The URL can be used to link to this page

27892T IIIOA� . 11111111111 IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS REPORT THE SHOPPES AT LA QUINTA PTO PALM SPRINGS IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T5S, R7E, SBM 51EP 15' 2008 off IfIA X1-2-7 g tz LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE SITE 0 AVENUE 47 VIA FLORENCE ui AVENUE 48 0 Q m O w J U w w W H Z O w LL LL W STATE HWY 111 TO INDIO - w � w W w O U) W O = Z w L W Z O O Z_ = AVENUE 47 VIA FLORENCE ui AVENUE 48 0 Q m O w J U w w W H Z O w LL LL W STATE HWY 111 TO INDIO - I To: Fax: Phone: ELEILE COPY C&,(f 4 44�rw P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247 -1504 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 TRANSMITTAL SHEET Essi Engineering Item: TPM 35559 THE SHOPPES OF LA QUINTA PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT SDP 08 -903 PCN: 08141 FROM: Paul Goble, Senior Engineer DATE: AUGUST 27, 2008 Number of Pages: (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) NOTICE: NOTES: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (760) 777 -7075 FAX (760) 777 -7155 SEP 16 ,�.cn -3 CITY OF LA QUINTA ® PLEASE PICK UP PLANS AT PUBLIC WORKS FRONT COUNTER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL PAUL GOBLE, SENIOR ENGINEER (760) 777 7087 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SIGNATURE REQUIRED FOR PICKUP SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME: DATE OF PICK UP: Vt.. . �' - 'y� TIUY 4 44" P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247 -1504 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (760) 777 -7075 FAX (760) 777 -7155 SUBJECT: PCN 08141 TPM 35559 THE SHOPPES OF LA QUINTA PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT SDP 08 -903 DATE: August 27, 2008 INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: 1) Please provide a written response to each comment on the following pages or in green line on the redlined plans. . 2) Please revise originals and reprint Plans and /or Calculations as necessary for corrections. 3) Please return all red - marked Plans, Back -Up Documents, Specifications, Calculations or Reports with the resubmittal. 4) Please assure that each sheet of the resubmitted Plans and the title, cover or signature sheet of the Documents, Specifications, Calculations or Reports include the preparer's name and telephone number and are wet - signed and stamped by the licensed preparer as prescribed by California Business and Professions Code Section 5536 (Architects) and Section 6735 (Civil Engineers). Resubmittals will not be accepted with signatures missing. 5) Please return this list, your written responses, and all documents listed above with your resubmittal. REQUESTED PUBLIC WORKS CORRECTIONS (2nd Round Check): (Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 are pending comments that must be addressed prior to proceeding to entitlement). The other items (1, 9, 11, 12, and 14) may be dealt with during the precise grading plan check process. Hydrology Report (HR): Please also include a table of contents. For the permeable pavers' please provide technical information on the walk - ability and ADA acceptability, for the ADA path of travel. Paver separations should not be greater than '/2 ", which includes beveled section. PfP- MT J 5 -9 °e8, PAIMR2Y P44V o °Al`�WG"8_W1LL �UOF ?4avg Tt-S �v 2. HR, please clarify the method of calculation to determine the 100 year 1 hour storm flow rates in cfs. That is, Rational or Synthetic Unit Hydrograph. F,glaQw4t_ W&ate. SMT° @dig Its 01"OA�T- sug Y-or_ �40-e ®dam 3. HR, please provide plan view of the proposed permeable pavers with proposed pedestrian path of travel outlined. L J 0 °� d��l`y �QI�.D =z. °i D�.� � ::4Ai'._fc! °•I�r�C. �O: �Sfa�o � �t�c�1",1:i�� J °�'°� ��;��1 _ 1��',� a ;�$bqv lrr sq IF Am i �tp��: �A,3 c : ".�a�.� v1 � w k, 4. HR, please show the 24 hour Synthetic Unit Hydrograph with a low loss rate not to exceed 0.5. 5. HR, please provide a hydrology map and calculation sheets that obtain RCFC values for Runoff Index (RI) and Impervious (IMP) values. City check values = 56 and 90% for street improvements. .5 `p'AZ -zrT- 1VCc vo V s tosc-a mo CV ?, -�- (77t)?-055O ✓°F 1MPE'1¢.V 8393 gf PW-V rN ISLANP d PARKWAY 6. Concept Plan Sheet C4, please provide on plan view the volume of the underground storage and open end.storage for storm water runoff on Washington Street. 7. Concept Plan Sheet C4, please provide the following information: Val�lBottom Elevation of the Retention Basin `fib. Estimated WSE 100 at the Retention Basin � c. Elevations of all topo lines making the retention basin. J9 HR, permeable interlock paver section, please provide actual and allowed 1 hr, Zhr„ 6hr,,and 244hr retention volumes in the permeable paver areas. Note, continuous infiltration through the pavers is not validated until volumes show that continuous infiltration can occur during the specified storms. If this can not be shown, then use infiltration for a Type B soil and a retention volume under the parking area equal to the actual volume calculated based on porous media used. Note impervious area in the pavers may be reduced from 100% impervious to 88 %, (100 - 12-88°/x). If actual volume is inundated,. please use the Synthetic 3hr storm with retention to determine the actual flow rate because the Rational Method may not provide this especially if the volume inundated takes at least 75% of the length of the storm to be exceeded (could be higher). Sheet C4 precise grading plan issue), please provide a Maxwell Plus system at this retention basin. ✓ 10. Sheet C4, please provide a Manhole at Junction #3. We recommend that this manhole include the diversion pipe to the Maxwell Plus Drywell or show inline concept of 100 year flow through the proposed Maxwell Plus Nuisance handling water device. '11. Sheet C4 (precise grading plans issue), please use max bends of 11 -1/4 degree V bends or connect into main pipe with 45 degrees. J'12. Sheet C4 (precise grading issue), please use 11 -1 /4 degree bends at this location. 3. Sheet C4, please provide minimum setback of the underground storage unit from the proposed building: Note Engineering Bulletin 06 -15 requires min 30ft and recommendation per the Geotechnical report is required. 0 La CJ :pvr ii 14 CIO ti ii /14. Sheet C4, (Precise Grading), please show the type of inlet at this low point at the entrance. ,W &J L&V Vi t.IW 400 °f%Y . Ft '3�0g E }h zv— q•® r-g /15. Sheet C4, please add to text the following: "and—notify—the—City if there is a difference in the 100 year °water surface than estimated ". QRA brnlc PGA N Sincerely, Cothy R. J sso E. ubl1c Works Director/ City Engineer tj .r- 1.55 FT = C(D -T) + Fm where: MC- ? SEP l a ? i �I CITY OF LA GUWA PLANNING DEPARTUM F1, = Adjusted loss rate at time "T" - inches/hour C = (F -F )/54 m F = Adjusted loss rate - inches/hour (as previously defined) D = Storm duration - hours = 24 -hours T = Time from beginning of storm - hours Fm = Minimum value on loss curve - inches/hour (occurs at end of storm where D =T) In the early and late stages of a design storm the adjusted loss rate (constant or variable) will generally exceed the rainfall intensity on a unit time basis, indicating a zero runoff condition which is consid- ered unrealistic. To account for runoff occuring during such periods, a low loss rate is used. The low loss rate is usually taken to be — 90 percent of the rainfall for any unit time period where loss would otherwise exceed rainfall. This is equivalent to an effective rain of f =ro 10` -0 20L'percerit -of -the =storm rainfall for a particular time period. Flood Hydrograph Computations - In developing a flood hydrograph for an area the following procedure is used: 1. The average point storm rainfall for the area is determined, and adjusted for areal effect. 2. The time distribution of rainfall is determined on a unit time basis using .the appropriate pattern percentages times the ad- justed point rainfall. The unit period rainfall values are then converted to rainfall rates in inches_; per hour. 3. The.effective rainfall rate is computed by subtracting the se- lected loss rate for each unit period from the rainfall rate for that period. C E -9 r - tJ R C F C a W C D SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD Praiect Sheet HYDROLOGY Unit Hydrogroph and Effective Rain '11anlw XA-e4 .l >u0y By F.TiO Date !/ 7B W. 8 MANOAL Calculation Form Checked Date C13 CONCENTRATION POINT 6 C23 AREA DES I GNAT: ON B 133 DRAINAGE AREA -50 MILES Z.,Z49 147 ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN 1645sC371�S1,Ztf8 153 UNIT TIME - MINUTES — _ —/D C61 !.AG TIME- -W.INUTES [73 'UNIT TIME - PERCENT OF LAG (IOO*C5] /163) ��3 ° C83 S CURVE _ 193 STORM FREOUENCY 6 DURATION 1a,:5:-YEAR- 3--H0UR _FOOTf/�LG 1101 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN- INCHES A ;119 1113 VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)- INCHES /HOUR ---' C123 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR LOSS) -IN /HR �- [133 CONSTANT LGiS FATE - INCHES /HOUR Qr 9 1143 LOW LOSS RATE- PERCENT — 9O UNIT HYDROGRAPH EFFECTIVE RAIN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH CI6] 1171 1181 j 1193 C7 ^J -r C2l.', -- C221 17?33 C243 l��J1NIT 115. UNIT TIME CUMULATIVE DISTRIB LOSS EFFECTIVE FLOW PAT IERN 1F IAV=RAGE TIME PERIOD Y% PERCENT IN GRAPH IHYOROGRAPH PERCENT R41N I RATE IRAIN CFS OF LAG PERCENT OF PERCENT CFS - HRS /IN (PL E--5.9 ,N1HR IN /HR IN /HR 171*05) !ULTIMATE 117),,�117Jmi+14]s118] 60[)0]120)! 1 121 J --122J t� —�- IO IS GRAPH) ! IOvT� bKARGE I 100 --JI / S- I ��/ f/ 1, Low X MAxi — 3�• 3 '•j- ! — Z•� �— jf 6 Z•C •L7t? •z9 -z5" - 03 66 d ! io.6 B / / /Sy Z -n Zy8 Z9 •ZS 03 1 9�- 9 � z_9S iB -9_I �d93__ 33 � -.3SL •Z.9 �� i Z 1 5/ _ ------- _ _-- _.06 %33.Z. I 59.3 .;9.8 5%Z5�6 _ j•3 _ 3Sz Zq - -� .a6 -;c6 -S '. ,�i.9 I iZ,G :,y�5� 3.3 -3SL •Z9, _ - -•off ._ �— 9R� s 79 -/ -e 3' ` •x9_L_�__ -oy . 7 .' .i_-- _- --`�'f -- - -��Z - ---- -'�- - -- ...._363 _ - - - - -> � is �� - - - -- X33 -�. !-- 9y'S �.S 3s,6 � •S�/> _ � -Z9 - Z6 366--- - -96•Z - -/7 zy:L e;:� r .. _._z /S� y "�9� 98 -8 •Z B is<. /� ;• =5�� ! •Z9 ' -- / -ZZ �� v -B h3z • ! 99 B r -- 3 -� - - -- 3 f= /00- D �- P pl S6Z ,�6n_�1_ -_ 99.9 I, • / ;.�/ I bb - 699 3 � �a�: � -' - . i -� __ . � y- �fFr� -�� .��•iry - � dz /�, x •i� >.l, -fr . 9.�„ i6 i9 Zo z/ - - -- i cuc°f lJ /P ro.�y T�Je �off7i /� � � fee �,rv�n /eft •are �fa�r — I - - - -- - - -- -- ! �" r- - -_ ! — C�s'rca��• -- F.CODP L`OL///'%�� ';'D• %y fle. -e - �tef _ = _ - SAMPLE CALCULATION No. I 3 —HOUR STORM WITH CONSTANT -- LOSS RATE (Example of Plate E-2.2) PI CTF F -7 I (.r% of R1 R C F C& W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPK METHOD Unit Hydrogroph and Effective Rain Calculation Form Project / Al • Ma1`04 Ef.I S-avr sneer / z By FfP Date zzzd Checked Dote 111 CONCENTRATION POINT / 121 AREA DESIGNATION 4 C33 DRAINAGE AREA -&Q-MI I:c6 ZQ 143 ULTIMATE DISCHARGE- CFS - HRS /IN (6450[3]) Al,,f! C51 UNIT TIME - MINUTES A, ZOO A.' , �s C6] LAG TIME- MINUTES 7 173 UNIT TIME- PERCENT OF LAG (100 *157/16]) IV ,44 181 S -CURVE Al. A 191 STORM FREQUENCY 6 DURATION /Q9 -YEAR- ;r -HOUR 1101 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN- INCHES 111] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)- INCHES /HOUR 1121 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS) -IN /HR - 1131 CONSTANT LOSS RATE - INCHES /HOUR . /7 1143 LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT BD UNIT HYDROGRAPH EFFECTIVE RAIN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH 1151 UNIT TIME PERIOD rrti 1163 TIME PERCENT OF LAG C739CIS3 1171 CUMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE (5-GRAPH) C181 DISTRIB GRAPH PERCENT C177fiC17]� 1193 UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN 143*1183 100 1201 PATTERN. PERCENT (PL E -5.9 1211 STORM RAIN IN /HR 6 C 71201 1223 LOSS RATE IN /HP, C233 EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR 121 ] -122 �� 1241 FLOW CFS /�7 1�`•r% 100 �I MAX LOW Z Z.6 -278 •17 3 � -3 •3SZ .�� — •/B 3 -6 y 33 3S2 S •Sfi/O/PlCU'� 3 -3 •3SZ . / 7 — •/B 3. � 6 3 �% •363 • / 1 -- •/q 3• B .17 - zB s6 y0 9.0 -,90 Z 6 /Z S9 -630 . /� — •y6 9 z •7180 • /7 -- �/ /z•Z 908 . /7 /7 JM �� 3•B .yo6 ./7 Xg sf/o,Pr L i t- /OD.D � 76y SAMPLE CALCULATION No. 3 SHORTCUT SYNTHETIC HYDROGRAPH (Example of Plate E -2.2 used for Shortcut rSynthetic Hydrogroph) PLATE E -7.3 (I of 2) 1�J R C F C a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL SYNTHETIC, UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD Unit H dro y graph and Effective Rain � Form Project .4E�Eli�Eis/ � 254 JTdOI� Sneer 7 ey Dote Checked Dote 113 CONCENTRATION POINT I 6 123 AREA DESIGNATION 133 DRAINAGE AREA -SO MILES , 'T. Z g 143 ULTIMATE DISCHARGE- CFS - HRS /IN (645#13]) /fez.9.� C53 UNIT TIME - MINUTES I /'f C6] LAG TIME - MINUTES'" 30 [71-UNIT TIME- PERCENT OF LAG ( I Oda 151 /161) 183 S -CURVE FOo�jY /LG 193 STORM FREQUENCY 6 DURATION /DO= YEAR -,tl%- HOUR 1101 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES !/, f9B Ell 3 VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG )- INCHESIHOUR O..z9 C123 MINIMUM LOSS RATE ( FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR Q• /� [137 CONSTANT LOSS RATE- INCHES /HOUR 1143 LOW LOSS RATE- PERCENT 9oj UNIT HYDROGR4PH I EFFECTIVE RAIN LOOD HYDROGRAPH FIT Tq 1163 TIME PERCENT OF LAG [73#1151 fo�r�sJ 1171 CUMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE IS-GRAPH) IC181 DISTRIB GRAPH PERCENT 073, 077 j 1191 NIT YDROGRAPH FS- HRS /IN 141*1183 100�.,� /yty8�8,7 1203 PATTERN PERCENT (PL E -5.9 1211 STORM RAIN IN /HR 6 11 03 1221 LOSS RATE IN /HR 1233 EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR 1213-1221 �r l l 1243 FLOW CFS l • /99.rX�� MAX LOW ,za• *e zyo• > • 3 060 B , o • O/ • 6 3 /so 6Z 6 3 >B 53196 •0 •o/ 3. s ago , y81, o >L • a/ 6- S Z 8s> l6; y 1i9. > 060 B/ . osy • o/ /% o 6 3c� 9i 3 ES6 79.8 •'. 0111r0 .y16 •'00' -o/ Z, _7 7 3� 9So 7 5Z > 3 060 .y10 .of •o/ /� o 8 5t -0190 416 S .01.4 -o/ /J6 9 5= -D6ro ,-' . o7L 9 /O SGT 98.8 ' • S 7/ �f 080 ..��y -07L /� sso 99/ i • 3 �3 s . /oo /Z 6Gb 9R s' •3 y3 •S /op of-0 13 6S0 99> 3 413 f • /00 .YjB •090 •o /5/Z /y 7D0 /oa.o •3 y3 ,S -/OO y3z •090 -o/ /5!Z -S . /vo yz7 •o90 -o/ /y3 /6 -6 l> �r do�,o6 /e %ss raf�e ef /e .6 . /.t0 .116 -1081 a! ty3 /B • � • X39 • /// - /LS - a/ /f3 /9 439 • *M • /ZS -0/ zo •8 •/39 .yo/ ./5/3 - of /y 9 Z/ 6 /,ZO .346 • /08 • d! /91 IZ3 •8 /S9 6 - 15114 •oz / >O NOTE= ` 8 - /S9 - B/ • /f/ •oZ /9 -D ZS See example precipitation No. l for data and loss mlap,physical :data. data, -9 •17.9 - 6 -/61 •oz 'z Ka z6 9 -/79 •37/ - 6/ •oL 21=B 27 /•o -19P •/79 • oZ ,Z6•B 28 io . 199 qa .17 . oz I .27�f Z ( / o • /99 417 1.17.91 - aL z7.9 -ZYR y1 . //f •oZ .x.8.3 3Z SAMPLE CALCULATION No. 2 24 -HOUR STORM WITH VARIABLE LOSS RATE (Example of Plate E -2.2) i3 •Z4,9 - y •Z 3 -Q3 •24.0 PLATE E-7.2 (1 of 4 ) \� R C F C a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain .Calculation Form Project �'f��`�`w'�'PE'7 Sheet ? By �'D Date 8 Checked Date y/> [I] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 6 123 AREA DESIGNATION 133 DRAINAGE AREA =SQ MILES i C43 ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN (6456133) 151 UNIT TIME - MINUTES I 163 LAG TIME- MINUTES C7] UNIT TIME - PERCENT OF LAG (I00i[5] /1611 183 S -CURVE C93 STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION j YEAR- HOUR CIO] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES CII] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)- INCHES /HOUR 1121 MINIMUM LOSS RATE FOR VAR. LOSS) -IN /HR 1133 CONSTANT LOSS RATE - INCHES /HOUR C141 LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT UNIT HYDROGRAPH EFFECTIVE RAIN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH [153 UNIT TIME PERIOD fi (163 TIME PERCENT OF LAG C7]s115] [173 CUMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE (S- GRAPH) 1181] DISTRUB GRAPH, PERCENT 072�;C173M, (193 UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN 141*1183 100 1203 PATTERN PERCENT (PL E -5.9 C213 STORM RAIN IN /HR 6k[ I 31201 122 LOSS RATE IN /HR (233 EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR 1213 -1221 1243 FLOW CFS 100 MAX LOW 33 .z99 B .�69 • °3 3Z ° 3y � /� -.Z 99 - 3�/ •.t69 .O3 7 3 35 /.6 3/9 •3Z9 .Z97 03 3f= s 36 . � i > • 339 •ads •jam • 03 �v. > 37 I /.,g 37'B 3Zo — - 06 y3• s` 38 ,z _O 398 3/6 — • 08 S3- 9 39 I z/ y/B -311 / w I ,2-Z - 438 -.07— • i3 iosl �f/ I 1-.4- • .299 303 169 _03 /Z19 -19 .,z 99 I ZfO •�w -03 •/o a3•� off { ,Z -O •398 •Z90 -- -�� 9d -D 9 •37B ZB6 — - 09 it /- 7 •37B ZRZ — . �v �3i I; L19 39 Z79 06 Xz7.3 1 /9 f9 L73;1 — 1 .057 /I3• / 3/9 1 'z_0" • y99 •Z1v - z3 S 1 Z"!5 •5/19 -466 — •Zs i >sio 0i 'g z62 — 3D ,Z6o•B 53 � �: 3. ! .677 •Lss — • fz 377 Sy 1 � � • 677 -LS/ — • Sij S/`/l S �S � Z 3 • ys'B •ay — •1� SoS3 S6 1 z 3 - ys8 -1 q •Zi y6o_o 0,9 I ,z 6 - SiB L37 - -z8 Ago -/ -o /B Z33 — Z9 401-- 3 60 . I z • �/9B zoo .F7 yoZ -y` "1Z I Z -3 - yf8 tt3 Zy 3B3. 41 63 / 9 379 ZZ ° 6� SAMPLE CALCULATION No. 2 378 z17 24 -HOUR STORM WITH VARIABLE fP Px� 9 f ' LOSS RATE (Example of Plate E -2.2) 3Za.9 1. PLATE E -7.2 (2 of 4) R C F C a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain Calculation Form Project ,�A,�EyrEu/ !%PE.9 fTuyy Sheet 3 By fTO Dote Z/ >�9 Checked Dote [I] CONCENTRATION POINT 6 [23 AREA DESIGNATION B [3] DRAINAGE AREA -SO MILES C41 ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN (645►C33) [53 UNIT TIME- MINUTES I C63 LAG TIME - MINUTES C73 UNIT TIME - PERCENT OF LAG (1001[5] /163) C81 S -CURVE [93 STORM FREQUENCY 6 DURATION I YEAR- HOUR [101 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN - INCHES C11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG)- INCHES /HOUR 1123 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS) -IN /HR [137 CONSTANT LOSS RATE - INCHES /HOUR) 1143 LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT UNIT HYDROGRAP1,H 1 EFFECTIVE RAIN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH [153 UNIT TIME PERIOD m 1163 TIME PERCENT OF LAG [730[153 [171 CUMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE ( S- GRAPH) 11183 DISITRIB GRAPH , PERCENT C173C17J 1193 UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN 1430[18] X00 1201 PATTERN PERCENT IPL E -5.9 C21] STORM RAIN IN /HR 6 CIO C20] C223 LOSS RATE IN /HR C233 EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR C213 -C22] 1241 FLOW CFS 100 MAX LOW 6S j oBo Z/9 Z71 Z 66 y 080 •Z 11:5, .07 •o/ .Zo7L 6> j 3 060 .Lo7 • of o/ /rq• B 6B _ , EFFECT /!iE A /�t%�F.Caol� 3 060 Zo -os •o/ 71514) 6 9 l/OL//�1E Orv/ UT T/ r1LS •S /04 10/ • 090 - / S/ �/ 70 � •S . /vo ./99.090 •o/ 3,S•9 /DD / 6 . Cq / Z7- 7Z = / S,2 ::��•iies Age) . q . 0 7L • o/ 73 • y . 090 . /90 • o7Z • of /9: / /BB • 4,,,7/_ o/ 1-1,6 >� Fvv l�asr = fff t4✓ .Po.:s .r i9recz • j .060 . /BS • Of • o/ /6. S 76 e /rl � � r,Z- xoyf�,.r,;X6Yb� /,,, •Z �� . j . OfD • 060 •/8 ./ O . o •D o • O/ /y 9 /Z D 77 7B Ac' • re y ,oB4 _/7 •071 -0/ 8 9 719 I 3 .OGo ./76 •OS o/ /Z -L Bo z oho /73 •0�6 BL 3 Cho .4 9 •os o/ B -3 83 { •3 •060 ,/67 .o, -o.' ii B BS � • 3 ,ado ./63 .oS • o/ io -S B6 � •Z .o�/D . /6L -0 6 O 7.7 87 � -3 .ado • 60 •oS -o/ B -9 BB .2- 89 � •060 7 •oS .o/ B -3 9i i t •z • oyD •/ y -036 0 7 -S 91 � -Z • oyo - /,rj • 0�6 ° � � 93 f -Z • Duo • /SZ -0 6 0 �, o 9s� � -z • v�o • S/ -036 O i 3 9f •Z -oho f/ .03 O •8 9 SAMPLE CALCULATION 24 -HOUR STORM WITH LOSS RATE (Example of Plate No. 2 VARIABLE E -2.2) z •o�� / -0 6 o s r6• °6 .z PLATE E -7.2 (304) IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CAUFORNIA HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS REPORT THE SHOPPES AT LA QUINTA —TO PALM SPRINGS IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T5S, R7E, SBM STATE HWY 111 TO INDIO — AVENUE 47 G LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE 0� SITE--,,, VIA FLORENCE w AVENUE 48 o: m O w J Q - F U w F > w w of z cn w O z 1 O _ m z T = w Lu z N LL Q LL Lij w 3 VICINITY MAP NTS S S I 78080 CALLE AMIGO, SUITE 101 NGINEERING LA QUINTA, CA 92253 760 - 771 -9993 OFFICE NC. 760 - 771 -9998 FAX CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING - PLANNING - SURVEYING QRpFESS /p NR w No. 47834 = m PREPARED UNDER THE ��i3'�cg Exp. 12/31/09 DIRECT SUPERVISION OF: DATE `slq C 114 \\. �Q '—� QF CAL \F ESSI SHAHANDEH - RCE 47834 - EXPIRES 12 -31 -09 m 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE PAGES 1 -7 LOCATION MAPS PAGES 8 -9 RAINFALL DATA PAGES 10 -11 RCFC&WCD DATA PAGES 21 -35 10 YR RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS PAGES 36-37 100 YR RATIONAL ANALYSIS PAGES 38 -39 GRATE OPENING NOMOGRAPH PAGE 40 10'YR DRAIN LINE SYSTEM ANALYSIS PAGES 42-49 100 YR DRAIN LINE SYSTEM ANALYSIS PAGES 50 -57 AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE TABLE PAGE 58 3HR 100 YR SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH FOR S -3 PAGES 59 -62 6HR 100 YR SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH FOR S -3 PAGES 63 -66 24HR 100 YR SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH FOR S-3 PAGES 63-66 REFERENCE MATERIAL PERMEABLE PAVER DESIGN MATERIAL PAGES 75-82 CITY OF LA QUINTA BULLETIN 06 -16 PAGES 83 -93 FEMA FLOOD MAP PAGE 94 MAINIERO & SMITH & ASSOCIATES HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR LAKE LA QUINTA PAGES 95 -175 MAINIERO & SMITH & ASSOCIATES HYDROLOY NODE MAP POCKET A Preliminary Hydrology Report For The Shoppes of La Quinta Prepared For: Talbert Development Inc. 1719 Rudell Road Burbank, CA 91501 Prepared By: . Essi Engineering Inc. 78080 Calle Amigo, Suite 101 La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 771 -9993 Office (760) 771 -9998 Fax Purpose of this Report This report is intended to address basic Hydrology and Storm Water runoff concerns for a proposed 50,000 square foot.retail complex known as the Shoppes of La Qunita and associated improvements including Parking lot, curbs, gutters, landscaping and other site improvements and amenities. Proiect Location The project is located in the City of La Quinta, between Washington Street and Caleo Bay, about 450 feet north of 48th Avenue. The project is a commercial infill parcel, and is bounded on the south by retail and medical office buildings, to the east by Caleo Bay Drive and the gated Lake La Quinta residential community, to the north by a currently vacant commercial parcel and to the west by Washington Street. The project APN is 640 - 200 -033, being a legally conforming parcel per LLA Certificate of Compliance LLA No. 2002 -374, being Parcel 2 and a portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 27892, as per map recorded in Book 182, pages 63 through 66 inclusive, of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside, California. FEMA FIRM Information The project is mapped on the FEMA FIRM MAP "060709 0005 B ", revised August 19, 1991. The parcel in question lies within flood hazard identified as "Zone X", "Areas determined to be outside 500 -year flood plain." A review of area topography, distance from flood conveyance channels and levies, and site characteristics leads us to conclude the FEMA designation is appropriate, and the site has virtually no risk of flood inundation from offsite sources. Basic Hydrolou The project is included in the Lake La Quinta Master Study for Tract 24230, prepared in August 1989 by Maniero Smith /Spiska Engineering JV. A copy of the report and hydrology map is attached. The report text indicates that the 100 - year storm runoff for all 151 acres of the original tract map, including the 20.4 acres of proposed commercial development were to be retained on the 151 - acre site. This was accomplished by constructing a private artificial lake, commonly known as Lake La Quinta. The section "On -Site Drainage System" of the original study indicates all storm water runoff from Basins "A" through "T" would be directed to the lake proposed to be constructed with the subdivision. The report and map indicate the parcel in question lies within sub -areas A -6 and A -7 of the original hydrology study, and are designated as commercial development areas on the map. As the parcel in question is located in Basin "A ", and the lake has been sized to retain all runoff generated by this parcel in its post developed condition, there is no need for onsite retention. This project will be constructed as a Leeds compliant site. One way of accomplishing this is by the use of permeable pavers in order to reduce the quantity of runoff and a Maxwell -Plus system in order to raise the quality of the discharges such as nuisance and especially during the "first flush" of all storms. These paver sections use several layers of different graded stone bases that provide voids between the compacted stone for storage purposes. A copy of the documentation on the use and placement of this type of paver system is included within this report. Note that no pavers shall be placed within the primary path of travel for the handicapped. We have reviewed the Calculations for Q's for Subareas A -6 and A -7 of the report and find they are using the proper areas, proper C values of 0.875 for commercial based on water course as derived from Plate D -3 and Plate D -5.2 of the RCFCD Hydrology Manual, and are using proper rainfall intensity as per the RCFCD Manual and NOAA atlas data available and prescribed for use by the City when the original Mainero & Smith report was prepared. The initial analysis of the existing storm drain system, using the rational method, revealed that the original design was not adequate to carry the calculated 100 —year 1 -hour storm flows. Under direction by City Staff, the design of the Shoppes at La Quinta site was modified in such a way that the designed discharge was within the capacity of the existing storm drain network adjacent to the site. The use of the permeable pavers reduced the offsite flows by approximately 4 c.f.s. to a total Q100 equaling 54.98 c.f.s. The understanding from the meeting with Staff was upon the development of the vacant site to the north of the Shoppes, the site would be required to retain / detain storm flows to a point that relates to their proportional size in comparison to ours. Square footages show that the site to the north is 28% of our total area. This relates to the site being required to reduce its outflows by 1.1 c.f.s. in the 100 —year 1 -hour storm. This reduction has not been included in the calculations in case the City revises its stated intent in the future. 0 Hydraulics Existing Storm Drain Facilities are in place that will facilitate conveying runoff from the parcel in question to the lake. Specifically, the Catch Basin in Caleo Bay at the midpoint of the east side of the parcel and 30" Storm Drain line are available to convey runoff to the lake. The alignment of the existing 30" storm drain will be utilized in order to avoid any underground utility conflicts; however, the storm drain is undersized for the ultimate development. While the original calculations appear to be correct in determining the storm water volumes to the catch basins, there is no design information in sizing the pipelines contained in the report. During further analysis, it was determined that the 30" line needs to be increased to 36 ".'Running the calculations from the lake, it appeared that the original sizing of the 36" reach of the pipeline may have been undersized. As stated in the previous section, the City Staff requested that a facility be proposed so the existing reach of the 36" line from the existing catch basin to the lake would meet the full requirements of only ponding up to the right -of -way during the 100 -year, 1 -hour storm. The proposed utilization of permeable pavers and the rock base system in place underneath reduces the calculated Q 100 by approximately 4 c.f.s. This reduction of runoff alleviates the deficiencies of the previous system's design. If combined with a proportional reduction of another 1.1 c.f.s. at the time of the development of the parcel to our north, the system will have additional capacity, overall. One difficulty is finding information regarding the proposed water surface elevations for the lake. Some of the City's documents are incomplete and the review of the plans available done by Mainero & Smith do not show any elevation. One of the projects, done previously by another engineering firm, shows the water surface at 54.0 feet above sea level. For the preliminary purposes of this document, we will use this datum and will field verify the number at the time of final design. Any discrepancies in this data will be forwarded to City Staff. The hydrology report by Mainero & Smith indicated that the 100 - year water surface level is 1.55 feet above the 54.0 elevation. Pad elevations for this site are at a 62.0 level. This is well above the minimum free boards 0.9 requirement of 1 foot above the 100 year flood level. Permeable pavement is a system utilizing interlocking concrete pavers of varying sizes of clean stone compacted tightly into a cohesive integration c storing water within the voids between each stone. These voids can be betwe 40% of the total volume of this base material. The section is as follows: 1. the paver section based upon the type of traffic loading consists 3 %2" thick unit 2. 