The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 9833 Lot 9 WQMP Porter Residence Permit Number: LD18-1631 LID -Onsite Improvements/Custom Single Residential Lot "' City of Temecula - Land Development Division 1 41000 Main Street-Temecula, CA 92590 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Phone: (951) 308-6395 Fax: (951)694-6475 1989 Issued: 06/28/2019 Expired: 03/13/2020 Job Address: 31043 Jedediah Smith Rd Legal Description: Tract Map 9833; Lot 9 ANY NOTICE OR NOTICES REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT SHALL BE SERVED ON THE OTHER PARTY BY FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS Owner: Kent Porter 13013 Temescal Canyon Rd Corona, CA 92883 (909) 841-3956 Contractor: One Tractor Doze It All Inc 23905 Clinton Keith 114-289 Wildomar, CA 92595 (909) 676-0922 Description of Work: The City Engineer hereby authorizes the Property Owner and Applicant (if different from Property Owner) (hereinafter collectively referred to a "Permittee") to do the following work including backfilling, compaction, surfacing and/or as outlined in the description of work below: Description: Tract Map 9833 - Lot 9 - Porter Residence - Precise Grading Plan Perform grading in accordance with approved Grading Plans dated 06/06/2019. A pre-grading conference is required 48 hours (minimum) in advance of any work done under this permit with the grading contractor and City Inspector. A pre-grade meeting is required 48 hours prior to any work. Permittee shall contact e-mail LDinspections@TemeculaCA.gov to schedule a meeting. Any field changes to the plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. All required permits and inspections by Building and Safety for walls, etc. shall be completed prior to any releases and/or other permits issued or released. Traffic and dust control shall be reviewed and approved b the ins Perm' Date D2Q 06/28/2019 City Engineer 6eAuthorized Representative Date Page 1 of 1 7M 9833 [of 9 Co•Z City of Temecula WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) PORTER RESIDENCE PERMIT NO. LD18-1631 31043 JEDIDIAH SMITH RD. TEMECULA, CA. 92592 APN NO. 959-010-008] PREPARED BY: MAJESTIC DESIGN 3D P.O. BOX 223 TEMECULA, CA. 925931 TEL NO. 951-595-3839 Majesticdesign3d@gmail.comL] PREPARED FOR: MR. KENT PORTER 31200 JEDIDIAH SMITH RD. TEMECULA, CA. 92592 TEL"NO. 909-841-3956 Click or tap hereto enter text. DATE OF WQMP: May 1, 2019 WQMP APPROVED BY: APPROVAL DATE: of T EMC W4 93 �7 °n 1989 �h0"s.rvec0e¢0 SCALE' 1••100' IN THE COUNT4 OF RIVERSIDE, SHEET 5 OF B SHEETS ir STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT N0. 9833 BEING A SUBOMSION OF A PORTION OF THE RANCHO TEMECULA IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIOE,AS SHOWN IN BOOK I OF PATENTS AT PAGE 37.RECORDED IN THE f OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA.BEING OIL ALSO SHOWN AS A PORTION OF LOTS 8.9.22.23,249 23 OF BLOCK 19,BY 'MAP OF SUBDIVISIONS OF THE MUSA LAND AND WATER CO."ON FILE IN BOOK 11, PAGE 507.OF MAPS,RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO.COUNTY,CALIFORNIA. SMALLER B LOHR INC. FEBRUARY, 1970 O 9E?39- �¢ TRACT37 NO. 96934 B pp' �P"10'00.9 1105. .15 3GO - \ c Zv ^I 8G3 ` lga0) _ NGl•20'OO"9 w aJ+ � 6 r.37 _ �iwwt ewyys g88' ,L � r7i .er Y\\\ CIE 13 �'. w*faw.iMa,/'ma'y _-� '�'w� n• • vo, e R IJr15 22 .ot F•� E EB:bB �s _•A8 •Q A ` •� 4 3I3 A! — 'a'blR•r 26i ' to Q �H e14 EL FARO I`' PLArE r [I /4 i \ W f8 .7) A' � p � h N I •r1 .�� E ,� ronm• _ .�40. W 24; !b. ,rrwb•. 4V vt4, ♦ Zl9 ql 2F' H o. I .ab M uva."ay "1•b.roy .C. Ti. t im•rss.. i 7 p / �•e R'r� uelF s $,p a+ rveR(nanel n✓a knave'Axai uun ARrry -Tee P. /ucf 0A,m&ws oenaNnaur Aw ENe»lrtacrm �1 er can RNu s4E[T a NLIYI'D'F FRTaY[ WI(R(a/Rff AIWN IAVRf -- NO 7\ • City of Temecula WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) PORTER RESIDENCE PERMIT NO. LD18-1631 31043 JEDIDIAH SMITH RD. TEMECULA, CA. 92592 APN NO. 959-010-0081 PREPARED BY: MAJESTIC DESIGN 3D P.O. BOX 223 TEMECULA, CA. 925931 TEL NO. 951-595-3839 Majesticdesign3d@gmail.cornL] PREPARED FOR: MR. KENT PORTER • 31200 JEDIDIAH SMITH RD. TEMECULA, CA. 92592 TEL NO. 909-841-3956 Click or tap here to enter text DATE OF WQMP: [03/16/2018] WQMP APPROVED BY: APPROVAL DATE: •`,��of T EME�,G<9 .• 0 • g' 1989 �+o Mons.n[w ii WQMP • Preparer's Certification Project Name: Porter Residence Permit Application Number: LD18-1631 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION I have read and understand that the City of Temecula has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including stormwater, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this WQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this WQMP by City staff is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Owner, of my responsibilities for project design. I hereby declare that the design is consistent with the requirements of the City of Temecula BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City of Temecula Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance (Chapter 8.28 et seq.) and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100) requirements for stormwater management; as well as the requirements of the City of Temecula Engineering and Construction Manual (Chapter 18) and the City of Temecula Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 18.18 et seq.). • Owner's Signa ure Date: Mr. Kent Porter Print Name f 1 Company STOP! Before continuing this form review Chapter 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual. If the project type is listed in Table 1-2, permanent stormwater requirements do not apply to your project. Write your exempt project category in the space provided below and skip to Step 3. Do not complete Steps 1, 2, or 4 of this WQMP. f 1 Exempt Project category • Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] Template Date: July 41", 2018 WQMP 3 Step 1 : Source Control BMP Checklist • Source Control BMPs All development projects must implement source control BMPs 4.2.1 through 4.2.6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4.2 and Appendix E of the City BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following: • "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4.2 and/or Appendix E of the City BMP Design Manual. Discussion /justification is not required. Select applicable Source Controls in the Source Control BMP summary on the following page. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion /justification must be provided. • "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion / justification must be provided. Source Control Requirement Applied? 4.2.1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A 'Discussion/justification if 4.2.1 not implemented: Not Connected to MS-4 facility[ ] 4.2.2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage ❑Yes El No ®N/A Discussion/justification if 4.2.2 not implemented: No Storm dtain inlets for this project[ ] • 4.2.3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if 4.2.3 not implemented: No Outdoor material storage for this project 4.2.4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if 4.2.4 not implemented: No matrials stored outdoor ] 4.2.5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, ®Yes ❑No El N/A Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if 4.2.5 not implemented: 4.2.6 Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A Pollutants Discussion/justification if 4.2.6 not implemented. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discussed. Justification must be provided for all "No"answers shown above. • Template Date: July 4", 2018 Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] 4 WQMP • Source Control BMP Summary Select all source control BMPs identified for your project in sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.6 above in the coulumn on the left below. Then select "yes" if the BMP has been implemented, "No" if the BMP has not been implemented, or"N/A" if the BMP is not applicable to your project. ❑ SC-A. On-site storm drain inlets ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-B. Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump ❑Yes ❑No ON/A um s ❑ SC-C. Interior parking garages ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-D1. Need for future indoor & structural pest control ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-D2. Landscape/outdoor pesticide use ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A ❑ SC-E. Pools, spas, ponds, fountains, and other water ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A features ❑ SC-F. Food service ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-G. Refuse areas ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-H. Industrial processes ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-l. Outdoor storage of equipment or materials ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-J. Vehicle and equipment cleaning ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-K. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-L. Fuel dispensing areas El Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-M. Loading docks El Yes ❑No MN/A ❑ SC-N. Fire sprinkler test water ❑Yes ❑No MN/A • ❑ SC-O. Miscellaneous drain or wash water ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-P. Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-O. Large trash generating facilities ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-R. Animal facilities ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-S. Plant nurseries and garden centers ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A ❑ SC-T. Automotive facilities ❑Yes ❑No ®N/A Note: Show all source control measures applied above on the plan sheets. • Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] Template Date: July 41h, 2018 WQMP s • Step 2: Site Design BMP Checklist Site Design BMPs All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-A through SD-H where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4.3 and Appendix E of the City BMP Design Manual for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following: • "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMP as described in Chapter 4.3 and/or Appendix E of the City BMP Design Manual. Discussion /justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion /justification must be provided. • "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion / justification must be provided. Site Design Requirement Applied? 4.3.1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A Features Discussion/justification if 4.3.1 not implemented. [ l 4.3.2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation NYes ❑No ❑N/A Discussion/justification if 4.3.2 not implemented: • 4.3.3 Minimize ImperviousArea NYes ❑No El N/A Discussion/justification if 4.3.3 not implemented: 4.3.4 Minimize Soil Compaction NYes ❑No El N/A Discussion/justification if 4.3.4 not implemented: 4.3.5 Impervious Area Dispersion NYes ❑No ❑N/A Discussion/justification if 4.3.5 not implemented: [ l 4.3.6 Runoff Collection NYes El No ❑N/A Discussion/justification if 4.3.6 not implemented: 4.3.7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species NYes ❑No El N/A Discussion/justification if 4.3.7 not implemented: 4.3.8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation NYes ❑No El N/A • Discussion/justification if 4.3.8 not implemented: [ ] Template Date: July 4t'', 2018 Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] 6 WQMP • Step 3: Note: Show all site design measures applied above on the plan sheets.Construction Stormwater BMP Checklist Minimum Required Standard Construction Stormwater BMPs If you answer"Yes"to any of the questions below, your project is subject to Table 1 on the following page (Minimum Required Standard Construction Stormwater BMPs). As noted in Table 1, please select at least the minimum number of required BMPs1, or as many as are feasible for your project. If no BMP is selected, an explanation must be given in the box provided. The following questions are intended to aid in determining construction BMP requirements for your project. Note: All selected BMPs below must be included on the BMP plan Incorporated Into the construction plan sets. 1.Will there be soil disturbing activities that will result in exposed soil areas? ®Yes ❑No (This includes minor grading and trenching.) Reference Table 1 Items A, B, D, and E Note: Soil disturbances NOT considered significant include, but are not limited to, change in use, mechanical/electrical/plumbing activities, signs,temporary trailers, interior remodeling, and minor tenant improvement. 2. Will there be asphalt paving, including patching? ❑Yes NNo Reference Table 1 Items D and F 3.Will there be slurries from mortar mixing, coring, or concrete saw cutting? ❑Yes NNo Reference Table 1 Items D and F 4.Will there be solid wastes from concrete demolition and removal, wall ❑Yes NNo construction, or form work? Reference Table 1 Items D and F 5. Will there be stockpiling (soil, compost, asphalt, concrete, solid waste) for over ❑Yes NNo • 24 hours? Reference Table 1 Items D and F 6. Will there be dewatering operations? ❑Yes NNo Reference Table 1 Items C and D 7.Will there be temporary on-site storage of construction materials, including ❑Yes NNo mortar mix, raw landscaping and soil stabilization materials,treated lumber, rebar, and plated metal fencing materials? Reference Table 1 Items E and F 8.Will trash or solid waste product be generated from this project? ❑Yes NNo Reference Table 1 Item F 9.Will construction equipment be stored on site (e.g.:fuels, oils,trucks, etc.?) ❑Yes NNo Reference Table 1 Item F 10.Will Portable Sanitary Services ("Porta-potty") be used on the site? NYes ❑No Reference Table 1 Item F Table 1. Construction Stormwater BMP Checklist Reference sheet No.'s where each CALTRANS selected BMP is shown on the Minimum Required Sw plans. Best Management Practices Handbookz BMP If no BMP is selected,an BMPs Detail Selected explanation must be provided. A. Select Erosion Control Method for Disturbed Slopes(choose at least one for the appropriate season Minimum required BMPs are those necessary to comply with the City of Temecula Erosion and Sediment Control • Ordinance (Chapter 18.18 at seq.) and the City of Temecula Engineering and Construction Manual (Chapter 18). 2 State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).2003.Storm Water Quality Handbooks,Construction Site Best Management Practices(BMPs)Manual. March.Available online at: hfti)://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/manuals.htm. Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YRi Template Date: July 41, 2018 WQMP 7 Vegetation Stabilization SS-2, SS-4 ® Sht 4 of 4- Grading Plan • Plantin 3 Summer ] Hydraulic Stabilization SS-4 ❑ Hydroseeding2 (Summer) Bonded Fiber Matrix or SS-3 ❑ Stabilized Fiber Matrix4 (Winter) Physical Stabilization SS-7 ❑ Erosion Control Blanket3 (Winter) B. Select erosion control method for disturbed flat areas slo e < 5% choose at least one Will use erosion control SS-3, 4, 7 ® Sht 4 of 4- Grading Plan measures from Item A on flat ]] areas also Sediment Desilting Basin (must SC-2 ❑ treat all site runoff) Mulch, straw, wood chips, soil SS-6, SS-8 ❑ application • 3 If Vegetation Stabilization (Planting or Hydroseeding) is proposed for erosion control it may be installed between May 1 st and August 15th. Slope irrigation is in place and needs to be operable for slopes>3 feet. Vegetation must be watered and established prior to October 1 st. The owner must implement a contingency physical BMP by August 15th if vegetation establishment does not occur by that date. It landscaping is proposed, erosion • control measures must also be used while landscaping is being established. Established vegetation must have a subsurface mat of intertwined mature roots with a uniform vegetative coverage of 70 percent of the natural vegetative coverage or more on all disturbed areas. 