Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tract Map 3334 Lot A&D WQMP Costco Temecula Gas Expansion
Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan A Template for preparing Project Specific WQMPs for Priority Development Projects located within the Santa Margarita Region of Riverside County Project Title: Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Development No:Tract TR 3334; Pcls.A& D-L.L.A. No. PA99-0424 Design Review/Case No: PA17-0626/LID-0726 z � n _ y Contact Information: ❑ Preliminary Prepared for: Costco Wholesale, ® Final 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027 Original Date Prepared: February 2018 (425)427-7540 Prepared by: Bryan D.Smith, P.E. Revision Date(s): Project Manager, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Prepared for Compliance with 6390 Greenwich Drive, Suite 170, San Diego,CA 92122 Regional Board Order No. R9-2010-0016 (858)554-1500 � . 2 Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan A Template for preparing Project Specific WQMPs for Priority Development Projects located within the Santa Margarita Region of Riverside County Project Title: Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Development No:Tract TR 3334; Pcls.A& D-L.L.A. No. PA99-0424 Design Review/Case No: PA17-0626/LID-0726 1� T Contact Information: ❑ Preliminary Prepared for: Costco Wholesale, ® Final 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027 Original Date Prepared: February 2018 (425)427-7540 Prepared by: Bryan D. Smith, P.E. Revision Date(s): Project Manager, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Prepared for Compliance with 6390 Greenwich Drive,Suite 170, San Diego, CA 92122 Regional Board Order No. R9-2010-0016 (858)554-1500 Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan • A Template for preparing Project Specific wQMPs for Priority Development Projects located within the Santa Margarita Region of Riverside County Project Title: Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Development No:Tract TR 3334;Pcls.A&D-L.L.A. No.PA99-0424 Design Review/Case No: PA17-0626/LID-0726 y Contact Information: ❑ Preliminary Prepared for: Costco Wholesale, ® Final 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah,WA 98027 Original Date Prepared: February 2018 (425)427-7540 Prepared by: Bryan D.Smith, P.E. Project Manager, Revision Date(s): Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Prepared for Compliance with 6390 Greenwich Drive,Suite 170, • San Diego, 92122 Regional Board Order No. R9-2030-0016 (858)554-150500 A Brief Introduction The Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit' for the Santa Margarita Region(SMR) requires preparation of a Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)for all Development Projects as defined in section F.l.d.(1) of the Permit. This Project-Specific WQMP Template for Development Projects in the Santa Margarita Region has been prepared to help document compliance and prepare,a WQMP submittal. Below is a flowchart for the layout of this Template that will provide the steps required to document compliance. Section A Section B Section C -Project and Site Information •Optimize Site Utilization •Delineate Drainage •identi0cation of UD and Management Areas(DMAs) l .HydromodiRcation requirements,it any • Section F Section E Section D •Alternative compliance(UD •Technical Feasibility -Technical Feasibility Waiver Program& -implement- -implement LID BMPs Hydromodifcation) Hydromodl0cation BMPs i Section G Section H -Source Control BMPs •Operation,Maintenance, and Funding • 'Order No.R9.2010-0016,NPDFS No.CAS0108766,Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the MS4 Draining the County of Riverside,the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County,and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District within the San Diego Region,California Regional Water Quality Control Board, November 10,2010. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • OWNER'S CERTIFICATION This Project-Specific WQMP has been prepared for Costco Wholesale by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. for the Costco Temecula Gas Expansion project. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of City of Temecula for Order No. R9-2015-0100 which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a Project-Specific WQMP. The undersigned,while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph,shall be responsible for the implementation and funding of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. In addition,the property owner accepts responsibility for interim operation and maintenance of Stormwater Best Management Practices until such time as this responsibility Is formally transferred to a subsequent owner. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants,maintenance and service contractors,or any other party(or parties)having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity.The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementation of this WQMP is enforceable under City of Temecula Water Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.28.500(C)). %the undersigned,certify under penalty of law that the provisions of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP iN be transferred to future successors in interest." • 5 • 2y / Fr 0 er's ig ature Date Owner's Printed Name Owner's Title/Position PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION "The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control Best Management Practices in this plan meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9- 2010-0016 and any subsequent amendments thereto." Preparer's Signature Date - Bryan D.Smith Pro' Preparer's Printed Name P e (' u, C 75822 m" Preparer's Licensure: RCE 75822 Exp. 06-30-18 EXP.0613011g a Sp Clvll a�P -3 - gTfOFCP&W Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Table of Contents Section A: Project and Site Information........................................................................................................6 A.1 Maps and Site Plans............................................................................................................................6 A.2 Identify Receiving Waters...................................................................................................................7 A.3 Drainage System Susceptibility to Hydromodification.......................................................................7 A.4 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: ....................................................................8 Section 8:Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) .....................................................................................9 Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs).......................................................................11 Section D: Implement LID BMPs.................................................................................................................13 D.1 Infiltration Applicability....................................................................................................................13 D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment............................................................................................................15 D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment....................................................................................17 D.4 Other Limiting Geotechnical Conditions...........................................................................................18 D.5 Feasibility Assessment Summaries...................................................................................................18 D.6 LID BMP Sizing..................................................................................................................................19 Section E: Implement Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs...........................................20 E.1 Onsite Feasibility of Hydrologic Control BMPS..................................................................................20 E.2 Meeting the HMP Performance Standard for Small Project Sites....................................................21 • E.3 Hydrologic Control BMP Selection....................................................................................................21 EA Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing..........................................................................................................22 E.5 Implement Sediment Supply BMPs...................................................................................................23 SectionF:Alternative Compliance..............................................................................................................26 F.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern...........................................................................................................28 F.2 Stormwater Credits...........................................................................................................................29 F.3 Sizing Criteria.....................................................................................................................................29 F.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection....................................................................................................30 F.5 Hydrologic Performance Standard—Alternative Compliance Approach..........................................30 F.6 Sediment Supply Performance Standard -Alternative Compliance.................................................31 Section G: Source Control BMPs.................................................................................................................32 Section H: Construction Plan Checklist.......................................................................................................33 Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding........................................................................................34 Acronyms,Abbreviations and Definitions..................................................................................................35 • -4- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • List of Tables Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters................................................................................................7 Table A.2 Identification of Susceptibility to Hydromodification...................................................................8 Table A.3 Other Applicable Permits..............................................................................................................8 TableCA DMA Classifications.....................................................................................................................11 Table C.2 Type 'A',Self-Treating Areas.......................................................................................................11 Table C.3 Type 'B',Self-Retaining Areas.....................................................................................................11 Table C.4 Type 'C',Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas......................................................................12 Table C.5 Type'D', Areas Draining to BMPs...............................................................................................12 Table D.1 Infiltration Feasibility..................................................................................................................14 Table D.2 Geotechnical Concerns for Onsite Retention Table ...................................................................18 Table D.3 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix .............................................................................................Is Table D.4 DCV Calculations for LID BMPs...................................................................................................19 TableD.5 LID BMP Sizing.............................................................................................................................20 Table E.1 LID&Hydromodification BMP Location......................................................................................22 Table E.2 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing....................................................................................................23 Table F.1 Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type........................................................................................28 TableF.2 Stormwater Credits.....................................................................................................................29 • Table F.3 Treatment Control BMP Sizing....................................................................................................29 Table F.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection...............................................................................................30 Table F.5 Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing........................................................................................31 Table G.1 Structural and Operational Source Control BMP........................................................................32 Table H.1 Construction Plan Cross-reference.............................................................................................33 List of Appendices Appendix1: Maps and Site Plans................................................................................................................42 Appendix2:Construction Plans..................................................................................................................43 Appendix3: Soils Information.....................................................................................................................44 Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions........................................................................................................45 Appendix5: LID Infeasibility........................................................................................................................46 Appendix6: BMP Design Details.................................................................................................................47 Appendix7: Hydromodification..................................................................................................................48 Appendix8: Source Control........................................................................................................................49 Appendix9: 0&M .......................................................................................................................................50 • Appendix 10: Educational Materials...........................................................................................................43 -5 - Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Section A: Project and Site Information PROJECT INFORMATION Type of Project: Commercial Planning Area: CP-7 Community Name: Temecula Regional Center Development Name: PROJECT LOCATION Latitude&Longitude(DMS):33.521278,-117.154206 Project Watershed and Sub-Watershed:Santa Margarita Watershed, Long Canyon-Murrieta Creek Subwatershed APN(s):921810014 Map Book and Page No.:TM 3334 MB 54/25-30 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS - - - --- - �- _ Proposed or potential land me(SJT Commercial Proposed or Potential SIC Code(s) Area of Impervious Project Footprint(SF) 26,462 Total area of proposed Impervious Surfaces within the Project Limits(SF)/or Replacement -179 Total Project Area(ac) 0.73 • Does the project consist of offsite road improvements? ❑Y ® N Does the project propose to construct unpaved roads? ❑Y ® N Is the project part of a larger common plan of development(phased project)? ❑Y ® N Is the project exempt from HMP Performance Standards?_ __®V_❑ N EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS -Total area of existing Impervious Surfaces within the project limits(SF) 26,283 Is the project located within any Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP Criteria ❑Y ®N Cell? If so,identify the Cell number: N/A Are there any natural hydrologic features on the project site? ❑Y ® N Is a Geotechnical Report attached? - ®Y ❑ N If no Geotech. Report, list the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils type(s) present on the site(A, B,C and/or D) What is the Water Quality Design Storm Depth for the project? 0.90 in A.1 Maps and Site Plans When completing your Project-Specific WQMP, include a map of the Project vicinity and existing site. In addition, include all grading, drainage, landscape/plant palette and other pertinent construction plans in Appendix 2. At a minimum,your WQMP Site Plan should include the following: • Drainage Management Areas(DMAs) • Source Control BMPs • Proposed Structural Best Management • Buildings, Roof Lines, Downspouts • Practices(BMPs) • Impervious Surfaces • Drainage Path • Standard Labeling -6- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • • Drainage infrastructure,inlets,overflows Use your discretion on whether or not you may need to create multiple sheets or can appropriately accommodate these features on one or two sheets. Keep in mind that the Copermittee plan reviewer must be able to easily analyze your Project utilizing this template and its associated site plans and maps. A.2 Identify Receiving Waters Using Table A.1 below,list in order of upstream to downstream,the Receiving Waters that the Project site is tributary to. Continue to fill each row with the Receiving Water's 303(d) listed impairments (if any), designated Beneficial Uses,and proximity,if any,to a RARE Beneficial Use.Include a map of the Receiving Waters in Appendix 1. (Inm/iiruv rruterbnur+lr.ca.ror/.condierohra/e+ issues/prnrrunrslhasin plan Table A.1 Identification of Receiving Waters Receiving USEPA Approved 303(d) List Designated Proximity to RARE Waters Impairments Beneficial Uses Beneficial Use Santa Gertrudis Chlorphyrifos, Copper, Escherichia coli, AGR,COLD,GWR,MUN,PROC,RECi, Creek Fecal Coliform, Iron, Manganese, REC2,WARM,WILD 0.45 Phosphorus Chlorphyrifos,Copper,Iron,Manganese, AGR, IND, MUN, PROC, REC1, REC2, Murrleta Creek Nitrogen,Phosphorus,Toxicity WARM,WILD 0-3.S Santa Margarita phosphorus,Toxicity AGR, COLD, IND, MUN, RARE, REC3, 0 River(Upper) REC2,WARM,WILD • Santa Margarita Enterecoccus, Fecal Coliform, AGR, COLD, IND, MUN, RARE, REC3, 0 River(Lower) Phosphorus,Toxicity REC2,WARM,WILD Santa Margarita Eutrophic EST, MAR, MIGR, RARE, RECl, REC2, 0 Lagoon WILD AQUA,BIOL,COMMAND,MAR,MIGR, Pacific Ocean None NAV,RARE,REC3,REC2,SHELL,SPWN, 0 WILD A.3 Drainage System Susceptibility to Hydromodification Using Table A.2 below, list in order of the point of discharge at the project site down to the Santa Margarita River, each drainage system or receiving water that the project site is tributary to. Continue to fill each row with the material of the drainage system,the storm drain susceptibility using the SWCT2(Stormwater&Water Conservation Tracking Tool - htto://rivco.permitrack.com/) or Map 2 of the Hydromodification Susceptibility Documentation Report and Mapping:Santa Margarita Region(Appendix D of the SMR HMP), and the condition for exempting the drainage system, if applicable. If the exemption includes receiving waters that were not evaluated in Appendix D, provide supporting documentation in Appendix 7 to demonstrate that they classify as Engineered, Fully Hardened and Maintained (EFHM) channels, consistent with the definition provided in Appendix D. Include a map exhibiting each drainage system and the associated susceptibility in Appendix 1. - 7- Water Quality Management Plan_(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Table A.2 identification of Susceptibility to Hydromodification Drainage System Drainage System Material Susceptibility of Drainage Hydromodification System Exemption Exempt area as Road SD depicted in Appendix Ynez Ro Yne Ro Variable Not Susceptible D of the SMR HMP. See Appendix 7 of this Report for map. A.4 Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: Table A.3 Other Applicable Permits Agency Permit Required State Department of Fish and Game, 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement ❑Y ® N State Water Resources Control Board,Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification ❑Y ® N US Army Corps of Engineers,Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit ❑Y ® N US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological'Opinion ❑Y ® N Statewide Construction General Permit Coverage - ❑Y ® N Statewide Industrial General Permit Coverage ❑Y ®N • Western Riverside MSHCP Consistency Approval(e.g.,JPR, DBESP) ❑Y ®N Other(please list in the space below as required) ❑Y ® N If yes is answered to any of the questions above,the Copermittee may require proof of approval/coverage from those agencies as applicable including documentation of any associated requirements that may affect this Project-Specific WQMP. • -8- ' Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Section B: Optimize Site Utilization (LID Principles) Review of the information collected in Section 'A' will aid in identifying the principal constraints on site design and selection of LID BMPs as well as opportunities to reduce imperviousness and incorporate LID Principles into the site and landscape design. For example,constraints might include impermeable soils, high groundwater, groundwater pollution or contaminated soils, steep slopes, geotechnical instability, high-intensity land use, heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic, utility locations or safety concerns. Opportunities might include existing natural areas,low areas,oddly configured or otherwise unbuildable parcels, easements and landscape amenities including open space and buffers (which can double as locations for LID Bioretention BMPs), and differences in elevation (which can provide hydraulic head). Prepare a brief narrative for each of the site optimization strategies described below. This narrative will help you as you proceed with your Low Impact Development (LID) design and explain your design decisions to others. The 2010 SMR MS4 Permit further requires that LID Retention BMPs(Infiltration Only or-Harvest and Use) be used unless it can be shown that those BMPs are infeasible. Therefore, it is important that your narrative identify and justify if there are any constraints that would prevent the use of those categories of LID BMPs. Similarly,you should also note opportunities that exist which will be utilized during project design. Upon completion of identifying Constraints and Opportunities, include these on your WQMP Site plan in Appendix 1. Site Optimization • The following questions are based upon Section 3.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document. Review of the WQMP Guidance Document will help you determine how best to optimize your site and subsequently identify opportunities and/or constraints,and document compliance. Did you identify and preserve existing drainage-patterns? If so, how? If not,why? Yes;project is in commercial use now. Existing drainage patterns will be preserved. Did you identify and protect existing vegetation?If so, how?If not,why? Yes. Existing vegetation within the project scope will be protected. Landscaping will be replanted in new parking islands where required. Did you identify and preserve natural infiltration capacity? If so, how? If not,why? Yes,pervious areas increased from existing conditions. Did you identify and minimize impervious area? If so, how? If not,why? Yes, project minimized impervious areas by providing flow through planters and landscaping in parking islands. Did you identify and disperse runoff to adjacent pervious areas? If so, how?If not,why? Yes, where feasible. DMAs A and B disperses runoff to an LID BMP. DMAs C and D are self-retaining, no • pervious surface drain into these areas. DMA E is adding impervious area, however, a proposed canopy will cover this area. Therefore, DMA E will not be considered for stormwater treatment. DMA E-1 consists -9 - Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • of slab replacement under an existing canopy. Since this area.is being replaced under an existing canopy this area will not be considered for stormwater treatment. DMA E-1 consists of replacing pavement but the area is so small, so this area will be de minus and will not be considered for stormwoter treatment. DMA F is not considered for stormwater treatment because this area is removing and replacing a portion of the slab do to maintenance of a pipe. No additional impervious is being added. The remainder of the project preserves existing drainage patterns which sheet flow to a storm drain. • • -10- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Section C: Delineate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) Utilizing the procedure in Section 3.3 of the WQMP Guidance Document which discusses the methods of delineating and mapping your project site into individual DMAs, complete Table CA below to appropriately categorize the types of classification (e.g., Type A, Type B, etc.) per DMA for your Project site. Upon completion of this table, this information will then be used to populate and tabulate the corresponding tables for their respective DMA classifications. Table CA DMA Classifications DMA Name or Identification Surface Type(s)' Area(Sq.Ft.) DMA Type A Pervious 793 D A Impervious 5,641 D B Pervious 895 D B Impervious 3,239 D C Pervious 2,953 B D Pervious 905 8 E' Impervious 7,025 No Treatment E-10 Impervious 6,546 No Treatment E-2• Impervious 387 No Treatment F• Impervious 1,552 No Treatment • 'Reference Table 2-1 in the WQMP Guidance Document to populate this column 'DMAs E.E-1,E-2,and F are not included for stormwoter treatment calculations.See section D.5 for explanation Table C.2 Type'A',Self-Treating Areas DMA Name or Identification Area(Sq.Ft.) Stabilization Type Irrigation Type(if any( Table C.3 Type'B',Self-Retaining Areas Self-Retaining Area Type'C' DMAs that are draining to the Self-Retaining Area Area Storm (square Depth ICJ from Table Required Retention Depth DMA Post-project feet) (inches) CA = (inches) Name/ID surface type (A) (B) DMA Name/ID (C) (D) C .Landscape 2,9S3 0.90 • D Landscape 905 0.90 - il - Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • [D] = [B] + [B] ' [C] [A] Table CA Type'C',Areas that Drain to Self-Retaining Areas DMA Receiving Self-Retaining DMA 0 d t a u y y a > o 0 Za a U Area(square 'r Product feet) Ratio L 0 N IA] IBI ICI=[A]x Iel D] Icl/[D] DMA name/ID [ Note:(See Section 3.3 of WOMP Guidance Document)Ensure that partially pervious areas draining to a Self-Retaining area do not exceed the following ratio: 2 l \lmperolous Fraction/ t (Tributary Area:5elf-Retaining Area) Table C.5 Type'D',Areas Draining to BMPs DMA Name or ID BMP Name or ID _ A - Basin 1-FlowThrough Planter B Basin 2-Flow Through Planter Nate:More than one DMA may drain to a single LID BMP;however, one DMA may not drain to more than one BMP. • - 12- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Section D: Implement LID BMPs D.1 Infiltration Applicability An assessment of the feasibility of utilizing Infiltration BMPs is required for all projects, except in the following case: ❑ Harvest and Use BMPs will be implemented to address the Design Capture Volume (see the Harvest and Use Assessment below) for all Drainage Management Areas AND the project is exempt from HMO Performance Standards(Proceed to Section D.1 and Section E). If the above box remains unchecked, perform a site-specific evaluation of the feasibility of Infiltration BMPs using each of the applicable criteria identified in Chapter 3.4.1 of the WQMP Guidance Document and complete the remainder of Section D.1. Is there an infiltration.concern (see discussion in Chapter 2.3.4 of the WQMP Guidance Document for further details)? ® Y ❑ N If yes has been checked, both Infiltration BMPs and Hydrologic Control BMPs that include an infiltration functionallties may not be feasible for the site. It is recommended that you contact your Copermittee to verify whether or not infiltration within the Project is infeasible. Geotechnical Report • A Geotechnical Report or Phase I Environmental Site Assessment may be required by the Copermittee to confirm present and past site characteristics;that may affect the use of Infiltration BMPs. In addition,the Copermittee, at their discretion, may not require a geotechnical report for small projects as described in Chapter 2 of the WQMP Guidance Document. If a geotechnical report has been prepared, include it in Appendix 3. In addition, if a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared, include din Appendix 4. Is this project classified as a small project consistent with the requirements of Chapter 2 of the WQMP Guidance Document?®Y ❑ N Infiltration Feasibility Table DA below is meant to provide a simple means of assessing which DMAs on your site support Infiltration BMPs and is discussed in the WQMP Guidance Document in Chapter 2.3.4. Check the appropriate box far each question and then list affected DMAs as applicable.If additional space is needed, add a row below the corresponding answer. • - 13- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Table CIA Infiltration Feasibility Does the project site... Yes No ...have any DMAs with a seasonal high groundwater mark shallower than 10 feet? x If Yes,list affected DMAs: ...have any DMAs located within 100 feet of a water supply well? x If Yes,list affected DMAs: ...have any areas identified by the geotechnical report as posing a public safety risk where infiltration of stormwater x could have a negative impact? If Yes,list affected DMAs:DMA A and DMA B ...have measured In-situ Infiltration rates of less than 1.6 Inches/hour? x If Yes,list affected DMAs:DMA A and DMA B ...have significant cut and/or fill conditions that would preclude in-situ testing of infiltration rates at the final x infiltration surface? If Yes,list affected DMAs: ...have any contaminated groundwater plume in the vicinity of the site? x If Yes,list affected DMAs: ...geotechnical re ort identifies other site-specific factors that would preclude effective and safe infiltration? x Describe here: if you answered "Yes" to any of the questions above for any DMA, Infiltration BMPs.should not be used for those DMAs and you should proceed to the assessment for Harvest and Use below. • • - 14- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • D.2 Harvest and Use Assessment Please check what applies: ❑ Reclaimed water will be used for the non-potable water demands for the Project. ❑Downstream water rights may be impacted by Harvest and Use as approved by the Regional Board (verify with the Copermittee). ❑The Design Capture Volume(DCV)will be addressed using Infiltration Only BMPs. In such a case, Harvest and Use BMPs are still encouraged, but it would not be required if the DCV will be infiltrated or evapotranspired. If any of the above boxes have been checked, Harvest and Use BMPs need not be assessed for the site. If neither of the above criteria applies,follow the steps below to assess the feasibility of irrigation use,toilet use and other non-potable uses(e.g., industrial use). Irrigation Use.Feasibility Complete the following steps to determine the feasibility of harvesting stormwater runoff for Irrigation Use BMPs on your site: Step 1: Identify the total area of irrigated landscape on the site, and the type of landscaping used. Total Area of Irrigated Landscape: 0.13 ac • Type of Landscaping(Conservation Design or Active Turf): Conservation Design Step 2: Identify the planned total of all impervious areas on the proposed project from which runoff might be feasibly captured and stored for irrigation use. Depending on the configuration of buildings and other impervious areas on the site,you may consider the site as a.whole,or parts of the site, to evaluate reasonable scenarios for capturing and storing runoff and directing the stored runoff to the potential use(s) identified in Step 1 above. Total Area of Impervious Surfaces:0.61 ac Step 3: Cross reference the Design Storm depth for the project site (see Exhibit A of the WQMP Guidance Document)with the left column of Table 2-4 in Chapter 2 to determine the minimum area of Effective Irrigated Area per Tributary Impervious Area (EIATIA). Enter your EIATIA factor:3.26 Step 4: Multiply the unit value obtained from Step 3 by the total of impervious areas from Step 2 to develop the minimum irrigated area that would be required. Minimum required irrigated area: 1.99 AC Step S: Determine if harvesting stormwater runoff for irrigation use is feasible for the project by comparing the total area of irrigated landscape(Step 1)to the minimum required irrigated area (Step 4). Minimum required irrigated area(Step 4) Available Irrigated Landscape(Step 1) • 1.99 AC 0.13 AC - 15- Water Quality Management Plan CWQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Toilet Use Feasibility NOTE: This step is not applicable—no new toilets proposed. Complete the following steps to determine the feasibility of harvesting stormwater runoff for toilet flushing uses on your site: Step 1: Identify the projected total number of daily toilet users during the wet season,and account for any periodic shut downs or other lapses in occupancy: Projected Number of Daily Toilet Users:0 Project Type:commercial Step 2: Identify the planned total of all impervious areas on the proposed Project from which runoff might be feasibly captured and stored for toilet use. Depending on the configuration of buildings and other impervious areas on the site,you may consider the Project site as a whole, or parts of the site, to evaluate reasonable scenarios for capturing and storing runoff and directing the stored runoff to the potential use(s) identified in Step 1 above. Total Area of Impervious Surfaces:N/A Step 3: Enter the Design Storm depth for the project site(see Exhibit A)into the left column of Table 2- 3 in Chapter 2 to determine the minimum number or toilet users per tributary impervious acre (TUTIA). • Enter your TUTIA factor:N/A Step 4: Multiply the unit value obtained from Step 3 by the total of impervious areas from Step 2 to develop the minimum number of toilet users that would be required. ' Minimum number of toilet users:N/A Step S: Determine if harvesting stormwater runoff for toilet flushing use is feasible for the Project by comparing the Number of Daily Toilet Users(Step 1)to the minimum required number of toilet users(Step 4). Minimum required Toilet Users(Step 4) I Projected number of toilet users(Step 1) N/A N/A Other Non-Potable Use Feasibility Are there other non-potable uses for stormwater runoff on the site(e.g. industrial use)?See Chapter 2 of the Guidance for further information. If yes, describe below. If no,write N/A. N/A Step 1: Identify the projected average daily non-potable demand, in gallons per day; during the Wet Season and accounting for any periodic shut downs or other lapses in occupancy or operation. Average Daily Demand:N/A • - 16- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Step 2: Identify the planned total of all impervious areas on the proposed Project from which runoff might be feasibly captured and stored for the identified non-potable use. Depending on the configuration of buildings and other impervious areas on the site,you may consider the Project site as a whole,or parts of the site, to evaluate reasonable scenarios for capturing and storing runoff and directing the stored runoff to the potential use(s) identified in Step 1 above. Total Area of Impervious Surfaces:N/A Step 3: Enter the Design Storm Depth for the Project site(see Exhibit A)into the left column of Table 2- 5 in Chapter 2 to determine the minimum demand for non-potable uses of stormwater runoff per tributary impervious acre. Enter the factor from Table 2-3:N/A Step 4: Multiply the unit value obtained from Step 4 by the total of impervious areas from Step 3 to develop the minimum gpd of non-potable use that would be required. Minimum required use:N/A Step 5: Determine if harvesting stormwater runoff for other non-potable use is feasible_for the Project by comparing the Number of Daily Toilet Users (Step 1) to the minimum required number of toilet users(Step 4). Minimum required non-potable use(Step 4) Projected average daily use(Step 1) N/A N/A If Irrigation, Toilet and Other Use feasibility anticipated demands are less than the applicable minimum values, Harvest and Use BMPs are not required and you should proceed to utilize LID Bioretention and Biotreatment BMPs, unless a site-specific analysis has been completed that demonstrates technical infeasibility as noted in D.3'below. D.3 Bioretention and Biotreatment Assessment Other LID Bioretention and Biotreatment BMPs as described in Chapter 2.3 of the WQMP Guidance Document are feasible on nearly all development sites with sufficient advance planning. Select one of the following: 0 LID Bioretention/Biotreatment BMPs will be used for some or all DMAs of the Project as noted below in Section DA ❑ A site-specific analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of all LID BMPs has been performed and is included in Appendix 5. If you plan to submit an analysis demonstrating the technical infeasibility of LID BMPs, request a pre-submittal meeting with the Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site to discuss this option. Proceed to Section E to document your alternative compliance measures. - 17- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • DA Other Limiting Geotechnical Conditions Onsite retention may not be feasible due to specific geotechnical concerns identified in the Geotechnical Report. If any,describe,below. If no,write N/A: Table D.2 Geotechnical Concerns for Onsite Retention Table Type of Geotechnical Concern DMAs Feasible(By Name or ID) DMAs Infeasible(By Name or ID Collapsible Soil N/A N/A Expansive Soil N/A N/A Slopes N/A N/A Liquefaction N/A N/A Other: Low infiltration Rates A, B D.5 Feasibility Assessment Summaries From the Infiltration,Harvest and Use,Bioretention and Biotreatment Sections above,complete Table D.3 below to summarize which LID BMPs are technically feasible, and which are not, based upon the established hierarchy. Table D.3 LID Prioritization Summary Matrix LID BM P Hierarchy No LID DMA (Alternative Name/ID 1. Infiltration 2. Harvest and use 3. Bioretention 1 4. Biotreatment Compliance) • A B For those DMAs where LID BMPs are not feasible, provide a brief narrative below summarizing why they are not feasible, include your technical infeasibility criteria in Appendix 5,and proceed to Section E below to document Alternative Compliance measures for those DMAs. Recall that each proposed DMA must pass through the LID BMP hierarchy before alternative compliance measures may be considered. The site is located on soils that are not conducive to infiltration (see site specific drainage study in Appendix 3). Harvest and use is infeasible due to lack of available uses onsite. DMA A consists of areas where pavement and parking islands will be removed and replaced. DMA A will be directed to a Flow Through Planter(Basin 1)with a subdrain.See WQMP Site Map in Appendix 1. DMA B consists of areas where pavement and parking islands will be removed and replaced. DMA B will be directed to a Flow Through Planter(Basin 2)with a subdrain before ultimately discharging to the private storm drain system. See WQMP Site Map in Appendix 1. DMAs C and D are landscape areas that will be self-retaining. No Impervious surface runoff flow into these areas. • - 18- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • DMA E consists of adding a proposed slab covered by a proposed canopy(extension of the existing canopy and slab (DMA E-1)). The roof drains of the proposed canopy are required to tie in 4 feet below grade, which makes it impossible to daylight the drains into the adjacent detention biofiltration basins.This area is going from pavement (high pollutant loading) to roof (low pollutant loading), which will result in a reduction of pollutants.Therefore,the flows from this area are negligible and infeasible to treat. DMA E-1 consists of removing and replacing the existing slab beneath and the existing canopy to remain. This area is not considered for stormwater treatment. DMA E-1 is covered by an existing canopy therefore the replacement of the existing slab will not replace the existing surface in contact with stormwater and does not require treatment. DMA E-2 consists of pavement replacement but this area is not considered for stormwater treatment. This area is not covered by a canopy, but the impervious area is a small area, so it will be de minus and infeasible to treat. DMA F consists of removing and replacing the concrete slab to replace a pipe but is not considered for stormwater treatment. DMA F is not adding any additional impervious surface and the drainage pattern will remain the same. A portion of the parking area south of DMA B is being disturbed but the area of disturbance is negligible, and the use of a BMP is infeasible. D.6 LID BMP Sizing Each LID BMP must be designed to ensure that the DCV will be addressed by the selected BMPs. First, calculate the DCV for each LID BMP using the Vamp worksheet in Appendix F of the LID BMP Design Handbook. Second, design the LID BMP to meet the required Vamp using a method approved by the Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site. Utilize the worksheets found in the LID BMP Design Handbook or consult with the Copermittee to assist you in correctly sizing your LID BMPs.Complete Table D.4 below to document the DCV and the Proposed Volume for each LID BMP. Provide the completed design procedure sheets for each LID BMP in Appendix 6.You may add additional rows to the table below as needed. Table DA DCV Calculations for LID BMPs Post- DMA Project Effective DMA Areas x DMA DMA Surface Impervious Runoff Runoff Flow Through Planter Type/ID (ac) Type Fraction,If Factor Factor [A) [8) [C) [A)x [Cl A 0.15 Mixed 0.89 0.72 0.11 B 0.09 Mixed 0.81 0.61 1 0.05 Proposed Design Volume Storm on Plans - Depth DCV,Vamp (cubic • (in) (cubic Jeer) feet) - 19- Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • E=(D) _ [D]x[EJ AT E(A] =.16 ac (E]=0.9 IF. 12 [G)=877 —0.24 =6,970 sf (F]=523 [B],(C)is obtained as described in Section 2.5 of the WQMP Guidance Document (El is obtained from Exhibit A in the WQMP Guidance Document (G)is obtained from a design procedure sheet,such as in LID BMP Design Handbook and placed in Appendix 6 Each LID BMP must be designed to ensure that the Design Capture Volume(DCV)will be addressed by the selected BMPs. First,calculate the Design Capture Volume for each LID BMP using the 'VBrav worksheet in Appendix F of the LID BMP Design Handbook.Second,design the LID BMP to meet the required VBMr using a method approved by the Copermittee. Utilize the worksheets found in the LID BMP Design Handbook or consult with your Copermittee.Complete Table D.5 below to document the Design Capture Volume and the Proposed Volume for each LID BMP. You can add rows to the table as needed.Alternatively,the Santa Margarita Hydrology Model(SMRHM)can be used to size LID BMPs to address the DCV and, if applicable,to.size Hydrologic Control BMPs to meet the Hydrologic Performance Standard of the SMR HMP, as identified in Section E. Table D.5 LID BMP Sizing BMP Name/ DMA No. BMP Type/Description Design Capture Proposed Volume ID Volume(ft3) (ft3) Basin 1 A Flow Through Planter 348 588 • Basin 2 B Flow Through Planter 180 289 Section E: Implement Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs If a completed Table A.2 demonstrates that the project is exempt from HMP Performance Standards, specify N/A and proceed to Section F, if applicable, and Section G. E.1 Onsite Feasibility of Hydrologic Control BMPs An assessment of the feasibility of implementing onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs is required for all projects. Select one of the following: ❑ Yes—The implementation of Hydrologic Control BMPs is feasible onsite.(Proceed to Step E.3 and Step EA) - Or - ❑ No—The project site is larger than one acre and the implementation of Hydrologic Control BMPs • is not feasible onsite.(Proceed to Step E.5 and Step F forAlternative Compliance upon approval of the Technical Feasibility Assessment by the Copermittee) - 20- Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • ❑ No—The project site is smaller than one acre and the implementation of Hydrologic Control BMPs is not feasible onsite. (Proceed to Step E.2) If the reasons for infeasibility are different from those listed in Section D.1,describe the technical or spatial reasons that preclude the implementation of onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs. If none,write N/A: N/A Approval of the condition for infeasibility, if any, is required by the Copermittee. Has the condition for infeasibility been approved by the Copermittee? ❑Y ❑ N ❑ N/A E.2 Meeting the HMP Performance Standard for Small Project Sites Select one of the following: ❑ Yes—The project site is equal to or larger than one acre. (Proceed to Step E.3, Step E.4, and Step E.5) • - Or - ❑ No—The project site is less than one acre. (Follow the remainder of Step E.2) Only a Simplified Technical Feasibility Study is.required from the applicant. Complete the Simplified Technical Feasibility Study in Appendix 7, which must include, at a minimum, the soil conditions at the PDP,a demonstration of the lack of available space for onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs, an explanation of prohibitive costs to implement Hydrologic Control BMPs, and a written opinion from a Registered Geotechnical Engineer identifying the infeasibility due to geotechnical concerns. Select one of the following: ❑ Yes—Onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs are feasible.(Proceed to Step E.,Step E.4, and Step E.5) Or - ❑ No — Onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs are not feasible per the Simplified Technical Feasibility Study. (Proceed to Section E.5 for Sediment Supply Performance Standard and Section F for Alternative Compliance) E.3 Hydrologic Control BMP Selection Capture of the DCV and achievement of the Hydrologic Performance Standard may be met by combined • and/or separate structural BMPs.Similarly,compliance with the two identified requirements may be fully or partially achieved onsite. -21- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • For each DMA, identify in Table EA if the DCV is fully or partially captured onsite, if the Hydrologic Performance Standard is fully or partially met onsite (by using the SMRHM identified in Step EA), and if structural BMPs for compliance with the LID requirement and the Hydrologic Performance Standard are combined. Table EA LID&Hydromodification BMP Location DMA LID BMP Hydrologic Control Combined BMP BMP BMP type and ID ❑Onsite ❑Onsite ❑Partially ❑Partially Onsite ❑Yes Identify the ID and type of Hydrologic Control BMP Onsite❑ to mitigate Ist DMA Offsite No ❑ None ❑ NonOffse Required ❑ None Required Lj Onsite Lj Onsite ❑Partially ❑ Partially Onsite Onsite ❑Yes Identify the ID and type of Hydrologic Control BMP • ❑Offsite ❑Offsite ❑ No to mitigate 2nd DMA ❑ None ❑ None Required Required Onsite ❑Onsi ❑ Partially Onsite Partially Onsite ❑Yes Identify the ID and type of Hydrologic Control BMP ❑Offsite . ❑Offsite ❑ No to mitigate 3rd DMA ❑None Required ❑ None Required For each DMA provide a narrative describing if the DCV and the Hydrologic Performance Standard are to be fully managed onsite. If not, the narrative should detail how and where offsite structural BMPs will achieve management of the DCV and the Hydrologic Performance Standard. EA Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing Each Hydrologic Control BMP must be designed to ensure that the flow duration curve of the post- development DMA will not exceed that of the pre-existing, naturally occurring, DMA by more than ten percent over a one-year period. Using SMRHM, the applicant shall demonstrate that the performance of each designed Hydrologic Control BMP complies with the Hydrologic Performance Standard. Complete Table E.2 below and identify, for each DMA, the type of Hydrologic Control BMP, if the SMRHM model confirmed the management (Identified as "passed" in SMRHM), the total volume capacity of the Hydrologic Control BMP, the Hydrologic Control BMP footprint at top floor elevation, and the drawdown time of the Hydrologic Control BMP. SMRHM summary reports should be documented in Appendix 7. Refer to the SMRHM Guidance Document for additional information on SMRHM.You can add rows to the table as needed. • -22- Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Table E.2 Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing BMP DMA BMP Type/Description SMRHM BMP Volume BMP Drawdown Name/ID No. Passed (ac-ft) Footprint(ac) time(hr) E.5 Implement Sediment Supply BMPs The applicant may refer to Section 2.3 of the SMR HMP for a comprehensive description of the methodology to meet the Sediment Supply Performance Standard. Complete the following steps to determine compliance with the Sediment Supply Performance Standard: Step 1: Identify if the site is a Significant Source of Bed Sediment Supply to the receiving channel ❑ Step 1:A—Is the Bed Sediment of onsite streams similar to that of receiving streams? Rate the similarity: ❑ High ❑ Medium • ❑ Low Results from the geotechnical and sieve analysis to be performed both onsite and in the receiving channel should be.documented in Appendix 7.Of particular interest,the results of the sieve analysis,the soil erodibility factor,a description of the topographic relief of the project area, and the lithology of onsite soils should be reported in Appendix 7. ❑ Step 1.8—Are onsite streams capable of delivering Bed Sediment Supply from the site, if any, to the receiving channel? Rate the potential: ❑ High ❑ Medium ❑ Low Results from the analyses of the sediment delivery potential to the receiving channel should be documented in Appendix 7 and identify,at a minimum,the Sediment Source,the distance to the receiving channel, the onsite channel density, the project watershed area, the slope, length, land use, and rainfall intensity. ❑ Step S.0—Will the receiving channel adversely respond to a change in Bed Sediment Load? • Rate the need for bed sediment supply: - 23 - Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • ❑ High ❑ Medium ❑ Low Results from the in-stream analysis to be performed both.onsite should be documented in Appendix 7. The analysis should, at a minimum, quantify the bank stability and the degree of incision, provide a gradation of the Bed Sediment within the receiving channel,and identify if the channel is sediment supply- limited. ❑ Step 1.D—Summary of Step 1 Summarize in Table E.3 the findings of Step 1 and associate a score(in parenthesis)to each step.The sum of the three individual scores determines if a stream is a significant contributor to the receiving stream. • Sum is equal to or greater than eight-Site is a significant source of sediment bed material —all on-site streams must be preserved or by-passed within the site plan. The applicant shall proceed to Step 2 for all onsite streams. • Sum is greater than five but lower than eight. Site is a source of sediment bed material— some of the on-site streams must be preserved (with identified streams noted). The applicant shall proceed to Step 2 for the identified streams only. • Sum is equal to or lower than five.Site is not a significant source of sediment bed material. • The applicant may advance to Section F. Table E.3 Triad Assessment Summary Step Rating Total Score 1.A ❑ High(3) ❑ Medium(2) ❑ Low(1) 1.13 ❑ High (3) ❑ Medium (2) ❑ Low(1) 1.0 ❑ Hi (3) ❑ Medium (2) ❑ Low(1) Significant Source Rating of Bed Sediment to the receiving channel(s) Step 2: Preservation of Identified Onsite Channels Onsite streams identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment should be avoided in the site design. Check one of the following: ❑ The site design does avoid all onsite channels identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment(The applicant may disregard subsequent steps of Section E.5 and directly advance directly to Section F.) - Or - El The site design does NOT avoid all onsite channels identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment (The applicant may proceed with the subsequent steps of Section E.5). r - 24- . Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Provide in Appendix 7 a site map that identifies all onsite channels and highlights those onsite channels that were identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. The site map shall demonstrate, if feasible, that the site design avoids those onsite channels identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. In addition, the applicant shall describe the characteristics of each onsite channel identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment. If the design plan cannot avoid the onsite channels, please provide a rationale for each channel individually. Step 3:By-Pass of Upstream Drainage(s)to Preserve the discharge of Bed Sediment Supply to the receiving channel(s) Onsite channels identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment Supply should be by-passed the discharge of Bed Sediment Supply to the receiving channel(s). Check one of the following: ❑ The site design.does avoid and/or bypass all onsite channels,identified as a source of Bed Sediment Supply(The applicant may directly advance to Section F.) Or - ❑The site design does NOT avoid or by-pass all onsite channels identified as a source of Bed Sediment Supply(The applicant may proceed to an Alternative Approach, as defined in Section F). • Provide in Appendix 7 a site map that identifies all onsite channels and highlights those onsite channels that were identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment Supply. The site map shall demonstrate, if feasible,that the site design avoids or by-passes those onsite channels of significant Bed Sediment Supply to the receiving channel(s). In addition, the applicant shall describe the characteristics of each onsite channel identified as a Significant Source of Bed Sediment Supply. If the design plan cannot avoid or by- pass the onsitechannels, please provide a rationale for each channel individually. • - 25 - Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Section F: Alternative Compliance LID BMPs and Hydrologic Control BMPs are expected to be feasible on virtually all projects.Where LID BMPs and/or Hydrologic Control BMPs have been demonstrated to be infeasible as documented in Section D and/or Section E,respectively,other Treatment Control BMPs or alternative compliance approaches must be used(subject LID waiver and/or HMP alternative compliance approval by the Copermittee). In addition, if supporting documentation demonstrates the infeasibility to implement Sediment Supply BMPs onsite(See Section E.5),the applicant may refer to Section F.S. Check one of the following boxes: 0 LID Principles, LID BMPs, Hydrologic Control BMPs,and Sediment Supply BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all Drainage Management Areas. No alternative compliance measures are required for this project and thus this Section is not required to be completed. Or - ❑ LID Principles and LID BMPs have NOT been incorporated into the site design to fully address the LID requirements for all Drainage Management Areas AND HMP Performance Standards are not fully addressed in the following Drainage Management Areas. • o The following Drainage Management Areas are unable to be addressed using LID BMPs. A site specific analysis demonstrating technical.infeasibiIity of LID BMPs has been approved by the Copermittee and included in Appendix 5.The following alternative compliance measures on the following pages are being implemented to ensure that any pollutant loads expected to be discharged by not incorporating LID BMPs, are fully mitigated.The applicant should complete Section F.1, Section F.2, and Section F.3, as applicable. o A site specific analysis demonstrating technical infeasibility of Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs has been approved by the Copermittee and included in Appendix 7. Projects less than one acre have completed the Simplified Technical Feasibility Study.The applicant should complete Section F.5 and/or Section F.6, as applicable. Or - ❑ LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address the DCV for all Drainage Management Areas. However, HMP Performance Standards are not fully addressed in the following Drainage Management Areas.A site specific analysis demonstrating technical infeasibility of Hydrologic Control BMPs and Sediment Supply BMPs has been • approved by the Copermittee and included in Appendix 7. Projects less than one acre have - 26- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • completed the Simplified Technical Feasibility.The applicant should complete Section F.5 and/or Section F.6, as applicable. • - 27- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • F.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern Utilizing Table A.1 from Section A above which noted your project's Receiving Waters and their associated USEPA approved 303(d) listed impairments, cross reference this information with that of your selected Priority Development Project Category in Table F.1 below. If the identified General Pollutant Categories are the same as those listed for your Receiving Waters,then these will be your Pollutants of Concern and the appropriate box or boxes will be checked on the last row. The purpose of this is to document compliance and to help you appropriately plan for mitigating your Pollutants of Concern in lieu of implementing LID BMPs. Table FA Potential Pollutants by Land Use Type Priority Development General Pollutant Categories Project Categories and/or Toxic Project Features (check those Be;rlal Metals Nutrients Pesticides Organic Sediments Trash 8 011 8 that apply) Indicator Compounds Debris Grease Detached Residential Development P N P P N P P P Attached.Residential P N P P N P P PI2I Development ® Commercial/Industrial Pl3l P Pill Pro Pis) Pill P P Development Automotive Repair N - P -N N PI'.sl N P P • Shops Restaurants (>5,000 it') P N N N N N P P 0 Hillside Development P N P P N P P P (>5,000 ft2) ® Parking Lots P(s) P Pill PI+I Pr"I P(4 P P (>5,000It ) ® Retail Gasoline Outlets N P N N P N P P Project Priority Pollufangs) of Concern P=Potential N=Not Potential r'I A potential Pollutant if non-native landscaping exists or is proposed onsite;otherwise not expected m A potential Pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas;otherwise not expected nt A potential Pollutant is land use involving animal waste. r'I Specifically petroleum hydrocarbons (°)Specifically solvents t"I Bacterial indicators are routinely detected in pavement runoff • - 28- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • F.2 Stormwater Credits Projects that cannot implement LID BMPs but nevertheless implement Smart Growth Principles are potentially eligible for Stormwater Credits. Utilize Table 3-7 within the WQMP Guidance Document to identify your Project Category and its associated Water Quality Credit. If not applicable,write N/A. Table F.2 Stormwater Credits Qualifying Project Categories Credit Percentage' N/A N/A Total Credit Percentage' 'Cannot Exceed SO% 'Obtain corresponding dotafrom Table 3-7in the WOMP Guidance Document F.3 Sizing Criteria After you appropriately considered Stormwater Credits for your Project, utilize Table F.3 below to appropriately size them to the DCV,or Design Flow Rate,as applicable. Please reference Chapter 3.5.5 of the WQMP Guidance Document for further information. • Table F.3 Treatment Control BMP Sizing Post- DMA Project Effective DMA DMA x DMA (square Surface Impervious Runoff Runoff Enter BMP Name/Identifier Here _ Type/ID feet) Type Fraction,It Factor Factor - [A] [B] [C] ]A]x [C] Proposed Volume Total Storm or Flow [Design Minimum DCV Water on Plans m or Design Flow Credit % (cubicth Rate (cubic Reduction feet or feet or cfs) cfs) AT iED [E] IF] = ID1xIE] IF] %(1-IH]) U] f(A] [G] (B),ICI is obtained as described In Section 2.5 from the WQMP Guidance Document (E)is obtained from Exhibit A in the WQMP Guidance Document (GI Is for Flow-Based Treatment Control BMPs IGI=43,560,for Volume-Based Control Treatment BMPs,(GI=12 (HI Is from the Total Stormwater Credit Percentage as Calculated from Table E.2 above (I)as obtained from a design procedure sheet from the BMP manufacturer and should be included In Appendix 6 • - 29- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • F.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection Treatment Control BMPs typically provide proprietary treatment mechanisms to treat potential Pollutants in runoff,but do not sustain significant biological processes.Treatment Control BMPs must have a removal efficiency of a medium or high effectiveness as quantified below: • High: equal to or greater than 80%removal,efficiency • Medium: between 40%and 80%removal efficiency Such removal efficiency documentation (e.g., studies, reports, etc.) as further discussed in Chapter 3.5.2 of the WQMP Guidance Document, must be included in Appendix 6. In addition, ensure that proposed Treatment Control BMPs are properly identified on the WQMP Site Plan in Appendix 1. Table F.4 Treatment Control BMP Selection Selected Treatment Control BMP Priority Pollutant(s)of Removal Efficiency Name or ID' Concern to Mitigate' Percentage' Flow Through Planter Nutrients High/Medium Heavy Metals High Organic Compounds High Pesticides Medium Bacteria High • 2 Treatment ControlBMPs must not be constructed within Receiving Waters.In addition,a proposed Treatment Control BMPmoybe listed more than once if they possess more than one qualifying pollutant removal efficiency. 'Cross Reference.Table E.1 above to populate this column. 'As documented in a Copermiffee Approved Study and provided in Appendix 6. F.5 Hydrologic Performance Standard — Alternative Compliance Approach Alternative compliance options are only available if the governing Copermittee has acknowledged the infeasibility of onsite Hydrologic Control BMPs and approved an alternative compliance approach. Attach to Appendix 7 the Technical Feasibility Study(Projects equal or greater than one acre)or Simplified Technical Feasibility Study(Projects less than one acre)along with a written approval from the Copermittee.The applicant may refer to Section 2.2.iv of the SMR HMP for extensive guidelines on the alternative compliance approach. Select the pursued alternative and describe the specifics of the alternative: ❑ Offsite Hydrologic Control Management within the same channel system N/A ❑ In-Stream Restoration Project N/A • -30- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • For Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Option Each Hydrologic Control BMP must be designed to ensure that the flow duration curve of the post- development DMA will not exceed that of the pre-existing, naturally occurring, DMA by more than ten percent over a one-year period. Using SMRHM, the applicant shall demonstrate that the performance of each designed Hydrologic Control BMP is equivalent with the Hydrologic Performance Standard for onsite conditions. Complete Table F.4 below and identify,for each Hydrologic Control BMP, the equivalent DMA the Hydrologic Control BMP mitigates,that the SMRHM model passed,the total volume capacity of the BMP,the BMP footprint at top floor elevation, and the drawdown time of the BMP. SMRHM summary reports for the alternative approach should be documented in Appendix 7. Refer to the SMRHM Guidance Document for additional information on SMRHM.You can add rows to the table as needed. Table F.S Offsite Hydrologic Control BMP Sizing BMP Name/Type Equivalent SMRHM BMPVolume BMP Drawdown DMA(ac) Passed ac-ft) Footprint(ac) time(hr) N/A For Instream Restoration Option • Attach to Appendix 7 the technical report detailing the condition of the receiving channel subject to the proposed hydrologic and sediment regimes. Provide the full design plans for the in-stream restoration project that have been approved by the Copermittee. F.6 Sediment Supply performance Standard - Alternative Compliance The alternative compliance option to the Sediment Supply Performance Standard is only available if the. governing Copermittee has approved the investigation of alternative Bed Sediment Supply options. Attach to Appendix 7 the Technical Feasibility Study,along with the modeling analysis,the long-term monitoring program,and the potential corrective actions,that demonstrate the performance of the overall alternative compliance program.The applicant may refer to Section 2.3.ii of the SMR HMP for extensive guidelines on the alternative compliance approach. Provide a narrative describing the alternative Bed Sediment Supply approach, including the long-term monitoring program and the findings of the numerical modeling. N/A • -31 - Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Section G: Source Control BMPs Source Control BMPs include permanent, structural features that may be required in your Project plans —such as roofs over and berms around trash and recycling areas—and Operational BMPs,such as regular sweeping and "housekeeping';that must be implemented by the site's occupant or user.The Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) standard typically requires both types of BMPs. In general, Operational 8MPs cannot be substituted for a feasible and effective structural BMP. Using the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist in Appendix 8, review the following procedure to specify Source Control BMPs for your site: 1. Identify Pollutant Sources:Review Column 1 in the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist.Check off the potential sources of Pollutants that apply to your site. 2. Note Locations on Project-Specific WQMP Exhibit: Note the corresponding requirements listed in Column 2 of the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist. Show the location of each Pollutant source and each permanent Source Control BMP in your Project-Specific WQMP Exhibit located in Appendix 1. 