical engineer. Chambers should be placed at least 20 feet horizontally from any building or property line. Once WQMP plans and calculations are developed, they should be reviewed by this office to confirm the intent of this report has been properly incorporated into the project. We also recommend that a representative of this office be present during construction to confirm the exposed soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide recommendations in the event they differ. Dry Well

Results of our work indicate a storm water disposal system consisting of dry wells is feasible at the site. Based on results of percolation testing and analyses, a well configuration as depicted on Plate 2 may utilize an unfactored peak flow rate of 0.29 ft³/sec. in proximity to the infiltration test well locations (B-1 and B-4) indicated on Plate 1. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the flow rate as required by the governmental authority. Wells with differing diameters or lengths will result in differing infiltration rates. As such, this value should not be used for evaluation of other well configurations. The wells should be located at least 15 feet horizontally from any habitable structure or property line. Should you require multiple dry wells across the site, the wells should be spaced at least 70 feet, center


Page 9


to center, to avoid cross influence. Provided the recommendations above are incorporated into the design of the drywell, permanent groundwater mounding is not anticipated to occur. The actual flow capacity of the dry well could be more or less than the estimated value. As such, provisions should be made to accommodate excess flow quantities in the event the dry well does not infiltrate the anticipated amount. The design also assumes that sediments will be removed from the inflowing water through an upper chamber or other device. Sediments that are allowed to enter the dry well will tend to degrade the flow capacity by plugging up the infiltration surfaces. In general, the dry well may consist of a concrete inner chamber surrounded by ½-inch open graded gravel. The concrete chamber should have perforations to allow the chamber to drain. The holes should be sized to prevent piping of the gravel into the chamber. A sand/cement slurry should be used as backfill outside the entire diameter of the drilled shaft within the upper 5 feet of the wells to restrict water from entering the upper 5 feet. A general diagram of the dry well is provided on Plate 2. In general, the dry well shaft is anticipated to be prone to sloughing and caving due to the layers of granular materials encountered during the subsurface investigation. We anticipate that casing will be required to install the well. Workers should not enter the shaft unless the excavation is laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. The placement and compaction of backfill materials, including the gravel should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant.

LIMITATIONS

This report is based on the geotechnical data as described herein. The materials encountered in our boring excavations and utilized in our laboratory testing for this investigation are believed representative of the project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil and bedrock materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observations by a geotechnical consultant during the construction phase of the storm water infiltration systems are essential to confirming the basis of this report. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Development Advisors to assist the project consultants in the design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental agency.


Page 10


We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you should have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely,


Mark Principe David E. Albus

Staff Engineer Principal Engineer G.E. 2455 Enclosures: Plate 1- Geotechnical Map Plate 2 – Typical Dry Well Exhibit Appendix A - Exploratory Logs

Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Appendix C - Percolation Testing and Analyses


Page 11


REFERENCES

Publications California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Report 03, “Seismic

Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California”, 1998.

State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Seismic Hazard Zones,

Anaheim and Newport Beach Quadrangle, dated April 17, 1997. Procedure for Performing Field Permeability Testing by the Well Permeameter Method, by United

States Department of The Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR 7300-89). Saxton, K.E., W.J. Rawls, J.S. Romberger, and R.I. Papendick. 1986. Estimating generalized soil-

water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50(4):1031-103 Reports Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1600 West Lincoln, 1600 West Lincoln Avenue, City

of Anaheim, California, prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., dated April 28, 2017 (Partner Project No. 16-177713.1).

W. L

INCOLN A

VE.

S.

LO

AR

A S

T.

PROJECT

LIMIT

B-2

B-3

B-6

B-5

B-1/P-1

B-4/P-2

W. PAMPAS LN.

ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS

GEOTECHNICAL MAP

2623.00Job No.:

Plate: 1

Date: 05/08/18© Google 2017

EXPLANATION

(Locations Approximate)

- Exploratory Boring

B-6

- Exploratory Boring &

Percolation Test Boring

B-1/P-1

0 50 100 200

APPROX. SCALE : 1" = 100'

CALCULATING MAXWELL IV REQUIREMENTSThe type of property, soil permeability, rainfall intensity and local drainage ordinances determine the number and design of MaxWell Systems. For general applications draining retainedstormwater, use one standard MaxWell IV per the instructions below for up to 3 acres of landscaped contributory area, and up to 1 acre of paved surface. For larger paved surfaces,subdivision drainage, nuisance water drainage, connecting pipes larger than 4" Ø from catch basins or underground storage, or other demanding applications, refer to ourMaxWell® PlusSystem. For industrial drainage, including gasoline service stations, our Envibro® System may be recommended. For additional considerations, please refer to “Design Suggestions ForRetention And Drainage Systems” or consult our Design Staff.