4 All slopes over three feet must have established vegetative cover prior to final permit approval. Template Date: July 41h, 2018 Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] 8 WQMP • Table 1. Construction Stormwater BMP Checklist (continued) Reference sheet No.'s where each selected BMP is shown on the Minimum Required CALTRANS plans. Best Management Practices SW Handbook BMP If no BMP is selected, an BMPs Detail Selected explanation must be provided. C. If runoff or dewatering operation is concentrated, velocity must be controlled using an energy dissipater Energy Dissipater Outlet SS-10 X Sht 4 of 4 Grading plan Protections D. Select sediment control method for all disturbed areas choose at least one Silt Fence SC-1 X Sht 4 of 4 Grading Plan ] Fiber Rolls (Straw Wattles) SC-5 X Gravel & Sand Bags SC-6 & 8 X Dewatering Filtration NS-2 ❑ Storm Drain Inlet Protection SC-10 ❑ Engineered Desilting Basin SC-2 ❑ (sized for 10-year flow) E. Select method for preventingoffsite trackin of sediment choose at least one Stabilized Construction Entrance TC-1 ® Sht 4 of 4 Grading Plan Construction Road Stabilization TC-2 ❑ ] Entrance/Exit Tire Wash TC-3 ❑ Entrance/Exit Inspection & TC-1 ❑ Cleaning Facility • Street Sweeping and Vacuuming SC-7 ❑ F. Select the general site management BMPs FA Materials Man' ement Material Delivery & Storage WM-1 X Sht 4 of 4 Grading Plan Spill Prevention and Control WM-4 ❑ F.2 Waste Management' Waste Management WM-8 ❑ ]Sht 4 of 4 Grading Plan Concrete Waste Management Solid Waste Management WM-5 ❑ Sanitary Waste Management WM-9 X Hazardous Waste Management WM-6 ❑ Note: The Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWO) also requires all projects not subject to the BMP Design Manual to comply with runoff reduction requirements through the implementation of post-construction BMPs as described in Section XIII of the order. • 5 Regional Standard Drawing D-40-Rip Rap Energy Dissipater is also acceptable for velocity reduction. 5 Not all projects will have every waste identified. The applicant is responsible for identifying wastes that will be onsite and applying the appropriate BMP. For example, if concrete will be used, BMP WM-8 must be selected. Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] Template Date: July 41h, 2018 WQMP 9 • Step 4: Project type determination (Standard or Priority Development Project) Is the project part of another Priority Development Project(PDP)? ❑ Yes ® No If so, Standard and PDP requirements apply. Go to Step 4.1 and select"PDP" The project is (select one): ® New Development ❑ Redevelopment? The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is: [ 23,372 ]ft2 The total existing (pre-project) impervious area is: [ 0 ]ftz The total area disturbed by the project is: [ 96.000 ]ftz If the total area disturbed by the project is 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft.) or more OR the project is part of a larger common plan of development disturbing 1 acre or more, a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number must be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board. WDID: [ ] Is theproject in any of the following categories, a through f ?8 Yes No (a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces ® ❑ e(collectively over the entire project site). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. Yes No (b) Redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of ❑ ® impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. Yes No (c) New and redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of ❑ ® impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and support one or more of the following uses: • (i) Restaurants. This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). (ii) Hillside development projects. This category includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. (iii) Parking lots.This category is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce. (iv) Streets, roads, highways,freeways, and driveways.This category is defined as any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. 7 Redevelopment is defined as:The creation and/or replacement of impervious surface 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 routine maintenance activities,such as trenching and resurfacing associated with utility work; pavement grinding; resurfacing existing roadways; new sidewalks construction;pedestrian ramps;or bike lanes on existing roads;and routine replacement of damaged • pavement,such as pothole repair. 8 Applicants should note that any development project that will create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface(collectively over the entire project site) is considered a new development. 9 For solar energy farm projects,the area of the solar panels does not count toward the total impervious area of the site. Template Date: July 4t", 2018 Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] 10 WQMP • Project type determination (continued) Yes No (d) New or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of ❑ ® impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and discharging directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). "Discharging directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands). Note: ESAs are areas that include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies;areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Board and San Diego Water Board; State Water Quality Protected Areas; water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Board and San Diego Water Board;and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermittees. See BMP Design Manual Chapter 1.4.2 for additional guidance. Yes No (e) New development projects, or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 ❑ M square feet or more of impervious surface, that support one or more of the following uses: (i) Automotive repair shops. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any one of the following SIC codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536- 7539. (ii) Retail gasoline outlets (RGOs). This category includes RGOs that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. Yes No (f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land ® ❑ and are expected to generate pollutants post construction. • Note:See BMP Design Manual Chapter 1.4.2 for additional guidance. Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the Priority Development Project categories (a) through (f) listed above? ❑ No—the project is not a Priority Development Project (Standard Project). M Yes—the project is a Priority Development Project (PDP). Further guidance may be found in Chapter 1 and Table 1-2 of the BMP Design Manual. The following is for redevelopment PDPs only: The area of existing (pre-project) impervious area at the project site is: [ ] ft2 (A) The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is [ ] ft2 (B) Percent impervious surface created or replaced (B/A)"100: [ ] % The percent impervious surface created or replaced is (select one based on the above calculation): ❑ less than or equal to fifty percent (50%)—only newly created or replaced impervious areas are considered a PDP and subject to stormwater requirements OR ❑ greater than fifty percent (50%)—the entire project site is considered a PDP and subject to stormwater requirements • Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] Template Date: July 411, 2018 WQMP • Step 4.1 : Water Quality Management Plan requirements Step Answer Progression Is the project a Standard Project, ❑ Standard Standard Proiect requirements apply, STOP, Priority Development Project(PDP),or Project you have satisfied stormwater exception to PDP definitions? requirements. To answer this item,complete Step 4 ® PDP Standard and PDP requirements apply. Project Type Determination Checklist, Complete Exhibit A "PDP and see PDP exemption information Requirements." below. For further guidance, see Chapter 1.4 of the BMP Design Manual in its ❑ PDP Go to Step 4.2 below. entirety. Exem lion Step 4.2: Exemption to PDP definitions Is the project