3. Prepare a Table and Narrative: Check off the corresponding requirements listed in Column 3 in the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist. In.the left column of Table GA below, list each potential source of Pollutants on your site(from those that you checked in the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist). In the middle column, list the corresponding permanent, Structural Source Control BMPs • (from Columns 2 and 3 of the Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist) used to prevent Pollutants from entering runoff. Add additional narrative in this column that explains any special features, materials or methods of construction that will be used to implement these permanent, Structural Source Control BMPs. 4. Identify Operational Source Control BMPs:To complete your table, refer once again to the.Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist. List in the right column of your table the Operational BMPs that should be implemented as long as the anticipated activities continue at the site. Copermittee stormwater ordinances require that applicable Source Control BMPs be implemented;the same BMPs may also be required as a condition of a use permit or other revocable Discretionary Approval for use of the site. Table GA Structural and Operational Source Control BMP Potential Operational Source Control BMPs Sources of Runoff Pollutants Structural Source Control BMPs Parking Lots Landscape and Irrigation System Design Activity Restrictions >5,000 sf Properly Design : Irrigation System and Landscape Maintenance Air/Water Supply Drainage Common Area Litter Control Outdoor Material Storage Area Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Outdoor Work& Processing Area Lots Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance -32- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Section H: Construction Plan Checklist Populate Table HA below to assist the plan checker in an expeditious review of your project.The first two columns will contain information that was prepared in previous steps, while the last column will be populated with the corresponding plan sheets. This table is to be completed with the submittal of your final Project-Specific WQMP. Table HA Construction Plan Cross-reference BMP No.or ID BMP Identifier and Description Corresponding Plan Sheet(s) Basin 1 Flow Through Planter C-4 Basin 2 Flow Through Planter C-4 Note that the updated table—or Construction Plan WQMP Checklist— is only a reference tool to facilitate an easy comparison of the construction plans to your Project-Specific WQMP. The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site can advise you regarding the process required to propose changes to the • approved Project-Specific WQMP. • - 33- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Section I: Operation, Maintenance and Funding The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site will periodically verify that BMPs on your Project are maintained and continue to operate as designed.To make this possible,the Copermittee will require that you include in Appendix 9 of this Project-Specific WQMP: 1. A means to finance and implement maintenance of BMPs in perpetuity, including replacement cost. 2. Acceptance of responsibility for maintenance from the time the BMPs are constructed until responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred.A warranty covering a period following construction may also be required. 3. An outline of general maintenance requirements for the Stormwater BMPs you have selected. 4. Figures delineating and designating pervious and impervious areas, location, and type of Stormwater BMP, and tables of pervious and impervious areas served by each facility. Geo- locating the BMPs using a coordinate system of latitude and longitude is recommended to help facilitate a future statewide database system. S. A separate list and location of self-retaining areas or areas addressed by LID Principles that do not require specialized.Operations and Maintenance or inspections but will require typical landscape maintenance as noted in Chapter 5; in the WQMP Guidance. Include a brief description of typical landscape maintenance for these areas. • The Copermittee with jurisdiction over the Project site will also require that you prepare and submit a detailed BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan that sets forth a maintenance schedule for each of the BMPs built on your site. An agreement assigning responsibility for maintenance and providing for inspections and,certification may also be required. Details-of these requirements and instructions for preparing a BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan are in Chapter 5 of the WQMP Guidance Document. Maintenance Mechanism: Costco Wholesale, Inc. will be responsible for maintenance of all proposed BMPs per Operations and Maintenance-outlined in Appendix 9. Will the proposed BMPs be maintained by a Homeowners' Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (PDA)? [-]Y ® N Include your Operation and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Mechanism in Appendix 9. Additionally, include all pertinent forms of educational materials for those personnel that will be maintaining the proposed BMPs within this Project-Specific WQMP in Appendix 10. • -34- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions 2010 SMR MS4 Order No. 119-2010-0016,an NPDES Permit issued by the San Diego Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board. Applicant Public or private entity seeking the discretionary approval of new or replaced improvements from the Copermittee with jurisdiction over the project site.The Applicant has overall responsibility for the implementation and the approval of a Priority Development Project.The WQMP uses consistently the term"user" to refer to the applicant such as developer or project proponent. The WQMP employs also the designation "user" to identify the Registered Professional Civil Engineer responsible for submitting the Project-Specific WQMP,and designing the required BMPs. Best Management Defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as schedules of activities, prohibitions of Practice (BMP) practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, 'operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. In the case of municipal storm water permits, BMPs are typically used in place of numeric effluent limits. • BMP Fact Sheets BMP Fact Sheets are available in the LID BMP Design Handbook. Individual BMP Fact Sheets include sitting considerations, and design and sizing guidelines for seven types of-structural BMPs (infiltration basin, infiltration trench, permeable pavement, harvest-and-use, bioretention, extended detention basin, and sand filter). California Publisher of the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Stormwater Quality Handbooks,available at Association (CASQA) wvvw.cabmphandbooks.com. Conventional A type of BMP that provides treatment of stormwater runoff. Treatment Control Conventional treatment control BMPs, while designed to treat BMP particular Pollutants, typically do not provide the same level of volume reduction as LID BMPs, and commonly require more specialized maintenance than LID BMPs. As such, the 2010 SMR MS4 Permit and this WQMP require the use of LID BMPs wherever feasible, before Conventional Treatment BMPs can be considered or implemented. Copermittees The 2010 SMR MS4 Permit identifies the Cities of Murrieta, Temecula, and Wildomar, the County, and the District, as Co ermittees for the SMR. County The abbreviation refers to the County of Riverside in this document. • -35- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • CEQA California Environmental Quality Act-a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System-an integrated network of 118 automated active weather stations all over California managed by the California Department of Water Resources. CWA Clean Water Act-is the primary federal law governing water pollution. Passed in 1972, the CWA established the goals of eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into water,eliminating additional water pollution by 1985,and ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983. CWA Section 402(p)is the federal statute requiring NPDES permits for discharges from MS4s. CWA Section 303(d) Impaired water in which water quality does not meet applicable Waterbody water quality standards and/or is not expected to meet water quality standards,even after the application of technology based pollution controls required by the CWA.The discharge of urban runoff to these water bodies by the Copermittees is significant because these discharges can cause or contribute to violations of • applicable water quality standards. Design Storm The 2010 SMR MS4 Permit has established the 85th percentile, 24- hour storm event as the "Design Storm".The applicant may refer to Exhibit A to identify the applicable Design Storm Depth (D85) to the project. DCV Design Capture Volume (DCV) is the volume of runoff produced from the Design Storm to be mitigated through LID Retention BMPs,Other LID BMPs and Volume Based Conventional Treatment BMPs, as appropriate. Design Flow Rate The design flow rate represents the minimum Flow rate capacity that Flow-based conventional treatment control BMPs should treat to the MEP,when considered. DCIA Directly Connected Impervious Areas- those impervious areas that are hydraulically connected to the MS4 (i.e. street curbs,catch basins,storm drains,etc.) and thence to the structural BMP without flowing over pervious areas. Discretionary A decision in which a Copermittee uses its judgment in deciding Approval whether and how to carry out or approve a project. District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. DMA A Drainage Management Area-a delineated portion of a project site that is hydraulically connected to a common structural BMP or conveyance point. The Applicant may refer to Section 3.3 for • further guidelines on how to delineate DMAs. -36- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Drawdown Time Refers to the amount of time the design volume takes to pass through the BMP.The specified or incorporated drawdown times are to ensure that adequate contact or detention time has occurred for treatment, while not creating vector or other nuisance issues. It is important to abide by the drawdown time requirements stated in the fact sheet for each specific BMP. Effective Area Area which 1) is suitable for a BMP(for example, if infiltration is potentially feasible for the site based on infeasibility criteria, infiltration must be allowed over this area) and 2) receives runoff from impervious areas. ESA An Environmental Sensitive Area(ESA) designates an area "in which plants or animals life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which would be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments". (Reference:California Public Resources Code§30107.5). ET Evapotranspiration(Er) is the loss of water to the atmosphere by the combined processes of evaporation (from soil and plant surfaces)and transpiration (from plant tissues). It is also an indicator of how much water crops, lawn,garden,and trees need for healthy growth and productivity FAR The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the total square feet of a building • divided by the total square feet of the lot the building is located on. Flow-Based BMP Flow-based BMPs are conventional treatment control BMPs that are sized to treat the design Flow rate. Fppp Facility Pollution Prevention Plan HCOC Hydrologic Condition of Concern - Exists when the alteration of a site's hydrologic regime caused by development would cause significant impacts on downstream channels and aquatic habitats, alone or in conjunction with impacts of other projects. HMP Hydromodification Management Plan-Plan defining Performance Standards for PDPs to manage increases in runoff discharge rates and durations. Hydrologic Control BMP to mitigate the increases in runoff discharge rates and BMp durations and meet the Performance Standards set forth in the HMP. HSG Hydrologic Soil Groups - soil classification to indicate the minimum rate of infiltration obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting. The HSGs are A (very low runoff potential/high infiltration rate), B, C, and D (high runoff potential/very low infiltration rate • -37- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Hydromodiflcation The 2010 SMR MS4 Permit identifies that increased volume, velocity, frequency and discharge duration of storm water runoff from developed areas has the potential to greatly accelerate downstream erosion, impair stream habitat in natural drainages, and negatively impact beneficial uses. JRMP A separate Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan URMP) has been developed by each Copermittee and identifies the local programs and activities that the Copermittee is implementing to meet the 2010 SMR MS4 Permit requirements. LID Low Impact Development(LID)is a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the pre-development hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques. LID site design BMPs help preserve and restore the natural hydrologic cycle of the site, allowing for filtration and infiltration which can greatly reduce the volume,peak flow rate,velocity,and pollutant loads of storm water runoff. LID BMP .A type of stormwater BMP that is based upon Low Impact Development concepts. LID BMPs not only provide highly effective treatment of stormwater runoff, but also yield potentially significant reductions in runoff volume-helping to mimic the pre- project hydrologic regime, and also require less ongoing maintenance than Treatment Control BMPs. The applicant may • refer to Chapter 2. LID BMP Design The LID BMP Design Handbook was developed by the Handbook Copermittees to provide guidance for the planning, design and maintenance of LID BMPs which may be used.to mitigate the water quality im acts of PDPs within the County. LID Bloretentlon BMP LID Bioretention BMPs are bioretention areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped)shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration, and provide for pollutant removal (e.g., filtration, adsorption, nutrient uptake) by filtering stormwater through the vegetation and soils. In bioretention areas,pore spaces and organic material in the soils help to retain water in the form of soil moisture and to promote the adsorption of pollutants (e.g., dissolved metals and petroleum hydrocarbons)into the soil matrix. Plants use soil moisture and promote the drying of the soil through transpiration. The 2010 SMR MS4 Permit defines "retain" as to keep or hold in a particular place,condition,or position without discharge to surface waters. LID Blotreatment BMPs that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges by intercepting BMP rainfall on vegetative canopy, and through incidental infiltration and/or evapotranspiration,and filtration,and other biological and chemical processes. As stormwater passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded, and • sequestered by the soil and plants, and collected through an underdrain. -38- Water Quality Management Plan CWQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • LID Harvest and BMPs used to facilitate capturing Stormwater Runoff for later use Reuse BMP Without negatively impacting downstream water rights or other Beneficial Uses. LID Infiltration BMP BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing and infiltrating the runoff into in-situ soils or amended onsite soils. Typical LID Infiltration BMPs include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches and pervious pavements. LID Retention BMP BMPs to ensure full onsite retention without runoff of the DCV such as infiltration basins, bioretention, chambers, trenches, ermeable avement and pavers,harvest and reuse. LID Principles Site design concepts that prevent or minimize the causes (or drivers) of post-construction impacts, and help mimic the pre- development hydrologic regime. MEP Maximum Extent Practicable - standard established by the 1987 amendments to the CWA for the reduction of Pollutant discharges from MS4s. Refer to Attachment C of the 2010 SMR MS4 Permit for a complete definition of MEP. MF Multi-family - zoning classification for parcels having 2 or more living residential units. MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, • municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a State, city, town, borough,county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law)having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage,industrial wastes,storm water,or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States; (ii) Designated or used for collecting or conveying storm water; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; (iv) Which is not part of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.26. New Development Defined by the 2010 MS4 permit as 'Priority Development Projects' Project if the project,or a component of the project meets the categories and thresholds described in Section 1.1.1. NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - Federal program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under Sections 307,318,402, and 405 of the CWA. NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service • - 39- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • POP Priority Development Project - Includes New Development and Redevelopment project categories listed in Section F.l.d(2)of Order No. R9-2009-0002. Priority Pollutants of Pollutants expected to be present on the project site and for which Concern a downstream water body is also listed as Impaired under the CWA Section 303 d list or by a TMDL. Project-Specific A plan specifying and documenting permanent LID Principles and WQMp Stormwater BMPs to control post-construction Pollutants and stormwater runoff for the life of the PDP, and the plans for operation and maintenance of those BMPs for the life of the prooect. Receiving Waters Waters of the United States. Redevelopment The creation, addition, and or replacement of impervious surface Project on an already developed site. Examples include the expansion of a building footprint, road widening, the addition to or replacement of a structure„ and creation or addition of impervious surfaces. Replacement.of impervious surfaces includes any activity that is not part of a routine maintenance activity where impervious material(s) are removed, exposing , underlying soil during construction. Redevelopment does not include trenching and resurfacing associated with utility work; resurfacing existing roadways; new sidewalk construction, pedestrian ramps, or bike • lane on existing roads; and routine replacement of damaged pavement,such as pothole repair. Project that meets the criteria described in Section 1. Runoff Fund Runoff Funds have not been established by the Copermittees and " are not available to the Applicant. If established, a Runoff Fund will develop regional mitigation projects where PDPs will be able to buy mitigation credits if it is determined that implementing onsite controls is infeasible. San Diego Regional San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. - The term Board "Regional Board", as defined in Water Code section 13050(b), is intended to refer to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Diego Region as specified in Water Code Section 13200.State agency responsible for managing and regulating water quality in the SMR. SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Site Design BMP Site design BMPs prevent or minimize the causes (or drivers) of post-construction impacts, and help mimic the pre-development hydrologic regime. SF Parcels with a zoning classification for a single residential unit. SMC Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition SMR The Santa Margarita Region (SMR) represents the portion of the Santa Margarita Watershed that is included within the County of • Riverside. -40- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion • Source Control BMP Source Control BMPs land use or site planning practices, or structural or nonstructural measures that aim to prevent runoff pollution by reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution. Source control BMPs minimize the contact between Pollutants and runoff. Stormwater Credit Stormwater Credit can be claimed by an Applicant if certain development practices that provide broad-scale environmental benefits to communities are incorporated into the project design. Refer to Section 3.5.4 for additional information on Stormwater Credits.. Structural BMP Structures designed to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff and mitigate h dromodification impacts. SWppp Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Tentative Tract Map Tentative Tract Maps are required for all subdivision creating five (5) or more parcels, five (5) or more condominiums as defined in Section 783 of the California Civil Code, a community apartment project containing five(5) or more parcels,or for the conversion of a dwelling to a stock cooperative,containing. five (5) or more dwelling units. TMDL Total.Maximum Daily Load - the maximum amount of a Pollutant that can be discharged into a waterbody from all sources(point and non-point) and still maintain Water Quality Standards. Under • CWA Section 303(d), TMDLs must be developed for all waterbodies that do not meet Water Quality Standards after application of technology-based controls. USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Volume-Based BMP Volume-Based BMPs applies to BMPs where the primary mode of pollutant removal depends upon the volumetric capacity such as detention,retention,and infiltrations stems. WQMp Water Quality Management Plan Wet Season The 2010 SMR MS4 Permit defines the wet season from October 1 through April 30. • -41- Water Quality Management Plan'(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 1: Maps and- Site Plans Location Map, WQMP Site Plan and.Receiving Waters Map • • -42 - • VICINITY MAP Lo CO COSTCO WHOLESALE • RECEIVING WATERS MAP COSTCO TEMECULA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS . SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK TO MURRIETA CREEK TO SANTA MARGARITA RIVER TO SANTA MARGARITA LAGOON ✓ ;s ' 1� t is VFrlWd Santa Gertrudis Creek . _ ►r j° t) ' + ` Site = J a ,•y �. \� Murneta Cree � ;: e f uIatA- _ 41 Santa Margarit �r ' of VRI � _ I Santa Margarita y' y °5�r ,., �..' /• River (Upper) 1 1�j,� r�' • t h, Fallbrook .1 / P t anta Margarita u, River Lower Santa Margarita ,, r :emp��, ., /enmeton La oon 41 , t o Aim, Pend eto. �. �/'} y 1. r�!i /•1 Pacific mn ��Hidden,r i f. / ko tN adows i Water Quality.Management Plan(WQMP) , Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 2: Construction Plans Grading and Drainage Plans • -43- Geotechnical Engineering Report COSTCO WHOLESALE STORE FUEL FACILITY ADDITION CW#13-0153 26610 YNEZ ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA August 21, 2013 Terracon Project No. 60135032 Prepared for: Costco Wholesale c/o MulvannyG2 Architecture Irvine, California • Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Irvine, California NationwideOffices Established in 1965 Employee-Owned I • August 21, 2013 Irerracan Costco Wholesale Go MulvannyG2 Architecture 18200 Von Karmen Avenue, suite 910 Irvine, California 92612 Attn: Mr. Terry Odle P: 949.705.0700 E: tem.odle0MulvannvG2.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Costco Wholesale Store Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0163 26610 Ynez Road Temecula, California Terracon Project No.: 60135032 Dear Mr. Odle: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Costco Wholesale Store Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 located at 26610 Ynez Road in • Temecula, California. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal (number P60130159)dated July 3, 2013. This report presents the findings of the subsurface explorations and provides geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning earthwork, foundations, floor slabs, pavements, and the design and construction of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project If you have any questions concerning this report,or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully Submitted, TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC. U r ►455 Fouad Abuhamdan (Fred Hamdan), colt D. Neely, P.E. Senior Project Manager CIVti Principal gYtOFG, Copies: Addressee(I Electronic) • Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2817 McGsw Avenue Irvine,California 92614 P 19491261 0051 F [9491261 6110 terracon.com Geotechnical Engineering Repoli 11��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, Cafrfornia August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY...............................................................................................................I 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...............................................................................................1 2.1 Project Description................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Site Location and Description................................................................................2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................2 3.1 Site Geology..........................................................................................................2 3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions...................................................................................3 3.3 Groundwater..........................................................................................................3 3.4 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions...............................................................4 3.5 Liquefaction...........................................................................................................4 3.6 Geologic Hazards..................................................................................................5 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.......................................6 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations.................................................................................6 4.2 Earthwork..............................................................................................................7 4.2.1 Site Preparation.........................................................................................7 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation................................................................................7 4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement......................................................................8 • 4.2.4 Compaction Recommendations.................................................................8 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage...............................................................................9 4.2.6 Corrosion Potential....................................................................................9 4.2.7 Earthwork Construction Considerations ....................................................9 4.3 Foundations......................................................................................................... 10 4.3.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations ........................................................................ 10 4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations............................................... 12 4.3.3 Support Slabs.......................................................................................... 13 4.4 CBC Seismic Design Criteria............................................................................... 13 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures....................................................................................... 14 4.6 Pavements .......................................................................................................... 14 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS.................................................................................................16 • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Repoli l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California • August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDIX A — FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-4 &A-5 Boring Logs Exhibits A-6 &A-7 CPT Soundings APPENDIX B— LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Description Exhibit B-2 Grain Size Distribution Test Report Exhibit B-3 Swell Consolidation Test Report Exhibit B-4 Chemical Laboratory Tests and Resistivity.Analysis APPENDIX C —SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes • Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification APPENDIX D— LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Exhibit D-1 Liquefaction Analysis-Chart (CPT-1) Exhibit D-2 Liquefaction Analysis Summary (CPT-1) Exhibit D-3 Liquefaction Analysis Chart(CPT-2) Exhibit D-4 Liquefaction Analysis Summary (CPT-2) • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report l�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No.60135032 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical investigation has been completed for the proposed Costco Wholesale fuel facility addition CW313-0153 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. Two (2) borings and two (2) CPT soundings were completed to depths of approximately 16'/2 to 70 feet below the existing ground surface within the footprint of proposed addition area. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for design and construction of the proposed project provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. The geotechnical considerations identified included the following: ■ The near-surface soils encountered throughout the site generally consisted of near surface silty clayey sand underlain by silty sand, poorly graded sand, sandy silt,and sandy lean clay. • The project site is located within a potential liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the California Geologic Survey and the County of Riverside GIS Land Information System. Two liquefaction potential analyses were calculated (CPT-1 & CPT-2)from a depth of 0 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Based on calculation results, total seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 2% and 3% inches. Differential seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 1'/4 and 2'/2 inches. • ■ Due to the anticipated dynamic settlement, the proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts extending to a minimum depth of 35 feet to bypass the zone of the liquefiable soils zone and mitigate the liquefaction potential. ■ If the fueling dispensers and self-contained structures are allowed to experience the anticipated seismic settlements, they may be supported by concrete support slabs with thickened edges bearing on a minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. On-site soils should be suitable for use as engineered fill beneath foundations and support slabs. ■ Assuming a traffic index of 5, the planned pavement sections should consist of a minimum of 3 inches of asphalt concrete or 5 inches of Portland cement concrete over 4 inches of Class II Aggregate Base over 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted native soils. ■ Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction. This geotechnical executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this summary, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled General • Comments should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT COSTCO WHOLESALE STORE FUEL FACILITY ADDITION CW#13-0153 26610 YNEZ ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Terracon Project No. 60135032 August 21, 2013 1.0 INTRODUCTION A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Costco Wholesale store fuel facility addition #CW13-0153 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. Two (2) borings and two (2) CPT soundings were completed to depths of approximately 16'/z to 70 feet below the existing ground "surface within the footprint of proposed addition area. Logs of the borings and CPT soundings along with a Site Location Plan and Exploration Location Plan are included in Appendix A.of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: ■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Earthwork • • Groundwater conditions • Seismic considerations ■ Foundation design and construction ■ Concrete slab design and construction ■ Pavement thickness design The project description, site conditions and our geotechnical conclusions and design recommendations are presented in the text of this report. Supporting data including field exploration procedures, detailed exploration logs, results of laboratory testing are presented as appendices. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description ITEM DESCRIPTION' Proposed Site Layout I Refer to the Boring Location Plan (Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A) Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1 Geotechnical Engineering Repoli l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No.60135032 • ITEM DESCRIPTION' The addition will consist of one additional fuel dispenser island and associated canopy expansion. The dispensers and other self- Proposed Construction contained structures will be supported on concrete slabs with thickened edges. Fueling canopies will be supported on drilled shaft foundations. Maximum Loads Canopy Columns: 5 to 10 kips axial, 10 to 20 kips uplift(assumed) Grading Minimal cut/fill—estimated at less than 1 foot A new pavement will be constructed at the new fueling isle by the Pavements proposed fueling canopy. It is our assumption that a traffic Index of 5 will be suitable for the proposed pavements. 2.2 Site Location and Description ITEM DESCRIPTION Location 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. Existing Improvements An existing Costco Wholesale store with an associated gas fueling facility. The existing Costco Wholesale store and fueling facility are located within an area populated by commerciallretail developments on all Surrounding Developments sides. The subject site is bordered by Ring Road to the north, Overland Drive to the south, Ynez Road to the southwest, and Nicole Lane to the east. Current Ground Cover Concrete and asphalt pavements. Existing Topography Relatively flat. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A description of our field exploration is presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples obtained during our exploration. A description of the laboratory testing is presented in Appendix B. 3.1 Site Geology The site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province in Southern California. Geologic structures within this Province trend mostly northwest, in contrast to the prevailing east-west trend in the neighboring Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province to the north. The Peninsular Range Province extends into lower California, and is bounded by the Colorado Desert to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 Is Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • mountains to the north.1. Z Based on the geologic map of California (Santa Ana Sheet), the proposed project is underlain by Alluvium (Qal) deposits. 3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions Specific conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the individual boring logs and CPT soundings. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the ,approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for the borings and CPT soundings are included in Appendix A of this report. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: Description Approximate Depth to Material Encountered Relative Density Bottom of Stratum Stratum 1 18 feet Silty Clayey Sand Loose to Medium Dense Stratum 2 24 to 26%feet Sandy Lean Clay Medium Stiff Stratum 3 34 to 37 feet Silty Sand Loose Stratum 4 51'/2 to 54 feet Sandy Silt Very Stiff Stratum 5 70 feet' Silty Sand/Clay Very dense/stiff The maximum depth explored • Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B. Sulfate contents in the fill materials were found to be low. Laboratory test results indicate that an undisturbed sample collected at 2'/2 bgs exhibited a negligible collapse potential when saturated. 3.3 Groundwater The borings and CPT soundings were monitored during drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was encountered in the CPT soundings at 53 and 62 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Groundwater conditions should be expected to fluctuate due to changes in season, precipitation patterns, site utilization, on-site or off-site irrigation activities, and other on- and off-site factors. Based.on regional data, the historical highest groundwater level in the project vicinity is at 10 feet bgs.3 1 Harden.D.R.,'California Geology, Second Edition,'Pearson Prentice Hall.2004. • 2 Norris.R.M.and Webb.R.W., 'Geology of California,Second Edition,-John Wiley 8 Sons.Inc., 1990. 3 Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Inglewood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle,Murrieta,California. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CWk1 1 3-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 o Terracon Project No.60135032 • 3.4 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions The site is located in Southern California, which is a seismically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on. the distance to causative faults, the intensity, and,the magnitude of the seismic event. The following table indicates the distance of the fault zones and the associated maximum credible earthquake that can be produced by nearby seismic events, as calculated using the USGS Earthquake Hazard Program 2002 interactive deaggregations. The Elsinore-17 fault, which is located approximately 3 kilometers from the site, is considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. Characteristics and Estimated Earthquakes for Regional Faults Fault Name Approximate Distance Maximum Credible Earthquake to Site(kilometers) (MCE)Magnitude Elsinore-17 2.8 6.8 Elsinore-18 20.9 7.1 San Jacinto- 10 32.9 7.2 San Jacinto- 9 32.9 6.9 • Elsinore-16 22.3 6.8 The site is not located within an Alquist-Prioio Earthquake Fault Zone based on our review of the State Fault Hazard Maps and the County of Riverside GIS Land Information System.4 3.5 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of high pore water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. Liquefaction is typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below groundwater. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) has designated certain areas within southern California as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at a risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the presence of a relatively shallow water table. The project site is located within a potential liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the CGS (1999) and the County of Riverside GIS Land Information System. Materials encountered at the project site generally consisted of sands with variable amounts of silt, silt with variable amounts of sand, and siltyAean clay. Groundwater was encountered in the CPT soundings at the time of • 4 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG), 'Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Prtolo. Earthquake Fault Zones of California,Southern Region',CDMG Compact Disc 2000-003,2000. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CWk13-0153 ■Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • field exploration. Historical high groundwater in the project vicinity is approximately at 10 feet below the ground surface. Liquefaction analysis for the site was performed in general accordance with the DMG Special Publication 117. The liquefaction study utilized the software "LiquefyPro" by CivilTech Software. This analysis was based on the soils data from the CPT soundings. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) was calculated based on the Design Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period (SDS/2.5= 0.48g) in conformance with section 1803.5.12 of the 2010 California Building Code. Calculations utilized historical groundwater depths. Suzuki el al. method was used for CPT calculations. Settlement analysis used the Tokimatsu, M-correction method. Fines were corrected for liquefaction using the Modify Stark/Olsen method. Two liquefaction potential analyses were calculated (CPT-1 & CPT-2) from a depth of 0 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Liquefaction potential analysis is attached to appendix D of this report. The factor of safety for soils extending from the surface to a depth of 50 feet bgs was greater than 1.2 except for multiple zones representing layers of loose granular soils located below the depth of historical groundwater. Based on calculation results, total seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 2% and 3% inches. • Differential seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 1% and 2% inches. 3.6 Geologic Hazards ■ Slope stability -The site is relatively flat and there are no slopes near the site; therefore, it is not necessary to perform a slope stability analysis. ■ Rock fall hazards - The site is relatively flat and there are no slopes near the site; therefore, hazards from rock fall are negligible. ■ Landslide hazards - The site is relatively flat and there are no slopes near the site; therefore, landslide hazards are negligible. ■ Surface fault rupture - The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone nor is it located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website; therefore the possibility of surface fault ruptures is negligible. ■ Fissures - As the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone nor is it located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website there is no expectation of fissures occurring at the site. ■ Liquefaction potential - The site is located within a moderate liquefaction zone as identified by the County of Riverside GIS website. Liquefaction potential is addressed in Section 3.5 above. • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 Geotechnical Engineering Repoli l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • ■ Collapsible and/or expansive soils —the laboratory test results indicate that the materials at shallow depth exhibit a negligible collapse potential and are expected to have low expansion potential when saturated. ■ Subsidence - The site is located within an active subsidence zone as identified on the County of Riverside GIS website. However, based on the distance of the site from sloping topography, subsidence resulting from groundwater removal would most likely result in uniform settlement within the area of the improvements. ■ Wind and water erosion - The site is located within a flat, well developed area and the ground surface is mostly covered with asphalt, concrete, or graded pads; therefore, the possibility of wind and water erosion is considered negligible. ■ Debris flow.- The site is relatively flat, there are no slopes near the site vicinity; therefore, the possibility of debris flow is considered negligible. • Groundshaking potential - The site is not located with an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, nor is it located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website. However,with the active faults in the region, the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking that may result from earthquakes on local to distant sources during the life span of the project. Faulting and ground motion are addressed in Section 3.4 above. ■ Seismic Settlement - Calculation of dynamic dry settlement was performed in accordance • with the DMG Special Publication 117. The study utilized, the software "LiquefyPro" by CivilTech Software and calculated dynamic dry settlement assuming a 'depth to groundwater of 10 feet. Seismic,settlement'is addressed in Section 3.5 above. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. Due to the anticipated dynamic settlement, the proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts extending to a minimum depth of 35 feet to bypass the zone of liquefiable soils and mitigate the liquefaction potential. If the fueling dispensers and self contained structures are allowed to experience the anticipated seismic settlements, they may be supported by concrete support slabs with thickened edges bearing on a minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. On- site soils should be suitable for use as engineered fill beneath foundations and support slabs. • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 Geotechnical Engineering,Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■Temecula, Califomia August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project.are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current,understanding of the proposed project. 4.2 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented are for the design and construction of earth supported elements including foundations and concrete slabs and are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. Earthwork on the,project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Preparation Strip and remove any concrete, asphalt, vegetation, and other deleterious materials within the • area of the proposed construction. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction. All materials derived from the removal of existing vegetation and deleterious materials should be removed from the site and not be allowed for use as on-site fill. Underground facilities such as underground storage tanks and utilities are anticipated onsite; such features could be encountered during construction. If underground facilities or fill materials are encountered, such materials and features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation The proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts. Foundations and slabs supporting self-contained structures should bear on a minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. Exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted per the compaction requirements in Section 4.2.4. • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • 4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than three inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer. The on-site soils are considered suitable for use as engineered fill on the project. Approved imported materials may be used as fill material for the following: ■ general site grading ■ foundation backfill ■ foundation areas ■ trench backfill ■ slab areas Imported soils for use as fill material within the proposed building area should conform to low volume change materials as indicated as follows: Percent Finer by Weight Gradation (ASTM C 1361 3"............................................................................................................ 100 No. 4 Sieve.......................................................................................50-100 No. 200 Sieve...................................................................................20 - 50 • ■ Liquid Limit.........................................................................30 (max) ■ Plasticity Index................................................................... 15 (max) ■ Maximum expansive index'...............................................20 (max) 'ASTM D 4829 Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Fill lifts should not exceed ten inches in loose thickness. 4.2.4 Compaction Recommendations Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as follows: Per the Modified Proctor Test(ASTM D 1557) Material Type and Location Range of Moisture Contents for Minimum Compaction Compaction Above Optimum Requirement(%) Minimum Maximum On-site or approved imported fill materials: Beneath foundations and slabs: 90 1% +4% • Miscellaneous backfill: 90 -1% +40h Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 Geotechnical Engineering Repoli l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 .Terracon Project No.60135032 • Per the Modified Proctor Test(ASTM D 1557) M Range of Moisture Contents for Material Type and Location Minimum Compaction Compaction Above Optimum Requirement(%) Minimum Maximum Utility Trenches(Pavement Areas): 95 -1% +4% Utility Trenches(Landscape Areas): 90 -1% +4% Exposed on-site soils 90 -1% +4% 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the structures. Infiltration of water into utility trenches or foundation excavations should be prevented during construction. Backfill against footings and in utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers should discharge into splash blocks or extensions when the ground surface beneath such features is not protected by exterior slabs or paving. Sprinkler systems should not be installed within 5 feet of foundation walls. Landscaped irrigation adjacent to the foundation system should be minimized or eliminated. • 4.2.6 Corrosion Potential Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that ASTM Type 1/II Portland cement is suitable for all concrete on and_below grade. Foundation concrete may be designed for low sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter4. Laboratory test results indicate the on-site soils have a pH of 9.0, a minimum resistivity of 1261 ohm-centimeters, and a chloride content of 200, ppm, as shown on the attached Chemical Laboratory Test report. These values should be used to determine potential corrosive characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials that will be used for project construction. Refer to the Chemical Laboratory Test report contained in Appendix B for the complete results of the various corrosivity testing conducted on the site soils in conjunction with this geotechnical exploration. 4.2.7 Earthwork Construction Considerations It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration, subgrade soils and fill materials exposed during construction are • anticipated to be relatively workable. However, the workability of the subgrade may be affected Responsive ■ Resourceful • Reliable 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report l�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through May) it may be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water on the site. Once subgrades are established, it may be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils from construction traffic. The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations (including utility trenches) as required to maintain stability of both the excavation .sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; proof-rolling; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of • excavations to the completed subgrade: 4.3 Foundations Due to the anticipated dynamic settlement, the proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts extending to a minimum depth of 35 feet to bypass the zone of the liquefiable soils zone and mitigate the liquefaction potential. Design and construction recommendations for foundations for the proposed fueling canopy and related structural elements are presented. in the following subsections. 4.3.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations The proposed fueling canopy should be supported on straight drilled shafts with minimum diameter of 24 inches, and minimum embedment depth of 35 feet. Recommended soil parameters for lateral load analysis of drilled shaft foundations have been developed for use in the LPILE computer program. Based on our review of the boring logs and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results, engineering properties and axial compression capacities have been estimated for the soils conditions as shown in the following table. • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 Geotechnlcal Engineering Repoli l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • Depth Unit Friction Allowable Allowable Ultimate Down- Coefficlert of Bottom Weight I.Ale Soil Type Angle Or Bearing Skin Friction drag Force Subgrade Reaction IPA) Cohesion (pso (Pso (pef) Ks'(pcQ 0 130 SAND 320 — — 200 90 7 7 113 SAND 290 — — 300 25 10 10 50 Liquefiable 290 — — 435 20 19 SAND 19 Stiff Clay w/free 1,000 — 50watery — — 700 100 25 psf 25 Liquefiable 64 32 — —. 725 20 30 SAND 30 Submerged - 6435 SAND 32 550 — 60 35 24 64 Sill 11.500 4,500 425 — 60 • 50 Psf 1. These values are based on parameters for LPILE analyses. 2. 650=0.010 The design for the proposed drilled shafts should include the axial loads generated by the down- drag forces during liquefaction. The above parameters assume the groundwater level is at the shallowest historical depth of 10 feet bgs. The load capacities provided are based only on the stresses induced in the supporting soils; the structural capacity of the shafts should be checked to assure that they can safely accommodate the combined stresses induced by axial and lateral forces. The response of the drilled shaft foundations to lateral loads is dependent upon the soils/structure interaction as well as the shaft's actual diameter, length, stiffness, and "fixity" (fixed or free-head condition). Lateral load design parameters are valid within the elastic range of the soil. The modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction and equivalent fluid pressure are ultimate values; therefore, an appropriate factor of safety should be applied in the shaft design or deflection limits should be applied to the design. Drilled shafts should be considered to work in group action if the horizontal spacing is less than four shaft diameters. A minimum practical horizontal spacing between shafts of at least 2.5 diameters should be maintained, and adjacent shafts in groups should bear at the same elevation. The axial and lateral capacity of individual shafts might have to be reduced when • considering the effects of group action. Capacity reduction is a function of shaft diameter and Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 Geotechnical Engineering Repoli l�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CWk13-0153 ■Temecula, California August 21, 2013 .Terracon Project No.60135032 • spacing: We should be contacted if drilled shafts. will be designed closer than four shaft diameters so we can provide the appropriate group reduction factors. 4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations All shafts should be reinforced full-depth for the applied axial, lateral and uplift stresses imposed. Special sequencing of drilled shaft construction should be specified when the center to center spacing between adjacent shafts is less than three diameters. A minimum of 24 hours should be allowed between placement of concrete and initiation of drilling in shafts less than three diameters(center to center spacing) apart from each other. Drilling to design depths should be possible with conventional single flight power augers. Temporary casing may be required during shaft excavation to prevent caving in the site soils. Temporary casing should also be used whenever shafts are installed adjacent to existing structures or improvements, to reduce potential ground loss and movement due to drilled shaft excavation. Shaft concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning. If shaft concrete cannot be placed. in dry conditions, a tremie should be used for concrete placement. Shaft concrete should have a relatively high fluidity when placed in cased holes or through a tremie; concrete with slump in the range of 6 to 6 inches is recommended. Temporary casing • should be withdrawn in a slow continuous manner maintaining a sufficient head of concrete inside the casing to counteract earth and any hydrostatic pressures outside the casing. An insufficient head of concrete inside the case can cause "necking" of the shaft, resulting in a reduced shaft capacity. Due to potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated geometric volumes. If downhole inspection or cleanout is required we recommend: • Casing be installed for the full shaft depth; • Shaft diameters be a minimum of 30 inches; • The contractor should check for oxygen deficiency:and harmful gases; • All necessary monitoring and safety precautions as required by OSHA, state, or local codes, should be strictly enforced. We recommend that all drilled shaft installations be observed on a full-time basis by an experienced geotechnical engineer in order to confirm that soils materials encountered are consistent with the recommended design parameters. • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12 Geotechnlcal Engineering Report l�effacon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CWk13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • 4.3.3 Support Slabs DESCRIPTION RECOMENDATION Structures Fuel dispensers and self-contained structures Foundation Type Shallow continuous footings (thickened edges)for the support slabs Bearing Material A minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. Allowable Bearing Pressure 1,500 psf for spread footings Minimum Foundation Width 12 inches Minimum Embedment Depth Below Finished Grade 12 inches Total Estimated Settlement 1 inch; Estimated Differential Settlement % inch over 40 feet. Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within five feet of the foundation for perimeter (or exterior) footings. The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. The weight of the • foundation concrete below grade may be neglected in dead load computations. Foundations should be reinforced as"necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of joints at openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. 4.4 CBC Seismic Design Criteria Description Value 2010 California Building Code Site Classification (CBC) F2,3 Site Latitude 33.5218° Site Longitude -117.15560 S,Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.79g S,Spectral Acceleration for a 1Second Period 0.65g F,Site Coefficient for a Short Period(Class D)' 1.0 F Site Coefficient for a 1 Second Period(Class D)s 1.5 • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • Description I Value 1. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope dos not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. CPT soundings extended to a maximum depth of 70 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that stiff/dense soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. 2. Per CBC Table 1613.5.2.any profile containing soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils. 3. For structures with fundamental periods of vibration less than 0.5 seconds, Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-05 allows the site coefficients (F, and F„) to be determined assuming that liquefaction does not occur(i.e., Site Class D). The structure's fundamental period should be verified by the structural engineer. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures For the native soils above any free water surface, recommended equivalent fluid pressures for foundation elements are: ITEM VALUE' Active Case 40 psf/ft Passive Case 420 psf/ft • At-Rest Case 62 psf/ft Coefficient of Friction 0.452 'Note:The values are based on the on-site soils used as backfill. 'Note: The coefficient of base friction should be reduced to 0.30 when used in conjunction with passive pressure. Lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety and are not applicable for submerged soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if such conditions are to be included in the design. Fill against foundations should be compacted to densities recommended in the Earthwork section of this report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to foundations should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. 4.6 Pavements A design R-Value of 40 was used to calculate the asphalt concrete pavement thickness sections and a modulus of subgrade reaction value (k) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pQ was used in calculating the portland cement concrete pavement sections. R-value testing should be completed prior to pavement construction to verify the design R-value. Assuming the pavement subgrades will be prepared as recommended within this report and a • traffic index of 5, the planned pavement sections should consist of a minimum 3 inches of Responsive ■ Resourceful • Reliable 14 Geotechnlcal Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CWp13-0153 a Temecula, California August 21, 2013 .Terracon Project No.60135032 • asphalt concrete or 5 inches of Portland cement concrete over 4 inches of Class II Aggregate Base over 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted native soils. These pavement sections are considered minimal sections based upon the expected traffic and the existing subgrade conditions. However, they are expected to function with periodic maintenance and overlays if good drainage is provided and maintained. All concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum flexural strength of 600 psi, and be placed with a maximum slump of four inches. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Materials and construction of pavements for the project should be in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the State of California Department of Transportation, or other approved local governing specifications. Base course or pavement materials should not be placed when the surface is wet. Surface drainage should be provided away from the edge of paved areas to minimize lateral moisture transmission into the subgrade. • Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority,when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon should also be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in • this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between explorations, across Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW013-0153"n Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 • the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned;the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. • • Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PT �`���i j��,• � (�a- �� `I" �,_it 'a�,�% ;mot 5f.. y�,, 7f is WIN �N /I" `; Site •> S ,, s 111' 1' 1 � 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' .� k 11=1 Flelff-Ilk • �.•... RrN �_, ? a C11O� y n •y. _ .F • I t •• f4 `• P°� rEASTIN ,GAS, ��_ SYATIONrI ��°�� ��•••, \�T\ • f�I � � j I •I I \I� 0�;, I r1 Jo r• I ' �11'--i [OiC9Gnl xNGI�� '��`•�� ��� .i• U 8 - 40 �� 8 N LEGEND B-1 BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION Q C-1 CPT SOUNDING APPROXIMATE LOCATION P-wu.¢ """M' BORING LOCATION PLAN Exhibit FH 601]60] l�erracon Ormtb�: Betla AH f m-7sR- Costco Wholesale Store Fuelfacility Addition �] DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION Ch.dw M' Fb w... Cunwltiltg EltsinL•crs85cientist5 26610 YneZ Road A—L FH EA it A-2 ONLY,AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR � �, [Im: L11 t4Gwbau aNv.UOmt� Temecula,California CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES FH a20/2017 pt.xM/IAt-0mt FAlMO>btatto Geotechnical Engineering Report 11��rraco� Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No.60135032 • Field Exploration Description Our field exploration for this project included performing two (2) test borings on July 17, 2013, and two (2) CPT soundings on August 15, 2013. The drilled test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted Mobil B-61 drill rig utilizing 6-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. CPT soundings were advanced with a 304on truck providing the reaction weight for pushing the cone assembly into the ground at a constant rate of 20-mm per second (approximately four feet per minute). The cone tip resistance and sleeve friction resistance were recorded every 2-cm (approximately %-inch) and stored in digital form. The borings and soundings were located in the field by using the proposed site plan, an aerial photograph of the site, and measuring from existing site features. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the method used. The location of the borings, CPT soundings, and percolation tests is shown on the attached Boring Location Plan, Exhibit A-2. Continuous lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the field engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon or ring-barrel samplers. Bulk samples of subsurface materials were also obtained. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in the borings at the time of site exploration. • Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-barrel samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency or relative density of materials encountered. An automatic hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A significantly greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. This higher efficiency has an appreciable effect on the SPT-N value. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and dassification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. • Exhibit A-3 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 2 • PROJECT: Costco Wholesale Store Fuel CLIENT: Costco Wholesale Facility Addition SITE: 26610 Ynez Road Temecula,Califomia LOCATION See EAiell As o irr F X A-Umns� i S2 z N � _ & eL 9, , LLAA DE 30 I SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SCSM),trace WaM,dart brown to gray�trown. medium dense 21-174 35 I I 5-7-7 N=14 5 ' I 4-1013 S - xiN=23 0 I I loose 2-3-5 45 $ N=8 I 1 I 4-3-3 I N=6 ^� I I $i I � I 1 z 3-4-4 a m N=8 0 � I m o I ° 2 z SANDY LEAN CLAY ICL),Way-brown,medium stiff 2-2-6 3 N=8 tc 0 n .5 2 \ / SILTY SAND(SM),gray-brown,boss /X\ N 10 19 a l 0 I T1 I I 2 LL C SamNtllWl ttrm me epprmerrM.R U the oerdtlm may be gr Dd. ffinenm Type:Atrbmmk a LL w LL Ila MOW: SW EdstiJ fin tAemalgbn of Held Prate®. Holes: O See Ajemras a b EBsvlptlm al teem✓mSY mocsdam arse etltiemet eab.(N mri iAbmbrs WathW7 Sm Apperdx C la melanmlm d symbots me ,a 13mings bmWiDee with sail cutfinas tqm tmwmm. mLraJaNtllp. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � a NO lrae wafer observed l��rracon mlrp Sleeee:7H7(N13 aoerg Cmmleled:7117(2013 m p91 Mg:Wblle B61 Della Cm PM w 2817 McGaw Aw him.Califmrra jFMjW Na.:60135072 E Tbi Ai BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page e of 2 • PROJECT: Costco Wholesale Store Fuel CLIENT: Costco Wholesale Facility Addition SITE: 26610 Ynez Road Temecula,Califomla LOCATION See EftNI A•2 z w A LM C m 2 I;K 3 o a� r� ; ufLal DEPTH 3 0 n 0 SILTY SAND ISMI,gray-brom,bossm(c0nued) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISPSMI,light gray-brawn,mum 3 7• 10 densedenseN=18 r �•t o 3 6-6-12 z SANDY SILT IMLI,dark diwe•brow very y stiffN=1S 0 U W2 F Q� w e ~ 3-6-10$ N=16 31-28-3 55 •y z a 0 m 4 0 SS-11 N=19 z z 3 C 5-16-21 1.0 N=37 t. ,diva-bro m,dense 37 Swing TerMneted at 51.5 Feet a 0 0 0 0 a LL G Stm 5=0 limere epp0idn%we.IrsiW.ale MOM may m Qadld. HMrertet Type: AN a 6 W �..J.r..... LL �� Sea EdtmllAJ rQ.�.�•Y.•�••dBBlE pomQlat. Pktee: 0 ^Y See ApperdxB 1ptlm of laEoatny rooads®aq> p sfteCtlouo rd dab,(d my). iAti=b lev MOMM: Sea Appw6x C for e+elatatlm of swnbOIs ad B=W ea&Med with saa aicirgs w mm0ow. ebUv aUm 0 0 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Bortrig Stirmd:7n7l2017 No free rater observed lrerracon ° '°� 7f1720i9 m "Ne:M&ae"I Pill.WPM 28t7 McCaw A% hire.CAlluT RoleU M.:wix• Ekitlt Ad BORING LOG NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1 • PROJECT: Costco Wholesale Store Fuel CLIENT: Costco Wholesale Facility Addition SITE: 26610 Ynez Road Temecula,Califomia LOCATION See Edltlt A2 _ w w " RG MS W x F rc W < LL IlR411DEPIH a ;o a I SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SMI.trace gavel,dark brown m gray-brown, medum dense I 4$12 14 119 23-16-7 I I 5 1 8-18-30 9 130 F 1 5 R SANDYSILTY CLAY(CL-ML).grepbrovn,stiff 2.4-8 17 104 qz too SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM),trace gravel,dark brown to griY-brown, 1 57-7 medum OetiSe N=14 o I a� 1 3-56 m I te.s N=11 Boring Terminated at 15.5 Feet i 0 w 0 8 a 0 s 0 SraiO lvm are appm(mae.Ir6iN.Ine tralm'bonmaybe9aAE1. Mannar Type: AuMmW a a w u See Eihdt A31ar desalpdm dRdd p®aAes. Notes: 0 Sm AMwx lx B(u dmalpbm of tabpmdy > pacea+e9 and ad6dmd mb,p e,ryl. iAb z allotrtraa Wand: See Appslds C to moa� da Yn d symb and BovW beached w M sW aAbnas Mm antplaian. amrere0a . st Ba u a WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS be and:7117=17 °`��°'"72017 zff No Gee water observed lrerracon m OrW iLS:slpbae B{>1 Crela Call'ac 2817 MCGaw Av r bw .cmdada prajW W.:601350M Eaiti1: h5 • • • K Kehoe Testing and Engineering TE 714-901-7270 rich@kehoebnbng.com www.kehoelesting.com CPT:C-1 Project: Terracon Consultants/Costco Temecula Total depth: 70.15 it,Date:8/15/2013 Location: 26610 Yne=Rd.Temecula,CA Cone Type: Vertek Cone resistance cit Sleeve friction Pore pressure u - Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 I I YI ae' su 4 4 - 4 4 q I I I 6 6 — 6 6 6 I Ias s' I B — IO 10 10 10 10 I I YI .as ° l2 12 12 12 12 I ae. 4_ IO 19 - 14 14 14 I s s I6 16 16 16 1 6I 18 18 1B 1B 18 s 20 20 20 20 20 I I IC la l I 22 22 22 22 22 1 Ic I6 clay W i 24 24 - 29 24 24 I I I I I 26 26 - 26 26 26 28 28 — 28 28 28 I 1 I sots -44 30 30 - 30 30 - 30 1 I I 1 1 32 - 32 - 32 32 - 32 I I .astl^/s. I 34 34 �^. 34 .^. 34 1 34 I I I 36 "36 "36 `�''36 "36 .. I I I as sU a38 n38 a38 n38 538 as e11 40 W 444 440 9 ' 42 42 42 4 qB2 r 1III I!{III V_MYiI1III da sl it WI sUU 44 44 44 46 46 - 46 46111, IF 48 48 5 50 50 50 50 52 52 52 52 52 e m 1 54 54 54 54 54 56 56 56 56 56 58 58 VI d IlII fI d1 aim f-im 58 ON 60 60 60 60 60 I s s 1 62 62 62 62 62 —r -iv 1 ea IUI of 64 64 64 64 64 --4V I sd Ulr W 66 66 66 66 66 68 68 - 68 68 68 70 - 70 70 70 70 72 72 72 72 72 74 74 74 74 74 11 1 I I I 0 260 460 660 0 2 4 6 B 10 -10 -5 O. 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf(%) 5BT (Robertson et al, 1986) CPeT-rr Y.1.7.6.3-CPTU data presentation S Interpretation software-Report created on:8/16/2013, 12:51:29 PM 1 ProJeC file:C\Terracurt'renec da9.13\CIAe7 Data\Plot DaptPlots.tpt ..1 1 . n �� 7aa Tiiiii MIMI aaa===.3m MI 4Mimimiw&3m NnMN mama �a�aaa �MIMS �aa, 106' M� Innimaaa= i■��iiii �� °oIR0=n �� ��� iiimiiii pia =9O ���_ MiMM ii �MI� ioae Man _�In ailiiiii ��MI� a■� . a a■a mama al■maaa im aaa==.== as aaa ai■maaa IM aa+� a aU InnIME a �■mama � � no a a■a mama a�llmaaa IM =omiwxwwaa ME ME mm - Imilmommm - a.MI - Ana,MI . . . . .W NO In mimmmom �� � I �aaramaaa alIaaaa =�� � 13 ��i■� Ca�,iaaa : �i� =a ma aa n��a■a■ �� mamma Wn oo" ra:furima �� �� �■aa�aaa aa■a eaaaaaaaaa �NO ��� : ������� a■a■a aaaaaaao MUNn aaa aaaaaaaaa a■a aamaaa aaa■ aaaaaaaaa as aaa� a aaa a■a■a ' . aaaaaaaaa �ME Mama aaaaaa WIMIMI aaaaaaaaa �ME MM iiiiii :; �aIaa� M� ' : aaaaaaaaa �� MM Immmmmm MIMI aaaaa M aaaa � MM In aaaaaa aaaaa®aaa MM � .• 1 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical Engineering Report l�erracon . Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■Temecula, California August 21, 2013■Terracon Project No.60135032 • Laboratory Testing Description Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix C. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of engineering, earthwork, and construction recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local, or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples obtained from the borings were tested for the following engineering properties: ■ In-situ Water Content ■ Swell Consolidation Test ■ Unit Weight ■ Sieve Analysis ■ Atterberg Limits . Soluble Chloride Content • ■ Soluble Sulfate Content ■ Minimum Resistivity ■ pH. ■ Redox Potential ■ Soluble Sulfides Content ■ Soluble Total Salts • Exhibit 8-1 " 11■�■@IIII.�IYIIYf�YY1■IYIIIIIYI■IINIIII■■IIIIIII.■ : 11.■IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■■ ' 11■.IIIIIII■.IIIIIIIii.1111111■.IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■. : 11■■IIIIIII■.IIIIIIIi►i1111111■.IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■. ' 11■.IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■►\IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■■IIIIIII.. 11■■IIIIIII■.IIIIIII.!lIIIIIII■.IIIIIII..IIIIIII■■ ' 1■■IINIIII■.IIIIIII.■►111111■.IINIIII■.IIIIIII■. :, �I.■IINIIII■.IIIIIII■■IIIIIII..IINIIII■.IIIIIII■. 11.■IINIIII■.IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■.II�1111..1111111■. � 11■■IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■■1111111.■II11111..1111111■. 11■■IIIIIII■.IIIIIII..IIIIIII■.IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■. 11..IINIIII■.IIIIIII..IIIIIII■■I�IIII..IIIIIII■■ ' 11..IINIIII..IIIIIII..IIIIIII.�IINIIII..IIIIIII■. 11.■IINIIII■.IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■.IIIIII■■IIIIIII■■ 11■■IINIIII..IIIIIII.■IIIIIII■.I�IIII■■IIIIIII.. 11■.IIIIIII■.IIIIIII..IIIIIII■.IIIIIII.■IIIIIII■■ 11■.IIIIIII..IIIIIII..IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■. II■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII■■IIWII■SILTY,CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM) - mmmmm . ®moms mmmmm © ®m©� ■ ' , mmmm�ii PROJECT: CostaD Wholesale Store Fuel Facility Adclifion PROJECT NUMBER: 60135032 SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTIMI D4546 a z �¢ 2 s = s n J $ 5 -0 d u $ -6 • o 0 i 0 0 m 0 y4 -8 2 N 8 1100 1,000 10.000 u a PRESSURE,psf 8 w m a a 0 s Specimen Identmication Classification Y,,pd wc, W • B-2 2.5 ft SILTY CLAYEY SAND 119 14 w NOTES:Water added at 2,000 psf N O Q g PROJECT: Cos_E Wholesale Store • rEXHIEIT: JECT NUMBER: 60135032 w FUEI_EacllityA_dddi SITE: 26610 Ynez Road 1 rerraconNT: Costco Wholesale o Temecula,Califomia 2817 McGaw Avenue 0 Irvine,California B-3 CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT Irerracon Project Number: 60135032 Service Date: 07/23/13 750 Pilot Road,Suite F fport.Date: 07/23/13 Las Vegas,Nevada 89119 sk: (702)597-9393 Client Project Terracon,Orange County Costco-Temecula Sample Submitted By: Terracon(60) Date Received: 7/222013 Lab No.: 13-0242 Analyzed By: Kurt D.Ergun Results of Corrosivity Analysis Sample Number Sample Location B-1 Sample Depth(in.) 0.0-2.5 pH Analysis,AW WA 4500 H 8.98 Water Soluble Sulfate(SO4),AW WA 4500 E 74 (mgfkg) Sulfides, AW WA 4500-S D,(mg/kg) Nil • Red-Ox,AW WA 2580,(mV) +570 Total Salts,AW WA 2540,(mg/kg) 1238 Chlorides, AW WA 3500 Cl B,(mg/kg) 200. Resistivity, ASTM G-57,(ohm-cm) 1261 Services: Terrecon Rep: Reported To: Contractor: Reviewed By: Kurt D. Ergun Chemist e tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM.AASHTO,or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client Wehaled above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to actual samples tested at the location(s)referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. EXHIBIT B-4 APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ® Water Initially (HP) Hand Ponstrorrotar Encountered Auger .Shelby rube Spin spoon IF water Legal After a m Torvano Spodeed Period of Time am e ; :�fliedif�cdofTime y ( Standard Penetration Z par toot) Rock Macro Modified Iy W _J Core Core California j Water levels indicated on the soil boring I— N N vale IL Ring Sampler W logs are the levels measured in the O borehole at the times indicated. W (PID) Phato4mizatlon Detector H e a a Groundwater level variations will occur LL 3 over time. In low permeability soils, (OVA) Organic vapor Analyser Grab No Modified accurate determination of groundwater ample Recovery Dames&Mean levels is not possible with short term Rine ampler water Tavel observations. (WOH) Weight of Hammer DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System.Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve:their principal descriptors are: boulders,cobbles,gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve:they are principally described as clays if they are plastic,and silts if they are slightly.plastic or non-plastic.Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation,coarse-grained soils are.de_fined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device.The accuracy of such devices is variable.Surface elevation data annotated with+/-indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead,the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (More than 50%retained on No.200sieve.) (50%or more passing the No.200 sieve.) Density determined try Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing,field Includes gravels,sands and silts. visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance to Dnscrlptive Term Standard Penatradon or Ring Sampler Descriptive Term unconfined Compresslve Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler yK (Density) N-Value I BlowsrFL (consistency) Strength,Ou,psf N-ValBIaws a BIOW�L BlowalF Very Loose 0.3 0-6 Very Soft less than 500 0-1 <3 F Vr Loose 4-9 7-18 Soft 500b 1,000 2-4 3-4 Z W Medium Dense 10-29 19-58 Medium-Stiff 1.000 to 2,000 4.8 5.9 K fA Dense 30-50 59-98 SOB 2,0001c 4,000 8-15 10-18 Very Dense >50 199 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8.000 15-30 19-42 Hard >8.000 >30 >42 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Termfal Percent of Major Component Particle Sim of other constituents Dry Well of Sample Trace <15 Boulders Over 12 in.(300 mm) With 15-29 Cobbles 12 In.to 3 in.(300mm to 75mm) Modifier >30 Gravel 3 in.to#4 sieve(75mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 to 9200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075mm Silt or Clay Passing#200 sieve(0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive TamNsl Percent o} Ig® Plasticity Index 01 other constituents [try Welclnt Non-plastic 0 Trace <5 Low 1 -10 With 5-12 Medium 11 -30 Modifier > 12 High >30 lrerracon Exhibit C-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil cl*selncation Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Testa A Group Group Name° Symbol Gravel*: Clean Gravels: Cu a 4 and 1 5 Cc 5 3 GW Well-graded gravel More than 50%of Less than 5%fines' Cu<4 and/or 1 >Cc>36 GP Poorly graded gravel coarse fraction retained Gravel*with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel Coarse Grained Soil*: on No.4 sieve More than 12%fines' Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel More than 50%retained on No.200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu a 6 and 1 5 Cc 5 3 SW Well-graded send 50%or more of coarse Less then 5%fines° Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3 SP Poorly graded sand fraction passes No.4 Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silly sand°' slave More than 12%fines° Fines classify as CL or CH Sc Clayey sand° PI>7 and plots on or above'A'line CL Lean clay KL.0 Inorganic: 1r Sills end Clays: PI<4 or plots below'A'line ML SiU Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit-oven dried Organk Way Fine-or more Soil*: Organic: Liquid limit-not dried <0.75 OL Organic slit u,o No. or more passes the No.200 sieve PI plots on or above'A'line CH Fat clay " Inorganic: Silts end Clays: PI plots below-A-line MH Elastic Sill Liquid limit 50 or more Uquid Omit-oven dried Organic clay A Organic: <0.75 OH xo Liquid omit-not dried Organic silt Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter,dark in color, and organic odor PT I Peat A Based on the material,passing the 3-inch(75-mm)sieve "if fines are organic,add'with organic fines'to group name. °If held sample contained cobbles or boulders,or both,add with cobbles ' If sal contains a 15%gravel,add'with gravel'to group name. or boulders,or both'to group name. ' If Aaerberg limits plot In shaded area,soil is a CL-ML.silly day. °Gravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded x If soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200,add with sand'or'with gravel,' gravel with silt,GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay,GP-GM poorly whichever is predominant. graded gravel with silt.GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. L If soil contains a 30%plus No.200 predominantly sand,add"sandy'to °Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SWSM well-graded group name. sand with silt.SW-SC well-graded sand with day,SP-SM poorly graded a If soil contains a 30%plus No.200.predominantly gravel,add sand with silt,SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay 'gravelly*to group name. a (D�)� o PI a 4 and plots on or above'A'line. Cu=DiidD,o Cc= PI<4 or plots below'A*line. 13,x D. °PI plots on or above"A'line. r If soil contains a 15%sand,add'with sand'to group name. °PI plots below'A'line: °If fines classify asCC-ML,use dual symbol GC-GM,or SC-SM. 60 For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction 50 of coarse-grained soils •fit°: vie Equation of'A'-line •P a Horizontal at PI-_4 to LL=25.5. X 40 then PI=0.73(LL-20) o� p Equation of'U'-line 6 Z Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, } 30 then PI=0.9(LL-8) N I of� all I MH or OH 10 I a ML or OL 0 10 16 2D 30 40 50 SD 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT(LL) lrerracon Exhibit C-2 APPENDIX D LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS „ LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Costco Store Gas Canopy Addition Hole No.=G1 Water Depth=10 ft Magnitude=6.64 Acceleration=DARg Sneer Sints Raw FeOu of Sa" Sonlematd Soil 0®oiptlon M 0 1 0 1 0 0(in.) 10 ge go go Opo eO go go 20 go go go 8 ]0 Do • I DO yP Do 10 I 00 o�O 0 h1-1,20 %- 1 I I S e 3A3 in. —50 CRR — CSR h1— h2 — Sauaated — C Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Lhm t — 5 E V 0 70 pi P Terracon Temecula,CA Exhibit 0-1 • LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... Title: Costco Store Gas Canopy Addition Subtitle: Temecula, CA Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-1 Depth of Hale= 50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft Max.Acceleration= 0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.64 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-1 Depth of Hole=50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.64 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. CPT Calculation Method: Suzuki et al. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu, M-correction 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction:.Modify Stark/Olson • 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction' 5. Settlement Calculation in:All zones' 9. User request factor of safety(apply to CSR) , Use - 1.2 Plot two CSR (fsl=User, fs2=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes' Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc fs Rf gamma Fines D50 ft atm atm pcf % mm 1.00 21.60 0.08 0.37 99.28 5.56 0.50 2.00 9.90 0.18 1.82 103.30 28.94 0.50 3.00 15.90 0.16 1.01 103.60 19.58 0.50 4.00 114.00 0.69 0.61 119.10 2.27 0.50 5.00 228.70 1.33 0.58 125.60 0.18 0.50 6.00 211.70 1.25 0.59 124.90 0.76 0.50 7.00 93.00 2.02 2.17 126.40 13.53 0.50 8.00 48.10 0.68 1.41 116.80 16.19 0.50 9.00 56.90 1.14 2.00 121.00 18.35 0.50 10.00 48.70 0.50 1.03 114.60 14.67 0.50 11.00 30.40 0.11 0.36 102.40 13.84 0.50 12.00 56.80 0.36 0.63 112.60 10.84 0.50 13.00 49.50 0.22 0.44 108.70 10.60 0.50 14.00 45.90 0.47 1.02 114.00 17.03 0.50 15.00 40.90 0.41 1.00 112.70 18.62 0.50 16.00 44.90 0.37 0.82 112.20 16.40 0.50 17.00 46.60 0.38 0.82 112.50 16.25 0.50 • 18.00 44.20 0.54 1.22 115.00 20.48 0.50 Exhibit D-2 • In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc fs Rf gamma Fines D50 tt atm atm pcf % mm 19.00 14.90 0.23 1.54 106.10 NoLiq 0.50 20.00 23.70 0.51 2.15 113.00 NoLiq 0.50 21.00 21.50 0.66 3.07 114.70 NoLiq 0.50 22.00 14.00 0.18 1.29 104.10 NoLiq 0.50 23.00 14.10 0.25 1.77 106.50 NoLiq 0.50 24.00 164.90 1.06 0.64 123.10 5.46 0.50 25.00 145.40 1.50 1.03 125.30 9.14 0.50 26.00 52.10 1.10 2.11 120.60 26.35 0.50 27.00 85.00 0.94 1.11 120.60 14.64 0.50 28.00 83.80 1.65 1.97 124.70 20.17 0.50 29.00 201.10 1.35 0.67 125.40 5.10 0.50 30.00 155.10 0.74 0.48 120.30 5.27 0.50 31.00 179.60 0.98 0.55 122.70 5.03 0.50 32.00 190.20 0.83 0.44 121.70 3.88 0.50 33.00 135.70 2.16 1.59 127.80 14.21 0.50 34.00 75.00 2.16 2.88 126.40 27.16 0:50 35.00, 136.10 2.69 1.98 129.40 16.46 0.50 36.00 309.50 4.17 1.35 134.70 7.31 0.50 37.00 40.50 1.95 4.81 124.10 NoLiq 0.50 38.00 25.60 0.26 1.02 108.30 NoLiq 0.50 39.00 47.10 1.50 3.18 122.60 NoLiq 0.50 40.00 65.20 2.68 4.11 127.60 NoLiq 0.50 41.00 73.30 2.92 3.98 128.50 NoLiq 0.50 • 42.00 63.60 2.00 3.14 125.40 NoLiq 0.50 43.00 83.60 3.54 4.23 130.30 NoLiq 0.50 44.00 178.80 3.84 2.15 13230 15.91 0.50 45.00 149.80 5.23 3.49 134:50 23.16 0.50 46.00 39.90 0.95 2.38 118.80 NoLiq 0.50 47.00 98.80 3.53 3.57 130.70 NoLiq 0.50 48.00 30.80 1.26 4.09 120.30 NoLiq 0.50 49.00 24.70 0.82 3.32 116.60 NoLiq 0.50 50.00 51.70 1.69 3.27 123.70' NoLiq 0.50 Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=3.57 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.10 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=3.68 in. Differential Settlement=1.838 to 2.427 in. • Exhibit D-2 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Costco Store Gas Canopy Addition Hole No.=G2 Water Depth-10 ft Magnitude=6.64 Acceleradon=0 48g Shaw Sam Ratio Factor of Ss" Saalelnant Soil DoaiOtion 090 0 1 0 1 0 0(in.) 10 IO 20 m 10 I - h1-1.20 h2a1 S a 2.74 in. CRR — CSR h1— 1a2 Satuated — e Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Patemlal umaant — 9 3V i 6 Y u 6 70 i Terracon Temecula,CA Exhibit DJ • LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... Title: Costco Store Gas Canopy Addition Subtitle: Temecula, CA Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-2 Depth of Hole= 50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft Max. Acceleration= 0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.64 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-2 Depth of Hole=50.00 ft Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 ft Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.64 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. CPT Calculation Method:Suzuki et at; 2. Settlement Analysis Method:Tokimatsu, Mcorrection • 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Modify Stark/Olson 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During,Liquefaction' 5. Settlement Calculation in:All zones' 9. User request factor of safety(apply to CSR) , User- 1.2 Plot two CSR(fsl=User,fs2=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing:Yes' ' Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc fs Rf gamma Fines D50 ft atm atm pcf % mm 1.00 14.90 0.21 1.41 105.40 17.09 0.50 2.00 8.70 0.21 2.41 104.10 34.81 0.50 3.00 83.60 2.44 2.92 127.50 13.94 0.50 4.00 63.50 2.53 3.98 127.10 20.96 0.50 5.00 79.70 2.29 2.87 127.00 16.31 0.50 6.00 176.80 3.24 1.83 131.40 7.72 0.50 7.00 27.50 1.16 4.22 119.40 32.79 0.50 8.00 36.40 0.52 1.43 114.20 19.58 0.50 9.00 38.60 1.26 3.26 120.80 28.80 0.50 10.00 58.80 1.54 2.62 123.30 21.65 0.50 11.00 61.00 0.54 0.89 115.70 12.09 0.50 12.00 50.50 0.47 0.93 114.30 14.69 0.50 13.00 78.70 0.58 0.74 116.90 9.44 0.50 14.00 61.80 0.46 0.74 114.60 11.93 0.50 15.00 30.40 0.46 1.51 112.90 26.67 0.50 • Exhibit D-4 • In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc fs Rf gamma Fines D50 ft atm atm paf % mm 16.00 46.90 1.21 2.58 121.00 27.07 0.50 17.00 41.20 0.81 1.97 117.70 26.08 0.50, 18.00 68.80 0.83 1.21 119.20 15.59 0.50 19.00 31.70 0.76 2.40 116.60 NoLiq 0.50 20.06 14.20 0.48 3.38 111.30 NoLiq 0.50 21.00 34.20 0.96 2.81 118.50 NoLiq 0.50 22.00 41.00 1.20 2.93 120.60 NoLiq 0.50 23.00 14.70 0.60 4.08 113.00 NoLiq 0.50 24.00 12.50 0.47 3.76 110.90 NoLiq 0.50 25.00 12.60 0.51 4.05 111.50 NoLiq 0.50 26.00 12.60 0.36 2.86 108.90 NoLiq 0.50 27.00 153.50 1.04 0.68 122.80 6.69 0.50 28.00 242.86 2.22 0.91 129.50 5.60 0.50 29.00 187.80 1.56 0.83 126.20 6,72 0.50 30.00 36.80 1.25 3.40 120.60 NoLiq 0.50 31.00 54.10 1.21 2.24 121.40 28.05 0.50 32.00 85.60 0.88 1.03 120.10 15.08 0.50 33.00 95.40 1.32 1.38 123.40 16.53 0.50 34.00 134.20 0.75 0.56 120.10 7.56 0.50 35.00 52.30 1.17 2.24 121.00 29.84 0.50 36.00 20.70 0.72 3.48 115.20 NoLiq 0.50 37.00 29.30 0.62 2.12 115.00 NoLiq 0.50 38.00 62.30 2.95 4.74 128.20 NoLiq 0.50 • 39.00 34.80 1.71 4.91 122.80 NoLiq 0.50 40.00 51.60 1.78 3.45 124.10 NoLiq. 0.50 41.00 148.70 3.44 2.31 131.50 NoLiq 0;50 42.00 37.00 2.01 5.43 124.10 NoLiq 0.56 43.00 87.00 4.05 4.66 131.30 NoLiq 0.50 44.00 60.00 2.78 4.63 127.70 NoLiq 0.50 45.00 118.60 4.26 3.59 132.50 26.26 0.50 46.00 105:80 4.81 4.55 133.10 NoLiq 0.50 47.00 226.20 6.31 2.79 136.90 NoLiq 0.50 48.00 112.60 3.86 3.43 131.60 NoLiq 0.50 49.00 156.50 4.38 2.80 133.40 NoLiq 0.50 50.00 344.80 4.90 1.42 136.10 NoLiq 0.50 Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=2.64 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.10 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=2.74 in. Differential Settlement=1.368 to 1.806 i • Exhibit D-4 • Geotechnical Investigation Summary Checklist for Costco Wholesale Projects General Information Costco Real Estate Main Contact: )enifer Murillo Geotechnical Main Contact: Brian Crystal(949-585-3113) Geotechnical Engineer of Record: Kleinfelder Project Location: 26610 Ynez Road,Temecula, California CWN: 13-0065 Warehouse N: 491 Report Date: November 25,2014 Consultant Project/Document Number: 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Addendums(List): Report Purpose: ❑ Preliminary ❑Draft ® Final ❑Addendum/Revision No Yes or Describe/Comments Report Section NA Pinif-exisft Conditions/Information Developer provided geotechnical report(describe): ❑ Pre-existing development(describe) ❑ ® Existing Costco Warehouse 2.1 Foundation type(describe): ❑ • Performance Issues(describe): ❑ Environmental Issues(describe) ❑ Site Grading Records(stripping,compaction test ❑ results,field reports,etc. Typical Bu#dhV Structural Design Criteria Other(describe): ® ❑ 12,550 sf receiving area addition 1.1 and new loading dock Building size(describe): ® ❑ 1.1 Typical wall loading 3 kips/loot'(Metal Buildings) ❑ 4.5 kips/loot'(CMU or precast) ® ❑ Typical column loading 120 kips in non-snow regions 150 kips in snow regions ❑ Typical canopy loading: 50 kips ❑ Typical floor slab loading 500 pounds per square foot,(psi,total) ® ❑ 250 psi(dead)at rack areas ® ❑ 150 psi(dead)at non-rack areas ® ❑ 350 psi(live) ® ❑ • November 25, 2014 Page 1 of 5 • Paving Design(20 year life) Heavy Duty paving shall accommodate 30 trucks per ® El 3.30 day(Traffic Index of 7.0) Light Duty paving shall accommodate 6,600 cars per ® ❑ 3.10 day(Traffic Index of 5.0 Performance Grade(PG)binder oil identified for local ® ❑ PG 70-10 3.10.3 climate conditions Site Grading Conditions/Assumptions Deviations to Typical Criteria(list/describe): ❑ Design Finished Floor Elevation(FFE)(describe): ❑ cm Basis for FFE(assumed,per Civil)(describe): ❑ Effects of change to assumed FFE(describe): ❑ Maximum anticipated cuts(describe): ❑ ® Level pad 1.1 Maximum anticipated fills(describe): ❑ Cross sections prepared for sites that are not essentially flat Amount of Importlexport anticipated(describe): ❑ Frost Depth(describe): ❑ Retaining walls Number of walls(describe): ® ❑ Loading dock 3.9 • HeightfLenglh of walls(describe): ❑ ® ' Wall construction/type(describe): ❑ Cut/fill transition in pad(describe): ❑ Offsite Improvements(describe) ❑ FfeldworWftsults Costco Due Diligence Design Criteria Version(describe): ® ❑ Version 2014,dated June 13, 2014 Followed Criteria? ® ❑ Deviations to standard investigation(describe): ❑ Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered within borings,which were advanced to a maximum Depth(describe): ® ❑ depth of 21%feet below grade. 2.4 Groundwater was encountered within 2 of the borings drilled for Leighton in 1999 at a depth of 25 feet. Perched ❑ Expected seasonal fluctuation(describe): ❑ Piezometers installed? ❑ • UnusuaVChallenging Soils conditions encouraered November 25, 2014 Page 2 of 5 • Moisture-sensitive soils ❑ Undocumented fill ® ❑ Unsuitable soils(require removal) ® ❑ Wet soils ❑ Debris Bedrock(potentlal non-dppable conditions ❑ Refusal ❑ Collapsible soils ❑ Expansive soils ❑ Compressible soils ❑ Uquefaction ❑ Sinkholes ❑ ®. Other(describe): ❑, Potential Contamination Identified Soil ❑ Groundwater ❑ • Restoration of Disturbed Areas Backfilled with soil ® ❑ Backfilled with:grout ❑ Other(describe): ❑ Topsoil samples collectedtanalyzed ❑ ConosMty testing pertormad/addressed ® ❑ Highly corrosive to ferrous metals 3.11 Report Executive summary ® ❑ E-1 Wet weather construction recommendations ❑ Pad winterization/pad recommendations ❑ Frost protection recommendations ❑ Design Parameters Fill material parameters provided Structural fill(below foundations,slabs) ® ❑ 3.4.2 Site grading fill(below.pavements,flatwork) ® ❑ 3.4.2 Select backfill(behind truck dock walls,foundations, ❑ ® 4 grade beams,etc.) Trench backfill ® ❑ 3.4.6 • November 25, 2014 Page 3 of 5 • Dralnage fill ❑ Frost resistant fill ❑ Slab base aggregate ❑ Limits of debris/unsuitable removal provided ❑ Over-excavationlrecompaction required ® ❑ 3.4.2 At least 3 feet below the bottom of footings and replaced as structural fill. If fill soils are Depth(describe): ® ❑ encountered at the base of the 3.4.2 overexcavation,the overexcavation should continue until the fill is removed. Extent(include cross-section diagram) ❑ Pad subgrade stabilization required(describe): ❑ Surcharge ❑ Height(describe): ❑ Lateral extent(describe): ❑ Estimated duration(describe): ❑ • Shallow Foundations ® ❑ psf allowable soil bearing pressure(describe): ® '❑ 3,000 psf 3.3.2 Deep Foundations ® ❑ Type(describe): ❑ Options and Value Engineering Matrix provided ❑ Floor Slabs Unrelnforced(>2500 psf) ❑ Reinforced(describe why) ❑ Subgrade modulus(ksJn)(describe): ❑ Base Material thickness(min 6')(describe): ❑ Seismic Conditions Governing Building Code(IBC,UBC.other) ® ❑ 2013 California Building Code 3.2 Geologic Hazard Identified ❑ Proximity to earthquake fault zone(s) ❑ Proximity to seismic hazard zone(s) ❑ Potential for liquefaction ❑ Potential for lateral spreading ❑ • November 25, 2014 Page 4 of 5 • Potential for seismic settlement ❑ Potential for slope stabilityllandslides ❑ ® - Potential for groundshaking or geologic hazards ❑ ® high Retaining Walls ® ❑ Loading dock 3.9 Recommended Wall Types ❑ Recommend Kleinfelder Design ❑ Lateral earth pressure design values ® ❑ Active: ® ❑ 3.9 At-rest: ® ❑ 3.9 Passive: ® ❑ 3.3 Seismic: O Backtill material,placement requirements ® ❑ 3.9 Drainage requirements and cross-section drawing ® ❑ 3.9 Finger Drains ❑ Required for frost ❑ Recommended for long term maintenance and ❑ • constructability Pavement Pavement subgrade stabilization required(describe): ❑ ® Proof-roll,scarify,and recompact '3.4.2 Cosico asphalt mix desldn specified. ® ❑ 3.10.6 Heavy and light duty pavement sections specified ® El3.30.3 3.10. and Alternative pavement sections Identified ❑ Specification for off site pavement sections Included ❑ Data Gaps/Unknowns(describe): ❑ • November 25, 2014 Page 5 of 5 • LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PROPOSED RECEIVING AREA AND DAIRY COOLER ADDITIONS COSTCO WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE NO. 491 26610 YNEZ ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CW# 13-0065 • Project No. 20152384.001A Prepared for: Costco Wholesale 9 Corporate Park, Suite 230 Irvine, California 92606 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Klelnfelder All Rights Reserved • Unauthorized use or copying of this document Is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project. 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page i of iv November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder �� KL E/NFEL OER • Blight Reople.Right Solutions November 25, 2014 Project No. 20152384.001 A Costco Wholesale 9 Corporate Park, Suite 230 Irvine, California 92606 Attention: Ms. Jenifer Murillo Director of Real Estate Development Subject: Limited Geotechnical Study Proposed Receiving Area and Dairy Cooler Additions Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491 26610 Ynez Road Temecula, Celifomla CW# 13-0065 Dear Ms. Murillo: • Kleinfelder is pleased to present this report summarizing our limited geotechnical study for the proposed receiving area and dairy cooler additions to Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. The purpose of our geotechnical study was to evaluate subsurface soil.conditions at the project site to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 5. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact Brian Crystal at (949) 727-4466, or Andy Franks, Kleinfelder's Client Account Manager for Costco, at (480) 650-4905. Respectfully submitted, QPpFE5Sip4, KLEINFELDER, INC. H z ul . m ¢ P • � r d}�0TFCHM�tr�\� ry D. Waller, PE, GE Brian E. Crystal, PE, GE 4 OFCAU1 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Project Manager JDW:BEC:mm • 20152384.00tA/IRV14RO9810 Page ii of iv November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder �LE/NFELOER • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paae EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................E-1 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 1 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Task 1 — Background Data Review................................................. 2 1.2.2 Task 2— Field Exploration............................................................... 2 1.2.3 Task 3 — Laboratory Testing ........................................................... 3 1.2.4 Task 4—Geotechnical Analyses..................................................... 3 1.2.5 Task 5— Report Preparation........................................................... 3 2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................5 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 5 2.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ...................................................... 5 2.3 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS.......................................................... 5 2.3.1 Fill ................................................................................................... 5 2.3.2 Alluvium .......................................................................................... 6 2.4 GROUNDWATER...................................................................................... 6 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................7 3.1 GENERAL.................................................................................................. 7 • 3.2 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.......................................... 7 3.3 FOUNDATIONS......................................................................................... 8 3.3.1 General........................................................................................... 8 3.3.2 Shallow Foundations....................................................................... 8 3.4 EARTHWORK........................................................................................... 9 3.4.1 General ........................................................................................... 9 3.4.2 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 10 3.4.3 Structural Fill Material and Compaction Criteria............................ 11 3.4.4 Excavation Characteristics............................................................ 12 3.4.5 Temporary Excavations ................................................................ 12 3.4.6 Trench Backfill .............................................................................. 13 3.5 TEMPORARY SHORING ........................................................................ 14 3.5.1 General......................................................................................... 14 3.5.2 Lateral Pressures.......................................................................... 14 3.5.3 Design of Soldier Piles.................................................................. 15 3.5.4 Lagging ......................................................................................... 15 3.5.5 Deflection...................................................................................... 16 3.5.6 Monitoring ..................................................................................... 16 3.6 BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE ................................................................. 17 3.7 EXTERIOR FLATWORK ......................................................................... 17 3.8 SITE DRAINAGE..................................................................................... 18 3.9 RETAINING STRUCTURES.................................................................... 19 3.10 PAVEMENT SECTIONS.......................................................................... 20 • 3.10.1 Costco Pavement Design Parameters.......................................... 20 20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page iii of iv November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleintelder �E/NFELOER • TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Section Page 3.10.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement ......................................................... 21 3.10.3 Asphalt Performance Grade Binder.............................................. 21 3.10.4 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement .......................................... 22 3.10.5 Aggregate Base ............................................................................ 22 3.10.6 Construction Considerations......................................................... 23 3.11 SOIL CORROSION ................................................................................. 23 3.12 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT........................................................... 24 4 Additional Services..........................................................................................26 4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW .............................................. 26 4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING................................ 26 5 LIMITATIONS.......:............ ................................................................................. 27 6 REFERENCES...................................................................................................30 PLATES Plate 1 Site Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan • APPENDICES Appendix A Field Explorations Appendix B Laboratory Testing ,Appendix C Borehole Infiltration Testing • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page iv of iv November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder 1 DER EXECUTIVE• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical study for the proposed dairy cooler addition to Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. We understand that Costco plans to demolish the existing receiving dock and construct a 12,550 square-foot addition comprised of a new receiving area and loading dock on the eastern side of the existing warehouse building and a new dairy cooler on the northern side. As part of storm water management for the project, Infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as subterranean infiltration galleries, are being considered. Leighton and Associates previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the original warehouse development and presented the findings in the referenced report dated April 26, 1999 (Leighton, 1999). The 1999 report was reviewed and evaluated by Kleinfelder in developing the results presented herein. Subsurface conditions at the site were recently explored by drilling five borings. Soil • materials encountered during the subsurface explorations consisted of fill underlain by alluvial deposits. As observed in our borings, the fill depth was approximately 2 to 3 feet and consists generally of sand, sand with silt, and silty sand. Based on review of Leighton's geotechnical report (Leighton, 1999), the Costco site was underlain by up to approximately 10 feet of old fill or loose material prior to the development of the existing Costco warehouse. The old fill was not considered suitable for structural support. As part of the building pad preparation for the existing warehouse, the old fill was overexcavated and replaced as structural fill. The overexcavation reportedly extended a horizontal distance beyond the edge of the foundations equal to the depth of the overexcavation, which was at least 10 feet. Alluvial soils were observed to underlie the fill in our borings. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings that were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 21 1/2 feet below grade. Based on the results of our prior field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The following key items were developed from.our study. • 20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 E-1 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder �E/NFELDER • • The proposed receiving area and dairy cooler addition may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system founded on engineered fill. Footings founded on engineered fill material may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus sustained live loads. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures can be used for wind or seismic loads. • The anticipated total settlement of the receiving area and the new cooler addition will be on the order of 1/2 inch. Differential settlement will be equal to the total settlement and may be abrupt at the interface with the existing warehouse. Wherever new construction abuts existing older construction, small architectural cracking may occur. We suggest you consider using architectural finishes or details to disguise this cold joint area if it is a concern to Costco. • For the building pad, we recommend that the existing soils be overexcavated to a depth of 3. It should .be noted that a fill depth of approximately 2 to 3 feet below grade was encountered in our recent borings. However, deeper fills may, exist between or beyond our soil borings. The fill immediately adjacent to the • existing warehouse building, which was overexcavated and recompacted as part of the original building pad preparation, may be left in place. The actual limits of this fill should be verified during overexcavation. • The building pad preparation for the existing warehouse consisted of overexcavating the pad a horizontal distance beyond the edge of the foundations equal to the depth of the overexcavation, which was at least 10 feet. Depending on the condition of the fill immediately adjacent to the building, shoring and/or underpinning may be required to perform demolition and overexcavation adjacent to the existing building. Excavations within a 1 :1 (horizontal to vertical) plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be attempted without bracing and/or underpinning. • For pavements, sidewalks and other flatwork within existing paved areas, we recommend that the exposed subgrade be proof-rolled with heavy construction equipment (e.g. loader or smooth-drum roller) to disclose areas of soft and yielding material. Where soft and yielding material is observed, it should be overexcavated and replaced as engineered fill. After proof-rolling and/or prior to • placement of fill, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, 20152384.00 1 A/1RV1 4RO981 0 E-2 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder I DER moisture• moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557). The proof-rolling should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet. • The seismic design category for a structure may be determined in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2013 CBC. Based on our field exploration, we classify the site as Site Class D. The 2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters are summarized in the Table 1. • The minimum resistivity of the sample indicates that the soil may be highly corrosive to metals. The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is "negligible" based on ACI 318-11 Table 4.2.1 (ACI, 2011). Maximum water- cement ratios and cement types are not specified for these sulfate concentrations. • As part of storm water management for the project, Infiltration BMPs, such as subterranean infiltration galleries, are being considered. Based on the results of the borehole infiltration tests, the soil classification and gradation tests, the use • of infiltration BMPs, such as subterranean infiltration galleries, for storm water management are feasible provided the galleries are located northeast of the existing warehouse building near the cooler addition and capable of bypassing the upper silty sand layer with outflow at a depth of at,least 12 feet below,grade. If infiltration BMPs are impractical due to existing site "constraints, we recommend alternatives, such as bio-filtration/bio-retention systems (bio-swales and planter boxes), be implemented at the project site. . The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this executive summary should not be relied upon without consulting our geotechnical report for more detailed description of the geotechnical evaluation performed by Kleinfelder. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 5. • 20152384.00 1 A/IRV 1 4RO981 0 E•3 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder EWFELOER • 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical study for the proposed dairy cooler addition to Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. The location of the project site is presented on Plate 1 , Site Vicinity Map. The purpose of our study is to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The scope of our services was presented in our proposal titled, "Proposal for Limited Geotechnical Study, Proposed Receiving Area and Dairy Cooler Additions, Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491, 26610 Ynez Road, Temecula, California" dated August 28, 2014. Our report includes a description of the work performed, a discussion of the geotechnical conditions observed at the site, and recommendations developed from our engineering analyses of field and laboratory data. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Kleinfelder understands that the project will consist of demolishing the existing receiving dock and construct a 12,550 square-foot addition comprised of a new receiving area and loading dock on the eastern side of the existing warehouse building and a new dairy cooler on the northern side. As part of storm water management for the project, Infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as subterranean infiltration galleries, are being considered. The "proposed improvements are shown on Plate 2, Boring Location Plan. We anticipate that the new addition will be supported on spread footings and concrete slab-on-grade floors. Based on experience with similar projects, we have assumed that typical wall loads will be less than 3.5 kips per lineal foot, and the slab load (dead plus sustained live) to be 350 pounds per square (psf). Grading plans were not provided; however, we anticipate the finished grades surrounding the addition will generally match the existing grades • 20152384.001 All RV14R09810 Page 1 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder �. KLE/NFELOER • 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our limited geotechnical study consisted of a literature review, subsurface explorations, geotechnical laboratory testing, engineering evaluation and analysis, and preparation of this report. Studies to assess environmental hazards that may affect the soil and groundwater at the site were beyond our geotechnical scope of work. A description of our scope of services performed for the geotechnical portion of the project follows. 1.2.1 Task 1 — Background Data Review We reviewed readily-available published and unpublished geologic literature in our files and the files of public agencies, including selected publications prepared by the California Geological Survey (formerly known as the California Division of Mines and Geology) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). We also reviewed readily available seismic and faulting information, including data for designated earthquake fault zones as well as our in-house database of faulting in the general site vicinity. • In addition, we reviewed the geotechnical investigation report prepared by Leighton & Associates (Leighton, 1999) for the original warehouse development. The 1999 report was reviewed and evaluated by Kleinfelder in developing the results presented herein. 1.2.2. Task 2 — Field Exploration Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling five borings to a depth ranging from approximately 111/2 feet to 211/2 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Borehole infiltration tests will be performed in four of the borings. Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, various geophysical techniques were used at the boring locations to identify potential conflicts with subsurface structures. Each of our proposed field exploration locations were also cleared for buried utilities through Underground Service Alert (USA). A Kleinfelder staff geologist supervised the field operations and logged the explorations. Selected bulk and drive samples were retrieved, placed in plastic bags, and transported • to our laboratory for further evaluation. The number of blows necessary to drive a 20152384.001 All RV14R09810 Page 2 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder �LE/NFELOER • Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler or California-type sampler was recorded. Appendix A presents a description of the field exploration program, exploration logs, and a legend of terms and symbols used on the logs. Soil descriptions used on the logs result from field observations and data, as well as from laboratory test data. Stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types, and the actual transition,may vary and can be gradual. The procedures and test results from the borehole infiltration tests are presented in Appendix C. 1.2.3 Task 3 — Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was performed on representative bulk and. relatively undisturbed samples to substantiate field classifications and to provide engineering parameters for geotechnical design. Laboratory testing consisted of in-situ moisture content, dry unit weight, grain-size distribution, hydrometer, and corrosivity (sulfate, . pH, minimum resistivity, chloride content). A summary of the testing performed and the results.are presented in Appendix B. • 1.2.4 Task 4 — Geotechnical Analyses Field and laboratory data were analyzed in conjunction with the finished grades, facility layout; and structural loads to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction. We evaluated feasible foundation systems, including constructability and compatibility constraints, floor 'slab support, and earthwork. Seismic design parameters based on the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) are also presented. As part of storm water management for the project, we also evaluated the results of the borehole infiltration tests and laboratory testing in order to provide recommendations for locating and designing subterranean infiltration galleries. The results of the borehole infiltration tests are presented in Appendix C. 1.2.5 Task 5 — Report Preparation This report summarizes the work performed, data acquired, and our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed addition. Our report includes the following items: 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 3 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder �LE/NFEL DER • • Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan; • Boring logs, including approximate elevation (Appendix A); • Results of laboratory tests (Appendix B); • Discussion of general site conditions; • Discussion of general subsurface conditions as encountered in our field exploration; • Recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, temporary slope inclinations, fill placement, and compaction specifications, including the excavation characteristics of subsurface soil deposits; • Recommendations for foundation design, allowable bearing pressures, embedment depths, and compatibility constraints under various loading conditions; • Recommendations for,support of slabs-on-grade; • Recommendations for seismic design parameters in accordance with the • 2013 California Building Code (CBC); • Preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils based on testing results from previous studies; and • Results of the borehole infiltration tests (Appendix C) and recommendations for long-term design infiltration rates and locating subterranean infiltration galleries. • 20152384.001 A/IRV1 4RO981 0 Page 4 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder (*KLE AAFEL DER • 2 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The receiving area is located on the eastern side of the existing warehouse building. The surface is concrete and asphalt and contains a large fenced in area. The proposed dairy cooler is located on the north side of the existing warehouse building. The surface of proposed dairy cooler location is currently covered by asphalt concrete, contains a small landscape area, and is generally used for additional warehouse parking. 2.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The site generally slopes to the south, away from the existing warehouse. Site drainage is currently by sheet flow into on-site catch basins, storm drains, or drainage inlets in the parking area. 2.3 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS • Subsurface conditions at the .site generally consist of artificial fill underlain by alluvial deposits. A discussion, of the subsurface materials encountered is presented in the following sections. Detailed descriptions of the deposits are provided in our boring logs presented in Appendix A. 2.3.1 Fill Fill soils associated with previous site grading were encountered in the borings drilled for this investigation. The fill consists generally of silty sand with occasional gravel. As observed in our borings, the fill depth was approximately up to 3 feet below current site grades. Deeper fill may be encountered between or beyond the boring location. Laboratory testing indicates in-situ moisture contents ranging from 5.3 to 19.2 percent. Based on review of Leighton's 1999 geotechnical report (Leighton, 1999), the area of the cooler addition was underlain by up to approximately 10 feet of old fill or loose soil prior to the development of the existing Costco warehouse. The old fill is not considered suitable for structural support. As part of the building pad preparation for • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 5 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder "KLC MIELOER • the existing warehouse, the old fill was overexcavated -and replaced as structural fill. The overexcavation reportedly extended a horizontal distance beyond the. edge of the foundations equal to the depth of the overexcavation, which was at least 10 feet. 2.3.2 Alluvium Alluvial soil was observed to underlie the fill in our borings. As observed, the alluvium consisted of medium dense silty sand, sand with silt, and poorly graded sand with occasional fine gravel. 2.4 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered within borings, which were advanced to a maximum depth of 21 1/2 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered within 2 of the borings.drilled for Leighton (1999) at a depth of 25 feet bgs. Groundwater is not anticipated to affect the excavations for the proposed receiving area or cooler additions. • Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and increased soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped areas on or adjacent to the,site can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater levels. • 20152384.001 All RV1 4RO981 0 Page 6 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder �LE/NFELOER • 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 GENERAL Based on the results of our prior field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The following opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the properties of the materials encountered in the borings, the results of the laboratory-testing program, and our engineering analyses performed. Our recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project are presented in the following sections. 3.2 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on information obtained from the investigation, published geologic literature and • maps, and on our interpretation of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) criteria, it is our opinion that the project site may be classified as Site Class D, Stiff Soil, according to Section 1613.3.2 of 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010). Approximate coordinates for the site are noted below. Latitude: 34.5212`N Longitude: 117.1542 V The Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) mapped spectral accelerations for 0.2 seconds and 1 second periods (Sr, and S1) were estimated using Section 1613.3 of the 2013 CBC and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) web based application (available at httpJ/geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php).. The mapped acceleration values and associated soil amplification factors (Fe and F ) based on the 2013 CBC and corresponding site modified spectral accelerations (Sens and Sne1) and design spectral accelerations (Sosand Sol) are presented in Table 1. 20152384.001 AARV1 4RO981 0 Page 7 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleintelder f\KLE/NFEL DER • Table 1 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Desl n Parameter Recommended Value Site Class D Se (g) 1.966 S, (g) 0.803 Fe 1.0 F 1.5 Sms (g) 1.966 ' SMI (9) 1.204 Sos (9) 1.311 Sol (g) 1.000 PGAM (g) 0.804. • 3.3 FOUNDATIONS 3.3.1 General Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, the proposed addition may be supported on conventional shallow foundations (spread footings) founded on engineered fill. Recommendations for the design and construction of shallow foundations are presented below. 3.3.2 Shallow Foundations Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure Spread footings founded on engineered fill may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for dead plus sustained live loads. The footings should be established at a depth of at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures can be used for wind or seismic is 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 8 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder � KLE/NFELOER /ry.way.wmwa. • loads. The footing dimension and reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer; however, continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches. Estimated Settlement We anticipate total settlement of the receiving area and new cooler additions will be on the order of 1/2 inch. Differential settlement will be equal to the total settlement and may be abrupt at the interface with the existing warehouse. Wherever new construction abuts existing older construction, small architectural cracking may occur. We suggest you consider using architectural finishes or details to disguise this cold joint area if it is a concern to Costco. Lateral Resistance Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along the vertical sides of the footings, friction acting at the base of the footing, or a combination of the two. An allowable passive resistance of 300 psf per foot of depth may be used for design. Allowable passive resistance values should not exceed 3,000 psi. An allowable • coefficient of friction value of 0.35 between the base of the footings and the engineered fill soils can be used for sliding resistance using the dead load forces. Friction and passive resistance may be combined without reduction. We recommend that the first foot of soil cover be neglected in the passive resistance calculations. if the ground surface is not protected from erosion or disturbance by a slab, pavement or in a similar manner. 3.4 EARTHWORK 3.4.1 General Site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations and other local, state or federal specifications, and the recommendations included in this report: References to maximum dry unit weights are established in accordance with the latest version of ASTM Standard Test Method D1557 (modified Proctor). The earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a representative of Kleinfelder. • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 9 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyrighl 2014 Kleinfelder �LE/NFELOER • 3.4.2 Site Preparation Abandoned utilities, foundations, and other existing improvements within the proposed improvement areas should be removed and the excavation(s) backfilled with engineered fill. Debris produced by demolition operations, including wood, steel, piping, plastics, etc., should be separated and disposed of off-site. Existing utility pipelines or conduits that extend beyond the limits of the proposed construction and are to be abandoned in place, should be plugged with non-shrinking cement grout to prevent migration of soil and/or water. Demolition, disposal and grading operations should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Areas to receive fill should ,be stripped of all dry, loose or soft earth materials and undocumented fill materials to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. • Building Pad: In order to provide uniform support for the proposed building additions, we recommend that the existing soils be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below the bottom of footings and replaced as structural fill. If fill soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation, the overexcavation • should continue until the fill is removed. It should be noted that a fill depth of approximately 2 to 3 feet below grade was encountered in our recent borings. However, deeper fills may exist between or beyond our soil borings. The fill immediately adjacent to the existing warehouse building, which was overexcavated and recompacted as part of the original building pad preparation, may be left in place. The actual limits of this fill should be verified during overexcavation. The overexcavation should extend horizontally beyond the limits of the building pad a distance equal to the thickness of fill below the bottom of the proposed foundations or five feet, whichever is greater, if practicable. As discussed Section 2.3.1, the building pad preparation for the existing warehouse consisted of overexcavating the pad a horizontal distance beyond the edge of the foundations equal to the depth of the overexcavation, which was at least 10 feet. Depending on the condition of the fill immediately adjacent to the building, shoring and/or underpinning may be required to perform demolition and overexcavation adjacent to the existing building. Excavations within a 1 :1 (horizontal:vertical) plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be • 20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page 10 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder �E/NFELOER • attempted without bracing and/or underpinning. All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should be met. • Pavement, Sidewalks and Other Flatwork Areas: After the area has been stripped of soft earth materials and debris, we recommend that the exposed subgrade be proof-rolled with heavy construction equipment (e.g. loader or smooth-drum roller) to disclose areas of soft and yielding material. Where soft and yielding material is observed, it should be overexcavated and replaced as engineered fill. After proof-rolling and/or prior to placement of fill, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. The proof- rolling should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet. 3.4.3 Structural Fill Material and Compaction Criteria The on-site soils, minus any debris, organic matter, or other deleterious materials, may be used in the site fills. Rock or other soil fragments greater than 3 inches in size • should not be used in the fills. We recommend that fill soils be compacted in accordance with the Costco Design Requirements to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557). Fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not more than 8 inches thick (loose measurement). The moisture content of the fill should be maintained near optimum moisture content during compaction. Processing may require ripping the material, disking to break up clumps, and blending to attain uniform moisture contents necessary for compaction. Utility trench backfill should be mechanically compacted. Flooding should not be permitted. Import materials, if required, should have an expansion index of less than 20 with no more than 30 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The maximum expansion index for imported soils may be modified by the project geotechnical engineer depending on its proposed use. Imported fill should be documented to be free of hazardous materials, including petroleum or petroleum byproducts, chemicals and harmful minerals. • 20152384.001AARV14R09810 Page 11 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder _ \L E/NFEL DER • Kleinfelder should evaluate the proposed imported materials prior to their transportation and use on site. 3.4.4 Excavation Characteristics The borings drilled as part of our field exploration were advanced using a truck- mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. Drilling effort was easy to moderate. It is anticipated that conventional earthmoving equipment maintained in good condition should be capable of excavating the anticipated materials. 