COMPLETING THE MAXWELL IV DRAWINGTo apply theMaxWell IV drawing to your specific project, simply fill in the blue boxes per instructions below. For assistance, please consult our Design Staff.

DRAINAGE PIPEThis dimension also applies to the PureFlo® Debris Shield, the FloFast® Drainage Screen,and fittings. The size selected is based upon system design rates, soil conditions, andthe need for adequate venting. Choices are 6", 8", or 12" diameter. Refer to “DesignSuggestions for Retention and Drainage Systems” for recommendations on which sizebest matches your application.

BOLTED RING & GRATEStandard models are quality cast iron and available to fit 24" Ø or 30" Ø manholeopenings. All units are bolted in two locations with wording “Storm Water Only” in raisedletters. For other surface treatments, please refer to “Design Suggestions for Retentionand Drainage Systems.”

INLET PIPE INVERTPipes up to 4" in diameter from catch basins, underground storage, etc. may be connectedinto the settling chamber. Inverts deeper than 5 feet will require additional settlingchamber depth to maintain effective overflow height.

"Ø

"Ø

"Ø

®

TORRENT RESOURCES (CA) INCORPORATED

phone 661~947~9836

CA Lic. 886759 A, C-42

www.TorrentResources.com

An evolution of McGuckin Drilling

The referenced drawing and specifications are available on CAD either through our office or web site. This detail

is copyrighted (2004) but may be used as is in construction plans without further release. For information on

product application, individual project specifications or site evaluation, contact our Design Staff for no-charge

assistance in any phase of your planning.

1. Manhole Cone - Modified Flat Bottom.

2. Moisture Membrane - 6 Mil. Plastic. Applies only whennative material is used for backfill. Place membranesecurely against eccentric cone and hole sidewall.

3. Bolted Ring & Grate - Diameter as shown. Clean cast ironwith wording “Storm Water Only” in raised letters. Boltedin 2 locations and secured to cone with mortar. Rim elevation±0.02' of plans.

4. Graded Basin or Paving (by Others).

5. Compacted Base Material - 1-Sack Slurry except inlandscaped installtions with no pipe connections.

6. PureFlo® Debris Shield - Rolled 16 ga. steel X 24" lengthwith vented anti-siphon and Internal .265" Max. SWOflattened expanded steel screen X 12" length. Fusionbonded epoxy coated.

7. Pre-cast Liner - 4000 PSI concrete 48" ID. X 54" OD. Centerin hole and align sections to maximize bearing surface.

8. Min. 6' Ø Drilled Shaft.

9. Support Bracket - Formed 12 Ga. steel. Fusion bondedepoxy coated.

10. Overflow Pipe - Sch. 40 PVC mated to drainage pipe atbase seal.

11. Drainage Pipe - ADS highway grade with TRI-A coupler.Suspend pipe during backfill operations to preventbuckling or breakage. Diameter as noted.

12. Base Seal - Geotextile or concrete slurry.

13. Rock - Washed, sized between 3/8" and 1-1/2" to bestcomplement soil conditions.

14. FloFast® Drainage Screen - Sch. 40 PVC 0.120" slottedwell screen with 32 slots per row/ft.Diameter varies 120"overall length with TRI-B coupler.

15. Min. 4' Ø Shaft - Drilled to maintain permeability ofdrainage soils.

16. Fabric Seal - U.V. resistant geotextile - to be removedby customer at project completion.

17. Absorbent – Hydrophobic Petrochemical Sponge.Min. to 128 oz. capacity.

18. Freeboard Depth Varies with inlet pipe elevation. Increasesettling chamber depth as needed to maintain all inletpipe elevations above overflow pipe inlet.

19. Optional Inlet Pipe (Maximum 4", by Others). Extendmoisture membrane and compacted base material or1 sack slurry backfill below pipe invert.

ITEM NUMBERS

MAXWELL® IV DRAINAGE SYSTEM DETAIL AND SPECIFICATIONS

The watermark for drainage solutions.®1/12

Manufactured and Installed by



ARIZONA 602/268-0785NEVADA 702/366-1234


®Manufactured and Installed by



ARIZONA 602/268-0785NEVADA 702/366-1234


AZ Lic. ROC070465 A, ROC047067 B-4, ADWR 363CA Lic. 528080, C-42, HAZ.

NV Lic. 0035350 A - NM Lic. 90504 GF04

U.S. Patent No. 4,923,330 - TM Trademark 1974, 1990, 2004

®

114188a:084318a1 1/10/12 8:17 AM Page 2

20 ft

20 ft

20 feet ESTIMATED TOTAL DEPTHThe Estimated Total Depth is the approximate depth required to achieve 10 continuous feet of penetration into permeable soils. Torrent utilizes specialized “crowd” equipped drill rigs to penetrate difficult, cemented soils and to reach permeable materials at depths up to 180 feet. Our extensive database of drilling logs and soils information is available for use as a reference. Please contact our Design Staff for site-specific information on your project.