exempt from PDP definitions based on either of the following: If so: ❑ Projects that are only new or retrofit paved sidewalks, bicycle Standard Project lanes, or trails that meet the following criteria: requirements apply, AND (i) Designed and constructed to direct stormwater runoff to any additional requirements adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-erodible permeable specific to the type of areas; OR rpA 'ect. City concurrence (ii) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected with the exemption is from paved streets or roads [i.e., runoff from the new improvement does not drain directly onto paved streets or required. Provide • roads];OR discussion and list any (iii) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or additional requirements surfaces in accordance with City of Temecula Guidance on below in this form. Green Infrastructure; STOP, you have satisfied stormwater requirements. ❑ Projects that are only retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved Complete Exhibit A alleys, streets or roads that are designed and constructed in "PDP Requirements." accordance with the City of Temecula Guidance on Green Select Green Streets Infrastructure. Exemptions where applicable. Discussion 1 justification, and additional requirements for exceptions to PDP definitions, if applicable: [ ] • Template Date: July 411, 2018 Preparation Date: [INSERT MO/DY/YR] • Exhibit A City of Temecula PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REQUIREMETS II PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • This page was left intentionally blank. • • Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS iii • Table of Contents Tableof Contents....................................................................................................................... iii Attachments............................................................................................................................... ui Preparer's Certification Page ......................................................................................................v Step 1: Site Information Checklist......................................................................................... 7 Step 1.1 : Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns............................ 7 Step 1.2: Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns................... 8 Step 1.3: Other Site Requirements and Constraints......................................................... 9 Step 2: Strategy for Meeting PDP Performance Requirements............................................10 Attachments Attachment 1: Stormwater Pollutant Control BMP Selection Attachment ta: DMA Exhibit Attachment 1 b: 85'h percentile 24-hour Isohyetal Map Attachment 1c: Worksheet B.1-1 DCV Attachment 1 d: Structural Pollutant Control BMP Checklist(s) Attachment 2: Hydromodification Control Measures • Attachment 2a: Applicability of HMP Requirements Attachment 2b: HMP Exhibit(s) Attachment 2c: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design Attachment 2e: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels (optional) Attachment 2f: Vector Control Plan (if applicable) Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Plan Attachment 3a: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 3b: Maintenance Agreements / Notifications (when applicable) Attachment 3c: Individual Structural BMP DMA Mapbook Attachment 4: City of Temecula PDP Structural BMP Verification for DPW Permitted Land Development Projects Attachment 5: Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Stormwater BMPs Attachment 6: Copy of Project's Drainage Report Attachment 7: Copy of Project's Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Report • Template Date: July 4, 2018 iv PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • This page was left intentionally blank. • • Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Preparer's Certification Page Project Name: PORTER RESIDENCE Permit Application Number: LD18-1631 PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of stormwater best management practices (BMPs)for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the BMPs as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the PDP requirements of the City of Temecula BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City of Temecula Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance (Chapter 8.28 et seq.) and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2013-0001 as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100) requirements for stormwater management. I have read and understand that the City of Temecula has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including stormwater, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this PDP WQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water • quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this PDP WQMP by City staff is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of stormwater BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. � uas h—�G RCE C74379, 6/30/2019 Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date Muhammad Mushed Alam Print Name Maiestic Design 3D Company 1 11110118 Date Engineer's Seal: PR F y� MUHAMMAD ?� MURSHEDALAM F • C CI1 IL sT97�FOF CALIFD�a`P Template Date: July 4, 2018 vi PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • This page was left intentionally blank. • • Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 7 • Step 1 : Site Information Checklist Step 1.1 : Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Project Watershed (Complete Hydrologic unit, Santa Margarita Watershed Area, and Subarea Name with Numeric Identifier Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): ❑ Existing development ❑ Previously graded but not built out ❑ Demolition completed without new construction ❑ Agricultural or other non-impervious use ® Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description/Additional Information: The site is approx. 3.18 ac and currently vacant. Surface runoff flows from the south to the northerly direction. Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply and provide each area on site): ® Pervious Area f 3.18 1 Acres (f 138,521 1 Square Feet) ❑ Impervious Areas f 0 1 Acres (f 0 1Square Feet) • Description/Additional Information: I j How is stormwater runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer: (1) Whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) Is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? If yes, describe the offsite drainage areas, design flows, and locations where offsite flows enter the project site, and summarize how such flows are conveyed through the site; (3) Provide details regarding existing project site drainage conveyance network, including any existing storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, stormwater treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels; and (4) Identify all discharge locations from the existing project site along with a summary of conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide summary of the pre-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the existing runoff discharge locations. Reference the Drainage report Attachment for detailed calculations. Describe existing site drainage patterns: Existing drainage conveyance is natural.No offsite runoff being conveyed to the site. Currently, the site has no existing storm drains, concrete channels and treatment facilities. Surrounding runoff flows natura. • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 8 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Step 1 .2: Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description/Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: Construction of A.0 drivewy and a single family residence, slopes and landscaping. Proposed Land Cover Includes (select all that apply and provide each area on site): ® Pervious Area f 1.57 1 Acres (f 68,222 Square Feet) ® Impervious Areas f 0.54 1 Acres (f 23,372 1 Square Feet) Description/Additional Information: 2.11 ac of the 3.18 ac will be disturbed List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): Impervious areas are the drieways and the house building. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): All manufactured slopes will be landscape. j Describe any grading or changes to site topography: • Grading work are primarily for the building pad and manufactured slopes and driveways. Provide details regarding the proposed project site drainage conveyance network, including storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, stormwater treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels, and the method for conveying offsite flows through or around the proposed project site. Identify all discharge locations from the proposed project site along with a summary of the conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide a summary of pre- and post-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the runoff discharge locations. Reference the drainage study for detailed calculations. Describe proposed site drainage patterns: Propsed darinage site drainage will run towards graded swales then to an infiltration trench for treatment before it flows to its natural condition. Runoff from the slopes will flow to a concrete ditche. energy dissipatores will be constructed at the end of the ditches for erosion protection. • Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS s • Step 1 .3: Other Site Requirements and Constraints When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence stormwater management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or local codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. I l Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. l • • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 10 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Step 2: Strategy for Meeting PDP Performance Requirements PDPs must implement BMPs to control pollutants in stormwater that may be discharged from a project (see Chapter 5). PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must implement flow control BMPs to manage hydromodification (see Chapter 6). Both stormwater pollutant control and flow control can be achieved within the same BMP(s). projects triggering the 50% rule must address stormwater requirements for the entire site. Structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative and engineer of record to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Chapter 1.12). Structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Chapter 7). Provide a narrative description of the general strategy for pollutant control and flow control at the project site in the box below. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing stormwater pollutant control BMPs presented in Chapter 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated or separate. At the end of this discussion provide a summary of all the BMPs within the project including the type and number. Describe the general strategy for BMP implementation at the site. The building pad area of the project was subdivided into two drainage areas,. Each DMA will • flow thru graded swales and ending up to an infiltration trench for water treatment and pollutant removal. The same thing for the a.c driveway, infiltration trench will be utilized for water treatment. Manufactured slopes are all self-treating areas. all slopes will be landscape . (Continue on following page as necessary.) • Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 11 • Description of structural BMP strategy continued (Page reserved for continuation of description of general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site (Continued from previous page) I ] • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 i i • • 12 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • ATTACHMENT 1 STORMWATER POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP SELECTION Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Sequence Contents Checklist Special Considerations for ❑ Less than or equal to fifty percent Redevelopment Projects (50% Rule) (50%) see chapter 1.7 and Step 4 of ❑ Greater than fifty percent (50%) Aooendix A.1. Refer to Figure 5-1: Stormwater Pollutant Control BMP Selection Flow Chart Attachment is DMA Exhibit (Required) IN Included ® Entire project is designed with See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the Self-Mitigating and De-Minimis back of this form. DMAs. The project is compliant with Pollution Control BMP sizing See Chapter 3.3.3 for guidance requirements. STOP Attachment 1 b Figure B.1-1: 851" Percentile 24-hour ® Included Isoh etal Map with project location Attachment 1c Worksheet B.1-1 DCV ® Included ® Entire project is designed with • Self-Retaining DMAs. The project is compliant with Pollution Control BMP sizing requirements. STOP " Structural Pollutant Control BMP ® Included Attachment 1d Checklist(s) Attachment le Is Onsite Alternative Compliance ® no proposed?' ❑ Include WQE worksheets Attachment 1f Offsite Alternative Compliance for ® Full Compliance Onsite Pollutant Control ❑ Partial Compliance Onsite with Offsite Alternative Compliance or Refer to Figure 1-3:Pathways to Full Offsite Alternative Participating in Offsite Alternative Compliance. Document onsite Compliance Program structural BMPs and complete - Pollutant Control Offsite Alternative Compliance Participation Form, and - WQE worksheets If this box is checked, the remainder of Attachment 1 does not need to be filled out. ' All stormwater pollutant control worksheets have been automated and are available for download at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/watersheds/DevelopmentandConstruction/BMP Design Manual. html x Water Quality Equivalency Guidance and automated worksheets for Region 9: http://www.proiectcleanwater.org/water-quality-equ iyalency-guidance/ Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 13 DMA Exhibit Checklist See Chapter 3.3.3 for guidance ® Point(s) of Compliance ® Project Site Boundary ® Project Disturbed Area Footprint ® Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to structural BMP, self-retaining, self- mitigating, or de-minimis) Note on exhibit De-minimis areas and discuss reason they could not be included in Step 1.3 per section 5.2.2 of the manual. Include offsite areas receiving treatment to mitigate Onsite Water Quality Equivalency. ® Include summary table of worksheet inputs for each DMA. ® Include description of self-mitigating areas. ❑ Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source control BMPs (see Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Step 3.5) ® Proposed Site Design BMPs and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness. Show sections, details, and dimensions of site design BMP's per chapter 5.2.3 (tree wells, dispersion areas, rain gardens, permeable pavement, rain barrels, green roofs, etc.) ❑ Proposed Harvest and Use BMPs ❑ Underlying hydrologic soil group (Web Soil Survey) ® Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands, pond, lake) ❑ Existing topography and impervious areas ❑ Proposed grading and impervious areas. If the project is a subdivision or spans multiple lots show pervious and impervious totals for each • lot. ❑ Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite ❑ Potable water wells, onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic), underground utilities ® Structural BMPs (identify location, structural BMP ID No., type of BMP, and size/detail) ❑ Approximate depth to groundwater at each structural BMP ® Approximate infiltration rate and feasibility (full retention, partial retention, biofiltration) at each structural BMP ❑ Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected and or conveyed through the project site, if applicable. Z Temporary Construction BMPs. Include protection of source control, site design and structural BMPs during construction. Template Date: July 4th, 2018 Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods --- ------------- -- ----------- - --------- - ---------- ---- ------- - - -- - - -- - _.. .. - R07W R06W R05W R04W R03W R02W R01W R01E R02E R03E R04E R05E I T 01 S ; ' I ' � I p , k. 0 Mira Lo Loma .ZM^ .,.,.. �0'.61•, ,l T 02 S _ RiversideNortfio 0.68. `J • ,„may • , • PigeonPass Cw. - .. _ e0.55 _ ._ _. i— _-_____—___ _-_-___ ___________. _ _._._..._.. _______ /0.54 \ � _ 0: _ ____. 