3.4.5 Temporary Excavations Temporary cuts may be sloped back at an inclination of no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to .vertical) in existing artificial fill materials. Minor sloughing,and/or raveling of weathered materials should be anticipated. If signs of slope instability are observed, the inclination recommended above should be decreased until stability of the slope is obtained. In addition, at the first signs of slope instability, the geotechnical engineer • should be contacted. Where space for sloped embankments is not available, shoring will be necessary. :Shoring and/or underpinning of existing improvements that are to remain may be required to perform the demolition and overexcavation. Excavations within a 1:1 plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be attempted without bracing and/or underpinning the improvements. The geotechnical engineer or their field representative should observe the excavations so that modifications can be made to the excavations, as necessary, based on variations in the encountered soil conditions. All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should be met. Where sloped excavations are used, barricades should be placed.at the crest of the slopes so that vehicles and storage loads do not encroach within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation. Greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Kleinfelder should be advised in advance of such heavy vehicle loadings so. that specific setback requirements can be established. If temporary construction slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes to reduce runoff that • may enter the excavation and erode the slope faces. 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 12 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder E/NFEL DER . • Due to the granular and cohesionless nature of some of the on-site soils, vertical or steeply sided trench excavations should not be attempted without proper shoring or bracings. All trench excavations should be braced and shored in accordance with good construction practice and all applicable safety ordinances and codes. The contractor should be responsible for the structural design and safety of the temporary shoring system, and we recommend that this design be submitted to Kleinfelder for review to check that our recommendations have been incorporated. For planning purposes, the on-site soils may be considered Type C, as defined using the current OSHA soil classification. Stockpiled (excavated) materials should be placed no closer to the edge of an excavation than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, but no closer than 4 feet. All trench excavations should be made in accordance with OSHA requirements. 3.4.6 Trench Backfill Pipe zone backfill (i.e. material beneath and in the immediate vicinity of the pipe) should • consist of imported soil less than 3/4-inch in maximum dimension. Trench zone backfill (i.e., material placed between the pipe zone backfill and finished subgrade) may consist of onsite soil or imported fill that meets the requirements for engineered fill provided above. If imported material is used for trench zone, backfill, we recommend it consist of silty sand. In general, gravel should not be used for trench zone backfill due to the potential for soil migration into the relatively large void spaces present in this type of material and water seepage along trenches backfilled with coarse-grained sand and/or gravel. Recommendations provided above for pipe zone backfill are minimum requirements only. More stringent material specifications may be required to fulfill local building requirements and/or bedding requirements for specific types of pipes. We recommend the project civil engineer develop these material specifications based on planned pipe types, bedding conditions, and other factors beyond the scope of this study. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided for engineered fill in Section 3.4.3. Mechanical compaction is recommended; • 20152394.00 1 A/IRV1 4RO981 0 Page 13 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder f KLE/NFELOER v • ponding or jetting should not be allowed, especially in areas supporting structural loads or beneath concrete slabs supported on grade, pavements, or other improvements. 3.5 TEMPORARY SHORING 3.5.1 General Temporary shoring may be required in areas adjacent to existing structures or improvements where excavations cannot be adequately sloped. Temporary shoring may consist of a turn-key shoring system, soldier piles and lagging, or other system. Recommendations for design of.temporary shoring are presented below. The shoring- design should be provided by a civil engineer registered in the State of California. and experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions. Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and design should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for conformance with the design intent and geotechnical recommendations provided herein. • 3.5.2 Lateral Pressures For the design of cantilevered shoring, an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot may be used for level backfill. Where the surface of the retained earth slopes up away from the shoring, a greater pressure should be used. Design data can be developed for additional cases when the design conditions are established. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1 :1 plane drawn upward from the base of the shored excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the wall may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.30 for the level backfill condition. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf) is recommended to account for nominal construction loads. It should be noted that the above pressures do not include hydrostatic pressure and assume that dewatering will be performed if groundwater is above the excavation. • 20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page 14 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleintelder f KLE/NFEL OER • 3.5.3 Design of Soldier Piles All soldier piles should extend to a sufficient depth below the excavation bottom to provide the required lateral resistance. We recommend that the required embedment depths be calculated based on the principles of force and moment equilibrium. For this method, the allowable passive pressure against soldier piles that extend below the level of excavation may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), with a maximum resistance value of 3,000 psf. To account for arching, the passive resistance may be assumed to act on an 2.5 times the width of the embedded portion of the pile, provided adjacent piles are spaced at least 3 pile diameters, center-to-center. Drilling of the soldier pile shafts could be accomplished using conventional heavy-duty drilling equipment. However, caving soils is anticipated to be encountered and some difficulty may be experienced in the drilling of the soldier pile shafts. It may be necessary to use casing and/or"other techniques to permit the installation of the soldier piles. Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after drilling of the hole is • complete. The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a tremie. Once concrete pumping is initiated, a minimum head of 5 feet of concrete above the bottom of the tremie should be established and maintained throughout the concrete placement to prevent contamination-of the concrete by soil inclusions. If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed. To develop full lateral resistance, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and undisturbed materials. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile that is below the planned excavated level should provide sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding materials. 3.5.4 Lagging Continuous treated timber lagging should be used between the soldier piles. The lagging should be installed as the excavation proceeds. If treated timber is used, the lagging may remain in place after backfilling. The lagging should be designed for the • 20152384.001 AARV1 4RO981 0 Page 15 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder f ICCE/NFELOER • recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 pounds per square foot. Some caving and running of the upper soils should be anticipated. To reduce the potential for loss of ground and settlement of the soil behind the wall, the contractor should backfill any space between the lagging and the cut slope with clean sand or sand-cement slurry after installation. 3.5.5 Deflection Shoring adjacent to existing structures or improvements should be designed and constructed so as to reduce the potential movement. Once the actual excavation configuration is known, we should be afforded the opportunity to evaluate the anticipated lateral deflections of the proposed shoring system. 3.5.6 Monitoring • Some deflection of the shored excavation should be anticipated during the planned excavation. We recommend the project civil engineer perform a survey of all existing utilities and structures adjacent to the shored excavation. The purpose of this survey would be W evaluate. the ,ability of existing utility lines .or improvements to withstand horizontal movements associated with a shored excavation and to establish the baseline condition in case of unfounded claims of damage. If existing improvements are not capable of withstanding anticipated lateral movements, alternative shoring systems may be required. Horizontal and vertical movements of the shoring system should be monitored by a licensed surveyor. The construction monitoring and performance of the shoring system are ultimately the contractor's responsibility. However, at a minimum, we recommend that the tops of soldier beams be surveyed prior to excavation and that the top and bottom of the soldier beams be surveyed on a weekly basis until the foundation is completed. Surveying should consist of measuring movements in vertical and two perpendicular horizontal directions. • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 16 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder I\KLE/NFELOER • 3.6 BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE Concrete slab-on-grade floors are appropriate for the proposed warehouse, provided subgrade is prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.2. In accordance with the CWDRs, we recommend the slab be a minimum nominal thickness of 6 inches and underlain by at least 6 inches of aggregate base material. Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design of slabs supported on 6 inches of aggregate base material over engineered fill, as discussed below. Pursuant to Costco's current standard construction design practices, we have evaluated the necessity of using steel reinforcement in the floor slab. Based on the geotechnical characteristics of the site, the proposed warehouse can be built with a non-reinforced slab. Floor slab control joints.should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Control joint spacing is a function of slab thickness, aggregate size, slump and curing • conditions. The requirements for concrete slab thickness, .joint spacing, and reinforcement should be established by the designer, based on experience, recognized design guidelines and the intended slab use. Placement and curing conditions will have a strong impact on the final concrete slab integrity. Groundwater is not anticipated to affect the proposed construction. Kleinfelder typically recommends installation of a vapor barrier beneath the slab to mitigate potential moisture issues such as flooring performance and mold. However, we understand that Costco Wholesale has determined that moisture barriers are not to be used in construction of Costco Wholesale warehouses due to adverse effects on concrete curing and performance. Therefore, we have provided construction recommendations that do not include installation of a moisture barrier, with the understanding that there will be an increased risk for adverse moisture issues. 3.7 EXTERIOR FLATWORK Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted or overexcavated, as recommended. in Section 3.4.2. • Exterior concrete slabs for pedestrian traffic or landscape should be at least four inches 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 17 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder �E/NFELOER • thick. Weakened plane 'joints should be located at intervals of about 6 feet. Careful control of the water/cement ratio should be performed to avoid shrinkage cracking due to excess water or poor concrete finishing or curing. Unreinforced slabs should not be built in areas where further saturation may occur following construction. 3.8 SITE DRAINAGE Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on proper irrigation and how well runoff water drains from the site. This drainage should be maintained both during construction and over the entire life of the project. The ground surface around structures should be graded such that water drains rapidly away from structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to do this' depends on the surface type and should follow Costco's Wholesale Development Requirements (Costco Wholesale, 2014). We recommend that landscape planters either not be located adjacent to buildings and pavement areas or be properly drained to area drains. Drought resistant plants and minimum watering are recommended for planters immediately adjacent to structures. • No raised planters should be installed immediately adjacent to structures unless they are damp-proofed and have a drainpipe connected to an area drain outlet. Planters should be built such that water exiting from them will not seep into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavement. Otherwise, waterproofing the slab and walls should be considered. Roof water should be directed to fall on hardscape areas sloping to an area drain, or roof gutters and downspouts should be installed and routed to area drains. Roof downspouts and their associated drains should be isolated from other subdrain systems to avoid flooding. In any event, maintenance personnel should be instructed to limit irrigation to the minimum actually necessary to properly sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, waterline breaks or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones and "perched" groundwater may develop. Consequently, the site should be graded so that water drains away readily without saturating the foundation or landscaped areas. Potential sources of water such as water pipes, drains, and the like should be frequently examined for signs of leakage or damage. Any such leakage or damage should be promptly repaired. Wet utilities should also be designed to be watertight. • 20152384.001 A/IRV1 4RO981 0 Page 18 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder �LE/NFELOER • 3.9 RETAINING STRUCTURES Design earth pressures for retaining structures depend primarily on the allowable wall movement, wall inclination, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, surcharges, and drainage. The earth pressures provided assume that the on-site granular soil will be used as backfill. If a drainage system is not installed, the wall should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressure in addition to the earth pressure. Determination of whether the active or at-rest condition is appropriate for design will depend on the flexibility of the walls. Walls that are free to rotate at least 0.002 radians (deflection at the top of the wall of at least 0.002 x H, where H is the unbalanced wall height) may be designed for the active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The recommended active and at-rest earth pressures and passive resistance values are provided in Table 5. Table 2 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Structures (On-site Granular Backfill) • Wall movement Backfill Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure (Pcf) Free to Deflect 40 (active condition) Level Restrained 60 (at-rest condition) The above lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of surcharges (e.g., traffic, footings), compaction, or truck-induced wall pressures. Any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1 :1 (horizontal to vertical) plane drawn upward from the base of the excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind walls may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.33 for cantilevered walls under active conditions and 0.50 for restrained walls under at-rest conditions. Walls adjacent to areas subject to vehicular traffic should be designed for a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf). Lateral load contributions from other surcharges located behind walls may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 19 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder f\ OEM Walls `i•ate gym.w ,e..,b. • Walls should be properly drained or designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Adequate drainage is essential to provide a free-drained backfill condition so that there is no hydrostatic buildup behind the wall. Walls should also be appropriately waterproofed to reduce the potential for staining. Drainage behind loading dock walls can consist of weepholes placed along the base of the wall. Weepholes should be spaced 10 to 15 feet apart and connected with a gravel drain consisting of approximately 3 cubic feet of clean gravel per foot of wall length wrapped with filter fabric. 3.10 PAVEMENT SECTIONS The required pavement structural sections will depend on the expected wheel loads, volume of traffic,, and subgrade soils.. We, have provided asphalt concrete pavement sections for traffic indices provided in the CWDRs (Costco, 2014). Positive drainage of the paved areas should be provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may decrease the life of pavements. Curbing located adjacent to paved areas should be founded in the subgrade, not the aggregate base, in order to provide a cutoff, which reduces water infiltration into the base course. • The following pavement sections provided above are based on the soil conditions encountered during our field exploration, our assumptions regarding final site grades, and limited laboratory testing. 3.10.1 Costco Pavement Design Parameters We developed pavement design recommendations using traffic loading parameters provided in the CWDRs and the following data: • A 20-year pavement design life; • Light-duty pavements subject to 6,600 passenger vehicle trips per day (Traffic Index of 5.0); • Heavy-duty pavements subject to 30 tractor-trailer truck tips per day (Traffic Index of 7.0); • For asphalt concrete pavements: a design R-value of 20; and • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 20 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Nleintelder �E/NFELOER • • For Portland cement concrete (PCC) Pavements: a 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture determined by the third-point method) of at least 550 pounds per square inch (psi) (approximate compressive strength of 4,000 psi); a modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci); and interlock at the control joints. 3.10.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement We designed asphalt concrete pavement, also referred to as Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), in accordance with the Asphalt Institute Manual Series (MS-1), Asphalt Pavements for Highways and Streets. HMA should conform to requirements of the Costco Wholesale Asphalt Pavement and Surfacing Specification 02471. Pavement lifts should not exceed three inches. Table 3 presents recommended minimum HMA pavement -sections. It should be noted that the existing pavement section consists of approximately 3 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 7 to 8 inches of aggregate base. Consideration should be given to matching the existing sections at minimum. Prior to placement of aggregate base, pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.2. • Table 3 Recommended Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections Traffic Use Traffic Index, TI Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base (Inches) (Inches) Light-Duty 5.0 3.5 6.0 Pavement Heavy-Duty 6.5 6.0 Pavement 7.0 5.0 12.0 3.10.3 Asphalt Performance Grade Binder Performance Grade (PG) Binder 70-10 is appropriate for the project. This recommendation was developed in accordance with Costco Wholesale Specifications Section 02741. Air temperature data for the five data stations nearest the project site was averaged and the PG was selected using the FHWA program LTTPBind Version 3.1. The high-end temperature rating was selected as one grade higher than • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 21 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder f`KLE/NFEL OER • the 98 percent reliability binder and the low-end temperature was selected to provide a reliability of at least 90 percent. 3.10.4 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement We designed PCC pavement in accordance with the Portland Cement Association (PCA) Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements (PCA, 1984). The design assumes that the PCC will have a 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture determined by the third-point method) of at least 550 pounds per square inch (psi) (approximate compressive strength of 4,000 psi). A design modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) was assumed for the top of the compacted aggregate base. It was also assumed that aggregate interlock would be developed at the control joints. The pavement sections are based on a theoretical design life of 20 years. Recommended minimum PCC sections are presented in Table 4. Prior to placement of aggregate base, pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.2. • Table 4 Recommended Minimum PCC Pavement Sections Traffic Use Traffic Index, TI PCC Aggregate Base (Inches) (inches) Light-Duty 5.0 6.5 6.0 Pavement Heavy-Duty 7.0 7.0 6.0 Pavement 3.10.5 Aggregate Base Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base. Alternatively, the aggregate base course could meet the specifications for untreated base materials (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) as defined in Section 200-2 of the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base and crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) utilize recycled materials and require Costco's approval • prior to use. 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 22 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinlelder �E/NFELOER • 3.10.6 Construction Considerations The pavement sections provided above are contingent on the following recommendations being implemented during construction. • Pavement subgrade should be prepared as recommended in Section 3.4.2. • Subgrade soils should be in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time the aggregate base materials are placed and compacted. • Aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). • Asphalt paving materials and placement methods should meet :current Costco Wholesale Specifications Section 02741. • Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet. Note that pavement materials and construction must be completed in strict accordance • with the Costco's specifications that contain very specific pavement material (asphalt, aggregate and concrete) criteria and construction practices to be used (compaction and material sampling). The general contractor and pavement construction subcontractor should be aware that asphalt and concrete mix designs must be submitted to the design architect and Kleinfelder at least 45 days prior to the scheduled production and laydown for review and approval. 3.11 SOIL CORROSION The corrosion potential of the on-site materials to steel and buried concrete was preliminarily evaluated. Laboratory testing was performed on one representative soil samples to evaluate pH, minimum resistivity, chloride and soluble sulfate content. The test results are presented in Table 5. • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 23 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder t KLE/NFEL OER wAwm..qm w,o. • Table 5 Corrosion Test Results Soluble Soluble Minimum Sulfate Chloride Depth Resistivity Content Content Boring (ft) (ohm-cm) pH (ppm) (ppm) B-5 2.5 2,214 7.5 217 168 These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils found on site may be more, less, or of a similar corrosive nature. Imported fill materials should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is.not more severe than those noted. Resistivity values between 1,000 and 3,000 ohm-cm are normally considered highly corrosive to buried ferrous metals (NACE, 2006). The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is "negligible" based on ACI 318-11 Table 4.2.1 (ACI, 2011). Maximum water-cement ratios and cement types are not specified for these sulfate concentrations. • Kleinfelder's scope of services does not include corrosion engineering and, therefore, a detailed analysis of the corrosion test results is not included. A qualified corrosion engineer should be retained to review the test results for further evaluation and design protective systems, if considered necessary. 3.12 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Kleinfelder understands that, as part of storm water management for the project, Infiltration Best Management BMPs, such as subterranean infiltration galleries, are being considered. We performed four borehole infiltration tests using the well permeameter (USER 7300-89) in accordance with the Riverside County guidelines in order to provide recommendations for locating and designing subterranean infiltration galleries. We also performed 10 grain-size distribution laboratory tests to assess the grain size associated with 10 percent finer particles (D1o). The borehole infiltration tests along with grain-size distribution tests were used to evaluate the infiltration capabilities of the subsurface soils. The borehole infiltration test results are presented in Appendix C. • 20152384.00tA/IRV14R09810 Page 24 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleintelder t KL E/NFEL DER • Based on visual soil classification and laboratory testing of the soil samples collected during our field exploration, the upper approximately 10 feet of the subsurface soils consist predominantly silty sand with fines contents between approximately 20 and 46 percent. Below a depth of approximately 10 feet, the subsurface soils consist predominantly sand with silt with approximately 7 to 11 percent fines content. Based on the results of the borehole infiltration tests, the soil classification and gradation tests, the use of infiltration BMPs, such as subterranean infiltration galleries, for storm water management are feasible provided the galleries are located northeast of the existing warehouse building near the cooler addition and capable of bypassing the upper silty sand layer with outflow at a depth of at least 12.feet below grade. We understand that the bottoms of infiltration galleries are typically established at depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet below grade. To facilitate water dissipation at depth, we recommend either deepening the infiltration galleries or excavating the existing soil below the bottom of the galleries to a depth of at least 12 feet below.grade and backfilling the excavation with 3/4-inch crushed rock. The crushed rock should be wrapped with filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Based on the results of the • infiltration tests and the correlation of the grain-size distribution with hydraulic conductivity, and considering factors such as site variability, potential for long-term siltation and bio-buildup, a long-term 'infiltration rate of approximately 0.5 inchesi per hour may be used for design of subterranean infiltration galleries with outflow at a depth of at least 12 feet below grade. The galleries should be at least 15 feet horizontally from the nearest foundation. If infiltration BMPs are impractical due to existing site constraints, we recommend alternatives, such as bio-filtration/bio-retention systems (bio-swales and planter boxes), be implemented at the project site. If bio-filtration/bio-retention systems are employed, we recommend that the BMPs be built such that water exiting from them will not seep into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavement. If planters are located within 10 feet of the building or building foundations, or adjacent to slabs and pavements, then some means of diverting water away from the building, building foundation soils, or soils that support slabs and pavements would be required, such as lining the planters. is 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 25 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder E/NFELOER • 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW We recommend that Kleinfelder perform a. general review of the project plans and specifications before they are finalized to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during design. If we are not accorded the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. 4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The construction process is, an .integral design component with respect to the geotechnical aspects of a project. Because geotechnical engineering is an inexact science due to the variability of natural processes, and because we sample only a limited portion of the soils affecting the performance of the proposed structure, unanticipated or changed conditions can be encountered during grading. Proper • geotechnical observation and testing during construction are imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process. Therefore, we recommend that Kleinfelder be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing this study. Our services are typically needed at the following stages of grading. • After demolition; • During grading; • After the overexcavation, but prior to scarification; • During utility trench backfill; • During base placement and site paving; and • After excavation for foundations. • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 26 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleintelder f KLE/NFEL DER • 5 LIMITATIONS This geotechnical study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Costco Wholesale and their agents for specific application to the proposed dairy cooler addition to Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 491 at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of services was limited to a background data review and the field exploration described in Section 1.2. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on our field exploration and laboratory testing programs, and engineering analyses. • Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and. engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information„which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should discuss the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner's budget, tolerance of risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance. Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil or groundwater conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the recommendations of this report. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the estimated Traffic Index or locations of the improvements, changes from that described in • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page 27 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder OCR this• this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid until the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing, by Kleinfelder. The scope of services for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for interpretation by others of this report or the conditions encountered in the field. Kleinfelder must be retained so that all geotechnical aspects of construction will be monitored on a full-time basis by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site preparation, preparation of foundations, and placement of engineered fill and trench backfill. These services provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during construction and to evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the site conditions. If Kleinfelder is not retained to provide these services, we will cease to be the engineer of record for this project and will assume no responsibility for any potential claim • during or after construction on this project. If changed site conditions affect the recommendations presented herein, Kleinfelder must also be retained to perform a supplemental evaluation and to issue a revision to our original report. This report, and any future addenda or reports regarding this site, may be made available to bidders to supply them with only the data contained in the report regarding subsurface conditions and laboratory test results at the point and time noted. Bidders may not rely on interpretations, opinion, recommendations, or conclusions contained in the report. Because of the limited nature of any subsurface study, the contractor may encounter conditions during construction which differ from those presented in this report. In such event, the contractor should promptly notify the owner so that Kleinfelder's geotechnical engineer can be contacted to confirm those conditions. We recommend the contractor describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and that the construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions. Contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction. This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a • reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the 20152384.001A/IAV14RO9810 Page 28 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Klelnlelder 1 t /CLE/NFELOER • report. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any'party, other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and the client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claims or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. • • 20152384.001A/IRV14RO9810 Page 29 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder . 1 f KLE/NFELOER ll • 6 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, released June 2003. Costco Wholesale, 2014, Costco Wholesale Development Requirements, Version 2014, revised on June 13, 2014. International Code Council, Inc., 2013 California,Building Code. Leighton (1999), Leighton and Associates, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Costco Wholesale and Gas Station Site, Ynez Road and Overland • Drive, Temecula, California, Dated April 26, 1999. National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), 2006, "Corrosion Basics, An Introduction, 2nd Edition" National Association of Corrosion Engineers. _ Portland Cement Association (PCA), 1984, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements, Skokie, Illinois: Portland Cement Association. Portland Cement Association, 1988, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, Portland Cement Association, Skokie,,Illinois. • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09910 Page 30 of 30 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinteltler • PLATES �Tv. , t qr in .1 Tr vr ♦,may i' ♦ `ti 17 �y r k �`/ '11 �� � l` �/�♦�"�1 1 ,\ .�I AL..l A/`�� Imo•./'. / •ti f� i'� ��'/ '� � � �•' �• ' It.�` ��y '� � L� ����•`/� `ia�'.s/♦ f'"-.�-w.� eft.,�F/�� i' �..4 0. ��� ♦1j♦�,( ♦�� f' 9' fi �Y r H' `' dam- UC' d �w1r t� sue` �� ♦�' ♦ �i. " ♦;a / :.n ,• ' \, :.t � tt �l �L:.�b:��„ �..,, • �� � � _ ' ,. �.� � {ivy- ,ey - �,r�-�'4. rAl - � .�' �♦ i' ►�4'� �' 1 �\'�YR i �� 4 ',� `tie � �;� .�'�,1 ki:< SOURCE: •• •• 2014,IMAGE • 1/08/13. - - 111 1,000 1 2,000 APPROXIMATE SITE VICINITY MAP �• t PROPOSED RECEIVING AREA AND DAIRY C•• ADDITIONS COSTCO WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE NO.491 • ROAD. CALIFORNIA p • MWATESCOPE , \\ 'B-4 EXISTING GAS �\ E ; STATION , `� \\ . • /�j ` \ Z 1" •\ 1 •�` 1 ud NEW DAIRY 1 _ T• 1 ADDITION LLIEWADD j'- 7 r II I •\ •_ 1l I Il-I a -- TIRE CENTER Z��moN 1 a R � I I I n r I III I y�yccwrw NEWRECEIVINGI ' ADDITION I b FOOD SERVICE '8 •... o B-2 c NEW B•,• ENTRANCE 370' LANDS U 1 I � /� \�� 7 •I I I\ I 'I. ' �'/ �•• P • ° p Q LJ UU o i _- iw I e i m / E C3 am�= I o a 1�h2 r a O �. _ 4 O I p ' Q C. . o v I I Q a ° I ` co -- ------------- — -------------- cl I m �i in LAND I)RIVP d I E REFERENCE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY,MULVANNYG2 ARCHITECTURE,DATED 02/17114. N ' 100 50 0 100 PROJECT NO. 20152384 PLATE • OT.,< EXPLANATION ^ I BORING LOCATION PLAN �Xi APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet) B•5� APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION(2014) \ DRAWN. 92014 U DRAWN BY: MRG I w w,L -..� �.,�. a....e.��,.+.. OCR2 UUm �,'w;�TM^•+-• ��••'•�-•�•^•-+ 6dght PaWa Rfght SMiftm CHECKED BY: JW I PROPOSED RECEIVING AREA F r z '"""""""�"""""•"-' '"" \� FILE NAME: AND DAIRY COOLER ADDITIONS www.kleinfeleer.t COSTCO WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE N0.491 20152384p2_BLM.dwg <G� �� 26610 YNEZ ROAD,TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA • APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS �E/NFELOER • APPENDIX A FIELD. EXPLORATIONS Our field exploration program consisted of drilling five borings at the project site. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 11'/2 to 211/2 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) as proposed. The borings were drilled by CalPac Drilling of Calimesa, California with a truck-mounted, hollow-stem-auger drilling rig equipped with an auto-hammer (Mobile B61). The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Plate 2. Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, various geophysical techniques were used at each boring location in order to identify potential conflicts with subsurface structures. Each of our proposed field exploration locations were also cleared for buried utilities through Underground.Service Alert (USA). The boring logs are presented as Plates A-3 through A-7. An explanation to.the logs is presented as Plates A-1 and A-2. The boring logs describe the. earth materials encountered, samples obtained and show field and laboratory tests performed. The logs also show the location, boring' number, drilling date and the name of the drilling • subcontractor. The borings were logged by a Kleinfelder geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Bulk and drive samples of selected earth materials were obtained from the borings. A modified-California sampler was used to obtain drive samples of the soil encountered. This sampler consists of.a 3-inch O.D., 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is pushed or driven a total of 18-inches into the soil at the bottom of the borings. The soil was retained in six 1-inch brass rings for laboratory testing. An additional 2 inches of soil from each drive remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. The sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The total number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed blow count and is recorded on the boring logs. Samples were also obtained using a Standard Penetration Sampler (SPT). This sampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is advanced into the soils at the bottom of the drill hole a total of 18 inches. The sampler was driven using a • 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The total number of hammer blows required to 20152384.001AIIRV14RO9810 Page A-1 November25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder ("K EI VrEL DER • drive the sampler the final12 inches is termed the blow count (N) and is recorded on the Log of Boring. The procedures we employed in the field are generally consistent with those described in ASTM Standard Test Method D1586. Bulk and grab samples of the near-surface soils were directly retrieved from the cuttings. • • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 PageA-2 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder 5 SAMPLEISAMPLER TYPE GRAPHCS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LASTM D 24871 } CALIFORNIA SAMPLER WELL-GRADED GRAVELS. a (3 in.(76.2 nsn)user darater) CLEAN Qr�� ' GW GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH GRAVEL t► LITTLE OR NO FINES WITH - • X GRAB SAMPLE i$L -5% 6% W and/ ° POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER FINES or I-Cc•3 O GP GRAVEL-SANDORNO FINEMIXTS ES WITH (2 in.(50 8 mm,)waw dianetw and 1-3M In.(34.9 mmJ inner 5 o LITTLE OR NO FINES diamnim) c WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GROUND WATER GRAPHICS 5 jl GW1°M GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH ui Cu se find �� LITTLE FINES �u SZ WATER LEVEL(W01 where first observed) g� 1sW3 : WELL-GRADED GRAVELS. p M GRAVELS ' (iWGC GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH LEVEL(level after eropbrellon completion) WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES Q WATER LEVEL(additional levels after exploretion) 5%TO 12% POORLY GRADED GRAVELS. OBSERVED SEEPAGE m FINES ° GP-GM GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH Ou•4 any o LITrLE FINES NOTES a or I-Cc-3 POORLY GRADED GRAVELS. - The report and WepNta key aro an impel pea of draw bps. AN 8 ° GP•GC GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH data and imwplPlatiwa In Nit log ere subjed lo the aVlannelmra and o i o LITTLE CLAY FINES Iiniudioro stated In the report. 5 • ePes Unns sepaating strew on t e logs rerd apprmimab c GM SILTY GRAVELS.GRAVEL-SILTSAND bo rdaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual ordafw hare, 5 MIXTURES those shown. p i3 GRAVELS •No war my Is brooded as lo th y of e cant cit s a nook .e Wes' GC CLAYEY GRAVELS. Conditions between individual locations.la locations. 12% GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES o FINES •logs repressed general boil or rock mditions observed d the q GCGM CLAYEY GRAVELS. pa of explanation on this data indicated. c GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES • In general,Ua09d Sal ClaslNation System dosigrations = protontnd on wIo lope ware baso0 on vival dasifrmim in do field cR and were modred where,apprupnew,based an Wodabon and index S CLEAN are end Syg WELL-GRADED SANDS.SAND-GRAVEL Property le". 2i SANDS ts�3 MURURES WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES • Fie graied Baas that plot within the held aat on ale WITH Plasboity ChaM1 and wasa grained soils with betwoan 5%and 12% 45% CU 43 end, :. POORLY GRADED SANDS. the passing No.200 slows mu.M duel USCS symbols, 1� a,io.,GW-W, FINES SP SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH GP-GM,GW-GC,GP-GC,GC-GM,SW-SM,SPSM,SW-SC.SPSC, m ' LITTLE OR NO FINES SC-SM. q 5 • 0 sampler Is rW able b be driven at least 6 kWas W SWSM WELL-GRADED XTURS WIT SANDS.SAND-GRAVEL • a 3 incl diarotw by 2.5 trMes inch log 60 dgyoo scacal pod p'3 a MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES driven with a 170 12 pound hanma dropped 24 IDS inches. � Ound 4 a WELL-GRADED SANDS.SAND-GRAVEL C .0 SWAN MIXTURES WITH LITRE CLAY FINES G r¢ 5%TO CI r, 72% POORLY GRADED SANDS.FINES SPSM SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH Cu®saw :',: LITTLE FINES or I-CC�3 POORLY GRADED SANDS. 8 j $ r SAID-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH o : xx LITTLE CLAY FINES SILTYn ; c $ 5 SM MIXTURES SANDS,SAND-GRAVEL-SILT MIXTURES N U SATE g 12 CLAYEY SANDS.SAND-GRAVEL-CLAY% '0 0 �(`{ SC MIXTURES FINES 9g SCSM IIXXTURE SANDS,SAND-SILT-CLAY o� u INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,SILTY OR E �= CLAYEY FINE SANDS,SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INO CLAYS AYS OF LOW TO WORM PLASTICITY.GRAVELLY G a _ SILTS AND CLAYS / CL CLAYS.SMBTY CLAYS.SILTY QLAYa.LEAN CLAYS % 0 112 (Ltuxt aim CL�LIL INORGANIC CLAYSSILTSOF LOWPLASTICnY,GRAVELLY O o 5 Ise than 50) CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY GUYS,LEAN CLAYS pI 2, i n S g _ OL ORGANIC SILTS d ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS 3 aa X. OF LOW PLASTICITY LL' = INORGANIC SILTS.MICACEWSOR $ t7 5 g m MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT ' m W 5 SILTS AND CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, i t (Li4uid tint CH FAT CLAYS LL weater Iran 50) m QI OH MEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICIC CLAYS& ICmSILT50F fig 8 /^\ PROJECT NO.: 20152384 GRAPHICS KEY PLATE \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME •Q KL E//VFEL DER J.WALLER proposetl Race wing ArealDairy Cooler Addit ens A-1 w Bright People.Right Solutions. DATE: 922/2014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491 LL 26610 Ynez Road i i REVISED: lorMI4 Temecula,Calitomia Ta KLEINFELDER-2 Ada.Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 w Akleinteldenoom S E m GRAIN SIZE Muneell Color DESCRIPTIONSIEVE GRAIN APPROXIMATE NAME ABBR ^o SIZE SIZE SIZE Red R Boutlers >12 In.(304.6 mm,I >12 in.(304,8 mm.) Larger than basketbaaatred Yellow Red YR Cobbles 3.12 in.(76,2.304.8 mm.) 3.12 In.(76.2-304.6 mm.) Fist-sized to besketba9sked Yellow Y crane 14-3 In.(19.76.2 mm.) 314-3 in,01).76 2 mm.) Thumbstred to fist-sired Green Yellow GY m Crave Me a4.14 in.(44-19 mm.) 0.19.0.75 in,(4.6.19 mm.) Pesstrnd to thumbsoed Green G ko coerea 010-fL1 0,079.0.19 in 2.4.9 ram. Rack sss-atred to peastred Blue Green BG n Send medium #40-#10 0,017-0,079 in.(0.43-2 mm.) Sugar-elm"to rock saa-sized •0 Blue B Me (c0. e200-p10 002g-0.017 in ( sugar-sized.43 mm. Fqa-stmtl to sugar-ad •a Pu aBlue PB Flores Passing O2 m.0029 n. 07 ram.) Flour-abed and srnS&r •. Pu le P Red Pu a RP BlackANQU N DESCRIPTION CRITERIA Angus Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides v4th un Iced modems O e o sun a D n Subangular rounded edget Subwurmed Panicles have nBarty glare 61d"but have O O welaounded mono/end ed " Pounded Panicles have an="curved skid and no edges Rourood SuWuwmed Sultangular kyutar PLASTICITY MOISTURE CONTENT DESCRIPTION LL FIELD TEST DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST le NP A 1/84n.(y vatter��nOvead cannot be rolled at Absence of moisture dus d to Me touch Nml*wMoist Damp but no visible rater The locoed can baety be rallied and the lump tow(L) <30 a thread cant be formed when diner than the Wet visible has water,usually Sal is below water table plasma lime. The thread is easy w rol and not mum ache REACTION WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID IT re:ired to ream the plastic limit. Medium(m) 30-50 The thmatl canna be rend alter mamng the plastic Wnit- The lump or thread aumbld DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST -• wten drier than the plastic Writ Nore No visLle reaction It laic"considerable Ilene rolling and kneading Weak Some reaction,with bubbles forming to mach the plastic time. The thread can be g slovAy High(H) '50 remve0 ederel times after reaching the plastic Stroup Violent reaction,with bubttlm forming immediately IMS. The limp or thread can be lamed wlthoa aunreWng when doer Man Uue plastic lung a APPARENT I IRELATFVE DIN TTY-COARSE-GRAINED SOIL CONSISTENCY-FINE-GRAINED SOIL APPARENT MODIFIEDCA CALIFORNIA RELATIV UNcONFINED E 'w DENSITY PT-N. SAMPLER SAMPLER DENSITY CONSISTENCY STRENGTHCOMPRESSIVE CRITERIA IaSeta•aml la lewwml Is bbwam) (%) <1000 Thumb vA1 penetrate soil more than 1 in.(25 mm.) R�z Very Locas W V W c5 0.15 aY Soft �p Loose 4-10 5-12 5-15 15.35 Soft 1000-2000 Thumb Will penetrate mil about 1 In, 25 mm. g Medium Dense 111,30 12-35 15-40 35-65 Finn 2000-40DO Thumb W 1 Indent sal about 1/44n,(6 mm.) '^ Dense 30-50 35-60 40-70 65.65 Hard 4000.80DO Thumb will not indent eel but modify Indented with thumbnal c Very Dense >50 NA >70 65-100 Very fiord >8000 Thumbnail mblrell wig not Indent sal 8vi NOTE:AFTER TERZAGta AND PECK tees z STRUCTURE CEMENTATION w DESCRIPTION CRITERIA DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST '4J w Sbailled Alternating layers of varying materal a color weh layers Weaky finger pressure Crumbles vale le harming or slight D at least 1/4an.thck note thickness m m Alternating layers of varying material a color wan Moderately the layer Crumbles or breaks with considerable � Alternatingleas than 1/44n,thick note thickness finger are Flswred Brooks along tlalDee plare9 a hamuoa with Nss resistance to fracturingstrongly Will not crumble or Meek wale logo pressure 9¢ Slcicensided Fracture plan"appear polished or glassy,someWnes Misled s, o4m Cohesive Sol that can be broken down Into small angular Bey I lumps welch reset further breakdown z Incl us'on of smuts packets a deferent sofa,Such as smell lenses u Lensed of Send Scanned throunh a=as of clot note thickness o a Homogeneous Same cola and appearance throughout x PROJECT NO.: 20152384 PLATE SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY x \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME 0 a KL E/NFEL DER CHECKED BY:J.WALLER Proposed Receiving ArealDairy Cooler Additions A-2 w Bright People.Right Solutions. DATE: 9222014 Coslco Wholesale Warehouse No.491 LL 26610 Ynez Road i REVISED: 10132014 Temecula,Califomia m KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 v .kleinfelder.com € Date Begin-End: 9/1 512 0 1 4 Drilling Co.4Jalt ge Pac Drlling-#766402 BORING LOG B-1 y Logged By. T.Meier Drill Crew: Keith/Jaimes m s Hor.•Velt Datum: WGS84 Drilling Equipment B-61 Hammer Type-Drop: 1401b.Auto-30 in. 6 • A Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Q8 Weather. Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter. 6 in.O.D. ,} FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS g o Letikda:33,5209Y N f u d K t g,E Longitude:-117.15326•W uc O Appmdmele GravCondition:e Sole®Elevation(ft.1:1,065,0 r w ; $ a E_ c n m y .K � $ Slrfa CNition:Asphalt mk m rm c 'c c c z OZ C .;ryg' e � 6 P 7Er i E L) W o LiihdOgic Description r9i z' rR ? 5 to 3 c4 o a a a? K ASPHALT:epionoti ately 34ndws,thick BASE COURSE:appredmately 7-Indles thick Artificial FIII:Silty SAND(SM):One to coarse Brained. stk,dark brown,moist. Mca lore — Native:Sihy BAKU(1114)'.One to co11131) 1 100% Brained.non-plastic dark Drown,moist, micaceous 7.B grain size increases with depth 7080 5—line to medium grained,dark grayish brovm, 2 Bf:8 100% 7.1 125.5 medium dense.weak cemented 14 14 • brown,decrease fines content 3 BC--9 t00% 10 g 10 SM 10.0 124.2 90 25.8 Sieve.Hydrorcoter 8 R o b1055 1 4 B -6 100% SM 9A 99 23.9 Sieve,Honerrlelor S 8 � B p a � o o � r The exploration was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATIOR _ Groundwater vies rat encountered during drillingor after com<�m approximately 11.5 ft.below grouts surf". a The exploration s backflled with 911&M14 GENFp Re1 was NOTE& 3 on September 15.2014. Temporty wall installed to use during percolation testing.Temporary Ri well removed and boring back filled after completion of testing The expbration location and elevation are approximate and were m estimated by ideinfekfer. mE pi � o 8 0 V Z 8° y PROIECTNO.: 20152384 PLATE BORING LOG B-1 Y \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME a KL E/NFEL DER CHECKED BY:J.WALLER A-3 a Proposed Receiving ArealDairYCooler Additions j Bright People. Right Solutions. DATE: 9/22/2014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491 W �� 26610 Ynez Road REVISED: 10r'MI't Temecula,California PAGE: 1 of 1 KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 vwwr.kleinfelder.com eDaft Begin-End: 9/152014 Drilling Co.-LJc.fl: Cal Pac Drilling-#766402 BORING LOG tit Logged By. T.Meier Drill Crew. Kelthl Jaimes m i Hor:Varl Dalian: WGS84 Drilling F-01rlprrertC B$1 MarmrerType-Drop: 140Ib.Auto-30In. • 8 Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger 8 Weather. Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter. 6 In.O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS c Latibde:33.52109'N A.S X g S LongltWe:.117.15340•W �a p A xvwmalo Grand Surface Elevation(IL):1,0640 ce .R n `. Surlaco Cad"M Aspfrell na 3 a gpr a v� V = J r a o gg eqa 6 a q &{ U 9�CpCp 72 so �y' m 442 O LD Lifhologic Descrtp60r1 N 2 N cop m? N 3 U O 11 0. S a z Q or ASPHALT:appmdmaley 34ndlm tNtlt BASE COURSE:appradmataly 74ntlres WU Artificial Fill:Slly SAND(SM):fine to medium grained,rlmr-pfasUc%dark greyish bran.moist 1 )( 6' 6.8 tlffil>m:Slhy 9A11D(SAI):fore m metlium grained.ear-pbastic,dark greyish frown,most 1060 5-brown.dense,week terlente0,increase In lines 2 BC-15 IS- 9.9 126.0 Canca 79 n 28 madam dense to dense,decrease firm anted 3 BC-15 Ir 8.0 120.9 11 19 1055 1 Wall�edad SAND wIN gin(SWAM):fire to • coarse grained,dark yellowish bn m,mold 4 BC-8 1e- 6.6 98 7.3 Sim medium dense,subergrdar to subrourded a 8 Poorly-graded SAND(SP):One to coarse g grained,yellowish Man,moist,medlwn dense 5 BC-6 18- 7 6 8 ioso R� 1 increase In coarse grelned sand ot owner.to 6 BC4 18- granitic fine gravels,subangubar 9 10 S . i � t u z m 7045 Y Clayey SAND(SC):fine to mesa grained. m ', medium plasticity.ye4wlsh bran,mulst, 7 BC-7 IS' u medium dense,apprmtimee 24ndi moderately 7 cemented day IBnS vAthin SarnplB ci$ e< The exploration was tenNruted at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: Japprmdmatey 21.5 ft.below ground surf". Groundwater was not encountered during during or after The exploration was back filed with 9/15M14 GFNERAI GENEQwI NOTES: i on September 15.2014. Tempony,wet Installed to use during percolation testing.Tamporary u ID40 wet removed and boring baddill d after mrple0on of testing ({ a The exploration location and elevation we apprmdmate and were R o estimated by gelMedw. 8 N PROJECTNO.: 20152384 BORING LOG B-2 PLATE Y (O� DRAWN BY: F.JAIME rc w KL E/NFEL DER CHECKED BY:J.WALLER q-4 a` Proposed Receiving Area/Dairy Cooler Additions LL Bright People.Right Solutions. DATE: 922r2014 Costa Wholesale Warehouse No.491 26610 Ynez Road i i REVISED: 10r,=14 Temecula,California PAGE: 1011 m a KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 www.kleinfelder.com E Date Begin-End: 9I15f2014 Drilling Co.4JaIT: Cal Pao Drilling-A766402 BORING LAG B-3 a Logged By. T.Meier Drill Craw: Keith✓Jaimes u Hor:VeR Datum: WGS60 Drilling Equipment: Bb1 Hammer Type•Drop: 1401b.Auto-30 in. A Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger a Weather. Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter. 6 in.O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS G ^ Latitude:33.52172•N AS 3e X a N G B o S Longikde:-177.1s332 w X Approxunde Ground Sofa Bevatim(k):1,0t2,0 $ a E d i _ y� suns Gcrdltim:Bare Eartha m § r o p 'c o O 0 e q f�. C is 6 d$ 2 �G m.m. a 9 yr 1 Ae �w G Llthologic Description '�z' (2 ,? D0 3 o a a I a? z r✓ TOPSOIL epprmdmatey 6-1rNm thick,mixed with mulon Artificial Fill:Silty SAND(SN):fine to mtfdlum grained.rahwasdc.dark greyish brume%moist 1060 — --- Native,Silty SAND IBM):Me to medium grained.ronphaslk dark greyish brown,moist 1 X 1 6' 9.0 .,.}. Silty SAND with Drevol(sM):fine to mecum grained,nor uestic,gray,mast,fine to coarse 5 gravel.tram clay Inclusions Silty SAND(SM):Me to medium grained, 2 BC-; 19• 0.0 122.1 10 ronplasik,brown.moist.medium dense.weak 12 mmemed 1055 Wellyreded SAND with Silt(SWSM):fine to coarse grained,yellowish brown.moist.medium 3 BC-5 18' W 4.3 110.8 99 7.0 se dert ,mimmuxa,decrease lines es rdem 7 • 70 $ 1 Silty SAND(SPSM):Mato coarm grained 4 BC=6 18' SM 6.6 100 20.3 Sieve,Hydromola dark yellowish brown,most,medium dandle. 9 decrease In coarse grained send 7 R._ 1050 Silty SAND(SM):One to medium grained, —— rwnpta itk,dark yellowish brwm.mast. 5 BC-47B' 8 medium tlansa.mimmous,with Iron adds 5 staining 6 . a Q h t _ i Wwigreded SAND with Slit(SW-W:fire to 15 medium grained,light awe brown,x lst. LHydra e a x medium dense,nemcecxdl 6 BG7 78' 89 11.4 Sim. 9 11 m u 1045 The exploration was terminated m GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: approximately 16.5 ft.below ground suds. Grmrtd dater was not encountered dnaklg drilling or after The exploration vas bacldJed with 9n1S2014 ram on September 15,2014. GENERAL srty unTscunTxc: as remand well Instated g use during fir completion testing, sting Temporary x was rennved n l boring rid levd after map rend a testing i The aced by Kt.location arid elevelbn are eppmdmate eed were � cx estimated by geinladar. Qa yPROJECT NO.: 20152384 BORING LOG B-3 PLATE r \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME rr = KL E/NFELOERCHECKED BY:J.WALLER Proposed Receiving ArealDairy Cooler Additions A-5 J Bright People.Night Solutions. DATE: 92212014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491 - 26610 Ynez Road i 5 REVISED: 1013r2014 Temecula,California PAGE: I a n w KI-EINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 www.kleinfelder.com Data Begin-End: 9/1 512 0 1 4 Drilling Co.a-IcJF. Cal Pac Drilling-#766402 BORING LOG B-4 Logged By: T.Meier Drill Crew: Keith/Jaimes m i Hor.-Vert.Datum: WGSB4 Drilling Equipment: B-61 Hammer Type-Drop: 140 Ib.Auto-30 in. • Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger H Weather. Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter. 8 in.O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS w m g Labtuft:33.52202'N AG p ra w Longitude:.117.15368'W vie f p rP7 Appowmo Ground Surface Deon(ft):1,063.0 �9pp rc? 3 G a a app c Surface CaAn: spht E o a7 bnUthoiogic Description 12 u me ° a ASPHALT:apprmdritatey 44rc3as It&* BASE COURSE:apprmdmately 84rKhm(lack Artificial Fill:Silty SAND(SM):Me to medum grahad,romplasllc dark grayish brown,moist Lath®:Silty BARD(SM):W to modlum __ Brained,non-plastic,dark grayish brown.moist 1 6' 19.2 7060 5-brown.moist medlum dense,weak ownented, 2 act io I 11.8 122.1 trace calcium carbonate 12 17 • Increase In Bros content trace mica 3 SC-7 Is, 22.1 104.1 loss 7 11 8 ZE F S line to mara s grained 4 SC-5 16' SM 11.2 100 42.5 Sieve,Hydrometer 8 �a 6 i Y The Wloradon was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: _�m approalmaaN 11.5 ft.below g=nd surface. Groundwater was not enopuntmad tlurirg ddirq or alter cornpleft � !7 The exploration wde bad filed with 9/1512014 GENERAL NOTES b' on September 15,2014. Temporry well Installed to use during percolation lesdng.Temporary Ri 1050 well removed and borlrg baUdilled after completion of testing y The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Malydeloer. m Fi u Q � o 84 PROAECTNO.: 20152384 PLATE w BORING LOG B 4 S DRAWN BY: F.JAIME a KL E/NFEL DERD BY.J.WALLS A-6 A 4 Proposed Receiving ArealDairy Cooler Additions w Bright People.Right Solutions. PATE: 9r2=014 Costw Wholesale Warehouse No.491 - 26610 Ynez Road i REVISED: 10=14 Temecula,California PAGE: 1 0l 1 o P IQEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 w Aleinfelder.com Data Begin-End: 9/15/2014 Drilling Co.- Jcp: Cal Pac Drilling-9766402 BORING LOG B-5 e Logged By. T.Meier Drill Craw: -Keith/Jaimes m i Hor:Vert Datum: WGS84 Drilling Equipment: B-61 Hammer Typo-Drop: 140 lb.Aura-301n. • Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger 9 Weather. Clear,Sunny Auger Diameter. 61n.O.D. FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS o m Latitude:33.52179•N AS m k g Longitude:•117.15385•W m X ry m p E-- g Approximate Ground Surface Deratian(IL):1.054.0 g w888 a� +S' $ a E p c m S Y $ Surface CoMiuow Asphalt m k, m r o — m � o nm `' n ESE E G4 ( me j P ' � 2w o t7 lilhdogic Description r�z' `rR $ 1z S n to 3 c4 o a li 4 a? ¢ ASPHALT:epprodmarety 3-mchw Dick a.. RASE COURSE:epprmdmet 7-Indles thick Artificial Fill:Silty SAND(SK):fins to medkan grained.non-Dlasuz,dark greyish brats moist 1 X 61 5.3 Conlon Native:Poorty-graded SAND(SP):nrre to coarse grained.broom,most to wet.medilmt 1060 dense 5 Silty SAND(SM):fine to medium grained, 2 BC-6 16• 9.9 122.8 nmpaslic,dark yellwAsh brown moist, 12 madlum dense,week cemented 17 Increase In ores content 3 BC-8 is, SM 15.0 114.5 fOD 45.8 Swo,Hydrometer 7 u 1055 lo— • 4 BC-8 16' 8.7 9 9 Poorly-graded SAND wIN Silt(SPSK):finks to medium grained,yellowish brawn,moist medium dense f91 g Well-graded SAND(SW-W:Ore to median 5 BC-5 Is, W 99 10 Slew grained,yellowish brawn.most.medium dense, 5 1 nimmous 6 2S 1050 a 1 fire to verse grained,suMmadnd to 6 BC-7 te• B subagular 90 a 1045 o 7u Y m Increase In mdsbrre content,tram fine grevtls, 1 7 L BC-8 1 18' w 98 7.5 Sieve granitic.subangular 9 j Ri 9'a The a pbretion was terminated at GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: m epymdmatey 21.5 ft.below grourd surface. Groundwater was notermumered during drillinga after �i The exploration was baddded with 9r154014 rupratien NO?Ec: on September 15,2014. fcomTemporty wel mateled to use dung percolation testing.Temporary of we and ddia 1040 well removed boring baed after com of testing The exploration location and elevabot are apprMurate and were M o estimated by 10onfatler. 6 z PROJECTNO.: 201523e4 BORING LOG B-5 PLATE �c' \ DRAWN BY: F.JAIME rc CHE = KL E/NFEL DER BY:J.WALLER Proposed Receiving ArealDairy Cooler Additions A-7 J Bright People.Right Solutions. DATE: 9122r2014 Costco Wholesale Warehouse No.491 - 26610 Ynez Road t REVISED: 10=14 Temecula,California I PAGE: 1 of 1 KLEINFELDER-2 Ada,Suite 250 1 Irvine,CA 92618 1 PH:949.727.4466 1 FAX:949.727.9242 1 v .kteinfeldencom • APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING `(11K�5E/NFEL DER `/•ar.�m.ww w.. • APPENDIX B LABORATORY.TESTING GENERAL Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples as an aid in classifying the soils and to evaluate physical properties of the soils that may affect foundation design and construction procedures. The tests were performed in general conformance with the current ASTM or California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards. A description of the laboratory-testing program is presented below. MOISTURE AND UNIT WEIGHT Moisture content and dry unit weight tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the borings. Moisture contents were determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216; dry unit weight was calculated using the entire weight of the samples collected. Results of these tests are, presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. • GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND HYDROMETER Grain-size distribution testing was performed on samples of the materials encountered at the site-to evaluate the particle size distribution characteristics of the soils"and to aid in their classification. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422. The test results are presented on Plates B-1 through B-5, Grain Size Distribution. PREIMINARY CORROSIVITY TEST A series of chemical tests was performed on one sample of the near-surface soils to estimate pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride content. The preliminary corrosion laboratory testing results are presented below. • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page B-1 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder E/NFELOER .w�sw wmaed. • Table B-4 Corrosion Test Results Depth Sulfate Chloride Resistivity Boring (ft) PH (ppm) (ppm) (ohm-cm) B-5 2.5 7.5 217 168 2,214 • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page B-2 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder • 100 ••�� ^o T SILT CLAY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 60 I I 1 1 I I I I Z 70 NNN a I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 60uJ I I I I I 1 I I K I I I I I I I I I I I I a 50 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 5 40 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I U 30. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I t 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 10 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I t I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 0 • 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTIE BERG LIMITS SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI SOIL CLASSIFICATION NO. I NO. (R) B-1 3 7 4.2 70.9 24.9 NIA N/A N/A Silty Sand ISM) ,10 1.4 75.5 23.1 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand(SM) PROJECT NO.:2015238e PLATE " � TESTED BY: JD GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION • KLE/NFELDER DATE: 9129/14 Bright PmOe.Right Soludom Costce Cooler and Receiving B-1 CHECKED BY: IfflpfOVefflenl5 DATE: 26610 Ynez Road KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Avenw,Budding G I O/ntrio,Cald mis 91762 1 PH:(909)657-17161 FAX:(909)988-0185 1"&.kleinfNder.t • 100 '`•�' 4Pi,�,� SILT CLAY I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I l l i I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 11 I 80 I I I I I I I 1 I = 70 I I I l I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I I I I ti I I I I I I I I I U 60 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I W 50 I I I I I I I I I I tt I I I I I I I I I I I I g 40 I I I I I I I I I I I U 30 I I I I 1 1 I I 20 I I I I I I I I I 11 1 10- I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 0 I 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS SYMBOL BORING I SAMPLE DEPTH GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI SOIL CLASSIFICATION NO. NO. (ft.) B-2 4 10, 1.6 91.1 7.3 N/A N/A WA Well Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM) PROJECT NO.:20152784 PLATE " � TESTED BY: JD GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION • KLE/NFELDER DATE: 9/2W14 Bright People.Right solWora Costoo Cooler and Receiving B-2 J CHECKED BY: Improvements DATE: 26610 Ynez Road KLEINFELDER.620 Magnolia Avenue,Building G I Ontario.California 91762 1 PH:(909)657-1716 1 FAX(909)9WO165I w .kleirdeloer.mm • 100 A ^ •I' `M • T SILT CLAY I I I I I I I I I I 90 80 I I I I I I I I I I Z 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I Z 60uJ I I I I I I I I 1 I w 50 I I I I I I I I g 40 m u 30 -1 I I 1 1 I I I 20 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 0 • 100.000 10.000 1.000 6.100 0.010 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY7] SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI SOIL CLASSIFICATION NO. NO. (1L) B-3 6 15 0.6 88.5 10.9 WA NIA NIA Well Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM) ■ B-3 4 10 0.4 79.7 19.9 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand ISM) B-3 3 7.5 0.7 92.3 7.0 N/A N/A N/A Well Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM) PROJECT NO.:20162084 PLATE " � TESTED BY: JD GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION • KLE/NFELDER DATE: 929/14 bright People-Right Solutions. Costco Cooler and Receiving B-3 CHECKED BY: Improvements DATE: 26610 Ynez Road KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Awrim,Building G I Onmrio,Cell mie 917621 PH:(909)657-1716 I FAX:(909)988-0185 1 w Ideirdelder.wm • 100 •��: 4P '�,�,� SILT CLAY I I 1 1 FII 90 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 80 I I I I I I I I I Z 70 ryn I I Z 60 I I I I I I I I I I n 50 g 40 I I I I I I I I I I � � I I I I I I I I I I I I v 30 — 1I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I 20 10 I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 • 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS SYMBOL BORING SAMPLE DEPTH GRAVEL SAND FINES LL pl PI SOIL CLASSIFICATION NO. I NO. 01.) B4 4 10 0.0 57.5 42.5 N/A N/A N/A Silty Sand ISM) PROJECT NO.:20152384 PLATE �� TESTED BY: JD GRAIN SIZE,DISTRIBUTION • (KLEINFELDER DATE: 9129114 Bright People.Right Solutioro- Costco Cooler and Receiving B-4 CHECKED BY: Improvements DATE: 26610 Ynez Road KLEINFELDER.620 Magnolia Awnw,Building G I Ontario.California 917621 PH:(909)657-17IS I FAX:(909)98"185 1 w Jdeitdelder.com • 100 �' •h ' eP r4`° 0 4PP 0 p`�dd� SILT CLAY I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I Bo I i i i i I i I i i i l I I 1 1 I I I I Z 70Cn I I I I I I I 11 a I i i i i I i i i l i t I i i i i I 1 i i i 1 1 w I I I I I I I a 50 I I 5 40 I i i i i I 1 1 1 1 1 l U 30 I I I I I I I I I - I 20 Ifi 10II I I I 1 I I I 0 • 100.000 to.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY77] SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PERCENTAGES ATTERBERG LIMITS SYMBOL BORING I SAMPLE DEPTH GRAVEL SAND FINES LL PL PI SOIL CLASSIFICATION N( NO. (ft.) B-5 3 7.5 0.0 54.2 45.8, WA WA WA Silty Sand ISM) ■ B-5 5 12.5 0.8 90.5 8.7 WA NIA WA Well Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM) 5.5 7 20 1.7 90.8 7.5 WA WA WA Well Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM) PROJECT NO.:20152384 PLATE (PKL TESTED BY: JD GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION E/NFEL DER DATE: 929/14 Costco Cooler and Receiving B- Bright People.Right Sofutior¢ .5 CHECKED BY: IrnPfOVBnIBntS DATE: 26610 Ynez Road KLEINFELDER-620 Magnolia Avenue,Building G i Ontario.California 917621 PH:(909)657-1 7161 FAX:(909)988-01851 w .kleinfelder.Wrn APPENDIX C BOREHOLE INFILTRATION TESTING 1 KL E/NFEL DCN • APPENDIX C BOREHOLE INFILTRATION TESTING Borehole infiltration testing was performed in accordance with Appendix A, Riverside County.— Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook. Based on the Table 1, Infiltration Testing Requirements, and our selection of the Well Permeameter Method (USBR 7300-89), we performed four borehole infiltration tests in Borings B-1, B-3, B-4 and B-5. The total depth of the four borings with permeameter tests were approximately 111/2 feet, 161/2 feet, 111/2 feet, and 211/2 feet, respectively. At the conclusion of drilling, the augers were removed vertically from the borings to limit the amount of "smearing" of the boring sidewall. Within each boring, approximately 2 inches of gravel was added to the bottom. Perforated pipe was then placed with the bottom directly on the gravel bottom. The pre-saturation of the.boreholes subsequently commenced. In the test located in Borings B-1, approximately 4 feet of sand was place around the perforated pipe to limit the collapse of the sidewall soil once the infiltration test was commenced. In this analysis, we performed a void ratio test to analyze the volume of • water infiltrating during the test. The well permeameter test results provide the short-term infiltration rate of a soil ,layer. The long-term design ,infiltration rate is the short term value with factors of safety applied. The short term infiltration rates are presented below. Table C-1 Infiltration Rates Depth of Test Short-term Long-term Design Location (n) Infiltration Rate Infiltration Rate in/hour in/hour B-1 11.5 0.40 0.13 B-3 16.5 0.03 0.03 B-4 11.5 0.04 0.01 B-5 21.5 3.44 1.15 In addition to the borehole infiltration tests, we also performed 10 grain-size distribution • laboratory tests to assess the grain size associated with 10 percent finer particles 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page C-1 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder E/NFEL DER • (D10). The results of these tests were analyzed using Hazen's equation to calculate an approximate permeability rate "k". Hazen's equation is shown below. k = C - D10 "C" is a constant factor assumed to be 1 for our analysis, and the D10 particle size diameter in which 10% of the soil is finer. The results of the Hazen equation correlations are presented in Table C-2. Table C-2 Soil Permeability Boring Sample Depth Approximated Ds Permeabllity Permeability No. No. (tt) D,ofLt,° 10 D (cm/s) (Inthour) B-1 3 7 0.01 0.0001 1 1.00E-04 0.14 B-1 4 10 0.002 0.000004 1 4.00E-06 0.01 B-2; 4 10 0.14 0.0196 1 1.96E-02 27.78 11-3 3 7.5 0.13 0.0169 1 1.69E-02 23.95 • B-3 4 10 0.012 0.000144 1 1.44E-04 0.20 B-3 6 15 0.065 0.004225 1 4.23E-03 5.99 B-4- '4 - 10 0.004 0.000016 1 1.60E-05 0.02 B-5 3 7.5 0.0025 0.00000625 1 6.25E-06 0.01 B-5 5 12.5 0.09 0.0081 1 8.10E-03 11.48 B-5 7 20 0.14 0.0196 1 1.96E-02 27.78 • 20152384.001A/IRV14R09810 Page C-2 November 25, 2014 Copyright 2014 Kleinfelder Percolation Test Data Sheet • Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384.001A Start Date: 9/15/2014 Test Hole No: B-1 Tested By: T. Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014 Depth of Test Hole Dt(ft.): 10 LISCS Sol)Classification: Silty Sand(SM) Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width Diameter(if round)= 6 Sides(H rectangular)= N/A N/A Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear Factor of Safety: 3 Sandy Soil Criteria Test* Time Initial Final Chane In Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6 (min.) water(In.) Water Level On.)(Y/N) Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (in.) (in.) 1 1024 1049 25 60 85 25 y 2 1049 1114 . 25 85 97 12 y *if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 10 minutes.Otherwise,pre-soak(fill) , overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole over at least six hours(approximately 30 minute intervals)with precision of at least 0.25". . Test Data DI Do, Final AD • AtT)me Initial. Depth to Change Percolation Test Design Interval Depth to Water In Water Rate Infiltration Infiltration Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (min) Water(in) (in) Level(in) (min/in) Rate(in/hr) Rate(in/hr) 1 -1156 1208 12 64.2 74.4 10.2 1.18 0.60 0.20 2 1208 1218 10 74.4 77.5 3.1 3.23 0.25 0.08 -- 3 1218 1228 10 77.5 81.4 3.9 2.56 0.34 0.11 4 1228 1238 10 81.4 84.0 2.6 3.85 0.25 0.08 5 1238 1248 10 84.0 86.2 2.2 4.55 0.22 0.07 6 1248 1258 10 86.2 88.3 2.1 4.76 0.23 0.08 7 1301 1311 - 10 85.8 88.2 2.4 4.17 0.26 0.09 8 1311 1321 10 88.2 92.4 4.2 2.38 0.50 0.17 9 1322 1332 10 87.5 91.8 4.3 2.33 0.50 0.17 30 1334 1344 10 87.6 89.4 1.8 5.56 0.20 0.07 11 1351 1401 10 87.6 91.8 4.2 2.38 0.49 0.16 12 1402 1412 10 87.7 91.2 3.5 2.86 1 0.40 0.13 • Percolation Test Data Sheet • Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384.00lA Start Date: 9/15/2014 Test Hole No: B-3 Tested By: T.Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014 Depth of Test Hole Dt(h.): 15 USCS Soil Classification: SM/Sp Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width Diameter(if round)= 6 sides(if rectangular)= N/A N/A Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear Factor of Safety: 3 Sandy Soil Criteria Test* l Final Chane In Time Initial Interval, Depth Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6 to Water Level (in.)(y/N) Trail No. Start Time stop Time (min.) water (in.) (in.) 11 163610 1635 25 150 158 8 y 2 18 1703 25 149 151 2 N *if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 30 minutes.Otherwise,pre-soak(fill) overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole over at least six hours(approximately 30 minute intervals)with precision of at least 0.25". Test Data Dt AD Do Final Change Design • At Time Initial Depth to In Water Percolation Infiltration Infiltratio Interval ,Depth to Water Level Rate Rate nRate Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) Water(in.) (in.) (in.) (min.In.) (In./hr.) (in/hr) 1 0843 0913 30 130.0 133.6 3.6 8.33 0.22 0.07 2 0919 0949 30 139.2 141.6 2.4 12.50 _ 0.18 _ 0.06 3 0952 1022- 30 137.4 139.8 2.4 12.50 0.17 0.06 4 1052 1055 30 136.8 139.4 2.6 11.54 0.18 0.06 S 1056 1126 30 137.4 139.2 1.8 16.67 0.12 0.04 6 1132 1202 30 137.4 139.2 - 1.8 16.67 0.12 0.04 7 1204 1234 30 138.0 139.2 1.2 25.00 0.08 0.03 8 1235 1305 30 137.4 139.0 1.6 18.75 0.11 0.04 91 1306 1336 30 136.8 139.2 2.4 12.50 0.17 0.06 101 1338 1 1408 1 30 1 138.0 1 139.2 1 1.2 1 25.00 1 0.08 0.03 111 1409 1 1439 1 30 1 138.0 1 139.2 1 1.2 1 25.00 1 0.08 0.03 - Percolation Test Data Sheet • Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384'MIA Start Date: 9/15/2014 Test Hole No: B-4 Tested By: T.Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014 Depth of Test Hole Dt(ft.): 9.8 USCS Soil Classification: Silty Sand(SM) Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width Diameter(if,round)= 6 Sides(If rectangular)= N/A N/A Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear Factor of Safety: 3 Sandy Soil Criteria Test* Time Initial Final Chane In 'Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6 (min.) water(In.) Water Level (in.)(y/N) Trail No. Startrime stop Time (in) (in.) 1 1503 1528 25 76 88 12 y 2 1531 1556 25 66 74 8 y *if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 10 minutes.Otherwise,pre-soak(fill) overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole over at least six hours(approximately 30 minute intervals)with.precision of at least 0.25". Test Data Do AD Initial of Change percolation Infiltration Design Depth to Final In Water Rate Rate Infiltration At Time Water(in.) Depth to Level • Interval Water (In.) (min.1n.) (in./hr.) Rate(in/hr) Trail No. Start Time Stop Tlme (min.) (in.) 1 0851 0901 10 81.0 81.5 0.50 20.0 0.12 0.04 21 0912 1 0922 1 10 1 81.6 1 81.9 1 0.30 1 33.3 1 0.07 1 0.02 3 0924 -0934 10 80:4 80.7 0.30 33.3 0.07 0.02 -4 "0934 0944 10, 80.7. 81.0. 0.30 33.3 0.07 0.02 5 0944 0954 10 80.5 80.7 0.20 50.0 0:05 0.02 6 0955 1005 10 80.7 80.9 0.18 55.6 . 0.04 0.01 • Percolation Test Data Sheet • Project: Costco Percolation Project No: 20152384.001A Start Date: 9/15/2014 Test Hole No: B-5 Tested By: T.Meier Finish Date: 9/16/2014 Depth of Test Hole Dt(ft.): 20 USCS Soil Classification: Silty Sand(SM)/Poorly Graded(SP) Test Hole Dimension(Inches) Length Width - Diameter(If round)= 6 Sides(if rectangular)= N/A N/A Start Weather: Clear Ending Weather: Clear Factor of Safety: 3 Sandy Soil Criteria Test* Time Initial Final Chane In Interval, Depth to Depth to Water Greater than or Equal to 6 (min.) water(in.) Water Level (in.)(y/N) Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (in.) (in.) 1 1415 1440 25 186 234 48 y 2 1442 1507 25 186 227 41 y 'if two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes,the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurement taken every 16minutes.'Otherwise,pre-soak(fill) overnight.Obtain at least twelve measurement per hole over at least six hours(approximately 30 minute intervals)with precision of at least 0.25". Test Data Do AD Initial of Change Factored Percolation Infiltration Depth to Final In Water - .Infiltration At Time Waterlin.) Depthto Level Rate Rate. Rate • Interval Water (in.) (min.in.) (In./hr.) (In./hr.) Trail No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) (in.) 1 1022 1032 10 212.4 231.3 18.90 0.53 8.66 2.89 2 1039 1049 10 210.0 230.4 ,20.40 0.49 8.62 2.87 _ 3 1052 1102 10 207.6 226.4 18.80; 0.53 6.91 2.30 - - 4 ' 1105 1115 10 210.0 225.6 15.60 0.64 5.92 1.97 S 1117 1127 10 207.6 224.5 16.90 0.59 5.98 1.99 6 1130 2140 10 210.0 220.1 10.10 0.99 3.44 1.15 • / Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 3: Soils Information Geotechnical Study and Other Infiltration Testing Data i 44 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 4: Historical Site Conditions Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or Other Information on Past Site Use Not Applicable, • • 45= Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 5: LID Infeasibility LID Technical Infeasibility Analysis • • -46- sell Irvine, Ontario San Diego FUSCOE Los Angeles Centro E Cen troo 1 ■ 6 1 B 1 1 R 1 ■ 6 Son Ramon COSTCO TEMECULA SITE RENOVATION LID INFEASIBILITY ANALYSIS February 13, 2017 INTRODUCTION This analysis serves to outline the site constraints facing the Costco'Temecula Site Renovation project in Temecula, California that prevent the design team from implementing Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) . LID BMPs are defined by the City of Temecula to be "A type of stormwater BMP that is based upon Low Impact Development concepts. LID BMPs not only provide highly effective treatment of stormwater runoff, but also yield potentially significant reductions in runoff volume — helping to mimic the pre-project hydrologic regime, and also require less ongoing maintenance than Treatment Control BMPs". The LID BMP Design Handbook developed by Copermittees to provide guidance for the planning, design and maintenance of LID BMPs lists the following types of LID BMPs: Bioretention BMPs, Biotreotment BMPs, Harvest and Reuse BMPs, Infiltration BMPs and Retention BMPs. The project constraints that lead to the infeasibility of LID BMPs within the project site include but are not limited to its retrofit categorization, existing site constraints, geotechnical limitations and presence of existing utilities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Costco Temecula Site Renovation project is located on an existing active commercial Costco site. The project proposes to reconfigure a portion (0.62 oc) of the parking lot to add landscaping, relocate a drive entry, and add a bio-filtration basin with partial retention and partial.infiltration. The project also proposes a storm drain extension to implement the bio-filtration basin. The disturbed area and immediate surrounding area consist of existing parking spaces and parking lot landscaping. PROJECT CONSTRAINTS The retrofit project is within grounds of an existing active Costco Wholesale facility. The lack of available landscape area limits potential locations for LID BMPs. Potential locations for LID BMPs onsite were located in areas where existing utilities were present, within the 10' minimum distance from building footprint, with soils not conducive to infiltration. • v 1 I c 1 r c I c I h i n k i n g' 6390 Greenwich Drive,Suite 170, San Diego,California 92122 0 tel 858.554.1500 0 fox 858.597.0335 0 www.fuscoe.com e acpl01 Irvine _ Son Diego • e Fusom Ontario Los Angeles 60081 El Centro ■ 6 1 N I I N 1 N G Son Ramon The Geotechnical Study prepared by Kleinfelder November 25, 2014 (Included in Appendix 3) states that on site infiltration rates were below the required minimum of 1.6 in/hr. See table "C-1 Infiltration Rates" from the Geotechnical Study below. Table C-1 Infiltration Rates Depth of Test Short-term Long-term Design Location (lt) Infiltration Rate Infiltration Rate (inthour) (inthour) B-1 11.5 0.40 0:13. B-3 16.5 0.03 0.03 B-4 11.5 0.04 0.01 B-5 21.5 3.44 1.15 • The B-1 boring site is located where the flow through planter is proposed. The long-term infiltration rate of 0.13 in/hr is for soil tested at an 11.51. It is infeasible to design an effective LID BMP to fit the small available footprint. CONCLUSION The low soil infiltration rate limitations were the leading cause for LID BMP infeasibility for the Costco Temecula Site Renovation. Other limitations and restrictions including location of existing utilities, building location and topography further exclude LID BMPs as possible options for sformwater quality control BMPs. The Engineer of Work took all the pollutants of concern into consideration. The proposed bio- filtration basin with partial retention and partial infiltration will.effectively remove pollutants of concern at a Medium to High rate for all stormwater runoff associated with the proposed parking lot modifications. I • f u l l c i , r I e I h I n k n g ' 6390 Greenwich Drive,Suite 170,San Diego,California 92122 a tel 858.554.1500 0 fax 858.597.0335 0 w .fuscoe.com Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 6: BMP Design Details BMP Sizing, Design Details and other Supporting Documentation • • -47- • Santa Margarita Watershed Legend: Required Entries BMP Design Volume, VBw (Rev.03-2012) 0 Calculated Cells (Note this workshect shall only he used in conjunction with 13MP designs from the LID n\IP Design 1lnndhook) Company Name Costco Wholesale Date,2/1 512 0 1 8 Designed by Fuscoe Engineering County/City Case No TBD Company Project Number/Name Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Drainage Area Number/Name DMA A Enter the Area Tributary to this Feature AT= 0.15 acres 85ih Percentile 24-hour Rainfall Depth, from the Isohyetal Map in Handbook Appendix E Site Location Township Range Section Enter the 85d' Percentile,24-hour Rainfall Depth Des= 0.90 Determine the Effective Impervious Fraction Type of post-development surface cover Mixed Surface Types (use pull down menu) Effective Impervious Fraction I = 0.89 • Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient,C for the BMP Tributary Area Use the following equation based on the WEF/ASCE Method C.=0.8581r)-0.781f+0.7741r+0.04 C = 0.72 Determine Design Storage Volume, VBW Calculate Vu, the 85%Unit Storage Volume Vu=D85 x C V = 0.64 (in•ac)/ac Calculate the design storage volume of the BMP, VBr,SP. VBMP(ft))= Vu(in-ac/ac)x AT(ac)x 43.560(ft/ac) VBMP= 348 ft3 12(in/ft) Notes: Calculate Surface Area required A,(ft') : d,(ft)= 2 WT(ft) = 26 d,(ft)_ (0.3 x d,(ft) + 0.4 x 1(11)) - (0.7(ft2)/W,(ft)) + 0.5(ft) d,(ft)_ (0.3 x (211) +0.4 x 1(ft))- (0.7(ft2)/(26ft))+0.5(ft)= 1.47 ft • k(ft)=V„@(ft)/d,(ft) A.(ft')= 348 ft'/ 1.47 ft 237 ft' • Santa Margarita Watershed Required Entries BMP Design Volume, Vaw (Rev.03.2012) T egend: 0 Calculated Cells (Note this ssurl:sheci shall only.be used in conjunction with 13MP designs from the 1,11)1011'Design Ilandhook) Company Name Costco Wholesale Date 2/15/2018 Designed by 'Fuscoe Engineering County/City Case No'TBD Company Project Number/Name Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Drainage Area Number/Name DMA B Enter the Area Tributary to this Feature AT=, 0.09 acres 85th Percentile 24-hour Rainfall Depth, from the Isoh etal Map in Handbook Appendix E Site Location Township Range Section Enter the 851h Percentile, 24-hour Rainfall Depth D85= 0.90 Determine the Effective Impervious Fraction Type of post-development surface cover Mixed Surface Types (use pull down menu) Effective Impervious Fraction Ir 0.81 • Calculate the composite Runoff Coefficient,C for the BMP Tributary Area Use the following equation based on the WEF/ASCE Method C =0.8581f-0.781f'+0.7741i+0.04 C= 0.61 Determine Design Storage Volume, VBW Calculate Vu,the 85% Unit Storage Volume Vu= Ds5 x C Vu= 0.55 (in'ac)/ac Calculate the design storage volume of the BMP, VBW. VBMP(ft))= Vu(in-ac/ac)x AT(ac)x 43,560(ft/ac) Vats= I80 W 12(in/ft) Notes: Calculate Surface Area required A,.(f 2) d.(ft) = 2 Wt(ft) = 19 d.(ft) _ (0.3 x d.(ft)+0.4 x 1(ft)) -(0.7(ft2)/W,(ft))+ 0.5(ft) • d.(ft) _(0.3 x(2ft)+0.4 x 1(ft)) -(0.7(ft2)/(19ft))+0.5(ft) = 1.46 ft A.(ft) =V® (ft)/d.(ft) A.(ft) = 180W/ 1.46ft 123R' BIO-REIENRON TO BE PLANTED OVERFLOW STRUCTURE CURB OPENING PER DETAIL E/5 PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANS TOP OF GRATE (TG) PER PLAN 6" MIN 6. 4.1 DEEPENED CURB AND b GUTTER PER DETAIL A/5 24 THICK DYER OF LOAMY SAND TYPE FINISHED GRADE J -� I- j CONNECT UNER SOIL I ]L��: 24" - ELEVATION (FG) TO CURB PER DETAIL C/5 � MINIMUM INFILTRATION 1 SET LEYEL - 5 RATE -5'/HOUR, SEE _ _ - - MAINTAIN 6' BENCH NATIVE NOTE 6 - - ' ' �., .. _._r�. _ - SOIL FOR SUPPORT OF ADJACENT CURB/PAVING $ 4' DEEP 'BIRDSEYE' WASHED i�is cot: i'� i t'T SJ is is- - DOUBLE UNED IMPERMEABLE PEA GRAVEL CHOKER STONE i8 MIN����1111����-----'i} r} _;i L� i LINER ON ALL SIDES OF LAYER _ j w PLANTER. . MIRAFI Hf OR E �S CALTRANS CLASS 2 EQUAL MIN 18' OVERLAP AT PERMEABLE JOINTS. g 4' DI0. PERFORATED SUBDRNN b SLOPED 0.5R MIN TO OUTLET EMEND LINER 6' MIN m INSTALL CUTOFF WALL AT OUTLET BELOW BOTTOM $ OF ADJACENT GRAVEL ,o LAYER 0 CONSTRUCTION NOTES i 1. SCARIFY SUBGRADE BEFORE INSTALLING BIORETENTION AREA AGGREGATE AND BSM. 2. BSM TO BE LOAMY SAND TYPE SOIL WITH INFILTRATION RATE OF 5 INCH. PER HOUR 3. COMPACT EACH 6' LIFT OF BSM WITH LANDSCAPE ROLLER OR BY LIGHTLY WETTING. IF WETTING, ALLOW TO DRY OVERNIGHT BEFORE PLANTING. 4. DO NOT WORK WITHIN BIORETENTION AREA DURING RAIN OR UNDER WET CONDITIONS. 5. KEEP HEAVY MACHINERY OUTSIDE BIORETENTION AREA LIMITS. 6. ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 85% MINERAL COMPONENT AND 15% ORGANIC COMPONENT, BY VOLUME, DRUM MIXED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. THE MINERAL COMPONENT SHALL BE A CLASS A SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL THAT MEETS THE RANGE SPECIFIED IN TABLE 1. THE ORGANIC COMPONENT SHALL B3E NITROGEN STABILIZED COMPOST, SUCH THAT NITROGEN DOES NOT LEACH FROM THE MEDIA. THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE INSPECTOR TO PROVE THE ENGINEERED MIX MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS. o TABLE 1: MINERAL COMPONENT RANGE REOUIREMENTS 7L RANGE COMPONENT 70-80 SAND 15-20 SILT 8 5-10 CLAY S BIORETENTION PLANTER FTP NOT TO SCALE W 6 W � I --------------- ---------------- R07W R06W F R04W ; R03W R02W R01W R01E R02E R03E R04E R05E T01S I , I ' I I 0.85 MiraLoma -- - T 02 S aa. l0'6Q �.2� �. ~Z �r 4 i r J • I i I ; RlversideNorth h 0':80 , 0:¢9 R' .�. � .• � ar.. �_il_ - r Iia ; I ' Pass Idso -------- — ---- ---- -- -- �0q 'S5\-I----- — Q — i0.85 -- --- -- �I- Re►a I I- ---------------- — - ----- ------- ------- . tr 0. --- --- 5)o.es 060 oss (o v- dS 0.86 0..o orenoEast 85 • I I ; 0.65 I '� Beaumont '� -ti- 'L f1 �,-Q. ' �• ,_- / 1 10! a.m..e•70 Prad0 ,am U j 0:51' 1 • ; •. ; ; ; ----- -> �- -- Woodcrest- --`�--- - --�--- --------� - -�- --`--- -- • -- --- -- ---- ------- 0. ILI �0.50 _ PerriaReservoir- ; - — I ,•. L- ..LakeMathews�� � 1 i �F,� �0.9 ' \' T 04 S \ \ ; VlstaGrandeGS' '•�• I 0:55 i ..�•r 1 r _ i _ \ rV`ono . 1r. 0.-75 v,• �0!9-; Vou oifisoso,NN oss I _ - (SaeDacaclntoNWS � 0!95 090 - 0:70 i t ; �. 'I -_ _. _ + lr.+ - - � _ I j�`� • i ' T 05 S -, j_I I ____\ T .` o:eo Idyllvvild pso(/ t^.. _ ' _ �:"'� • 0.65\TG1\. __-r ' Dies I • I -------- '� '* - •. �SunGity O:he'ste ----- 0�7 -------- --- --- - - -- _ 0:65 ' . - ;-------------- - - -, - � _. - i Wine r ��� • +------- o � j J 11 Z 0.70� I /..�" I •• Santa Ana River Watershed ; 0:90 p•7o 0ss A. ' ElslnoreNWS • 1 rke Creek ElCarisoStatlo.. `) ` Y�y ; 11 0'80• 1 ��•y may\ h 0 5� 1 . ii� oss 1_ h ... o_ao • - o'sslrt -Santa WfggdHta'.Watarshed----t-- - - - ©- -----, o:ao AV • .•• • 0.77 - ��� 0.65 ti/�I �' + j WlldomatLaCresta p 6p 0:52� J • T 07 S ; SkinnerLeke ; a. -® • n a n n a . I • -c _y '1 1 1� I �' i 0.65 /rJ • v o n s p Anna I --------- u n v a v a ii J /{ __ ___ T 08 S ' �� 0.77 r� 11 o.�o r I; O Rain Gage Locations SantaRoi5lateau 1.0011 _ _ ) a �✓ TemeculaNWS �p:fio� —�; ) j ' - - \ I RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD PROJECT SITE CONTROL AND WATER % CONSERVATION DISTRICT 0.64 R,07 W R 06 W R 05 W R 04 W R 03 W i R 02 W ; AguangaValley R 01 W R 01 E R 02,E R 03 E Isohyetal Map for the 85th Percentile , --' 24 h our Storm Event '-----•------- - --= I duty 2011 Water.Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion, Appendix 7: Hydromodificatio'n Supporting Detail Relating to compliance with the HMP Performance Standards • • -48- 3.0 HMP Requirements for Projects Santa Margarita Region Hydromodificatlon Management Plan Figure 6-SMR HMP Decision Matrix No 1.Is Project a PDP 7 Y&5 [�=2P , No Energy Doagation Provided 7 � Re-design Energy Ispl-n Yes Yes 3.Does PDP Dimety DeNepe to Exempt System 7 No Yes �� No s,Does' POP Directly Discharge m conuam-Lntaa a� �kj agy Hardened to Exempt System?Hardened to Exempt System 7 Hydrologic Controls and Sediment supply UPS required HMP Exempt Identity Categorized Rpulroments In Section 32 End of Decision Matrix Implement hydrologic performance standard per CSection 2.2 hnplam m seillmem control performance swded pe Section 22 Page 35 • • • 3.0 HMP Requirements for Projects Santa Margarita Region Hydromodi0cation Management Plan Figure 11 -SMR Exemption Area—Temecula Area vle\ YU0.0.1E1A PROJECT SITE J IEYECU4 " Logend RydromodmcNm Rayulnmmb ' []omw "E.w .r�01 E+mp ❑Ch -t Sci iU w�rNu AnM Ea_ TMrwl�AIM•8iRh�.Y�--.�RgUlo1 RlA mmWigGEIiflon UsI"one mt Ptan 0 02505 10 SMR CoplrrnMMaa Page 45 • • • 3.0 HMP Requirements for Projects Santa Margarita Region Hydromodificauon Management Plan Figure 7-SMR Channel Susceptibility and Exemption Coverage LEpend rpeomernm HydromodHWdon Raqulmmrnb Chmnel Suuepdb0lry type ' ❑ym ,PYanORy rM E.mq Nr�emOtO/lPe¢gEY ` ` �M UMV E.m wMD,. (e.a Aam Nl f- IluaYe.Caaww !! Nltl&Yppp1Y , 4wr 1— t _ PROJECT SITE No rl MonnNs Hot&mc"tU M uM Anse Exempted rtom ttydromodl&adon RogWmlrnb ,• Oo 12525 5 8U1L Us%"Reglen Hin r odlflfAtlon Mangament Plan OMim SMR Cope ftft Page 38 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 8: Source Control Pollutant Sources/Source Control Checklist • • -49- • ApOdix S • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST How to use this worksheet (also see instructions In Section O of the 2014 SMR WQMP Template): 1. Review Column 1 and identify which of these potential sources of stormwater pollutants apply to your site. Check each box that applies. 2. Review Column 2 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable BMPs in your\VQN[P Exhibit. 3. Review Columns 3 and 4 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable permanent controls and operational BMPs in your WQMP. Use the format shown in Table G.1 on page 31 of this\CrQhIP Template.Describe your specific BMPs in an accompanying narrative,and explain any special conditions or situations that required omitting BMPs or substituting alternative BNIPs for those shown here. IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ...THEN YOUR WOMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls—Show on Permanent Controls--List In WQMP Operational BMPs—Include In WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ® A.On-site storm dtain ® Locations of inlets. ® Mark all inlets with the words ® Maintain and periodically repaint or inlets "Only Rain Down the Storm replace inlet markings. Drain"or similar.Catch Basin ® Provide st0rmw2ter pollution Markers may be available from the 'prevention information to new site Riverside County Flood Control owners,lessees,or operators. and Water Conservation District, call 951.955.IM to verify. IN See applicable oPer1601121 BMPs in Fact Sheet SC-V,"Drainage System Maintenance,"m the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabntphand books.co m IN Include the following in lease agreements:"Tenant shall not allow anyone to discharge anything to storm drains or to store or deposit materials so as to create a potential discharge to atom drains." ❑ B.Interior floor drains ❑ State that interior Boor drains and ❑ Inspect and maintain drains to prevent and elevator shaft sump elevator shaft sump pumps will be blockages and overflow. pumps plumbed to sanitary sewer. ❑ C.Interior parking ❑ State that parking garage floor ❑ Inspect and maintain drains to prevent garages drains will be plumbed to the blockages and overflow. sanitary sewer. 2014 SMR WQMP TEMPLATE Appendix 8—Page 1 of.10 • Apodlx a • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ...THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs,AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 9 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls—Show on_ Permanent Controls—List In WQMP Operational BMPs—Include In WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ Di.Need for future ❑ Note building design features that ❑ Provide Integrated Pest Management indoor&structural pest discourage entry of pests. information to owners,lessees,and control operators. ® D2.Landscape/ ❑ Show locations of native trees or State that final landscape plans will ® Maintain landscaping using minimum Outdoor Pesticide Use areas of shrubs and ground cover to accomplish all of the following. or no pesticides. be undisturbed and retained. Q4 Preserve existing native trees, ❑ See applicable operational BMPs in ® Show self-retaining landscape shrubs,and ground cover to the "What you should know areas,if any. maximum extent possible. for.....Landscape and Gardening"at hn // Rind / t -t /D lo ❑ Show stormwater treatment and ® Design landscaping to minimize a&jAndsc:pcGaudenBnKhure a<t hydrograph modification irrigation and tuooff,to promote management BMPs.(See surface infiltration where instructions in Chapter 3,Step 5 appropriate,and to minimize the ❑ Provide IPM information to new and guidance in Chapter 5.) use of fertilizers and pesticides that owners,lessees and operators. can contribute to stormwater pollution. ® Where landscaped areas are used to retain or detain stormwatey specify _ plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions. - Consider using pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape. To insure successful establishment, select plants appropriate to site soils, slopes,climate,sun,wind,rain,land use,air movement,ecological consistency,and plant interactions. 2014 5MR WQMP TEMPLATE Appendix 8—Page 2 of 10 • App7lfdix S • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ...THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs,AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 7 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls—Show on Permanent Controls—List In WQMP Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ E.Pools,spas,ponds, ❑ Show location of water feature and If the Co-Perminee requires pools ❑ See applicable operational BMPs in decorative fountains, a sanitary sewer cleanout in an to be plumbed to the sanitary "Guidelines for Maintaining Your and other water accessible area within 10 feet: sewer,place ante on the plans Swimming Pool,Jacuzzi and features. (Exception: Public pools must be and state in the narrative that this Garden Fountain"at plumbed according to County connection will be made according mw'//wvu m .,d .rn/xtorm":"er/Doxni Department of Environmental to local requirements. o,d./nwi?andr"au.ndt Health Guidelines.) ❑ F.Food service ❑ For restaurants,grocery stores,and ❑ Describe the location and features ❑ See the brochure,"The Food Service other food service operations,show of the designated cleaning area. Industry Best Management Practices location(indoors or in a covered for. Restaurants,Grocery Stores, ❑ Describe the items to be cleaned in area outdoors)of a Boor sink or Delicatessens and Bakeries"at this facility and how it has been hr // fl t /Bt rm aver/t..,do. other area(o(cleaaing Boor mats, sized to insure that the largest tp containers,and equipment. g •�",/F a this r items can be accommodated. ❑ On the drawing,show a note that Provide this brochure to new site this drain will be connected to a. owners,lessees,and operators. grease interceptor before discharging to the sanitary sewer: ❑ G.Refuse areas ❑ Show where site refuse and ❑ State how site refuse will be ❑ State how the following will be recycled materials will be handled handled and provide supporting implemented: and stored for pickup.See local detail to what is shown on puns. Provide adequate number of municipal requirements for sizes ❑ State that signs will be posted on or receptacles. Inspect receptacles and other details of refuse areas. near dumpsters with the words "Do regularly;repair or replace leaky ❑ If dumpsters or other receptacles not dump hazardous materials receptacles. Keep receptacles covered. are outdoors,show how the here"or similar. Prohibit/prevent dumping of liquid or designated area will be covered, hazardous wastes.Post"no hazardous graded,and paved to prevent run- materials"signs.Inspect and pick up on and show locations of berms to liner daily and clean up spills prevent runoff from the area. immediately. Keep spill control materials available oh-site.See Fact ❑ Any drains from dumpsters, SheetSheet SG34,"Waste Handling and compactors,and tallow bin areas Disposal"in the CASQA Stormwater shall be connected to a grease Quality Handbooks at removal device before discharge to www.cabutphindbooks.com sanitary sewer. 2014 SMR W QMP TEMPLATE Appendix 8-Page 3 of 10 • Ap9dix S • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE, ,,, THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls—Show on Permanent Controls--List in WQMP Operational BMPs—Include in WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ H.Industrial processes. ❑ Show process area. ❑ If industrial processes are to be ❑ See Fact Sheet SC-10,"Non- located on site,state:"AB process Stormw ter Discharges"in the activities to be performed indoors. CASQA Stormwater Quality No processes to drain to exterior or Handbooks at to storm drain system." www.cabmphandbooks,com See the brochure"Industrial& Commercial Facilities Best Management Practices for. Industrial,Commercial Facilities"at nttp://w rdnwd.orR/stormwater/Down1oa ds/IndustrialCommerclalFacllitles.Pdf ❑ 1.Outdoor storage of ❑ Show any outdoor storage areas, ❑ .Include a detailed description of ❑ See the Fact Sheets SC-31,"Outdoor equipment or materials. including how materials will be materials to be stored,storage Liquid Container Storage"and SC-33, (See rows J and K for covered.Show how areas will be areas,and Swctural features to. "Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials" source control graded and berated to prevent run- prevent pollutants from entering in the CASQA Stormwater Quality measures for vehicle on or run-off from area. - storm drains. Handbooks at cleaning, repair, and ❑ Storage of non-hazardous liquids Where appropriate,reference wway.cabmphandbooks,com maintenance.) shall be covered by a roof and/or documentation of compliance with drain to the sanitary sewer system, the requirements of Hazardous and be contained by berms,dikes, Materials Programs for. liners,or vaults. • Hazardous Waste Generation ❑ Storage of hazardous materials and wastes must he in compliance with ' Hazardous Materials Release the local hazardous materials Response and Inventory ordinance and a Hazardous • California Accidental Release Materials Management Plan for the (CaIARP) site. • Aboveground Storage Tank • Uniform Fire Code Article 80 Section 103(b)&(c)1991 • Underground Storage Tank N w,cche,ilth.org/groups/hazmalL 2014 SMR WQMP TEMPLATE Appendix a-Page 4 of 10 • Appix S • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCESISOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ... THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE. ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls—Show on Permanent Controls—List In WQMP Operational BMPs—Include In WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ J.Vehicle and ❑ Show on drawings as appropriate: ❑ If a car wash area is not provided, Describe operational measures to . Equipment Cleaning (1)Commercial/industrial facilities describe any measures taken to implement the following(if having vehicle/equipment cleaning discourage on-site car washing and applicable): needs shall either provide a explain how these will be enforced. ❑ Washwater from vehicle and covered,berated area for washing equipment washing operations shall activities or discourage not be discharged to the storm drain vehicle/equipment washing by system.Refer to"Outdoor Cleaning removing hose bibs and installing Activities and Professional Mobile signs prohibiting such uses.. Service Providers"for many of the (2)Multi-dwelling complexes shall - Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants have a paved,bermed,and covered categories below. Brochure can be car wash area(unless car washing found at htto://www.rcfiood.org/stofmwater/downloads/ is prohibited on-site and hoses are outdoortteanin2Antvities.odf provided with an automatic shut- off to discourage such use). ❑ Car dealerships and similar may (3)Washing areas for can,vehicles, rinse cars with water only. and equipment shall be paved, designed to prevent run-on to or runoff from the area,and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. (4)Commercial car wash facilities shall be designed such that no runoff from the facility is discharged to the storm drain system.Wastewater from the facility shall discharge to the _ sanitary sewer,or a wastewater reclamation system shall be installed. 2014 SMR WQMP TEMPLATE Appendix 8-Page 5 of 10 • Ap*ix S • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCESISOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ... THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls--Show on Permanent Controls—List In WQMP Operational BMPs—Include In WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ K.Vehicle/Equipment ❑ Accommodate all vehicle ❑ State that no vehicle repair or In the Stormwater Control Plan,note Repair and equipment repair and maintenance maintenance will be done outdoors, that all of the following restrictions Maintenance indoors.Or designate an outdoor or else describe the required apply to use the site: work area and design the area to features of the outdoor work area. ❑ No person shall dispose of,nor permit prevent run-on and nmoff of ❑ State that there are no Boor drains the disposal,directly or indirectly of stormwater. or if there are Boor drains,note the vehicle fluids,hazardous materials,or ❑ Show secondary containment for agency from which an industrial rinsewater from pans cleaning into exterior work areas where motor waste discharge permit will be storm drains. oil,brake fluid,gasoline,diesel obtained and that the design meets ❑ No vehicle fluid removal shall be fuel,radiator fluid,acid-containing that agency's requirements. batteries or other hazardous performed outside a building,not on ❑ State that there arc no tanks, asphalt or ground surfaces,whether materials or hazardous wastes are containers or sinks to be used for inside or outside a building,except in used or stored.Drains shall not be pans cleaning or rinsing or,if there such a manner as to ensure that any installed within the secondary are,note the agency from which an spilled fluid will be in an am of containment areas. industrial waste discharge permit secondary containment.Leaking ❑ Add a note on the plans that states will be obtained and that the vehicle fluids shall be contained or either(1)there are no floor drains, design meets that agency's drained from the vehicle immediately. or(2)floor drains are connected to requirements. ❑ No person shall leave unattended drip wastewater pretreatment systems prior to discharge to the sanitary parts other open containers sewer and an industrial waste containing ing vehicle fluid,unless such containers are in use or in an area of discharge permit will be obtained. secondary containment. Refer to "Automotive Maintenance & Car Care Befit Management Practices for Auto Body' Shops, Auto Repair Shops, Car Dealerships, Gas Stations and Fleet Service Operations". Brochure can be found at http//rcflood.omf storm«^ttcr/ Refer to Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Professional Mobile Service Providers for many of the Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants categories below. Brochure can be found at httn'//rcilood.orefstotmmtcr/ 2014 SMR WQMP TEMPLATE Appendix 8—Page 6 of 10 • Ap1i1llfdix 8 • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ... THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPS,AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls--Show on Permanent Controls—List In WQMP Operational BMPs-include In WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ L.Fuel Dispensing ❑ Fueling are296 shall have. ❑ The property owner shall dry sweep Areas impermeable floors(i.e.,pordand the fueling area routinely. cement concrete or equivalent ❑ See the Fact Sheet SD-30,"Fueling smooth impervious surface)that - Areas"in the CASQA StOMW2lef are: a)graded at the minimum Quality Handbooks at slope necessary to prevent ponding; www.cabmilhandbooks.com and b)separated from the rest of the site by a grade break that prevents run-on of storrnwater to the maximum extent practicable. ❑ Fueling areas shall be covered by a canopy that extends a minimum of ten feet in each direction from each pump. [Alternative:The fueling area must be covered and the cover's minimum dimensions must be equal to or greater than the area within thegrade break or fuel dispensing areal.] The canopy [or cover] shall not drain onto the fueling area. 6 The fueling area shall be defined as the area extending a minimum offi.5 feel from the comer of each fuel dispenser or the length at which the how and nozzle assembly maybe operated plus a minimum of one foot.whichc+cr is greater. 2014$MR WQMP TEMPLATE Appendix 8—Page 7 of 10 • Appilix B • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ... THEN YOUR WOMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs,AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls how on Permanent Controls—List In WOMP Operational BMPs—Include In WOMP Runoff Pollutants WOMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ M. Loading Docks ❑ Show a preliminary design for the ❑ Move loaded,and unloaded items loading dock area,including indoors as soon as possible. roofing and drainage. Loading ❑ See Fact Sheet SG30,"Outdoor docks shall be covered and/or Loading and Unloading,"in the graded to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loadingarea. Roof Handbooks Sks at ter Quality Handbooks at downspouts shall be positioned to www cabmphandbooks.com direct stormwater away from the- loading area.Water from loading - dock areas shall be drained to the sanitary sewer,or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sanitarysewer. ; ❑ Loading dock areas draining - directly to the sanitary sewer shall be equipped with a spill control - valve or equivalent device,which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. ❑ Provide a roof overhang over the loading area or instal]door skirts (cowling)at each bay,that enclose the end of the trailer. 2014$MR WQMP TEMPLATE - Appendix 8—Page 8 of 10 • - Ap1kix S • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF`THESE SOURCES WILL BE ... THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL Miss, AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls—Show on Permanent Controls--List In WQMP Operational BM11"riclude In WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ❑ N.Fire Sprinkler Test ❑ Provide a means to drain fire ❑ See the note in Fact Sheet SC-41, Water sprinkler test water to the sanitary "Building and Grounds Maintenance," sewer. in the CASQA Stormwater Quality Handbooks at www.cabmphandbooks.com O. Miscellaneous Drain ❑ Boiler drain lines shall be directly or Wash Water or Other or indirectly connected to the Sources sanitary sewer system and may not ❑ Boil"drain lines discharge to the storm drain system. ❑ Condensate drain lines ❑ Rooftop equipment ❑ Condensate drain lines may ❑ Drainage sumps discharge to landscaped areas if the g P Bow is small enough that mnoR will ❑ Roofing,gutters,and not occur.Condensate drain lines trim. may not discharge to the storm ❑ Other sources drain system. ❑ Rooftop equipment with potential to produce pollutants shall be roofed and/or have secondary containment. ❑ Any drainage sumps on-site shall feature a sediment sump to reduce the quantity of sediment in pumped water. ❑ Avoid roofing,gutters,and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff. ❑ Include controls for other sources as specified by local reviewer. Z014 SMR WQMP TEMPLATE Appendix 8—Page 9 a110 • ApQIX 8 • STORMWATER POLLUTANT SOURCES/SOURCE CONTROL CHECKLIST IF THESE SOURCES WILL BE ... THEN YOUR WQMP SHOULD INCLUDE THESE SOURCE CONTROL BMPs, AS APPLICABLE ON THE PROJECT SITE ... 1 2 3 4 Potential Sources of Permanent Controls--Show on Permanent Controls—List In WQMP Operational BM11"riclude In WQMP Runoff Pollutants WQMP Drawings Table and Narrative Table and Narrative ® P.Plazas,sidewalks, - ® Sweep plazas,sidewalks,and parking and parking lots. lots regularly to prevent accumulation of liner and debris.Collect debris from pressure washing to prevent entry into the storm drain system.Collect washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser and discharge to the sanitary sewer not to a storm drain. 20145MR WQMP TEMPLATE - - Appendix 8—Page 10 of 10 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion � Appendix 9: O&M Operation and Maintenance Plan and Documentation of Finance,Maintenance and Recording Mechanisms • • -50- RECORDING REQUESTED BY: 2018-0227033 • Costco Wholesale Corporation 06/05/2019 11:30 RN Fee: $ 53.00 (Property Owner's Name) Page 1 of 14 Recorded In Official Records AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: county of Riverside Pater Rldana Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder 9 Corporate Park, Suite 230 Aft: Jenifer Murillo ,III�fy � r} 'I III (Property Owner's Mailing Address) Irvine, CA 92606 67S SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE RECORDING OF A WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR COSTCO TEMECULA SITE RENOVATION (Name of Project) TRACT TR 3334; PA-99-0424 (Address or Tract Map/Lot No.) -- ----- ------- Page 1 Water Quality Management Plan • Operation and Maintenance Agreement Property Owner Name: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION Property Owner Mailing Address: 999 LAKE DRIVE, ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 Project Address or Location: 26610 YNEZ RD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 Project's Assessor Parcel Number: APN: 921-810-014 This Operation and Maintenance Agreement (Agreement) is made in The City of Temecula (City), a municipal agency, located in the County of Riverside State of California, by (insert property owner) COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (Owner), this (insert day) of(insert month and year) WHEREAS, the Owner owns real property (Property) as described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B", each of which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and has proposed that the Property be developed in accordance with governmental approvals issued by the City and other agencies having jurisdiction over • the Property; WHEREAS, at the time of initial approval of the development oroiect (Proiect) known as (insert name of project) COSTCO TEMECULA GAS EXPANSION within the Property, the City required the Project to generate a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP describes how the.Project proposes to remove pollutants and minimize any adverse impacts from the discharge of storm water and non-stone water runoff generated as a result of the Project, and includes structural and non-structural treatment devices, also known as °Best Management Practices" (BMPs), that will be constructed, or installed, or implemented for this purpose. The precise location(s) of these BMPs are depicted in the WQMP, on file with the City; WHEREAS, the Owner signed and certified the WQMP and accepted the requirement to routinely inspect, clean, maintain, repair, reconstruct, and replace the BMPs associated with the Project in order to retain their original intent and effectiveness; WHEREAS, this Agreement is transferable onto subsequent owners, heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, and assigns (collectively "Successors") of this Property, Project, and all associated BMPs; WHEREAS, the Owner and Successors are aware that such operation and maintenance requirements are in accordance with, and enforceable under, the City's Municipal Code and State and Federal environmental laws regulating the discharge of pollutants in stone water and non-stormwater runoff, and may also require compliance with Local. State, and Federal laws and regulations pertaining to confined space entry and waste disposal • methods in effect at the time such maintenance occurs; - ----- -- - - - - Page -- ..._ NOW THEREFORE, the Owner and Successors shall be subject to the following • conditions: 1. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, California, at the expense of the Owner and.shall constitute notice to the Owner and all Successors of the title to said Property of the obligations required by this Agreement. This Agreement shall also be accompanied by a copy of an 'Operation and Maintenance Manual', included in Exhibit "C', providing detailed instructions on how and when each treatment BMP proposed for construction, or installation, or implementation must be inspected, cleaned, maintained, repaired, reconstructed, and replaced, if necessary, (collectively "Maintained") in order to retain their original intent and effectiveness. 2. Owner shall, at their sole cost, expense, and liability, routinely maintain all BMPs in a manner assuring peak performance at all times without request or demand from the City or other agency. All reasonable precautions shall be exercised in the removal of any material(s) from the BMPs and the ultimate disposal of the material(s) in a manner consistent with all relevant laws and regulations in effect at the time of the recording of this Agreement. As may be requested from time to time by the City, the Owner shall provide the City with documentation identifying the inspections, maintenance activities, material(s) and quantity(ies) removed, and disposal destinations. 3. Owner hereby provides the City complete access at any time and of any duration during business hours to the BMPs, their immediate vicinity, and all legally accessible areas draining to them upon reasonable notice, or in case of emergency as determined by the City without advance.notice, for the purpose of inspecting the BMPs and/or sampling runoff into and/or from the BMPs. The City shall make every effort to minimize interference with the Owner's use of the Property during these inspections and sampling activities. 4. In the event the Owner fails to accomplish the necessary operation and maintenance obligations required by this Agreement, the Owner hereby authorizes the City to perform any maintenance necessary to restore the BMPs to their original intent and effectiveness. Owner shall reimburse all expenses associated with the City's maintenance activities to the City, including administrative costs, attorney fees, and interest thereon at the maximum rate authorized by the Civil Code. The City may also opt to use the proceeds from any securities posted for the project, or place a lien on the Property in such amount as will fully reimburse the City, to pay for such maintenance in order to guarantee the continued performance of the BMPs. 5. Owner shall notify any successor to title of all or part of the Property about the existence of this Agreement and provide such notice and a copy of this Agreement prior to such Successor obtaining an interest in all or part of the Property. • Page 3 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Owner hereto affixes their signature as of the date first • written above. OWNER 1: OWNER 2 (If more than one owner): Costco Wholesale Corporation JPn' f M . -;ItO Name Name Signature Signature Title Title �}Cp It4VOMSALE Cj0Q?0RAT%0Aj A notary acknowledgement is required for recordation (attach appropriate acknowledgement). • _ -- Page - - - - - - -- - - _ ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California } County of Q f`I�N9 C- ) SS. On M qu a4, 3o Ig before me, _bm 1 E V IG� Notary Public, ^� DATE personally appeared -TON r i T� who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing ^9DAVID EVICK paragraph is true and correct. 44"s COrr.i 21t7679Igco'."TARY , 2127679 U0.,CWMR MY tam Elf.OCT.21,201 WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY'S SIGNATURE PLACE NOTARY SEAL IN AB0%E SPACE OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is optional. However, it may prove valuable and could prevent fraudulent attachment of this form to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY'CT AfNIED BY SIGNER(PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVID CORPORATE OF. R TITLE OR OF DOLT_%4EX7 ❑ E5 PARTNE R{S) ATTORNEY-IN-FACT `tL�IBER OF PAGES TRUSTEE(S) GUARDIAN.CONSERVATOR OTHER: __ DATE OF DOCUl�1r.��C OTHER SIGNER(PRINCIPAL) IS RESENTFyfG: _ SAME OF PERSONISiOR ENT IIES, RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF s SIGNER = C.P":JEiAND FORMS AT HTTP:/WZPW /A-LEY SIERP�.COvI ynr-Tnn ,.L EY'-SIERRA(YSORAVCE EXHIBIT A • (Leoal Description of Pronertv) LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCELS A AND D OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. PA-99-0424 RECORDED DECEMBER 3, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 99-528446 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. - - - - --- - - - Page - - - - - EXHIBIT B • (WOMP Exhibits) Exhibits shall include: a) a BMP site layout that clearly depicts the location of each BMP, and b) legible construction details of each BMP. Ensure all exhibits are 8.5'X11". Do not include color exhibits. • • ------------- -- ---- -- Page 6 --- --- ---...-- -- - — - BMP SITE LAYOUT SH 1 OF 2 O&M AGREEMENT EXHIBIT B COSTCO TEMECULA GAS EXPANSION // � / Ro GO El a m o ; _ o � o 2 P ° 1^1 W PARCEL D / LLA N0.99-0424 yk� 0 LEGEND N BMP NUMBER O1 o: FLOW THROUGH PLANTER N g ull�l E g _ 50' 0' 25' 50' FUSCOE EII�■ 6 1 ■ E E Q I ■ 6 SCALE: 1" = 50' U W 6390 Greenwich Dr.,Suite 170,San Diego,California 92122 � tel 858.554.1500 o fox 858.597.0335 o w .fuscoe.com i BMP SITE LAYOUT SH 2 OF 2 O&M AGREEMENT EXHIBIT B COSTCO TEMECULA GAS EXPANSION BIO—RETENTION TO BE PLANTED OVERFLOW STRUCTURE CURB OPENING PER PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANS TOP OF GRAB PLAN DETAIL E/5 6" MIN a., 6. ,—� I EI I I I— I=I 1' DEEPENED CURB AND 8 I I 1=1 11- GUTTER PER DETAIL A/5 24' THICK LAYER OF •. LOAMY SAND TYPE 'I I—I i 1 24,• - FlMSHED CETADE Ili- III—�I CONNECT LINER SOIL —_III—� I- _ ELEVATION(FG) i-I I 1-I I I TO CURB PER DETAIL G/5 MINIMUM INFILTRATION ,SET LEVEL, I _ 11 '^ ROE.=5"/HOUR. SEE . ' . . . . _ '.t :'. - I I-1 MAINTAIN 6" BENCH NATIVE N NOTE 6 III ' -°°�°°°°°°° Io o°a°o 0 0 0°0°0°o c' I I III- SOIL FOR SUPPORT OF 9 ADJACENT CURB/PAVING m 4' DEEP 'BIRDSEYE' WASHED I — PEA GRAVEL CHOKER STONE I��I S MIN DOUBLE LINED IMPERMEABLE ' I II i I UNER ON ALL SIDES OF, LAYER }_ _ _ �I PLANTER. MIRAFI NT100 OR CALTRANS CLASS 2 I —I 11=1 11= 11=I I 'I 11=1 I I—III- I EQUAL. MIN 18' OVERLAP AT PERMEABLE 'I I�I t 11 -I I I l I El I I,;,I I I- JOINTS. 4' DIA. PERFORATED SUBDRAIN ai SLOPED 0.5R MINTO OUTLET EMEND LINER.6' MIN C INSTALL CUTOFF WALL AT OUTLET BELOW BOTTOM OF ADJACENT GRAVEL LS LAYER s CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. SCARIFY SUBGRADE BEFORE INSTALLING BIORETENTION AREA AGGREGATE AND BSM. s 2. BSM TO BE LOAMY SAND TYPE SOIL WITH INFILTRATION RATE OF 5 INCH. PER HOUR W (MIN). y 3. COMPACT-EACH 6" LIFT OF BSM WITH LANDSCAPE ROLLER OR BY LIGHTLY WETTING. IF WETTING, ALLOW TO DRY OVERNIGHT BEFORE PLANTING. d 4. DO NOT WORK WITHIN BIORETENTION AREA DURING RAIN OR UNDER WET CONDITIONS. W 5. KEEP HEAVY MACHINERY OUTSIDE BIORETENTION AREA LIMITS. 6. ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 85% MINERAL COMPONENT AND 15% ORGANIC COMPONENT, BY VOLUME, DRUM MIXED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. THE MINERAL COMPONENT SHALL BE A CLASS A SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL THAT MEETS THE a RANGE SPECIFIED IN TABLE 1. THE ORGANIC COMPONENT SHALL 83E NITROGEN STABILIZED COMPOST, SUCH THAT NITROGEN DOES NOT LEACH FROM THE MEDIA. THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE INSPECTOR TO Q PROVE THE ENGINEERED MIX MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS. TABLE 1: MINERAL COMPONENT RANGE REOUIREMENTS % RANGE COMPONENT 70-80 SAND 15-20 SILT g 5-10 CLAY m BIORETENTION PLANTER FTP NOT TO SCALE S toll ll III ,. FUSCOE E N 6 1 N E E N I N 0 6390 Gree"ich Dr.,Suite 170,San Diego,California 92122 tel 858.554.1500 o fax 858.597.0335 u w .(uwoe.wm i EXHIBIT C • (Oaeradon and Maintenance Manual) Please refer to the attached example. It shows the necessary requirements for the O&M Manual. • • -- -- -------- Page ------ ----- • Ooeralion&Maintenance Manual—Flaw Through Planter 1 PURPOSE OF THE FLOW THROUGH PLANTER MAINTENANCE MANUAL The purpose of this manual is to provide maintenance instructions for the Flow Through Planter located along the east side of the project boundary just north of the Promenode Way entrance. The flow through planter is a pollution control device designed to treat urban runoff before it enters in to the storm drain systems located on the project site. Regular maintenance will help to ensure that the flow through planter functions as it has been designed. This manual will serve as a reference guide and filed manual to assist the property owner with: • An overview of the flow through planter and how it functions • A description of the location of the flow through planter • An understanding of the procedures required to effectively maintain the Flow Through Planter on a regular basis • Reproducible copies of the forms, logs and guidance sheets necessary for recording maintenance activities associated with the Flow Through Planter. 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTION OF THE FLOW THROUGH PLANTER • The Flow Through Planter is a structure filled with gravel soil and vegetation that drain to:an underdrain which connects to the storm drain system. These systems also have an overflow structure to prevent high flows from leaving the planter area. From the.top of the curb or concrete step-off to the bottom, the porous materials consist of • 18' of Bioretention Soil Media (BSM) • 4" of 'Birdseye" Washed Pea Gravel Chocker Stone • 12" of Caltrans Class 2 Permeable A 4" diameter perforated pvc will be installed of the bottom of the 12" layer. This pipe connects to the storm drain. Pollution is mitigated through infiltration of runoff into the porous materials within the planter and ultimately through infiltration through the bioretention sail media and stone layers. 3. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY The property Owner, Costco Wholesale, is ultimately responsible for maintaining the Flow Through Planter. The goal in maintaining the planter is to ensure that Infiltration is occurring. Regular inspection and replacement of materials within the planter once it becomes ineffective in performing as designed are the major components in the maintenance program. In order to achieve this, the following general procedures shall be followed: • Qualified maintenance personnel should periodically inspect the planter at least twice a year. The first inspection should happen prior to August 1 and the • subsequent inspection should happen during the period between February I and March 31 . • If a problem is identified, it should be rectified as soon as possible to ensure that the trench functions as designed, • Regular removal of trash and debris should occur as needed. Trash and debris, visible along the surface of the trench shall be promptly removed. Detailed maintenance procedures are outlined 5. 4. MAINTENANCE INDICATORS AND ACTIVITIES Functional Maintenance: Regular functional maintenance is required to ensure that the Flow Through Planter performs in an effective manner. Functional maintenance consists of both preventative and corrective activities. Logs and guidance sheets are contained herein to use in recording vital information while performing operation Inspection and other infiltration trench maintenance activities. Maintenance records shall be maintained by the property owner for a minimum of five years. The proper use and subsequent storage of these records will assure the City of Temecula that the Flow Through Planter is functioning as designed. Preventative Maintenance: Preventative maintenance sholl be performed on a regular basis. Checklists are included herein to track and record preventative maintenance activities. These activities include trash and debris removal and sediment management, Trash and debris removal shall be performed to ensure that runoff has adequate surface area to infiltrate through the various layers that comprise the cross section of the trench. • Sediment management will occur when testing Indicates that the Infiltration rate has diminished below the stated acceptable rate. Corrective Maintenance: Connective maintenance will be required on an emergency or non-routine basis to correct problems and restore the intended operation and safe function of the flow through planter. Flow Through Planter Maintenance • Inspect a minimum of once per year, before the rainy season, and after large storm events or more frequently as needed. • Clean the planter when the loss of infiltrative capacity is observed. When the standing water is present for a period of time in excess of 72 hours, removal of sediment may be necessary. • Control mosquitoes as necessary. • Remove litter and debris from surface as required. Maintenance Indicators: Maintenance Indicators ore signs or triggers that indicate that maintenance personnel need to check the Flow Through Planter for maintenance needs. The most common triggers include warnings or accounts of standing water and sediment accumulation. Inspection and Maintenance Checklist in Section 5 below shows conditions and criteria that trigger the need for some specific routine infiltration trench maintenance activities. Emergencies may occasionally arise that would require a more urgent, critical response. Sediment Management: • The types of storm water pollutants that accumulate in sediment varies, but may include contaminants such as heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other organic compounds such as pesticides or solvents. When the sediment has clogged the flow through planter, remove and properly dispose of Sediment. Regrode if necessary. • Sediment Disposal: Several methods for disposal are available depending on the concentration of toxins in the waste, Methods can range from recycling the material, to depositing the sediment into appropriate landfills. At the time of disposal, 9 the wastes are deemed to be unfit for disposal in a municipal landfill, a full and comprehensive testing program should be run by a qualified person to test for all the constituents outlined under California code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. Title 22 list concentrations of certain chemicals and their soluble threshold limit concentrations (STLC's) and their total threshold limit concentrations 7LCs). Chemicals that exceed the allowable concentrations are considered hazardous wastes and must be removed from the sediment. 5. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST See following page. • Flow Through Planter Inspection and Maintenance Checklist — Costco Temecula Date of Inspection: Inspected by: Type of Inspection: ® Monthly ❑ Pre-Wet Season ❑ After Heavy Runoff (1'or greater) ❑ Annual Prior to Start Of Wet Season ❑ Other Conditions When Maintenance Comments Defect Maintenance is Required Field Measurement Measurement Maintenance Needed (Describe maintenance completed Frequency Activity (yes/no) and if needed maintenance was not conducted, note when it will be done Cut vegetation to an Vegetation Visual observation and Visual observation and Annually,prior average height of 6- Management random measurements random measurements Inches and remove for Aesthetics throughout the side slope throughout the side to start of wet trimmings. Remove (optional) area slope area season any trees,or woody vegetation. Drain facility.. Annually, 96 Corrective action Standing Water Visual observation Visual observation hours after a prior to wet season. target storm Consult engineers if (0.60 in)event immediate solution Is not evident. Trash and Annually,prior Remove and Debris. Visual observation Visual observation to start of wet dispose of trash and season debris Measure depth at Remove and Measure depth at apparent apparent maximum properly dispose of Sediment maximum and minimum and minimum Annually,prior to start of wet sediment.Regrade Management accumulation of sediment. accumulation of if necessary. Calculate average depth sediment. Calculate season (expected every 2 average depth years) Corrective action Annually,prior prior to wet season. Underdrains Visual Observation Visual Observation to start of wet Consult engineers If season immediate solution is not evident. Corrective action General Annually,prior priarto wet season. .Maintenance Visual observation Visual_observation to start of wet Consult engineers if Inspection season immediate solution is not evident. 0 0 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Costco Temecula Gas Expansion Appendix 10: Educational Materials BMP Fact Sheets, Maintenance Guidelines and Other End-User BMP Information -43- er f6e Stor For more information contact: I ONLY RAIN IN THE STORM DRAIN i Riverside County Flood Control District 1995 Market Street, Riverside, CA 92501 _ Call Toll Free: 1-800-506-2555 E-mail: Flood.fcnpdes@co.riverside.ca.us i or visit , 00 www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater � www.epa.gov/nps air/(���� (fro) A ( / y Polluted stormwater runoff can have i many adverse effects on plants, fish, Stormwater runoff occurs when precipitation animals, and people. from rain or snowmelt flows over the ground. • Sediment can cloud the water Impervious surfaces like driveways, sidewalks, and make:t difficult or and streets prevent stormwater from impossible for aquatic plants to naturally soaking into the ground. grow. Sediment also can destroy aquatic habitats. • Excess nutrients can cause algae blooms.When algae die, they sink to the bottom and decompose • in a process that removes oxygen from the water. Fish and other aquatic organisms can't exist in water with low dissolved oxygen levels. • Bacteria and other pathogens can wash into swimming areas and create health hazards, often making beach closures necessary. • Debris—plastic bags, six-pack rings, bottles. and cigarette butts—washed into waterbodies can choke, suffocate, or disable aquatic life like ducks, fish. turtles, and birds. • Household hazardous wastes like insecticides, pesticides, paint. solvents, used motor oil, and other auto fluids can poison aquatic life. _,- Land animals and people can become sick or die from eating diseased fish and shellfish or ingesting polluted water. Stormwater can pick up debris, chemicals, dirt. and other • Polluted s often pollutants and flow into a storm sewer system or directly to affects drinking nking water f sources. This, in turn. can a lake, stream, river, wetland, or coastal water. Anything that - affect human health and enters a storm sewer system is discharged untreated into increase drinking water the waterbodies we use for swimming, fishing. and providing treatment costs. drinking water. • — 11ngIN57.1Iti\Y -s — -- Auto care C .� Washing your car and A degreasing auto parts at home i Fduwvmc 4 Ult+dl I dM3tq Pt*&'J bderrsOL can send detergents and other N StgA orrd ratketl Km4fouw dreLrl ntads tPdlrlfirrd contaminants through the daw a&&eatW storm sewer system. Dumping P D_.-A 02 automotive fluids into storm axtteatd foram mar 04. PtOPR4 "°f P drains has the same result as e&1ra& A• jue4 a, Lid• Put/&e P� dumping the materials directly into a waterbody d06B4' arrd a9d�DG od ad°&t mutt r7l". • Use a commercial car wash that treats or IM4 �aw Dm tPo"&"orrra lire good oc Lyra Ztm&dww. recycles its wastewater, or wash your car on Permeable Pavement—Traditional concrete and your yard so the water infiltrates Into the asphalt don't allow water to soak into the ground. ground. Instead these surfaces rely on storm drains to Lawn care • Repair leaks and dispose Of used auto fluids divert unwanted water. Permeable pavement Excess fertilizers and batteries at designated drop-off or systems allow rain and snowmelt to soak through, �' g and pesticides recycling locations. decreasing stormwater runoff. applied to lawns Rain Barrels—You can 1"17 and gardens wash collect rainwater from off and pollute Septic Pet waste rooftops in mosquito- streams. In addition, yard systems ! Pet waste can be proof containers.The clippings and a major source of water can r e used later on Leaking and lawn or garden areas. leaves can wash poorly bacteria and into storm drains and contribute maintained t excess nutrients Rain Gardens and nutrients and organic matter to streams. septic in local waters. Grassy Swales—Specially • Don't overwater your lawn. Consider systems release nutrients and •When walking designed areas planted pathogens (bacteria and our t with native plants can provide natural places for using a soaker hose instead of a viruses)that can be picked u y Pe sprinkler. p P remember to pick up the rainwater to collect by stormwater and discharged waste and dispose of it and soak into the • Use pesticides and fertilizers into nearby waterbodies. properly. Flushing pet ground. Rain from sparingly.When use is necessary, use pathogens can cause public waste is the best disposal rooftop areas or paved these chemicals in the recommended health problems and method. Leaving pet waste areas can be diverted amounts. Use organic mulch or safer environmental concerns. on the ground increases into these areas rather pest control methods whenever • Inspect your system every public health risks by than into storm drains. possible. 3 years and pump your allowing harmful bacteria • Compost or mulch yard waste. Don't tank as necessary(every 3 and nutrients to wash into Vegetated Filter Strips—Filter strips are areas of leave it in the street or sweep it into to 5 years). the storm drain and native grass or plants created along roadways or storm drains or streams. eventually into local streams.They trap the pollutants stormwater • Don't dispose of waterbodies. picks up as it flows across driveways and streets. • Cover piles of dirt or mulch being household hazardous used in landscaping projects. waste in sinks or toilets. Dirt, oil, and debris that collect in ion controls that aren't maintained can cause d parking lots and paved areas can be Oessive amounts of sediment and debris to be washed into the storm sewer system c rued into the stormwater system Construction ` G and eventually enter local v hicles can leak fuel, oil, and other harmful fluids Ma waterbodies. trot can be picked up by stormwater and f 2" • Sweep up litter and debris from d posited into local waterbodies. _ sidewalks, driveways and parking lots, • Divert stormwater away from disturbed or / especially around storm drains. exposed areas of the construction site. • Cover grease storage and dumps[ers • Install silt fences, vehicle mud removal areas, and keep them clean to avoid leaks, vegetative cover, and other sediment and • Report any chemical spill to the local erosion controls and properly maintain them, especially after rainstorms. hazardous waste cleanup team. They'll know the best way to keep • Prevent soil erosion by minimizing disturbed spills from harming the environment, areas during construction projects, and seed and mulch bare areas as soon as possible. / Lack of vegetation on streambanks can lead to erosion. Overgrazed pastures can also contribute excessive amounts of sediment to local waterbodies. Excess fertilizers and pesticides can poison aquatic animals and lead to destructive algae blooms. livestock in streams can contaminate waterways with bacteria, making them unsafe for human contact. • Keep livestock away from streambanks and provide them a water source away from waterbodies. • Store and apply manure away from waterbodies and in accordance with a nutrient management plan. • Vegetate riparian areas along waterways. .a- • Rotate animal grazing to prevent soil erosion in fields. • Apply fertilizers and pesticides according to label _ instructions to save Money and minimize pollution. ,. Uncovered fueling stations allow spills to be t washed into storm drains. Cars waiting to be �= repaired can leak fuel, oil. and other harmful Improperly managed logging operations can result in erosion and fluids that can be picked up by stormwater. sedimentation. • Clean up spills immediately and properly • Conduct preharvest planning to prevent erosion and lower costs. dispose of cleanup materials. • Use logging methods and equipment that minimize soil disturbance. • Provide cover over fueling stations and • Plan and design skid trails, yard areas, and truck access roads to design or retrofit facilities for spill containment. minimize stream crossings and avoid disturbing the forest floor. • Properly maintain Fleet vehicles to prevent •Construct stream crossings so that they minimize erosion and physical oil, gas, and other discharges from being changes to streams. I washed into local waterbodies. F • Expedite revegetation of cleared areas. 0 Install and maintain oil/water separators. j 111 `ft-dToM Should Know For InIcrnotlon on the Conatmelion Activity General S101M . Riverside County has two drainage systems•sanitary sowers and storm drains. The stone drain Permit Package contact: het nedto Is system desi y g pprevent flooding by carrying excess ralnwatereway from streets.Since State General Ponnit Inlomlation What YOM S the storm drain system does not provide for water treatment,It also serves the unintendedfunction (916)657.1148 or your of transporting pollutants directly to our waterways. 1 Roglonal Water Ow7aty Control Board(RWOC8) Santa Ana Region(6) GENE-RA UnEke sanitary sowers,starmcains California Tower CONSTRUCTION 8 �����ate r 3737 Maln Secol,Suite 600 Rivors:do,CA 92501JJ39 SITE SUPERVISION localstrearns,rivers andlakes. (909)782.4130 San olago Region(9) ,� Runoff from construction sites can carry pollutant 9771 C1alremonl Mesa Blvd..Suite B l'f 1 material into storm drains. Examples olpollutants Son Diego,CA 92124 ,f-r+l �q p include oil.fuel,and fluid from vehicles and heavy (610)467.2952 equipment;construction site debris and did;molar Colorado River Balm Region g (A - ` , - ,� and concrete;paints and solvents;and landscaping , L . -`% r. �' 73-720 Fred Waring Drtvo,Suite 100 runoff containing pesticides or weed killers. Palm Doson.CA 02260 _ '��• 'r," -i`h (760)346-7491 r�i,r pIt a i,'. ' - Stomnrdfer padlution rouses as much as 60;'S of our SPILL RESPONSE AGENCY: .yM1•-. k Er' _ waterpoguldonprabfmn Ifjeapanf¢esdleglGrry O(atr r HAZ-MAT: (909)358-5055 "-L, waterways and poses a threat to groundwater AFTER 5:00 P.M.: (909)359.5245 OR 911 .� resources ApdNtaWs pemolarot umoscd RECYCLING AND HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL: (909)358.5055 �l n t 5 '` ;� y of ®iYerslde TO REPORT ILLEGAL DUMPING OR A h '; ,� CLOGGED STORM DRAIN: 1-9oo-so6.2sss - C�� : ,�..fQtoctlon Program To antler additional brochures or to obtan information Since preventing porution is much easier,and less costly.than cleaning up'after the fad:the Cities on otlhcr poSMlon prevention ectMtles, and County of Riverside StonnWater/CleanWater Protection Program informs residents and call:(009)055.1111. businesses on pollution prevention eclivl0es such as the Best Management Practices (BMPs) Best described in this pamphlet. The Cities and County of Riverside proel StormWator/CleanWator Protection Program The Cities and County of Riverside have adopted ordinances for stormwater management and 1-80MO&2555 for. discharge control. In accordance with state and federal law,these local stermwater ordinances prohibit the discharge of wastes into the storm drain system or local surface waters. This Includes `'' Stor171Water discharges from construction sites containing concrete, palnL fuel,automotive fluids,sediment, �+1; D" trash and other materials. Lim We,Vr General PLEASE NOTE:Erosion and sedimentation are two of the most common slormwater pollution problems associated With construction activity. inadequate erosion and sediment controls often PROTECTION PROGRAM Hoff* result in sediment discharges from construction sites.Construction vehicles and equipment can Rrvmcm Counry gratcNry ocknoracdgm w Sams Clara also track significant amounts of mud end sediment onto adjacent streets. Central our 'Silo v004y Nonpokn 64urco volution Caaeol Program,Ala wb Consl 9 1 Y Coun"Ma Clean Water Program and the CI y al Lo, perimenter,'the discharge of sediment and pollutants to o street. storm drain Or watercourse is Anpolm Stmmlar M m anageent Dlviston far lntor , Ilan -1AnyonNlr+l sWct/yproh/bifod by local ordinances and state and federal regulations. ProvWedtoartsamchwo. buslnesa' °. tic ooa rce a storm Water Construction sites are potential sources of The following Bost Management Practices ❑ Place d umpsters under roots or cover Discharge Permits stormwator pollution. Materiels and wastes (BMPs) can significantly reduce pollutant with tarps orplasbc sheeting. Neverclean out what you should know that blow or wash Into stone drains,gutters, discharges from your site. Compliance with a dumpster by washing It down. The State Water Resources Control Board or streets have a direct impact on local rivers stonmvater regulations can be as simple as ❑ Make sure portable toilets are in good and Regional Water Quality Control Boards and lakes. As an owner, contractor, site minimizing .rainwater contact (covering theadminister end enforce the State General working order and regularly serviced. Check supervisor, or operatorafasile,you maybe source), limiting the area of the source, frequently for Permit- for construction activity held responsible for any environmental protecting materials and waste from runoff, (Construction Activity General Permit):This damage caused by your subcontractors or and maintaining a'claW site. O Use gravel approaches to limit the tracking permit requires Implementation of best employees. of sediments into streets,where truck traffic is managoment practices Aii prevent. the ❑ Designate a specific area of the site for frequent discharge of pollutants from construction auto parking, vehicle refueling, and routine sites. equipment maintenance. This area should be O Prevent erosion by planting fast-growing located away from any streams or stone drain annual and perennial grasses. Those will Is compliance with the Construction Inlets. and bermed and rocked If necessary. shield and bind the soil. Do not remove Uses. Activity.General Permit required for my Make major repairs off site. or shrubs unnecessarily; they help prevent construction size? erosion. a Yes,If construction will affect five or more ❑ Keep materials out of the rain - prevent acres or Is pad of a plan of development runoff contamination at the source. Cover ❑ Control surface runoff io reduce drainage erosion. especially during excavation. Use drainage of five or mom acres. A Notice of Intent exposed piles of soil or construction materials ditches and dikes to direct water away from (N01)must be riled with the State prior to with plastic shooting or temporary roofs. active work areas. Consult local drainage grading ordislurbing soil at the site. ` Before It rains, sweep to remove materials policies. Advance Planning to from paved surfaces that drain to storm drains. What Is Required by the Permit? Prevent Pollution a Eliminate non-storm water discharges to ❑ Keep work areas clean. Remove trash, the storm drain system and other waters. O Identify potential pollutant sources from litter,and debris on a regular basis. a Prepare and Implement a Storm Water materials and wastes that will be used and ❑ Clean up leaks, drips and others ills •o•n. Pollution Prevention Plan(SWP.PP). stored on the job site. immediately so they do of pollute the soil or >' a PPeoSWPPUyy�rp�eQ a site and update ❑ Incorporate slomtwater quality measures leave residue on paved surfaces that can be Into the silo design process;locate areas for washed away when It rains. How Do You Obtain a Pemdt? material storage and equipment maintenance ❑ Practice source reduction by ordoring •Fill out and mall a Notice of Intent(NOI)to ❑ Maintain all vehicles end equipment in the Salto Water Rosources Control away from storm drain inletsorwatercourses. working order. Inspect frequent for only the amount you need to finish the job. g� 8 f� y Board.Include the mquired fco..Thc.N01. ❑ Schedule excavation,grading,and paving leaks and repairprompty. ❑ Dispose of all waste property.. Many is your commitment to comply with the activities fordry weather periods. construction materials and wastes, Including terms and conditions of the Construction ❑ Never wash down "dirty' pavement or solvents, watorbased paint, vehicle fluids, Activity General Permit. ❑ Control the amount of runoff crossing your surfaces where materials have been spilled; broken asphalt and concrete, wood, and construction site. Use banns or drainage use dry cleanup methods whenever possible cleared vegetation can be recycled. Materials NOTE., You mayobtain a State General ditches to direct waterflow around the site. (absorbent materials. cat litter and/or rags). that cannot be recycled must be taken to an Pemdt packet from the State Board or local ❑ Inform your employees aura subcontractors appropriate landfill or disposed of as hazardous -Regional Board. Carefully .read the Y Y waste. If din and sediment accumulates on about stomtwater management requirements streets, sweep and collect materials and instructions. i sure you fully and tholrpofiutionprovontionresponsmriities. ONLYRAIN - l THEDRADf dispose of properly.Do not wash dirisediment understand pemtit conditions and your r — orany materials Into fhe stomidtains responsibilities. NOW teleahone numbers and ling Do you know . . . where the water actually goes? WATER AGENCY LIST In Riverside County stormwiter Pollu�on Storm Brains are not City of llnndry (951)=-Moo connected to sanitary Div er Bcaurrare (951)7CM5m .. ' sewer systems and Oly,of Blyft (7601 022-01 61 What you should know for.,, GyofCoad"v (7r0)998a502 C treatment plants! a-cnot13 V`(ley Water Dstnc (76a)09&2651 city of Corona r..sn rrY ( )70&2203 OUTDOOR CLEANING- . D Ccr.CSA 951 (707fi0)227J209 E02M MuNepal Walcr Dsirkt (951)928&e7r7 The primary purpose of storm drains Is to tarty rain water away from developed areas to prevent Elc=o Valley MIND (951)674J1ae flooding. Pollutants discharged to storm drains are conveyed directly into rivers,lakes and streams. M.tm m Farm ral Water Company (1151)2M4 19a ACTIVITIES AND Soaps. degreasers, autamotive fluids, filter and a host of other materials washed off buildings, city of Hemel (051)765-0712 sidewalks,plazas,parking areas,vehicles and equipment must be property managed to prevent the ldyth4d Water Dlstrkt (951)659-21e9 NON-POINT SOURCE pollution of rivers,lakes and streams. Krupa Cammun9Y Srr'ltm D✓W (951)36e-e79$ Inks Hornet MWD 1951)65e,24/ Preventing pollution is the bast way to protect the environment. In addition,It is much easier and less Leo Lake Wets Oisind (951)277.1414 DISCHARGES costly than cleaning up"after the fad.' March Air Form Base (951)65&7am Mission Sprbge Water District (760)9294W Darn paint Swings (760)323-8253 The Cit1eS and County of Bh�erside Rancho exhalant (051)76&827.2 RanMO Cat OW wain° (760)9224951 Beoional WaterQuAY Control Board RIMoY.CSA d62 (7601 9224 0 51 City of Rlvctsdo (951)751L1M Ruhidoux Community segricca D)Yikt (051)684-7580 r A WATERSHED is an area of land that catches rain and snow,then drains or seeps Into a marsh. Sion)valley Oub,Inc (9511 ait94501 / stream,river,lake or groundwater.Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes,crossing county,state, Vacoy SaraLary arms (7691347-2358 and national boundaries,therefore many of our activities at home,work or play affect the quality of our Wcstcm Municipal Water District (951)7�5000 ` watersheds. Yuet!pa Valley Water 01rariq (909)797.S717 \ vn— In accordance with state and federal law to protect our watersheds.the CITIES AND COUNTY OF To report illegal dumping Into otorm drains or RIVERSIDE have adopted ordinances for stomhwater management and discharge control to prohibit clogged storm draw,ploaeo call: the discharge of wastes into the storm drain system or focal surface waters. This INCLUDES 1-800-506-2555 discharge of wash water from outdoor cleaning activities which may contain pollutants such as oil. pp rr77 .w grease,detergent.degreasers,trash,pet wastoor other matedals. Onllno rosourtaf Intluda: Foy disousal of wash water from: RivMMO country Flood Control M5tricl M=ch matniaU pDgo: > Sidewalk,plaza or parkiny Int cb!a nl fly vrmmeodcentroLco.rNrmldncn.un � Vehicle washing or dctu ling Cu4forno Slum Warm any A=odcton J Building exterior cfeunlnq ynwy.araa.gry_or wrm.cnbmohindboo4g rom J Waterproofing Salto Water RC..ourcos Control Board,Water Oua%y J Equipment cleaning or e'ogrvasing mull.rwreb.en,ggvfrtermwlr9ndnzhlml U.S.Emuonmental Pm1M!on A7.ncy PLEASE NOTE: Check with your Regional Water Duality Control Board, local municipal wym.rnn.vovloamro2lmmrforoamm�tar< ,nhtm government and water agencies on what the restrictions are In your area. Nye/p Protect Phil- WIsterwayst Use These Guidelines For Outdoor Cleaning Activities and Wash Water Disposal DO NOT . . . dispose of water Do NOT . . . Dispose of leftover USING CLEANING AGENTS: OTHER Tips To HELP PROTECT OUR containing soap or any other type of cleaning agents Into the gutter,storm drain If you must use soap, use biodegradable/ WATER... cleaning agent into a storm drain or water orsanitary sewer. phosphate4ree cleaners.Although the use of SCREENM WASH WAM body.This Is a direct violation of state and/or nontoxic cleaning products is strongly local regulations.Because wash water from DO . . . understand that wash water encouraged, do understand that These A thorough, dry deanup before washing cleaning parking areas may contain metallic (without soap)used to remove dust from a products can degrade water quality. The extedor surfaces such as building and dada brake pad d discharge dust, oil and other automotive dean vehicle may be discharged to a sheet disarge of these products into the street, without loose paint, sidewalks, or plaza fluids, litter, food wastes and other or drain.Wash water from sidewalk,plaza, gutters.storm drain system or waterways is areas, should be sufficient to prated materials, if should never he discharged to and building surface cleaning may go into a prohibited by local ordinances and the State. rewwm)c waters. HOWEVER, If any debris (solids)mold enter storm drains orremain In a street.gutter or stone drain. street or stone drain IF ALL of the following Water Code.Avoid use of petrolerun•bfollowing -the gutter or street after cleaning,wash water conditions products. ora are met should first pass through a'20 mesh'or finer DO . . . dispose of small amounts of screen to catch the solid materials,the mesh wash water from cleaning building 1. The surface being washed is free of residual oil, debris and other materials l / � should then be disposed of in the hash. exteriors, sidewalks or plazas onto by using dry deanup methods (i.e., DRAIN INLET PROTECTION/CONTAINMENT & Landscaped or unpaved surfaces, provided sweeping. and cleaning any oil or `` COLLECTION OF WASH WATER you have the owner's permission and the chemical spills with rags or other discharge will not cause nuisance problems absorbent materials before using • Send bags drain lu�tocreateabarrier or flow Into a street or stone drain. water). DO . . . check with your sanitary sewer 2. Washing Is done with water only, not • Plugs or rubber mats air used to agency's policies and requirements with soap or other cleaning materials. Contaitemponmentrily pads,al temporary berms openings. I 'concerning wash water disposal. Wash 3. You have not used the water to remove • Centalnment pads, temporary bennv or water from outdoor cleaning activities may paint from surfaces during cleaning. J vacuum��wa�used to contain be acceptable for disposal to the sanitary sewer with specific permission. See the list CALL 1-800-506-2555 EOulpmlr ANO Sl1PPL1ES on the back of this flyer for phone numbers TO REPORT ILLEGAL POLLUTING Special materials such as absorbents,storm oflhesanitarysewerogendeslnyourarea. OF STORM DRAINS drain plugs and seals, small sump pumps, When cleaning surfaces with a high-pressure and vacuum booms are available from many DO . . . Understand that mobile auto washer or steam cleaning methods, vendors. For more Information, check detalfers should divert wash water to i 4 additional precautions should be taken to camlogs such as New Pig (800-460 4647. landscaped or dirt areas. Be aware that prevent the discharge of Pollutants Into the www.newpig.mm),Lab Safety Supply(80ff- soapy wash water may damage stone drain system. These two methods of 356.0783), C&H (800.558-9966), and W.W. ing. Residual wash water may surface cleaning,as compared to the use of a Grainger (800-994-9174); or call the landscap remain in paved surfaces to evaporate. low-pressure hose, can remove additional Cleaning Equipment Trade Association(800- Residues should beswe to anddis or visit materials that can contaminate local 441-0111) or the Power Washers of North p p of. www.floodcontmi.co.riverside.ca.us waterways. America(800-393-PWNA). Where does stormwater �� • pollution come from? Slormwater polution has many sour= When it _ o rain7, rainwater carries po9u4:nts such as motor oil, anti-freeze, trash, grcaSe. and dal from streets and pariung Icts to the rcaresl stone drain. Runoff water from I3c;n9 and L:ndseaped areas con carry pt_,Iic:dcs and fend,-ere into the storm drams. Even U v cthvroes such a, ::ashinq our cars can result in dEtergenG, dirt and grcaso nuking Ihcir way into the =_temdram:; Help Keep One of the most serious stormwator pol'utlon , problems Is the Our Water Clean! - illagal dl�;posal or "dumping" of wastes Into the storm drain --• •,_' TO receive your free r;yaom. Sta!a '' \ •• w.�-. �r ` •` and local ordinances`•` guide on 20 ways you prohibit dump:nq of can help protect our \..l_ motor n:l, pal wa2te, _ �.. points and other — _ water .. y pollutants into the .:•; r storm drain system. For information on the Did you know that the sewer disposal of household system and the storm drain hazardous waste... system are not the same? Theco tyro system; aro ccmptetely different- The To receive a list of water that goes do:.n The sinks in your hom3 or re c y e l e r s in your bustnss is treated by n waists-.alcr treatment plant I �� cr septic L:nks system. Water that entem a storm area... i•I% I drain flows directly vAham treatment to cur 1=1 rnrers and lakes. CALL Is stormwater pollution a A�QOO�CO��CCC JJJ problem only when it rains? I v J _ No. Throughout the dry part of the year pollutants accumulate on street; {tad parking lots. So, when ram finally does fail, The k` rain water carries pollutants into the storm drains. Surprisingly, water runoff from the dairy use of garden hos^s and sprinldcr , can also carry clton nd county of Invorsida L peautants into the - storm drain system. Storm VVa ere ✓ J PROTECTION PROGRAM 14 _ llG-------- --- .. o r fer Pollu �lo�n Rain,ls typically a welcomedsstght in/Riverside County: It cleans the air�a / provides us with a valuable resource, water. Sure,, rairiwate�is usuall i ti i ri / W / elean.�But, as/it flovtis over our street and "yards,iit`'earrtes' pollutants into the storm drains % So, what's the problem? Be a part of the solution! f The problem is . . . storm drains ultimately carry these pollutants Everyone contributes a little to the directly to our rivers, lakes and streams.. problem . . . now, it's time for all of us to: 6 Stormwater pollution causes as much as 60% of our • Never pour anything down a storm drain; water pollution problem. It jeopardizes the quality of our f waterways and poses a threat to groundwater resources • Use good, housekeeping practices with lawn if pollutants percolate through soil. paints and solve care chemicals, l, gasoline, pet wastes, solvents; Some major pollutants include: • Recycle and safely dispose of used oil and r' household hazardous wastes; r • Dirt and grime from streets; • Purchase,non•toxic products; • Motor oil, antifreeze, paints, and household cleaners that are dumped into the storm drains. • Report illegal dumping to local authorities; • Contaminants from car and truck exhaust; f/e • Tell others about stormwater pollution and y• Pesticides and fertilizers from lawns and gardens; r • Soil erosion from yards and hillsides; 8 encourage them to help; i • Biological contaminants from animal waste; / Litter, leaves and lawn clippings; Q'� I � Call the Storm WaterlCleanWater Protection / �' I Program for a booklet _on environmentally 0 Contaminates from illegal dumping. 9 safe alternatives for the home and garden. po0 Camel OYIp o0eNnD an]rarmYlama Ceas foTtada tla Cortm fHPo 9M :Flow-ThrGalghPlArger MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES manna IOUTIVE ACTIONNANCE DIOWOR FIELD VEASLEEUMT IW ASU��NT MAINTENANCE ACIraIY NationalNOYIa to �Rtl4hangs Labor�. Ea�ad f� Cantor IaYltaN Iltdtmt IEGLENCY pm~ EventDem Stoa R1Mle.IN ro and perwh"(y YNvmf9 YalLe1 to I MIYRltmonhetM Ot vegetation to m edge hmitt NGd ohenelenndrmdom Rebn Mn6wert tor gremrthmiNnatm MrsWtr.Ple oIIst_al wee. el6lydelad Amon bnmaas, eMmOlBplmtll <me'aerce oltreesar vmob 1°levrem MstlrtyhOYl Me emn - aer�mre mrbee;owed/ 10 2.0 ] S a.91 WIMTmd< S 143 S 500 $ in In NMerl Id.deR>t0 mewon stam,rg gear for meR MT MIYIIII,95 hepf aftRO oninfoaarr. CGnMwatuonerlar tedlra WeR 961n Nmtl otioel on twe bow la®lnl M!rt mYR umm.02nNteRNeelfH t,0 1.0 2 S b.9] MlMTrudl S 149 S to $ IN immMise ohNm 1f rW MdenE �oqM hblf r and Debts paxml Ned Bteerwt9n Mlutllr,pea to Get of eel :1.vid dbeou oftR ed 10 2.0 2 5 MV applyT & S 143 5 ID 5 122 It,ee n Bend n><..ee ee9n a atovem tmltnn�eb axln eR moaeMm9mtl added MmRlrllmt amertdepNeraMfl0% meemulmndmlmmw Mn1e0r.Plp bGel of srel Iedlminla :?W.) 10UM S 560 5 a]0005 ll»B5 Ln]t tre latllBV dlRn emlmulmon of admen. uemn 4r say. OS 90 2 S L,9T Too No/deeemedeud, (npeaedmery]Refl Boatoe Anr de,ale to Get of dal Corealre action pbr to wet aeon MRdmnf ENd.of OR m jlra Nl Ohorrrlm own f.ft ,i.rfYmmeame 1.0 OS ] 5 ]6,9] O0IMTNQ 9 14.3 S 82 5 12 oheon b not eAd<K rIR GNQLR;ONR A NGYIl4IId,am'.eNR emlml dwsaed,grrliva forectne Baton pro,to wet ro,m b aeon e mstl Maderaip eum MlurAr,pia oGeR el wet eiiLIr MaMmedlal! 1.0 10 2 S a'I.weRnp Ntrd oblerrtll9n Cmoa }6,92 Uaaly Teuh S 1a9 5 lW 5 1w noectbn el trees or wOdrrgetelaR own mabonbmtM�rt. rr111 or dd.,fle enaq Rc e py to !.D 1 S v.9] S 28 5 7a Aram aAmwal Teal 24.0 IS 2.36T Small Flo►t]trwdl FISMa(200 d)1 24-0 1 2,36T IF Madura FI.Mhrau Rasa IOOO 30.0 S 2M laherare S]a.9]N Large Flowtivo hRaMa 2DOO 420 $ 3,2r1 n ant ca UtntrTidl SW.99/1r 1015 trod 28]2 Bedhoe U.% Valor $E].20/1r ' rReper S1D.26/M1r - 1 I . Geotechnical Engineering Report COSTCO WHOLESALE STORE FUEL FACILITY ADDITION CW#13-0153 26610 YNEZ ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA August 21 , 2013 Terracon Project No. 60135032 Prepared for: Costco Wholesale c/o MulvannyG2 Architecture Irvine, California Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Irvine, California e Offices Nationwide Established in 1965 Employee-Owned 1 1 Flrerraicon Geotechnical Environmental1uction Materials Facilities August 21, 2013 Irerracon Costco Wholesale c/o MulvannyG2 Architecture 18200 Von Karman Avenue, suite 910 Irvine, California 92612 Attn: Mr. Terry Odle P: 949.705.0700 E: terrv.odle@MulvannvG2.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Costco Wholesale Store Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 26610 Ynez Road Temecula, California Terracon Project No.: 60135032 Dear Mr. Odle: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the Costco Wholesale Store Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal (number P60130159) dated July 3, 2013. This report presents the findings of the subsurface explorations and provides geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning earthwork, foundations, floor slabs, pavements, and the design and construction of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully Submitted, TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC. �OpESSIOry� �UH�icy r,17455 jD Fouad Abuhamdan (Fred Harridan), .; Cott D. Neely, P.E. Senior Project Manager cl Principal SlATEOf C���F� Copies: Addressee(1 Electronic) Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California 92614 P [949] 261 0051 F ]949] 261 6110 terracon.com r lGeotechnical Engineering Repoli l�erraeon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 a Terracon Project No. 60135032 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY...............................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...............................................................................................1 2.1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Site Location and Description................................................................................2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................2 3.1 Site Geology..........................................................................................................2 3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions ...................................................................................3 3.3 Groundwater..........................................................................................................3 3.4 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions...............................................................4 3.5 Liquefaction...........................................................................................................4 3.6 Geologic Hazards..................................................................................................5 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.......................................6 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations.................................................................................6 4.2 Earthwork ..............................................................................................................7 4.2.1 Site Preparation.........................................................................................7 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation................................................................................7 4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement......................................................................8 4.2.4 Compaction Recommendations.................................................................8 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage ...............................................................................9 4.2.6 Corrosion Potential....................................................................................9 4.2.7 Earthwork Construction Considerations ....................................................9 4.3 Foundations......................................................................................................... 10 4.3.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations ........................................................................10 4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations...............................................12 4.3.3 Support Slabs.......................................................................................... 13 4.4 CBC Seismic Design Criteria...............................................................................13 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures....................................................................................... 14 4.6 Pavements .......................................................................................................... 14 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS.................................................................................................15 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 60135032 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDIX A — FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-4 & A-5 Boring Logs Exhibits A-6 & A-7 CPT Soundings APPENDIX B — LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Description Exhibit B-2 Grain Size Distribution Test Report Exhibit B-3 Swell Consolidation Test Report Exhibit B-4 Chemical Laboratory Tests and Resistivity Analysis APPENDIX C — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification APPENDIX D — LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Exhibit D-1 Liquefaction Analysis Chart (CPT-1) Exhibit D-2 Liquefaction Analysis Summary (CPT-1) Exhibit D-3 Liquefaction Analysis Chart (CPT-2) Exhibit D-4 Liquefaction Analysis Summary (CPT-2) Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Geotechnical Engineering Report 1��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■Terracon Project No. 60135032 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical investigation has been completed for the proposed Costco Wholesale fuel facility addition CW313-0153 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. Two (2) borings and two (2) CPT soundings were completed to depths of approximately 161/2 to 70 feet below the existing ground surface within the footprint of proposed addition area. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for design and construction of the proposed project provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. The geotechnical considerations identified included the following: ■ The near-surface soils encountered throughout the site generally consisted of near surface silty clayey sand underlain by silty sand, poorly graded sand, sandy silt, and sandy lean clay. ■ The project site is located within a potential liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the California Geologic Survey and the County of Riverside GIS Land Information System. Two liquefaction potential analyses were calculated (CPT-1 & CPT-2) from a depth of 0 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Based on calculation results, total seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 23/4 and 33/4 inches. Differential seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 1'/4 and 2Y2 inches. ■ Due to the anticipated dynamic settlement, the proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts extending to a minimum depth of 35 feet to bypass the zone of the liquefiable soils zone and mitigate the liquefaction potential. ■ If the fueling dispensers and self-contained structures are allowed to experience the anticipated seismic settlements, they may be supported by concrete support slabs with thickened edges bearing on a minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. On-site soils should be suitable for use as engineered fill beneath foundations and support slabs. ■ Assuming a traffic index of 5, the planned pavement sections should consist of a minimum of 3 inches of asphalt concrete or 5 inches of Portland cement concrete over 4 inches of Class II Aggregate Base over 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted native soils. ■ Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction. This geotechnical executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this summary, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled General Comments should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT COSTCO WHOLESALE STORE FUEL FACILITY ADDITION CW#13-0153 26610 YNEZ ROAD TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Terracon Project No. 60135032 August 21, 2013 1.0 INTRODUCTION A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Costco Wholesale store fuel facility addition #CW13-0153 located at 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. Two (2) borings and two (2) CPT soundings were completed to depths of approximately 161/2 to 70 feet below the existing ground surface within the footprint of proposed addition area. Logs of the borings and CPT soundings along with a Site Location Plan and Exploration Location Plan are included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: ■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Earthwork ■ Groundwater conditions ■ Seismic considerations ■ Foundation design and construction ■ Concrete slab design and construction ■ Pavement thickness design The project description, site conditions and our geotechnical conclusions and design recommendations are presented in the text of this report. Supporting data including field exploration procedures, detailed exploration logs, results of laboratory testing are presented as appendices. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description ITEM DESCRIPTION' Proposed Site Layout Refer to the Boring Location Plan (Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A) Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1(erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 60135032 ITEM DESCRIPTION' The addition will consist of one additional fuel dispenser island and associated canopy expansion. The dispensers and other self- Proposed Construction contained structures will be supported on concrete slabs with thickened edges. Fueling canopies will be supported on drilled shaft foundations. Maximum Loads Canopy Columns: 5 to 10 kips axial, 10 to 20 kips uplift (assumed) Grading Minimal cut/fill—estimated at less than 1 foot A new pavement will be constructed at the new fueling isle by the Pavements proposed fueling canopy. It is our assumption that a traffic Index of 5 will be suitable for the proposed pavements. 2.2 Site Location and Description ITEM DESCRIPTION Location 26610 Ynez Road in Temecula, California. Existing Improvements An existing Costco Wholesale store with an associated gas fueling facility. The existing Costco Wholesale store and fueling facility are located within an area populated by commercial/retail developments on all Surrounding Developments sides. The subject site is bordered by Ring Road to the north, Overland Drive to the south, Ynez Road to the southwest, and Nicole Lane to the east. Current Ground Cover Concrete and asphalt pavements. Existing Topography Relatively flat. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A description of our field exploration is presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples obtained during our exploration. A description of the laboratory testing is presented in Appendix B. 3.1 Site Geology The site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province in Southern California. Geologic structures within this Province trend mostly northwest, in contrast to the prevailing east-west trend in the neighboring Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province to the north. The Peninsular Range Province extends into lower California, and is bounded by the Colorado Desert to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No. 60135032 mountains to the north.1 2 Based on the geologic map of California (Santa Ana Sheet), the proposed project is underlain by Alluvium (Qal) deposits. 3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions Specific conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the individual boring logs and CPT soundings. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for the borings and CPT soundings are included in Appendix A of this report. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: Approximate Depth to Description Bottom of Stratum Material Encountered Relative Density Stratum 1 18 feet Silty Clayey Sand Loose to Medium Dense Stratum 2 24 to 261/2 feet Sandy Lean Clay Medium Stiff Stratum 3 34 to 37 feet Silty Sand Loose Stratum 4 511h to 54 feet Sandy Silt Very Stiff Stratum 5 70 feet* Silty Sand/Clay Very dense/stiff "The maximum depth explored Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B. Sulfate contents in the fill materials were found to be low. Laboratory test results indicate that an undisturbed sample collected at 21/2 bgs exhibited a negligible collapse potential when saturated. 3.3 Groundwater The borings and CPT soundings were monitored during drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was encountered in the CPT soundings at 53 and 62 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Groundwater conditions should be expected to fluctuate due to changes in season, precipitation patterns, site utilization, on-site or off-site irrigation activities, and other on- and off-site factors. Based on regional data, the historical highest groundwater level in the project vicinity is at 10 feet bgs.3 1 harden,D.R.,"California Geology,Second Edition,"Pearson Prentice Hall,2004. 2 Norris,R.M.and Webb, R.W., "Geology of California, Second Edition,"John Wiley&Sons,Inc., 1990. 3 Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Inglewood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle,Murrieta,California. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report l�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■ Terracon Project No. 60135032 3.4 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions The site is located in Southern California, which is a seismically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on the distance to causative faults, the intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. The following table indicates the distance of the fault zones and the associated maximum credible earthquake that can be produced by nearby seismic events, as calculated using the USGS Earthquake Hazard Program 2002 interactive deaggregations. The Elsinore-17 fault, which is located approximately 3 kilometers from the site, is considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. Characteristics and Estimated Earthquakes for Regional Faults Fault Name Approximate Distance Maximum Credible Earthquake to Site(kilometers) (Ill Magnitude Elsinore-17 2.8 6.8 Elsinore-18 20.9 7.1 San Jacinto - 10 32.9 7.2 San Jacinto - 9 32.9 6.9 Elsinore-16 22.3 6.8 The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone based on our review of the State Fault Hazard Maps and the County of Riverside GIS Land Information System.4 3.5 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of high pore water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. Liquefaction is typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below groundwater. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) has designated certain areas within southern California as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at a risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the presence of a relatively shallow water table. The project site is located within a potential liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the CGS (1999) and the County of Riverside GIS Land Information System. Materials encountered at the project site generally consisted of sands with variable amounts of silt, silt with variable amounts of sand, and silty/lean clay. Groundwater was encountered in the CPT soundings at the time of 4 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California,Southern Region",CDMG Compact Disc 2000-003,2000. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■ Terracon Project No. 60135032 field exploration. Historical high groundwater in the project vicinity is approximately at 10 feet below the ground surface. Liquefaction analysis for the site was performed in general accordance with the DMG Special Publication 117. The liquefaction study utilized the software "LiquefyPro" by CivilTech Software. This analysis was based on the soils data from the CPT soundings. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) was calculated based on the Design Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period (SDS/2.5= 0.48g) in conformance with section 1803.5.12 of the 2010 California Building Code. Calculations utilized historical groundwater depths. Suzuki el al. method was used for CPT calculations. Settlement analysis used the Tokimatsu, M-correction method. Fines were corrected for liquefaction using the Modify Stark/Olsen method. Two liquefaction potential analyses were calculated (CPT-1 & CPT-2) from a depth of 0 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Liquefaction potential analysis is attached to appendix D of this report. The factor of safety for soils extending from the surface to a depth of 50 feet bgs was greater than 1.2 except for multiple zones representing layers of loose granular soils located below the depth of historical groundwater. Based on calculation results, total seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 23/4 and 33/4 inches. Differential seismically-induced settlement of saturated and dry sands is estimated to be between 11/4 and 21/2 inches. 3.6 Geologic Hazards ■ Slope stability - The site is relatively flat and there are no slopes near the site; therefore, it is not necessary to perform a slope stability analysis. ■ Rock fall hazards - The site is relatively flat and there are no slopes near the site; therefore, hazards from rock fall are negligible. ■ Landslide hazards - The site is relatively flat and there are no slopes near the site; therefore, landslide hazards are negligible. ■ Surface fault rupture - The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone nor is it located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website; therefore the possibility of surface fault ruptures is negligible. ■ Fissures - As the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone nor is it located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website there is no expectation of fissures occurring at the site. ■ Liquefaction potential - The site is located within a moderate liquefaction zone as identified by the County of Riverside GIS website. Liquefaction potential is addressed in Section 3.5 above. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■ Terracon Project No. 60135032 ■ Collapsible and/or expansive soils — the laboratory test results indicate that the materials at shallow depth exhibit a negligible collapse potential and are expected to have low expansion potential when saturated. ■ Subsidence - The site is located within an active subsidence zone as identified on the County of Riverside GIS website. However, based on the distance of the site from sloping topography, subsidence resulting from groundwater removal would most likely result in uniform settlement within the area of the improvements. ■ Wind and water erosion - The site is located within a flat, well developed area and the ground surface is mostly covered with asphalt, concrete, or graded pads; therefore, the possibility of wind and water erosion is considered negligible. ■ Debris flow - The site is relatively flat, there are no slopes near the site vicinity; therefore, the possibility of debris flow is considered negligible. ■ Groundshaking potential - The site is not located with an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, nor is it located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website. However, with the active faults in the region, the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking that may result from earthquakes on local to distant sources during the life span of the project. Faulting and ground motion are addressed in Section 3.4 above. ■ Seismic Settlement - Calculation of dynamic dry settlement was performed in accordance with the DMG Special Publication 117. The study utilized the software "LiquefyPro" by CivilTech Software and calculated dynamic dry settlement assuming a depth to groundwater of 10 feet. Seismic settlement is addressed in Section 3.5 above. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. Due to the anticipated dynamic settlement, the proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts extending to a minimum depth of 35 feet to bypass the zone of liquefiable soils and mitigate the liquefaction potential. If the fueling dispensers and self contained structures are allowed to experience the anticipated seismic settlements, they may be supported by concrete support slabs with thickened edges bearing on a minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. On- site soils should be suitable for use as engineered fill beneath foundations and support slabs. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■Terracon Project No. 60135032 Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. 4.2 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented are for the design and construction of earth supported elements including foundations and concrete slabs and are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Preparation Strip and remove any concrete, asphalt, vegetation, and other deleterious materials within the area of the proposed construction. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction. All materials derived from the removal of existing vegetation and deleterious materials should be removed from the site and not be allowed for use as on-site fill. Underground facilities such as underground storage tanks and utilities are anticipated onsite; such features could be encountered during construction. If underground facilities or fill materials are encountered, such materials and features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation The proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts. Foundations and slabs supporting self-contained structures should bear on a minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. Exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted per the compaction requirements in Section 4.2.4. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No. 60135032 4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than three inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer. The on-site soils are considered suitable for use as engineered fill on the project. Approved imported materials may be used as fill material for the following: ■ general site grading ■ foundation backfill ■ foundation areas ■ trench backfill ■ slab areas Imported soils for use as fill material within the proposed building area should conform to low volume change materials as indicated as follows: Percent Finer by Weight Gradation (ASTM C 136) 3............................................................................................................. 100 No. 4 Sieve.......................................................................................50-100 No. 200 Sieve...................................................................................20 - 50 ■ Liquid Limit.........................................................................30 (max) ■ Plasticity Index................................................................... 15 (max) ■ Maximum expansive index"...............................................20 (max) `ASTM D 4829 Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Fill lifts should not exceed ten inches in loose thickness. 4.2.4 Compaction Recommendations Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as follows: Per the Modified Proctor Test(ASTM D 1557) Material Type and Location �Range of Moisture Contents for Minimum Compaction Compaction Above Optimum Requirement (%) Minimum Maximum On-site or approved imported fill materials: Beneath foundations and slabs: 90 -1% +4% Miscellaneous backfill: 90 -1% +4% Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 Geotechnical Engineering Report l�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No. 60135032 Per the Modified Proctor Test(ASTM D 1557) Material Type and Location Range of Moisture Contents for Minimum Compaction Compaction Above Optimum Requirement(%) Minimum Maximum Utility Trenches (Pavement Areas): 95 -1% +4% Utility Trenches (Landscape Areas): 90 -1% +4% Exposed on-site soils 90 -1% +4% 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the structures. Infiltration of water into utility trenches or foundation excavations should be prevented during construction. Backfill against footings and in utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers should discharge into splash blocks or extensions when the ground surface beneath such features is not protected by exterior slabs or paving. Sprinkler systems should not be installed within 5 feet of foundation walls. Landscaped irrigation adjacent to the foundation system should be minimized or eliminated. 4.2.6 Corrosion Potential Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that ASTM Type 1/II Portland cement is suitable for all concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete may be designed for low sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. Laboratory test results indicate the on-site soils have a pH of 9.0, a minimum resistivity of 1261 ohm-centimeters, and a chloride content of 200 ppm, as shown on the attached Chemical Laboratory Test report. These values should be used to determine potential corrosive characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials that will be used for project construction. Refer to the Chemical Laboratory Test report contained in Appendix B for the complete results of the various corrosivity testing conducted on the site soils in conjunction with this geotechnical exploration. 4.2.7 Earthwork Construction Considerations It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration, subgrade soils and fill materials exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively workable. However, the workability of the subgrade may be affected Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�con Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 60135032 by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through May) it may be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water on the site. Once subgrades are established, it may be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils from construction traffic. The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations (including utility trenches) as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; proof-rolling; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of excavations to the completed subgrade. 4.3 Foundations Due to the anticipated dynamic settlement, the proposed fueling canopy should be supported by drilled shafts extending to a minimum depth of 35 feet to bypass the zone of the liquefiable soils zone and mitigate the liquefaction potential. Design and construction recommendations for foundations for the proposed fueling canopy and related structural elements are presented in the following subsections. 4.3.1 Drilled Shaft Foundations The proposed fueling canopy should be supported on straight drilled shafts with minimum diameter of 24 inches, and minimum embedment depth of 35 feet. Recommended soil parameters for lateral load analysis of drilled shaft foundations have been developed for use in the LPILE computer program. Based on our review of the boring logs and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results, engineering properties and axial compression capacities have been estimated for the soils conditions as shown in the following table. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No. 60135032 Top Unit Friction Allowable Allowable Ultimate Down- Coefficient of t eolhm ri Weight L-Pfle Soil Type Angle Vu Be End Skin Friction dreg Force Subgrade Reaction Depth (Pcf) Cohesion (Pso (psf) (psf) Ka'(pci) 0 130 SAND 320 200 90 7 7 113 SAND 290 300 25 10 10 50 Liquefiable 290 435 20 19 SAND 19 Stiff Clay w/free 1,000 25 50 water2 psf 700 100 25 Liquefiable , 64 32 "' -" 725 20 30 SAND 30 Submerged 0 - 64SAND 32 -- 550 -- 60 35 35 240 64 Silt /1,500 4,500 425 60 50 psf 1. These values are based on parameters for LPILE analyses. 2. 850=0.010 The design for the proposed drilled shafts should include the axial loads generated by the down- drag forces during liquefaction. The above parameters assume the groundwater level is at the shallowest historical depth of 10 feet bgs. The load capacities provided are based only on the stresses induced in the supporting soils; the structural capacity of the shafts should be checked to assure that they can safely accommodate the combined stresses induced by axial and lateral forces. The response of the drilled shaft foundations to lateral loads is dependent upon the soils/structure interaction as well as the shaft's actual diameter, length, stiffness, and "fixity" (fixed or free-head condition). Lateral load design parameters are valid within the elastic range of the soil. The modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction and equivalent fluid pressure are ultimate values; therefore, an appropriate factor of safety should be applied in the shaft design or deflection limits should be applied to the design. Drilled shafts should be considered to work in group action if the horizontal spacing is less than four shaft diameters. A minimum practical horizontal spacing between shafts of at least 2.5 diameters should be maintained, and adjacent shafts in groups should bear at the same elevation. The axial and lateral capacity of individual shafts might have to be reduced when considering the effects of group action. Capacity reduction is a function of shaft diameter and Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�con Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No. 60135032 spacing. We should be contacted if drilled shafts will be designed closer than four shaft diameters so we can provide the appropriate group reduction factors. 4.3.2 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations All shafts should be reinforced full-depth for the applied axial, lateral and uplift stresses imposed. Special sequencing of drilled shaft construction should be specified when the center to center spacing between adjacent shafts is less than three diameters. A minimum of 24 hours should be allowed between placement of concrete and initiation of drilling in shafts less than three diameters (center to center spacing) apart from each other. Drilling to design depths should be possible with conventional single flight power augers. Temporary casing may be required during shaft excavation to prevent caving in the site soils. Temporary casing should also be used whenever shafts are installed adjacent to existing structures or improvements, to reduce potential ground loss and movement due to drilled shaft excavation. Shaft concrete should be placed immediately after completion of drilling and cleaning. If shaft concrete cannot be placed in dry conditions, a tremie should be used for concrete placement. Shaft concrete should have a relatively high fluidity when placed in cased holes or through a tremie; concrete with slump in the range of 6 to S inches is recommended. Temporary casing should be withdrawn in a slow continuous manner maintaining a sufficient head of concrete inside the casing to counteract earth and any hydrostatic pressures outside the casing. An insufficient head of concrete inside the case can cause "necking" of the shaft, resulting in a reduced shaft capacity. Due to potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated geometric volumes. If downhole inspection or cleanout is required we recommend: • Casing be installed for the full shaft depth; • Shaft diameters be a minimum of 30 inches; • The contractor should check for oxygen deficiency and harmful gases; • All necessary monitoring and safety precautions as required by OSHA, state, or local codes, should be strictly enforced. We recommend that all drilled shaft installations be observed on a full-time basis by an experienced geotechnical engineer in order to confirm that soils materials encountered are consistent with the recommended design parameters. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12 Geotechnical Engineering Report l�err�con Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■Terracon Project No.60135032 4.3.3 Support Slabs DESCRIPTION RECOMENDATION Structures Fuel dispensers and self-contained structures Foundation Type Shallow continuous footings (thickened edges) for the support slabs Bearing Material A minimum 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted soils. Allowable Bearing Pressure 1,500 psf for spread footings Minimum Foundation Width 12 inches Minimum Embedment Depth Below Finished Grade 12 inches Total Estimated Settlement 1 inch; Estimated Differential Settlement 3/4 inch over 40 feet. Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within five feet of the foundation for perimeter (or exterior) footings. The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade may be neglected in dead load computations. Foundations should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of joints at openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. 