1 %2" to 2" thick base f # . between the pavers 3.. 4" thick base of # 57 stone er a base gable of�'� 30% to �^�'` to vel stone with this same stone filling the voids al 4 r r�U .,a") e C#. --5�t '5 4. A base of #2 stone laid in lift of 4" maximum, vibrated and rolled into a compacted integrated matrix. The thickness can vary dependant on the storage capacity needed for the site's design. In our design varying sections of comnac stone Area is s 27" thick, Area "B " & "C" are 24" thick and Area "D"is 39" thick. 5. -woven geotextile fabric on e o oms and sides placed compacted subgrade as an option. The percolation rate through the paver section of these systems is incredible. Some can be expected to exceed 2000 in /hr. The recommendation from the manufacturer is the use of 3 in/hr based upon a 20 year pavement lifespan. In the use of this factor in the rational method the formula will look as follows: C= (0.9 *[ Ai +(I- 3.0/I)* Ap] where Ai is the percentage of the normal type of pavement and Ap is percentage the area of the permeable pavers. Since there is so little of what would be considered as permeable area (i.e. planters, lawns) we will not adjust for this factor. This can reduce the area from 0.89 in a high intensity period to as low as 0.75 on our site. Only the drive lanes in the central parking lots will be utilized in our design. This "C" value could be even lower in areas where a high percentage of pavers might be installed. Since we are not required to store any storm runoff on site we will only use a simple formula to account for the storage. The areas that follow will demonstrate the factors used in the later calculations. ti Av 30 IFu Area "A -1 ": total area = 20485 s.f., perm. paver area = 4137 s.f., percentage of site = 20% perm. pavers, storag 413 .f. +/- provided with a 2.75' stone section. Area "B -1 ": total area = 16877 s.f., rm. paver area = 3891 s.f., percentage of site = 23% perm. pavers, storag 918 .f. +/- provided with a 2.5' stone section. Area "C -1 ": total area = 28601 s.f. erm. paver area = 6021 s.f., percentage of site = 21% perm. pavers, storag 4516 .f. +/- provided with a 2.5' stone section. Area "D -1 ": total area = 46894 ss. paver area = 6309 s.f., percentage of site = 13% perm. pavers, stora 7471 c.f. /- provided with a 4.0' stone section. These volumes of storage capacity are insignificant to the main storm water storage area in the lake that there would be no value in determining any effect on the 100 -year water Z surface. They also are in excess of the volumes required to hold the entire 100 year —1 d hour storm therefore will provide a correct "C" value through the entire analysis of the 1 hour storm. The calculations show that, during the 100 — year, 1 hour storm, the crown of the road i not overtopped. The water would pond to a maximum height leaving a 4.5' wide ion of pavement on the west side of Caleo Bay Drive and that the water will only backup into the gutter on the east side leaving it completely open. No water backs up onto the roadway in the 10 — year, 1 — hour storm runoff. 5 r7 �° Sol, C7 C, 0 � � t �a ble to collect and contain its frontage CC3. This area was part of Basin V -2 of into collect and store the runoff from >ioi of the pavement section to apace � of the retention basins has )uld ha e been revised and enlarged as )es at La Quinta project has agreed to i of the frbntaae of the subject ,ed area an 8393 X. +/- of pervious tages. Reconfiguring the basin that filled to an elevation of 58.00 (depth ')hr requires 2351 c.f. and the 24hr i 1 c.f., not taken in by the above Crete, chambers with open bottoms. i washed stone and a manhole PL%JV I%AIl1 1V1 11lRLLlV11(AIlVV IAVV\+JJ. 111VJV V11"111V%11a provide 2984 c.f. J a torage, 433 c.f . more than is needed to contain the most intense storm. A Maxwell -Plus system will be in place at the bottom of the open basin and will take nuisance water and "first flush" prior to it entering the underground chambers. A preliminary layout of the proposed onsite collection and conveyance system is included on the Preliminary Grading Plan that has been submitted to the City Planning Department as part of the SDP and TPM application. Final Hydraulic Design for the project will include Grading and Drainage Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Hydraulic Calcs, and details for connection to the existing storm facilities to collect runoff to the lake. NPDES Mitigation The Parcel shall need to utilize a collection system to collect runoff from the buildings and parking lots and convey it to a drywell or bioswale or other approved device for pre- treatment prior to discharging it to the storm drain collection system for the subdivision. In short, Essi Engineering Inc. must take the position that we have conducted a very thorough analysis and review of the conditions at the site and the previous plans, reports, and conditions, and cannot find any legitimate deficiency in the Hydrology of Washington Street. Absent additional input from City staff, we have to respectfully, but directly, state we do not see the justification for this request. Z55 _0�__ Conclusions and Recommendations The rational method analysis closely matched the runoff volumes of the Mainiero Smith/Spiska Engineering JV 1989 Study. The original study showed 57.2 c.f.s. to the lake during the 100 — year, 1 - hour event, and our study shows 54.07 c.f.s. This is reduction in the overall 100 — year value of approximately 3 c.f.s.. The preliminary pipe analysis reveals that the existing system may have been slightly inadequate on sizing the exit pipe to the lake. The hydraulic grade line shows that the basins in the offsite street would have backed up more that the original design of being retained within the right -of- way. The analysis shows that the water now will meet the criteria required by the City. This grade line is, however, based upon the information from a plan not done by the original engineer and can be effected by the water surface elevation at the lake. This can be verified at the time of the complete design and is not significant enough to cause denial of the project. The design of the preliminary system shows that the proposed preliminary layout is adequate to provide protection in the 100 — year, 24 - hour event. In a larger event, the storm flows would top the curb on the northeast corner of Caleo Bay Drive and Via Florence and onto the lake 100 feet east of the catch basin. The ponding elevation reaches a maximum of 58.23 feet above sea level, well below the proposed pad elevations of 62.0 feet and the lowest surrounding as -built elevations of the existing Walgreens development at 60.20 feet. Based on our review of the Mainiero Smith/Spiska Engineering JV 1989 Study, the project can be built as an infill project as proposed without appreciable risk of future damage from storm water runoff, nor does it create increased risk to neighboring properties, nor does it significantly increase downstream runoff. The project is not subject to any flood inundation hazard identified on the FIRM Map, or any other known flood hazard. The project needs to comply with NPDES requirements and Best Practices for pretreatment prior to discharging runoff offsite and downstream. The final grading and drainage plans and storm drain plans shall be prepared by a qualified and licensed Civil Engineer and properly reviewed and permitted and adhered to for construction of all the site improvements. If all of these recommendations are followed, the site and surroundings should be more than adequately mitigated from risk from storm water runoff and flood hazards. References Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual, 1978 Mainiero Smith /Spiska Engineering Joint Venture Hydrology Report and Map for Lake La Quinta Subdivision, Tract 24230, August 1989. SDP 04 -815 Engineering Case File for Walgreens Retail Store on file in the Office of City Engineer of the City of La Quinta 7 TRACT 28034 - 33 °37.75' N - 116° 15.25' W - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA TN MN 0 S 1 MME 13° 1000 FEET 0 500 1000 METENS Map cleated with TOPOI® 02002 Nation Geogmphic (wwwiWionnlgeogiaphlc.comftopo) V. n ni m 0 0 0 0 n ni M TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Change to 11x17 Print Size Remove Grid Lines Change to Landscape MUD 8 km W of Indio, California, United States 28 May 2002 116W 17' 47" 1116W IT 39" :116W 17' 32" L 116.29641 ;-116.29425 :- 116.29209 S65 200.0 S65 400.0 :565 600.0 42' *.....a.,. ...,., i 33N 42' 16 "; t� =� •- � � 33N 42' 16" 33.70437; ' *_� , �., 33.70434 3,729,600.0 =r 3,729,600.0 s I i '�F t a. ................. ---------------------- 33N 33N 42'09" 33.7025 : s 33.70254 3,729,400. v 3,729,400.0 r � � _ w q. A 33N 42'0 33.7007 33.70074 3,729,200. 3,729,200.0 33N 41'56";:116W 17'47" 116W 17'39" ;33N 41'56" 33.69896-116.29645 1-116.29429 :33.69893 3,729,000.0;565,200.0 ;565,400.0 13,729,000.0 :116W 17' 32" L116.29214 ;565,600.0 0' 'loom 0' 100yd Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement Page 1 of 1 http:// terraserver- usa.com /printimage.aspx ?T= 1 &S =10 &X= 2827 &Y = 18646 &Z= 11 &P= 8 +km +W +of +In... 7/15/2008 1 OVERALL NODE MAP - THE SHOPPES AT LA QUINTA STORM DRAIN LINE "A" - 18" CPP 2603 CF STORAGE ABOVE GROUND ELEV. 54 -58 4298 CF STORAGE BELOW GROUND 3014 CF STORAGE ELEV. 57 -58 6339 CF STORAGE — ELEV. 57 -59 D m z c m 00 CALEO BAY DRIVE STORM DRAIN LINE "A" - 24" CPP STORM DRAIN LINE "A" - 30" CPP eillL AREA DESIGNATED AS "V -2" ON MSA HYDROLOGY REPORT w = WASHINGTON STREET Q z Ci g w VACANT Y g �- EXIN ,t30" STORM DRAIN TO BE UPSIZED TO 36" �--E ISTI G 36" STORM DRAIN i -J n LAKE O (WSE =54.0) Z(Q100 WSE= 55.55) n m r_aoo• GRAPHIC SCALE 0 100 200 400 800 - 6 �-m� I ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 200 ft. N w .A Precipitation Frequency Data Server ..n ��fES W POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES FROM NOAA ATLAS 14 V110 Page, 1 of 4 California 33.70164 N 116.29317 W 101 feet from "Precipitation- Frequency Atlas ofthe United States" NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 4 G.M. Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M.Yekta, and D. Riley NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 2006 Extracted: Tue Jul 15 2_008 Confidence Limits Location Maps �l Other Info GIS data Maps Help Docs U.S. Map Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches) AEP* 5 10 15 30 60 [4E[ (1in- 6 hr l2 hr 24 hr 48 hr da da da da da da da 0 0.12 0.19 0.23 0.31 0.39 0.53 0.61 0.81 1.00 1.07 1.08 1.16 1.27 1.36 1.52 1.70 1.92 2.04 50.21 0.33 0.40 0.54 0.67 0.88 1.00 1.31 1.61 1.75 1.77 1.87 2.05 2.21 2.48 2.77 3.13 3.33 10 1 0.29 I 0.44 0.55 0.73 0.91 1.17 1.31 1.69 2.05 2.26 2.28 2.41 2.62 2.84 3.18 3.52 3.97 4.25 725-]FO-411 .0.62 0.77 1.04 1.29 1.61 1.78 2.22 2.66 2.96 2.97 3.18 3.42 3.72 4.14 4.56 5.11 5.48 50 0.52 0.79 0.98 1.32 1.64 2.00 2.17 2.67 3.16 3.54 3.58 3.82 4.08 4.44 4.91 5.39 6.00 6.45 100 0.65 0.99 1.22 1.65 2.04 2.45 2.63 3.16 3.69 4.16 4.25 4.53 4.78 5.22 5.74 6.27 6.92 7.46 F20-01 0.80 1.22 1.51 2.04 2.52 2.97 3.14 3.71 4.26 4.84 4.99 5.32 5.55 6.07 6.63 7.20 7.89 8.51 500 1.05 1.59 1.98 2.66 3.29 3.79 3.94 4.53 5.09 5.82 6.10 6.48 6.66 7.30 7.91 8.52 9.22 9.99 1000 1.27 1.94 2.40 3.23 4.00 4.52 4.64 5.23 5.80 6.64 7.04 7.47 7.59 8.34 8.96 9.59 ] 0.27 11.15 These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima series. AEP is the Annual Exceedanoe Probability. 'lease refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Formatting forces estimates near zero to appear as zero. * Upper bound of the 90% confidence interval Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches) AEP ** 5 10 15 30 60 120 Fh Fh 12 24 48 4 7 10 20 30 :d] 60 (1 -in- min min min min min min hr hr hr day day day day day day V) 0 0.16 0.24 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.66 0.75 0.98 1.21 1.27 1.29 1.35 1.47 1.58 1.76 1.96 2.22 2.35 F5 0.27 0.41 0.51 0.69 0.85 1.09 1.22 1.59 1.94 2.09 2.11 2.19 2.36 2.56 2.86 3.18 3.59 3.83 10 0.36 0.55 0.69 0.92 1.14 1.43 1.60 2.04 2.46 2.69 2.71 2.81 3.02 3.28 3.66 _]F 6 4.57 4.87 25 0.51 0.78 0.96 1.30 1.61 1.96 2.16 2.68 3.19 3.53 3.56 3.72 3.95 4.29 4.77 5.26 5.87 6.29 50 0.65 0.99 1.22 1.65 2.04 2.44 2.63 3.22 3.79 4.21 4.25 4.47 4.71 5.12 5.67 6.22 6.91 7.41 100 0.81 1.23 1.52 2.05 2.54 2.98 3.19 3.83 4.43 4.95 4.95 5.32 5.55 6.03 6.64 7.27 8.00 8.59 200 0.99 1.51 1.88 2.53 3.13 3.63 3.83 4.49 5.14 5.77 5.84 6.27 6.47 7.05 7.70 8.40 9.15 9.84 500 1.30 1.98 2.46 3.31 4.09 4.66 4.84 5.53 6.17 6.97 7.19 7.70 7.85 8.54 9.25 10.02 10.79 11.60 1000 1.59 2.42 3.00 4.03 4.99 5.59 5.74 6.42 7.08 8.0] 8.35 8.94 9.01 9.81 10.56 11.36 12.10 13.03 'The uooer bound of the confidence interval at 90% confidence level is the value which 5% of the simulated quantile values for a given frequency are greater than. - These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima series. AEP is the Annual Exceedanoe Probability. Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Formatting prevents estimates near zero to appear as zero. * Lower bound of the 90% confidence interval Precipitation Frequency Estimates (inches) AEP ** 5 10 15 30 60 120 3 6 12 24 48 4 7 141411 60 (1 -�n min min min min min min hr hr hr hr hr day day day day day Y) 2� 0.10 I 0.15 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.43 0.50 0.67 0.83 0.89 o 931 1.00 1.10 1.18 1.31 1.48 1.67 1.77 0 0.17 0.26 0.32 0.44 0.54 0.72 0.83 1.09 1.33 ] .46 1.50 1.61 1.76 1.90 2.14 2.40 2.70 2.87 http: //hdsc .nws.noaa.gov /cgi- bin/hdsc/bui ldout.perl? type =pf &un its =us &series =am &statename =SO UTH E... 7/15/2008 Precipitation Frequency Data Server 10 110.23 0.35 0.43 0.58 0.72 0.95 1.08 1.39 1.69 187 1.93 2.07 2.24 2.44 12 7-2113 .04 I 3.42 25 0.32 0.49 0.60 0.81 1.00 1.29 1.44 1.81 2.17 2.44 2.53 2.70 2.90 3.16 3.52 3.92 4.37 Page 2 of 4 The lower bound of the confidence interval at 90% confidence level is the value which 5% of the simulated quantile values for a given frequency are less than. " These precipitation frequency estimates are based on an annual maxima series. AEP is the Annual Exceedance Probability. Please refer to the documentation for more information. NOTE: Formatting prevents estimates near zero to appear as zero. Text version of tables Annual Maxima based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 4 33.70164 N 116.29317 W 101 ft 12 11 10 c 9 •� 8 t Q a 7 a c 6 5 4 U N L a 3 2 1 - 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 80 100 140 200 300 Annual Exceedance Probability C1 -in -Y7 Tue Jul 15 09:06:53 2008 500 700 1000 Duration 5 -min - 120 -m - 48 -hr -X- 30 -day -x 10 -min -6 ;3 -hr -0 4 -day 45 -day -�- 15-min t 6 -hr -o 7 -day 60 -day ->K- 30 -min a 12 -hr + 10 -day -� 60 -min X 24 -hr a 20 -day --a- http: // hdsc. nws. noaa .gov /cgi- binlhdsc /buildout.perl ?type =pf& units =us &series =am &statename= SOUTHE... 7/15/2008 Precipitation Frequency Data Server c s Q m R £ 0 �o .Q U N L 0. Page 3 of 4 Annual Maxima based Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates - Version: 4 33.70164 N 116.29317 W 101 ft 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ON Annual Exceedance Probability (1 -in -Y) 1 in 2 t 1 in 100 — 1 in 5 t 1 in 200 -6 1 in 10 13 1 in 500 + 1 to 25 -x 1 in 1000 -8 1 in 50 -•- Maps - These maps were produced using a direct map request from the U.S. Census Bureau Mapping and Cartographic Resources Tiger Map Server. Please read disclaimer for more information. http:// hdsc. nws. noaa .gov /cgi- bin/hdsc /buildout.perl ?type =pf& units =us &series =am &statename= SOUTHE... 7/15/2008 �� I I I 1 1 1 N 11 10 W N @ I,- +D @ I I I I I I I I I I If7 m li] @ m -� -� M `0 U` Duration a M v %0 Tue Jul 15 09:06:53 2008 Annual Exceedance Probability (1 -in -Y) 1 in 2 t 1 in 100 — 1 in 5 t 1 in 200 -6 1 in 10 13 1 in 500 + 1 to 25 -x 1 in 1000 -8 1 in 50 -•- Maps - These maps were produced using a direct map request from the U.S. Census Bureau Mapping and Cartographic Resources Tiger Map Server. Please read disclaimer for more information. http:// hdsc. nws. noaa .gov /cgi- bin/hdsc /buildout.perl ?type =pf& units =us &series =am &statename= SOUTHE... 7/15/2008 �� Precipitation Frequency Data Server 116.4"W 11 fi .:i"111 116.2"w Other Maps/Photographs - LEGEND — State — Connector — County = Stream Q Indian Resv Q Military Area LakelPondlOcean National Park — Street Other Park Expressway 0 City Highway a® County 6 .8 mi Scale 1:228583 2 gg *average- -true scale depends on monitor8resolutlion Page 4 of 4 View USGS digital orthophoto quadrangle (1300) covering this location from TerraServer; USGS Aerial Photograph may also be available from this site. A DOQ is a computer - generated image of an aerial photograph in which image displacement caused by terrain relief and camera tilts has been removed. It combines the image characteristics of a photograph with the geometric qualities of a map. Visit the USGS for more information. Vatershed /Stream Flow Information - Find the Watershed for this location using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's site. Climate Data Sources - Precipitation frequency results are based on data from a variety of sources, but largely NCDC. The following links provide general information about observing sites in the area, regardless of if their data was used in this study. For detailed information about the stations used in this study, please refer to our documentation. Using the National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC) station search engine, locate other climate stations within: +/ -30 minutes I ...OR... j +/ -1 degree of this location (33.70164/- 116.29317). Digital ASCII data can be obtained directly from NCD . Find Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) SNOTEL (SNOwpack TELemetry) stations by visiting the Western Regional. Climate Center's state - specific SNOTEL station maps. Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center DOC/NOAA/National Weather Service 1325 East -West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 713 -1669 questions ?: HDSC.OuestionsQnoaa.eov disclaimer http:/l hdsc. nws. noaa. gov /cgi- binlhdsclbuildout.perl? type =pf &units =us &series =am &statename= SOUTHE... 7/15/2008 IL) PE 7 z ailF r. a AL ni W-2 Pa '41 77�• �"�5�1 _ q Ak. 97 • MY daig r vt �s ROT vt th iL NO I so :� �.f1 /10 Ja Ili'SrS,. `�y`i;:r......•:. \i:?}�Lti'.. Ni!+.y. = ��n.';.- ;.ti:j_.:... _ .. _.,,,. _ ..... .. _ _ w'y .,' ... � �`� � :�'ti0'; -.+.:i:; ".:• -_' A..'- ...-•.r .'►'y'!_ \. yr. :« %'. �r:. ! �11{ Gi .v,. _•y.. ' :.'wi.�.,.3l"" '.�ie��: 1 RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYDROLOGIC SOIL -COVER COMPLEXES FOR PERVIOUS AREAS -AMC II Cover Type (3) Quality of Soil Group A B C D Cover (2) NATURAL COVERS - Barren 78 86 91 93 (Rockland, eroded and graded land) Chaparrel, Broadleaf Poor 53 70 80 85 (Manzonita, ceanothus and scrub oak) Fair 40 63 75 81 Good 31 57 71 78 Chaparrel, Narrowleaf Poor 71 82 88 9i (Chamise and redshank) Fair 55 72 81 86 Grass, Annual or Perennial Poor 67 78 86 89 Fair 50 69 79 84 Good 38 61 74 80 Meadows or Cienegas Poor 63 77 85 88 (Areas with seasonally high water table, Fair 51 70 80 84 principal vegetation is sod forming grass) Good 30 58 72 78 Open Brush Poor 62 76 84 88 (Soft wood shrubs - buckwheat, sage, etc.) Fair 46 66 77 83 Good 41 63 75 81 Woodland Poor 45 66 77 83 (Coniferous or broadleaf trees predominate. Fair 36 60 73 79 Canopy density is at least 50 percent) Good 28 55 70 77 Woodland, Grass Poor 57 73 82 86 (Coniferous or broadleaf trees with canopy Fair 44 65 77 82 density from 20 to 50 percent) Good 33 58 72 79 URBAN COVERS - Residential or Commercial Landscaping Good 32 56 69 75 (Lawn, shrubs, etc.) Turf Poor 58 74 83 87 (Irrigated and mowed grass) Fair 44 65 77 82 Good 33 58 72 79 AGRICULTURAL COVERS - Fallow 76 85 90 92 (Land plowed but not tilled or seeded) R C F C 15 W C D RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS FOR HYDROLOGY J\iIANUAL PERVIOUS AREA PLATE D -S.S 0 of 2) ACTUAL IMPERVIOUS COVER Recommended Value Land Use (1) Range- Percent For Average Conditions- Percent(2 Natural or Agriculture 1 0 - 10 1 0 Single Family Residential: (3) 40,000 S. F. (1 Acre) Lots 10 - 25 20 20,000 S. F. (� Acre) Lots 30 - 45 40 7,200 - 10,000 S. F. Lots 45 - 55 50 Multiple Family Residential: Condominiums 45 - 70 65 Apartments 65 - 90 80 Mobile Home Park 60 - 85 75 Commercial, Downtown 80 -100 90 Business or Industrial Notes: 1. Land use should be based on ultimate development of.the watershed. Long range master plans for the County and incorporated cities should be reviewed to insure reasonable land use assumptions. 2. Recommended values are based on average conditions which may not apply to a particular study area. The percentage impervious may vary greatly even on comparable sized lots due to differences in dwelling size, improvements, etc. Landscape practices should also be considered as it is common in some areas to use ornamental grav- els underlain by impervious plastic materials in place of lawns and shrubs. A field investigation of a study area should always be made, and a review of aerial photos, where available may assist in estimat- ing the percentage of impervious cover in developed areas. 3. For typical horse ranch subdivisions increase impervious area 5 per- cent over the values recommended in the table above. RCFC IN WCD HYDROLOGY JMANUAL IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR DEVELOPED AREAS PLATE D -5.6 ?1 r -D-1 m N 0 0) va Aw 0 < ip z L 5 M c z D 0 O D D c p D D 0 z RAINFALL INTENSITY - INCHES PER HOUR CATHEDRAL CITY CHERRY VALLEY 10 I CORONA I DESERT HOT SPRINGS I DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 10 100 YEAR YEAR 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 ♦0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 t.14 6.76 3.73 6.08 3.41 5.56 3.15 5.15 2.95 4.81 2.77 4.52 2.62 4.28 2.49 4.07 2.38 3.88 2.28 3.72 2.19 3.58 2.11 3.44 2.04 3.32 1.97 3.22 1.91 3.12 1.85 3.03 1.75 2.86 1.67 2.72 1.59 2.60 1.52 2.49 1.46 2.39 1.41 2.30 1.36 2.22 1.32 2.15 1.28 2.09 1.24 2.02 1.16 1.89 1.09 1.78 1.03 1.68 .98 1.60 .94 1.53 .90 1.46 .86 1.41 .83 1.35 .80 1.31 SLOPE s .580 DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 3.23 4.94 6 10 100 7 YEAR YEAR 5 3.65 5.49 6 3.30 4.97 7 3.03 4.56 8 2.82 4.24 9 2.64 3.97 10 2.49 3.75 11 2.36 3.56 12 2.25 3.39 13 2.16 3.25 14 2.07 3.12 15 1.99 3.00 16 1.92 2.90 17 1.86 2.80 18 1.80 2.71 19 1.75 2.64 20 1.70 2.56 22 1.61 2.43 24 1.54 2.32 26 1.47 2.22 28 1.41 2.13 30 1.36 2.05 32 1.31 1.98 34 1.27 1.91 36 1.23 1.85 38 1.26 1.80 40 1.16 1.75 45 1.09 1.64 50 1.03 1.55 55 .99 1.47 60 .93 1.40 65 .89 1.34 70 as 1.29 75 .82 1.24 80 .79 1.20 85 .77 1.16 SLOPE _ .550 DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 3.23 4.94 6 10 100 7 YEAR YEAR 5 3.10 4.78 6 2.84 4.38 7 2.64 4.07 8 2.47 3.81 9 2.34 3.60 10 2.22 3.43 11 2.12 3.27 12 2.04 3.14 13 1.96 3.02 14 1.89 2.92 IS 1.83 2.82 16 1.77 2.73 17 1.72 2.66 18 1.68 2.58 19 1.63 2.52 20 1.59 2.46 22 1.52 2.35 24 1.46 2.25 26 1.40 2.17 28 1.36 2.09 30 1.31 2.02 32 1.27 1.96 34 1.23 1.90 36 1.20 1.85 38 1.17 1.81 40 1.14 1.76 45 1.08 1.66 50 1.03 1.58 55 .98 1.51 60 .94 1.45 65 .90 1.40 70 .87 1.35 75 .84 1.30 80 .82 1.26 85 .80 1.23 SLOPE : .480 DURATION FREQUENCY MINUTES 3.23 4.94 6 10 100 7 YEAR YEAR 5 4.39 6.76 6 3.95 6.08 7 3.62 5.56 8 3.35 5.15 9 3.13 4.81 10 2.94 4.52 11 2.78 4.28 12 2.65 4.07 13 2.53 3.88 14 2.42 3.72 15 2.32 3.58 16 2.24 3.44 17 2.16 3.32 18 2.09 3.22 19 2.03 3.12 20 1.97 3.03 22 1.86 2.86 24 1.77 2.72 26 1.69 2.60 28 1.62 2.49 30 1.55 2.39 32 1.50 2.30 34 1.45 2.22 36 1.40 2.15 38 1.36 2.09 40 1.32 2.02 45 1.23 1.89 50 1.16 1.78 55 1.09 1.68 60 1.04 1.60 65 .99 1.53 70 .95 1.46 75 .91 1.41 80 .88 1.35 85 .85 1.31 SLOPE - .580 ELSINORE - WILDOMAR DURATION MINUTES FREQUENCY 10 100 YEAR YEAR 5 3.23 4.94 6 2.96 4.53 7 2.75 4.21 8 2.58 3.95 9 2.44 3.73 10 2.32 3.54 11 2.21 3.39 12 2.12 3.25 13 2.04 3.13 14 1.97 3.02 15 1.91 2.92 16 1.85 2.83 17 1.80 2.75 18 1.75 2.67 19 1.70 2.60 20 1.66 2.54 22 1.59 2.43 24 1.52 2.33 26 1.46 2.24 28 1.41 2.16 30 1.37 2.09 32 1.33 2.03 34 1.29 1.97 36 1.25 1.92 38 1.22 1.87 40 1.19 1.82 45 1.13 1.72 50 1.07 1.64 55 1.02 1.56 60 .98 1.50 65 .94 1.44 70 .91 1.39 75 .88 1.35 80 .85 1.31 85 .83 1.27 SLOPE _ .480 T r M m tO W Y'a r� CP 3-HOUR RAINFALL STORM PATTERNS 6 -HOUR STORM IN PERCENT 24 -HOUR STORM IIME S -NIN 10 -111" 1S -NjN 30 -MIN 11 Mf S -N]N 10 -MIN 1S -MIN 30 -MIN TIME S -MIN TIME IS -NIN 70 -MIN 60 -MIN TIME 15 -NIN PER10D PERIOD PERT 00 PERIOD PERIOD PE 10 o PCRIOD PER 100 PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD ►ER ToD PER TOO PERIOD PERIOD •�' ^ 1 1,3 2.6 3.1 6.S 1 .S 1.1 1.7 J.6 •9 1.7 1 .2 .5 1.2 49 2.5 y ` , 2 1.3 2.6 •.6 10.0 2 .6 l.f 1.9 •.3 s0 l.e 2 •3 .7 1.) 50 2.6 J 1.1 3.3 1.1 13.9 3 .6 L.] 2.l ♦.a 51 1.9 3 .3 .6 1.6 SI 2.6 L v ♦ l.S ).7 ♦.9 17.♦ • .6 l.♦ 2.2 ♦.9 52 2.0 ♦ .♦ .7 2.1 32 2.9 5 6 1.5 l.e 3.3 3.♦ 6.6 29.9 S 1.3 20.7 .6 1.♦ 2•♦ S.3 53 2.1 5 .3 .e 2.e 53 7.• 1.5 ♦.♦ 6 6•♦ 1 .7 .7 I.1 2.♦ g.6 S♦ 1'.6 2.♦ 6.6 SS 2.1 7.2 6 7 .3 .] I.0 1.0 2.9 J.0 S• SS 3.• 2.3 6 1.0 4 .2 9.0 6 .7 1.6 2.5 9.0 56 2.3 a ,♦ 1.1 ♦.6 56 2.3 9 1.e S.) 12.3 9 .l 1.6 2.6 11.6 51 2.♦ 9 .♦ 1.3 6.3 57 2.7 10 1.5 5.1 17.6 10 .7 1.6 2.7 I♦.♦ Se 2.4 10 .♦ I.S B.2 5e 2.6 11 1.6 6.4 16.1 11 .7 1.6 2.0 25.1 59 2.5 11 .5 t.) 7.0 59 2.6 12 1.6 S.9 ♦,2 12 .B 1.7 7.0 ♦•• 60 2.6 12 .S l.6 1,) 60 2.5 13 2.2 7,] 13 .a 1.7 ].2 61 3.1 13 .S 1.6 10.6 61 2.♦ I♦ 2.2 9.5 l♦ .6 I.a 3.6 1♦ .S 2.0 Il.♦ 62 2.3 15 16 2.2 2.0 1•.1 1 4.I IS 16 .6 .e 1.6 ♦.3 67 1.a ♦.7 3.9 15 16 .S .6 2.1 2.S 10.♦ B.S 63 1.9 17 2.6 3.6 17 .6 2.0 S.• 6• 65 ♦•2 ♦•7 17 .6 3.0 1.♦ 6♦ 65 1.9 .• l6 2.7 2.4 is .a 2.0 6.2 66 5.6 16 .7 3.J 1.9 66 .• 19 2.♦ 19 .e 2.1 6.9 61 1.9 19 .7 3.9 1.3 61 .3 20 21 2.T J.) 20 .6 2.2 T,S 6e .9 20 .6 ♦.3 1.2 69 .3 22 ].1 21 22 .a .e 2.S 10.6 2.6 1 ♦.S 69 •6 21 22 .6 .1 3.0 ♦.0 1.1 1.0 69 .5 23 2.9 27 .e ),0 3.♦ 70 71 •S •3 23 .a 7.6 ,9 71 71 .5 .s 2• 7.0 2♦ .9 7.2 1,0 72 2♦ .e 3.S ,a 72 4 25 3,l 25 .e 3.S •2 2S .9 S.1 73 .• 26 ♦.2 26 .9 3.9 26 .9 S,1 74 �• 27 S.0 27 .9 ♦.2 27 1.0 6.6 7S .3 26 3.5 2e .9 •.S 26 1.0 •.6 76y .2 T 29 30 6.a 7.3 29 .9 ♦.6 29 1.0 S.3 77 ,3 �J D )1 e.2 30 71 .9 .9 5.1 6.7 30 31 1.1 1.2 5.l ♦.i 7e 79 ,♦ J 32 5.9 32 .9 a.l 32 1.7 3.e 60 .2 Z ]] 2.0 33 1.0 10.] 33 1.5 .6 el .3 Z '}� 34 35 I.e 1.6 36 JS 1.0 1.0 2.a 1.1 3♦ ]5 1.5 1.6 .6 1.0 e2 e3 .3 .3 D 36 .6 36 1.0 .5 36 1.7 .9 64 .2 r 37 1.0 77 36 7.9 2.0 .6 e5 .3 1 r 3e 39 1.1 1.1 39 2.1 .S .7 06 e7 .2 .3 40 1.1 ♦0 2.2 .S ee .2 M •1 1.2 41 l.S .6 e9 .] 42 1.3 42 1, .S 90 .2 43 ♦♦ 1.♦ l.♦ 43 ♦♦ 2.0 .S 91 .2 ♦S 1.S AS 1.9 I .S .S 92 q3 .2 .2 1.1 4 6- 1.S 4 6 1.9 .♦ q♦ .2 Z 47 1.6 •t t.7 .• 95 .2 ..� T ♦a 1.6 •e 1.6 .♦ 96 .2 M Z N NOTES: I. 3 and 6-hour patterns based on the Indio area thunderstorm of September 24,1939. 2. 24 -hour patterns based on the general storm of March 2 a 3,1938. r m v 0 -r. N v %-X) 04 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR RI INDEX NO. - 52 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR RI INDEX NO. m 54 IMPERVIOUS INTENSITY - INCHES /HOUR IMPERVIOUS INTENSITY - INCHES /HOUR PERCENT PERCENT .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 7.