0.65 Ore0 75 0 65 RiversideSouth \ 0.66 0 75 0.70 0 MorenoEast 0.65 T 03 S oss - Beaumont `-- `"�" 0.88 U '� 070 �0'6�•'••.. • , PradoDamWoodcrest -A---1 II , oso 0.68 Q �, 0 \Pe LakeM•`th vve �0.87 `Or.ry� 0\ tiI •�• .r�- - �- T 04 S \ , ! 0.75 Plata rindaG5' \o•es• T 0,5s ..I • 0.60 • ►� _. _ 0.7,0-- _.._ -- -___ ________ _ ... ____ _. .... .- • ________ J _. \O.eslo.eo 0.65 •..• San,lacintoNWS • •. _______ ___ __ _ ___ _ --_J 07 o s5 o.ao T 1058 0.60 o eo o so,, Idy1�8d o s0/ 1 0.65 O Y.. 0,85 • -�- SunCity \0.68„ 0 70 --------- --- �-.- . - , Winchester • _ _. _ / �I 0.701jF W r•.�• , '• • ',Santa Ana River Watershed 0.90 / fi ni --- ----_-- T OB S r NurkeyCreek oao I .• ElsinoreNWS • • ��yy , 1. � •\ ElCariso to ion` \' �+•v. [so• ; _`•y 0as '• ...-. . n , 5p+ Santa Margarita Watershed ; --- : • ---- ------ ----- '------- 070' '� y Q.77 - 0.65 bLr Inn« • n « « n I OmarLaC f"•ta�'�.0 ao 0.52� `.♦ Skinn�rL�Rs • •,� • \ • o as 0 e 0.65 ;•.dye T 07 S \ Anze r • v « • 0.75 _ 1• ' • 0.65 0:70 1________rimer____ T 0S S 77 0:70 6:e5 : • Rain Gage Locations a o PI eau 1.00 = _ — Te eculaNWS *� RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD � CONTROL AND WATER 4V �r-� `•�� CONSERVATION DISTRICT Agtlangavaney Isoh etal Ma R,07W R06W R05W R04W R03W R02W R01W R01E R02E R03E Y P for the 85th Percentile 24 hour Storm Event ---- ---- ------ --- -- -------- - J - - ... .. - - - ----- - July 2011 Figure B.1-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour Isohyetal Map B-3 July 2018 Automated Worksheet B.3-1: Project-Scale BMP Feasibility Anal sis 1.3 0 Design Capture Volume for Entire Project Site 1,901 cubic-feet • 1 Proposed Development Type Residential unitless 2 Number of Residents or Employees at Proposed Development 4 # 3 Total Planted Area within Development 39,406 sq-ft 4 Water Use Category for Proposed Planted Areas Low unitless 5 Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate 50.500 Inches per Hour? No yes/no 6 Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate 0.010 Inches per Hour? No yes/no 7 Is Infiltration of the Full DCV Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts. Yes yes/no 8 Is Infiltration of Any Volume Anticipated to Produce Negative Impacts. Yes yes/no 9 36-11our Toilet Use Per Resident or Employee 1.86 cubic-feet 10 Subtotal:Anticipated 36 Hour Toilet Use 7 cubic-feet 11 Anticipated 1 Acre Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 52.14 cubic-feet 12 Subtotal:Anticipated Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 47 cubic-feet 13 Total Anticipated Use Over 36 Hours 55 cubic-feet 14 Total Anticipated Use/Design Capture Volume 0.03 cubic-feet 15 Are Full Capture and Use Techniques Feasible for this Project.r No unitless 16 Is Full Retention Feasible for this Project. No yes/no 17 Is Partial Retention Feasible for this Project. No yes/no 18 Feasibility Catego 5 1,2,3,4,5 Worksheet B.3-1 General Notes: A.Applicants may use this worksheet to determine the types of structural BMPs that are acceptable for implementation at their project site(as required in Section 5 of the BMPDn.User input should be provided for yellow shaded cells,values for all other cells will be automatically generated.Projects demonstrating feasibility or potential feasibility via this worksheet are encouraged to incorporate capture and use features • in their project. B.Negative impacts associated with retention may include geotechnical,groundwater,water balance,or other issues identified by a geotechnical engineer and substantiated through completion of Form I-8. C.Feasibility Category 1:Applicant must implement capture&use,retention,and/or infiltration elements for the entire DCV. D.Feasibility Category 2:Applicant must implement capture&use elements for the entire DCV. E.Feasibility Category 3:Applicant must implement retention and/or infiltration elements for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates greater than 0.50 in/hr. F.Feasibility Category 4:Applicant must implement standard utilised biofiltration BMPs sized at 23%of the effective impervious tributary area for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates of 0.011 to 0.50 in/hr.Applicants may be permitted to implement lined BMPs,reduced size BMPs,and/or specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria identified in"Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Biofiltration BMPs"are satisfied. G.Feasibility Category 5:Applicant must implement standard lined biofiltration BMPs sized at 23%of the effective impervious tributary area for all DMAs with Design Infiltration Rates of 0.010 in/hr or less. Applicants may also be permitted to implement reduced size and/or specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria identified in"Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Biofiltration BMPs"are satisfied. H-PDPs participating in an offsite alternative compliance program are not held to the feasibility categories presented herein. • Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Desi Capture Volume 1.3) 0 Drainage Basin ID or Name Al A2 unitless • 1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Retention Retention unitless 2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.95 0.95 inches 3 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer T900 7.900 in/hr 4 Impervious Surfaces C=0.90) 9,468 5,994 s -ft 5 Semi-Pervious Surfaces C=0.30 s -ft 6 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Sersd=as Dispersion Area C=0.10 s -fr 7 Natural Type A Soil C=0.10 s -fr 8 Natural Type B Soil C=0.14 s -ft 9 Natural Type C Soil C=0.23 8,615 19,841 s -f} 10 Natural Type D Soil C=0.30 s -ft 11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion,Tree Wells,and/or Rain Barrels? o No Sn No Vo No No No No yes/no 12 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B Ci=0.90 s - t 13 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B Ci=0.30) s -ft 14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B Ci=0.10) s -R 15 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B Ci=0.10) s -h 16 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B Ci=0.14) s -ft 17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B Ci=0.23) s -ft 18 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B Ci=0.30 s -ft 19 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A # 20 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter ft 21 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E # 22 Average Rain Barrel Size al 23 Does BMP OvetflowtoStormwater Features inDownstream Drainage? �� '�� A�> ��, �,, ��, A�, A�� _A<, Ao unitless • 24 Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series unitless 25 Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas Wercent 26 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area Ci=0.90 0 n u u n u u u u 0 cubic-feet 27 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area C=0.90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 28 Total Tributary Area 18,083 25,835 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s -ft 29 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.58 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 30 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed&Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 31 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.58 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 32 Initial Design Capture Volume 830 798 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 33 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s ft 34 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s -ft 35 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio 36 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed&Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio 37 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Technique 0.58 0.