18 feet SETTLING CHAMBER DEPTHOn MaxWell IV Systems of over 30 feet overall depth and up to 0.25cfs design rate, the standard Settling Chamber Depth is 18 feet . For systems exposed to greater contributory area than noted above, extreme service conditions, or that require higher design rates, chamber depths up to 25 feet are recommended.

' OVERFLOW HEIGHTThe Overflow Height and Settling Chamber Depth determine the effectiveness of the settling process. The higher the overflow pipe, the deeper the chamber, the greater the settling capacity. For normal drainage applications, an overflow height of 13 feet is used with the standard settling chamber depth of 18 feet. Sites with higher design rates than noted above, heavy debris loading or unusual service conditions require greater settling capacities

TORRENT RESOURCES INCORPORATED1509 East Elwood Street, Phoenix Arizona 85040~1391phone 602~268~0785 fax 602~268~0820Nevada 702~366~1234

AZ Lic. ROC070465 A, ROC047067 B-4; ADWR 363CA Lic. 528080 A, C-42, HAZ ~ NV Lic. 0035350 A ~ NM Lic. 90504 GF04

18 ft

15 m

il M

EM

BR

AN

E D

EP

TH


APPENDIX A

EXPLORATORY LOGS

Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests




Water

Core

Bulk

5

10

15

20

EXPLANATION

Solid lines separate geologic units and/or material types.

Dashed lines indicate unknown depth of geologic unit change or material type change.

Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California Split Spoon sampler (2.5in ID, 3in OD).

Double triangle in core column represents SPT sampler.

Solid black rectangle in Bulk column respresents large bag sample.

Other Laboratory Tests:

Max = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content

EI = Expansion Index

SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content

DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded

DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed

SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve)

Hydro = Particle Size Analysis (SA with Hydrometer)

200 = Percent Passing #200 Sieve

Consol = Consolidation

SE = Sand Equivalent

Rval = R-Value

ATT = Atterberg Limits


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab Tests





2623.00 7/18/2017



B-1

134.8

Wate

r

Core

Bu

lk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20

25

Asphalt Concrete (AC): 2 inches

Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB): 2 inches

ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, Micaceous

ALLUVIUM (Qoal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, Micaceous

Silty Sand (SM): Brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, Micaceous, Trace Fine gravel

Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp to moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, Micaceous

@ 10 ft, trace fine to coarse gravel, decreased fines

Silty Sand (SM): Pale brown, moist, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, Micaceous

Boring ended at 25ft. No groundwater was encountered. Boring was converted into percolation test well (P-1)

18

17

18

16

12

11

13

2.5

2.9

8.5

4.8

98.3

101.7

91.9

94

Hydro 200


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-2

131.2

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20





ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous

Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, damp to moist, loose, fine grained sand, micaceous

@ 10 ft, medium dense, increased fines, few pinhole pores

@ 15 ft, loose, decreased fines, grades to sand in tip

@ 20 ft, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, decreased fines

13

12

10

11

25.4

22.7

15.3

16.6

95.1

97.6

Dist.

101.1

Consol

Consol

Consol


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-2

131.2

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

30

35

40

45

@ 25 ft, Sample grades to sandy silt then back to silty sand

@ 30 ft, loose

Sand (SP): Pale brown, dry to damp, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous

@ 40 ft, dense, fine to medium grained sand

@ 45 ft, fine to coarse grained sand

Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained sand, micaceous, trace iron oxide stains

14

8

22

26

34

11.519.712

16.8

Dist.Dist.Dist.

Dist.


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-2

131.2

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand, micaceous


17


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-3

129.5

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20



ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, moist, loose, fine grained sand, trace construction debris (i.e.:clay pipe fragments)

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, moist, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceaous

Silty Sand (SM): Olive brown, moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous, Iron oxide stains, grades to dark brown fine sand in tip

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, stiff, fine grained sand,micaceous, trace iron oxide, trace pinhole pores

Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Pale gray, damp, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

@ 20 ft, Brown

Boring ended at 21.5 feet.No groundwater encountered.Backfilled with cuttings. Patched with cold patch asphalt concrete.

14

10

12

12

9

25.1

4.4

20

96.9

97.5

98 Consol


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-4

132.0

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Silty Sand (SM): Olive brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, some palm tree roots

@ 4 ft, medium dense, some small sand lenses

Sand (SP): Pale brown, dry to damp, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous, no roots present

@ 10 ft, damp, medium dense

Boring ended at 15 feet. No groundwater encountered. Converted into percolation test well (P-2).