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 /) 0. .00. .26 .40 .49 .S6 .60 .64 .67 .69 .72 .75 0. .00 .26 .42 .51 .57 .62 .65 .68 .70 .73 .76 ♦ / S. .04 .29 .43 .51 .57 .62 .65 .68 .70 .T3 .75 5. .04 .31 .45 .53 .59 .63 .67 .69 .71 .74 .76 10. .09 .32 .45 .53 .59 .63 .66 .69 .71 .74 .76 10. .09 .34 .47 .55 .61 .65 .68 .70 .72 .75 .77 15. .13 .36 .48 .56 .61 .65 ,68 .70 .72 .75 .77 1S. .13 .37 .49 .57 .62 .66 .69 .71 .73 .76 .78 C) 20. .18 .39 .50 .58 .63 .66 .69 .71 .73 .76 .78 20. .18 .40 .52 .59 .64 .68 .70 ,77 .74 .77 .79 25. .22 .42 .53 .60 .64 .68 .70 .72 .74 .77 .79 25. ,22 .43 .54 .61 .66 .69 .71 .73 .75 .78 .79 �j 30. .27 .45 .55 .62 .66 .69 .72 .74 .75 .78 .79 30. .27 .46 .56 .63 .67 .70 .73 .75 .76 .78 .80 \ 35. 40. .31 .36 .48 .52 .58 .60 .64 .66 .68 .69 .71 .72 .73 .74 .75 .76 .76 .77 .78 .79 .80 .81 35. 40. .31 .36 .49 .53 .59 .61 .65 .67 .69 .70 .72 .73 .74 .75 .76 .77 IT .78 .79 .80 .81 .81 45. .40 .5S .63 .69 .71 .74 .76 .77 .76 .60 .62 45. .40 .S6 .64 .69 .72 .75 .76 .78 .79 .81 .82 Z S0. .45 .58 .65 .70 .73 .75 .77 .78 .79 .81 .82 50. .45 .59 .66 .71 .74 .76 .78 .79 .80 .82 .83 (Z 0 55. .49 .61 .68 .T2 .75 .77 ,78 .79 .80 .82 .63 55, .49 .62 .68 .73 .75 .77 .79 .80 .81 .83 .84 b 60. .S4 .64 .70 .74 .76 .78 .80 .A1 .82 .83 .84 60. .54 .65 .71 .74 .77 .79 .AO Al . .82 .83 .84 65. .SO .68 .T3 .76 .T8 .60 Al . .82 .83 .84 .85 6S. .58 .68 .73 .76 .79 .80 .81 .82 .83 .84 .85 r 70. .63 .71 .75 .78 .80 .81 .82 .A3 .84 .85 .85 70. .63 .71 .76 .78 .AO .62 .93 .83 .84 .85 .86 75. .67 .74 .78 .80 .81 .83 .83 .84 .8S .86 .86 75. .67 .74 .78 .80 .A2 .83 .84 .84 as .86 .86 80. .72 07 .80 .A2 .83 .84 AS .85 .86 .86 .87 80. .72 .78 .80 .82 .83 .84 .85 .86 .86 -87 .87 85. .76 .80 .83 .84 .85 .66 .86 .86 .87 .87 .88 A5. 06 .81 .83 .84 .85 .86 .86 .87 AT .88 .88 90. .81 .84 .85 -86 .87 .87 .87 .88 .88 .68 .88 90. .61 .84 as .86 .87 .87 .A8 .86 .68 .88 .69 9S. .86 .87 .88 .88 .88 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 9S. .86 .87 .88 .88 .68 .69 .AO .89 .89 .89 .89 100. .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 100. .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .00 .90 .90 .90 .90 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR RI INDEX NO. : 58 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR RI INDEX NO. - 56 IMPERVIOUS INTENSITY - INCHES /HOUR IMPERVIOUS INTENSITY - INCHES /HOUR PERCENT PERCENT .0 .S 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 .0 .5 1.0 1.5 7.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 0. .00 .31 .46 .SS .61 .6S .68 .71 .73 .75 .78 Z 0. .00 .29 .44 .53 .59 .63 .67 .69 .71 .74 IT S. .04 .32 .46 .55 .61 .6S .68 .70 .72 .75 .77 S. .04 .34 .48 .5T .62 .66 .69 .72 .73 .76 .78 (� O 10. .09 .35 .49 .57 .62 .66 .69 .71 03 .76 .78 10. .09 .37 .50 .58 .64 .67 ,70 02 .74 .77 .79 c n -n 1S. .13 .38 .51 .S9 .64 .67 .70 .72 .74 .77 .79 IS. .13 .40 .52 .60 .6S .69 .71 .73 .75 .78 .79 20. .18 .41 .53 .60 .6S .69 .71 .73 .75 .78 .79 20. .18 .43 .55 .62 .67 .70 .72 .74 .76 .78 .80 2S. .22 .44 .SS .62 .6T .70 .73 .T4 .76 .78 .80 2S. .22 .46 .57 -64 .68 .71 .74 IS .7T .79 .81 C 30. .27 .47 .58 -64 .68 .71 .74 .75 .77 .T9 .81 30. .27 .48 .S9 .65 .69 .72 .75 .76 .78 .80 .81 m n 35. .31 .SO .60 .66 .70 .73 .75 IT .78 ,80 .61 35. .31 .51 .61 .67 .71 .74 .76 IT .79 ..81 .82 Q 40. .36 .53 .62 .68 .71 .74 .76 .7A .79 .81 .82 40. .36 .S4 .63 .69 .72 .75 .77 .78 .79 .81 .83 r1l 4S. .40 .56 .6S .70 03 .7S .77 .79 .80 .81 .63 4S. .40 .S7 .66 .71 .74 .76 .78 .79 .80 .82 .83 n 50. .4S .60 ,67 .TI .75 .77 .7A .80 .41 .82 .83 50. .45 .60 .68 .72 .75 .77 .79 .80 .61 .83 .84 D -n SS. .49 963 .69 .T3 .T6 .78 .80 .81 .82 .83 .84 S5. .49 .63 .70 .74 .77 .79 .90 .81 .A2 .83 .84 60. .S4 .66 .72 .7S .78 .79 .81 .82 .63 .84 .8S 60. .54 .66 .72 .76 .76 .80 .81 .82 .83 .84 .85 D (� 65. .58 .69 .74 IT .79 .81 .82 .83 .63 .65 .85 6S. .58 .69 .7S .78 .AO .81 .82 .83 .64 .8S .86 TO. .63 .72 .T6 .79 .81 .82 .83 .84 .84 .85 .86 70. .63 .72 .77 09 .el .82 .83 .84 .85 .86 .86 j*1 15. .67 .75 .78 .81 at .83 .84 .65 .85 .86 .87 7S. .67 .75 .79 .81 .83 .84 .8S .8S .86 .86 .87 Z 80. .72 .76 .61 .83 .84 .85 .85 .66 .86 .87 .8T 80. .72 .78 .81 .63 .64 .85 .86 .86 .86 .87 .88 85. .76 .81 .83 .84 .85 .86 .87 .87 .67 .88 .68 85. .76 .81 .83 .85 .86 .86 .87 .87 .87 .68 .88 90. .81 .64 .8S .86 .87 .87 .88 .88 .88 .88 .89 90. .81 .84 .86 .86 .87 .87 .88 .86 .88 .89 .89 95. .86 .8T .88 .68 .88 .69 .69 .89 .69 .89 .69 95. .86 .87 .88 -88 .89 .89 .69 .69 .69 .69 .69 100. .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 100. .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 ME of oI i o11 ■'m. ■m in 1 i■1 1101 L 1000 TC' 100 90 LIMITATIONS: 1. Maximum length =1000 2. Maximum area = 10 Acres TC 5 900 80 a v 800 70 > H V 6 Y ° 400 0 0 300 a 700 60 C ! 200 7-- w 01 C O N E c 100 a�i 600 C 50 D o w so 8 C 0 50 o d 40 E c 30 m m 500 0 c c d 20 9 0 35 > 0 C 10 0 e 10 w CL 3 K Ai U- ° 400 0 w 30 a Undeveloped 0 - Good Cover 2 12 c v> m 350 - — •.. p 0 - -- ,. Fair Cover .. :6 14 �° 0 _ 300 ° 20 Undeveloped 0 .3 `21 15 m - 19 P o r Covet o 2 16 0- 17 Single Family m % -' 50 17 E — 250 (1/4 Acre) m 18 - J ( 6 t o 14 Commercial 0 12 U (Pav ° 20-- 0-200 13 m e J w 25 C ° KEY u 150 g L-H -Tc -K -Tc' o i= 8 30 EXAMPLE: E 7 (1) L =550', H =5.0, K = Single Family (1/4 Ac.) ~ 35 Development , Tc =12.6 min. 6 (2) L =550', H =5.0', K= Commercial 100 Development , Tc = 9.7 min. 40 5 t- 4 Reference: Bibliography item No. 35. R C F C al W C D TIME OF CONCENTRATION HYIDROLOOY X /JANUAL FOR INITIAL SUBAREA PLATE D -3 35 RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT: SHOPPES AT LQ JOB NO: 08010 DATE: 07/13/08 PREPARED BY ESSI SHAHANDEH FEQUENCY: 10YR CLIENT: BY: AMG DRAINAGE AREA SOIL & A I C A Q E O SLOPE SECTION V L T ET REMARKS DEV.TYPE ACRES INIHR CFS CFS % FPS FT MIN A -1 90 -B 0.47 3.73 0.89 1.56 A -2 90 -B 0.57 3.73 0.89 1.89 A -3 90 -B 0.11 4.14 0.89 0.40 B -1 90 -8 0.39 4.14 0.89 1.44 B -2 90 -9 0.39 4.14 0.89 1.44 C -1 90 -8 0.65 3.73 0.89 2.15 C -2 90 -B 0.15 4.14 0.89 0.55 D -1 90 -B 1.08 3.73 0.89 3.58 S -1 90 -B 1.46 2.95 0.88 3.81 S -2 90 -B 4.35 2.95 0.88 11.35 CB 9 A3 90 -B 0.11 4.14 0.89 0.40 CBI @ C -2 90 -B 0.15 4.14 0.89 0.55 CONF J-4 CBS @ C -1 90 -B 0.65 2.95 0.88 1.70 CB-4 @ A -1 90 -B 0.58 2.95 0.88 1.51 CB-3 @ B -1 90 -B 0.39 2.77 0.88 0.95 CB-6 @ D -1 90 -B 1.08 2.62 0.88 2.50 CBS @ A -2 90 -B 0.57 3.73 0.89 1.89 CB -7 @ B -2 90 -B 0.39 2.62 0.88 0.90 w i + 18 "PIPE I FULL 1 0.23 1 44.00 1 3.19 F C!��I�)•i�i� 0.96 18 "PIPE FULL 1 0.54 44.00 1 1.36 2.65 18 "PIPE FULL 1.50 38.00 0.42 4.17 18 "PIPE FULL 2.36 171.00 1.21 5.12 24 "PIPE FULL 1.63 171.00 1.75 7.62 24 "PIPE FULL 2.43 118.00 0.81 1.89 18 "PIPE FULL 1.07 301.00 4.69 2.79 18 "PIPE FULL 1.58 86.00 0.91 6.00 INITIAL AREA L =83' H =0.56' 6.50 INITIAL AREA L =196' H =1.6' 4.50 INITIAL AREA L =78' H =1.5' 5.30 INITIAL AREA L =101' H =0.6' 5.30 INITIAL AREA L =101' H =0.6' 6.00 INITIAL AREA L =84' H =0.5' 4.70 INITIAL AREA L =123' H =1.5' 6.30 INITIAL AREA L =157' H =1.0' 9.80 INITIAL AREA L=428' H =2.2' 9.40 INITIAL AREA L=414' H =2.3' 4.50 INITIAL AREA L =78' H =1.5' 7.69 4.70 INITIAL AREA L =123' H =1.5' 7.07 7.69 CONF A -3 & C -2 9.05 9.47 10.68 11.49 SHORT RUN FROM CB-6 TO CB-3 NO ADJ. 6.50 11.19 12.10 RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PREPARED BY ESSI SHAHANDEH SHEET 1 PROJECT: SHOPPES AT LQ JOB NO: 08010 DATE: 07/13/08 FEQUENCY:10YR CLIENT: BY: AMG DRAINAGE AREA SOIL & A I C A Q E Q SLOPE SECTION V L T ET REMARKS DEV. TYPE ACRES IWHR CFS CFS % I FPS FT MIN CONF JCT -3 10.41 JCT @ S -1 90 -B 1.46 2.49 0.88 3.20 CONF JCT -2 11.35 MSA "A -1 TO 3" RES -B 6.69 MSA "A-4 & A -5" 90 -B 4.77 CONF MSA AREA "A" 11.46 FLOW FROM JCT 2 24.96 CONF @ JCT 1 34.37 w RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT: SHOPPES AT LQ JOB NO: 08010 DATE: 07/13/08 PREPARED BY ESSI SHAHANDEH FEQUENCY: 100YR CLIENT: BY: AMG DRAINAGE AREA SOIL & A I C 0 Q £ Q SLOPE SECTION V L T £ T REMARKS DEV. TYPE ACRES IN/HR CFS CFS % FPS FT MIN A -1 90 -B 0.47 6.08 0.89 2.55 A -2 90 -B 0.57 6.08 0.89 3.09 A -3 90 -B 0.11 6.76 0.89 0.66 B-1 90 -B 0.39 6.76 0.89 2.35 B -2 90 -8 0.39 6.76 0.89 2.35 C -1 90 -B 0.65 6.08 0.89 3.53 C -2 90 -B 0.15 6.76 0.89 0.91 D -1 90 -B 1.08 6.08 0.89 5.86 S -1 90 -B 1.46 4.81 0.89 6.25 S -2 90 -B 4.35 4.81 0.89 18.63 CB 9 0 A-3 90 -B 0.11 6.76 0.89 0.66 CB10 @ C -2 90 -B 0.15 6.76 0.89 0.91 CONF J-4 CBS @ C -1 90 -B 0.65 .5.56 0.89 3.22 CBS @ A -1 90 -B 0.58 5.15 0.89 2.66 CB -3 B -1 90 -B 0.39 5.15 0.89 1.79 CB-6 D -1 90 -B 1.08 4.81 0.89 4.63 CB-8 @ A -2 90 -B 0.57 6.08 0.89 3.09 CB -7 @ B -2 90 -B 0.39 4.81 0.89 1.67 F.R. 0.66 118 "PIPE 1 FULL 1 0.37 1 44.00 1 1.98 18 "PIPE I FULL 1 0.51 1 44.00 1 1.44 1.57 18 "PIPE FULL 1 0.51 44.00 1 1.44 4.79 18 "PIPE FULL 2.71 38.00 0.23 7.45 18 "PIPE FULL 4.22 171.00 0.68 9.24 24 "PIPE FULL 2.94 171.00 0.97 13.87 24 "PIPE FULL 1 4.41 1 118.00 1 0.45 3.09 18 "PIPE FULL 1.75 301.00 2.87 4.76 18 "PIPE FULL 1 2.69 86.00 0.53 6.00 INITIAL AREA L =83' H =0.56' 6.50 INITIAL AREA L =196' H =1.6' 4.50 INITIAL AREA L =78' H =1.5' 5.30 INITIAL AREA L =101' H =0.6' 5.30 INITIAL AREA L =101' H =0.6' 6.00 INITIAL AREA L =84' H =0.5' 4.70 INITIAL AREA L =123' H =1.5' 6.30 INITIAL AREA L =157' H =1.0' 9.80 INITIAL AREA L =428' H =2.2' 9.40 INITIAL AREA L =414' H =2.3' 4.50 INITIAL AREA L =78' H =1.5' 6.48 4.70 INITIAL AREA L =123' H =1.5' 6.14 6.48 CONF A -3 & C -2 7.92 8.15 8.83 9.27 SHORT RUN FROM CB-6 TO CB -3 NO ADJ. 6.50 9.37 9.90 SHEET 1 RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT: SHOPPES AT LQ JOB NO: 08010 DATE: 07/13108 PREPARED BY ESSI SHAHANDEH FEQUENCY: 100YR CLIENT: DRAINAGE AREA I D SO.ITYPE I ACRES I IN/HR I C I CFS I C S I SLOPE I SECTIONI FPS I T I MIN I £ T I REMARKS CONF JCT-3 18.63 JCT @ S -1 90 -B 1.46 4.52 0.89 5.87 CONF JCT -2 18.63 MSA "A -1 TO 3" RES -B 11.80 MSA "A-4 & AS" 90 -B 7.88 CONF MSA AREA "A" 19.68 FLOW FROM JCT 2 43.14 CONF @ JCT 1 58.97 10 8 6 5 4 3 'r: F IL w 1 Q 0.8 0 2 F 0.58'0.6 IL LOT 27 0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.12' PARCEL 1 0.1 1 4 X 0.8 X 0.5 BLOCKAGE c� 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 2.7 CFS 6.05 CFS PARCEL 1 LOT 27 3 DISCHARGE Q (FT /SEC) 30 40 50 60 80 100 GRATE INLET CAPACITY IN SUMP CONDITION (SOURCE USDOT - FHWA - HEC -12, 1984) CE i GRATE OPENING 10 Reticuline 0.8 Curved Vane 0.33 30' Tilt -Bar 0.34 on WANIFAVAYA F F/ � fF 0 F_ 0-0 0 L =!=3 A= CLEAR OPENING AREA 410. PA PIK OAV V, I It 11 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 2.7 CFS 6.05 CFS PARCEL 1 LOT 27 3 DISCHARGE Q (FT /SEC) 30 40 50 60 80 100 GRATE INLET CAPACITY IN SUMP CONDITION (SOURCE USDOT - FHWA - HEC -12, 1984) CE CB #8 Q10 =1.76 CFS Q100 =3.89 CR TOG 60.90 HGL100 =59.34 CB #9 Q10 =0.40 CFS T%100=0.66 CFS HGL100 =59.73 J� STORM DRAIN PROP. 18., LINE "A" JCT 4 QB o# 0 56 CFS TQC0610-91 CFS HGL100 =59.74 Quo CB #4 Q10 =1.343 CFS TQOG 60.80 CF: HGL100 =59.70 / I W '°' cW0 Qf Q)O STORM DRAIN LINE "A" LAKE (WSE = 54.0)TO BrF IED EXISTING 36" WSE 100 = 55.55 i STORM DRAIN LINE "A" ��Gt�S CB # 1 PROPOSED 36" REPLACEMENT 10 =3 65 CFS JCT #2 JCT #3 6100 =5.87 CFS Q10 =24.96 CFS Q10 =9.92 CFS TC 58.10 100 =40.69 CFS / GG Q100=17.31 CFS HGL100 =58.32 TOG 858.07 I F\ \\ TOG 61.5 HGL100 =58.89 CB #7 \r TOG 60 90 CFS MAXWELL PLUS --, HGL100= 59.13 G Q1B0_=_ 1.44 HGL100 =59.33 P Q pro O� j �IQ `2 C B # 5 Q10 =1.95 CFS TQOG60 80 CCFS HGL100 =60.08 rn\ \ pv 4�Q7 Q °O 0' 'p0O,A o`P� � Zvi 9i cp, �O `9i �Z CB #6 F, �` -- 10 =3.43 CFS CFS y -- T,00=5.65 HGL100 =59.14 WS100 =58.1 2603 CF ST OPEN BASI PLUS # 11 WASHINGTON 8=1.58 CFS O =2.0 CFS 0 EX CB \ 10 =4.77 CFS 100 =7.88 CFS TOG 61.40 HGL100 =57.22 CB #2 Q1g =11.58 CFS E Q1 0 =18.63 CFS MAX TC 57.95 HGL100 =58.23 BANK OF STORM TRAP PRECAST CONCRETE BASIN W/ OPEN GRAVEL BOTTOMS PROVIDING 2984 CF MIN. CATCH BASIN - STORM DRAIN DESIGN PREPARED BY EEI ENGINEERING - ESSI SHAHANDEH DATE: 7/13/08 JOB #: 08010 PROJECT: SHOPPES AT LQ BY: AMG PIPE BASIN STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" DIA.(IN) Q10(CFS) WS100 OUTLET DESIGN (DRY WELL) 36 41.12 1 55.55 VELOCITY IN 36 " PIPE Q= 41.12 5.82 PER SEC. HV= V2/2G= 0.525 A= 7.07 V =Q/A STORM DRAIN LINE DESIGN LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 110.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) CURB HEIGHT (IN) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) TC AT OPENING CONFL.Q10(CFS) N Sf=[ Q n ] 2 [d 8/3(K')] Hf=L(Sf) EX NE CORNER VIA FLORENCE 4.00 H /h= 0.36 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 4.00 0.30 Q= 10.00 (Q/L) 9.51 58.00 VS HGL 56.48 41.12 K' =0.463 (PONDED TO TC) OK Sf=[ 0.493440 12= [ 8.699509 ] WS10 IN BASIN 0.003217 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.1 HV= 10YR WS IN CB= 9.51 3.80 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK HGL100 SHEET 1 OF 8 55.550 0.3539 55.904 0.578 56.482 EX STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 76.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q10 (CFS) 24.96 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 DESIGN FOR JCT NO. 2 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 4' DIA MANHOLE HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 0.0901 Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) 56.572 TOG AT OPENING 0.232 CONFL.010(CFS) 56.804 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 41.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q10 (CFS) 13.61 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) CURB HEIGHT (IN) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) TC AT OPENING CONFL.Q10(CFS) W Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 24.96 Hf=L(Sf) A= 7.07 HV= V2/2G= 0.194 0.00 0.00 57.10 VS HGL 56.80 OK 24.96 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8 /3(K')] Q= 13.61 Hf =L(Sf) A= 7.07 1 HV= V2/2G= 0.058 Sf=[ 0.299520 12= 0.001185 [ 8.699509 ] V =Q/A= 3.53 Hf= 0.0901 HGL AT U.S.END= 56.572 1.2HV= 0.232 10YR WS IN STRCT= 56.804 Sf=[ 0.163320 12= 0.000352 [ 8.699509 ] V =Q/A= 1.93 Hf= 0.0145 HGL AT U.S.END= 56.819 1.2HV= 0.069 10YR WS IN CB= 56.888 4.00 H /h= 0.36 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) 4.00 0.30 Q= 6.25 2.50 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK 6.25 58.10 VS HGL 56.89 OK 13.61 SHEET 2 OF 8 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 41.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q10 (CFS) 13.61 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 DESIGN AT JCT NO 3 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) . 41.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.163320 ]2= [d 813(K')] [ 8.699509 ] Q= 13.61 V =Q/A= 1.93 Hf =L(Sf) A= 7.07 HV= V2/2G= 0.058 0.000352 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 10YR WS IN CB= TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) 7.62 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.124920 ]2= 0.001797 Q100 (CFS) 10.41 [d 8/3(K')] [ 2.946667 ] DIA OF PIPE(IN) 24.00 Q= 10.41 V =Q/A= 3.31 0.012 Hf =L(Sf) A= 3.14 CPP(N -12) Hf= K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.166440 ]2= 0.003190 0100 (CFS) 13.87 [d 8/3(K')] HGL AT U.S.END= DIA OF PIPE(IN) 24.00 HV= V2/2G= 0.170 1.2HV= 0.5456 Hf=L(Sf) A= 3.14 HGL AT U.S.END= 10YR WS IN PIPE= DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 3 1.2HV= 0.363 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET LOSS AT D.S. DIA.(IN) Q10(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) END OF PIPE DROP INLET 24 "X 24" 1.2HV= HALF COVERED A =0.44 24 1.44 57.25 2.00 1.76 0.110 VELOCITY IN 24 " PIPE Q= 7.62 2.43 PER SEC. HV= V2 /2G= 0.091 HGL AT U.S. END A= 3.14 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.80 VS HGL 57.25 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: 0.10 0.0145 56.902 0.069 56.971 oluWAYA 57.045 0.205 57.250 HGL100 56.971 0.110 57.081 CONFL.Q10(CFS) 7.62 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 171.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.166440 ]2= 0.003190 0100 (CFS) 13.87 [d 8/3(K')] [ 2.946667 ] DIA OF PIPE(IN) 24.00 Q= 13.87 V =Q/A= 4.41 Hf= 0.5456 Hf=L(Sf) A= 3.14 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.627 1.2HV= 0.363 HV= V2 /2G= 0.303 100YR WS IN CB= 57.990 SHEET 3 OF 8 W'-' DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 4 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO: 9 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 4.00 H /h= 0.36 CURB HEIGHT (IN) 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) 4.00 DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) 0.30 Q= 0.66 0.26 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) 0.66 TC AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 57.26 OK SHEET 4 OF 8 %IN PIPE BASIN GRATE NET LOSS AT D.S. HGL100 DIA.(IN) Q1O(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) END OF PIPE DROP INLET 24 "X 24" 1.2HV= HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 1.56 57.25 2.00 1.76 0.005 57.990 0.005 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 0.96 0.54 PER SEC. HV= V2/2G= 0.005 HGL AT U.S. END 57.995 A= 1.77 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.80 VS HGL 57.25 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: 0.10 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 67.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.011520 ]2= 0.000071 Q10 (CFS) 0.96 [d 8/3(K')] [ 1.366925 ] DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 Q= 0.96 V =Q/A= 0.54 Hf=L(Sf) A= 1.77 Hf= 0.0048 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.254 DESIGN FOR JUNCTION NO. 4 HV= V2 /2G= 0.005 1.2HV= 0.005 10YR WS AT JCT 4= 57.260 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 44.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.007920 ]2= 0.000034 Q10 (CFS) 0.66 [d 8/3(K')] [ 1.366925 ] DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 Q= 0.66 V =Q/A= 0.37 Hf=L(Sf A= 1.77 Hf= 0.0015 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.261 HV= V2/2G= 0.002 1.2HV= 0.003 10YR WS IN CB= 57.264 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO: 9 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 4.00 H /h= 0.36 CURB HEIGHT (IN) 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) 4.00 DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) 0.30 Q= 0.66 0.26 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) 0.66 TC AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 57.26 OK SHEET 4 OF 8 %IN STORM DRAIN LINE "B" DESIGN FOR JCT NO. 2 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 2' DIA MANHOLE HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 0.0091 Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) 56.813 TOG AT OPENING 0.048 CONFL.Q100(CFS) 56.861 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 37.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q10 (CFS) 11.35 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) CURB HEIGHT (IN) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) TC AT OPENING CONFL.Q10(CFS) 0 2 0.00 0.00 57.10 VS HGL 56.80 OK 24.96 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 11.35 Hf=L(Sf) A= 7.07 HV= V2/2G= 0.040 Sf=[ 0.136200 12= [ 8.699509 ] V =Q/A= 1.61 10YR WS IN STRCT= 56.804 0.000245 Hf= 0.0091 HGL AT U.S.END= 56.813 1.2HV= 0.048 10YR WS IN CB= 56.861 8.00 H /h= 0.36 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) 4.00 0.30 Q= 18.63 7.45 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) 10.00 (Q/L) 18.63 58.10 VS HGL 56.86 OK 11.35 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 8.00 OK SHEET 5 OF 8 STORM DRAIN LINE "C" 225.00 JUNCTION NO 3 0.012 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 86.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 4.76 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE TOG AT OPENING CONFL.Q100(CFS) STORM DRAIN LINE "C" Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.057120 ]2= [d 8/3(K')] [ 1.366925 ] Q= 4.76 V =Q/A= 2.69 Hf=L(Sf) A= 1.77 HV =V2 /2G 0.113 7 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) 18 2.35 1 57.54 2.00 1.76 Q= 2.35 1.33 PER SEC. HV= V2 /2G= 0.027 A= 1.77 V =Q/A 60.90 VS HGL 57.54 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: 4.76 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 225.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 3.09 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 [d 8/3(K')] Q= Hf=L(Sf) A= K' =0.463 HV= V2 /2G= 0.047 Sf=[ 0.037080 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 1.75 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 7 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 3.09 1 57.76 2.00 1.76 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 3.09 1.75 PER SEC. HV= V2/2G= 0.047 A= 1.77 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 57.76 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: CONFL.0100(CFS) 3.09 .p 0.10 10YR WS IN STRCT= 57.250 0.001746 Hf= 0.1502 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.400 1.2HV= 0.135 10YR WS IN CB= 57.535 0.000736 Hf= 0.1656 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.701 1.2HV= 0.057 10YR WS IN CB= 57.758 0.20 SHEET 6 OF 8 STORM DRAIN LINE "D" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 123.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 0.55 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) CURB HEIGHT (IN) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) TC AT OPENING CONFL.010(CFS) STORM DRAIN LINE "E" Sf=[ Q n ] 2 CATCH BASIN NO 4 Sf=[ 0.006600 ]2= 0.000023 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 86.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 2.15 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 HGL AT JCT 4= 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 0.55 61.40 VS HGL 57.26 OK 0.55 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 2.15 Hf =L(Sf) A= 1.77. HV= V2 /2G= 0.023 Sf =[ 0.025800 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 1.22 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.006600 ]2= 0.000023 [d 8/3(K')] BASIN [ 1.366925 ] DIA.(IN) Q= 0.55 V =Q/A= 0.31 DROP INLET 24 "X 24" Hf =L(Sf) A= 1.77 Hf= HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 2.15 58.05 HGL AT U.S.END= VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 2.15 HV= V2/2G= 0.002 1.2HV= 10 A= 1.77 V =Q/A 10YR WS IN CB= 4.00 H /h= 0.36 VS HGL 58.05 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) 4.00 0.30 Q= 0.55 0.22 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 0.55 61.40 VS HGL 57.26 OK 0.55 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 2.15 Hf =L(Sf) A= 1.77. HV= V2 /2G= 0.023 Sf =[ 0.025800 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 1.22 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 5 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET . DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 2.15 58.05 2.00 1.76 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 2.15 1.22 PER SEC. HV= V2/2G= 0.023 A= 1.77 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 58.05 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: CONFL.Q100(CFS) 2.15 57.260 0.0029 57.263 0.002 57.265 100YR WS IN STRCT= 57.990 0.000356 Hf= 0.0306 HGL AT U.S.END= 58.020 1.21-1V= 0.028 10YR WS IN CB= 58.048 0.20 SHEET 7 OF 8 STORM DRAIN LINE "F" 6 CATCH BASIN NO 3 57.309 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 86.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 5.86 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 5.86 Hf=L(So A= 1.77 HV= V2 /2G= 0.171 Sf=[ 0.070320 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 3.32 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 6 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.309 1.2HV= PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) 0100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(Fl) OPENING(SF) DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 5.86 1 57.51 2.00 1.76 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 5.86 3.32 PER SEC. HV= V2/2G= 0.171 A= 1.77 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 57.51 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: CONFL.Q100(CFS) 5.86 100YR WS IN STRCT= 57.081 0.002646 Hf= 0.2276 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.309 1.2HV= 0.205 100YR WS IN CB= 57.514 0.40 SHEET 8 OF 8 CATCH BASIN - STORM DRAIN DESIGN PREPARED BY EEI ENGINEERING - ESSI SHAHANDEH DATE: 7/13/08 JOB #: 08010 PROJECT: SHOPPES AT LQ BY: AMG PIPE BASIN HGL100 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" DIA.(IN) 0100(CFS) WS100 OUTLET DESIGN (DRY WELL) 36 58.97 55.55 VELOCITY IN 36 " PIPE Q= 58.97 8.34 PER SEC. HV= V2 /2G= 1.081 A= 7.07 V =Q/A WS100 IN BASIN 55.550 STORM DRAIN LINE DESIGN LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 110.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.707640 ]2= 0.006617 [d 8/3(K')] [ 8.699509 ] Hf=L(Sf) Hf= 0.7278 HGL AT U.S.END= 56.278 1.1HV= 1.189 100YR WS IN CB= 57.467 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. EX NE CORNER VIA FLORENCE PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 4.00 H /h= 0.36 CURB HEIGHT (IN) 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) 4.00 DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) 0.30 Q= 9.51 3.80 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK Q100 TO OPENING (CFS) 9.51 TC AT OPENING 58.00 VS HGL 57.47 OK CONFL.Q100(CFS) 58.97 Ln SHEET 1 OF 8 EX STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 76.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) 0100 (CFS) 43.14 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 DESIGN FOR JCT NO. 2 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 4' DIA MANHOLE HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.294120 ]2= Q100 TO OPENING (CFS) TOG AT OPENING [ 8.699509 ] CONFL.0100(CFS) LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 41.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 24.51 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) CURB HEIGHT (IN) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 0100 TO OPENING (CFS) TC AT OPENING CONFL.Q100(CFS) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 43.14 Hf=L(Sf) A= 7.07 HV= V2 /2G= 0.578 0.00 0.00 57.10 VS HGL 58.43 SUBMERGED 43.14 Sf=[ 0.517680 12= 0.003541 [ 8.699509 ] V =Q/A= 6.10 Hf= 0.2691 HGL AT U.S.END= 57.736 1.2HV= 0.694 100YR WS IN STRCT= 58.430 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.294120 ]2= 0.001143 [d 8/3(K')] [ 8.699509 ] Q= 24.51 V =Q/A= 3.47 Hf=L(Sf) A= 7.07 Hf= 0.0469 HGL AT U.S.END= 58.477 1 HV= V2/2G= 0.187 1.2HV= 0.224 100YR WS IN CB= 58.701 4.00 H /h= 0.36 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) 4.00 0.30 Q= 6.25 2.50 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK 6.25 58.10 VS HGL 58.70 SUBMERGED 24.51 SHEET 2 OF 8 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 41.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 24.51 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 DESIGN AT JCT NO 3 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 41.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.294120 ]2= [d 8/3(K')] [ 8.699509 ] Q= 24.51 V =Q/A= 3.47 Hf=L(Sf) A= 7.07 HV= V2/2G= 0.187 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.223560 Q100 (CFS) 18.63 [d 873(K')] [ 2.946667 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 24.00 Q= 18.63 V =Q/A= 5.93 Hf=L(Sf) A= 3.14 HV= V212G= 0.546 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 3 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 24 1.79 59.33 2.00 1.76 VELOCITY IN 24 " PIPE Q= 13.87 4.41 PER SEC. HV= V212G= 0.303 A= 3.14 V =Q/A - TOG AT OPENING 60.80 VS HGL 59.33 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE CONFL.0100(CFS) 13.87 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 171.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 0.001143 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 100YR WS IN CB= 12= 0.005756 ] Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 100YR WS IN PIPE= LOSS AT D.S. END OF PIPE 1.2HV= 0.363 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.166440 ]2= Q100 (CFS) 13.87 [d 8/3(K')] [ 2.946667 ] DIA OF PIPE(IN) 24.00 Q= 13.87 V =Q/A= 4.41 Hf=L(Sf) A= 3.14 HV= V2/2G= 0.303 Crt N HGL AT U.S. END 0.10 0.003190 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 100YR WS IN CB= SHEET 3 OF 8 0.0469 58.748 0.224 58.972 0.2360 59.208 0.655 59.863 HGL100 58.972 0.363 59.335 0.5456 59.880 0.363 60.244 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 4 DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE TOG AT OPENING STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) 18 1.57 2.00 1.76 2.35 1 60.26 DIA OF PIPE(IN) Q= 1.57 0.89 PER SEC. HV= V2/2G= 0.012 A= 1.77 V =Q/A 60.80 VS HGL 60.26 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 67.