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless 38 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 830 798 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 39 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 40 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 41 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.58 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 42 Final Effective Tributary Areal 10,488 10,076 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s -fr 43 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 44 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMPj 830 1 798 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet Worksheet B.1-1 General Notes: A.Applicants may use this worksheet to calculate design capture volumes for up to 10 drainage areas User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells,values for all other cells will be automatically generated,errors/notifications will be highlighted in red and summarized below. Upon completion of this worksheey proceed to the appropriate BMP Sizing workshoet(s). Automated Worksheet B.4-1: Sizing Retention BMPs 1.3 • 0 Drainage Basin ID or Name Al A2 - - - - _ _ _ - unitless 1 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 7.900 7.900 in/hr 2 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 830 798 cubic-feet 3 7 Is Retention BMP Vegetated or Non-Vegetated? 7 unitless t 4 Provided Surface Area sq-ft 5 Provided Surface Pending Depth inches 6 Provided Soil Media Thickness inches 7 Provided Gravel Storage Thickness inches 8 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 9 Soil Media Pore Space 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 1 0.40 0.40 unitless 10 Gravel Pore Space 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0A0 0.40 unitless 11 Effective Depth of Retention Storage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 inches 12 Drawdown Time for Surface Pending(Post-Storm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 13 Drawdown Time for Entire Basin(Including 6 Hour Storm) 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 14 Volume Retained by BMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 15 Fraction of DCV Retained 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 ratio 16 Percentage of Performance Requirement Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 17 Fraction of DCV Retained (normalized to 36-hr drawdown) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio • 18 This BMP Overflows to the Following Drainage Basin - - - - - - - - - unitless 19 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Worl®heet B.4-1 General Notes: A.Applicants may use this worksheet to size Infiltration,Bioretendon,and/or Permeable Pavement BMPs (INF-1,INF-2,INF-3) for up to 10 basins.User input must be provided fox yellow shaded cells,values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets,values for all other cells will be automatically generated,errors/notifications will be highlighted in red/orange and summarized below.BMPs fully satisfying the pollutant control performance standards will have a deficit treated volume of zero and be highlighted in green. Attentionl -This BMP does not My satisfy the performance standards for pollutant control and must be supplemented with flow-thru treatment and an offsite alternative compliance project. 0 Automated Worksheet B.5-1: Sizing Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs 1.3 0 Drainage Basin ID or Namc - - - - ' - - - - _ - s -ft • 1 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer - - - - - - - - - in/hr 2 Effective Tributary Area s -ft 3 Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Sizing Factor - - - - - - - - - - ratio 4 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP - - - - - - - - cubic-feet 5 Is Biofiltration Basin Impermeably Lined or Unlined? unitless 6 Provided Biofiltration BMP Surface Area s -ft 7 Provided Surface Ponding Depth inches 8 Provided Soil Media Thickness inches 9 Provided Depth of Gravel Above Underdrain Invert inches 10 Diameter of Underdrain or H dromod Orifice(Select Smallest) inches 11 Provided Depth of Gravel Below the Underdram inches 12 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 13 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless 14 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 15 Effective Retention Depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 16 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown(Including 6 Hr Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 17 Volume Retained by BMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 18 Fraction of DCV Retained 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 19 Portion of Retention Performance Standard Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 20 Fraction of DCV Retained normalized to 36-hr drawdown 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 21 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 22 Max H dromod Flow Rate through Underdrain n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a CFS 23 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdram Orifice n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a in/hr 24 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr • 25 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizin 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 26 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 27 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless 28 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 29 Drawdown Time for Surface Pondin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 30 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 31 Total Depth Biofiltered 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 32 Option I -Biofiltex 1.50 DCV:Target Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 33 Option 1 -Provided Biofiltration Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 34 Option 2-Store 0.75 DCV:Target Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 35 Option 2-Provided Storage Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 36 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 37 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs SatisfyAnnual Retention Requirements? - - - - - - - - - - es/no 38 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 39 This BMP Overflows to the Following Drainage Basin - - - - - - - - - unitless 40 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Wotl sheet B.5-1 General Notes: A.Applicants may use this worksheet to size Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (BF-1,PR-1)for up to 10 basins.User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells,values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets,values for all other cells will be automatically generated,errors/notifications will be highlighted in red/orange and summarized below.BMPs fully satisfying the pollutant control performance standards will have a deficit treated volume of zero and be highlighted in green. 