18

12

10

15

9

2.7

7.2

10.9

2.2

99.1

92.3

98.5

93.7

Hydro 200


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-5

134.8

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20



ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Olive brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light brown, damp to moist, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand, micaceous, trace amounts of fine gravel

@ 10 ft, fine to coarse gravel, thin sandy silt lens

@ 15 ft, medium to coarse grained sand, no silt lenses, no gravel

@ 20 ft, dense, trace fine to coarse gravel

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, medium stiff, finegrained sand, micaceous. trace iron oxide staining

16

35

11

24

7

16

10.4

2.2

21.8

15.1

2.6

95.9

100.3

96.6

101.7

93.6

Max EI SO4 DS

pH Resist

Consol


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-5

134.8

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

30@ 30 ft, Olive brown, very moist, very stiff

Sand (SP): Light brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

Boring ended at 31.5 feet.No groundwater encountered. Backfilled with cuttings.Patched with cold patch asphalt concrete.

6

15


Project:

Address:

Job Number:

Drill Method:

Client:

Driving Weight:

Location:

Elevation:

Date:

Logged By:

Depth

(feet)

Lith-

ology

Blows

Per

Foot

Moisture

Content

(%)

Dry

Density

(pcf)

Other

Lab

Tests





2623.00 7/8/2017



B-6

133.1

Water

Core

Bulk

140 lbs / 30 in

5

10

15

20



ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af)Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

ALLUVIUM (Qal)Sand (SP): Pale brown, damp, loose, medium to coarse grained sand, thin silty sand lense in tip


Sand (SP): Brown, damp, medium dense, medium to coarse grained sand, micaceous

@ 10 ft, same


@ 15 ft, Silty Sand (SM): grades to silty sand

Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, damp, loose, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous

Sandy Silt (ML): Dark brown, moist, very stiff, fine to medium grained sand, micaceous


5

6

18

10

14

22

2.7

2

19.2

3.1

97.4

95.1

98.7

95.4

Consol



APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES

2345678923456789234567892345678923456789234567892

Plate No: B

-1

Job No:

GR

AIN

SIZE

DIST

RIB

UT

ION

GRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAYCOARSE FINE MEDIUM

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

COARSE FINECOBBLES

CLASSIFICATIONPILLSYMBOLSAMPLELOCATION

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PERCENT RETAINED

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

G


APPENDIX C

PERCOLATION TESTING AND ANALYSES



Location:


Elev. of Ground Surface (ft): 134.8






(minutes) (ft) (gal./min.) (gal.)

0 10:22 20 7.00 0.00

5 10:27 20 4.00 27.50

10 10:32 20 3.50 55.00

15 10:37 20 3.00 73.75

20 10:42 20 3.00 90.00

25 10:47 20 2.50 105.00

30 10:52 20 2.50 118.75

40 11:02 20 2.00 143.75

50 11:12 20 2.00 166.25

60 11:22 20 2.00 186.25

70 11:32 20 2.00 206.25

90 11:52 20 2.00 246.25

Constant Head

Time


7/18/2017

P-1


0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Time ‐Minutes




Location:


Elev. of Ground Surface (ft): 132






(minutes) (ft) (gal./min.) (gal)

0 12:55 13 6.25 0.00

10 13:05 13 6.25 62.50

20 13:15 13 6.25 125.00

30 13:25 13.2 6.25 187.50

40 13:35 13.3 6.25 250.00

50 13:45 13.4 6.25 312.50

60 13:55 13.5 6.25 375.00

70 14:05 13.5 6.25 437.50

80 14:15 13.5 6.25 500.00

90 14:25 13.5 6.25 562.50

Time



7/18/2017

P-2

Constant Head

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Time ‐Minutes


J.N.: 2623


Well No.: P‐1

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Units:

1

25 feet

20 feet

5 feet

3.0 Inches


2 Gal/min.

21 Celsius

0.9647 ft^3/min.

Ignore Tᵤ

1

4.54E‐03 ft/min.

3.27 in./hr.





Low Water Table







Radius of Well (r):





















Temperature (T):




Factor of Safety:


Design k₂₀:

J.N.: 2623


Well No.: P‐2

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Units:

1

15 feet

13.5 feet

1.5 feet

3.0 Inches


6.25 Gal/min.

21 Celsius

0.9647 ft^3/min.

Ignore Tᵤ

1

9.48E‐02 ft/min.

68.23 in./hr.


Temperature (T):





Radius of Well (r):

























Factor of Safety:


Design k₂₀:



Low Water Table





Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0

4

8



STEADY STATEFLOW ANALYSIS OF 20 ft DEEP, 6 ft DIAMETER DRY WELL


Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

mprincipe

Rectangle

mprincipe

Typewritten Text

95 feet



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0

4

8





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0

3.25 hr





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-10 -6

-2

0





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

0





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Soil No. 2 - Sand

-8 -4

-2





Radius (ft)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Appendix E Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality ...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix E Infiltration Study for Proposed Water Quality ...