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) 0100 (CFS) 1.57 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 DESIGN FOR JUNCTION NO. 4 STORM DRAIN LINE: "A" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 44.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 0.66 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 9 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) CURB HEIGHT (IN) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) Q100 TO OPENING (CFS) TC AT OPENING C-n W Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 1.57 Hf=L(Sf) A= 1.77 HV= V2 12G= 0.012 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 0.66 Hf=L(So A= 1.77 HV= V2 /2G= 0.002 LOSS AT D.S. END OF PIPE 1.2HV= 0.015 Sf=[ 0.018840 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 0.89 Sf=[ 0.007920 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 0.37 HGL AT U.S. END 0.10 0.000190 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 100YR WS AT JCT 4= 0.000034 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 100YR WS IN CB= 4.00 H /h= 0.36 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) 4.00 0.30 Q= 0.66 0.26 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK 0.66 60.90 VS HGL 60.29 OK SHEET 4 OF 8 HGL100 60.244 0.015 60.258 0.0127 60.271 0.015 60.286 0.0015 60.287 0.003 60.290 STORM DRAIN LINE "B" DESIGN FOR JCT NO. 2 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 2' DIA MANHOLE 100YR WS IN STRCT= 58.430 HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 0.00 Q100 TO OPENING (CFS) 0.00 TOG AT OPENING 57.10 VS HGL 58.43 SUBMERGED CONFL.Q100(CFS) 41.16 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 37.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.223560 ]2= 0.000660 Q100 (CFS) 18.63 [d 8/3(K')] [ 8.699509 ] DIA OF PIPE(IN) 36.00 Q= 18.63 V =Q/A= 2.64 Hf =L(So A= 7.07 Hf= 0.0244 HGL AT U.S.END= 58.454 HV= V2/2G= 0.108 1.2HV= 0.129 100YR WS IN CB= 58.584 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 2 PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) 8.00 H /h= 0.36 CURB HEIGHT (IN) 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) 4.00 DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) 0.30 Q= 18.63 7.45 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 USE W(MIN)= 8.00 OK Q100 TO OPENING (CFS) 18.63 TC AT OPENING 58.10 VS HGL 58.58 SUBMERGED CONFL.Q100(CFS) 18.63 SHEET 5 OF 8 STORM DRAIN LINE "C" 225.00 JUNCTION NO 3 0.012 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 86.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 4.76 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE TOG AT OPENING CONFL.Q100(CFS) STORM DRAIN LINE "C" Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 4.76 Hf=L(Sf) A= 1.77 HV= V2 /2G= 0.113 Sf=[ 0.057120 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 2.69 7 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) 18 2.35 1 60.18 2.00 1.76 Q= 2.35 1.33 PER SEC. HV= V2 /2G= 0.027 A= 1.77 V =Q/A 60.90 VS HGL 60.18 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE 4.76 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 225.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 3.09 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 [d 8/3(K')] Q= Hf=L(Sf) A= K' =0.463 HV= V2 /2G= 0.047 100YR WS IN STRCT= 59.863 0.001746 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 100YR WS IN CB= LOSS AT D.S. END OF PIPE 1.2HV= 0.033 HGL AT U.S. END 0.10 Sf=[ 0.037080 12= 0.000736 [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 1.75 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 8 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 3.09 1 60.46 2.00 1.76 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 3.09 1.75 PER SEC. HV= V2 12G= 0.047 A= 1.77 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 60.46 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE CONFL.Q100(CFS) 3.09 Ln `s7 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2HV= 100YR WS IN CB= LOSS AT D.S. END OF PIPE 1.2H V= 0.057 HGL AT U.S. END 0.20 SHEET 6 OF 8 0.1502 60.013 0.135 60.148 HGL100 60.148 0.033 60.181 0.1656 60.347 0.057 60.404 HGL100 60.404 0.057 60.461 STORM DRAIN LINE "D" LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 123.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 0.00 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. PROP. WIDTH OF OPENING (W)(FT) CURB HEIGHT (IN) DEPTH OF DEPRESSION (IN) DEPTH OF FLOW AT OPENING (H)(FT) HEIGHT OF OPENING (h)(IN) Q10 TO OPENING (CFS) TC AT OPENING CONFL.Q10(CFS) STORM DRAIN LINE "E" CATCH BASIN NO 4 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 86.00 MANNING "S, INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 5.53 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 HGL AT JCT 4= 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 0.91 61.40 VS HGL 60.29 OK 0.91 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 5.53 Hf=L(So A= 1.77 HV= V212G= 0.152 Sf=[ 0.066360 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 3.13 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 Sf=[ 0.000000 ]2= 0.000000 [d 813(K')] BASIN [ 1.366925 J DIA.(IN) Q= 0.00 V =Q/A= 0.00 DROP INLET 24 "X 24" Hf=L(Sf) A= 1.77 Hf= HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 5.53 1 60.63 HGL AT U.S.END= VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 5.53 HV= V2/2G= 0.000 1.2HV= A= 1.77 V =Q/A 100YR WS IN CB= 10 60.90 VS HGL 60.63 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: 4.00 H /h= 0.36 6.00 Q/L= 2.50 (PONDED TO TC) 4.00 0.30 Q= 0.91 0.36 FOOT WIDE OPENING (MIN) 10.00 (Q/L) 2.50 0.91 61.40 VS HGL 60.29 OK 0.91 USE W(MIN)= 4.00 OK Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 5.53 Hf=L(So A= 1.77 HV= V212G= 0.152 Sf=[ 0.066360 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 3.13 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 5 PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) Q100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 5.53 1 60.63 2.00 1.76 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 5.53 3.13 PER SEC. HV= V2/2G= 0.152 A= 1.77 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 60.63 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: CONFL.0100(CFS) 5.53 Ull 100YR WS IN CB= 0.002357 Hf= HGL AT U.S.END= 1.2H V= 100YR WS IN CB= 0.40 SHEET 7 OF 8 60.286 0.0000 60.286 0.000 60.286 60.244 0.2027 60.446 0.182 60.629 STORM DRAIN LINE "F" CATCH BASIN NO 3 LENGTH OF PIPE(d) 86.00 MANNING "S INDEX(n) 0.012 TYPE OF PIPE CPP(N -12) Q100 (CFS) 5.86 DIA OF PIPE(IN) 18.00 Sf=[ Q n ] 2 K' =0.463 [d 8/3(K')] Q= 5.86 Hf =L(So A= 1.77 HV= V2 /2G= 0.171 Sf=[ 0.070320 12= [ 1.366925 ] V =Q/A= 3.32 DESIGN FOR CATCH BASIN NO. 6 HGL AT U.S.END= 59.562 1.2HV= PIPE BASIN GRATE NET DIA.(IN) 0100(CFS) WS100 OPENING(FT) OPENING(SF) DROP INLET 24 "X 24" HALF COVERED A =0.44 18 5.86 59.77 2.00 1.76 VELOCITY IN 18 " PIPE Q= 5.86 3.32 PER SEC. HV= V212G= 0.171 A= 1.77 V =Q/A TOG AT OPENING 60.90 VS HGL 59.77 OK PONDING ABOVE GRATE: CONFL.Q100(CFS) 5.86 r 0.40 100YR WS IN STRCT= 59.335 0.002646 Hf= 0.2276 HGL AT U.S.END= 59.562 1.2HV= 0.205 100YR WS IN CB= 59.767 SHEET 8 OF 8 r m T ro N O N AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE CI C21 C3 Ul 151 163 171 Cal [91 [101 SOIL COVER RI PERVIOUS LAND DECIMAL ADJUSTED AREA AVERAGE C7 GROUP (PLATE C -1) TYPE NUMBER (PLATE E-6.1) AREA INFILTRATION USE PERCENT OF AREA INFILTRATION RATE -IN /HR SO INCHES fa+ ADJUSTED INFILTRATION )> C7 xJ RATE - IN /HR I PLATE E -6.2) IMPERVIOUS I PLATE E -6.3) 1I3(1- .9[671 RATE - IN /HR C710C91 CP TYPE "B" STREET 56 0.52 STREET 0.71 0.17 0.66 AC. 1 0.18 r -C n z x ao m a � a CA A F v _z /CD � c v �o o O � � D D o � M x 0 ° D 4 DA� s o A CL s CL xca1- 0.66 AC. >:E)ot- 0.18 D VAR I ABLE LOSS RATE CURVE (--24 -HOUR STORM ONLY). FM= Minimum Loss Rote = F/2 =f CI03/2 = 0.09 IN. /HR. g g C = (F- Fm) /54 = (jLI03- Fqx) /54= 0.0167 �m FT = C(24- (T/60))1.55 +Fm= 0.0167 (24- (T /60))I.55t 0.09 IN. /FR. Where: N g T = Time in minutes. To get an average value for each unit time period, Use T = the unit time for the first time period , T =1? unit time for the second period , etc. — RCFC &WCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM PROJECT: SHOPPES cDLQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 [11 CONCENTRATION POINT 1 2 AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" 3 AREA - SQ INCHES - [41 AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR - 5 AREA ACRES 0.6600 6 L- INCHES - [711--ADJUSTMENT FACTOR - 8 L -MILES ([61'[71) 0.686 [91 LCA - INCHES - 10 LCA - MILES 7 * 9 0.004 [111 ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 58.98 fl2l ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 58.00 13 H- FEET 11 -12 0.98 14 S - FEET /MILE ([13/[81) 1.43 15 S * *0.5 1.20 16 L *LCA/S * *.5 8 * 10 / 15 0.0022958 17 AVERAGE MANNING "N" 0.015 [181 LAG TIME - HOURS 24* 17 * 16 * *0.38 PLATE E -3 0.06738288 [191 LAG TIME - MINUTES (60-[181) 4.04 [20125% OF LAG TIME 0.25* 19 . 1.01 [21140% OF LAG TIME 0.40* 19 1.62 [22] UNIT TIME - MINUTES (25 -[21]) 23.38 R A FALL DATA IN 1 SOURCE IRCFCWCD 2 FREQUENCY - YEARS 100YR 3HR [3] DURATION: 3 HOUR 6 HOUR 24 HOUR [4] POINT RAIN INCHES [5] AREA SQ INCHES [6] j51 F [5] [7] AVG. POINT RAIN IN. [8] POINT RAIN INCHES '9' AREA SQ INCHES '10] m E [9] [11] AVG. POINT RAIN IN. [12] POINT RAIN INCHES [13] AREA SQ INCHES [14] [131 F [13] [15] AVG. POINT RAIN IN 2.70 - - 2.70 3.10 - - 3.10 4.25 - - 4.25 F 5= - E 7= 2.70 9= - 7 [ill= 3.10 7 13= - 7- 15= 4.25 [161 AREAL ADJ FACTOR 1 SEE PLATE E -5.8 1 1 [17] ADJ.AVG.POINT RAIN 2.7 ([161* i [71,ETC) 3.1 4.25 a RCFC &WCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION SHEET PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 [1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2] AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" [3] DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 0.6600 [4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN (645 *[31 N/A [5] UNIT TIME - MINUTES 10 [6] LAG TIME - MINUTES 4.04 [7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100 *[5] /[6]) N/A [8] S -CURVE DESERT [9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 1 OOYR 3HR [10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN- INCHES 2.7 11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) - INCHES /HOUR 0 [12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS) -IN /HR 0 [131 CONSTANT LOSS RATE - INCHES PER HOUR 0.18 14] LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90 UNIT HYDROGRAPH 15 [16] TIME PERCENT OF LAG [7] *[15] [17] CULMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE (S- GRAPH) [18] DISTRIB. GRAPH PERCENT [17]m- [17]m -1 [19] UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN [411181 100 [20] PATTERN PERCENT (PL E -5.9) [21] STORM RAIN IN /HR 60[101[201 [22] LOSS RATE IN /HR [23] EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR [21] -[22] [24] FLOW CFS UNIT TIME PERIOC m 100[5] MAX LOW 1 2.60 0.421 0.18 0.38 0.241 0.16 2 2.60 0.421 0.18 0.38 0.241 0.16 3 3.30 0.535 0.18 0.48 0.355 0.23 4 3.30 0.535 0.18 0.48 0.355 0.23 5 3.30 0.535 0.18 0.48 0.355 0.23 6 3.40 0.551 0.18 0.50 0:371 0.24 7 4.40 0.713 0.18 0.64 0.533 0.35 8 4.20 0.680 0.18 0.61 0.500 0.33 9 5.30 0.859 0.18 0.77 0.679 0.45 10 5.10 0.826 0.18 0.74 0.646 0.43 11 6.40 1.037 0.18 0.931 0.857 0.57 12 5.90 0.956 0.18 0.86 0.776 0.51 13 7.30 1.183 0.18 1.06 1.003 0.66 14 8.50 1.377 0.18 1.24 1.197 0.79 15 14.10 2.284 0.18 2.06 2.104 1.39 16 14.10 2.284 0.18 2.06 2.104 1.39 17 3.80 0.616 0.18 0.55 0.436 0.29 18 2.40 0.389 0.18 0.35 0.209 0.14 E =100% F= 12.96 2603 CF A/G STORAGE 2984 CF U/G STORAGE 12.96 IN /HR *0.17= 2.16 " PERC LOSS IN 3 HRS 2.16 " * 0.083 * 0.6600 ACRES= PROVIDED 0.1183 AC FT= 5154.228 CF 0 CF 5587 CF r PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG 100 YR / 3 HR DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 RAINFALL INTENSITY (IN /HR) 2.500 2.000 1.500' 1.000 0.500 0.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 11 1 S -CURVE DESERT AREA 120 F W W Q 100 U = W V 80 IL ,. zo 60 W h. 0 iQ 40 0 LL o 'TIME IN PERCENT OF LAG (at PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 RETENTION BASIN STORAGE AND DEPTH CALCULATIONS- 24 HR/100 YR DEPTH AREA DIFF. AVG. ACCUM. IMP AREA BASIN (SF) AREA VOUFT VOL IN BASIN ELEV. D =5.00' 2156 636 1838 4441 0 54.00 D =4.00' 1520 566 1237 2603 D =3.00' 954 393 758 1366 D =2.00' 561 275 424 609 D =1.00' 286 202 185 185 D =0.00' 84 0 0 W.S. W.S. PERIOD D= 4' -S' D= 3'-4' D= 2' -3' D= V -2' D= 0' -1' DEPTH AREA ELEV. 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.51 0.77 0.77 240.44 54.77 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 1.24 351.94 55.24 INC 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 1.74 488.71 55.74 INC 4. 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 2.13 612.52 56.13 INC 5 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 2.41 721.80 56.41 INC 6 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 2.70 836.07 56.70 INC 7 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.07 994.81 57.07 INC 8 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.31 1130.81 57.31 INC 9 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 1315.25 57.64 INC 10 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.95 1490.88 57.95 INC 11 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 1674.08 58.24 INC 12 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.49 1833.54 58.49 INC 13 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.82 2039.62 58.82 PEAK 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 DEC 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT (oz RCFC &WCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD PROJECT: SHOPPES(cDLQ BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 [11 CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [21 AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" 3 AREA - SQ INCHES - [41 AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR - [51 AREA -ACRES 0.6600 6 L- INCHES [71L-ADJUSTMENT FACTOR - [81L-MILES ([61-[71) 0.686 [91 LCA - INCHES - 10 LCA - MILES ( [71'[91 0.004 [111 ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 58.98 [121 ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 58.00 13 H- FEET 11 - 12 0.98 14 S - FEET /MILE [13/[81 1.43 ' 15 S * *0.5 1.20 16 L *LCA/S * *.5 ([81'[101/[151) 0.0022958 [171 AVERAGE MANNING "N" 0.015 [181 LAG TIME - HOURS 24* 17 * 16 * *0.38 PLATE E -3 0.067382875 19 LAG TIME - MINUTES (60-[18]) 4.04 [20125% OF LAG TIME (0.25'[191) 1.01 21 40% OF LAG TIME (0.40-[19]) 1.62 [22] UNIT TIME - MINUTES (25 -[21]) 23.38 RAINFALL DATA 1 SOURCE IRCFCWCD [21 FREQUENCY - YEARS 1100YR 6HR [3] DURATION: 3 HOUR 6 HOUR 24 HOUR [4] POINT RAIN INCHES [5] AREA SQ INCHES [6] [5 F [5] [7] AVG. POINT RAIN IN. [8] POINT RAIN INCHES [9] AREA SQ INCHES [10] [M 7- [9] [11 ] AVG. POINT RAIN IN. [12] POINT RAIN INCHES [13] 1 [14] AREA [13] SQ i [13] INCHES [15] AVG. POINT RAIN IN 2.70 - - 2.70 3.20 - - 3.20 4.25 - - 4.25 7- 5= 15.45 E 7= 2.70 F rgiz = 19.7 Z[111= 3.20 13= 19.7 15= 4.25 1[161 AREAL ADJ FACTOR 1 SEE PLATE E -5.8 1([161' 1 1 [17] ADJ.AVG.POINT RAIN 2.7 E [71,ETC) 3.2 4.25 G3 RCFC &WCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION SHEET PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 [1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2] AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" [3] DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 0.6600 [4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN (645 *131 N/A [5] UNIT TIME - MINUTES 15 [6] LAG TIME - MINUTES 4.04 [7] UNIT TIME - PERCENT OF LAG (100 *[5] /[6]) N/A [8] S -CURVE DESERT [9] STORM FREQUENCY 8 DURATION 100YR 6HR [10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN- INCHES 3.2 [11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) - INCHES /HOUR 0 12 MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS) -IN /HR 0 [13 ] CONSTANT LOSS RATE - INCHES PER HOUR 0.18 14 LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 90 UNIT HYDROGRAPH 15 [16] TIME PERCENT OF LAG [7] *[15] [17] CULMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE (S- GRAPH) [18] DISTRIB. GRAPH PERCENT [17]m- [17]m -1 [19] UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN [41 *1`181 100 [20] PATTERN PERCENT (PL E -5.9) [21] STORM RAIN IN /HR 6010 20 [22] LOSS RATE IN /HR [23] EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR [21] -[22] [24] FLOW CFS UNIT TIME PERIOC m 100[5] MAX LOW 1 1.70 0.218 0.18 0.20 0.038 0.02 2 1.90 0.243 0.18 0.22 0.063 0.04 3 2.10 0.269 0.18 0.24 0.089 0.06 4 2.20 0.282 0.18 0.25 0.102 0.07 5 2.40 0.307 0.18 0.28 0.127 0.08 6 2.40 0.307 0.18 0.28 0.127 0.08 7 2.40 0.307 0.18 0.28 0.127 0.08 8 2.50 0.320 0.18 0.29 0.140 0.09 9 2.60 0.333 0.18 0.30 0.153 0.10 10 2.70 0.346 0.18 0.31 0.166 0.11 11 2.80 0.358 0.18 0.32 0.178 0.12 12 3.00 0.384 0.18 0.35 0.204 0.13 13 3.20 0.410 0.18 0.37 0.230 0.15 14 3.60 0.461 0.18 0.41 0.281 0.19 15 4.30 0.550 0.18 0.50 0.370 0.24 16 4.70 0.602 0.18 0.54 0.422 0.28 17 5.40 0.691 0.18 0.62 0.511 0.34 18 6.20 0.794 0.18 0.71 0.614 0.40 19 6.90 0.960 0.18 0.86 0.780 0.51 20 7.50 1.357 0.18 1.22 1.177 0.78 21 10.60 1.856 0.18 1.67 1.676 1.11 22 14.50 0.435 0.18 0.39 0.255 0.17 23 3.40 0.128 0.18 0.12 0.115 0.08 24 1.00 0.128 0.18 0.12 0.115 0.08 2603 CF IPERC A/G STORAGE 2984 CF U/G STORAGE 0 CF LOSS IN 6 HRS 5587 CF PROVIDED 7-=100% F= 3.94 3.94 IN /HR *0.25= 0.9852 " 0.9852 " * 0.083 * 0.6600 ACRES= 0.0540 AC FT= 2350.90 CF PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 100 YR / 6 HR JOB #: 08010 RAINFALL INTENSITY (IN /HR) 1.800 1.600 1.400 1.200 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0100 6H 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (0S PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 RETENTION BASIN STORAGE AND DEPTH CALCULATIONS- 24 HR/100 YR DEPTH AREA DIFF. AVG. ACCUM. MP ARE/ BASIN D= 0' -1' (SF) AREA VOL/FT VOL IN BASIN ELEV. D =5.00' 2156 636 1838 4441 0 54.00 D =4.00' 1520 566 1237 2603 D =3.00' 954 393 758 1366 D =2.00' 561 275 424 609 D =1.00' 286 202 185 185 D =0.00' 84 0.00 0 0 PERIOD D= 4' -5' D= 3'-4' D= 2' -3' D= V -2' D= 0' -1' 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 10 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 11 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 14 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 15 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 17 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 19 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 W.S. W.S. DEPTH AREA ELEV. 0.12 108.39 54.12 0.32 149.38 54.32 INC 0.61 206.97 54.61 INC 0.93 272.87 54.93 INC 1.15 327.25 55.15 INC 1.33 376.32 55.33 INC 1.51 425.38 55.51 INC 1.70 479.38 55.70 INC 1.92 538.32 55.92 INC 2.08 593.91 56.08 INC 2.22 648.89 56.22 INC 2.38 711.76 56.38 INC 2.56 782.51 56.56 INC 2.78 869.05 56.78 INC 3.05 979.75 57.05 INC 3.25 1094.34 57.25 INC 3.49 1233.27 57.49 INC 3.79 1400.04 57.79 INC 4.11 1589.61 58.11 INC 4.49 1831.49 58.49 PEAK 0.00 0.00 54.00 DEC 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT 0.00 0.00 54.00 FLAT GO RCFC &WCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 (11 CONCENTRATION POINT 1 2 AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" 3 AREA - SQ INCHES - [41 AREA ADJUSTMENT, FACTOR - 5 AREA ACRES 0.6600 6 L- INCHES (71L-ADJUSTMENT FACTOR [81L-MILES ([6]-[7]) 0.686 r9l LCA - INCHES - 10 LCA - MILES [71'[9]) 0.004 [111 ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 58.98 [121 ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 58.00 l 31 H- FEET 11 - 12 0.98 14 S - FEET /MILE [13/[81 1.43 15 S * *0.5 1.20 16 L *LCA/S * *.5 ([81-[10]/[15]) 0.0022958 17 AVERAGE MANNING "N" 0.015 [181 LAG TIME - HOURS (24-[17]-[16]-'0.38) (PLATE E -3 0.0673829 [191 LAG TIME - MINUTES (60-[181) 4.04 20 25% OF LAG TIME (0.25'[19]) 1.01 21 40% OF LAG TIME 0.40'[191 1.62 [22] UNIT TIME -MINUTES (25 -[21]) 23.38 RAINFALL DATA [1 ]SOURCE IRCFCWCD 2 FREQUENCY - YEARS 1100YR 24HR [3] DURATION: 3 HOUR 6 HOUR 24 HOUR [4] POINT RAIN INCHES [5] AREA SQ INCHES [6] U 7- [5] [7] AVG. POINT RAIN IN. [8] POINT RAIN INCHES [9] AREA SQ INCHES [10] U F [9] [11] AVG. POINT RAIN IN. [12] POINT RAIN INCHES [13] AREA SQ INCHES [14] fl3l F [13] [15] AVG. POINT RAIN IN 2.70 - - 2.70 3.20 - - 3.20 4.25 - - 4.25 E 5= - F 7= 2.70 F 9= - E 11 = 3.20 13= - 7- 15= 4.25 [161 AREAL ADJ FACTOR 1 SEE PLATE E -5.8 1([16]' 1 1 [17] ADJ.AVG.POINT RAIN 2.7 E [71,ETC) 3.2 4.25 poi RCFC BWCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION SHEET PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 [1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2] AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" [3] DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 0.6600 [4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN (645'[3] N/A [5] UNIT TIME - MINUTES 15 [6] LAG TIME - MINUTES 4.04 [7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100`[5]/[6]) N/A [8] S -CURVE DESERT [91 STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 1 OOYR 24HR [10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN- INCHES 4.25 11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) - IN /HR 0.18 [12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS)-IN/HR 0.09 [13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE - IN /HR 2 [14] LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT UNIT HYDROGRAPH / 0 O 1) 15 [16] . TIME PERCENT OF LAG [7] "[15] [17] CULMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE (S- GRAPH) [18] DISTRIB. GRAPH PERCENT [17]m- [171m -1 [19] UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN [411181 100 [20] PATTERN PERCENT (PL E -5.9) [21] STORM RAIN IN /HR 60[101[201 [22] LOSS RATE IN /HR [23] EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR [21] -[22] [24] FLOW CFS UNIT TIME PERIOD m 100[5] MAX LOW 1 0.20 0.034 0.318 0.017 0.017 0.01122 2 0.30 0.051 0.315 0.026 0.026 0.01683 3 0.30 0.051 0.311 0.026 0.026 0.01683 4 0.40 0.068 0.307 0.034 0.034 0.02244 5 0.30 0.051 0.304 0.026 0.026 0.01683 6- 0.30 0.051 0.300 0.026 0.026 0.01683 7 0.30 0.051 0.296 0.026 0.026 0.01683 8 0.40 0.068 0.293 0.034 0.034 0.02244 9 0.40 0.068 0.289 0.034 0.034 0.02244 10 0.40 0.068 0.286 0.034 0.034 0.02244 11 0.50 0.085 0.282 0.043 0.043 0.02805 12 0.50 0.085 0.279 0.043 0.043 0.02805 13 0.50 0.085 0.275 0.043 0.043 0.02805 14 0.50 0.085 0.272 0.043 0.043 0.02805 15 0.50 0.085 0.269 0.043 0.043 0.02805 16 0.60 0.102 0.265 0.051 0.051 0.03366 17 0.60 0.102 0.262 0.051 0.051 0.03366 18 0.70 0.119 0.258 0.060 0.060 0.03927 19 0.70 0.119 0.255 0.060 0.060 0.03927 20 0.80 0.136 0.252 0.068 0.068 0.04488 21 0.60 0.102 0.249 0.051 0.051 0.03366 22 0.70 0.119 0.245 0.060 0.060 0.03927 23 0.80 0.136 0.242 0.068 0.068 0.04488 24 0.80 0.136 0.239 0.068 0.068 0.04488 25 0.90 0.153 0.236 0.077 0.077 0.05049 26 0.90 0.153 0.233 0.077 0.077 0.05049 27 1.00 0.170 0.230 0.085 0.085 0.05610 28 1.00 0.170 0.226 0.085 0.085 0.05610 29 1.00 0.170 0.223 0.085 0.085 0.05610 30 1.10 0.187 0.220 0.094 0.094 0.06171 31 1.2 0.204 0.217 0.102 0.102 0.06732 32 1.30 0.221 0.214 0.111 0.007 0.00445 33 1.50 0.255 0.211 0.128 0.044 0.02885 34 1.50 0.255 0.208 0.128 0.047 0.03079 35 1.60 0.272 0.205 0.1361 0.0671 0.04394 36 1 1.70 0.289 0.203 0.1451 0.0861 0.05707 T V 0\ V m RCFC BWCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION SHEET PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 [1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2] AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" [3] DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 0.6600 [4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN (645`[31 N/A [5] UNIT TIME - MINUTES 15 [6] LAG TIME - MINUTES 4.04 [7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) N/A [8] S -CURVE DESERT [9] STORM FREQUENCY 8 DURATION 100YR 24HR [10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN- INCHES 4.25 [11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) - INCHES /HO l- 0.18 1[141 [12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS) -IN /HR 0.09 [13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE - INCHES PER HO LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 50 UNIT HYDROGRAPH 15 [16] TIME PERCENT OF LAG [7]'[15] [17] CULMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE (S- GRAPH) [18] DISTRIB. GRAPH PERCENT [17]m- [17]m -1 [19] UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN [411181 100 [20] PATTERN PERCENT (PL E -5.9) [21] STORM RAIN IN /HR 60[101[201 100[5] [22] LOSS RATE IN /HR [23] EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR [21] -[22] [24] FLOW CFS UNIT TIME PERIOD m MAX LOW 37 1.90 0.323 0.452 0.162 0.162 0.10659 38 2.00 0.340 0.446 0.170 0.170 0.11220 39 2.10 0.357 0.440 0.179 0.179 0.11781 40 2.20 0.374 0.435 0.187 0.187 0.12342 41 1.50 0.255 0.430 0.128 0.128 0.08415 42 1.50 0.255 0.424 0.128 0.1281 0.08415 43 2.00 0.340 0.419 0.170 0.170 0.11220 44 2.00 0.340 0.413 0.170 0.170 0.11220 45 1.90 0.323 0.408 0.162 0.162 0.10659 46 1.90 0.323 0.403 0.162 0.162 0.10659 47 1.70 0.289 0.3981 0.145 0.145 0.09537 48 1.80 0.306 0.393 0.153 0.153 0.10098 49 2.50 0.425 0.388 0.213 0.037 0.02454 50 2.60 0.442 0.383 0.221 0.059 0.03903 51 2.80 0.476 0.378 0.238 0.098 0.06470 52 2.90 0.493 0.373 0.247 0.120 0.07912 53 3.40 0.578 0.368 0.289 0.210 0.13837 54 3.40 0.578 0.364 0.289 0.214 0.14149 55 2.30 0.391 0.359 0.196 0.032 0.02114 56 2.30 0.391 0.354 0.196 0.037 0.02418 57 2.70 0.459 0.350 0.230 0.109 0.07205 58 2.60 0.442 0.345 0.221 0.097 0.06379 59 2.60 0.442 0.341 0.221 0.101 0.06670 60 2.50 0.425 0.337 0.213 0.088 0.05835 61 2.40 0.408 0.332 0.204 0.076 0.04995 62 2.30 0.391 0.328 0.196 0.063 0.04152 63 1.90 0.323 0.324 0.162 0.162 0.10659 64 1.90 0.323 0.320 0.162 0.003 0.00207 65 0.40 0.068 0.316 0.0341 0.034 0.02244 66 0.40 0.068 0.312 0.034 0.034 0.02244 67 0.30 0.051 0.308 0.026 0.026 0.01683 68 0.30 0.051 0.304 0.026 0.026 0.01683 69 0.50 0.085 0.301 0.043 0.043 0.02805 70 0.50 0.085 0.2971 0.0431 0.043 0.02805 71 0.50 0.085 0.293 0.0431 0.0431 0.02805 72 1 0.401 0.068 0.2901 0.0341 0.0341 0.02244 J RCFC &WCD'S SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION SHEET PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 [1] CONCENTRATION POINT 1 [2] AREA DESIGNATION "S -3" [3] DRAINAGE AREA - ACRES 0.6600 [4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE - CFS - HRS /IN (645'[31 N/A [5] UNIT TIME - MINUTES 15 [6] LAG TIME - MINUTES 4.04 [7] UNIT TIME -PERCENT OF LAG (100'[5]/[6]) N/A [8] S -CURVE DESERT [9] STORM FREQUENCY & DURATION 1 OOYR 24HR [10] TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN- INCHES 4.25 [11] VARIABLE LOSS RATE (AVG) - INCHES /HO 0.18 [12] MINIMUM LOSS RATE (FOR VAR. LOSS) -IN /HR 0.09 [13] CONSTANT LOSS RATE - INCHES PER HOL 0.18 [14] LOW LOSS RATE - PERCENT 50 UNIT HYDROGRAPH 15 [16] TIME PERCENT OF LAG [7]'[15] [17] CULMULATIVE AVERAGE PERCENT OF ULTIMATE DISCHARGE (S- GRAPH) [18] DISTRIB. GRAPH PERCENT [17]m- [17]m -1 [19] UNIT HYDROGRAPH CFS - HRS /IN 4' 18 100 [20]. PATTERN PERCENT (PL E -5.9) [21] STORM RAIN IN /HR 60[101[201 100[5] [22] LOSS RATE IN /HR [23] EFFECTIVE RAIN IN /HR [21] -[22] [24] FLOW CFS UNIT TIME PERIOD m MAX LOW 73 0.40 0.068 0.286 0.034 0.034 0.02244 74 0.40 0.068 0.283 0.034 0.034 0.02244 75 0.30 0.051 0.2801 0.026 0.026 0.01683 76 0.20 0.034 0.277 0.017 0.017 0.01122 77 0.30 0.051 0.273 0.026 0.026 0.01683 78 0.40 0.068 0.270 0.034 0.034 -0.02244 79 0.30 0.051 0.268 0.026 0.026 0.01683 80 0.20 0.034 0.265 0.017 0.017 0.01122 81 0.30 0.051 0.262 0.026 0.026 0.01683 82 0.30 0.051 0.259 0.026 0.026 0.01683 83 0.30 0.051 0.257 0.026 0.026 0.01683 84 0.20 0.034 0.254 0.017 0.017 0.01122 85 0.30 0.051 0.252 0.026 0.026 0.01683 86 0.20 0.034 0.250 0.017 0.017 0.01122 87 0.30 0.051 0.248 0.026 0.026 0.01683 88 0.20 0.034 0.246 0.017 0.017 0.01122 89 0.30 0.051 0.244 0.026 0.026 0.01683 90 0.20 0.034 0.242 0.017 0.017 0.01122 91 0.20 0.034 0.240 0.017 0.017 0.01122 92 0.20 0.034 0.239 0.017 0.017 0.01122 93 0.20 0.034 0.238 0.017 0.017 0.01122 94 0.20 0.034 0.237 0.017 0.017 0.01122 95 0.20 0.034 0.236 0.017 0.017 0.01122 96 0.20 0.034 0.235 0.017 0.017 0.01122 1=100% 7-= 6.116 2603CF A/G STORAGE 2984 CF U/G STORAGE 6.12 IN /HR'0.25= 1.53 " 1.53 " " 0.083 " 0.6600 ACRES= 0.0838 AC FT= 3648.6 CF OCF PERC