4.4 CBC Seismic Design Criteria Description Value 2010 California Building Code Site Classification (CBC) ' F2.3 Site Latitude 33.52180 Site Longitude -117.15560 Sa Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.79g S,Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.65g Fe Site Coefficient for a Short Period(Class D)3 1.0 F Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period(Class D)3 1.5 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No. 60135032 Description Value 1. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope dos not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. CPT soundings extended to a maximum depth of 70 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that stiff/dense soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. 2. Per CBC Table 1613.5.2, any profile containing soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils. 3. For structures with fundamental periods of vibration less than 0.5 seconds, Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-05 allows the site coefficients (Fe and F,) to be determined assuming that liquefaction does not occur (i.e., Site Class D). The structure's fundamental period should be verified by the structural engineer. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures For the native soils above any free water surface, recommended equivalent fluid pressures for foundation elements are: ITEM VALUE' Active Case 40 psf/ft Passive Case 420 psf/ft At-Rest Case 62 psf/ft Coefficient of Friction 0.452 Note:The values are based on the on-site soils used as backfill. 'Note:The coefficient of base friction should be reduced to 0.30 when used in conjunction with passive pressure. Lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety and are not applicable for submerged soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if such conditions are to be included in the design. Fill against foundations should be compacted to densities recommended in the Earthwork section of this report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to foundations should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. 4.6 Pavements A design R-Value of 40 was used to calculate the asphalt concrete pavement thickness sections and a modulus of subgrade reaction value (k) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) was used in calculating the portland cement concrete pavement sections. R-value testing should be completed prior to pavement construction to verity the design R-value. Assuming the pavement subgrades will be prepared as recommended within this report and a traffic index of 5, the planned pavement sections should consist of a minimum 3 inches of Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■ Terracon Project No. 60135032 asphalt concrete or 5 inches of Portland cement concrete over 4 inches of Class II Aggregate Base over 10 inches of scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted native soils. These pavement sections are considered minimal sections based upon the expected traffic and the existing subgrade conditions. However, they are expected to function with periodic maintenance and overlays if good drainage is provided and maintained. All concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum flexural strength of 600 psi, and be placed with a maximum slump of four inches. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Materials and construction of pavements for the project should be in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the State of California Department of Transportation, or other approved local governing specifications. Base course or pavement materials should not be placed when the surface is wet. Surface drainage should be provided away from the edge of paved areas to minimize lateral moisture transmission into the subgrade. Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon should also be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between explorations, across Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 15 Geotechnical Engineering Report l Terracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 16 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION 117.216670 W 117.18333e W 117.15000° W 117.11667e W WGS84 117.08333e W re 1 w N ' I � � � G 78 I 1 Z Z N m o, M i `Sm Ilk m PVC n� i I Creek z so i / fn M N i In M fie$ KXI M e I 11On _e � Z Z ` In cJJ I 0 M ��✓ �°• ' a Tm _ m m ^� 3 >A - Peu I� JJ ag ti elec ° r p I� : t D rp W _ _ �JtKk Zl/(IJiJ'f Z pkieated 1171.21667e W 117.18333e W 117.15000e W 117.11667e W WGS84 117.083330 W NATIONAL 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 mks 712N GEOGRAPHIC o 1 2 3 4 5 km 07/23/13 DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY,AND IS REFERENCE: USGS MURRIETA,CALIFORNIA. 7.5- NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MINUTE QUADRANGLE(dated 1981) Propel WnsW: Protect No. EXHIBIT FH 60135032 SITE LOCATION PLAN Own by: AH 5wk AssrlowN: lrerracon Costco Wholesale Store Fuel Facility Addition Checked 5y: FIJ Rk NrEXXHIBIT A.1 Consulting 11 _' •n$Scientists 26610 Ynez Road AW.9d"1" Dele: Temecula, California FH 8/21/2013 ` a 2 • . RANG v RO.10 O� Q� d0 y B- � r •fir i ' C! i B-1 1 X YNFZRogo � N LEGEND lr B-1 BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION Q C-1 CPT SOUNDING APPROXIMATE LOCATION PmliIctMnrega: ftpdW BORING LOCATION PLAN FH 60135032 lrerracon Exhibit Drain by: Scak: AH 1 ID-3511. Costco Wholesale Store Fuel Facility Addition Chwked by: Fib Name: Cunwlling Engines . A Scioniks DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION FH Exhibit A-2 26610 Ynez Road A-2 ONLY,AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR Apxmwl by: Dale: ze I.CG Avenue W.,CA 9M14 Temecula, California CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES FH 8/20/2013 pH l9eyl28r,pps� FAA.la49)ID 1i 110 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013■Terracon Project No. 60135032 Field Exploration Description Our field exploration for this project included performing two (2) test borings on July 17, 2013, and two (2) CPT soundings on August 15, 2013. The drilled test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted Mobil B-61 drill rig utilizing 6-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. CPT soundings were advanced with a 30-ton truck providing the reaction weight for pushing the cone assembly into the ground at a constant rate of 20-mm per second (approximately four feet per minute). The cone tip resistance and sleeve friction resistance were recorded every 2-cm (approximately 3/4-inch) and stored in digital form. The borings and soundings were located in the field by using the proposed site plan, an aerial photograph of the site, and measuring from existing site features. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the method used. The location of the borings, CPT soundings, and percolation tests is shown on the attached Boring Location Plan, Exhibit A-2. Continuous lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the field engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon or ring-barrel samplers. Bulk samples of subsurface materials were also obtained. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in the borings at the time of site exploration. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-barrel samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency or relative density of materials encountered. An automatic hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A significantly greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. This higher efficiency has an appreciable effect on the SPT-N value. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. Exhibit A-3 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 2 PROJECT: Costco Wholesale Store Fuel CLIENT: Costco Wholesale Facility Addition SITE: 26610 Ynez Road Temecula, California o LOCATION Sea E)"W A-2 Oy>> ATTERSERG 0 r LIMITS w E H F w J K Z J z U J Q F ILW Z uu w W yyW. Z ��u ILL-PLFI V DFPM 3 0 tail LL U j u STY CLAYEY SAND ISCSMI,trace gravel,dark brawn to gray-brown, medium dense 21-17-4 35 l 5-7-7 N=14 5 4-10.13 � N=23 u loose R 2-35 45 $ N=8 U - w 1 4-3-3 N=6 0 n O z 1 O 3-4-4 m N=8 3 0 z 0 20.0 2 w BANDY LEAN CLAY W,gray-brawn,medium stiff 2_Y-g z $ N=8 w 0 a Lu z zs.s 2 5 SILTY SAND ISMI,gray-brown,loose N=10 19 a 0 s 0 0 w simification lines are appozmate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hemmer Type: Automatic a 6 W LL Adancemem McMnd: Sea Exhibit A-3 for descripbon of field procedures. Was: O Hollow Stem Auger a See Appendix B for descnplem of laboratory > pnxedums and additimal data (if arV). z Abardwvrent Melt od: see Appendix C for expiarratlm of symbols and y Bonryp badAlled with sal ndargs upm ownple0m. abbretabms. O p _ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS .aA/ O NO/fee water observed1 `rrV''. con DDMIng d Slatted 7„7rIm3 Swing Canpletad:7„7IZO,S m Rig:Mobile B81 Driller.CalPac m 2817 McCew A�erwe r Irvin,Celrforria Project No.:801351W F_'"txl: AA BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 2 of z PROJECT: Coil Wholesale Store Fuel CLIENT: Costco Wholesale Facility Addition SITE: 26610 Ynez Road Temecula, California o❑ LOCATION See Edribit A-2 y>W>i as r r/� AT MUS W U M W< F WJ aKrz ? ILL R lu = ~ _ W w d w ;z LL-PL-PI DEPTH ❑ 30 SILTY SAND(SMI,gray-brown,loose(continued) 30 0 3 POORLY GRADED SAND WrrH SILT ISP-SMI,light gray-brown,medium 7-8-10 dense N=18 M III N 35.0 3 �y 6-6-12 Qa' SANDY SILT(MLI,dark olive-bro ,very stiff N=18 0 U K F 'a 91 N=16 31-28•3 55 v; 0 z z m w 4 a 5-8-11 N=19 0 it 0 U Q K w s7.o 5-16-21 sty siLTY aAmp-M,arve-Nnywn,dense N=37 w Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet rc z f� 0 0 ❑ rc LL W Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transitwn may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic a a w Ntancemenl Matilotl: See ExhibR A3 for description of field procedures. Notes: o Hollow Stem Auger a See Appendix B for description of laboratory > procedures and additional data,(if any). i Abandonment MalSee Appendix C for el�lanatron of symbols and m Beings lxsckfled with ed c111tirIgB upon completion. abbreviations. tl i _ WATER LEVEL OBSERVAT10N5 Boring started:7/17/2013 Boring Completed:7/1 712 01 3 No flee water observed m I rerraco n - Drill Rig:Mobile M1 biller.Call rn 2017 McGew Av1xWe r IMne,Call Prtiect No.:60135032 Exhibit A4 BORING LOG NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Costco Wholesale Store Fuel CLIENT: Costco Wholesale Facility Addition _ SITE: 26610 Ynez Road Temecula, California TLO.CATON SeeExhibitA-2 r� a y��Wo wl� ATIEMERG�� zW ]<as aw 00 LL-aLlw ;O ad a SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SMI,trace gravel,dark brown to gray-brown, medium dense 4-8-12 14 119 23-16-7 5 8-18-30 9 130 0 O 7.5 00 SANDY SILTY CLAY(CL-MLI,gray-brown,stiff 2 2-4-6 17 104 aU K 10.0 SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SCSMI,trace gravel,dark brown to gray-brown, 1 n' medium dense k 5-7-7 � N=14 N (7 0 1 0 3-5-6 fD 16.5 N=11 3 Boring Terminated at 16.5 Feet 0 0 g: N 0 Ii 0 O i O LL W SbasfiWdon lines an:approximate to-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type:Automatic a n w LL Adrancemenl Method: See E-"bit A-3 br descdpbon of fled pocedww. Notes: o Hollow Stem Auger See Appendix B for description of laboratory > Procedures and additional data,(if arry). 9� AbarWrvnent Method. Sea Appendix C for emlanation of symbols and _y Borings backNled with sal culCngs upon wmpbllon. abbreviations. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS i Boring Started:7/17/2013 Boring Completed:7/17/2013 a iJofiee water observed l�erracon PNI rB6 Mobile e67 Odlbr.CelPac W 2817 McG.Avenue r mire.Calilomia wo(ec1 W.:80135032 F�Osbic A-6 KTV Kehoe Testing and Engineering E 714-901-7270 rich@kehoebesting.com www.kehoetesting.com CPT:C-1 Project: Terracon Consultants/Costco Temecula Total depth: 70.15 R,Date:8/15/2013 Location: 26610 Ynez Rd.Temecula,CA Cone Type:Vertek o Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type D o o a 2 2 - - 2 - 2 - -- 2 Silly send&sandy all Clay BsiltY flay' 4 - 4 4 - - 4 - --- 4 Cpy&silty clay 6 6 6 6 6 Sand&silty sand 8 8 e 8 8 Silly sand&sandy sill 30 10 30 30 10 Sand Bsilty santl 12 12 12 12 12 Sand 8 silly-sand 14 14 14 14 14 - 16 16 16 16 16 - Silty sand&-sandy Sill 18 18 18 - 18 1a -- - 20 20 20 20 20 Clay &silty clay_ 22 22 22 22 22 - Clay &silty clay Clay 8 silty clay 24 24 24 24 24 Sand&silty sand 26 26 26 26 26 _ Silty sand&sandy sit 28 28 28 28 28 Silty send&sandy all 30 30 t f30 30 30 -' Sand&silty sand 32 32 - - 32 32 32 �^34 2 34 34 - -34- .^., 34 Silty sand&.sandy ail '-'36 -36 "'36 �+36 �;6 _ Silty sand 8sandy sit Silty sand&sandy sit o.38 38 a 38 G 38 - n 38 - Silty sand&sandy sit w 40 N 40 aV 40 N 40 a 40 Clay &silty clay 42 42 42 p 42 0 42 Silty sand&sandy sit Silty sand&-sandy sit 44 qq —1 44 - 44 44 Very.densa/s[tlf Soil 46 - 46 - 46 46 46 _ Very denselstiff soil Clay&'silty clay 48 48 48 48 48 Ckry&silty clay 50 50 50 50 50 Silty-sand&sandy sit 52 52 52 52 - 52 Sand 54 54 54 54 - 54 Sand&silty sand Very dense/stiff soil 56 56 56 56 56 Silty santl&sandy sit 58 58 58 58 58 Silly sand&'.sandy sit 60 60 60 60 60 Very denselstiff soil Sand&'silty'sand 62 62 62 62 t 62 Very-densetsty soil 64 64 64 64 -- 164 Very.dense/btiff soil 66 66 66 66 - 66 - Very d9me/stiff soil j Clay &i silly'clay ' 68 68 68 68 - 68 Clay.&.silty clay. 70 70 70 70 70 -Very denselstiff soil 72 72 72 72 - - 72 74 - 74 74 74 - -- 74 - 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 6 8 30 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rif(%) SET(Robertson et al, 1986) CPeT-1T v.1.7.6.3-CPTU data presentation&interpretation software-Report created on: 8/16/2013,12:51:29 PM 1 Project file:C:\TenaconTernecvla8-13\CPeT Data\Plot Data\Plots.cpt K V Kehoe Testing and Engineering TE 714-901-7270 rich@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com CPT:C-2 Project: Terracon Consultants/Costco Temecula Total depth: 53.03 it,Date:8/15/2013 Location: 26610 Ynez Rd.Temecula,CA Cone Type:Val Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction Pore pressure u Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type 0 0 0 o a 2 __ 2 2 - 2 - -- -- 2 _ clay 8 silty clay 4 4 4 4 4 _ Silty sand&sandy sill I Clay &silty clay 5 - 6 -- 6 6 - 6 Silty sand&sandy sill 8 B 8-- - 8 — 8 -- Silty and&sandy sill 10 to--- 10 - 10 10 -Silty sand&.sandy sill 12 12 12 - 12 - 12 Send&silty sand 14 14 - 14 - - 14 14 Santl 8 silty sand 16 16 16 16 I6 f Clay 8 silty clay 18 18 IB - - 18 18 Silty sand&'sandy sill Sand&silty sand 20 20- 20 - - - 20 20 Clay 22 22 22 - 22 22 - Silty santl&sandy sil Clay &silty clay' 24 24 24 24 24 - 26 26 26 - 26 26 _ Clay Clay &Silty'.sand clay 28 28 28 � � 28 28 - - Send Bsilty-santl 30 30 1 - - - 30 30 30 - - .Silly sand&sandy sill 32 32 32 -- 32 32 _ Silty sand&sandy sill Sl 8 silty sand 34 Z^. 34 -34 - Y 34 -34 - t8 - - Send&silly sand 36 36 '- 36 - 36 36 - - Clay &silty clay - a38 n38 - a38 - a38 a38 -� -Clay - Oe 40 40 -- 0 40 W 40 W 40 _ .Clay 8 silty.clay 42 42 - 42 - - 42 42 Silly.sand&sandy sit Silly sand&-sandy sil 44 44 - - 44 44 44 --CDy 46 46 — 46 46 46 Very denselstiff sea.. 48 -- 48 -- 48 48 48 Very dense stiff soil y 50 50 - 50 50 50 Sand B.silty sand 52 52 52 52 52 Very dense/stiff sas 54 54 54 54 54 - 56 56 - - 56 56 56 --- - - t-- 58 58 -- - 58 58 58 60 60 60 60 50 - 62 62 62 - 62 62 64 64 64 64 64 - 66 66 66 66 66 68 68 - 68 68 58 -- 70 70 70 70 70 -- 72 72 -�- - 72 72 72 - 74 74 -- - -- l- 74 - - 74 - 74 - il 0 200 400 600 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Tip resistance ll Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf(%) SBT(Robertson et al, 1986) CPeT-If v.1.7.6.3-CPTU data presentation f1 interpretation software-Report created on: 8/16/2013,12:53:03 PM 1 Project file:C:\TerraconTemecxle8-13\CPeT Data\Plot Data\Plots.cpt APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical Engineering Report 1�erracon Costco Wholesale Fuel Facility Addition CW#13-0153 ■ Temecula, California August 21, 2013 ■Terracon Project No.60135032 Laboratory Testing Description Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix C. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of engineering, earthwork, and construction recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local, or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples obtained from the borings were tested for the following engineering properties: ■ In-situ Water Content ■ Swell Consolidation Test ■ Unit Weight ■ Sieve Analysis ■ Atterberg Limits ■ Soluble Chloride Content ■ Soluble Sulfate Content ■ Minimum Resistivity ■ pH ■ Redox Potential ■ Soluble Sulfides Content ■ Soluble Total Salts Exhibit B-1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1123 8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 5060 100140 2W 100 95 90 85 — I i I_ L , ao76 Illy i � i 70 it I I i w 80 3 i i • i F- 45 Z 11 s � 40 - - I �. : r - W y o � 35 -Mail U 30 TT w •- 25 �- t I i EI ill I 20 r� I i 10 - �I i 2 5 ! 1. !I - N 0 : I m 100. 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL_ SAND-- AND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Boring ID Depth USCS Classification - - - I LL PL PI Cc� Cu a • B-1 1.0 SILTY,CLAYEY SAND(SPSM) I 21 1 17 4 w -- —---———Y— �--+—� A B1 - - - - - 25.0 - - SILTY SAND _1_ I o * B-1 40.0 SANDY SILT(ML) - - - -1 31� 28 3 Boring ID Depth, 0 100 1DDT - D D70 I%Gra el I %gand %Silt %Clay n • B-1 1.0 0.075� - 0.0 0.0 34.8 LL Z B-1 7.5 0.075 0.0 0.0 _ 44.9 A B-1 25.0 9.5 0.679 0.165 0.8 79.9 19.3 * B-1 40.0 0.075 0.0 0.0 54.8 w rc a PROJECT: Cost le Store Fuel Facility Addition — — — PROJECT NUMBER: 60135032 > SITE: Temecula Cal lrerracon CLIENT: Coal Wholesale Temecula,Califamia o --- - - 2817 McCaw Avenue 3 Irvine,California EXHIBIT: B-2 SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D4546 4 2 a :2 -2 - - - - - -- • � � e � w I �Q�(( Oy Q -4 • • a rc N I per_ 0 -6 Z I a 0 m 0 � -8 N Z I I I I I I I I z O -10- _ _ - - - - •- I_I- _ - - --- - -._.1 -.- ._ ._ _ OI 100 1,000 10,000 F o PRESSURE,psf a w rc a z a O & Specimen Identifications Classification Y4,pcf WC, io w B 2 — — — 2.5 ft— — — — — —SILTY CLAYEY SAND 119 14 y NOTES:Water added at 2,000 psf LL_ C Q H O Z W K PROJECT: Costco Wholesale Store PROJECT NUMBER: 60135032 y .— fuel - W SITE: 26610 Ynez Road 1 rerracon CLIENT: Costco Wholesale o Temecula, California o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2817McGaw Avenue - - - - - - 3 Irvine,California EXHIBIT: B-3 CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT Irerracon Project Number: 60135032 Service Date: 07/23/13 750 Pilot Road, Suite F Report Date: 07/23/13 Las Vegas,Nevada 89119 Task: (702)597-9393 Client Project Terracon,Orange County Cosico-Temecula Sample Submitted By: Terracon(60) Date Received: 7/22/2013 Lab No.: 13-0242 Analyzed By: Kurt D.Ergun Results of Corrosivity Analysis Sample Number Sample Location B-1 Sample Depth(in.) 0.0-2.5 pH Analysis,AWWA 4500 H 8.98 Water Soluble Sulfate(SO4),AWWA 4500 E 74 (mg/kg) Sulfides,AWWA 4500-S D,(mg/kg) Nil Red-Ox,AWWA 2580,(mV) +570 Total Salts,AWWA 2540,(mg/kg) 1238 Chlorides,AWWA 3500 Cl B,(mg/kg) 200 Resistivity,ASTM G-57,(ohm-cm) 1261 Services: Terracon Rep: Reported To: Contractor: Reviewed By: Kurt D.Ergun Chemist The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM,AASHTO,or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s)referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. EXHIBIT B-4 APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS Water Initially (HP) Hand Penetrometer Encountered Auger Shelby Tube Split Spoon q7Water Level Ater a 8 Specified Period of Time IT) Torvane ,--iV Water Level After W Ti fn ur a Specified Period of me (b/f) Standard Penetration Z rn Test(blows per foot) Rook Macro Modified ILI W _J Core core California _j Water levels indicated on the soil boring t— N N value d Ring Sampler CC logs are the levels measured in the O W borehole at the times indicated. (PID) Photo-Ionization Detector fan Q Groundwater level variations will occur LL 3 over time. In low permeability soils, (OVA) organic vapor Analyzer Grab No Modified accurate determination of groundwater 7le Recovery Dames a Moore levels is not possible with short term Ring Sampler water level observations. (WOH) Weight of Hammer DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve;their principal descriptors are: boulders,cobbles,gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation,coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable.Surface elevation data annotated with+/-indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (More than 50%retained on No.200 sieve.) (50%or more passing the No.200 sieve.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing,field Includes gravels,sands and silts visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance N Descriptive Term Standard Penetration or Ring Samplar Descriptve Term Unconfined Compressive Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler N-Value N-Value Lu (Density) Blorra(Ft. BlowdFt (Consistency) Strength,Qu,psi BlowalFt. BlowslFt H Very Loose 0-3 0-6 Very Soft less than 500 0-1 <3 Loose 4-9 7-18 Soft 500 to 1,0D0 2-4 3-4 W Medium Dense 10-29 19-58 Medium-Stiff 1,000 to 2,000 4-8 5-9 W Dense 30-50 59-98 Stiff 2,000 to 4,000 8.15 10-18 Very Dense >50 >99 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8,000 15-30 19-42 Hard >8.000 >30 >42 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Maior Component of other constituents Dry Weight fSampleParticle Size Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in.(300 mm) With 15-29 Cobbles 12 in.to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) Modifier >30 Gravel 3 in.to#4 sieve(75mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 to#200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075mm Silt or Clay Passing#200 sieve(0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive Termis) Percent of Term Plasticity Index of other constituents Dry Weight Non-plastic 0 Trace <5 Low 1 - 10 With 5- 12 Medium 11 -30 Modifier > 12 High >30 1 rerracon Exhibit C-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Group Group Name e Symbol Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu Z 4 and 1 s Cc 5 3 E GW Well-graded gravel More than 50%of Less than 5%fines c Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3 E GP Poorly graded gravel coarse fraction retained Gravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silly gravel RGA Coarse Grained Soils: on No.4 sieve More than 12%fines° Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel More than 50%retained on No.200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu Z 6 and 1 5 Cc:5 3 E SW Well-graded sand 50%or more of coarse Less than 5%fines° Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3 E SP Poorly graded sand' fraction passes No.4 Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silly sand"' ' sieve More than 12%fines c Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand c."'1 Inorganic: PI>7 and plots on or above JA"lines CL Lean lay K.L.M Silts and Clays: PI<4 or plots below"A"line ML Sltt L Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clay K.LM Fine-Grained Soils: Organic: <0.75 OL K.L.M. 50%or more passes the �Liquid limit-not dried Organic Silt i u No.200 sieve PI plots on or above"A"line CH Fat clay inorganic: K M Silts and Clays: PI plots below"A"line MH Elastic Silt Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clay K L m Organic: <0.75 OH it Liquid limit-not dried Organic silt Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter,dark in color,and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch(75-mm)sieve "If fines are organic,add"with organic fines"to group name. ° If field sample contained cobbles or boulders,or both,add"with cobbles If soil contains Z 15%gravel,add"with gravel"to group name. or boulders,or both"to group name. ' If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area,soil is a CL-ML,silly clay. c Gravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded K If soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200,add"with sand"or"with gravel," gravel with sift,GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay,GP-GM poorly whichever is predominant. °graded gravel with silt,GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. L If soil contains z 30%plus No.200 predominantly sand,add"sandy'to Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded group name. sand with sift,SW-SC well-graded sand with clay,SP-SM poorly graded M If soil contains z 30%plus No.200,predominantly gravel,add sand with sift,SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay "gravelly'to group name. (D ) M PI z 4 and plots on or above"A"line. E Cu=DwDio Cc= °0 °PI<4 or plots below"A"line. Duo x D. ° PI plots on or above"A"line. F If soil contains k 15%sand,add"with sand"to group name. c PI plots below"A"line. c If fines classify as CL-ML,use dual symbol GC-GM,or SC-SM. 60 T For classification of fine-grained JI, soils and fine-grained fraction 50 of coarse-grained soils Equation of"A"-line +�, •P d Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5. ' W 40 — then PI=0.73(LL-20) O+ O Equation of"U"-line �d' Z Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, C > 30 then PI=0.9(LL-8) FU O� 20 �o� S CL MH or OH 10 ; 7 ---- 4 -- ML or OL 0 I - - 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT ILL) 1 rerracon Exhibit C-2 APPENDIX D LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Costco Store Gas Canopy Addition Hole No.=C-1 Water Depth=10 fr Magnitude=6.64 Acceleration=0.48g sneer So Ratio Factor of So" Settlement Soil Dasai000r A 0 1 0 1 5 0(in.) 10 I op� I G f0 O I o I a 20 I S° P O° 8: po 30 p P I o° I a° I O° 40 I OO o I �o O° 1s1=1.20 1s2=t S=308 in. >�o 50 CRR — CSR fst— fs2 — Setuated — E Shaded Zone hm Liquefa¢ion Potential Unsatuat — e"C s Y U 70 P Terracon Temecula, CA Exhibit D-1 u........................u u u.................................................. LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY .:..................................................................................................... Title: Costco Store Gas Canopy Addition Subtitle: Temecula, CA Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-1 Depth of Hole= 50.00 It Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 It Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 If Max. Acceleration=0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude= 6.64 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-1 Depth of Hole=50.00 It Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 It Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.64 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. CPT Calculation Method: Suzuki at al. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu, M-correction 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Modify Stark/Olson 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction' 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones' 9. User-request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.2 Plot two CSR (fsl=User, fs2=1) 10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes' Recommended Options' In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc is Rf gamma Fines D50 ft atm atm pcf % mm 1.00 21.60 0.08 0.37 99.28 5.56 0.50 2.00 9.90 0.18 1.82 103.30 28.94 0.50 3.00 15.90 0.16 1.01 103.60 19.58 0.50 4.00 114.00 0.69 0.61 119.10 2.27 0.50 5.00 228.70 1.33 0.58 125.60 0.18 0.50 6.00 211.70 1.25 0.59 124.90 0.76 0.50 7.00 93.00 2.02 2.17 126.40 13.53 0.50 8.00 48.10 0.68 1.41 116.80 16.19 0.50 9.00 56.90 1.14 2.00 121.00 18.35 0.50 10.00 48.70 0.50 1.03 114.60 14.67 0.50 11.00 30.40 0.11 0.36 102.40 13.84 0.50 12.00 56.80 0.36 0.63 112.60 10.84 0.50 13.00 49.50 0.22 0.44 108.70 10.60 0.50 14.00 45.90 0.47 1.02 114.00 17.03 0.50 15.00 40.90 0.41 1.00 112.70 18.62 0.50 16.00 44.90 0.37 0.82 112.20 16.40 0.50 17.00 46.60 0.38 0.82 112.50 16.25 0.50 18.00 44.20 0.54 1.22 115.00 20.48 0.50 Exhibit D-2 In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc Is Rf gamma Fines D50 It atm atm pcf % mm 19.00 14.90 0.23 1.54 106.10 NoLiq 0.50 20.00 23.70 0.51 2.15 113.00 NoLiq 0.50 21.00 21.50 0.66 3.07 114.70 NoLiq 0.50 22.00 14.00 0.18 1.29 104.10 NoLiq 0.50 23.00 14.10 0.25 1.77 106.50 NoLiq 0.50 24.00 164.90 1.06 0.64 123.10 5.46 0.50 25.00 145.40 1.50 1.03 125.30 9.14 0.50 26.00 52.10 '1.10 2.11 120.60 26.35 0.50 27.00 85.00 0.94 1.11 120.60 14.64 0.50 28.00 83.80 ' 1.65 1.97 124.70 20.17 0.50 29.00 201.10 1.35 0.67 125.40 5.10 0.50 30.00 155.10 0.74 0.48 120.30 5.27 0.50 31.00 179.60 0.98 0.55 122.70 5.03 0.50 32.00 190.20 0.83 0.44 121.70 3.88 0.50 33.00 135.70 2.16 1.59 127.80 14.21 0.50 34.00 75.00 2.16 2.88 126.40 27.16 0.50 35.00 136.10 2.69 1.98 129.40 16.46 0.50 36.00 309.50 4.17 1.35 134.70 7.31 0.50 37.00 40.50 1.95 4.81 124.10 NoLiq 0.50 38.00 25.60 0.26 1.02 108.30 NoLiq 0.50 39.00 47.10 1.50 3.18 122.60 NoLiq 0.50 40.00 65.20 2.68 4.11 127.60 NoLiq 0.50 41.00 73.30 2.92 3.98 128.50 NoLiq 0.50 42.00 63.60 2.00 3.14 125.40 NoLiq 0.50 43.00 83.60 3.54 4.23 130.30 NoLiq 0.50 44.00 178.80 3.84 2.15 132.70 15.91 0.50 45.00 149.80 5.23 3.49 134.50 23.16 0.50 46.00 39.90 0.95 2.38 118.80 _NoLiq 0.50 _ 47.00 98.80 - 3.53 3.57 130.70 NoLiq 0.50 48.00 30.80 1.26 4.09 120.30 NoLiq 0.50 49.00 24.70 0.82 3.32 116.60 NoLiq 0.50 50.00 51.70 1.69 3.27 123.70 NoLiq 0.50 Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=3.57 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0:10 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=3.68 in. Differential Settlement=1.838 to 2.427 in. Exhibit D-2 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Costeo Store Gas Canopy Addition Hole No.=C-2 Warer Depth=90 ft Magnitude=6.64 Accelerarion=0.48g Shear Sues Ratio F.CtM of safety Settlement Sc.i IR70 0 1 0 1 5 Ojin.) 10 f 0 Ir1 f 20 ?0 40 h1=1.20 h2-1 S=2.74 in. 50 CRR — CSR 61— W — Satuated — Shaded Zone has Uquetartion Potential Unsaturat. — e"C V 3 3 60 t_ V 2 70 Terr2Con Temecula, CA Exhibit D-3 ....................................................................................................... LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ......................................................................................... ..... Title: Costco Store Gas Canopy Addition Subtitle: Temecula, CA Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-2 Depth of Hole=50.00 It Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 If Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 It Max. Acceleration= 0.48 g Earthquake Magnitude=6.64 Input Data: Surface Elev.= Hole No.=C-2 Depth of Hole=50.00 It Water Table during Earthquake= 10.00 If Water Table during In-Situ Testing= 50.00 ft Max. Acceleration=0.48 9 Earthquake Magnitude=6.64 No-Liquefiable Soils: CL, OL are Non-Liq. Soil 1. CPT Calculation Method: Suzuki at al. 2. Settlement Analysis Method: Tokimatsu, M-correction 3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Modify Stark/Olson 4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction' 5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones' 9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) , User= 1.2 Plot two CSR (fsl=User, fs2=1) 10.-Use Curve Smoothing: Yes' Recommended Options In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc is Rf gamma Fines D50 It atm atm pcf % mm 1.00 14.90 0.21 1.41 105.40 17.09 0.50 2.00 8.70 0.21 2.41 104.10 34.81 0.50 3.00 83.60 2.44 2.92 127.50 13.94 0.50 4.00 63.50 2.53 3.98 127.10 20.96 0.50 5.00 79.70 2.29 2.87 127.00 16.31 0.50 6.00 176.80 3.24 1.83 131.40 7.72 0.50 7.00 27.50 1.16 4.22 119.40 32.79 0.50 8.00 36.40 0.52 1.43 114.20 19.58 0.50 9.00 38.60 1.26 3.26 120.80 28.80 0.50 10.00 58.60 1.54 2.62 123.30 21.65 0.50 11.00 61.00 0.54 0.89 115.70 12.09 0.50 12.00 50.50 0.47 0.93 114.30 14.69 0.50 13.00 78.70 0.58 0.74 116.90 9.44 0.50 14.00 61.80 0.46 0.74 114.60 11.93 0.50 15.00 30.40 0.46 1.51 112.90 26.67 6.50 Exhibit D-4 f _ i In-Situ Test Data: Depth qc fs Rf gamma Fines D50 It atm atm pcf % mm 16.00 46.90 1.21 2.58 121.00 27.07 0.50 17.00 41.20 0.81 1.97 117.70 26.08 0.50 18.00 68.80 0.83 1.21 119.20 15.59 0.50 19.00 31.70 0.76 2.40 116.60 NoLiq 0.50 20.00 14.20 0.48 3.38 111.30 NoLiq 0.50 21.00 34.20 0.96 2.81 118.50 NoLiq 0.50 22.00 41.00 1.20 2.93 120.60 NoLiq 0.50 23.00 14.70 0.60 4.08 113.00 NoLiq 0.50 24.00 12.50 0.47 3.76 110.90 NoLiq 0.50 25.00 12.60 0.51 4.05 111.50 NoLiq 0.50 26.00 12.60 0.36 2.86 108.90 NoLiq 0.50 27.00 153.50 1.04 0.68 122.80 6.69 0.50 28.00 242.80 2.22 0.91 129.50 5.60 0.50 29.00 187.80 1.56 0.83 126.20 6.72 0.50 30.00 36.80 1.25 3.40 120.60 NoLiq 0.50 31.00 54.10 1.21 2.24 121.40 28.05 0.50 32.06 85.60 0.88 1.03 120.10 15.08 0.50 33.00 95.40 1.32 1.38 123.40 16.53 0.50 34.00 134.20 0.75 0.56 120.10 7.56 0.50 35.00 52.30 1.17 2.24 121.00 29.84 0.50 36.00 20.70 0.72 3.48 115.20 NoLiq 0.50 37.00 29.30 0.62 2.12 115.00 NoLiq 0.50 38.00 62.30 2.95 4.74 128.20 NoLiq 0.50 39.00 34.80 1.71 4.91 122.80 NoLiq 0.50 40.00 51.60 1.78 3.45 124.10 NoLiq 0.50 41.00 148.70 3.44 2.31 131.50 NoLiq 0.50 42.00 37.00 2.01 5.43 124.10 NoLiq 0.50 43.00 87.00 4.05 4.66 131.30 NoLiq 0.50 44.00 60.00 2.78 4.63 127.70 NoLiq 0.50 45.00 118.60 4.26 3.59 132.50 26.26 0.50 46.00 105.80 4.81 4.55 133.10 NoLiq 0.50 47.00 226.20 6.31 2.79 136.90 NoLiq 0.50 48.00 112.60 3.86 3.43 131.60 NoLiq 0.50 49.00 156.50 4.38 2.80 133.40 NoLiq 0.50 i 50.00 344.80 4.90 1.42 136.10 NoLiq 0.50 Output Results: Settlement of Saturated Sands=2.64 in. Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.10 in. Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=2.74 in. Differential Settlement=1.368 to 1.806 i /I Exhibit D-4 LEGEND PERVIOUS AREA \�%Q � + + + FLOW THROUGH PLANTER (PERVIOUS) / \� \ w PROPERTY LINE /� \ \ \ ``ram � � �'`♦ \\ \ CENTER LINE �. LOT LINE LIMIT OF WORK/PROJECT BOUNDARY DMA LIMIT ' FLOW DIRECTION / / O / / o �'♦ f \� lO 59 . SD STORM DRAIN � � o � .! �, � �' � �?� '-. V �, ;�-�� " � EXISTING STORM DRAIN 0 ... \ � ,0 SF k ! ! pFR(, rJs ,'SS2 / \ PERMANENT STORM WATER BMP NOTES / ! r I �� ! ! 0 S2 SF \/ �� ` 'o•� PROVIDE STORM WATER STAMPING/SIGNAGE ON DRAINAGE o ! r � SF \ "" ' INLET WITH PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE (E.G. "NO DUMPING - f ONLY RAIN DOWN THE STORM DRAIN") SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER. SELF-RETAINING AREA BIORETENTION BMP (FTP) �E OMq o ! ! pER OUS 8, CURB OPENING PER `� / .' f ft k/OUS 3 SF BIO-RETENTION 4PN- OVERFLOW STRUCTURE DETAIL E/5 i PER LANDSCAPE ATOP OF GRATE (TG) 4� / ///`'// f/ / 0 SF SF PER PLAN a �; 3. 6" MIN 1� / / / / .� ! 6� — (DMA D / ��l� DEEPENED CURB AND GUTTER -AREA = 905 SF � f!� � � � b _ I PER DETAIL A/5 ® IMPERVIOUS = 0 SF / y / 24 THICK LAYER OF — 1 — FINISHED GRADE —I I I_I CONNECT LINER D LOAMY SAND TYPE SOIL _I 1 -! = I TO CURB PER DETAIL G 5 PERVIOUS = 905 SF / � O /ME0 M6 F\/ / MINIMUM INFILTRATION RATE — �2 24 ELEVSET ATION (FG) / C/S S4 =5 /HOUR, SEE NOTE 6 Rk/00 6 6 SF / _ MAINTAIN 6" BENCH NATIVE SOIL FOR S a 546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` _ o o` I= SUPPORT OF ADJACENT CURB/PAVING // y y y 0 SF SF ( / 4" DEEP "BIRDSEYE" WASHED / y , Q / PEA GRAVEL CHOKER STONE LAYER 8" MIN DOUBLE LINED IMPERMEABLE LINER ON o y I __ ALL SIDES OF PLANTER. MIRAFI NT100 y y y CALTRANS CLASS 2 ?� "'� - — OR EQUAL. MIN 18" OVERLAP AT �� JOINTS. PERMEABLE 11---� aMpFRA C �Fq � � F y y l �OOS 02S y y y , AREA DM 2,953 SF / 4" DIA. PERFORATED SUBDRAIN EXTEND LINER 6" MIN BELOW BOTTOM O(/ SP_ _' y y SLOPED 0.5% MIN TO OUTLET / DMA A O' , S p02S SF Q y "J y IMPERVIOUS = 0 SF ® /' INSTALL CUTOFF WALL AT OUTLET OF ADJACENT GRAVEL LAYER l ' SF y y y y PERVIOUS = 2,953 SF / AREA = 6,434 SF �� y .V y' IMPERVIOUS = 5,641 SF y E CONSTRUCTION NOTES PERVIOUS = 793 SF — _ _ = 1. SCARIFY SUBGRADE BEFORE INSTALLING BIORETENTION AREA AGGREGATE AND BSM. / / / y y y _ _. / — �- 2. BSM TO BE LOAMY SAND TYPE SOIL WITH INFILTRATION RATE OF 5 INCH. PER HOUR MIN). 3. COMPACT EACH 6" LIFT OF BSM WITH LANDSCAPE ROLLER OR BY LIGHTLY WETTING. IF WETTING, ALLOW TO DRY OVERNIGHT BEFORE PLANTING. DMA B \ y y y y y 4. DO NOT WORK WITHIN BIORETENTION AREA DURING RAIN OR UNDER WET CONDITIONS. •Y / 5. KEEP HEAVY MACHINERY OUTSIDE BIORETENTION AREA LIMITS. AREA = 4,134 SF 5, y y y / 6. ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 85% MINERAL COMPONENT AND 15% IMPERVIOUS _ 3,239 SF y y `" y y / / ORGANIC COMPONENT, BY VOLUME, DRUM MIXED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. THE MINERAL PERVIOUS - 895 SF y y ` y / COMPONENT SHALL BE A CLASS A SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL THAT MEETS THE RANGE SPECIFIED BASIN 1 y ff + �+ y y y y / IN TABLE 1. THE ORGANIC COMPONENT SHALL B3E NITROGEN STABILIZED COMPOST, SUCH o y, A = 237 SF 'may +� �� I �-1 + + + 1+ I y y y / THAT NITROGEN DOES NOT LEACH FROM THE MEDIA. THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE \ \ \ ( ® � req'd = 400 SF %¢ I ` +' SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE INSPECTOR TO PROVE THE ENGINEERED MIX MEETS THE r \ rV ided = 348 CF // + ++ ++1}L L SPECIFICATIONS. \\ \ V req d = 588 CF y n + y W y TABLE 1: MINERAL COMPONENT RANGE REQUIREMENTS rovided + + + ' y y � RANGE COMPONENT + + + +. I I y y y + + y y y y y \ c4, � �_�—�' _ _�,--�' • 70-80 SAND - BASIN 2 -� / 15-20 SILT \ d \ A = 123 SF \ provided Aprvvided _ 18o SF / •PARCEL A 424 5-10 CLAY \ LLA NO. 99 0 rovreq ided = 289 CF PARCEL D / BIORETENTION PLANTER FTP / NOT TO SCALE \ `' \ LLA N0.99-0424. / V \ / DMA SUMMARY TABLE " \ DMA Name or Identification Surface Type(s)i Area(Sq.Ft.) DMA Type o \\ \\\ \ \ A Pervious 793 D \ \\ \ \ / A Impervious 5,641 D B Pervious 895 D \ \ \\\\\ B Impervious 3,239 D C Pervious 2,953 _ B \\\ \ ED* Pervious 7,025 No Treatment a 00 O \ E-2* Impervious 387 6 No Treatment w 00 F* Impervious 1,552 No Treatment o N 'Reference Table 2-1 in the WQMP Guidance Document to populate this column `DMAs E,E-1,E-2,and F are not included for stormwater treatment calculations. in a o COSTCO TEMECULA GASco 3 EXPANSION Vv a N O WQMP SITE MAP 3 20 0 20 w of SCALE: 1" = 20' _ ��EII JOB NO. LZ 2156-088 NO. DATE REVISIONFUSCOE a DRAWN BY: I 00 00 E N G I N E E R 1 N G L.S. \\ \ 6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170 N San Diego, California 92122 SHEET N U - tel 858.554oOfuscoe om8 597.0335 1 of 1 C�TY OF TEMECULA OWNER ENGINEER APPLICANT LEGEND clrY of TEMECULA (COT) RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT (RCWD) COSTCO WHOLESALE FUSCOE ENGINEERING MG2 PA 1 6-0626 - COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION DESCRIPTION STANDARDS SYMBOL 999 LAKE DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 1101 SECOND AVENUE PROPOSED CONTOURS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 (858) 554-1500 BELLEVUE, WA 98101 TM 3334 - PARCELS A & D - L.L.A. NO. PA 99-0424 EXISTING CONTOURS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1058 FAX (858) 597-0335 (206) 962-6500 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ PROPERTY LINE P PRECISE GRADING PLAN LOT LINE . . . . . . . . . . _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOPOGRAPHY A N CENTER LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ PARCELS A AND D OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. PA-99-0424 SURVEY PREPARED BY 921-810-014 DAYLIGHT LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECORDED DECEMBER 3, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 99-528446 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. /\ \\ SAWCUT UNE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ______ ___ OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. DATED 04-18-2016 / 2 ;, EASEMENT low FLOW DIRECTION AND SLOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X% BENCHMARK 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE. FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA � ELEVATION , : , . . . : . . : 2 0 F ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND Ir v `\ / j 1 EXISTING ELEVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MORAGA ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO THE TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL, 1 FOOT EAST OF THE ■ PROJECT SITE 1 ��� _ c� ./ ■ s 3 �" � � � \■ �, � � /,� /� � 6" CURB . . . . . . DETAIL B PER SHEET 5 . . . . . FLAGPOLE. ,� � � c �� .` RING-ROAD i ■ 13141 6 5�,► / ,' �� / CURB & GUTTER . . . . DETAIL A PER SHEET 5 • . . . L (PRIVATE). T-30-81 ■ / / ' \ ��' �—•► (PRl EXISTING SEWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S — ELEV = 1083.725 ■ _ 1 i -- Y. \ 3 EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE E ■ �Q�,�� t EXISTING ■�`\ - - _ - \ / ENGINEERS NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR ■ .,_r� GAS srarloN ■ I I EXISTING STORM DRAIN f - . 1. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS 1 _Y ,, r ■ j EXISTING GAS PROPOSED GAS —c ARE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE /r �� '� I" � 2 MEASURES T PROTECT THE UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES SHOWN AND ANY OTHER LINES OR Qj �P / STATION_ EXPANSION p � ■ N EXISTING WATER LINE W PRECAUTIONARY EA URES 0 E ■ P i` -*- - STRUCTURES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF, ``� Q¢t / /j � 8-� 8 * `"�-�'' _; � �• �■�� "�� ,�, � -'�-- EXISTING IRRIGATION LINE AND ANY DAMAGE TO THESE LINES OR STRUCTURES. /■ �j I c 1 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT rf DQQ 2. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE ■ / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ��ii / a= ■ EXISTING AREA/STREET LIGHTS . - - ❑❑o-❑ CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND / f�/ \ 8' � �, PARCEL A ❑ O PROPERTY; THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING % /� t ! ; t i ° ■ LLA NO. 99-0424 EXISTING STORM DRAIN INLET/MANHOLE . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . . FZ HOURS AND THAT THE CONTRACTORS SHALL DEFEND INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD THE OWNER AND ENGINEER HARMLESS - -_ , ■ Ed FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS / \ i ❑ I I -rt i ' 1 T �� ■ EXISTING SEWER MANAHOLE• . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . • . . • . . • . I � I I ■ PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER, OR ■ _ Lj I i i � _ _� p EXISTING EXISTING VALVE ANY PUBLIC AGENCY. ■ �i \ / 1L ■ � �- � � ■� � � � � � � o � � � � � � � � � � � s � � o � �lo � � � 0I� STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN . . . . . . DETAIL F PER SHEET 5 . . . . . . 0 3. THE ESTIMATES OF EARTHWORK AND IMPROVEMENT QUANTITIES AS SHOWN HEREON ARE PROVIDED ONLY FOR THE -.-A � • � ` `�� - -��"�'� � " STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT. : PURPOSE OF SATISFYING CITY PLAN INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM AN �� 1 I i I I I I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I Imo --- 6 • • • • RCWD STD DWG S-11 INDEPENDENT ESTIMATE OF ALL EARTHWORK AND IMPROVEMENT QUANTITIES AND SHALL USE SAME AS A BASIS FOR \o •' I I I � I AREA LIGHT . . PER ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS HIS B DS AND CONTRACTS . EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES . . . . . — 0❑p — Q00 I I 1 i STORM DRAIN •COT STD DWG 407- . 4. THE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS WAS OBTAINED BY AERIAL AND/OR FIELD SURVEY PARCEL D PRIVATE STREET EASEMENT DATA, AND DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLAN ELEVATIONS AND ACTUAL ELEVATIONS ARE TO BE ANTICIPATED. THE \ LLA NO. 99-0424 I 2 PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVING. PER SHEET 4 . . . . . . . . . . . CONTRACTOR SHALL REMAIN ALERT FOR AND PROMPTLY REPORT ANY AND ALL SUBSTANTIAL DISCREPANCIES III I I I 1 I I ► I I I I ' I I I I I I'i 0 DISTRICT (SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE A CHANGE IN THE PLANS AND/OR AN INCREASE IN COSTS) TO THE OWNER AND TO THE ) I I I ( I I I I I I I I I4�N Q3 GTE TELEPHONE EASEMENT LIGHT DUTY ASPHALT PAVING. PER SHEET 4 ENGINEER OF RECORD, AND SHALL NOT PROCEED WITH AN AFFECTED WORK AREA UNTIL DIRECTED TO DO SO BY i AN APPROPRIATE OWNER REPRESENTATIVE. I I I I I i l I I I I I I I I I i 05 SLOPE EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA CONCRETE PAVING. . . . . . . . . . 7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA PER SHEET 4 _ i INFORMATION AND SHOULD \ / O 5. QUANTITY CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON AERIAL.TOPOGRAPHY AND ESTIMATED SO OILS BIORETENTION PLANTER BE CONSIDERED ONLY A ROUGH APPROXIMATION OF ACTUAL QUANTITIES. I I I I I I ! i I I� I I I I f { DETAIL H PER SHEET 5 ` ' ' ' ' ' ® STORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA . . . . . . 6. CONTRACTOR ASSUMES SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF ALL I I I I I I I I I f SIDEWALK. & LANDSCAPE EASEMENT TO CITY- OF TEMECULA CONSTRUCTION NOTES Sc QUANTITIES SURVEY MONUMENTS, AND SHALL HAVE ANY DISTURBED OR COVERED MONUMENT RESET BY A QUALIFIED /�,1 0 REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OR LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AT THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY. o 01 6" CURB PER DETAIL 'B' ON SHEET 5 450 LF � � O 6" CURB AND GUTTER PER DETAIL 'A' ON SHEET 5 550 LF 7. DEMOLITION OF ALL LABELED ITEMS WILL INVOLVE REMOVAL OF ALL SUB SURFACE FOOTINGS AND SUBSTRUCTURES AC PAVING AND BASE PER DETAIL D ON SHEET 5. 4 AC OVER 6 „ " (IF APPLICABLE)..- " �I I % I I I CLASS II BASE FOR LIGHT-DUTY PAVEMENT AND 6.5 AC OVER 6.5 20 TON (LIGHT-DUTY)/240 8. THE CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND VERIFY THE LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND UTILITY \ \ I I L I CLASS II BASE (OPTION 1) OR 5" AC OVER 12" CLASS II BASE TON (HEAVY-DUN) CROSSINGS PRIOR TO .START OF CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR -SHALL CONTACT CIVIL ENGINEER IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. \ 8 (OPTION 2) FOR HEAVY-DUTY PAVEMENT 2 - a 36M 6 ® CONCRETE SLAB PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 13,300 SF 9. THE CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY UNDERGROUND ALERT AT 1-800-422-4133 A MINIMUM OF TWO FULL WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO START OF DEMOLITION, GRADING, OR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY KIND. THE USA TICKET NUMBER I I I I I % I I f I i I I \ Q 3' RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL 'C' ON SHEET 5 400 LF MUST BE AVAILABLE AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE PRIOR TO START ANY WORK SHOWN ON THIS SET OF PLANS. `\ I I i i i ; ✓ I i I I I I I o 6 EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE N/A STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT PER RSD SC-07, RIM TO READ "STORM 6 EA GENERAL NOTES 0 DRAIN" ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED SO AS TO COMPLY WITH ALL LEGAL AND INDUSTRY REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE FOLLOWING: _ ® 4" PVC STORM DRAIN. SLOPE AT 2.0% MIN. 120 LF o . 2 — Og 8" x 6" ECCENTRIC REDUCER 1 EA * SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. \` o_ o * o I 10 PENDISPENSER ISLAND & APPURTENANCES PER ARCHITECTURAL 5 EA THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRADING ORDINANCE. \ O * F TEMECULA, AND ALL APPLICABLE , + I ' = 11 CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND VERIFY EXISTING UTILITY ELEVATION, 3 EA THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, LATEST EDITION, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY 0 EME ` II _ DEPTH AND LOCATION PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION RELATED SPECIALTY CODES. \ ( I C Li Q CONNECT TO EXISTING PRIVATE STORM DRAIN 3 EA ' * THE LATEST EDITION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS (THE GREEN BOOK) AND STANDARD \ •� _ FLOW THROUGH PLANTER PER DETAIL 'H' ON SHEET 5 2,550 CF PLANS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. I I 14 2 EA n n n PRE-CAST CATCH BASIN PER DETAIL 'F' ON SHEET 5 * THE MANUFACTURER'S REQUIREMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANY INCORPORATED PRODUCTS. N i I I -�- I I L ! I ) I 1 I I I ( I ! I I I I 15 AREA LIGHT PER ELECTRICAL PLANS 3 EA .�- O j i I UO * THE DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY INSPECTOR. Q 5 6 ON SHEET 5 2 EA `� 1Q CURB OPENING DEPRESSION PER DETAIL E * THE GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT DATED NOVEMBER 25, 2014 BY KLEINFELDER, AND ALL O Q TRENCH RE-SURFACING PER CITY OF TEMECULA STANDARD DWG. 550 LF APPLICABLE AMENDMENTS. \ - - - - - NO. 407 OVERLAND DRIVE A. IN USING THESE PLANS FOR BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, ALL CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO REVIEW KEY MAP LEGEND �• 18 PROPOSED OIL WATER SEPARATOR PER DETAIL 'I' ON SHEET 5 1 EA o AND TREAT THEM AS A WHOLE IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS THAT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AFFECT r EllN 19 SAWCUT AND REMOVE EXISTING HARDSCAPE. GRIND AND OVERLAY 3 SHEET NUMBERS � O . . 950 LF THEIR PORTION OF THE WORK, EVEN REQUIREMENTS LOCATED IN SECTIONS DESIGNATED AS APPLICABLE TO OTHER s COSTCO AT SAWCUT LINE (TYPICAL) PER DETAIL J ON SHEET 5 TRADES. IN CASE OF CONFLICTS, THE AFFECTED CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO EITHER OBTAIN DIRECTION FROM Z WHOLESALE N EASEMENT ® v 0 CONTROLLER ENCLOSURE ROOM. SEE BLOW-UP DETAIL THIS SHEET 1 EA AN APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER, OR OTHERWISE TO APPLY THE MORE STRINGENT STANDARD. KEY MAP -= © Ln ES PLANS ARE INTENDED TO SET FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ONLY AN - SHEET LAYOUTS Now sy © SPILLWAY CURB & GUTTER. SLOPE GUTTER 2% MIN. TOWARD N/A B. THESE Q 1" 60' ASPHALT PAVEMENT ' INDUSTRY-STANDARD LEVEL OF QUALITY AND DETAIL, AND THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY ABBREVIATIONS SHEET INDEX s �o ORN�N?Q © INSTALL NEW SHUT OFF VALVE IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF APPROPRIATE REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION AND INFORMATION. ALL CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO CAREFULLY WATER SEPARATOR. 6 INCH BALL VALVE IN C.I. VALVE BOX OIL/O C,p'�'�F 3 REVIEW THESE PLANS FOR DESIGN CONFLICTS AND BRING THESE TO THE ATTENTION OF AN APPROPRIATE OWNER AC ACRE IRR IRRIGATION 1 TITLE SHEET CN REPRESENTATIVE IN A TIMELY MANNER; AND ANY CONTRACTOR WHO FAILS TO DO SO BEFORE BIDDING OR AC/AB ASPHALT CONCRETE/ASPHALT BASE LP LOW POINT 2 NOTES FLUSH WITH GRADE. VALVE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH WHEEL/KEY FOR 1 Cn OTHERWISE PROCEEDING ASSUMES THE RISK OF ANY CONSEQUENCES. IN ANY EVENT ALL CONTRACTORS WILL 3 REMOVAL PLAN EASY OPEN-SHUT OPERATION. VALVE BOX SHALL HAVE HINGED ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT LTR LATERAL 4 PRECISE GRADING PLAN o PROCEED AT THEIR OWN RISK IF THEY FAIL TO VERIFY AND FIELD MEASURE DIMENSIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH BLDG BUILDING MH MANHOLE VICINITY MAP EASY OPEN UD. BOX AND LID TO BE H-20 RATED. 0- POC POINT OF CONNECTION 5 DETAILS01 00 ANY AFFECTED CONSTRUCTION. CB CATCH BASIN 6 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN NO SCALE ® GRADED SWALE SLOPED AT 1.0% MIN. 60 LIF to CL CENTERLINE PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE 7 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS U0 C. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) SUBMITTALS WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEER, IF AT ALL, ONLY PURSUANT C&G CURB AND GUTTER PVT PRIVATE ® 9"x9" ATRIUM GRATE NDS #981 OR APPROVED EQUAL 1 EA N TO THE INDUSTRY-STANDARD PROTOCOL AND IN NO EVENT WILL THE SUBMITTAL REVIEW PROCESS RELIEVE OR CO CLEANOUT QTY QUANTITY W LESSEN THE SUBMITTING CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN INAPPROPRIATE SUBMITTAL CONC CONCRETE R RADIUS GROSS DISTURBED AREA: 0.73 AC ® STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION PER SE-10 TYPE III 4 EA DWY DRIVEWAYRCWD RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ELEC ELECTRICAL RIM RIM ELEVATION Z © WEIGHTED FIBER ROLL PER SE-5 1,300 LF a GRADED AREA 31,966 SF CUT 100 CY EX EXISTING RSD SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS NET DISTURBED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.61 AC E . DIG ALERT . FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY © STREET SWEEPING AND VACUUMING PER SE-7 3 AREAS OVEREXCAVATION 0 CY FILL 100 CY FF FINISHED FLOOR SD STORM DRAIN NOTE: FG FINISHED GRADE SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEAN OUT NOTES: CONSTRUCTION. ENTRANCE 1 EA THE ABOVE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY FH FIRE HYDRANT ST STREET ALL QUANTITIES LISTED HERIN ARE SHOWN FOR PERMIT DIAL TOLL FREE AND DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR VARIATIONS DUE TO LOSS FROM CLEARING FL FLOW LINE STD STANDARD Z . . . PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING. LD1 H-O726 � 1-800-422-4133 AND GRUBBING, STRIPPING, SHRINKAGE, SWELL, OR UNSUITABLE FS FINISHED SURFACE TC TOP OF CURB AT LEAST TWO DAYS MATERIALS. ALL QUANTITIES LISTED HERIN ARE SHOWN FOR PERMIT FTP FLOW THROUGH PLANTER TD TRENCH DRAIN -THIS PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF BEFORE YOU DIG BUILDING AND SAFETY � PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR BIDDING. THE GB GRADE BREAK TEL TELEPHONE THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THEIR OWN HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE TG TOP OF GRATE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 77TLE 24 00 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT INDEPENDENT QUANTITY AND MATERIAL TAKE-OFFS TO CONSTRUCT THE HP HIGH POINT TYP TYPICAL DISABLED ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY ONLYLO OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DESIGN AS INDICATED ON THESE DRAWINGS AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH IE INVERT ELEVATION W WATER "' THE PROJECT'S GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. INV INVERT WM WATER METER APPROVED BY.: NAME DA TE - CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS ACC'D DATE BENCH INAW DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CFE XM BY FESS/ck CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS QRp T-30-81 EL= 1083.725 �O p �l Recommended By. Date: a Contractor 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE. Horizontal ��,��Q� Ski F2� o �,, Z These Plans Were Prepared Under the Supervision of: ��op rer 1 FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND - if N RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST w m = m Accepted By. Date: `� ' � o Inspector ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTER- C 75822 Date: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. OF 7 SHEETS W SECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND MORAGA Vertical * EXP. 06-30-18 * BRYAN D. SMITH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PA17-0626-COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION o ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO S, TM 3334-PARCELS A&D-L.L.A. NO. PA 99-0424 � CIVIL ��� Date Completed THE TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL; 1 FOOT EAST OF '9T THE FLAGPOLE. F OF CAVE° 75822 06-30-2018 R.C.E. No. 44223 TITLE SHEET C 1 R.C.E. No. Expires: • 't SPECIAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES GRADING NOTES (CONTINUED) PAVING NOTES (CONTINUED) EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES THE FOLLOWING NOTES ARE PROVIDED TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO THE 1. STANDARDS. All WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 4. CUTZFILL. 9. PAVING MATERIALS. 1.FILTERED RUNOFF. ALL RUNOFF SHALL BE FILTERED PRIOR TO DISCHARGING FROM A SITE OR TO ANY TYPE OF CONTRACTOR BY THE ENGINEER OF WORK. THE CITY ENGINEER'S SIGNATURE CURRENT EDITION OF THE CITY'S IMPROVEMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS FOR PUBLIC a.MAXIMUM CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED a.AC MATERIALS, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (NATURAL WATERCOURSES, STREETS, GUTTERS, ON THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF THESE NOTES AND WORKS CONSTRUCTION (AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS), THE CITY'S BY THE CITY ENGINEER; AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF PER PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. CONCRETE-LINED V-DITCHES, STORM DRAINS, FLOW-UNES, INLETS, OUTLETS, ETC.). ALL NON-PERMITTED THE CITY WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT. _ ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, CITY CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. THE SOILS REPORT. FILL SLOPES SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 95% RELATIVE 10. THE MINIMUM AC THICKNESS IS 0.33 FOOT (4 INCHES). DISCHARGES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM YEAR-ROUND. COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISH SURFACE. 11. THE MAXIMUM AC LIFT IS 0.33 FOOT (4 INCHES). 1. LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MET (OR AVOIDED) 2. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS. (ANSWERING MACHINE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE): b.FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON EXISTING GROUND UNTIL THE GROUND NOTE: "SHOVING" IS A TYPE OF AC PAVEMENT FAILURE THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY BY WORK TO BE DONE SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY FIELD MEASUREMENTS - HAS BEEN CLEARED OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND OTHER ASPHALT MIXES THAT ARE TOO RICH IN ASPHALT, THAT HAVE COURSE/FINE 2.BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S). YEAR-ROUND, POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES, ALSO KNOWN AS COSTCO WHOLESALE (425)313 8100 DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IF THE SLOPE RATIO EXCEEDS 5:1 AND IS GREATER - PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT TO - AGGREGATE THAT IS T00 ROUNDED, ETC. TYPICALLY, SHOVING RESULTS AT HILLS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S), MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY FIELD ACTIVITIES. BMP HANDBOOKS THE ENGINEER OR CITY INSPECTOR ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN FIELD (RESPONSIBLE PERSON/DEVELOPER) (COMPANY) (24-HR PHONE NUMBER) THAN FIVE FEET, THE TERRAIN MUST BE KEYED AND BENCHED INTO EITHER CURVES OR INTERSECTIONS, CAUSED BY BRAKING OR ACCELERATING VEHICULAR CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT WWW.CABMPHANDBOOKS.COM. ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS AND THE PLANS. _ BEDROCK OR NATIVE SOIL, AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FORCES. TO PREVENT OR MINIMIZE SHOVING, THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO -- (XXX)XXX-XXXX c.STABIUTY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTOR-OF-SAFETY OF AT LEAST ONE AND FIVE CONTROL (ESC) MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED PRIOR TO AND THROUGHOUT EACH RAINY REQUIRE A MODIFIED AC MIX DESIGN WITH PROPERTIES THAT PROVIDE HIGH 2. BEFORE EXCAVATING FOR THIS CONTRACT, VERIFY LOCATION OF (RESPONSIBLE PERSON/CONTRACTOR) (COMPANY) (24-HR PHONE NUMBER) TENTHS (1.5) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS BY A REGISTERED CIVIL STABILITY (I.E. ABILITY TO RESIST SHOVING AND RUTTING, ANGULAR AGGREGATE SEASON. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESC MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES OVER 30 THE PROJECT FOR ALL CLEARING, DISKING, GRADING, EXCAVATING AND STOCKPILING ACTIVITIES, AND ON ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS 3. UCENSE,/PERMIT REQUIREMENT. FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT. PARTICLES WITH A ROUGH SURFACE TEXTURE, ETC.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. TO THE BEST a.PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK, A BUSINESS LICENSE SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM d.ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED CIVIL GREENBOOK AND/OR CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS. EXPOSED SLOPES AND INACTIVE PADS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS ALSO OF OUR KNOWLEDGE THERE ARE NO OTHER EXISTING UTILITIES EXCEPT THE CITY. ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST, WHO SHALL SUBMIT TWO SETS OF a.BASE MATERIALS. RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DISCHARGES FROM SUBCONTRACTORS. b.A GRADING PERMIT SHAD_ BE OBTAINED, PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON PRIVATE 1. BASE MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO PROVISIONS OF THE GREENBOOK AND AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. - WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FOOT IN DEPTH- HAVE BEEN a.STOCKPILING OF BMPS. ADDITIONAL ESC MATERIALS SHALL BE STOCKPILED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT. THE PERMIT AND AN APPROVED SET OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS PROPERLY PLACED. CURRENT CITY STANDARDS. THROUGHOUT THE SITE FOR IMMEDIATE USE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN. ON 3. NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE ENGINEER OF WORK WILL ENFORCE MUST BE PRESENT AT THE JOBSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. FOR STREET SECTIONS, BASE COURSE MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED AGGREGATE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, THE DEVELOPER CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY MAKE EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS SAFETY MEASURES OR REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, 5. DRAINAGE. BASE (CAB) OR CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE (CMB) PER SECTIONS 200-2.2 / CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLUDING SHORING AND 4. ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT a.AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR AND 202-2.4 OF THE GREENBOOK. PRINCIPAL AND URBAN ARTERIAL ROADS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THE SITE. SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE RELIEVE THE APPLICANT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY STORM FLOWS OR PROVIDE GRADED BERMS ALONG THE TOP OF ALL GRADED REQUIRE CAB. AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS AND REGULATIONS. FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DURING SLOPES OVER THREE FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO b.PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT. ALL PCC USED SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE TO 3.EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS. ALL ESC MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED, RESTORED, REPAIRED OR CONSTRUCTION. GRADED AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE TOP OF SLOPES. THE GREENBOOK. MODIFIED YEAR-ROUND THROUGHOUT THE SITE TO PROTECT PERIMETERS, ADJACENT PROPERTIES, 4. CONTRACTOR WILL MAKE EXPLORATION EXCAVATIONS AND LOCATE EXISTING ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLANS. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND ALL PRIVATE PUBUC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. IF ANY UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SUFFICIENTLY AHEAD OF CONSTRUCTION TO 5. WORKING HOURS. CITY ORDINANCE NO. 94-25 STATES THAT NO PERSON SHALL b.EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO 10. MIX DESIGNS. TEN WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO PAVING, THE PROPOSED MIX / PERMIT REVISIONS TO PLANS IF REVISION IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION SITE OBSTRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE DESIGN(S) FROM THE SUPPLYING ASPHALT OR CONCRETE PLANT SHALL BE EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROLS FAIL DURING ANY RAIN EVENT, MORE EFFECTIVE ONES WILL BE REQUIRED IN LOCATION OF NEW WORK. IS WITHIN ONE-QUARTER OF A MILE OF AN OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, BETWEEN THE PERMITTED. SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THE MIX DESIGN(S) SHALL THEIR PLACE. HOURS OF 6:30 PM AND 6:30 AM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND SHALL ONLY c.TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE DESIGN MEETS ALL CITY AND GREENBOOK a.EROSION CONTROLS. EROSION CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO APPLYING AND 5. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO REQUIREMENTS. ESTABLISHING: VEGETATIVE COVER, WOOD MULCH, STAPLED OR PINNED BLANKETS STRAW, COCONUT OR PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN HEREON AND ANY OTHER EXISTING AM AND 6:30 PM ON SATURDAY. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE PROTECT ADJOINING AND DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND LINES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. UNDERTAKEN ON SUNDAY AND NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HOUDAYS. PONDING WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS. 11. STREET SECTIONS. STREET STRUCTURAL SECTIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE OTHER), PLASTIC SHEETING (MINIMUM 10-MIL), POLYPROPYLENE MATS, SPRAY-ON CONTROLS TO ALL d.APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST TENTATIVE (I.E., THEY'RE USED FOR BONDING PURPOSES). THE FINAL DISTURBED AREAS OR OTHER MEASURES APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. JUTE NETTING SHALL NOT BE 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 6. REGULATORY AGENCY CLEARANCES. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE CITY BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT. STRUCTURAL SECTION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY ADDITIONAL SOIL USED AS A STAND-ALONE EROSION CONTROL FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 4:1, PROVIDE FIBER ROLLS AND PRIOR TO STARTING WORK NEAR COMPANY FACILITIES AND SHALL DOES NOT IMPLY PROVIDE ANY CLEARANCES FROM STATE OR FEDERAL e.DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHAD- BE KEPT CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS; NO - TESTS, AFTER ROUGH GRADING. THE STRUCTURAL SECTION DESIGN SHALL BE EITHER A BONDED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF 3500 LB/ACRE OR A STABILIZED FIBER COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH CHILLED WATER PIPING AND AGENCIES REGULATING THE PROVISIONS OF STATE OR FEDERAL ENDANGERED BUILDING OR WALLS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EASEMENTS. REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SAID DESIGN SHALL ADHERE MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF 10 GAL ACRE. THE CITY ENGINEER MAY APPROVE DIFFERENT APPURTENANCES. CONTACT THE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, SPECIES ACTS WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. THE APPROPRIATE CLEARANCES f. THE MINIMUM GRADE FOR CONCRETE SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE A TO THE METHODOLOGY SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 600 OF CALTRANS HIGHWAY / FROM THESE AGENCIES SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBANCE APPLICATION RATES FOR SLOPES LESS THAN 4:1. TELEPHONE 232-4252, EXT. 1658. ONE-HALF PERCENT (0.5%). DESIGN MANUAL AND SHALL UTILIZE THE "R" VALUE METHOD (I.E., "R" VALUE OR GRADING. TESTS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 301 b.SEDIMENT CONTROLS. SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: DESILTING BASINS, 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT ALL SLOPES, 7. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ANY CONSTRUCTION CHANGE MUST BE FIRST SUBMITTED 6. PROPERTY CORNERS. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED IN AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER). THE NUMBER AND GRADED BERMS, FIBER ROLLS, SILT FENCES, GRAVEL BAG CHEVRONS (FILLED WITH MINIMUM Y,' GRAVEL), STREETS, UTILITIES AND STORM DRAINS ARE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH . THE FIELD PRIOR TO OF ANY CONSTRUCTION C GRADING ACTIVITY, TO THE CITY AS A REDLINE REVISION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO / LOCATIONS OF THESE TESTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY CHECK DAMS, DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION,- ETC. FIBER ROLLS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 15-FOOT THESE PLANS. IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION REGARDING THESE PLANS OR FIELD STAKES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST AN INTERPRETATION IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN THE FIELD. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ENGINEER. INCREMENTS MEASURED ALONG THE FACE OF THE SLOPE. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG INTERIOR BEFORE DOING ANY WORK BY CALLING THE ENGINEER OF WORK AT 858 AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL STREETS AND COMBINED WITH GRAVEL-BAG OR SILT FENCE CHEVRONS INSIDE THE SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY ( ) 7. ROUGH GRADING INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. INSPECTIONS SHALL 12. COMPACTION. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BASE MATERIAL AND AC, COMPACTION OR BACK OF CURBS. 554-1500. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS 8. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL. BE BE REQUESTED VIA THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION LINE AT (951) 308-6395. REPORTS BY A SOILS ENGINEER, CERTIFYING 95% COMPACTION OF SUB-GRADE TO PROTECT THE PROJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM ANY EROSION SCHEDULED TWO WORK DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: AND BASE MATERIAL, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. COMPACTION AND SILTATION THAT RESULTS FROM HIS OPERATIONS BY APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION A DEPENDABLE AND RESPONSIVE CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE a.TWO SETS OF PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION (I.E., ROUGH GRADE) TO INCLUDE A TEST OBSERVATION OF SUB-GRADE AND BASE GRADE MATERIALS SHALL BE 4.STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. IF THE PROJECT DISTURBS, EXPOSES OR STOCKPILES ONE ACRE OR MEANS (GRAVEL BAGS, HAY BALES, TEMPORARY DESILTING BASIN, DIKES, SHALL BE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. STATEMENT THAT THE PAD ELEVATION COMPLIES WITH THE APPROVED GRADING COORDINATED TO INCLUDE THE SOILS ENGINEER AND THE PUBLIC WORKS MORE OF SOIL, THE SITE MUST BE COVERED UNDER THE STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. A WASTE SHORING, ETC., UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND PLAN. CERTIFICATION SHALL L BE TO LINE, GRADE, ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF INSPECTOR. DISCHARGE IDENTIFICATION (WDID) NUMBER, A RISK LEVEL DETERMINATION NUMBER AND THE QUALIFIED `STORM ACCEPTED FOR MAINTENANCE BY WHATEVER OWNER, AGENCY OR 9. UTILITIES APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CUT/FILL-SLOPES. WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN" (SWPPP) DEVELOPER (QSD) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO ASSOCIATION IS TO BE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE. REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE LOCATION, b.TWO SETS OF PAD COMPACTION CERTIFICATION I.E., FINAL GEOTECHNICAL SOILS 13. PAVING INSPECTIONS. NOR THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ( ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT. A SWPPP SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE 8. ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES REPORTED BY THE OWNER REPORT) TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE GRADING COMPLIES WITH .WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. ANY UTILITY DAMAGED DURING THE PERFORMANCE a.BASE GRADE INSPECTION. ONE INSPECTION AT SUB-GRADE COMPLETION (PRIOR PROJECT AND SHALL BE READILY AVAILABLE TO CITY AND STATE INSPECTORS AND UPDATED TO REFLECT OR OTHERS AND THOSE SHOWN ON THE RECORD EXAMINED ARE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT. INDICATED WITH THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND EXTENT. THE OWNER, OF THE .WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TO PLACEMENT OF BASE) IS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. . CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS. DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CAN BE_ DOWNLOADED AT: GOVERNING AGENCY BY THE CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE. WWW.WATERBOARDS.CA.GOV/WATER_ISSUES/PROGRAMS/STORMWATERZCONSTRUCTION. BY ACCEPTING THESE PLANS OR PROCEEDING WITH IMPROVEMENTS 8. FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING b.PAVING INSPECTIONS. TWO PAVING INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED BY THE 10. SURVEY IT SHALL BE- THE RESPONSIBILITY PURSUANT THERETO, AGREES TO ASSUME LIABILITY AND TO HOLD OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: (1) PRIOR TO PAVING, AT BASE GRADE - UNDER-SIGNED HARMLESS FOR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND TO INSTALL STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTS, AS 5.PERIMETER PROTECTION. PERIMETER PROTECTION MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING ACTIVITIES. EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES, REPORTED TO 9. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT COMPLETION; AND (2) DURING PLACEMENT OF AC. CLEARING SHALL BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT WILL BE IMMEDIATELY GRADED OR DISTURBED. A COMBINATION OF REQUIRED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE N0. 491. CENTERLINE TIES SHALL THE UNDERSIGNED, THAT ARE NOT INDICATED ON THE PUBLIC RECORDS BE LIMITED TO, INSTALLING WHERE APPLICABLE: GROUNDCOVER, TREES, SHRUBS BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER, UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND ESC MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF AN EXAMINED. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY OR A COMBINATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL c.D E AY . ALL ONSITE PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS SHALL COMPLY WITH INACTIVE SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED. BEFORE ACCEPTANCE IS GRANTED. ALL EXISTING MONUMENTATION (DISTURBED OR MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN AND ANY CODE PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. SLOPES OVER FOUR FEET IN VERTICAL THE APPROVED PLANS AND CITY STANDARDS, AND SHALL BE INSPECTED AND OTHER UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES FOUND AT THE SITE. IT SHALL BE THE DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION) SHALL CT REPLACED TO CITY STANDARDS IN HEIGHT SHALL HAVE PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WITH BACKFLOW CLEARED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PAVING. CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE OWNERS OF THE UTILITIES ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT AND THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY PREVENTION DEVICES PER THE U.P.C. 6.CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A COMBINATION OF CODE, AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. UPON REQUEST, SURVEY 14. UTILITIES. ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND LATERALS SHALL BE IN PLACE OR STRUCTURES CONCERNED BEFORE STARTING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR CUTS SHEETS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. ROCK AND SHAKER PLATES YEAR-ROUND TO PREVENT TRACK-OUT. INTERIOR ACCESS POINTS (ALL PROPOSED FURTHER ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UTILITY OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "PAVING," "GENERAL" PRIOR TO PAVING. PIPES, CONDUITS OR STRUCTURES SHOWN OR NOT: SHOWN ON THESE 11. DUST CONTROL DUST SHAM BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING OR OTHER METHODS, AND "EROSION AND SEDIMENT- CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS. DRIVEWAYS, MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREA ENTRANCES/EXITS, ETC.) -SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED WITH AND SHALL- COMPLY WITH SOUTH COAST 15. TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES. ALL STREET TRENCHES SHALL CONFORM TO .CITY AND ROCK TO PREVENT TRACK-OUT ONTO INTERIOR STREETS. ROUTINE STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE PERFORMED AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER SOILS REPORT NOTES AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S (AND SHALL RULE 403. PAVING NOTES ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO CITY STANDARD NO. 407 'TRENCH/POTHOLE ON ALL PAVED STREETS WHERE TRACKING IS OBSERVED. VACUUM SWEEPERS SHALL BE USED WHEN STREET 1.STANDARDS. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS LE., ASPHALT CONCRETE AC PAVEMENT, REPAIR FOR TRENCH MAINTENANCE AND/OR REPAIRS. IF TRENCHES IN CLOSE SWEEPING BECOMES INEFFECTIVE. CONTROLLED STREET WASHING SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED PRIOR TO THE 1. THE FOLLOWING SOILS REPORT FOR THE SITE SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART ( ( ) PROXIMITY AND PARALLEL TO GUTTER LINES RESULT IN LEAVING PAVEMENT APPLICATION OF ASPHALT SEAL COATS, AND ONLY WHEN ALL PERTINENT DRAINAGE INLETS ARE PROTECTED. 12. CONSTRUCTION FENCING. I SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS REQUIRED ON ALL STRIPS IN DISTRESS OR LESS THAN TWO FEET IN WIDTH (BETWEEN THE TRENCH OF THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS: N0: PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT (PCC), BASE. COURSE, ETC.) SHALL.CONFORM TO . INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS UNTIL. ROOF SYSTEMS-ARE. COMPLETED. THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (LE., TRIPS SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPAVED SOIL INVESTIGATION UPDATED REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE AND GUTTER LINE), SAID PAVEMENTS 7.DESILTING BASINS. DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN CASQA S MAINTENANCE OF THE FENCE IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. GREENBOOK) LATEST EDITION, THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, CITY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. A TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 2014 AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. JOIN EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE AND VERTICAL SURFACES IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION BMP HANDBOOK. IMPOUNDED WATER SHALL BE SECURED FROM THE PUBLIC. SIGNAGE AS PERFORMED BY: KLEINFELDER 13. INSPECTIONS. ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT PROPER INSPECTION FROM THE THE GREENBOOK. INDICATING 'PONDED WATER - DO NOT ENTER, OR AN EQUIVALENT WARNING NOTICE, SHALL BE POSTED. 2 ADA, SUITE 250 CITY MAY BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION. 2.PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING OR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT(S) SHALL BE IRVINE CA 92618 OBTAINED PRIOR TO PAVING. BEFORE OBTAINING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, A 16. PARKING LOT GRADE. THE MINIMUM AC OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT GRADE SHALL 8.MATERIAL STORAGE. MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREAS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED. FUEL TANKS, PORTABLE 14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GRADING," CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE AND THE REQUIRED BONDING (FOR PUBLIC BE ONE PERCENT (1%). TOILETS, LIQUIDS, GELS, POWDERS, LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE STORED AWAY 2. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL," "PAVING" AND "TRAFFIC" REQUIREMENTS, IF IMPROVEMENTS) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. A CALTRANS FROM ALL PRIVATE/PUBUC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, SIDEWALKS, RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT FOR THE SITE OBSERVED AND APPLICABLE. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED. 17. GUTTER LIP. A 3 8 INCH UP SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT TO CONCRETE FLOW-UNES AND SHALL HAVE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. INACTIVE STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE COVERED - - - GUTTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO COMPLIED WITH DURING THE ALL PHASES OF THE SITE PREPARATION, AT ALL TIMES. ACTIVE STOCKPILES SHALL BE COVERED PRIOR TO A FORECAST RAIN. GRADING OPERATIONS, FOUNDATION SLAB, AND PAVING CONSTRUCTION. GRADING NOTES 3.SOIL STERILIZER. AN APPROVED SOIL STERILIZER SHALL BE USED ON All BASE STANDARD NO. 200. STANDARDS, ALL CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING RELATED ACTIVITIES LE., STOCKPILING, GRADE SURFACES PRIOR TO PAVING. 3. ANY PROVISIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT WHICH CONFLICT WITH ( 18. PAVING DETAIL AROUND MANHOLES VALVE COVERS, ETC. ALL PAVING AROUND 9.CONSTRUCTION WASTE. CONSTRUCTION WASTE AND MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED IN WATER-TIGHT LAND CLEARING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL, ETC.) SHALL BE PERFORMED IN 4.PRIME COAT. PRIME COAT IS REQUIRED ON SUBGRADE OR BASE WHEN THE BASE MANHOLES, UTILITY VALVE COVERS, ETC. SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INFORMATION SHOWN ELSEWHERE ON THESE DRAWINGS, OR WHICH REQUIRE ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, .THE BINS. WIRE MESH RECEPTACLES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. -WASH-OUT STATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION, SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF IS SUBJECTED TO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (OR WHEN LONG TIME GREENBOOK REQUIREMENTS, UTILITY AGENCY REQUIREMENTS, CITY AND FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE LATEST PERIODS ELAPSE BEFORE AC IS PLACED), AS DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO CITY STANDARD NO. 503 "PAVING DETAIL CONCRETE, PAINTS, STUCCO AND OTHER LIQUID WASTE, AND SHALL BE LINED WITH PLASTIC AND LOCATED EDITION OF THE CAUFORNIA BUILDING CODE (APPENDIX J) AND, IF APPLICABLE, THE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. AROUND MANHOLE." AWAY FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS, FLOW LINES, ETC. PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN, BINS AND 4. A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE WASH-OUTS SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIDS OR PLASTIC TARPS. OBSERVE AND APPROVE THE EARTHWORK OPERATIONS AND TO VERIFY FIELD ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 5.TYPE I SLURRY. PRIOR TO PROJECT FINAL COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF 19. AC PLACEMENT. THE METHOD OF DEPOSITING, DISTRIBUTING (I.E., USING A 10.STORM PROTECTION, STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT BE DIRECTED OVER SLOPES WITHOUT PERMANENT CONDITIONS AS WORK PROCEEDS. THE SOIL ENGINEER SHALL SUBMIT FIELD STREETS INTO THE CITY'S MAINTAINED SYSTEM, TYPE I SLURRY SHALL BE PLACED SELF-PROPELLED SPREADING/FINISHING MACHINE) AND ROLLING AC SHALL BE IN DOWN DRAINS INSTALLED. ESC MEASURES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES UNTIL REPORTS CERTIFYING THAT THE METHODS AND MATERIALS OF THE 1. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO OVER THE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVED PROJECT STREET(S), AS DIRECTED BY THE ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK. SUFFICIENT/PERMANENT LANDSCAPE IS ESTABLISHED. THERE SHALL BE 100% SLOPE PROTECTION IN PLACE EARTHWORK OPERATIONS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK ON THE SITE. CITY ENGINEER. THE ENTIRE ROADWAY WIDTH SHALL BE SWEPT AT LEAST 3 TIMES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. E OF THE SOILS INVESTIGATION AND THAT THE WORK WAS PERFORMED TO OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 20. ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DEFECTIVE THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER. 2. NOTIFICATIONS. PUBLIC WORKS SHALL BE NOTIFIED VIA THE PUBLIC WORKS SURFACING. DUE TO GRADE SETTLEMENT OF FILLS, TRENCH FILLS OR BASE INSPECTION LINE AT (951) 308-6395 AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF 6.FOG SEAL. FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, ASPHALTIC EMULSION (FOG SEAL) SHALL MATERIAL, AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. NO PAVEMENT `BIRDBATHS" OR 11.PORTABLE MIXERS. ALL PORTABLE MIXERS SHALL HAVE PLASTIC LINERS UNDERNEATH THEM WITH THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL PROVISIONS FOR SOILS INSPECTIONS AS BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION GRADING OPERATIONS. GRAVEL-BAGS PLACED ON THE DOWN-HILL SIDE OF THE LINERS TO CONTAIN DISCHARGES. / BE APPLIED NOT LESS THAN 14 DAYS FOLLOWING PLACEMENT OF THE ASPHALT. . DEVIATIONS GREATER THAN 1/8 INCH IN SIX FEET SHALL BE ACCEPTED. RECOMMENDED WITHIN THE SOILS REPORT. AS A MINIMUM, THIS INCLUDES SURFACING AND SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 0.05 GALLONS PER SQ. YD. THE OBSERVATION OF THE FOLLOWING BY A SOILS ENGINEER. 3. S IL . ALL CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE THE ASPHALT EMULSION SHALL CONFORM TO SECTIONS 37, 39 AND 94 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS F TH PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION BY STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 21. PROTECTION OF WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL: (A) PROTECT EXISTING 12.MAINTENANCE. ALL ONSITE AND OFFSITE FLOW LINES (I.E., V- AND BROW-DITCHES, TERRACE DRAINS, A. PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL BENEATH NEW PAVEMENT WITH 0 E STRUCTURES, CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPING, CATCH BASIN KLEINFELDER. DATED NOVEMBER 25, 2014. SAID REPORT SHALL BE CONSIDERED DEPRESSIONS AND OTHER SURFACE FEATURES AGAINST DAMAGE CAUSED BY RIBBON GUTTERS, CURB GUTTERS, ETC.), STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, CHECK DAMS, CHEVRONS, SILT A PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN. 7.TACK COAT. A TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO EXISTING PAVEMENT AND PAVING OPERATIONS AND ASPHALT SPRAY, (B) PROTECT COMPLETED WORK; ALL FENCES AND DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE FREE OF SEDIMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, WASTE, o 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL QUALIFY ANY LIMITATIONS TO SOILS INSPECTIONS VERTICAL JOINTS, CONCRETE SURFACES AND ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, IF MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS A DETERIORATED ESC MEASURES YEAR-ROUND. WITHIN BID PROPOSAL IT HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO VEHICULAR LOADS. THE TACK COAT SHALL BE SLOW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC (I.E., MOVING OR STATIONARY LOADS) SHALL BE KEPT OFF AND o NEWLY PAVED AREAS UNTIL PAVEMENT SURFACES HAVE COOLED DOWN SETTING ANIONIC EMULSIFIED ASPHALT TYPE "SS-1 H" CONFORMING TO THE 3 GREENBOOK. ADEQUATELY; (C) CLEAN THE SITE (I.E., REMOVE LOOSE PAVEMENT AND 13.OBSTRUCTIONS. NO OBSTRUCTIONS, OTHER THAN BMP'S, SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN ANY STORM WATER AGGREGATE, CLEAN OUT ALL MANHOLE PITS, ENSURE FREE OPERATION OF CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, UNLESS ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITYCN VALVES AFTER PAVING, REMOVE ALL DEBRIS, RUBBISH AND EXCESS MATERIAL 00 8.CERTIFICATION/TESTING. ALL SUBGRADE AND BASE GRADE SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY ENGINEER. A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. BASE AND AC MATERIALS SHALL BE TESTED IN FROM WORK AREA, ETC.). ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP) AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 22. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GENERAL," OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GENERAL," GRADING N "GRADING," AND "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS. ui LD18-0726 a Z BUILDING AND SAFETY REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE Wl TH 7I7LE 24 DISABLED ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY ONLY , 0 APPROVED BY NAME d CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS ACC'D DATE BENCH DARK DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CFECKED BY Z QROFEssioN� CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS T-30-81 EL= 1083.725 t0 p l Recommended By. Date: Contractor 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE Horizontal �<v��Q� S��FZ�, 5 These Plans Were Prepared Under the Supervision of: of TEAM, FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND Z G`t+ � 2 COW(= RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST w °� = m Accepted By. Date: �� Inspector ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTER- C 75822 X Date: PATRICK THOMAS. P.E. SECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND M�tAGA Vertical * * PA17-0626-COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION OF 7 SHEETS W EXP. 06-30-18 BRYAN D. SMITH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER a ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO rx CIVIL I��� TM 3334-PARCELS A&D-L.L.A. NO. PA 99-0424 Date Completed THE TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL; 1 FOOT EAST OF 9T pF - C THE FLAGPOLE F OF R.C.E. No. Expires:75822 CAvF06-30-2018 R.C.E. No. 44223 �'"` NOTES - 2 8 / i / \ \ �`� R % REMOVAL NOTES ❑1 REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT AND BASE / /��' \ \ \ ❑2 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING BY SANDBLASTING OR GRINDING J� / ,� `� �` \ ate, ❑3 REMOVE EXISTING CURB REMOVE EXISTING CONTROLLER ENCLOSURE 7 / / ' ' / / \ � '�' � /� ❑5 REMOVE/RELOCATE EXISTING LIGHT POLE 2 CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION Cj 1 O /0 ` �\ ` \ V 7 PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 66v % 8 REMOVE EXISTING GUTTER ! _ q4) ❑ �' 3 ! Q ��� \ � J EXISTING FUEL ISLAND TO REMAIN. PROTECT IN PLACE / ' 10 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE � _ REMOVE EXISTING FUEL SLAB SECTIONS AROUND FUEL Of / �/ / / / s` / ! ! / -` • \�, ; = ISLANDS 400 12 EXISTING CURB TO REMAIN / r l i \ ? / : ;: �� _ x 13 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE GUTTER LIMIT OF WORK ��� z, \ \ � _ ❑ / — 14 REMOVE EXISTING MOW CURB j / / / // o /� � t / I g`- LALA 15 PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY IN PLACE / 16 REMOVE EXISTING SIGN ,� 2 EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN y 18 EXISTING STORM DRAIN To BE REMOVED t a ! EX GAS STATION / W / , D-0-0 19 ELECTRICAL FEED TO BE RELOCATED PER ELECTRICAL PLANS / t fir 000001* REMOVE EXISTING OIL WATER SEPARATOR y �/ g ! ! ` I/ < / / REMOVE EXISTING TRENCH DRAIN 00000, �, ! ! ,` EX. EMERGENCY SHUT-OFF SWITCH AND BOLLARDS TO © REMAIN. PROTECT IN PLACE. 6 ! i �'/ ! = / J w EXISTING TREES To BE REMOVED RELOCATED PER LANDSCAPE /, / /� % "ram ; t / ! 11 4�i f ! '� • ® PLANS.00001, / ® EXISTING STRIPING TO BE REMOVED PER ARCHITECT PLANS / o� / i / /' LIMIT�F — r r' a! / 11 > 'Y/ 9 ! �� l / \ I ! % EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES El t,011 21 1 /F 2 PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER V, _ \ _� - �/ 1 fir/ _ 3 o 5 '� �'_- , ! /� / DISTRICT i f / ., / ! O3 GTE TELEPHONE EASEMENT z t / TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA / — /� ! / _ / LOT LINE- — 8 STORM DRAIN' EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA 1 I ! _ � i g +sew SIDEWALK & LANDSCAPE EASEMENT TO CITY OF � % \., 1' i ! l -�®� ' � _ / ! '_� '� s - 3 0 TEMECULA 1 / / �' r \a - 1615 LIMIT OF WORK _ ` 5 1 ' 1<{ /�jl / / F Wit- f-;r� -�' ! ( I I ! '�� 18 6 / / !;I W JAI 0 \/\ / 16 o / _ - - - _— I - - Lj _ / /! Ili 1 I ! / 100, / �` \ / PARCEL A j !; w \\\ \/ / \ _ —"'i J III / LLA NO. 99 0424 0 LIMIT OF WORK PARCEL D / LLA NO.99-0424000, III / / \ �� , ! � i / /. r I \ \� _ \ \ LLJ L4� I s \, / 1 a 0 Nil co o ' o �� o \ �• \ `\ \ `o \\ a\\ I �-- J i u'�u � ! ' � i i i ! � '� - �- 20 0 10 20 0 Go 00 SCALE: 1" = 20' jI I N ! LD18-0726 z BUILDING AND SAFETY II REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE KITH 717LE 24 is — — DISABLED ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY ONLY , \\ ��\ \\� \ \. I ✓ ,�1; t n \ I'� o o APPROVED BY- NAME Z. o CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS ACC'D DATE BENCH MARK DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CFE{� BY pFESS/ T-30-81 EL= 1083.72s �oQR p °N� Recommended By. Date: CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS a Contractor 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE. Horizontal ��,��P� S���2� - 051I - oo �, These Plans Were Prepared Under the Supervision of: CD FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND m = m `�+of Tey�G 1 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST 3 . InspectorAccepted By. Date. ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTER- C 75822 o C i SECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND MORAGA Vertical * IXP. 06-30-18 * BRYAN D. SMITH Date: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. �wf N ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO s �Q DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PA17-0626-COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION OF 7 SHEETS W Date Completed THE TEMECULA CIVIL TM 3334-PARCELS A&D-L.L.A. NO. PA 99-0424 THE FLAGPOLE UNION SCHOOL; 1 FOOT EAST OF qTF OF CAvFp� 44223 a_ R.C.E. No. 75822 Expires: 06-30-2018 R.C.E. No. REMOVAL PLAN C_ 3 i I / Z'6 8 \ 1059.70TC \ 1059.22FS \ 1059.21 FG \ / / 1059.0(I 059.36FG FL MATCH EX. 1059.75FG / ' �i /✓ 1058.70TG °�----ems--a p w r MATCH EX. ®1056.701E 1 0% 23 1059 50FG ` :15FS / / ' <; 3 ♦ �,_ + o ♦• 0. FS MATCH EX. I 1 59.15FS \ 1059 / / / / t tMiAT` (1 059.78EG) MATC EX. 1059.44FG % ! 1060.675 ♦♦ i` , \ �` �� - MATCH 'EX. ♦♦♦ O �� _j �s� ` 1fl59. 9FS - / / ! ! / 05925fS ! '. : : ;" t �.�?: 3`.:, r_� ♦♦ 1� � \ \�� _ _ 1059.1 FL 1 23 �! x / //: ,:,: 4z:�:: 3-� y. ✓ 6 - ! MATCH X� �� / ! ! �.s � / 1.�59.b`5FS :tr,._.:'•`� :.1: gg: ` F.-:,. >�•' .:.... I ! � - 059.38FF 1059.38FF ! �/ ! ! 3 ::_::�AA�'C / : MATC :EX: .`.'=`' 060.53FS / _ 105 MATCH EX. 7 OIE �r .. . / ! \ ! 1059.1 F �f ! 8F ^o `. / / ! / 6 / 1059.19 S ! J ! S 1059.68FG ! ! :; MATCH EX. ! ! MATCH EX.3 ° r / 1 I ! '- MATCH EX. ° �� ':. ? `: ! i� ! ! ! t 106fi.91TC- / 1059.63FG 1059. 2FS T \ / / g N 4:3% % ! o ::.; / ! ! I r 1061.41 FS l / r T-- / / MATCH EX. /j 2 4 :: ::>:-r. MATCH EX. / ! w w / • _ i' � ���•."• 41. � •� �•.'� � 1, / / ! s 3•. - 059.15TC / / • :'.,• ::. .,. ,.\ �• Ogg 15 :10 8 �f :., ,z.: :. -: : :-. : 106086FS t059. 6TC 1058.79TC 1059.31 C 1059.35TC '1058.65FS ::' 4 .• .:.: .: \� �._ 059.23T O•.6% / :.• _ • : :�,:; .: MATCH EX. / _ -�- .:. / MATCH EX. '� 2 1058.76FS 1058.79FS 1058.86FS . 1.058.89FS: / I�. .;: ::..' : , . :' "= :.F : " ! ! 1058.73E EX: TRANSFORMER / / w " 0" CURB 5:5" CURB Ll 5.5"- CURB -'I:L::. 1059.15TC 6 CURB ,2 CONCRETE SLAB i ? 1058:65fS . \ 1 59. 8PAD. 5 4 •s MA TCH ATC X. ( ) H E i : w 058.92FG 1061.62TC MATCH EX. 1060.54 1061.12FS ! MATCH E DETAIL CONTROLLERENCL RE ROOM .. . . . . :•- ,. . -.--.. _.. ..:. •.:.�_..:..:. �=.•.:�:-• _�.• ::��:•: �ENCLOSURE 00 y r-••-� -1 -5, 0 •�SCALE: 1 5 . �f' .4 IM 18 10 e ! a t 1 60. 5F 1 5 . 51E 0 7 S / 05 - -1 � 058.6 - i 5 0 1 5 MATCH 1059.75TC •k7 CONSTRUCTION NOTES L �� � 1 :0•-• /F`S �1. 3 3 g'< r _ -�T _ 1 _ » � J,f 1061.41 TC� / 1.05 :7 6 CURB PER .DETAIL B ON SHEET 5 � -� � _ / / i 'y_ 1 FS 1060.- - 9 - 10 0. OFL f f i.. i 4 2GUTTER 6 CURB AND PER DETAIL A N SHEET 0 EET 5 h w - Tn f f » » 0 .9 F 1 3 AC PAVING AND BASE PER DETAIL D ON SHEET 5. 4 AC OVER 6 0 ! ( ) 1 g 0 » i MATCht'EX. � :•, .... ,.;�,,.. ..� � . .�,�:.,.:.: LOT LINE CLASS II BASE FOR LIGHT-DUTY PAVEMENT AND 6.5 AC OVER 6.5 �! , 3 `:< S :. '::-:-: ,: £ •; _ E- T / / ` : 1054.501E ; .::,.:.. :.>.;:.: 11 12 .: :=- . . .,:: I � ' � - _ O » » � / � / �S 15 22 00 .. _. .. ..•-• -. .. � .. .• :. .. . ... .• ._. .. MATCfk;EX:tE.� �-..`:.:• . .: :.�• .:_ .- . CLASS II BASE OPTION 1 OR 5 AC OVER 12 CLASS II BASE6w, _ = : _ _ -;= : - - - _ • . 1 (OPTION _ =: 0 ON 2 FOR HEAVY PAVEMENT _DUTY P VEMEN O � .- . ( } - -1054.401E `1•>)56�. QI :.+,. '�. � / � / -. 1060.565 I - ✓ 1058.26FS - - = 101 60.2 I: , `. ":;::;.. .: ,t ,° ' ::. 4 CONCRETE SLAB PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS - I / - 8 TE -=1059 10LIP :..,: :-:Q ... .... - :... . :_ ;-,: ::, i / 45 WYE 1055.651E ° _ �" �� 1060.95TC I 1061.03TC , � / \ - 7 1 54.801E- .�`�,. ..,j', •$ 't.05 - 3 RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL C ON SHEET 5 I / / / / 1054.061E �° 1054.191E : :;: 1 �. 060.4 FS f - - - - - - �- / ,� \ _ 0 5 / 1060.53FS - N 1057.77FS 1 1059.45LIP _ `' . 10 O «�s TI _ - - - - ! 1055.061E 1 1058.56TC =` = - � _ EXISTING ✓ / a 6 I NG DRAIN TO REMAIN, PROTECT IN PLACE _1055.131E` � �,� I I / / MATCH EX. - - I ✓ / 1058.03TC1057.91 „ / / M FS -:- „ :�::;,°°� • . �� �� � E STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT PER RSD SC-07, RIM TO READ STORM 1 I /,/- / ✓ 1057.53FL 3 DRAIN" I /' I // `L h I ' :: ': F \ _ 1058.06T 14 �; 1 5 .78LIP \�. ::._•. . _: '=` =:: .. = E-ROUTE SD 11 12 I�I 1 1 I / 1057 07FL / - \ F - = MATCH EX IE ® 4" PVC STORM DRAIN. SLOPE AT 2.0% MIN. -� / �I �I/ - - - -- 1054.561E 10 8. 3F 1 55.451E ;,p 0 8" x 6" ECCENTRIC REDUCER ` V /✓ / Ili / \ \\ 8053.01 / r 058. 7T 5 10 8.62T 2 10 8. 6T 1 60.12 I ` 1060.16E . ( I I \ E, _ / 15 105 57FS I \/i 5 8 C o 15 FUEL DISPENSER ISLAND & APPURTENANCES PER ARCHITECTURAL \ / 13 7 i� - - 110 8.12F I j 1 13 1058.36FL 7 1060.16RIM \ �-(� 10 PLANS 1 i \ ✓ / 2 �/ - - l - I -�����- - - - _ 1055.801E 1060.24LIP 11 CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND VERIFY EXISTING UTILITY ELEVATION, ./� \\�\ I 1057.23TC ' � I I 1 ` - 19 21 I 1058.80FS ,° HP / 1060.42TC DEPTH AND LOCATION PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION \ \ \ 1 I I 1056.73FS 14 'o I - --- ` n;1 / 1059.92FS ; \� I / 1056, 4TG I I 1057.9 TC 0 110 8.34 21 10 .90TC 1 \ I I i © CONNECT TO EXISTING PRIVATE STORM DRAIN ✓ I� / i 10 7.84 105 .40E = \ i 1053.441E �II 1057.4 FS 1060.1OFS / FLOW THROUGH PLANTER PER DETAIL 'H' ON SHEET 5 ' \ s�\ 1 i i - �- - - 1J I I I I I 19 15 I ;\ i 14 PRE-CAST CATCH BASIN PER DETAIL 'F' ON SHEET 5 �\ \ / / 1 ` 4FS \�\ \ 1057.44TC� 1057.04 S 1 058.28 S 10058.73FS 19 �11059.45FS 71059.1 15 AREA LIGHT PER ELECTRICAL PLANS � \ \��\\ \\ / ,� ' 1056.94FS 21 19 \ � \ MATCH EX. MATCH EX. 16 CURB OPENING DEPRESSION PER DETAIL 'E' ON SHEET 5 / \ \ \ 17 i N PARCEL D \ PRIVATE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT DATA TABLE ©1 TRENCH RE-SURFACING PER CITY OF TEMECULA STANDARD DWG. \sa \ / / `\ LLA NO. 99-042 No. LENGTH DIRECTION/DELTA REMARKS NO. 407 101.41 N56'43'22"E 8" PVC, S = 0.50% 18 PROPOSED OIL WATER SEPARATOR PER DETAIL 'I' ON SHEET 5AV I „ » ' / / " `� I I I ! ! i I \ I ! I i I I i I I I I I I i 1 2 66.24 N56'43 22 E 8 PVC S = 1.00% 19 SAWCUT-AND REMOVE EXISTING HARDSCAPE. GRIND AND OVERLAY 3 \ � � % 1056.32TG ! I ! I\I I I I I I I I I I ► I ! \ i ! t/ PARCEL A » » AT SAWCUT LINE (TYPICAL) PER DETAIL J ON SHEET 5 1053.021E $ IN LLA NO. 99-0424 3 13.08 N56 43 22 E 8 PVC, S = 1.00% G � i ! ► I I I � IIII i 1 ► I I ► I ! / I Q ©0 CONTROLLER ENCLOSURE ROOM. SEE BLOW-UP DETAIL THIS SHEET (1053,021E1 "Oo F „ " \ 21.33 N56 43 22 E 6 PVC, S = 1.00% 21 SPILLWAY CURB & GUTTER. SLOPE GUTTER 2% MIN. TOWARD ASPHALT PAVEMENT \ \\ \ �\ I I I I I I 1 I I ! I I I I I I I I I I ! I Q 125.85' N61'4638"W 6" PVC, S = 1.00% INSTALL NEW SHUT OFF VALVE IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF \ \ 7.91' N33'16'38"W 6" PVC, S 0.50%OIL/WATER SEPARATOR. 6 INCH BALL VALVE IN C.I. VALVE BOX g w FLUSH WITH GRADE. VALVE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH WHEEL/KEY FOR \ 0 51.67f N3316f38*W 6» PVC, S = 0.72% EASY OPEN-SHUT OPERATION. VALVE BOX SHALL HAVE HINGED \ \ \ o EASY OPEN LID. BOX AND LID TO BE H-20 RATED. \\\ \\\� ,ps / o ' „ » ® GRADED SWALE SLOPED AT 1.0% MIN. ��\ ,\ \ \,\ \ 6' o 8 17.20 N11:43'22„E 6p PVC, S 2.00% o » » �� \ \\ \ \\ \ \ U' Q9 CD CD Cn 9.91 N39 34 11 E 6 PVC, S = 2.00% ® co 9 x9 ATRIUM GRATE NDS #981 0R APPROVED EQUAL \ CO / 10 30.28' N61'46'29"W 6" PVC, S = 1.00% EXISTING EASEMENT NOTES „ 25.70 N 11'43 22 E 6» PVC, S 3.10% o 2 PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER \ \ \ I DISTRICT \\ %�' �` \ ; ( I I f I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I - 12 60.19' N28'1336"E 6" PVC, S = 3.10% Q GTE TELEPHONE EASEMENT » _ Fa 2.24 N 16 46 34"W 6 PVC, S 3.10% c O7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA \ ! � � I I I ! I I I 1 8 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT TO CITY OF TEMECULA �\ \ ` _ G " o `: ' N Q \. \ 9 SIDEWALK & LANDSCAPE EASEMENT TO CITY OF LD18-0726CL TEMECULA o 20, 0 10 20, BUILDING AND SAFETYCn � REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 24 ,DISABLED ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY ONLY , SCALE: 1" = 20' in APPROVED BY NA �-M z 0 CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY FEVISIONS ACC'D DATE BENCH MAW DES GNM BY DRAWN BY CI-ECKED BY z oQROFESSio Recommended B Date: CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS T-30-81 EL= 1083.725 Contractor Horizontal � � D. S. Fti y - 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE. �P � o r/, These Plans Were Prepared Under the Supervision of: op TEy - 4• FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND cr Z �a Fc� - _ Inspector RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST w m 2 m Accepted By. Date: p ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTER- C 75822 Date: PATRICK THOMAS. P.E. SECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND MORAGA Vertical * EXP. 06-30-18 'k BRYAN D. SMITH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER t PA17-0626-COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION OF 7 SHEETS W ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO J' �Q Date Completed Clvl� �' TM 3334-PARCELS A 8�D-L.LA. NO. PA 99-0424 a p THE TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL; 1 FOOT EAST OF '9T � THE FLAGPOLE. F of CA��Fo 75822 06-30-2018 R.C.E. No. 44223 a PRECISE GRADING PLAN C- 4• R.C.E. No. Expires: CURB AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER, - C&G PER TEMECULA BEYOND DETAIL A/5 1 �/2" STANDARD DWG 200. MODIFY m MIN. 2' DROP TO CURB OPENING PER " " a. . .. COBBLE BIO-RETENTION TO BE PLANTED OVERFLOW STRUCTURE 2 DETAIL E/5 AS SHOWN AC PAVING 2 _ � 6 PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PLANS TOP OF GRATE (TG) 6" DEPTH OF 3" - 6" PER PLAN s z a 6" MIN ` • ROUNDED, WASHED =III , ,/4» 12" =III=1I - t COBBLE _ a DEPRESS TOP OF .r CURB AND FLOWUNE ` : 1=III-I I .3 6 MIN " °° -III-I ,. Q " 2 BLOW UP AT " ': ' _� _ 6 I- - I -' _ DEEPENED CURB AND GUTTER /� 4 -6 �. , 3. a 3< " I I I I I e - PER DETAIL A 5 OPENING. GUTTER I a 2 -6 A I- INLET ELEVATION (GIE) 24" THICK LAYER OF --I I i i i I -i i-I i : / ter;;i I I _--) I 11 " LOAMY SAND TYPE SOIL -) I 1=i " . . FINISHED ..GRADE ' _I I III-� I CONNECT LINER _3_ o Z I I -I -I I; 24 MI 6" MINIMUM INFILTRATION RATE = 21- 24 :' EU_I/ATION (FG).: =III=III TO CURB PER DETAIL G/5 MATCH EX (-GRIND & I_ " ;111- 5 HOUR, SEE NOTE 6 - 1 -SET-LEVEL. . I - SAWCUT LINE w CONTINUOUS SECTION A-A / -III-1I I- I " (OVERLAY w I MAINTAIN 6 BENCH NATIVE SOIL FOR N #4 REBAR 1'-6" i=) I �- -o`o-o-o o-o-o`o`o 0 0 0 0 0 0-o- I III= SUPPORT OF ADJACENT CURB PAVING - o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o_o- DEEPENED CURB AF .V4 _ MIN. 4" DEEP "BIRDSEYE" WASHED f_ r_ __ 1 _ _ -� / MINI EW A PA a R A a PEA GRAVEL CHOKER STONE LAYER I-� � -I I - I I C VING NOTES: 7• GqN - 111= �¢ 8 MIN' , !� I I-_ I DOUBLE LINED IMPERMEABLE LINER ON M� NOSE DOWN CUR DEPRESS GUTTER ALL SIDES OF PLANTER. MIRAFI NT100 1. CURB AND GUTTER PER PER TEMECULA STANDARD DWG 200. MODIFY AS SHOWN = ti CALTRANS CLASS 2 OR EQUAL I T 2. FOR CURB AND GUTTER ADJACENT TO FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER, DEEPEN BOTTOM OF BEND DOWN " 2 AT OPENING, Q AL MIN 18 OVERLAP A � ` " '. ���-..�'�: OVER. 6 (TYP.) PERMEABLE: I (-�I� I; ; I I--f I I-III-)�I-III- JOINTS. CURB 10 AS SHOWN. AND CONTINUE GUTTER INLET -i IiI=III,;;III,;,III„,III= � • I 3. ALL CURB AND GUTTER SHAD_ BE FOUNDED ON COMPACTED SUBGRADE TOP REBAR AT ELEVATION (GIE) " OPENING PLAN VIEW 4 DIA. PERFORATED SUBDRAIN " EXISTING PAVEMENT EXTEND LINER 6 MIN BELOW BOTTOM SLOPED 0.5% MIN TO OUTLET SECTION TO REMAIN INSTALL CUTOFF WALL AT OUTLET OF ADJACENT GRAVEL LAYER A CURB AND GUTTER - 5 NOT TO SCALE .. \. . CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. SCARIFY SUBGRADE BEFORE INSTALLING BIORETENTION AREA AGGREGATE AND BSM. NOTE: TO BE USED AT ALL AC SAWCUT / EDGE CONDITIONS 2. BSM TO BE LOAMY SAND TYPE SOIL WITH INFILTRATION RATE OF 5 INCH. PER HOUR (MIN). QQ 3. COMPACT EACH 6" LIFT OF BSM WITH LANDSCAPE ROLLER OR BY LIGHTLY WETTING. IF rj"*�GIRIIIINID & OVERLAY E CURB OPENING DEPRESSION WETTING, ALLOW TO DRY OVERNIGHT BEFORE PLANTING. CURB PER TEMECULA 4. DO NOT WORK WITHIN BIORETENTION AREA DURING RAIN OR UNDER WET CONDITIONS. 5 NOT TO SCALE 6" 5 NOT TO SCALE STANDARD DWG 204A. MODIFY 5. KEEP HEAVY MACHINERY OUTSIDE BIORETENTION AREA LIMITS. AS SHOWN 6. ENGINEERED SOIL MEDIA SHALL BE COMPRISED OF 85% MINERAL COMPONENT AND 15% ORGANIC COMPONENT, BY VOLUME, DRUM MIXED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. THE MINERAL COMPONENT SHALL BE A CLASS A SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL THAT MEETS THE RANGE SPECIFIED =� �? CAST IRON GALVANIZED GRATE IN TABLE 1. THE ORGANIC COMPONENT SHALL B3E NITROGEN STABILIZED COMPOST, SUCH -� -� H-20 RATED, ADA COMPLIANT IN THAT NITROGEN DOES NOT LEACH FROM THE MEDIA. THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE _)I I ALL PAVED AREAS. OPENINGS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE INSPECTOR TO PROVE THE ENGINEERED MIX MEETS THE - > 1/2" MAX MEASURED IN SPECIFICATIONS. OF PEDESTRIAN PARALLEL TO DOMINANT DIRECTION TABLE 1: MINERAL COMPONENT RANGE REQUIREMENTS % RANGE COMPONENT =II 3 - Q 70-80 SAND _ #4 BARS CONT. OD a + O\�J 15-20 SILT FI= TOP AND BOTTOM iw- -I I- -I I=) •rr ; . ° �'� - 5-10 CLAY :°. rH BIORETENTION PLANTER FTP 5 NOT TO SCALE ------ BROOKS BOX 0 APPROVED EQUAL NOTES: DEPTH VARIE 18" MIN. 1' WIDE CONCRETE 24" CAST IRON - 1. FOR CURB ADJACENT TO BIORETENTION PLANTER, DEEPEN BOTTOM OF CURB 10" AS ( ) APRON AROUND CATCH HERRINGBONE SHOWN. BASIN-THICKNESS AND PATTERN FRAME & COVER CONC. PER DETAILS WITH GASKET BELOW, SEE NOTE 1 AS REQUIRED rB CURB - (GASTIGHT) STANDARD RIM. ELEV PER PLAN (AT EXTRA COST) 5 NOT TO SCALE 6» THICK IN TRAFFIC AREAS 4 THICK IN NON-TRAFFIC AREAS 2432-03 RISER-3" EXPANSION JOINT (TYPICAL) 1 1/2" AS-REQ'D 2432-06 RISER-6" 6' GATE VALVE SMOOTH TROWELL FINISH AND SEALANT PER �- 24" : . 31 ARCHITECT PLANS. •7 FUEL SLAB PAVING R cai INLET INVERT OUTLET IVER 1 7 1/2" PER ARCHITECT PLANS 6" 2, ELEV PER PLAN - � " , 4" OUTLET W/ 6" PVC 6 INLET 4 x6 REDUCER - e•d .. < e .,-' „. -, - - - 6 � .'.°. •Q. .9•. .°. - - - J�VYIIARi TEE - • d - O CONCRET PIPE SIZE AND AS & APRON " = OR ELBOW PER io 6" 58-CME-4500P) 8 TYPE PER PLAN. o • LOCAL CODE (4) #4 LONGITUDINAL 08 O.C"7`�7 �TIYPICAQ. SEE #3 CROSS BARS ® 32" O.C. CONCRETE (560-C-3250) NOTE 1. d TEE/WYE (OR FLOW LINE ELEV. FL) 90, BEND AT END OF LINE) PER PLAN RIBBON GUTTER SECTION X-X: TYPE 1 OUTLET PVT) �. . . . . JENSEN PRECAST MODEL JP500EE-SO 5 NOT TO SCALE "FL MORE THAN 36 BELOW G a NOTES: NO SCALE SIDE VIEW 1. CONCRETE OF PORTLAND CEMENT DESIGN (CUT AWAY) 4" INLET TO BE POURED AND VIBRATED TO DEVELOP A AC SURFACE COURSE NOTE 7,_0„ & OUTLET PIPE MINIMUM OF 3500 PSI AT 28 DAYS AND 1. CONCRETE APRON TO BE INSTALLED FOR CATCH BASINS IN HARDSCAPE OR PAVEMENT AREAS ONLY. OMIT IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. AND FITTINGS REINFORCED WITH #3 DEFORMED BARS AS PER STANDARD STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FROM MANUFACTURER AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. F PRECAST CATCH BASIN r CLASS 2 5 NOT TO SCALE 2. EXCAVATION AT BASE MUST BE TWO FEET a AGGREGATE BASE I I LARGER THAN UNIT SIZE. EXCAVATED BASE MUST BE LEVEL AND COMPACT. SIX INCHES OF COURSE TO 95% 00 ROADBASE OR GRAVEL RECOMMENDED. d � t TRIM LINER TO TOP EDGE OF FLAT BAR. 3. A MAXIMUM OF 24" GR-22 GRADE RING =III III=I I (=III=III=III=III SILICONE SEAL TOP EDGE OF FLAT BAR. TOP OF I I RECOMMENDED. GREATER REQUIREMENTS LINER TO BE 3" BELOW SOIL LEVEL. SHOULD INVOLVE AN INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT - L _) I_ OF THE RISER SECTION TO FACILITATE SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT INSPECTION AND CLEANING. TOP VIEW M SUBGRADE PER GEOTECH a e 2" x 1/4" HIT ANCHOR (COVERS & RISERS REMOVED) 4. ALL ACCESS LIDS IN TRAFFIC ARES TO BE o REPORTCNI 12" O.C. H-20 RATED. 00 PAVEMENT TYPE AC CLASS 2 AB : .- ;- :: . o (INCHES) (INCHES) a:'. _ 1/8" MIN ALUMINUM FLAT 5. LIQUID CAPACITY: 500 GALLONS. BAR, 2" WIDTH - LIGHT-DUTY 4.0 6.0 d• .� � HEAVY DUTY OPT.2 5.0 12.0 A. ° OIL WATER SEPARATOR C 01 NOTES: a... d 's,,.�:- HDPE 5 NOT TO SCALE , 1. CONTRACTOR TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE OPTIONS FOR HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT G LINER 2. PAVEMENT TO BE INSTALLED WITH TWO (2) LIFTS OF AC W 3. SEAL COAT SHALL BE POLYMER SLURRY SEAL "SUPER DRIVE TUFF" AND SHALL BE APPLIED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. LD 1 8-0726 z 0 BUILDING AND SAFETYLn p TYPICAL AC PAVING6G� LINER CONNECTION REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 24 5 NOT TO SCALE 5 NOT TO SCALE DISABLED ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY ONLY a APPROVED BY NAME E Z 0 CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY FUSIONS ACC'D DATE BENCH MAW DESIGN® BY DRAWN BY CHEC KM BY QROFEssIoti CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS s T-30-81 EL= 1083.725 �O p �l Recommended By. Date: Contractor Horizontal c<,� S �� 00 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE ti �P '�l, o These Plans Were Prepared Under..the Supervision of: of rEy � FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND Z c+ Fc� RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST Can= w = rrn'i Accepted By. Date: °� N Inspector ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTER- C 75822 Date: PATRICK THOMAS P.E. SECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND MORAGA Vertical * EXP. 06-30-18 * BRYAN D. SMITH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER + PA17-0626-COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION OF 7 SHEETS W ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO J` �Q Date Completed THE TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL; 1 FOOT EAST OF �qT CI�I� TM 3334-PARCELS A D-L.L.A. NO. PA 99-0424 THE FLAGPOLE- F OF- CAL�F� 75822Expires: 06-30-2018 R.C.E. No. 44223 b DETAILS C� 5 R.C.E. No. I I \ ` _ _ o _ — CONST. NOTE QTY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYMBOL 4 EA STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION PER SE-10 TYPE III 1,300 LF WEIGHTED FIBER ROLL PER SE-5 — F — STREET SWEEPING AND AREAS VACUUMING PER SE-7 FsSV 1 EA CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE • \ 04, FLOW DIRECTION o ° o CONTRACTOR TO MARK ON THIS PLAN THE FINAL LOCATION OF WM BMPS INCLUDING CSM, CWM, MS, SS, ETC. /p Q 0 0 / N s / Fit FV / o 0016iN Zp SM1•_ O i i y � / 7 /f 0. / / O •S / I / 0 �a / I CS , t Q I Q/ '7. i \ : v a - _i / 1- 6 / / / o - 00, El 'e- / \ = / a / ; o / i - / 0 _ 1 r / 7 / - 9 / 1 c #>. *. '_ / B iF I\ e s 061 I \ - \ / — -- — -- o-- Ln / I I `- --- ---- - - -- - ------------- -- ---�/ o I I looll FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR A = G / \ s \ \ O \ \\\ \ g \\\\ \\ \\\\\ O I I \� \\ i l C 00 o o / I tS 3 \\\\ \ \ \\ \ O O S\ co 00 III a 20' 0' 10' 20' 00 \ \\ o \\ so \ I LO \\ \\ \\ \ III SCALE: 1" = 20' N r_z LD18-0726 z I \ BUILDING AND SAFETY REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 24 \ \ \\ DISABLED ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY ONLY , a APPROVED BY- NAME ii �fL o CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS ACC'D DATE BENCH MARK DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY - C�CED BY ITV QRfEssioN CITY 1 OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS g T-30-81 EL= 1083.725 O '�l Recommended By. Date: a Contractor 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE Horizontal ����P� D' Ste/F co These Plans Were Prepared Under the Supervision of: ,E00 FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET ANDrri Z y of w� can= !�2 6 Inspector RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST CO = Accepted By. Date: `ems �`� ��_ L C N ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTER- C '17582206-30 Date: PATRICK THOMAS, P.E. ti PA17-0626-COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION OF 7 SHEETS 15 SECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND MORAGA Vertical * * w EXP. 06-30-18 BRYAN D. SMITH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO J' \Q- Date Completed THE TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL; 1 FOOT EAST of �qT CIv1% ��' TM 3334-PARCELS A&D-L.L.A. NO. PA 99-0424 THE FLAGPOLE. F �F CA�'�F� R.C.E. No. 75822 Expires: 06-30-2018 R.C.E. No. 44223 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN C- 6 :z CRUSHED AGGREGATE GREATER THAN 3" BURLAP SACKS TO BUT SMALLER THAN 6" OVERLAP ONTO CURB CORRUGATED STEEL PANELS r- f['ORIGINAL RUNOFF CURB _l GRADE RUNOFF SPILLWAY GUTTER FIBER FABRIC SECTION A-A CORRUGATED STEEL PANELS GRAVEL FILLED SANDBAGS Q A A _ NOTES: STACKED TIGHTLY o 1. PLACE CURB TYPE SEDIMENT BARRIERS ON GENTLY SLOPING o STREET SEGMENTS, WHERE WATER CAN POND AND ALLOW _ Z SEDIMENT TO SEPARATE FROM RUNOFF. W 2. SANDBAGS OF EITHER BURLAP OR WOVEN 'GEOTEXTILE' FABRIC, I a Oil ARE FILLED WITH GRAVEL, LAYERED AND PACKED TIGHTLY. 3. LEAVE A ONE SANDBAG GAP IN THE TOP ROW TO PROVIDE A SPILLWAY FOR OVERFLOW. 4. INSPECT BARRIERS AND REMOVE SEDIMENT AFTER EACH STORM N 24 MIN EVENT. SEDIMENT AND GRAVEL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE w 50' MIN TRAVELED WAY IMMEDIATELY. DETAIL: GRAVEL BAG CHEVRONS - DETAIL: STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION NOT TO SCALE - ENTRANCE/ EXIT NOT TO SCALE 29 2. DIRECTION DIRECTION WEIGHTED FIBER ROLL OF FLOW OF FLOW (AMERICAN FIBER ROLLS OR APPROVED EQUAL) 8" MIN. GRAVEL BAGS o SLOPE 5 VARIES ROW 2 & 3 — 1 WIDE INLET OPENING: NOTE: - 1 GRAVEL BAG HIGH —ALL PROVISIONS OF BMP DETAIL NOTE: 2 GRAVEL BAGS WIDE SE-10 TYPE III SHALL BE APPLIED - DETAIL: WEIGHTED FIBER ROLL 1) CONTROL SITE RUNOFF OVER PAVED SURFACES BY 29 29 USING WEIGHTED FIBER ROLLS (FIBER ROLL WITH NOT TO SCALE GRAVEL AND/OR ORGANIC MULCH INSIDE) FIT THE ROLL TIGHTLY AGAINST THE PAVEMENT AND ANY CONCRETE OR EDGE, TO PREVENT GAPS. CURB DIRECTION DIRECTION OF FLOW z OF FLOW a e GRAVEL BAGS WIDE o I I a INLET OPENING: 2 GRAVEL BAGS WIDE 00 1 GRAVEL BAG HIGH o 0 DETAIL: STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION01 PER SE-10 TYPE III o NOT TO SCALE 3 0 00 a 00 00 0 - - - - - - N LD18-0726 Z 0 BUILDING AND SAFETY N REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 24 DISABLED ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY ONLY , o APPROVED BY• AM - Z 0 CONSTRUCTION RECM DATE BY FEMM ACC'D DATE BBVCH MARK DESICaNL� O BY Date: CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS QCOFESS/0,� T-30-81 EL= 1083.725 �4 p ql Recommended By 00 Contractor 2-1/2 BRASS DISK IN CONC. FLAGPOLE BASE Horizontal �<v��P� S���2�, - o �, These Plans Were Prepared Under the Supervision of: of TE4 7 FROM THE INTERSECTION OF FRONT STREET AND Q; Z mot+ ��� � RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 1.0 MILES NORTHEAST w m = m Accepted By. Date: `Inspector ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO THE INTER— C 75822 Date: PATRICK THOMAS. P.E. WW' Cn SECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND MORAGA Vertical * EXP. Os-3o-18 BRYAN D. SMITH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER* s PA17-0626-COSTCO GAS STATION EXPANSION OF 7 SHEETS ROAD; 0.2 MILES NORTH ON MORAGA ROAD TO `r�' CIVIL ��P TM 3334-PARCELS A&D-L.L.A. NO. PA 99-0424 & Date Completed THE TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL; 1 FOOT EAST OF 9� i THE FLAGPOLE. E 0 CA\-\F� 44223 ,�. .. R.C.E. No. 75822 Expires: 06-30-2018 R.C.E. Na. EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS - 7 _______ IL- v11 10` `o ♦ a / yr t 3th St f P"1 " r`s` °�v. V College , I a Nuevo ', 3 SAN JACINTO Ay.� r; r E-Nuevo-Rd Nuevo-Rd z Idaleona Rd r, ° z t3 A Y I L A N e ` j �r . r . > - v 79 °0. <�J P L A T E A U /� ¢ A, • Par o f/" Z 4� in 0 m dn1aMROS d r f r+ '"'` .' . '* .ht � ZS.111 a-R I W-Cottonwood Q S, ► •. —4 z E-San-Jacinto San-Jacinto•Ave c _ ,! '-..-'_ a, Am 0 WeIle o ¢ y t . Q u� Se / .'+ Ma" , '�` Q n iad11to E Main St ai - - ° u aio-Ra -4th-St N E 4th St ei1 - sl r e > Val Jr�,. n. ,. r - l y _ �{� C > • ,t r _ 8rk H Q rn WOW tf f p a ' p a r 'r ea to u r� _ r +M' et ,t r ,L If V ! E W M O U W f N S �` rn c a 74 a^ r• /�� _.. � � W-Esplanade i ade•Ave Ellis-Ave - Ellis Ave , _ s c j PERRIS s ' y , '�'„r"rl► ,�''� f " ./'1+ / J I rst t t g / , 4� E aturn Ave J —�j '• y�e > , * ! Mountain Ave alley ; \ '`. 10 ,r • Airport v 1 /,rj +• fir- �r y -f •_ - ,. _ ej �. r M Rd cn ° , �" W Menlo Ave Eof Menlo Ave • 4 ,� . 7-�n)�we - _ apes y h'tap e; R d � o '� `' Country N 7 w ., of i < 3K. - r _ * �e, " Z Club V 79 r. + / Alicante Dr r *a�G� o,�`" ♦ t r,' 'r Q ant r ! ,ry S. f ' s' it - �t Hemet f C - , J . -. .5 4 � t l '. ub Hemet z Hentet 1 f�, w a j, T4 —Florida-Ave-E— 74 -� • � HEMET � '` '''�,rj , - Ethanac•Rd r 74 -Pinacate Rd `r rr - T4 W Florida Av Q v c ,.. ,. ,r „ Homel=ut�i y e '0. .; m 74 ---a _ v ° Q N 3 f .r..T sY , It r z 4! ,r r i #' �� 719 ! /' a � _ .ar•' '•�'_ "•7 • 74. F� G phi001 V7 V• -� ,_ ,. r n �/, 4 :. . Hemet-Ryan rs rn a v� • o„ * ` ' i Y i!p` ,. - r f :, , tL ► °jL,, "rS,Qry �y * 3 Airport P, v) m o o �.. G o ' iop u Ste n E . - • . , r .- .' ; + _ �► tson Ave W Stetson-Ave Stetson Ave Roy�i'J Kabian .. ;,. � .. �' Double �.- � Seven Hills o rn � �; t �► " Memorial Pik _ Butte Park 3 }+�N Gott Club - i, F LOW s a t r tea ` , _ f North Golf Club 1 = _ ,> 1 '.� Golf K EW MOU V " ` "' i `u v. .- r, a �""s. t Course A ` to •,Ram ona w. / 15 " Roy Mernorialen ,+ F . 3 :,' or Cou e Q Mccatt��J Double .er ry 3 d �► � Mustang Way gars, Park .3 Butte Park Grand• r ,tI"• b r ,t n I h .. F `` 4r o "'' .►-: � it*"r r �j1� IJory� ► ,x , 9 ~ �r V r A# !�} '•. _ / e>� _.'` 'i n di est er A FOR/�p� V 6l S R? •_ ' r _ 'at 1 t r , ,. ,:.�, . s • � � _ ` Simpson Rd !, � , y / I� ;•.�. d _ •` = / / , .y,. s.. Simpson-Rd r qi •�'" Simps( s r i ,..♦ r !' e" + '. SLin (:i'.y hl'vo a t,�♦ fn ./ ark -: > MENIFEE Rid c�moor Rd - - ik.s 1,,f '� ,. •' !,R., _ 4 ;r: ge t, a) Olive Ave oni-Pky ? �, - aid :' Vacai;o"r 3 ,a Domenig .� : �M! r ve IV Menifee ° c T4, w ee ,rY+t''A/ ft � Lakes Y Do men igoni-Pky a ,,.aa,1,,,�I„ra►,1� ♦��~► talk - CANYON df _j I w. .► ►/ _ Country Club Are^ ,t•r�,►r111"' ♦� tea. t Sb x r t/ •cr j - LAKE - - Co M E N ! F E V A L L E Y f ,a♦'tan` eit, d.P 0. .0 t:' .w � !'� ' *a� _ - tie Dr N p4' rt Rd ,.♦`� ,,a.,, ,,•+ o� E _ '• 7o New o - 11 A s ram' r r r t r s p •a» yr ,i ' a� yr \ao ,dtr * _ .`' r!.; nvo °- ; DIAMOND VALLEY '. .y . , , -,, ;' ,�� CANYON LAKE in Plot tAk LAKE _ . .,<,, jP a , l'V• c Cactus Valley Rd Gr. J o- - - -*- - 11:iti':and Hd a ; Diamond Q I .il.i Lake d,. .: x !' - a -� ,�t,� Valley Elsinore a Golf Club � LAKE I N O RE D-fakes alroad a N �' Craig Ave Z578 w � a X 14 E L S 14+00-R E e Or t4 «, ! G� ,y♦ r a r,t. �a,1• Y/ Recreation Park t ,: F l a y .�♦1 •t��trn G tlnrin1rinrllnr+r1r,rlrnnr111nr111q .Iltlnnnrnnrrnr� Garboni Rd �� � , - tr 0.s 4 G'i a.♦a �� ,►a r n,tr,14 Links At y _ Summerly lnnnnnnrtr r ;,i',Kergr Rd - ,f - -- a --j*niitit-Rd---�ssa+ft,f+sa+,►►r.+ : ... t. • .,;� .;� �'' " _ � . r ,ter, ,, , ` r w t r _ Skylark fIt11flrflll rt n` 111 rslflTr r4111 r IN r1 11p w ♦►►w����/�r`�♦ ,r / -'` ""'� y je Airport 2. :.r 7 — r � �■ I 8 - / - - r _ �Illlltl f11i 11111r111� ., t111/r •' r �t 11r 1 I�1� f 4♦ [ ♦ � /� Jt J - rrHl, x .. v 'Jtarar L • WILDOMAR ,* �� ,♦a►�,,aJ♦ mot= �r ItA lit r r .. "t>alb' rf d = M U RRI E-TA ' ---Berton-R< LAKE SKINNER - , . SKINNER _ .,t —W p jill jill 0. ' .•: _ f ' r �, R ', G {✓ t i g t r ' � , •tie Cap\ems°� Ir / M ,♦ .•tJ �' gyp+ PROJECT SITE ii yg w F F• e. �a�t � 'b ` � • r` s ` �• E ... Try ! , A r � .. a , r Air 10 TE M EC U LA r , a .l. I'em et:u 1 a '� '� ��i C `0` �►�l..r.. r ■ L �•-�rO�'� VAIL Opp woo i f NINO _T , �r� t y • , • � � �.: � i tt�9 A .. �` 701 rt rr'} I r do e •44Ce..' d a6 .L..�' r `t tJ /^j 'fi de AV e / " tr ,,• ,tY u l, " , `�' rl. - i " r, • r ; ' r 1. . r u1u/1aeller1er111 ♦.a► a t r ar. 3 r r' al�rnlu111urY •� . ..Q „ • Ij"�- . �/ N:' �F�iifF @ 1111t11111111nttT�iY u*rnrnlrnn,e u*Irief11r�1111�11U 1ri1 . , Q. !� � # S ,# "' � T J►r �'+w ,�` l c } �"" �;-���� ,e _ � � ,✓ ,�i ti".t" � _ 'r>w' � � 'ice ♦I _q.le- 4d��„'^I've. I!?•+" VG�- ro s #► i �1R C lam. rrt mow#•f� ° r sD ,_e ._ •J "'� '.x • Iv _ `.. •. 1 ' ,:.vim .r - ! - __ > y r'- "' t .Y• y¢r qm r. ,a/r .;.•.. "( s� `� ,� � +t �,� �,' r �✓ � > 15, -t � `> � ,r 9hl .:.. , +1 * ,! _ y .• ;. r - .� �; !f.. ,i.. � � - 'U '� a � s +�` �:;; =�, ,oil: EI< •� ` � � T ,. 1 _ ---• _ s ' f, � .,. -�,• �f �` f � �1 M�,."-' ''�" 'r, ,amAW /a am 7 � � ;` f t, t .s �► // , ` v i :, ., �/ r / 4 i A► ,,,, I/-, ,.O' ,,1N'r`t d 4t a� / a . � v i � ,a�' g _s/� +jiy yr err- , ,g• � 14 1 • t A PO e, r f � � �. . „ ! ,. 'r` z.. � SJ.,� { ` _ .�r. y ,;;, .."` ',.r" � ." .,ir x'yr t .. -•i�..r" atr`.,Gt! � + . . s AV 10 , Vol jo ell , ► r� t Y i `�.. R1 t , ; ., !, 'Y j� d` ^'s t a "t m ,. t tt J 1 E Mission y f ,r _ Fallbrook ,� ' . .� - � _ f._,: , . • 1 � „ �,�,_ � .�.. w� ._ .. _ ,.,... ,. Ive O N Of . ; �, 1r _ « e1, ! �` - - �, r.✓ r,. 0,�, z -E-F allbrook-St 'i • Gio, j o; -. ` fi a� # - , j) 4!'2R <6 r. se a+'j +� !. r f d T O r _ { AY s +wi y r. y>, •,. IirYB .. f,.. fi;> < �T)QtE, r +. I'R "lt /•!r ,,.M 76 l�••''•�b .,# r tS. .•,�r`a. B .14 , - t,,+.., !'. ...� ��i .� " (%� � sit ka°" r'. - It .. • - '. ; - s r ,,rf sr ,r i A G U A T ! B 1 A , uontt Fallbroo , °fi ., + o i�,e c c / b ` Comm urn !tr ° w •p � , ' °. / ; f yvinter Haven Rd AV .x r t , f , F Ilbreok �• _ , Pala ►rniian _ � r r .!.r �.x ! < •' ,..• ',• Olf 4 / / R'e ervation l ,�'' ; Camp�eionlub Pa r ... Marine Cor r r /( ' I fSty J - iw e/ir _'1 e.►n s'"'`, f. i -Car)fG^ �i 1 r d - # ' f ` ta- 4 y t / / -�. t 7 Pauma Indian �+►w - air �; j. ! - _ Res err ion r - LA ! } � l * �• � ve �` .�. ,�`, " ' ,! r £ ! j �� .� f`r - � f - � 1 r i� �• � pX A � \e sde,ss5 rOe n 0 1 2 3 4 Miles • I f ,. :s Jacinto , - /14 _ *�e� z*;-- f b . 1 I , _,r " 1 St ate Park ,.,:.�_ I q r i jar 11 . �I� • ,. , k� ' y aj � Z _, Ivit San Ar �'! -�.;,rt� - ` ,-44� ' �y" .. .,,� , t' °r' .`"`' = Jacinto - -' /i 'l�. "" ! � State Park j01 - •V r - t pU ,. .* .'4,{{ • , Indian ' ' _ °+� - r+ w _ y, ' Res CanyonsGolf t, f q At� V /p► -, T z- I• y*i ' p-+' �. :ar ort-North �M� w i [� r� li":.... -1 ..�i� isor f. + � " I ' ;...t �-A a "� 'P100 m � :,fib. ,„,�' •- A*111 ?-1 4'`y ..4 v. r . E are '� ?', :. { - 1 / ;,"" _� t . T66 m- ,,. Indian Canyon. Saboba `,t / an 1'r �j'; t , , ,•' �, _ -.,, ' / �, Golf Resort Sorttl Indian . .� � 'O ,° „ . r'.' , ,> , _ _ 1. Reservation 141'� " •t of r- .� `+ �, r '. I I.I / t -. O. , . - .,: x -' . 1 ,14 D t A fV A I� � A i j - k r 22 f - , e 14 ,14 � � V, ,.�.: I +v " 1 . 1� - je, s'� x , r,, . �� y d►a .., - . ' �a > , r I 104 1�_j .A.,-..m .. . �*..# f ,� I., 0 r--\ . *V A 1. I , , . ... � _\j :� is - f czIw - a , . �, 9 .f f `� ...+rt. .. Z �{py '..I �. ` t s , a ,V , , -4 t`_. #� , ;r` �; 243� r » 8 Florlda•Ave #•' r „rM�, a F.. { Idyll'xviic> d r - W# 0wJTW ..t A. °' ;f,r t ,�,� ., ,;x .. Park Id�_'lhidl :,t ,4 ,. n of rn M . �� 1. i. _.. . 41 y #mot i ;, PA _ c,,,rcle :4 -- i f its ` 7 k o .� i 1 t T V ,. j . a� - . z s. -�""'� Y '.0 -,: _ - H r; I f gy m.. fin e C 4 $ 'r ,W� , 1I®. all M� .,. , !,..'. 8 I r �ia'' s {, Y' ♦ r ��iirr yg ./ .:. .,: xP ' ' 11 . ' � '" P.' f le , '' , - .. it ``x 501, /2333 m >� - �:, I lei, fi;111t• '� ./ ,e^' ._ �',�'- �' a f ,�`` / t .r { r . Can Bernar AgL aliente _ G .+ - , / / r . tr .. ;b . {-, :» � -- National F to ion .'r. "*. _..•t" f/ rl { 1 r' ,, A.,f rr: 'F `" � �' -;fir IA9ua Caliente •5 t A, /I�" e. . r Id F,.�,, _ ,y ..y 4 �, _ 2434 Indian ' .f T '-� ✓. -.4 74'w �f f` ; U x �n ` � Reservation ,, y .A to { .� 'S �w AIII !R._ � 3 � ,a: �r r �/. 8 ;, 23 4 I:. ol. 4 : . rxr rS % y. //// .y� ..yam�7+y' './�j {j e w r T / 14 '� " I-d f f1f .� .;w4 i- -'?' '+i"., -eA x.. . . 11 sR. �lj� i .+. . Op i7 -_ r -_ ' ♦ ..rr I I o. 0 -'� 01 - JF /I , Yj Aw�r I '5� I I -� - .1 �.. / - - r' �"' ''_. a "fed °�,r, !� x . t:enter %. x �� Jjr J/ `-��'1"'11�+'I . ' ' �I +♦{'� / _� 7 .. '" ,,,-- / --4., ,0�,•' 4t�:ir 4 74. Lr ,`f t#r,, -j.� ,�.,- - _ S!� ; Ao"M.101 - r� +. .�/ «. A str, 7 4 ✓.::aim' t m , r ff•'. . t �... st r. I � AOO j � , I ! Ill ' � or . . ' 01 "Ae ;WA, 71.1 . 4. y !# - ,.-., �• f ;. -♦,r ":`...J' 'e ' `�,. -y r.,`s>reY{' i:� ,J'� ,c� .'^i, ..iT %' ' Aa '�-s.., 9. .J f�' eopr .. , - j • v .raa�//� /rii? ! , '7w'wrap✓' <f, xr i i 0. y t: Ir , e , t , - - . 04 O - " , ,, lew�w V b . . I " W - , , I , f . . 11 ' _V I I. I ♦ w j .- / " I I - _, - / - t,,,,,1� " - - . ,'I t ,�- I -1 .. . 0 1 It ,jr '11. A I , ; ! , y11� -.. ... , .. •' 7' A 9 ,'' Dr .- - + ... " .+. of -.- E .,.• , F...' _ # _ fiS i s�' ° C, -' j ,, - �' < 1#« r f ♦ j I 4P _ .. ,,.t. r • . 7 is `" A'i _ ... � ., !! - u . - , a_ ,�f _. iz .> ,,, ril jr v rt ,�rrw ,tom ti AO I '"� . 'OR , _ . . - - .. I1. - �pw io.•r /" 1r .�{ �" ,_. �y Q.. .,y /I"- * - • ♦ - iItt't miliwA,' ,/,r. , - ! /� I V w"Al 41t� .. "w r „: 4 if a r. , ` r 7 4 i '� :. P , . Y� . 0-1 X . . 2138m` / . * k • ,, I l:,r' ..r-mot '3it r d �`' J, ., t - T rr t Fi r n ✓ _ �yI/ /, : a • r % - / �� I . III - r- - " .',.{♦ ire l -` ` f e IIIf @rl4 Ali `Q� yr . .�' . t { - r +."� :''�' -fv� ♦/ y .fi r �� r ,tIiiiiiiiiIIIII ' `: 2089 m ' #01 i)l K;.�;� r * It �. 10 " �*;-- , • . ' r ��..�-�+- rb KaY �1��� sr lvw f J � .. fi mi l♦"" �^, , 111!�t K , 4w- .1 * I .11 . �f flooe j �1���'Ia 1tVIlla��aaaal�uI�a�� t�►�1�lf latt, ^•' -. ---r,, -'� �.r ti� .�P"-! r��/ -" +am.r 6;ro- ate. s '.!', r .. i� - .+, r �t�� r -. - !ll ' ,. f .J /N Owl r go ��a .,�� .+r+- _...a ,� _. ... > -yam , '_.; r tr OOp if . t��, ,��! '¢ �t r '' r , .w �" c,Ii F # f + #J:` r., . "r , .,rNrle., a �*! ,,� - w . A . 0# I . Of �': ,�� ;V, f✓ey, a - , - _% ./ lo, �, YW' ,>.� �qyr a .7/ ,.4..a�ry, a,, ,.11101114P - -r•:- - - ,.. ,` an Bc?r ,4K_ I �tY iltiaa,I� ,::."•. •' - :. ' ,. ,,I . - `��^' I <.'f N ItI 1+ ',r ,r../,r`I _- °��� :��.• 'ri��� t' A'' ✓9 .r >s i'' 1 > t '{a►i r- } i/ # 'r'''t. ,�- �,# r � w' *'� _ 74 +I -, "' !► r ' 0 11 '7` 1 It- to-A ,az Al ���, I JI ,` ! i k�rm �, :? y { �1[+'" a/r +� i, AN. le ' r 'F r 'i f w, 116, , , fr. s a ♦ b I 9 �_ � '� s.f ,r .� / ram ' �' - a- + 3 T "' `� a Ce ,i% - ' I' -1 r,, y . ., . r ��� R' ,fir 1~'a .d+ ; f. I `7'0 4 / I +�" x yip ; , a a� a e r � t' , I ,IV T O M I / 4011P 1 11 411111 4 01 I W . .AA, ` , �,.' ��+Inrn%,%#' -, ' / III�� ., ,.Ms. ,d,5 4 .." S�".a r I. t to *,, '' meµ' 0 74 *,, "tar "",�, �, I! ., ,•. AP.• . I, '11I f�41 = it 'i i 1. ��� 4, ,,I� �1rs:+' ' ,II '�111�Iv ,�'I, , III 11 �. w•'W' p .iF" A.•-.. _ ,,�� . w'«or "°,s /�""rf s 5,.1 r?' r r . r" ...sr. .nti�nnR --_11 : 1" . i, 2J�j 0 ,,44. .. , y� _. , (4- , .. , x G-•pit .+ S'�'W.. x,rt #'r' 4 y� �� s f/410#. y��+r �M ,,%% .1 I - 'i 11.i .1 0,.f*;;44,1:,�,, ,! .. , L,0 ♦ ' ..� �Jfd. +~ .� a�; � a ' Ct~ «+ l 1 Bailey Rif 'O •t r a + �1r4 � r_} 4> •rid.,/ rJ .* !� � a #I'm ' C '- ,44 1I' , t i Q7, #4� J _ .0 �,OW` *, '..�' . , i s 0 -� fir" :-. ,`or - ofr', M . ° 7 ;r '11` . . rI. r jr %_ _# '� 11 ♦ APO, +fi►- J. 4 7 ',i1��II I ' ' _ t a.` o e"sk '-'- .,+'" « - ( ,/ .4 . I i�1!1V,O_._ • ,+ A d �, _J ' ° g r '✓ eJ , . Al, - ,, �L 3 ✓ � � 11 T�I - r41 � r J ,•III - ,w 6, `I . ., { �1 f , , f '*1 /. ; ' %.,• .. P / - ,., ,,� R - , .III; A,,..- le` , . 4 r. ',A IN 1 aw , . '� , { r+�r r.= _ - +ii �" - ", - 3 - r r a r j .1+ t �,,4. / - / » If « -, ,, _A* , - 1. .. f )` - 4<"�` "i '• ai♦ '7. • '- �,W '1f!`- i•, •- ,may - 4, "�# , p. y '•- •� •t- - ..i 4 '! / w'• +ate` . -00� 70 , �.I v }' j sf '`'` . , ge" ►` Kater C'�nYon� - 411 r * - s+ z "! 11 .t r ,j w 44 it, 11 .AW1 I k". ., i� Y r . . - 1 ^16, 'L lae 10 * ..fw . i . v ,,,� L . yam, �,y},h"' JA • . ,.r. JR•` � �Mt�/ . d"` F ' 1 'r�! ♦" y.',r -s 4 3 4' 'x t I„+.�°f+ i I• I it . k a .Fx ,s ! • F46 �, t ,e low s >., 9 rf s /F .00 t ,� ,, tcof { . w, y y j a !, . a n 'O, i t . . - �+ `jet i ;I, 14 4 i ,/ '.!�4 L 4 �' ,, �. -.,. .* k f/ 1 .. .1 1# - jrl 7 - , I I I ; , Ii;*X y„ f } y+d > # i # ``• 7p ~+ �eG '�F " '~ alley Rd :,r,: r,,,i:• r:'_J / s d f �fj�/! `eF 1(I !' ,a , " r• .' -Y v `J !` fir♦ °'. !� t .- ' AFa. .. ` Va v '♦ r s. �' * , d� ..,� ,,ti ' e d r ♦y ,y f ,�,�.y d { ,1'..'O - , 'Ar �i�'^� sr I I I ";, . 4e ; �i rr ,- *11 , I I Of r- c - �, ' And . �' ` . , r b y � a� ��'!. sDad 5 : ?r - *r�-" �.fOC�t f fi F . .:ate ;1 xaT 111 _ I l e R? . s� , 1,v h f t` >.a r `w .� ��' Cap}! ll e e/►Y . } K� ��_ �' " t y , �:, �, ilrp . . ♦„ ... arr ,s - i 40 A. I '."�t _ I ' . . , fr . -- ,�,. ♦ y • r; �. 41r, _ , f , > ,I , % f� - , , z �»♦ Y '44 .^> '1 a ,, '"` ,•` 16,I*�" - 1 lit r • , , t 4.f 4 � 'I3� 1. _� � i' - , "- ►' - - 3 r Legend " , ; , w � ,. . . 3 >. } , �• _ � ,�a�' r - , : V_44 4 1 1 J# " - - L-;L I Cleveland r - irements - „fir Chann ' r I { -,A S � /;- 1110Y., S ateon Lakes/Reservoirs u _3 _ y �r , _ , A:, MR Not Exempt I L i 65 1 f-'' o /1,9 p *L17 �» - • « ' Omp air . rV, al / i /11V tvlountain /yj� T, �+` County'� ."' � . ate / ,' , t ,' , Riverside C nt,� �« Ola f ., { /' V Not Suscepti State Park h't � 1 °°,�, - r :- . ft „ - , , Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE,TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS.FAO,NPS, NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NIL,Ordnance Survey. Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),swisstopo,and the GIS User Map 2 - ChannelSusceptibility & Requirements Hydromodification Susceptibility Documentation Report and Mapping - Santa Margarita Region Hydromodification Management Plan • SM R Copermittees