LOSS IN 24 HRS 5587 CFj PROVIDED 70 PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG 100 YR /24 HR DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 0.250 RAINFALL INTENSITY (IN /HR) 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 S -CURVE DESERT AREA 120 0 TIME IN PERCENT OF LAG "11 O �C E.:. W 100 Q 80 d V Z 60 W 40 a s' _Z�° U J 20 0 TIME IN PERCENT OF LAG "11 PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08. JOB #: 08010 RETENTION BASIN STORAGE AND DEPTH CALCULATIONS- 24 HR/100 YR DEPTH AREA DIFF. AVG. ACCUM. IMP AREA BASIN (SF) AREA VOL/FT VOL IN BASIN ELEV. D =5.00' 2156 636 1838 4441 0 54.00 D =4.00' 1520 566 1237 2603 D =3.00' 954 393 758 1366 D =2.00' 561 275 424 609 D =1.00' 286 202 185 185 D =0.00' 84 0 0 W.S. W.S. PERIOD D= 4' -5' D= 3' -4' D= 2' -3' D= V -2' D= 0' -1' DEPTH AREA ELEV. 1 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 95.03 54.05 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 .111.56 54.14 INC 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 128.10 54.22 INC 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 150.16 54.33 INC 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 166.69 54.41 INC 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 183.23 54.49 INC 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 199.77 54.57 INC 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 221.82 54.68 INC 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.79 243.88 54.79 INC 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 265.93 54.90 INC 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.02 290.46 55.02 INC 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 1.08 306.85 55.08 INC 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 1.14 323.24 55.14 INC 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.20 339.63 55.20 INC 15 0.00_ 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.25 356.03 55.25 INC 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.33 375.70 55.33 INC 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.40 395.37 55.40 INC 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 1.48 418.32 55.48 INC 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.56 441.27 55.56 INC 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 1.66 467.50 55.66 INC 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 1.73 487.17 55.73 INC 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.81 510.12 55.81 INC 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 1.91 536.35 55.91 INC 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 562.26 56.00 INC 25 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 2.06 585.84 56.06 INC 26 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 2.12 609.41 56.12 INC 27 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 2.19 635.61 56.19 INC 28 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 2.26 661.80 56.26 INC 29 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 2.32 688.00 56.32 INC 30 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 2.40 716.81 56.40 INC 31 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 2.48 748.24 56.48 INC 32 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 2.48 750.32 56.48 INC 33 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 2.52 763.79 56.52 INC 34 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 2.55 778.17 .56.55 INC 35 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 2.60 798.69 56.60 INC 36 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 2.67 825.34 56.67 INC -77- PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB* 08010 RETENTION BASIN STORAGE AND DEPTH CALCULATIONS- 24 HR/100 YR DEPTH AREA DIFF. AVG. ACCUM. IMP AREA BASIN (SF) AREA VOUFT VOL IN BASIN ELEV. D =5.00' 2156 636 1838 4441 0 54.00 D =4.00' 1520 566 1237 2603 D =3.00' 954 393 758 1366 D =2.00' 561 275 424 609 D =1.00' 286 202 185 185 D =0.00' 84 0 0 W.S. W.S. PERIOD D= 4' -5' D= 3'-4' D= 2' -3' D= V -2' D= 0' -1' DEPTH AREA ELEV. 37 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 2.80 875.11 56.80 INC 38 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 2.93 927.50 56.93 INC 39 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.04 979.14 57.04 INC 40 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 1029.97 57.13 INC 41 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 1064.62 57.20 INC 42 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26 1099.27 57.26 INC 43 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.34 1145.48 57.34 INC 44 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 1191.68 57.42 INC 45 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 1235.57 57.50 INC 46 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.58 1279.47 57.58 INC 47 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 1318.74 57.64 INC 48 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.72 1360.33 57.72 INC 49 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.74 1370.43 57.74 INC 50 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.76 1386.50 57.76 INC 51 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.81 1413.14 57.81 INC 52 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.87 1445.73 57.87 INC 53 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.97 1502.71 57.97 INC 54 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.05 1550.99 58.05 INC 55 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.06 1557.57 58.06 INC 56 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 1565.10 58.07 INC 57 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.11 1587.54 58.11 INC 58 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.14 1607.40 58.14 INC 59 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.17 1628.18 58.17 INC 60 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 1646.35 58.20 INC 61 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.22 1661.90 58.22 INC 62 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 1674.83 58.24 INC 63 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 1708.03 58.30 INC 64 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 1708.67 58.30 INC 65 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.31 1715.66 58.31 INC 66 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.32 1722.65 58.32 INC 67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.33 1727.89 58.33 INC 68 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.34 1733.13 58.34 INC 69 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.35 1741.87 58.35 INC 70 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.36 1750.60 58.36 INC 71 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.38 1759.34 58.38 INC 72 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.39 1766.32 1 58.39 INC 73 PROJECT: SHOPPES @LQ BY: AMG DATE: 9/14/08 JOB #: 08010 RETENTION BASIN STORAGE AND DEPTH CALCULATIONS- 24 HR/100 YR DEPTH AREA DIFF. AVG. ACCUM. IMP AREA BASIN (SF) AREA VOL/FT VOL IN BASIN ELEV. D =5.00' 2156 636 1838 4441 0 D =4.00' 1520 566 1237 2603 D =3.00' 954 393 758 1366 D =2.00' 561 275 424 609 D =1.00' 286 202 185 185 D =0.00' 84 0 0 W.S. W.S. PERIOD D= 4' -5' D= 3' -4' D= 2' -3' D =1' -2' D= 0' -1' DEPTH AREA ELEV. 73 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 1773.31 58.40 INC 74 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.41 1780.30 58.41 INC 75 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.42 1785.54 58.42 INC 76 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.42 1789.04 58.42 INC 77 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.43 1794.28 58.43 INC 78 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.44 1801.27 58.44 INC 79 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.45 1806.51 58.45 INC 80 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46 1810.00 58.46 INC 81 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46 1815.24 58.46 INC 82 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.47 1820.48 58.47 INC 83 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.48 1825.73 58.48 INC 84 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.49 1829.22 58.49 INC 85 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.49 1834.46 58.49 INC 86 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 1837.96 58.50 INC 87 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.51 1843.20 58.51 INC 88 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.51 1846.69 58.51 INC 89 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.52 1851.93 58.52 INC 90 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.53 1855.43 58.53 INC 91 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.53 1858.92 58.53 INC 92 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.54 1862.42 58.54 INC 93 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.54 1865.91 58.54 INC 94 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 1869.40 58.55 INC 95 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 1872.90 58.55 INC 96 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.56 1876.39 1 58.56 PEAK BASIN DEPTH 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00. 0.00 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 -74 AVI Fr ' DEVELOPMENT, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND IMPACTS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF With ever - increasing levels of development, natural, open land is rapidly being replaced with impervious surfaces such as asphalt roadways, parking lots, and buildings. As a result, the management of increased levels of stormwater runoff and its impact on the environment has become a major issue for all levels of government throughout the country. Numerous studies indicate that stormwater runoff is the primary source of pollutants found in surface waters and contains a toxic combination of oils, pesticides, metals, nutrients, and sediments. Additionally, research has shown that once a watershed reaches just 10% impervious cover, water resources are negatively impacted. In the early 1990s, the United States Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater regulations to comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. with C Stormwater Inlet Drain - Lake Park, FL C'-- 11' federal, state, and local stormwater programs involves the use of "best management practices" (BMPs) to manage and control stormwater runoff. Effective management of stormwater runoff offers a number of benefits, including improved quality of surface waters, protection of wetland and aquatic ecosystems, conservation of water resources, and flood mitigation. The EPA recom- mends approaches that integrate control of stormwater and protection of natural systems. In 1999 and 2001, the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA) and EPA released the frame- work for "Smart Growth" policies that communities around the country could adopt to meet environmental, communi- ty, and economic goals. Simultaneously, organizations such as the Low Impact Development Center and the Center for Watershed Protection began advocating low impact develop- ment (LID) as a way to preserve and protect the nation's water resources. They promote comprehensive land planning and engineering design, watershed planning and restoration, and stormwater management approaches that protect water resources and attempt to maintain pre- existing hydrologic site conditions. Their goal is to achieve superior environ- mental protection, while still allowing for development. The EPA began working with these organizations in 2006 to promote the use of LID and Smart Growth as a way to manage stormwater runoff. The goal is to protect water resources at the regional level by encouraging states and municipalities to implement policies that consider both growth and conservation simultaneously. These approaches are quickly gaining favor across the country and are being incorporated into local development regulations to help meet stormwater runoff requirements and provide more livable, sustainable communities for residents. One of the Private Residence - Narragansett, RI primary goals of LID design is to reduce runoff volume by infiltrating rainwater on site and to find beneficial uses for the water as opposed to utilizing storm drains. LID objec- tives include the reduction of impervious cover, preservation of natural landscape features, and the maximization of in- filtration opportunities. Infiltration helps recharge ground- water, reduces urban heat island effects, and reduces down- stream erosion and flooding. This allows development to occur with much less environmental impact. In addition, "green building" programs are gaining in popularity. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) green building assessment system, devel- oped by the U.S. Green Building Council, has been adopted by a number of cities and states that now require municipal buildings to meet LEED® certification standards. Also, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has released a comprehensive guide on green building that promotes mixed -use developments, cluster housing, green technologies and materials, and alternative stormwater approaches. UNI ECO- STONE®... THE SOLUTION TO STORMWATER RUNOFF PROBLEMS Permeable interlocking conc rP pavements (PICPs) are becoming increasingly popular as more cities and states are faced with meeting stormwater runoff regulations, increased impervious cover restrictions, an the adoption of LID or LEED® practices UNI Fro- Stone® Eco- Stone® is a permeable interlocking concrete pavement system that mitigates stormwater runoff through infiltration. This allows for reduction of volume and peak flows, improved water quality, filtering of pollutants, miti- gation of downstream flooding, and recharge of ground- water. Eco- Stone® is a true interlocking paver that offers the structural support, durability, and beauty of traditional concrete pavers, combined with the environmental benefit of permeability. The permeability is achieved through the drainage openings created by its notched design. Measure- ments of a typical UNI Eco - Stone® paver and physical characteristics are shown in Figure 1. 76 Physical Characteristics HeightfThickness 31/8" = 80mm Width 41/2" = 115mm Length 9" = 230mm Pavers per sq ft = 3.55 Percentage of drainage void area per sq ft = 12.18% Composition and,Manufacture Minimum compressive strength - 8000psi Maximum water absorption - 5% roz Meets or exceeds ASTM C -936 and freeze -thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM C -67. Figure 1 The drainage openings in an Eco- Stone® permeable pavement are created when the pavers are installed (Figure 2). This is what distinguishes. Eco- StoneO permeable pavers from traditional interlocking concrete pavers. The drainage openings are filled with a clean, hard crushed aggregate that is highly permeable, allowing for rapid infiltration of stormwater (Figure 3). yr, ! Figure 2 Figure 3 ECO- STONE® PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AS AN EPA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE The EPA encourages "system building" to allow for the use of appropriate site - specific practices that will achieve the minimum measures under Phase II of NPDES. Governing authorities must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural and /or non - structural BMPs appropriate for their communities. Structural practices include storage practices, filtration practices, and infiltration practices that capture runoff and rely on infil- tration through a porous medium for pollutant reduction. Infiltration BMPs include detention ponds, green roofs, bioswales, infiltration trenches, and permeable pavements. Non - structural practices are preventative actions that involve management and source controls. Many states and munici- palities have incorporated the EPA regulations into their stormwater design and BMP manuals as they attempt to deal with stormwater runoff, increased impervious cover, and over -taxed drainage and sewer systems. PICPs are considered structural BMPs under infiltration practices. From an engineering viewpoint, permeable pave- ments are infiltration trenches with paving on top that supports pedestrian and vehicular traffic. By combining infiltration and retention, Eco- Stone® permeable inter- locking concrete pavement offers numerous benefits over other types of structural systems. Permeable pavements also work well in conjunction with other recommended BMP practices such as swales, bioretention areas, and rain gardens. Rainwater Runo (Model - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, MN ECO- STONE° PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AND LID, LEED AND GREEN BUILDING According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, LID has emerged as an attractive approach to controlling stormwater pollution and protecting watersheds. With reduction of impervious surfaces a major tenant of LID; permeable and porous pavements, such as Eco- Stone ®, are listed as one of the ten most common LID practices. The use of site -scale technologies, such as PICPs that control runoff close to the source, closely mirror the natural process of rainwater falling onto undeveloped areas and infiltrating into the earth. With many areas of the country experiencing water shortages and increasing water pollution, LID and Smart Growth approaches will not only help alleviate these problems, but also create cities that are more energy efficient, environmentally sustainable, and cost effective. McKinney Green Building, McKinney TX - LEED® Platinum Certified 7% Sherwood Island State Park - Westport, CT The LEED® green building assessment system has be- come increasingly popular with the North American design community since its inception in 1998. This voluntary building system for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high -rise residential buildings, evaluates environmental performance from a "whole building" perspec- tive over the project's life cycle. New green design standards are being considered for neighborhood design and residential homes as well. The minimum number of points or credits for a project to be LEED® certified is 26, though silver (33- 38 points), gold (39 -51 points), and platinum (52 -69 points) ratings also are available. UNI Eco- Stone® permeable pavements may qualify for up to 14 points under the Sustainable Sites (SS), Material and Resources (MR), and Innovation and Design Process (ID) credits. While ttaditional concrete pavers also may qualify under some of the credits, PICP can earn LEED® points via Sustainable Sites stormwater management credits by meeting water quality and runoff treatment criteria. For years, most home builders and developers were wary of green building practices. However, with impervious cover restrictions and the increasing costs of energy now beginning to impact residential projects, the NAHB is encouraging the use of "green" products in single and multi- family developments, Eco- Stone® permeable pavement offers an attractive solution to impervious cover restrictions. Private Residence - Long Island, NY ECO- STONE® AND MUNICIPAL STORM - WATER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Municipal regulations for managing stormwater runoff vary across the country. Water quality and /or quantity may be regulated, with criteria for reducing water pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorous, nitrates, metals, and sediment. Many municipalities now restrict the amount of impervious surfaces for virtually all types of construction, including private residences. Thousands of municipalities have created stormwater utilities to fund the increasing costs of managing stormwater. These fees vary, but are usually based on runoff volumes and impervious cover. Lafayette Road Office Park - North Hampton, NH Regional authorities, counties, and municipalities use a number of design goals for managing stormwater runoff: • Limit impervious cover to reduce stormwater runoff and pollutants from developments • Capture the entire stormwater volume so there is zero discharge from the drainage area • Capture and treat stormwater runoff to remove a stated percentage of pollutants • Capture and treat a fixed volume of runoff, typically 0.75 -1.5 in. (18- 40mm), which usually contains the highest level of pollutants • Maintain runoff volumes generated by development at or near pre - development levels • Maintain groundwater recharge rates to sustain stream flows and ecosystems and recharge aquifers Eco - Stone® permeable interlocking concrete pavements may offer solutions for attaining all of these goals. PICP can reduce runoff volumes and flows and recharge groundwater. It also can filter pollutants with removal rates of up to 95% total suspended solids, 70% total phosphorous, 51% total nitrogen, and 99% zinc. Reduction of runoff also may offer property owners reductions in stormwater utility fees. FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF THE UNI ECO- STONE® PAVEMENT SYSTEM Eco- Stone® is an attractive pavement that can be used for residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational pedestrian and vehicular applications. It can be used for parking lots, driveways, overflow parking, emergency lanes, boat ramps, walkways, low -speed roadways, and storage facilities. Permeable or porous pavements should not be used for any site classified as a stormwater hotspot (anywhere there is a risk of stormwater contaminating groundwater). This includes fueling and maintenance stations, areas where hazardous materials or chemicals are stored, or land uses that drain pesticides/ fertilizers onto permeable pavements. UNI Eco- Stone® permeable pavements are a site -scale infiltration technology that is ideal for meeting the EPAs NPDES regulations, LID and Smart Growth objectives, LEED® certification, municipal and regional impervious cover restrictions, and green building requirements. • Can be designed to accommodate a wide variety of stormwater management objectives • Runoff reductions of up to 100% depending on project design parameters • Maximizes groundwater recharge and /or storage • Reduces nonpoint source pollutants in stormwater, thereby mitigating impact on surrounding surface waters, and may lessen or eliminate downstream flooding and streambank erosion • Allows better land -use planning and more efficient use of available land for greater economic value, especially in high - density, urban areas • May decrease project costs by reducing or eliminat- ing drainage and retention /detention systems • May reduce cost of compliance with stormwater regulatory requirements and lower utility fees • May reduce heat island effect and thermal loading on surrounding surface waters Glen Brook Green, Jordan Cove Watershed - Waterford CT Examples of pollutant removal and infiltration rates for Eco - Stone® are shown in Tables 1 and 2. This data is from the Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project 2003 Annual Report by the University of Connecticut, who conducted monitoring on this EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Project. It should be noted that these infiltration results were achieved using a dense - graded base. Even higher infiltration rates would be expected with open - graded bases. Test and Year Asphalt Ecotone® In./hr (cm/hr) Crushed Stone In./hr (cm/hr) Single Ring Infiltrometer 0 7.7 (19.6) 7.3 (18.5) test 2002 0.04 c Total suspended solids, mg/I Single Ring Infiltrometer 0 6(15.3) 5(12.7) test 2003 a Nitrate nitrogen, mg /I 0.6 Flowing Infiltration 0 8.1 (20.7) 2.4(6) test 2003 Ammonia nitrogen, mg /I 0.18 a Table 1. Average infiltration rates from asphalt, Eco- Stone® and crushed stone Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project Variable Asphalt Eco•Stone Pavement Crushed Stone Runoff depth, mm 1.8 a 0.5 b 0.04 c Total suspended solids, mg/I 47.8 a 15.8 b 33.7 a Nitrate nitrogen, mg /I 0.6 a 0.2 b 0.3 ab Ammonia nitrogen, mg /I 0.18 a 0.05 b 0.11 a Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, mg/I 8.0 a 0.7 b 1.6 ab Total phosphorous, mg/l 0.244 a 0.162 b 0.155 b Copper, ug /I 18 a 6 b 16 a Lead, ug/I 6 a 2 b 3 b Zinc, ug /I 87 a 1 25 b 57 ab Table 2. Mean weekly pollutant concentration in stormwater runoff from asphalt, Eco- Stone® and crushed stone driveways Note: Within each variable, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a =0.05 ECO- STONE® DESIGN AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES UNI -GROUP U.S.A. offers design professionals a variety of tools for designing Eco- Stone® permeable pave- ments. Research on Eco - Stone® has been conducted at major universities such as Texas A &M, University of Washington, and Guelph University, and ongoing pollution monitoring is being conducted at EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program sites Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project in Connecticut and Morton Arboretum in Illinois. We offer design manuals, case studies, and Lockpave® Pro structural interlocking pavement design software, with PC -SWMM PP— for hydraulic design of Eco - Stone® permeable pave- ments. Eco- Stone® is featured in the book Porous Pavements by Bruce Ferguson, a national authority on stormwater infiltration. And, as members of the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, we can offer additional design and reference information, such as ICPI's Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements manual, Tech Specs"' and CAD files. It is recommended that a qualified civil engineer with knowledge in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted for applications using permeable interlocking concrete pavement to ensure desired results. Information provided is intended for use by professional designers and is not a substitute for engineering skill or judgement. It is not intended to replace the services of experienced, professional engineers. i' 9 Design Options - Full, Partial and No Enfiltration Eco- Stone® pavements can be designed with full, partial, or no exfiltration into the soil subgrade. Optimal installa- tion is infiltration through the base aggregate, with complete exfiltration into a permeable subgrade: This allows for not only runoff and pollutant reduction, but also groundwater recharge. For full exfiltration under vehicular loads, the minimum soil infiltration rate is typically 0.52 in. /hr (3.7 x 10-1 m /sec). Where soil conditions limit the amount of infiltration and only partial exfiltration can be achieved, some of the water may need to be drained by perforated pipe. Where soils have extremely low or no permeability, or con- ditions such as high water tables, poor soil strength, or over aquifers where there isn't sufficient depth of the soil to filter Pollutants, no exfiltration should occur. An impermeable liner is often used and perforated pipe is installed to drain all stored water to an outfall pipe. This design still allows for infiltration of stormwater and some filtering of pollutants and slows peak rates and volumes, so it still can be beneficial for managing stormwater. For extreme rainfall events, any overflows can be controlled via perimeter drainage to bio- retention areas, grassed swales or storm sewer inlets. Ash Avenue Park and Ride - Marysville, WA Infiltration Rate Design Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically designed to infiltrate frequent, short duration storms, which make up 75 -85% of rainstorms in North America. It also may be possible to manage runoff volumes from larger storms through engineering design and the use of comple- mentary BMPs, such as bio- retention areas and swales. One of the most common misconceptions when design- ing or approving PICP is the assumption that the amount or percentage of open surface area of the pavement is equal to the percentage of perviousness. For example, a designer or municipal agency might incorrectly assume that a 15% open area is only 15% pervious. The permeability and amount of infiltration are dependent on the infiltration rates of the aggregates used for the joint and drainage openings, the bedding layer, and the base and subbase (if used). Com- pared to soils, the materials used in Eco- Stone® permeable pavements have very high infiltration rates - from 500 in. /hr (over 10 -3 m /sec) to over 2000 in. /hr (over 10-3 to 10 -2 m /sec). This is much more pervious than existing site soils. bivate Residence - Minneapolis, MN Though initial infiltration rates are very high, it is important to consider lifetime design infiltration of the entire pavement cross - section, including the soil subgrade when designing PICPs. Based on research conducted to date, a conservative design rate of 3 in. /hr (2.1 x 10-5 m /sec) can be used as the basis for the design surface infiltration rate over a 20 -year pavement life. A number of design methods may be used for sizing of the open - graded base (see references). For designers who use Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve num- bers in determining runoff calculations, the curve number for PICP can be estimated at 40, assuming a life -time design infiltration rate of 3 in. /hr (75mm /hr) with an initial abstrac- tion of 0.2 (applies to NRCS group A soils). Other design professionals may use coefficient of runoff (C) for peak runoff calculations. For the design life of permeable inter- locking concrete pavement, C can be estimated with the following formula: C = I - Design infiltration rate, in. /hr T I, where I = design rainfall intensity in inches per hour. Construction Materials and General Installation It is preferable that site soils not be compacted if structural strength is suitable, as compaction reduces infiltra- tion rates. Low CBR soils (<4 %) may require compaction and /or stabilization for vehicular traffic applications. Drains also would typically be required for low CBR soils. If soils must be compacted, the reduced infiltration rates should be factored into the design. Permeable and porous pavements should not exceed 5% slope for maximum infiltration. Goodhys Marina - Jacksonville, FL h Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically built over open - graded aggregate bases consisting of washed, hard, crushed stone, though a variety of aggregate materials, including dense - graded, may be used depending on project parameters. Typically, stone materials should have less than 1% fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Current industry recommendations include a subbase of open - graded aggregate (typically ASTM No. 2 or equivalent) at a minimum thickness of 6 in. 050mm) for pedestrian applications and 8 in. (200mm) for vehicular applications. This makes it easier for contractors to install the base materi- als. A base layer of open - graded aggregate (typically ASTM No. 57 or equivalent) is installed over the subbase. This helps meet filter criteria between the layers. The recommend- ed thickness for this layer is 4 in. (100mm). It may be pos- sible, however, to use a single material for the base and subbase depending on project design parameters and con- tractor experience. Open - graded materials described here typically have a water storage void space between the aggre- gates of between 30 -40 %, which maximizes storage of in- filtrated stormwater. TVP. 1�0 BAOQRE13AIE NOPENWGS ECOST\ FAVERS.,.(00 M) THICK Cum EDGE RESTRAINT WITH CUT-OUTS FOR OVERFLOW ORAWZE (CURB SHOWN) BEDOWG COURSE 1 IR To r (MO To 50 Mu) TNICK (TVP. NO. t AGGREGATE) A' (100 MM) THICK (TVP. NO, F STONE) OPEN,GRADEO BASE LON. r (130 MM) THICK (TYP, NO 2 STONE) SUBBASE OPTIONAL GEOTEXTI E ON BOTTOM AND SIDES OF OPENCRADEO BASE SOIL SUBGRADE . ZERO SLOPE Figure 4 - Typical Cross - Section of an Eco - Stone® Permeable Pavement Full Fxfiltration For the bedding layer, material equivalent to ASTM No. 8 stone is recommended. This same material is used to fill the drainage openings and joints. If desired, material equivalent to No. 9, 10 or 89 stone also may be used to fill the smaller joints between the pavers. Bedding and jointing sand used in the construction of traditional interlocking concrete pavements should not be used for PICP. Private Residence - Danvers, MA The College School of Webster Groves - St. Louis, MO UNI Eco- Stone® can be mechanically installed and . trafficked immediately after final compaction, unlike other types of porous pavements. It has been used successfully for many years throughout North America and can withstand repeated freeze /thaw in northern climates due to adequate space for ice to expand within the open - graded base. PICP can be snow plowed, and because water does not stand on the surface, it may reduce ice slipping hazards. Winter sanding is not recommended on PICPs. Permeable inter- locking concrete pavement conforms to current ADA requirements that surfaces be firm, stable, and slip resistant. If the openings in the surface are not desirable, solid pavers can be installed in areas used by disabled persons. Maintenance All permeable pavements require periodic cleaning to maintain infiltration, and care must be taken to keep sedi- ment off the pavement during and after construction. Studies and field experience have shown that vacuum -type street cleaning equipment is most effective for removing sediment from the openings to regenerate infiltration. Vacuum settings may require adjustment to prevent the uptake of aggregate in the pavement openings and joints. The surface should be dry when cleaning. Replenishment of joint and opening aggregate can be done, if needed, at the time of cleaning. The frequency of cleaning is dependent on traffic levels. It is generally recommended to vacuum the pavement surface at least once or twice a year, though some low -use pavements may not need cleaning as often. As street cleaning is a BMP under EPA guidelines, this also satisfies other criteria in a comprehensive stormwater management program. If properly constructed and maintained, PICP should provide a service life of 20 to 25 years. Like our traditional interlocking concrete pavers, Eco - Stone® may be taken up and reinstated if underground repairs are needed. If at the end of its design life the pavement no longer infiltrates the required amount of stormwater runoff, PICP is the only type of permeable pavement that can be taken up, the base materials removed and replaced, and the pavers reinstalled. a UNI ECOLOC® HEAVY DUTY PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT EcolocO features all the same attributes and features of our Eco- Stone® permeable paver with the added benefit of supporting industrial loads. It can be used together with our industrial traditional interlocking paver, UNI - AnchorlockO to provide design professionals with the option of combining solid pavement areas with permeable areas. Ecoloc® with UNI- Anchorlock® Like Eco - Stone®, Ecoloc® features funnel- shaped openings that facilitate the infiltration of stormwater runoff. Physical characteristics are described in Figure 5. Physical Characteristics Height/Thickness 31/8" = 80mm Width 8 7/8" = 225mm Length 8 7/8" = 225mm Pavers per sq ft = 2.41 Percentage of drainage void area per sq ft = 12.18% Composition and Manufacture Minimum compressive strength - 8000psi Maximum water absorption - 5% Meets or exceeds ASTM C -936 and freeze -thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM C -67. Figure S Ecoloc® can be mechanically installed and is ideal for larger -scale projects such as parking lots, roadways, storage and depot areas, and ports. Over 173,000 sf of Ecoloc® was used for an EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Permit Project at Morton Arboretum in Illinois. It also is in use at a test site located at Howland Hook Terminal at the Port of New York/New Jersey that is subjected to heavy, containerized loads, port forklifts and cargo carriers. Another 30,000 sf of Ecoloc® was installed at the East Gwillimbury Go Commuter Train Station parking lot in Newmarket, Ontario. Seneca College - Toronto, Ontario Morton Arboretum - DuPage Counts IL In addition, Ecoloc® is undergoing an evaluation at Seneca College in Ontario for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to study permeable interlocking concrete pavement performance in cold climates conditions. Please check with your local UNI® manufacturer for availability of Ecoloc® in your area. Please visit our website www.uni- groupusa.org for updated information, design references and research, a list of manufacturers, and more. Fast Gwillimbury Go Commuter Train Station - Newmarket, Ontario REFERENCES & RESOURCES *Annual Report - Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project, University of Connecticut, 2003 • UNI Eco - Stone® Design Guide and Research Summary • Lockpave® Pro structural design software with PC- SWMAf— PP hydraulic design software • Porous Pavements - Bruce K- Ferguson, CRC Press, 2005 • Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements - Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, 2006 A special thank you to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute for use ofsome project photos. Front cover photos: Eco - Stone® - Private Residcnce Cape Cod, MA and Ecoloc® - Westmoreland Street Project - Portland, OR UNI Eco -Stone® and UNI Ecoloc® are registered trademarks of F. von Langsdorff Lic. Ltd., Caledon, Ontario, Canada 02006 -2007 UNI -GROUP U.S.A. Printed in the U.S.A. UNI -GROUP U.S.A. - National Headquarters Office 4362 Northlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 (561) 626 -4666 • FAX (561) 627 -6403 • 1 -800- 872 -1864 www.uni- groupusa.org • E -mail: info@uni- groupusa.org 82 i r P.O. Box 1504 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92247 -1504 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (760) 777 -7075 FAX (760) 777 -7155 ENGINEERING BULLETIN #06 -16 Corrected 1/29/07 TO: �kimothy All Interested Parties FROM: R. Jonasson, Public Works Director /Cit En ineer Y 9 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 2006 SUBJECT: Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems This bulletin establishes storm drain study specifications. All hydrology and preliminary hydraulic reports for the City of La Quinta should follow these criteria. Hydrology studies for the City of La Quinta shall be performed for projects when required by the conditions of approval or as requested by the City Engineer. Reference material used for city plan checking purposes is as follows: 1. Plan Check Checklist Storm drain plan checks are guided by the documents found in the following hyperlink: htto://Www.la-(iuinta.org/i3ublicworks/tractl lz onlinelibrary/plancheck checklist %20NEW.htm. 2. Archive Plans Example City plans can be found at the following hyperlink: http://www.la-guinta.oralplancheck/m—search.asp A useful method of quickly searching archive plans is to load the plan type and current year (e.g. 2006) and then search the archive by clicking the GO button. 3. Hydrology Reports All hydrology reports shall follow the general guidelines set forth -by Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC) and Water Conservation District's Hydrology Manual. 4. Hydraulic Report Guidelines (General) Hydraulic reports shall follow the guidelines set forth by either Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual or Federal Highway Administrations FHWA HEC- 22 "Urban Drainage Design Manual," The developer engineer's hydraulic report is required with the storm drain submittal but can be submitted earlier with the rough grading submittal. Street plans must have an accompanying hydraulic report. The hydraulics for the project will be reviewed and approved only with the street plans. STORMCAD or equivalent commercially available hydraulic programs are acceptable for hydraulic calculations. Hydraulic program data and resultant calculations must relate to Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual design guidance. 5. Use of Rational Method (Catch Basin Sizing) and Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (Retention Sizing) For Catch Basin Sizing Only: • Rational Method may be used for projects with less than 10 acres for catch basin sizing only. The Rational Method may `be utilized to determine flow rates generated from each drainage area, to model street flow capacities and to size catch basins. The Rational Method obtains flow rates (cfs). For Retention Sizing Only: • Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Analysis (Shortcut Method) should be used for projects less than 100 acres and the lag time is less than 7 minutes (see RCFC Hydro Manual page E -1.2). This method results in both flow rates (cfs) and volumes (cu ft). For smaller projects, either the Rational Method or the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Analysis (Shortcut Method) may be used for the hydrology report for the project. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Analysis (Shortcut Method) is required for the hydrology reports for projects less than 100 acres. As stated in the RCFC & WCD handbook (Plate E -1.2, item 6) "The three hour storm peaks should. normally compare well with rational peaks ". • Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Analysis should be used with large sites where individual water shed areas may exceed 100+ acres. This method results in both flow rates (cis) and volumes (cu ft). 6. Inlets The City prefers use of curb opening inlets in most cases. Flow by conditions for side curb inlets should attempt to achieve 85% capture efficiency. Inlets (curb opening (sag or flowby), grates (sag or flowby), combination (sweeper), and median drop, channels, piping, or hydraulic conduits not found in the Riverside County Flood Control Manual shall be designed according to the Federal Highway Administrations FHWA HEC -22 "Urban Drainage Design Manual ". Use of other M31 jurisdictional catch basin sizing charts is not allowable. Catch basin sizing charts can have varied conditional assumptions as compared to HEC -22 analysis. 7. Retention Basin Design Preliminary basin design shall follow these guidelines. The City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin 97 -03 has been superseded by this City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin 06 -14. Design criteria include: • Retention basins shall be sized to contain the design storm and all criteria listed in this Engineering Bulletin 06 -14. For design purposes, the design storm shall be the 100 -year storm event that produces the most runoff reaching the retention basin. Runoff /retention calculations shall be prepared utilizing Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual guidance to calculate the required retention capacity for each of the following storm events: 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour and 24 hour storms. • The maximum allowable water depth of a retention basin when the design storm is contained is five (5) feet. Retention .basins deeper than 6 -feet are not allowed, unless the depth of the basin was clearly specified on a document that was presented to the Planning Commission and /or City Council during the public hearing when the project received its entitlement. • Retention basins deeper than 6 feet are not permitted in un -gated communities. Further more, retention basins deeper than 6 feet shall have eight (8) feet wide level terraced benches around the entire perimeter of the basin located at water surface contours where the water is 5, 10 and 15 feet deep, as applicable. In no event shall the maximum water depth exceed nineteen (19) feet deep in any location when the 100 -year storm is contained. Retention basins deeper than 6 feet shall also have a five (5) feet wide level terraced bench located one (1) foot above the 100 -year water surface level around the entire perimeter of the basin. The retention basin should be capable of percolating the entire 100 -year storm retention capacity in less than 72 hours. • One (1) foot of freeboard shall be provided when the 100 year storm is contained. The one -foot freeboard requirement is a minimum value. Freeboard is defined as the elevation differential between the 100 -year water surface elevation and the nearest street flowline elevation. • The maximum allowable side slope is 3:1. • A maintenance access ramp with a maximum 15% slope shall be provided from the nearest street to the retention basin bottom. Signage indicating not a pedestrian ramp is required. The ramp shall be located at the nearest street to the retention basin bottom. The ramp width shall be a minimum of 15 feet. i, • A nuisance water dissipater shall be installed in the bottom of each retention basin, pursuant to site specific geotechnical engineering recommendations. The nuisance water shall be piped directly to the nuisance water dissipater from the storm drain inlet in the street. • The retention basin shall be landscaped and properly irrigated. • Publicly maintained retention basins shall not be fenced or walled. • All areas of publicly maintained retention basins shall be visible from the adjacent street. • The percolation rate in a retention basin shall be considered zero unless a site specific percolation test is performed and test results are approved by the City. The maximum allowable percolation rate is two (2) inches per hour. • An emergency overflow route shall be provided for storm volumes greater than the, design storm. Overflow to a City arterial street is the preferred routing except in circumstances where significant grade differentials occur away from the City street network. 8. Retention Basin Nuisance Water Handling Drywells for nuisance water dissipation are utilized in most retention basins conditional on the site having an acceptably deep water table. Drywells for retention basins must penetrate a minimum of 10 ft into suitable permeable strata and must utilize the Maxwell Plus design or equal. The final depth of the drywell must be above the top of the water table. Shallow drywells for small nuisance water volumes may utilize the Maxwell IV design or equal. A geotechnical opinion stating the allowable and specific casing design of the drywell should be provided to the City for approval. The use of drywells and sand filters shall be determined by the infiltration testing (see below). Field experience has shown that areas of homogenous sand deposits are typically found in north La Quinta. Generally, sand filters can only be used in areas of homogenous sand deposits, which are typically found in north La Quinta. Conversely, field experience has shown that historical lake bed areas or equal lithologies are found in south La Quinta (south of Hwy 1 1 1). These historical lake bed areas would most typically obtain low infiltration rate results. Additionally, shallow silt lenses may be found throughout the City of La Quinta. Silt lenses or lake bed areas generally preclude natural percolation as well as the use of sand filters. Sand filters are, in general, being phased out of La Quinta nuisance water handling systems. If utilized, sand filter designs shall follow the City of La Quinta Standard 370. Well site blow off retention must be handled within a separate nuisance water retention system. 0 • Well site retention shall be capable of handling a minimum of 10,000 gallons per day. CVWD may allow for installation of a nuisance well site blow off retention basin within the well site perimeter if sufficient area and land dedication is available. All nuisance water shall be retained on site. • The filtering system shall be able to contain surges of up to 3 gph /1,000 sq ft and infiltrate 5 gpd / 1,000 sq ft. The square footage is based on landscape area. • Drywell infiltration rate testing shall be based on the report entitled "Riverside County Department of Health - Waste Disposal for Homes, Commercial, and Industry ". This report identifies the drywell test method which can be used in any location. Drywells may not be installed beyond a depth that intersects a water table. The final depth of the drywell must be above the top of the water table. Sand filter infiltration rate testing should use field double ring infiltrometer ASTM D.3385 -88 (sand lithology) or ASTM D5093 -90 (clay lithology). Please see the published report and procedure for each ASTM method. City acceptance of this testing will be based on boring logs showing homogenous coarse sand or gravel deposits with a continuous depth of 1Oft or more below the bottom of retention basin. If test shows acceptable percolation, but the borings show non coarse deposits (silts or clay), then drywell use is recommended. 9. Retention Basin Percolation for Retention Basin Sizing Percolation testing for retention basin sizing calculations should use field borings and test with a double ring infiltrometer ASTM D3385 -88 (sand lithology) or ASTM D5093 -90 (clay lithology) method or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Method for Unsaturated Soils above Groundwater for verification of percolation. • In cases where double ring infiltrometer testing creates excessive excavation or safety issues, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Method for Unsaturated Soils above Groundwater should be utilized. • The ASTM D3385 -88 (sand lithology) or ASTM D5093 -90 (clay lithology) methods, properly conducted, are preferred over the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Method for Unsaturated Soils above Groundwater testing method. • The top elevation of the ASTM boring test area should represent the estimated retention basin bottom. The ASTM D5093 -90 test requires a pre- soak condition for infiltration testing. The ASTM double ring infiltrometer test should terminate approximately 1 foot below the estimated basin bottom. The infiltration test boring utilized for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Method should terminate approximately 3 feet below the md estimated basin bottom with a 3 feet of water head test performed to simulate percolation. • Percolation test results are subject to City Engineer approval. The total retention basin percolation rate is based on a combination of City data review of the following: • Percolation of 2 inch per hour may be assumed if ASTM D3385- 88 (sand lithology) or ASTM D5093 -90 (clay lithology) test results confirm GREATER THAN 2" per hour percolation and confirm no clay or silt layer to a depth of 15 ft below the bottom of the retention basin. • If less than 2" per hour percolation is obtained by the ASTM methods OR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Method for Unsaturated Soils above Groundwater, then the finest soil type found to a depth of 15 ft (continuous sampling) below the bottom of retention basin will govern the assumed percolation as follows: 1. Clay /Clayey Soil = 0 in /hr 2. Silt Soil = 0 in /hr 3. Coarser Soil than Silt = a demonstrated weighted average percolation based on multiple borings and ASTM D3385 -88 and ASTM D5093 -90 tests ■ Landscape cover type at the retention basin according to the RCFC Hydrology, Manual and Soil Conservation Maps may also further limit percolation. 10. Retaining Walls within Retention Basins Retaining walls are discouraged for use in retention basins. If specified, walls should consist of reinforced concrete or equal as approved by the City Engineer to specifically prevent undermining of the retaining wall footing during and after (quick drawdown) large storm events. Use of walls as a top ring of the retention basin. is prohibited. Retaining walls will require approval from both the Public Works Department Director /City Engineer and Community Development Department Director. 11. Retention Basin Width Retention basins shall have a minimum width of 20 feet as measured from the lowest elevation contour. Previously, retention basin widths were governed by City guidance for aspect ratios for basins depths greater than 6 feet. 12. Overflow Routes Retention basins should be designed to overflow to City arterial streets or the adjacent local street as applicable. Historical flow route should be followed and not changed on a regional perspective but re- grading and import to achieve an immediate route to the adjacent street should be considered for projects which concentrate flows to adjacent open land or off -site developments. Overflow routes shall be designed using an open channel flow (surface flow). Closed conduit emergency overflow must be approved by the City Engineer. 13. Rainfall Intensity Rainfall intensity for hydrological report preparation is regionally zoned within the City pursuant to available NOAA data. A regional rainfall intensity map of the City should be referenced to confirm rainfall amount assumptions provided in the following table. *The design storm for the City is 100 -year storm (worst case of 24 hour, 6 hour, 3 hour or 1 hour duration). The 500 -year storm is only used to review for problematic secondary overflows which do not drain to a public arterial street, creating a trapped water condition. 14. Hydrograph Loss Rates According to the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual, the loss rates generally range from 0.10 to 0.40 in /hr with most falling between 0.20 and 0.25 in /hr. Three and six hour duration storms may use a constant loss rate; however, the 24 hour duration storm shall obtain a variable loss rate using the equation found on page E -9 of the manual, which is Ft = C(D- T)"1.55 + Fm. Variable loss rates are not required for the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Analysis (Shortcut Method). Additionally, developed condition low loss rate calculations on 24 hour duration storms have been modified pursuant to recent Riverside County Flood Control guidance. 15. Project Entrance and Emergency Route High Water Maximum Height During any storm event, a minimum 10 foot wide paved surface at the entrance to the site or localized sump area which would block emergency vehicular travel shall never exceed a storm water depth of 1.0 feet at any time. During the major storm as 100 yr storm (inches) Zones 1 h 3hr 6hr 24hr Zone 1 - Southwest mountains 2.50 3.40 4.00 6.00 Zone 2 - Southwest mountains 2.30 3.00 3.70 5.00 Zone 3 - West mountains and areas south of Hwy 111 and west of Washington 2.20 2.80 3.40 4.50 Zone 4 - West of Jefferson and areas east of Washington including the Cove 2.10 2.70 3.20 4.25 Zone 5 - East of Jefferson and west of a staggered line trending south west of Calhoun Street and Avenue 50 2.00 2.60 3.10 4.00 Zone 6 - West of a staggered line trending south west of Calhoun Street and Avenue 50 1.90 2.50 3.00 3.75 14. Hydrograph Loss Rates According to the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual, the loss rates generally range from 0.10 to 0.40 in /hr with most falling between 0.20 and 0.25 in /hr. Three and six hour duration storms may use a constant loss rate; however, the 24 hour duration storm shall obtain a variable loss rate using the equation found on page E -9 of the manual, which is Ft = C(D- T)"1.55 + Fm. Variable loss rates are not required for the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Analysis (Shortcut Method). Additionally, developed condition low loss rate calculations on 24 hour duration storms have been modified pursuant to recent Riverside County Flood Control guidance. 15. Project Entrance and Emergency Route High Water Maximum Height During any storm event, a minimum 10 foot wide paved surface at the entrance to the site or localized sump area which would block emergency vehicular travel shall never exceed a storm water depth of 1.0 feet at any time. During the major storm as event, the proposed drainage will not block or unreasonably increase or concentrate within the meaning of California Drainage Law, drainage runoff from or to any of the adjoining properties. 16. 10 Year Storm & Public Streets — Catch Basin Spacing For a design frequency storm of 10 years, the design maximum allowable arterial spreads will equal 1 lane (10 - 12 feet) + bike lane (if present 4 — 8 feet). The loss of only 1 lane of use is desired for 10 year storms. Catch basin spacing generally is required between 1200 - 2000 feet on City arterial roadways. The engineer may provide calculations showing that the spacing may increase. The engineer must also demonstrate that the flow in the street will not topple over curbs or R/W during changes in direction of the open channel conduit (typically the street). Inlets will be required at locations on arterial streets prior to the flow crossing at intersections and major driveways or entrances. Typically (verify with the Conditions of Approval), inlets must be located to intercept at least 85% of the total project projected storm flow. This also includes tributary areas found in the public right of way. 17. 100 Year Storm and Public Streets For a design frequency storm of 100 years, the design maximum allowable spreads are to the respective City right of way. 18. Report Outline — The following shall be found within all hydrology reports: • Signed and stamped by a California Registered Civil Engineer • Table of Contents a Vicinity Map with Site Location Project description with historical flow pattern exceeding a site circumference of 1 mile, unless limited by clearly defined watershed boundaries . - • Analysis method used (Rational-or Synthetic Unit Hydrograph) • Hydrology reap showing all sub areas with coefficients. • Rational Method showing tabling in a node -by -node sequence per Riverside County Flood Control Manual or equal. • Soils map used to determine soil losses. Catch Basin Sizing • Retention Basin requirements with percolation as determined by field testing and City policies. Please also provide retention basin volumetric calculations assuming zero percolation for sensitivity analysis. • Volume calculations w /Cross Sections of the Retention Basin. 19. Retention Basin Freeboard Requirements A minimum of 1 foot of freeboard between the retention basin major storm elevation (HGL,00 ) and the flow line of the nearest street (typically the inlet) is required. The 1 foot minimum freeboard specification may be modified to a reduced freeboard height which achieves 25% of the 100 year storm capacity in large area, shallow retention basin configurations. Historical City maximum freeboard specifications are now eliminated. 20. Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) Starting Points Projects within the City of La Quinta that are required to contain their 100 year storm flows shall show two (2) separate HGLs for maximum flow rate (HGL,o) and maximum volume (HGL,00)• The first HGL (HGL,o) will reflect the values from the 10 year frequency design storm. Values of Q,o and V,o will be determined from the Rational Method. Conduit sizing shall be based on non pressure type flow (HGL shall not be located above the crown of a pipe). The second HGL (HGL,o(,) will reflect values based on the maximum 100 year frequency design storm. The HGL,00 shall show that the maximum 100 year storm can be retained within the project and the use of the project's infrastructure shall be maintained. 21. 10 Year Frequency Design Storm HGL Calculation This HGL shall start at or above an elevation in the downstream retention basin that is equal to the '/2 depth of the retention elevation caused by the 100 year frequency design storm event. The piping system shall be designed based on open channel flow as opposed to pressure flow. This HGL should indicate the hydraulic conditions at the maximum storm water flow rate. Requirements: • Pressure pipe flow not allowed • Identify this HGL as the HGL,o on the hydraulic calculations and storm drain plan profile • Velocity not less than 2.5 fps • Pipe sized based on Rational Method • Head losses shall be "based on HEC 22 Ch 7. 9( • HGL freeboards: 6" or greater below CB flow line 22. 100 Year Frequency Design Storm HGL Calculation This HGL shall start at a location at the top of the retention basin water level caused by the 100 year design storm determined using the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph. This HGL should indicate the hydraulic conditions at the maximum storm water volume with a full basin or channel. Requirements: • Velocity (no requirement) • Identify this HGL as the HGL,00 on the hydraulic calculations and storm drain plan profile • Pressure pipe flow allowed. • Pipe size based on Rational Method. • No part of the emergency route shall obtain a water depth greater than 1.5 feet. • HGL Freeboards and Elevations • Difference in elevation between CB flow line and HGL in retention basin shall be between 0 and 12 inches. • 1 ft min from top of manhole cover • Not to exceed 7ft above the top of pipe • HGL must be located 1 ft below the adjacent Pad Elevation 23. Whitewater Channel HGL Assuming major storm coincidental occurrences are taken into consideration already (see page 7 -8 of HEC -22 Storm Drains), the projects HGL100 shall be located 2 feet below Whitewater Channel's estimated HGL500 (this is also equal to 1 foot below the existing Whitewater Concrete Channel Lining). Time of concentration for channel discharge will assume a full channel. Flap gate installation may be applicable, based on project elevations. 24. La Quinta Evacuation Channel HGL The Evacuation Channel obtains an HGL100 with an approximate elevation of 48.0 pursuant to information provided by CVWD to the City. Additional elevation information for the Evacuation Channel is currently under review at CVWD. The elevation is based on NGVD 1929. Elevations showing on the plan should be based on the same. Flap gate installation may be applicable based on project elevations. 9 2; 25. Retention Basin Landscape Requirements Retention basins shall be landscaped and properly irrigated. The retention basin landscape plans must be approved by the City Engineer /Public Works Director. The retention basin must be capable of draining the 100 year storm within 72 hours. Project incapable of draining the 100 year storm within 72 hours will be reviewed by the City for enhancement options to promote drainage conveyance. In basins with depths exceeding 8ft, trees shall be planted in the 8 -foot wide terraces. The number of trees shall be calculated by multiplying the basin lot boundary length by the number of 8 -foot wide terraces in the basin and then dividing by 100. 26. Typical Storm Drain Pipe Gradients & Velocity Primary street storm drains, designers should assume minimum grade = 0.3% . based on minimum flow velocity of 2.5 ft /sec. For local area drains, 4 " -6" pipe minimum grade = 1 %, larger pipe diameters = 0.5% should be assumed. 27. Typical Street Flows Street flows shall meet the design requirements of FHWA HEC -22. When gutters obtain small slopes, or where sediment may accumulate, or when parking is allowed on the side of the street, the designer should increase the n value by 0.02. 28. Storm Drain Easement Width Requirements The City of La Quinta requirements for minimum widths (generally 20 feet, excepting deep drainage systems) of storm drain easements is found in easement requirement charts from the Riverside County Transportation Department. Ten (10) foot easements using Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) in side yards may be used at the discretion of the City Engineer. 29. Surface Usage within the Retention Basin The developer may 'use the retention basin surface for recreational activities (tennis, volley ball, park, etc) or other permitted usages approved by the Community Development Director provided the retention basin's intended engineering use is met and that typical ADA improvements are provided. All improvements found within the retention basin shall be removed if they inhibit the maintenance or function of the retention basin. 93 h APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET W 1000 O 1000 W I � 111 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ZOI E X FIRMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY PANEL 5 OF 10 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) PANEL LOCATION La Quinta Evacuation COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 060709 0005 B MAP REVISED: AUGUST 19, 1991 Federal Emergency Management Agency This Is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. It was extracted using F -MIT On -Une. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the 100 YEAR FLOOD title block. For the latest product Information about National Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gc A� Y 1009-9 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS LAKE LA QUINTA TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24230 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA AUGUST, 1989 Prepared for: A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. 9449 Friars Road San Diego, California 92108 Prepared by: Maini:ero Smith /Spiska Engineering a Joint Venture 777 East Tahquitz Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 9.2262 (619) 320 -9811 95 1 -` TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Project Description B. Hydrology C. On- -site Drainage System D. Off -site Drainage System E. Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix I Rational Method 10 Year Storm II Rational Method 100 Year Storm III Computations fl Sizing and Pipe IV Rational Method PAGE 1 2 4 7 9 Computations of On -site Storm Runoff Computations of On -site Storm Runoff - Dr. Lake Storage Requirements, Catch Basin Sizing Computations of Off -site Storm Runoff 96 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed development will consist of 281 single- family residential sites, 10.1 acres of multi- family units and 20.4 acres of commercial use on approximately 151 acres. The project is located in the southeast one quarter of Section 30, T.SS., R.7E., S.B.B.M., in the City of La Quinta, California. It is bounded on the west by Washington Street, on the north by 47th Avenue, on the east by Adams Street, and on the south by 48th Avenue. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the project location. Soils at the project site are primarily sand and sandy loam in nature, and have a low to moderate potential for runoff. A soils map, Figure 2, has been taken from the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California Coachella Valley Area, as prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, and included for reference. For the purposes of this analysis, a uniform soil grouping of B has been selected. In its approval of Tentative Tract No. 24230, the City of La Quinta imposed a condition that the project retain 100 -year storm drainage on -site and /or construct a piped drainage system to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, including street drainage flow from the adjacent one -half width street sections adjacent to the project. The proposed drainage plan meets this condition for Basins A through T and Basin V. Runoff from Basin U, which is tributary to the proposed low point in 48th Avenue will be conveyed to The Pyramids for storage and infiltration. 1 97 HYDROLOGY The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) , prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for unincorporated portions of Riverside County designate the project site as Zone C. Zone C designation indicates that the site will be free of inundation from off -site sources during a 100 -year runoff event. A copy of a portion of FIRM Panel 2260A is included as Figure 3 for reference. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD) Hydrology Manual has been used as the basis of this analysis and report. The project site was divided into basins and sub - basins, as shown on the Drainage Plan, based on seventeen points at which runoff could conveniently be transported to the drywells for infiltration or to the lake for storage. The Rational Method was used to determine the peak runoff for both the 10 year and the 100 year storm event for each sub -basin and basin. values for C for each type of development were taken from D -5.2 of the Manual, which has been included as Figure 4 for reference. None of the tabulated intensity charts of Plate D -4.1 are applicable to this project. Therefore, a. set of intensity- duration curves was prepared on Plate D -4.7 of the Manual for use in the analysis and are included as Figure 5. K y8 The 24 hour duration storm has been used as the basis for determination of required storage volume for both the 10 -year and the 100 -year event. The 100 -year rainfall depth was taken from Plate E -5.6 of the Manual. The 10 -year rainfall depth was determined using Plate E -5.7 and the data on Plates E -5.5 and E- 5.6. Figure 7 shows the results'of that determination. The time distribution of the rainfall during a 24 -hour storm has been taken from Plate E -5.9 of the Manual which tabulates the percentage of the total 24 -hour rainfall volume by increments of time. The percentages have been plotted in Figure 9 to produce a hydrograph of the 24 hour storm. This hydrograph shape is equally valid for both 100 -year and the 10 -year storm events. This hydrograph has been used to determine required lake storage volumes and to determine the volume of water. to be released to The Pyramids.. As a matter of convenience, Plates D -5.5 and D -5.7 of the Manual have been used to determine street flow depth and velocity. While these plates vary slightly from the actual proposed street cross - sections, they produce conservative results. 3 ON -SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM In accordance with the requirements of the City of La Quinta, all storm runoff generated within the project boundary will be retained on -site, with the exception of Basin U which will be conveyed to The Pyramids for storage and infiltration. The project site will be graded to direct storm runoff generated in Basins A through T to the proposed lake. Runoff will be collected to the streets by overland flow and routed to low points created along Avenida Del Lago. A curb inlet catch basin (Riverside Co. Standard No. 300) located at each sump will pick up the runoff from the 10 year storm event for conveyance to an interceptor and drywell. The interceptor will remove debris and gravel from the runoff prior to the drywell unit. When flows exceed the capacity of the drywell unit, runoff will be diverted to the lake for temporary storage. The pipe connecting the drywell to the lake will be sloped to drain from the lake to the drywell to prevent stagnant water from standing in the overflow structure. The interceptor and drywell units will be located in or immediately behind the attached sidewalk to facilitate access for maintenance. 4 too ft � The drywell units to be incorporated into the project will be the Maxwell IV units,. as designed and constructed by McGuckin Drilling, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona. These units, which- incorporate a deep (20 -100 feet) rock - filled sump, are capable of infiltrat i ion rates in the project area'of from 0.5 to 3.0 cfs, according to McGuckin representatives. For the purpose of this report, an infiltration rate of 0.5 cfs has been selected. The runoff from a 100-year storm event will follow the same i path as �he 10 -year runoff to the curb inlets. Runoff in excess of the Opacity of the inlet and pipe will be allowed to flow across the street surface where it will follow a swale to the lake, where it will be stored for later infiltration at the i drywells. The lake has been sized and graded to provide storage for 100$ ofthe anticipated runoff from a 100 -year storm. Such an j event would produce about 37.28 acre feet of water which would raise the lake surface 1.55 feet. It is important to remember that this only occurs if there is no infiltration at any of the seventeen drywells. Assuming normal operation at.a minimum rate of 0.50 6fs per drywell, the lake surface would rise about 0.95 feet. This storage volume would be released through infiltration over a pOriod of about 30 hours after the end of the storm. All of the hduse pads around the lake have been graded to be at least 5 10t 2.0 feet above the maximum water surface elevation, with no allowance for infiltration. In addition, Vista Del Lago has been graded -to provide an emergency spillway to the exterior of the project below the lowest pad elevation for runoff from storms which greatly exceed the 100 -year frequency. Basins V -1 and V =2, which are located along Washington Street, could not be graded to drain to the lake due to the very flat existing street grades. Washington Street will be graded to two low points, located near the center of each sub - basin. Water will be taken off the street by a curb opening and stored in a depression located in the 20` landscape setback adjacent to Washington Street. A drywell unit will be placed in each depression to provide infiltration. Complete calculations and details of this system will'be prepared and provided as a part of the design package for Washington Street. 6 kU2 OFF -SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM As previously noted, the City conditioned approval'of the Tentative Map on either retaining storm drainage on -site in the lake or providing a piped system to the*Evacuation Channel. This requirement included street drainage flow from the one -half width street sections adjacent to the project. As shown on the Drainage Plan, this condition has been met for all of Washington Street and 47th Avenue, and for a portion of Adams Street. However, this condition could not be met for street drainage flows generated on 48th Avenue and on a portion of Adams Street. Immediately south of the project, The'Pyramids, a concurrent project by others, has begun mass grading operations under a Mass Grading Permit issued by the City. As a part of this grading, 48th Avenue is being cut to slope at about 0.50% from Washington Street to a low point approximately 600 feet west of Adams Street. This low point of 48th Avenue will be at elevation 50, or about 6.5 feet below the normal water surface elevation of the lake. Further, the Evacuation Channel, which is approximately 3000 feet east of Adams Street, has a design water surface elevation of about 50. Therefore it is not possible to take storm flows from the north half of 48th Avenue and from a portion 7 1v3 W of the west half of Adams Street either to the lake or to the Evacuation Channel. The portion of the half width of 48th Avenue and Adams Street tributary to the low spot is shown on the Drainage Plan and has been labeled sub - basins U -1 through U -5. The tributary area will produce approximately 1.07 acre feet of runoff at a peak instantaneous rate of 12.8 cfs during a 10 year storm, and about 1.92 acre feet at a peak instantaneous rate of 22.6 cfs during a 100 year storm. An agreement, a copy of which has been included for reference, has been reached with the developers of The Pyramids whereby any storm runoff from Basin U which cannot be disposed of by infiltration on the north side of 48th Avenue may be passed under 48th Avenue and routed to a retention /infiltration pond. The pond is a site previously designated by The Pyramids for collection and disposal of runoff generated within that development. The additional runoff, about.0.37 acre feet, will raise the water surface about 0.3 feet, and be infiltrated by an additional drywell unit. 8 104 CONCLUSIONS The storm drainage system for the Lake La Quinta development will retain all runoff on -site, except runoff generated on 48th Avenue and on. a portion of Adams Street. The runoff from the 10 year storm will be picked up in curb inlets and piped to interceptor /drywell units located behind the curb. Flows which exceed the drywell capacity will be temporarily stored in the lake, which may be expected to vary approximately 0.4 feet in water surface elevation. The runoff from a 100 -year event will follow the same path as the 10 -year flows, but will surface drain via graded swales from Avenida Del Lago to the lake. A system of pipes will return stored runoff to the drywell units. The water surface will rise about 1.0 feet during a 100 -year storm. 9 tb! ti LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO FOLLOWING PAGE: 1. Vicinity Map 1 2. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map 1 3. Portion of F.I.R.M. Panel 2260A 3 4. Runoff Coefficient Curve - Soil Group B 3 5. Intensity - Duration Curve Calculation Sheet 3 6. Time of Concentration Nomograph 3 7. Rainfall Depth Calculation Sheet 3 B. Rainfall Patterns in Percent 3 9. 100 -Year, 24 -Hour Hydrograph 3 loo c- 0 ndfan Wei a o % V 0 1 n Qj • 0pp is. a 741 0 LA . ... .... ;to ...... ...... as so t t sees so 1. ll� 72 to sea a N 9". 0 !'p �-OJECT ME u . !T,,Ile, Park . We. se; Trailer #drk so a& N intitiu; 0 ..... well nn Ll r— Mq ., . ; . ........... . ...... .......... 01 e ENUE 33 32 11 so 0 Water; .so 0 J* 410 der _i -4 so .... L' A VENU so. so:. E! G. An: bss� water Well welf J013 NO. 4 0r PREPARED UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION OF malrdfro, effah/Nil 1G..98M. q By SIONATURE -PLCA NO. 'c4r C—Lm. SHEET..._ 196rt. OF To- —,By SHEETS, DATE . . I 9E.lOMF&,2W -CPA M MOD MeD CPA Mae Mae Mao Mae gj -71 47-0, � TV tw-. . f CA.: 9E.lOMF&,2W -CPA M MOD MeD CPA Mae Mae Mao Mae gj -71 47-0, � TV tw-. . f US =D �ouu ES Z Z N Q ZONE C 0 Q 0 Ic AVENUE EA NEC fA J Q 2 O w W Q 2 W LL O LL W WESTWARD HO ' DRIVE i ty of Indi AREA NOT INCLUDED ZONE C M E A;i City of Indio AREA NOT INCLUD ZONE of A Iag ■■ ■■ ■m ■E of ■Il mra Sal ■m! E/ i owl ■1d Bill ■'AI 091 f ■1 11011 I1a1 ■■ on 150 Te . L 100 —1000 1000 90 900 •0 800 TO TOO 60 loo C 600 Eo. 150 500 u 8 v length =1000' Y 35 • ' 6 loo 400 0 0 30 Y 350 = 25 o � C g o T 300 300 C o 20 200 N 250 IT � *0 rs = 0 o 15 R .2 14 200 a 13 it j S` ` 12 11 0 aa; 150 9 ;~ 8 1. Maximum length =1000' T 10 Acres ' 6 loo 5 LIMITATIONS: 1. Maximum length =1000' 2. Maximum area = 10 Acres 1 Y V a � 500 400 g b 300 C o n 200 N C *0 o o 0 o E o 18 it j S` • 20 aa; K A Undeveloped Good Cover 2 Undeveloped Fair Cover c 1.0 Poor 9-4 RCFC 8 WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL • • v TC 5-1 �F It T c 0 8 0 9 0 10 r E 1° I1 0 12 c° 14 16 16 a • c IT E is c i9 -- 20 ~ 0 Q C 25 � C KEY u L4- Tc -K--Tc o 30 • EXAMPL : E (1) L =5501'9.H =5.0, K =Single Fomily(1 /4 Ac) 35 Development , Tc =12 6 min. (2) L = 550, H =5.01, K = Commercial 40 Development , Tc = 9.T inin. . Refemnce: Bibliogrophy item No. 35. 1U d 0 n E 9: IF z n �v r z Z :A r -v r m rn p° z rn TI z y � n 1 N RAINFALL PATTERNS IN PERCENT 3 -HOUR STORM � 6 -HOUR STORM I 24 -HOUR STORM 1116[ f -HIM 1. -rIM 1f•r!M a• -rIM PERIOD PERIOD . Do PERIOD PERIOD 1 1.3 t.• 3.1 ..5. t I.a t.• •.. 1..• a !.1 a.a f.l 1a.• • 1.1 2.3 •.• !1.• S t.s 3.3 •.• t..• • 1.0 a.• i.a a•.a • t.4 s.a tt.a t/ t.f s.! tt.� It 1.4 •.• 16.1 I1 1.4 S.• •.t la 10.1 l.a 1• t.t •.f 1 2.4 14.1 11 t.ft a.. 1• t.• t. 8.1 is 3.3 tt a.l to t.• 2• a.. tS a.I t. •.t tt s./ to a•s to •.. 31 1.3 al ..t at s.• as t.l a• 1.. aS 1.. U .• 1IK S -16tH 1. -rIM If -16116 al -rIM PERIOD ►41001: PE.too PEtltoe PERIO01 1 .S 1.1 1.1 a.• t .• t.t 1•• •.a ♦ .• f.• t.t ♦.• S .• l.• t.• S.a • .1 1.11 t.• S. 1 .1 1.6 t.• •.: • .t 1.6 8.11 •.. • t.• t.• 1il.• f. 1.• e.l •.• It 1.• t.. is .1 !t a.• ♦.♦ 17 .. 1.1 a.! if .. 1.. •.a 1• :. 1.9 •.1 11 .. 2.0 S.• t1 .. 1.10 1 :9 a1 .. t.S I..• at .. 2.f 1•.f V3 .o 3.0 a.• E4 .• 3.2 1.0 is .: 3.9 t• .• a.• at .• •.t t• .• ♦.s t• .• •.. a• .• S•1 al .• •.1 at .• •.1 as t.. t..a a• 1.• t.. IS 1.• 1.1 7• 1.• .! at 1.• a. 1.I I • t.l •1 1.10 •2 1.7 •a 1.♦ ♦• 1.• •! 1.f •• I.s •1 1.• •. 1.• TIM[ S-rIM rtrtoo rcrtoo .. l.t s• 1.. st 1.• Sa a.. S• t.l ss t.t s• 1.a 17 t.• s• 2.• s• t.s :i i:0 •1 a.1 .2 a.. •a a.• •• •.t •S •.r •• S.• •1 1.• •• .f 1. .f 11 .a is .t NOTES: 1. 3 and 6 -hour patterns based on the Indio area thunderstorm of September 24,1939. 2. 24 -hour patterns based on the general storm of March 2 Ok 3,1938. 11rt If -161% a• -rIM •f•rl% PERIOD PERIOD PE %too PERIOD .t .a a :i .a a .• .s .S .f .s .1 .1 .1 1.. 1.• 1.• t.t t.t 1.2 t.s t.s 1.• 10.1 1.• t.. t.l 1.. I.f t.• 1., t., 10.1 1.. .1 .1 1.1 l.• t.t t.a 1.3 1.. 1.. t.. t. l t.s a.• a ..a a.. •.a 2.• a.. a.s S.1 s.1 s.a 5.1 •.1 a,. 1.• .s .1 .f .f .s .s .s 1.2 I.a 1.. 10.1 a.. •.• ..a ..t l.t 1.a 11.• ..f 1.• 1.• 1.a 1.10 I.I 1.• 4 1Rloo 116[ 1!•161% r1 ►41a: s� t.• Sa a.. S a.• fs t.a f• t.a S1 10.1 S. t.• :i i:0 •t 2.3 N 1.. •• 1.• •1 •a •• .f 1. .S 11 •S It •• 13 .• 1♦ .• 1! .a 1• .t 11 .a /. .• 1• .a .. .t .1 . a .t .a .a .a .. .t .s .a .1 .a .t .t .a .t .t .,• s .r PLATE E-5:7 It3 GV0..lANDaVfi"Q HTAHDEHVWMMENTALD OGINEERWG•SURVEY1NG Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 Fast Tahquitz Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 SUBDIVISION L-�'` �-�` t_►l"TA. PROJECT. Suite 301 z t< 0 ri 4b q'� R C FC W C D HYDROLOGY IsviANUAL RATIONAL . METHOD CALCULATION FORM shoot Na_. of _Shootr- PROJECT we LA TA, G P� Cateulattd by __.- �-- �.___- Tryl__.. FltEOUEMCY ly Y�- Ch#ck*d by • -- -- -" -- - 7i1Y�- DRAINAGE AREA * M-R am. ONE m REMARKS �-�� o tt�t� s tttt!•!! ttt�■!! tttt�!• ®- - - - -- - -- -- -..... m"i MIN mmmm R C FC a W C O HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT -- FREQUENCY Shoot Na.— of -,Shoats Calculated by - -. DCP? _-- �tt't - -- Chockod by.- r--- r.- r�R/� -.._ -- MR w. =am-�a-m:-_mmm= - - • • - • sm®m®_mmmm=� _ . • . ®ems - - ��■�■ R C F C a w CD MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM Sheet No._ of �is PROJECT L&v--E: LA- CQ�� -I-A. FREQUENCY 1oY1- Calculated by - -- -=--- ��__.. Chocked br -- -- - 'trvr`- DRAINAGE AREA s - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - R C FC a WC D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT L''Ls LAe�� ►ETA _ FREQUENCY Sheet No.— of —Sheets Calculated by loxyl--- Chocked by ittws- -- 1RAINAGE AREA . . s m mm w� R C F C a. W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQuEMCy Sheet Flo.— of _Shutt Calculated by Checked by •-•- -- DRAINAGE • i 'J R C FC a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUr,i. RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT- p-►� -� FREQUENCY 0 Sheet No:..... of ._Sheets Calculated by P ~"'�.CT� -•- Chacked by •-- -••- -- — itrre•..� • f AREA -mono • • • fp • A R C F C a w C O J'-1YDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT Qj i �-ra fmgQVEM.CY Sheet Na_ of _Shoots Colculatod by __ _ _.. _.ISM-_.. Chockod bw - ,Rryt• -- DRAINAGE AREA . - M-- W-mmmmmmm;- mmmmmmmmmmm_ -- - - -- - - N R C FC a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY � � r " "P-• Sheaf No._ of .....sh"ts Calculated by_. �-� :. 3KY1 '• _ Checked by •• • - -` — DRAINAGE AREA mom . -.ago Mft a R C FC a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT t• --a�cE L.c: Q�i�TA. FREQUENCY Shutt No.— of ...:Shoeft ' Calculated by Checkod by - --- - - - -- -� - -- DRAINAGE AREA . - . , a R C F C a W C D HYDROLOGY MAN,,,L RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FAEDUEMCY �oY'iz sheet Na._,.0f - .Shoots Calculated by Checked by •---'•— —,Rryt- 1RAINAGE AREA REMARKS FS PER ME m- f R C f C & W C O HYDROLOGY . .,NUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT -- Lau.E l.- Q�u,�.►-r,� FREOuENCY Sheet Na.— of ^Sheet$,-- Calculated by ---- •'- .:- �r�t - -- Checked by • -� •- - - -- - �•�- DRAINAGE AREA - 9 Fi - r Ma ®� :� ICS- YIvmm_®-m R C FC & W C D HYDROLOaY MAOAL . RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT L.A w-G L�CQU ti3TA FREQUENCY Sheet Na_ of _— .Shoots Calculated by _'__ .8 xyl___ Chocked by • - - -- — -Rj"- -- DRAINAGE AREA . i REMARKS WIN I ME N R C FC a W C 0 HYDROL005Y 1i,ANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECTS -�"�E= FREQUENCY ,I CZ Ye— Sheet No.,_ of ._.,.Shuts ' Calculated by Checked by - -- • - - - -- DRAINAGE AREA !mom R C F C ai W C D }'HYDROLOGY MANUAL. RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT L.a Q ,QTA, FREQUENCY Sheet Na— of ..._,sh"ts Cale'ulottd by - .5[rt- -- Chocked by • •--• - - -- — Ism- -- UINAGE AREA IMF* �� ■■mss• i��sai�� ii� R C FC &. W C D HYDROLOGY � /JANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY Sheet No.— of -.,-_Sheefs Calculated by --- - - ° -', -- �rt't - -- Checked by •- ---�- �'s�1' - -- D RON Elm R C FC a WC D HYDROLOGY NIANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION. FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY 10 Sheet Na_. of _Shuts Calculated by Checked by •-- - - - - -- —� - -- RAINAGE AREA . • f e mm m mv .. .- ME 11�'.!�l��C _ r R C FC Ek W C D HYDROLOGY ,.,ANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULgTION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY Sheaf No.—. of •...$f►eefs. Colculofed by ...•_..fit..•_ Checked by •-- ••••�• �• -- DRAINAGE AREA , O R C FC a WC O HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY I Sheet No.._. of Sho*ls Calculated by Checked by ---- -- — �rvo- -- DRAINAGE AR EA . s ■■■■■■■■ ., ■■■■s■■s'� . Wim -' Q��■■�� mmmm well. mp, =� -�� mmmmmmemmm= mmmm®mmmmm� N R C F C a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT- -A1�.E L- 4Qy!�TA FREQUENCY -- Sheet No.,... of Sheets Calculated by 3irl't". — Checked by •-- - - - - -- — &Rrv* - -- 1RAINAGE AREA. - -long mmmm w R C F C& W C D HYDROLOGY rnANUAL, RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT _ Lake �' ��►NT4 FIIEOUENCY _�t- Shoot No.- .. of Shotts;' Calculated by Chocked by --- - -- - -- —�- -- DRAINAGE AREA lama Em 01 .SN', R C FC & WCD }-IYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY 1CQ "rP I Sheet No.— . of — Sheets Cciculcted�' by i Checked i. by --- - - - - -- —� - -- DRAINAGE AREA m� rM zn- R C FC a W C 0 HYDROLOGY J.,,ANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY 100 sue Shut NO. . of �Shoet, Calculate d by .� . �CDf—" P - -7' ' Checked br'-��--��-- �trv�-�-- DRAINAGE AREA ,Oman ON R C F C. a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT Lam Lo.QUttiTp. FREQUENCY ►oo -1,p- a Shoot No.— of — Shoots Calculated by Checked by - --•-- - -- -�- RAINAGE AREA• _ • s • ��■�� yes-- R C FC a W C U. }'HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT rREQUENCY •._. Shoat No._ of �Sh"ts Coleulattd by 159ft - -- ChocktQ br -Rrys DRAINAGE AREA• • • f '] • r _ _��-_-m_-_m R C F C a W C D HYMOLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT Lain I-a G?U ► �-r"A FREQUENCY Sheet Na._ of Sheets Calculated by 3KY1 ___ Chetked by 'BAN 1RAINAGE AREA amm .-RON mmmm s�mmm��■�� mmmm .w a R C FC & WC D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM Sheet No._. of _sheaf: ' PROJECT LAk-s Calculated - -- FREOUEMCY Checked br • DRAINAGE ARE A . - R C FC a WC D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY Shoot Na_ of �Shool• Calculated by Chocked by - - - -- AREA RON BE .� r R C F C. a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT Qu%t- , FREQUENCY 1 Shoot Nam of .,,_Shoots Calculated by ,35 KA___ Chocked by •-- —IRS- -- DRAINAGE AREA . •� • WS m mmm m-_�_�_---_ mmmm N R C F C & ICY C D 1-;YDROLOOy MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT QW, oTt, FREQUENCY n Shut No.,... of Sheets Calculated by _.•;?---- �rrt - -- Cheeked by - -- - - -_ -- — �tYt - -- 4AINAGE AREA REMARKS AA vi s.4 R C FC a W C D HYDROLOGY lViANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM sheet No.._ of _sh«ti. PROJECT _.___. =.ak.E L.A,( :S � Calculated by _.._ __- 39AL - -- FREQUENCY Chssksd by •-- - - - - -- —� - -- DRAINAGE Sett s JA I C AQ' s.o. ion L IMT. E T REMARKS AREA Development Acres Iit/hc C,F! CfS �/, FPS FT. IN s.4 R Ci F C a w C D HYDROLOGY MANU.1L RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT -- FREQUENCY YE i Sheet Na_ of _Shoet• C.alculated by ISM— - Chocked by J&J"- RAINAGE A REA MEMO__ mammumm - • _�� ®� ' 1:5i�3 "vii ®�� ra ® ® ®® rrri■rrrrrr� rrrrrrrr°'�� r� r■r rr rrr rr rr rr irr rr rr rr rr r■rrrrrrrrisrris r . -- , . �� rr rr rr s r■r rrr rr rr rr rr rr o rr rr rr � rr rrr r� rr rr rr �s��rrr�r■■�rrsr�r� rr rr rr■ rr r�r err rr r rrr rrr rr R C F C a W C D 1- IYDx0L0'GY MANUA L RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT LA -y_d. L,�c�u►-i -�. FREQUENCY Shot No.'_ of - Sh**ts Calculated by 3xrt___ Checked by itnes- DRAINAGE . - w;;hwmm.m.wm U fm 9 R C F C a W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT ___ =, V-r= L-&- Chu % UTPN% FREOUEMtY too `t'cz shoot N o.. of .,.._sh"to Calculated by ..�eD ._- _- ,sir - -- Chocked by •-- -- -- — '1SM -- MAINAGE AREA IBM. Immm m� REMARKS ® WIN mmmm R C FC Ek W C 0 HYDROLOGY NJANUAL RATIONAL. METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FIIMEMCY Shut No._ of —Sh"ts Calculated Checked by •'– ��–•� –�� -- DRAINAGE AREA - .- I FZ C F C a W C D. HYDROLOGY MANUA.. RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM PROJECT FREQUENCY _122 YP- u Sheet Na_ of _Sh"Is Colculoted by Chocked by - - -- — '6lYtf- -- !AINAGE AREA r - • Y • REMARKS Ro "Ron -- ■■®�■■a� ii ■■■mmm ii • ��• - • •• , • r. -®m-- mmmm ... ■■■■■mmmm ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ m m ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ R C F C a W C D }'HYDROLOGY 1. -_ ,NUAL RATIONAL. METHOD CALCULATION FORM shut Na.._. of ..._sh.sts. PROJECT Calculated by - -.�Pa __- fREWEMCY _lam Y� Chocked by • •— __ _........gym_.._ DRAINAGE AREA. ; - OHM rte■■■■ 1B R C F C E WC D HYDROLOGY NWIJAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM sh••t Na_ of _Sh «!s PROJECT La Q,-1iWT4 ..�_ Calculated by .p=-�? •�_� __ FREQUENCY Checked by fit_ •-- - - - - -- — �1Y� - -- DRAINAGE AREA - • _m_m� ® �� - • m , . mm ®wow MIN A-1 m- mmmm mmmmmmmmmmm RT--. R C F C fk. W C D HYDROLOGY MANUAL RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION FORM shoot Na._ of �ShNts PROJECT Qui"T- , i. Calculated by _ .?.-- _••6t�'t- FIIEOUENCY Chocked by •�- - - - - -- -�tv�- !AINAGE , ., QDI.Mainiero, Smith /Spiska Engineering f` A J 0 1 N T V E N T U R E ,. CIVIL. LAND DEWLOVLIENi , AND ENVIRONMEN7ALENGINEERWG -SURVEYING Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs. CA 92262 -7066 Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 X5'3 Matmero, Smith /SpiSKa tnglneering J 0 1 N T V E N T U R E D=TLl AHO OEVE L0- ta. ANDEwmoNMENTAIENGINEiAW— SUAV""G of Palm Springs Centre 777 Fast Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs. I eephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 JBDIVISION PROJECT SUBJECT JW LET 1� 2 .1P ID 29r ► l r C OrZ7) ( "c> /rJ . 4 �� `� � • ..h.L - O•�S- b.W7 = 1 .rot_ = .. _Ye=:_... :._.__� 1► Gt-ET t V 62 D = IS" V = 2, 0.12' :. tti -- -(02', ); 2 _ . �,„• 0 -O>3 �- t7r.�` °- " O•'lpcJ7._ �. . .... �7O• is •913 c� �-- .1sU ... ;_:..._. :... 40'_ Cc, 40 .hL c h4-, + __ .._. Y� _ . � .. t A • 81 cis ' _....J .._� = 3-[t- _ .. -- - - _ ... '. _. _ lF ID = lg V = 'a>*. 4— 1. (0.35.; J_ n � + o.&Z� 16A Mainiero, Smith /Spiska Engineering A J O I N T V E N T U R E i CPAL, LAND DEVELOPMENT. AND EkMRONWNTAL ENGINEERING . SURVEYING PQD Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 Fast Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA 92262 -7066 Tcicphone (619) 32"811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 SUBDIVISION PROJECT Malmero, Smith /SpisKa Engineering A J 0 1 N T V E N T U R E CIVIL, 4►ND OEYELOVMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EMGIWERING • $URVE1'MVG Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 .East Tahquitx Way Suitt 301 Palm Springs, CA Tdep6ont (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 15(4 �7 1 Mainiero. Smith /Spiska Engineering A J O I N T V E N T U R E GVIL LAND DEYELOOAIE!!i ANDENV{RONMENTAL ENGINEERING- SURVEYING JPID Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 Fast Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA. 92262_7066 Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 SUBDIVISION PROJECT IVISIniCrU, Jmlin/JplSKa cnylnrrrnng A J O I N T V E N T U R E CNIL, uNODEVELOwaENi ./WpEMV1AON4EHTALENCi1NEEAMlC> • SURVEYING Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 3DIVISION PROJECT 155 Maimero, Smith /Spiska Engineering A J O I N T V E N T U R E CPAL LAND DEVELOPMENT, AND EWRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • S AWE` ING Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA Telepboac (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 ,UBDIVISION LA e-s: LA, Q 6 PROJECT SUBJECT Pt PE S l Z1 Q 4.°► I __ v "__:._._?1.._.... __Al_.L.,.. ....FOB___ .._.. �'___..: __. �?►.�__._._ .. - . __ -... _�� .,_ ,,..._..,,..K___..,. _.,..._ �rr__.__..._., _- M'' _ 11 r _mow_. -- - — .— ...- . -_._r_ ,.�,�___....- _�.. _.� ...- .,__._V. .. _ .._... .. ..._ _ ,...,...._"'�„�.�',�.... —.•.— .— - - - - i , � r 159 ■r.w....v. VI V.. I.*0./ V'.I Jnu .-..y...vvm $I Iy A J O I N T V E N T U R E CML LANG DEVELOPMENT •AND EWA(>NMEN7AL ENGOMERING • SURVEYM Bank of.Palm Springs Centre 777 Fast Tal uitz Way Suite 301 Telephone (619) 320-9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 3DIVISION PROJECT 7-- �__ i tGo maimero, smlm /bPISxa tnglneering !NIL A J O I N T V E N T U R E CML LAND OEVELOPNEM. AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING r. Bank of Palm $ 1 Telephone (619))320-9 centre F� 6E 9 323- 7893Way Suite 301 JBDIVISION PROJECT SUBJECT Q AF .>j lE�� _ ,2..59. V./ +.' .. __.f__...._ ...._._ _.. hf o2-7) Co.Ioo 0.23 V-, - (1.4) Co• lo� o . 14i h, = 0. 2b 4- o. 14- 3 11-I P, _ I N L-E-T P 3 To e, . 85 " _ ...... � = 0.- hr, - c7ze0 (5�/> .2�� .14. hL TcT.. -- 4b' Q to V tr.� . Bo. 2 O. 4A- 021) CC •44;) = O ► 3L,. ._ J 1 i !,L + - hL CToT) 19 41 j_ i & I Main iero, Smith /Spiska Engineering A J O I N T V E N T U R E CIVIL. UN ODEVEL -tM.. AND -90 MENTALENGME6P#r.- RRVEYING 9DID R Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 E&A Tahquitt Way Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA 92262 -7066 Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 SUBDIVISION PROJECT SUBJECT - •` , ` '- ,M•, „v•v� V,a....., V1J \V, \M ..1 \y A J O I N T V E. N T U R E CIVILLAHD QEVELQVMENT,AHD EM MM-- WALENGWEEAWG. MAMErWG Bank Of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Patin Springs, CA 92262 -7066 Telephone (619) 320-9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 '1BDIVISION - ��uItJTA PROJECT SUBJECT 7;nTra Ru►.IOFF , 1co = �2 Rd+'JFA►t_lr- P.>es1►J . AAA C R�►JOFF:. A O. (-o45 5.41 • � _ =0 1.211 � 2.11 . � . o • �:o. . 5�.�. 2.4.. z. S3 ... t 2.52 50. ; 4-72.: . sr � l i •1� o � �G . 7d2 _ - 3 ► .110 - .: _ : ID. C)1 14.9 144.21. � � D.L9b � i.2�. AL�• wlT►+ t.b ► t�1t_T� -ilo .) t=o. Z4 -c- Pad X44:.2 -1 y °�l 8 2-5) Boric of Palm Springs C =tm 777 East Telepbom (619) 320A811 / FAX (619) 301 Palau SUBDIVISION LAS Qu i NTA PROJECT SUBJECT Ru c>FF VS I►.IF�t_TRAT1�d -1 I-iYUROG2AP►� - Ion Ylk Eyffba _ to - � Q - - - �i 1 A J O 1 N T r- V E NJT U R E CML. LAND DEVELOPMENT. AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING Bank of Palm Spriags Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs CA 92262= Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 SUBDIVISION L.A.tCc L--d Qy! T PROJECT SUBJECT C�'j'EtZMI tJAS- .1 ST se ,aD �fZ rVE6M S- (blzAVE = N�AX. 2UUbFF.. _ t►.,>= ►LjR.A.. _ 12UW OFF 2L4Wbr -= IM F1LTuk. IWPV TP-A; T"ims a of % DF. -/0 6F M► % of DIFFEtz�1.10E ` IWCP-F-M ►.►T toa - YcZ. ►oo - Q. too `fu- too •`(R ° s - 6. 1.0 4.3 .Cis, -.1 I.o 5.3 S820 o. to 6 Cis 9 1 .3 1.-I .95 '1 • to o. to I I 1.3 10.5 9• 00 - 12 1 • co 12..1 9 . °IS 13 I • a ►3.9 1 .90 3.00 14 2.0 15,9 11.65.. 4-.o5.:. ItP 2.S Il 3.0 23.5 14 :10 " : 9.%0 :.:. . i a 3.3 4L. V. L. C.o td . to 11.40 21 3.0 3g. a IQ . so 7: 19.50 22 4 . fl 47- 19.46 "22,55 24 3 . S 49.3 2l.'- 'L1 .95 25 5 . I 54.4 -- 2a. `.$. cL.y 24.20 42."10 2a 4•c. -It.S ', _ 25.15.^ 44..35.' .. -_: �. • ► .9 _ . , 9 �_ 27. a _.._._._,.s4: 8S -_ _.__ _.__ _--� -: 32 3. a 9 0.4 cis., 28.95 `% -46 1 J1l 33 • b 91 ..2 .95 2-9.90 - �.-- .- _,_ --- ...... - -- 3� .9 93.1 .9S 32.75 `4.95•_ ::. 37 .8 94.5 .95 _. 33 ,70 ... 38 - 48 Folz iz.4• o Ale- Po0D osPjH 0.915` f _ ■ A A J O I N T V E N T U R E CMn, LAND DEVELOPMENT . AND EWRONMEMALENGIME+NC•Sk0r.TY ro Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA 92262 -7066 Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 t-a� UQujhJTA SUBDIVISION PROJECT SUBJECT Ta-r�.l- (> `iiz P��►�FAI -�- ieR ,7°14 A.c- v . _. .... :. _ . Soo 0. 4-'S&�... Sco o. le5l t . Soo o. 4413 3.44 s.4-1 S0 > O.5�o3 4A 5 0D -T. -10 !_ 2.52 � ..:.. _ 5� ... o • Zo2 s9 . sco 1. C34- .._._Q.._ I. 7720 M> Q = Cj 44.12 2. S" .� 24)(.40 -. ` °1.9'A C-,LtoS Z = .l.o . '�o d .6°I I - - - �� f ./1l10 KEH6MIEHi1M `t Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 FAM Telephone (619) 320 -9811 /. FAX (619) •7066 m LO ►'� 1 A J O I N T V E N T U R E CIVIt. LAND DEYELOVMm .ANo9mRoNmyTAI EWtNEMNG •SURVEYING Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East TahquiGe: Way Suite 301 Palm Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX(619)3 23-7893 ,UBDIVISION —PROJECT SUBJECT Of= �F p- SE sy 0- • 1 W IM L�lt�'S►pµ� _.. W:] FJ OF F...: Qil l•YOFF :..:.. 11.1 F l L�: : I I:IF l l..'TP� .. .. .. .. . 7, %a . of� C/o of .: �� q• CIF D r-Fs 'G IJCF... ._ . 14 'L.o IS-9 t.1. 1S►S. d.40- {� 2 • S 1.1 22:3. 4. 50. 1�1 3,9. 30.x. 24.0. `;'lo ..._ .. ......__._... _.__ .3 3-S 22 1.2.90.: 24 3.5 3S•9 ', . 24. Zd . . 2"1" _ L.a � l�L:q..._ Y; : - _ 3-T��. ...... : 29•'x_ _� :.: .. 2-a � 4. 29 5.3" °lio:$.: _: _'.u. 41.0. 31 4.i . BL: :. 1 •'j :. ... 44.4. :. •42..?p .:: _ . , . I . 4-`..1 �_ ...: 33 0. a. : 91 ;.Z"r -:..__ _ ... 43.4ts '- 34 .-( 49 :5. 42.30. 92:.5'�'� 94.5: :: 4; x.90 .: (4�-. %6� C2o.QS ate { ._' = �. 32. Ac._F'r , FOB. 12A .o js- : Pc Nom.... t peP�{ - ... z o . 3t3 . �; -_. IL A J O t N T r V E N T U R E CIVIL LAMD OEVELOPMUff. AND ENVIAOHMEMAL ENGAIEERING • SURVEYWG Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 F.a A Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm springs, Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 IJBDIVISION �-�' U. Qty t 6-4-A PROJECT SUBJECT ehi MP N L�r D. \G.Q = w h18 h = hctc ri au nt rte. . 1- "-�T1 d - =`♦ lU't.. �� dew#.. -(t�;� a - ��raf�t� q_ `\a / J= 2.ZD�w.._ IQ Lla-T w . REPao W 7P-0P A-2 ,, 3 s.Zo ?.o. 4.0 C 1 +x.31 :.-•8 -T.o :� . c 1 4.0 D i 4. r . q. 4.o I o. 43 4.o .. 4 .0 .2.. �. ,.2 &.0 E. 3. 1 -�0 • co Q .fl :�.. 4.12 - 1. to 4.'0 :. G {. �.6} 2.e 4.0 �.4t. 1. 4" ' " A.0 CC= I.I� 1 N t10L GR AD^� >r 2 : It. 416.. 4.4 .. .:. _7. os 4-0 5 .. `i.c�5 4.3 -7.o - . 4. 3.32 t.3 4* .0 W :l S•5�. 2.2: 4.D 2. .. ' 2,lei- 1 . -1_ 7.• 03 .5 1 o . oco 3.9 4. a 1 (09 w 180 168 156 144 132 120 108 96 84 72 60 U C 48 m 0 b' a 0 36 24 12— Fig. B-4 INLET CONTROL NOMOGRAPH FOR SQUARE-EDGED ENTRANCE IN A HEADWALL U a O t U v a u (0) square -edged entr0nce AppaWir B 5.5 5A 4.5 4A 3.0 1.5 HW 0 1.0 09 08 0.T W- 235 1'id Mainiero, Smith /SpiskaEngineering A J O 1 N T V E N T. U R E GIVII- LAND DEVELOPMEN7. AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGrKERMG • WRVEYM ID QD Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 _BDIVISION PROJECT SUBJECT Suite 301 Palm Springs. CA 92262 -7066 , - DO 11.I .F 1LTI' J-T- .101-1 r--A'T-- : _ _. _ .. ..135.0: _ .1.;.7 =� t�_�C►;Y'. . - - -.- - - � -. - -- ---- -.. - - - -' -- _ ��:1,DFF _ _ rte - :�..- �..�`�.Ii;S�L: t'1'cci��=- l�S�'a � = :g�ia ��/►o� �NFII+TT�� ( :.�a��: -- ate: -t. -� o� v,� ..._...__ 5 = Cwc dw - - - -- -- -__�.. �._ : i t- ►Fig- �- �e- �- to,.a_ =_ . t l _.. -c.Fs - - -- -- _. ._ ._ - _ ._ _ - __- _ -;� ,---, _- _ _ _ -- - -_ - - -' 1- - - - Y_'...:.....:_:_. : 1�'H . -1..1: .i, - �._ _. � :i] .. •- �'"- + Kam" - .� -A 2 ATlA.. - " 21. I ...cPS: -> : -Vvr! .�T_� 4 N P, 4 ,_ Ill Mainiero, Smith /Spiska Engineering A J O { N T V E N T U R E C1VP- IANDDEWLDPWW An AIENWNEEAV*G- SUAVErwG Bank of Palm Springs.Centm 777 East Tahgnitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA 92262 -7066 ID Telephone (619) 320-9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 ! �! PqDMainiero, Smith /Spiska Engineering A J O 1 N T V E N T U R E C! VIL. LAND DEVfiLCPW N7. ANQ EPAIRONMEMTAL ENGWEERING • SURVEYNG Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 SUBDIVISION 'd- PROJECT Springs, CA 92262- ■ ` A J O 1 N T -r V E N T GVIL. LANOOEVEIOPMOO.ANo ETIVIRONYO'!!AL ENOrNEBiR lip Bork of Palm Springs Ceatre 777 East I TekTbone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) : 3DIVISION LA-y-e L.A. ©ul%JTLa PROJECT SUBJECT Suite r r` ti CA 92262- 7061k; V . � � u I !!t rt 2 1 7 N � _ I Mainiero, Smith /Spiska Engineering A J O I N T V E N T U R E CAnL LAND DEYFl ENS AWEWI"MEHTALEWW*EMNG- MAVEY94 ID Bank of Palm Springs Centre 777 East Tahquitz Way Suite 301 Palm Springs• CA 92262-7066' Telephone (619) 320 -9811 / FAX (619) 323 -7893 SUBDIVISION PROJECT SUBJECT To T I.L=-: ►F . D. = I �,1 law /r-, - 1,25: ' .... Nw 2_.. :..To.._: :_ oPE►- 1.. :CUauNEI,- . :.L._.: __.. .. :. : :. :._ : : :_ :. _.. ... ::�.__ :: _ _� :. :. :T: _... 11Z. 03 _. I F D U ►1..... NW /D . 1 0..9 :1:::. FEW_:- _ -1.8� .•. oUTL_sT. F- . m 18_ lS:. - subMO�.Ca vZ... a. o: _ 1 II , , • fir` (H i �l { , 1 JAI T • � 4 �i 7 k ( I i c;, P� iz i { 4,I !, I. i - t l . � I k (mitl f H ----"PE `� 5 � [ .. , °A 32 ' PE 60.20 _ S ' I) V v ` U 6.66 .50 cn �- PE 60.10 FF 6D.70 .00 PE 65D.7o �18 6D.eo ` 6F 60. 0.23 •+ } r \'� ss j FF 61.2 60.50 I 59.90 102 FF 60.40 PE 58.80 m c,�1 2 I FF 60.30 r ! i 6 i 1 1 ( 45 - .... ` \�...... ........_. ._.. ..._...___...._...__.... _ _... _ _ .PE .60_90.. .... . � 33 _ _ �„ � s FF 61.40 i4 61.10 PE 61.00 I t J �•- ,mss i - H FF 60. A k PE e�D1.20 il' BBN } r } k 3 A - FF 6 11 k P5 9 6 1. tD Fl / 2.0 61.40 2. 10 50 Ln / Q i I FF as , s7 cn I 1 - . so 95 6i- FF .3o PE 60.6o `._ 2.00 61.9D PE Bi. FF 61.10 5 61.70 FF 8i. 1 .io 28 35 43 a PE 61_20 PE 61.30 � rn I PE 6 70 si_ FF 61_70 FF 61.80 51 - s C= e \ FFF 60.90 99 n I i ► (� .� �V 0.3 k i 21 i P� 6o.so FF 61.40 62-9D FF 62.1D 1.71 36 0 42 .40 PE 61.eo PE 61.6o PE 61.80 52 I \� ---- I FF 62.10 FF 62. PE 81.30 S j I FF 6z_ k 1w G2.30 30 FF 61.150 98 22 ' f PE 62.20 61.to �r t� 62.. ip 62.0 26 s° } PE 82.40 t PE 62.10 PE3 1.90 1 .PE 62. PE 61.60 82.90 I FF 62.60 FF 62.40 FF W. FF 62.26 u, S . s 2 35 f ' ; X663.0000 .. -- - 9 4 6 PE 82. � v `I Ss E.s PE si.70 55 56 ' 57 5f 8 PE 62.60 .90 FF 62.60 FF 82. FF 62.a0 PE :82.00 PP 62.40 1-0•;62.80 " Ln PE 62 -00 FF 63. i0 Sy ° �. �,) FF 6a.so e2 so; s FF �70 FF !62.50 FF 62.90 FF1d9.30 LO I O `• v f a P 1 a f i� f✓t;I (_ Q s 4 0. s i \ ` \ I _c i t 1 m� _- ( `rS 55 t�A 54 �- -ES ES t B5 -ACS �8 Z� /�/ --f- 54 ° ---- -� S6--- 56- 448th AVENUE 1 1 I f' 4 BENCH REVISIONS I APPROVED OATS - - MA i MARK PD 3 1W ELEV . 1 i6.584' i LOCATION - i" I.P. WITH CO. TAG IN MON. � WELL AT THE INTERSECTION OF MILES AVE. AND WASHINGTON ST. � I 1 ! - E0 ,Ti 2............. 6 �( i _�% it �8� o or 75 0 1� 70 i IT, \ 75 75 1 p a 10 1 Lo L0 �. L9 �� \\ '3` a r ( 4 \ ! �r ( B9 -- - \ to Ln LO rn 1 fl - 1 5 0.60 Ls r LO �• J cp l rn , K 41 Sg h e i- ^ i- 76� K-2 666 _�I-•��` m�1 P•\ - \ s \ v i` I lD 1, 110 :67 UT I i m e � \, ( � ` >' ` ` Qm ! T- ° YX 2 Z \ 1 \ l S5 PIE,iW.40 213 126 FFF >pQ a q; PE lu IQ IT v � i 1 lD 9 _ •9 \ �a 210 ( p el 60.00 0 FF 21 0 66 - cn 1-0575 ,9.50 mT a S m FF 60. r • V - _ 50 - 60 1 _ W �' S•rco f �� r arT a 98.918 PE 5+9.90 LID pq FF 60-40 237 0 .55 . 2 120 PEPE 60 30 60.30 _ ti b 38 FF 60. 236 Fl� � FF 60 60 60.10 PE 60_30 ( .60 FF 60.80 I \ `9 } 0.62 119 I `° 1S b9 9\ PE �' 60.10 235 -60 _ •6B I �' i 60.10 - 60-60 "22 1 e � PE 55.t$��j� N PE rr, I.06 N :�' �•� FF 59.90 J� a i J j � 1 PE 59.90 IFF 60.90 ' m 223 117 n PE 59.10 , J. .2 Ln FE 59. 3 FF FF 99_60: PE .601 0 l� 224 t � 58.70 232 _ s0.20 _00 i, 7a �0 1 \� i.l 1 QC ` ! �r JUN Q g -im 0.95 CITY OF LA QUINT 0- I. ( ` FF 61.20 0 , DEPARTMENT / t 6. , 60.:@0 60.711 5 , :� PLANNING p A 65 cc FF 09 g r LE G E N 59.40 -� x.60 0 \ ss_so -tpu 1 PE 3 Iv 1 Ff �i �E \\ �-,�, r1D 1 • -- � -1 -5114 - 6�S /.T� yl/M.B�.C�' ?9 B.SLAB \ \, PIE cw 1; i�f C � A �' \i a .Q� /�+ PE 59 1 E t , 'V /.c% FF 66.30 / ^ } �1 r�r i2^ ---•� l d - B 87 s K CAF s -7 Au 9 f � s 6 s 0 s o / b cn g9 o a0 7o TffE �i�iPf�M /1-Z5 CNIER0, SMITH SPISKA ENGINEERING 'aPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF R.C.E. N0. DESIGN 9Y PPROVED BY CITY OF LA QUINTA CALIFORNIA HEET D�8 LIFORNIA A JOINT VENTURE DRAWNBY I VIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING + SURVEYING 'IGN::TUAE �4oZ LAKE LA QUINTA t7 ATE CITY ENGINEER OF BANK OF PALM SPRINGS CENTRE 777 E. TAHQUITZ NAY STE. 301 CHECK B`" R.C.E. NO. DATE DRAINAGE PLAN 1 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 -7066 (619) 320 -9811 AC'S: TRACT No. 2:4230 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A POR. OF SE 9TR. SEC. 30. T5S. R7E. S.B.M. SHE TS + , G �I 1 z ¢o LL II --�00z z �LLI-QO V) 40,O ~I a-Y!E OUV) Nf5 I �I n i i3 iq > I { �C ti T� I V l , T I I 1 1 f , I l I I 1 IS I 1 1 1 O I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 41 I N P ! I �� Hy Um + I o !i st NI +T s D�� o 0 JaT DIAL, TWO WORKING BEFORE DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG h YOU DIG TOLL FREE 1- 800 - 227 -2600 A PUBLIC SERVICE BY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Its � I I I I ' I I I 1 1 I I lidI 1 I ' I I 67) I� seFL ; I I ' I 1 I I 154TG 87TI 4 ' P F I 1' 411 C N601 Tc / Satz 15 l 1 II I I 1 ` A 46 TC I I I I 0 `• , ' i IZ 1 a I Iz 1 I ' I a I 1 I � I I 1 I I TS) I '� LEFT I ' I � � m+l 78) k, , \ Ir 35 I i 1 r 'AH 1 , 1 l I I 5915TG F- ' S &49FS BC-60' L�T) I I 1 ! U) 1 I I II I I , I 59.11TC � I � I 1 5a44� 1 1 I ' +ol.i8) 95rc d r 1 ' - 54'LEFT , r I t i 17 1 .8 rc I Y I 1 I rn L 1 EFT I � �I I J M r A I r 4X LL U ' I .95 TO , I 1 I,N 1 010= ,59 I 1 � I 5Q100< 60 8.50T I f ' \ 57,6 Id IM I IN I 1 Ia I -- 1 J I I M I; I I Ij I dP I I CONC C� 1 E 9 _D EPTU � \"A (VACANT) N89'31'06 "E 345.46' w r w ��- •� w w mow- w w r_ iv F C QCH S ASIN W/4 q b\ xu 1 c: 0,50X Y 61,5OFL ROPOSED RIBBON GUTTER CB# 8., 62.40TC Q10 =1.76 CFS - -D I i 61.90F9 OCFSHGL100 =59.34 HGL100=4�59 74 1A r! 0 60 TCH s ADING PLAN OF 30 0 30 60 90 !� j �` SCALE: 1"=30' r D NOTE,• WS ELEVA 110N TO BE F/ELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL CONSPRUCTION CITY STAFF TO BE INFORMED ORMED OF ANY DISCR PANCIES IN DATA (LAKE) 1p WSE= 54.0 (WSE 100=55.55) - ® , 'ED GRA (T W) 55. 5/NV \ V 1 V Q10 -3.65 CFS HP �' \\ \ \ \ �@`i \\ ' HQGOL1000 =58 0 60.15FL 61.50FL 1 \• \ 0 �- r PROPOSED 18" CPP STORM DRAIN \ \ \_ \ -' r \4 CONSTRUCT 4' WIDE TYPE 300 CATCH BASIN / / CONSTRUCT 36" DIA STORM DRAIN 1 62.40TC CPO i1 0 jl 62r50FS ;50� o0 - - x ®® 1 rst •. rr r as i • -L _ x rt7•� , x'.• w' .s. ,�. � .stn t�..,±r �, . - � k i f' l5 I z � I � 1 I f r U as �t'i' 3 ..- 4,3:<eS tP.-,: tai ;{��" w � '. �?•� �.rr .� rhi _;'s �} .� ..,�, ,�ie'a"`e -. �.r ct. #��. v- z ¢i eel. x 3 `:f i r Er r Y e�i' T q 'c$ f 1 r� r� ' ®• a•1 r'- 1 fR „C �i • �� r . r , tic A ( i M 'fi t 1 r l 3 t i r 4 Y 1•. 1 2 2 .. cam. y x 3fi t yy , Si r�. 3 t�> • '� a � :il Si k S t 0 �,L,. ♦• E � S k 3x / r Y x Hula IN 1, F -=Y �' v fx � •N -by> e�' 3 L t I J�a Y 't t • rs r' eP �l �r R'ts; :xrr f � I - fi '3"£ .'Inz. I .N9•� '1 I f r.> t• d t" , P C �r r -tr a r. f t, tw v 3 .J ' - .rL +�J ': •`fie. ai-)ty tr s • •:T _ ,rr T. .s S x, �.. � •�.� �.. max. y:. dll I }:'r :b t rn {�.. `f• Ft 1 r� • w '� _ski- ., r •. .0 F ' .c�5 =.i ilulr:LCif •x^ s - s v c -9 Yr �. k • ' t- ... ,. _, Y - , :. c �z.-' x '•' :f x `fit : a js ;x ...' .. A _ . ,- .,. ":•�... e i c a ?s +e s s:^ • !! -% Yt rr.4 ■ • ASSESSORS - - q • \\ \ %, .' • •� � \ ``' •; fit' / � 'N -, r :-r. " ": ,s:" OSLO \ \\ t\ \l�r l'�.\ �\ \ \`` a�`�1\ \ •t��i }� "� � +� � / 46k26 i Oro _ - a 4 \ / OAP\ c-- / y N z V) I5oa qy r� huh .� Is�i�arLix •Y-� S '•.., 41'1 •�'.,Cir We►tw H9-Qr Weacwa dDr se .I f f Co_rpp �II�,Gardta_G_r .1 t E f 5r tj k a 1I � � o, ' I rl , t I I , I1 Av*njt 40 IJ �' ► �' - -��• ��1mFlatdiYre r ..._ ! C-- •,___ -_...� 6�a�i aa�n I ( I i 1 �I 13 \, � 1 ^ VI• YHasi� )t s $raaur Trail•_ .__ - -I J .l I IL��Jt l 2 vgG KGs cI oi 1, R. Z^ N3,� c x 1. �. x'ex*�.rdN -� sg,��a',"Sy+,i+• j ._ � �a'c�' 1 %?�� ER } � � -�r�r� l�,rn�,�r;� fir' i Sri d t �!•` \ 4 i ,,ct'r1r �s-' � , t•M1•?l; �!• .. � *�' V) 2'�r�u "'�� ,:3*` <.rs�'��`�k""_ tars 'u, S- ,,i� �'�t �' 1. � , .g� 7 - � ! r; � �"• >�`'r -'t�` �. �� . �- � t..r, \> � '� v' t � 3y1'4 `I�� v,'+m r� / -' "•., r-: �Erv� ,+r a} ,ar'J.nq -�. s :rte. � {�"'..� r`� � = _�`4ati� ", '� J ��+'^s' r e �'� !'!, �1-'" y s� .�.t€�,<�."t u y cft �c� Fs�.t• b � - r *+. a. t „�. 4, r r r��,;,u..r� „tN d St�- ��Yr -x �t� 4r f„''- ��'•¢e' �A� 4� E T� 5: •d �°l ,'. �,� � �q �' . ". � � � �`� �'' �"'''9 ,�t �t"'LX�WFS� •�3� f�`�"��, i'd,? � ,� �, ,t`s. «u�;��4,Yw,�" 3�.,_tN�•'i"�'.�� <,��;'.�� °:`4'''�` ,s W:+ �iti&inctlU�L�d��lNntci~�c��' -�� `�� 0%°� � a6 � -- -- " r `' VICINITY MAP 10 `% \ \ \\ �� \ �\ \�`/� �o \`o (, • '' t " f. S e 000 / � xp0 PJ ' / a \ L f e .y / O �s�`p G'3` \ \\ F �,o \ poi �\ (7+64. �� / ✓ `- '�/ l\ O _` \ 9�c .� :30�- ��" � 'i� 58.1or X''•. ,x�' f '" � -� ,. ffr Cr _ 130,` r�j _ \\ 4' V REPLACE EXISTING 30" DIA. STORM DRAIN - � 1.80 I `o Qr 1 - \ 6'j '� 0, 0'\ \ // W/ 36" DIA STORM DRAIN 8O F; i -rt -- - \ . o \ �MH 7 f - �. . OOTC \ o.�. J�� / � \, I �a x ., , , `/' / CURB`�\ a 57.8 IM l REPLACE EXISTING CATCH BASIN W/ PRECAST DRAINAGE NOTES �" - Me61.50TOG" \ \� // �' ,� I. �� (� . C .J ``, 4 �NVJ I MANHOLE JUNCTION STRUCTURE W/ PED /TRAFFIC P' D 1AF�a8'L (� r' # 31 i j -tom /57.90T ( { GRATE '\ 5.4.85/NV / THIS PARCEL IS TABLED TO DRAIN TO THE LAKE PER THE LAKE LA QUINTA , CONSTRUCT 36" DIA STORM DRAIN // \\ \ I ` SA�V CONSTRUCT 8' V� E TYPE 300 CATCH BASIN PQ Al 'p-Nn -' a P ` op -� /� MASTER HYDROLOGY STUDY. THE PROJECT WILL MITIGATE NUISANCE WATER WITH �� 0 P. `, "\ \\ �aL+� , A DRYWELL AND UTILIZE THE EXISTING LAKE TO MEET THE STORM WATER •_.. _�< ,r+ �S, \ \- `', Li RETENTION CRITERIA. A fe +` yi ED 2 "x24 PRE AST olrc. 6 .80 \ �; y9 �. .��0 ,� \�, 795 \\�?, '�� THE EXISTING SUMP CATCH BASIN AT CALEO BAY CONFLICTS AS W/ RAFFI /PE GRA I 1 5 45IN I �� .\ z49L ' \ / TS WITH THE PROPOSED C P POSED 18 :•CPP STOR DR IN ; • I / z `. �'' DRIVEWAY LOCATION ACROSS FROM VIA FLORENCE. BECAUSE OF THE SUMP CONDITION IT IS PROPOSED TO ADD TWO SIDE INLET BASINS ON EITHER SIDE OF - ,-1 i {' � -� ---: t t.8TC, -�-> • , �{ THE DRIVEWAY, AND PIPE THEM TO THE EXISTING CATCH BASIN. THE EXISTING c Z RM qL� �e`. Gr o' t` I -NPy. l %'` f` 5 OTC '\ t , ;, \ �� `�' \r;t. \ 3 CATCH BASIN WOULD BE LOWERED AND REINFORCED SO IT CAN REAMIN IN PLACE 6L 0 �Z ��,t�\ �F',�`'��sp ��, \�,` UNDER THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, WITH A GRATED LID TO CAPTURE ANY WATER op , \ THAT ESCAPES THE TWO NEW SIDE INLET BASINS. 1 _.:6Q 80FL - r 1- \ ; I .r og 1� 6:80TC-e % -- AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT THE DESIRE OF THE LAKE -j -�l oo E LA QUINTA P RESIDENTS, - �-�' I " -• - -' ' oo � c,. '•. � THE CITY STAFF, AND THE DEVELOPER TO KEEP THE DRIVEWAY AT " Nc. :jj \� a s U- VIA FLORENCE ALIGNED, THIS CONFLICT CAN NOT BE AVOIDED. IT IS - 62.50FS � �-� A �-- � . , _ � 1• - , � IMPRACTICAL �® , ' �\ \ t; TO SHOW ANY MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT IS HEREON C ... tt 1 o°o Q,.n . K ; �.1 ,. ; 1 ,.` \ ; I� '' \, , � e.�%°C:;;;r�t',;J�. -c... R IN A PRELIMINARY PLAN. Ir ' `' 1 FULL STORM DRAIN PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWINGS AND HYDRAULICS WILL BE 6 30T 2.30 C , �� '� i �r f x 7 ; >\ ;�, 4 t �...1 t , 1.9 4-q PROVIDED IN THE FINAL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL IF THIS CONCEPT IS FOUND TO r i £ r 1 1 .. 5180E I_�i yet s` r .1 �� i + BE ACCEPTABLE. 50FS �D - i_ -- = t 62,5 r` ',. '�: % ' r \ 1 J i \ t i . �" �" t'3 4 - u I t' 1 I s K R?•' i t s % I m, 7• I r I 1 `d I •{,e I .� • I. i . I 9 a f { k :t 1 F � 3 i� S£ -•-r - I 1 s d I } r $, I t I ,a rK I \ x I f =?` A " ?i Ss .. i� �xf , I N g. 1 L. 3 rt a r�€ r c� 1 *u y YN- y I 5 8 T h ,r a� , f k :T �• s.osf 52.69 I c r fL N tt . I• � 5 Y f tx a„i • 4 -�I NOTE y. I t I ;f Z r y r Y ) tx s, F t a n.r I' - �e• i. 1 Y -J M=. ' I l_ �w r. { 5 J cy 2 f <4 . I d _ 1 ..a �. . _ �rr . ' • � >s � t � r , FOR PARCEL INFORMATION INCLUDING LEGAL DESCRIPTION, ENCUM BERANC ES r +•, r0 I dI EASEMENTS, T5 PARCEL DATA, ZONING DATA, AND OTHER REQUIRED UIRED INFO RMAT 0 t r •P 1 R ii wrr iit , I - R �r :e :D ¢•- z: k Y,,3# h r k r #. F � � x 1 Ii . .• � I � d t l i ! r SEE THE ACCOMPANYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, AND N i I CONSTRAINT M AP EXHIBITS. N I r t hq x 1 I I! s' Y , I t 90 5 . 8 TC �, i � 1 I Ir I I ,' �_ •� ffug y+5y{.• o 'C+.j'• /tr•E I /" ^'y ,t,j +yam., ,/ate+ Y 9 r uP 4 cl.sF•I# �1.',Tj:' ' E 7 I `" ' � % .✓ "" , -) �" "i.✓P � 1 /1 536.1' H b✓ _ - D 1 � ' I df1- I ,n1` '�,.( � I •\ 8 ( I i I�(E `� / i • ;�..r � � �.2+ -.. 1 7"'.,•'i'4....7'�<..4.+ ��.. :F."r••'v'� � .J'+^a.,- `r•. .- �d \t_.�_�,:JiW` rir r`�~� -- v �i�.,�. - I ►, I ' I ° I I v L2 , ; ,v ter' IKJ `PA-6�- =-- o D 1 - _ _ _ _ r`�� - - __ a ``--- ° - - - - -- I I N I i 1 I t I , ��--� i2�" ~I ��c ,�=t )� � SEP 15 2008 01i (- D5 CITY OF LA QUINTA � PLANNING DEPARTMENT ssI PREPARED FOR: IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA 78080 CALLE AMIGO, SUITE 101 TALBERT DEVELOPMENT co c SHEET C4 I LA QUINTA, CA 92253 1719 RUDELL ROAD N EPTUAL GRADING PLAN (760) 771.9993 OFFICE PARCEL 2 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 (760) 771-9998 FAX BURBANK, CA 91501 OF PM 27892 (PMB 182/63 -66, O.R.) NCO (18) 754-4600 OFFICE FIDELITY TITLE COMPANY PRELIM. TITLE ORDER PREPARATION DATE CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING •PLANNING •SURVEYING (818) 842-7538 FAX NO. 07- 255101708-A -KS DATED 04/18/2008 09/14/2008 rr L