0 Automated Worksheet B.5-2: Sizing Specialized Biofiltration BMPs 1.3 0 Drainage Basin ID or Name - - - - - - - _ - - s -ft • I Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Enginee i in/hr 2 Effective Tributary Area s -ft 3 Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Sizing Factor ratio 4 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP - - - - - - - - - - cubic-feet 5 Is Biofiltration Basin Impermeably Lined or Unlined es/no 6 Provided Biofiltration BMP Surface Area s -ft 7 Provided Surface Pending Depth inches 8 Provided Soil Media Thickness inches 9 Provided Depth of Gravel Above Underdrain Invert inches 10 Diameter of Underdrain or H dromod Orifice Select Smallest) inches 11 Provided Depth of Gravel Below the Underdrain inches 12 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 13 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless 14 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 15 Effective Retention Depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 16 Calculated Retention StorageDrawdown(Including6 Hr Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 17 Volume Retained b BMP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 18 Fraction of DCV Retained 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 19 Portion of Retention Performance Standard Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 20 Fraction of DCV Retained normalized to 36-hr drawdown) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 21 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 22 Max H dromod Flow Rate through Underdram n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a CFS 23 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a is/hr • 24 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 is/hr 25 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing -5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 26 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour StormK30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 27 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless 28 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 29 Drawdown Time for Surface Pending 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 30 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration De 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 31 Total Depth Biofilte 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 inches 32 Option 1 -Biofilter 1.50 DCV:Target Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 33 Option 1 -Provided Biofiltration Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 34 Option 2-Store 0.75 DCV:Target Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 35 Option 2-Provided Storage Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 36 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 37 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? - - - - - - - - - es/no 38 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 39 This BMP Overflows to the FollowingDrainage BM - - - - - - - - - unitless 40 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwatet n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Worksheet B.5-2 Cenral_Notes: A.Applicants may use this worksheet to size lined or unlined Spam Biofiltradon BMPs (BF-3) for up to 10 basins.Note that applicants proposing specialized biofiltration BMPs must satisfy minimum annual retention criteria and provide documentation demonstrating compliance with all Appendix F criteria User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells,values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets,values for all other cells will be automatically generated,errors/notifications will be highlighted in red/orange and summarized below.BMPs fully satisfying the pollutant control performance standards will have a deficit treated volume of zero and be highlighted in green. Automated Worksheet B.5-3: Alternate Minimum Biofiltration Foot rint Ratio 1.3 0 Drainage Basin ID or Name - - - - - _ _ - - - unitless I Drains to following BMP Type - - - - - - _ _ - - unitless 2 Final Effective Tributary Area sq-ft 3 Is Proposed Biofiltration BAD <3%of Effective Tributary Area Desire& No No No No No No No So No No yes/no 4 Average Annual Precipitation inches 5 Load to Clog(default=2.0) Ib/sq-ft 6 Allowable Period to Accumulate Clogging Load(default=10) years 7 Pretreatment Measures Included% yes/no 8 Commercial: TSS=128 mg/L,C= 0.80 sq-ft 9 Education: TSS=132 mg/L,C= 0.50 sq-ft a • 10 Industrial: TSS=125 mg/L,C= 0.90 sq-ft 11 Low Traffic Areas: TSS=50 mg/L,C= 0.50 sq-ft 12 Multi-Family Residential: TSS=40 mg/L,C= 0.60 sq-ft 13 Roof Areas: TSS=14 mg/L,C= 0.90 sq-ft 14 Single Family Residential: TSS=123 mg/L,C= 0.40 sq-ft 15 Transportation: TSS=78 mg/L,C= 0.90 sq-ft 16 Vacant/Open Space: TSS=216 mg/L,C= 0.10 sq-ft 17 Effective-Area Based on Specified Land Use Coefficients 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 sq-ft • 18 Average TSS Concentration for Tributary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mg/L 19 Average Annual Runoff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 cubic-feet 20 Average Annual TSS Load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lb/yr 21 Average Annual TSS Load After Pretreatment Measures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lb/yr 22 Minimum Allowable Biofiltration Footprint Ratio ratio Worksheet B.5-3 General Notes: A.Applicants may use this worksheet to calculate Alternate Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Ratios for up to 10 basins.User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells,values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets,values for all other cells will be automatically generated,errors/notifications will be highlighted in red and summarized below.Inputs for Lines 4-7 (precipitation,load to clog,clogging period,and pretreatment measures)must be supported through supplemental documentation. • Automated Worksheet B.6-1: Sizing Flow-Thru BMPs 1.3 0 Drainage Basin 1D or Name Al A2 _ unitless 1 Final Effective Tributary Area 10,488 10,076 sq-ftn 2 Final Adjusted Ruoff Factor 0.58 0.39 unitless 3 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 830 798 cubic-feet 4 Volume Effectively Retained and/or Biofiltered 0 0 cubic-feet 5 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stotmwater Requiring Flow-Thru Treatment -830 -798 cubic-feet 6 Maximum Rated Water Quality Flow Rate of Proposed BMP CFS 7 Adjustment Factor 1.00 1.00 - - - - - - - - unitless 8 Design Rainfall Intensity for Flow-Thru BMPs 0.20 0.20 in/ht 9 Water Quality Flow Rate Requiring Flow-Thru Treatment 0.048 0.046 CFS 10 Is Flow-Thru BMP Adequately Sized' `,.:, unitless Worksheet B.6-1 General Notes: A.Applicants may use this worksheet to size flow-thm BMPs (FT-1 through FT-5) for up to 10 basins. Note that applicants proposing flow-thru BMPs must provide supplemental documentation to support the maximum water quality flow rate referenced above, demonstrate medium to high pollutant removal efficiency for project's most significant pollutants of concern,and must also implement an offsite alternative compliance project to offset the deficit of effectively treated stormwater volume.User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells,values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets,values for all other cells will be automatically generated,errors/notifications will be highlighted in red/orange and summari>ed below. Attentionl -Proposed flow-thin BMPs are not adequately sized to treat the minimum required water quality flow rates. w Suntruar., of Stormwater Pollutant Control Calculations 1.3 0 Drainage Basin ID or Name Al A2 - - - - - - - - unidess 1 85th Percentile Storm Depth 0.95 0.95 - - - - - - - - inches 2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geoteclu ical 7 900 7.900 in/hr Engineer 3 Total Tributary Area 18,083 25,835 - - - - - - - - sq-ft 4 85th Percentile Storm Volume(Rainfall Volume) 1,432 2,045 - - - - - - - - cubic-feet 5 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.58 0.39 - - - - - - - - unitIms 6 Initial Design Capture Volume 830 798 - - - - - - - - cubic-feet 7 Dispersion Area Reductions 0 0 - - - - - - - - cubic-feet 8 Tree Well and Rain Barrel Reductions 0 0 - - - - - - - cubic-feet 9 Effective Area Tributary to BMP 10,488 10,076 - - - - - - - - square feet 10 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 830 798 - - - - - - - cubic-feet 11 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Retention Retention - - - - - - - unidess 12 Volume Retained by BMP 0 0 - - - - - - - cubic-feet (normalized to 36 hoot drawdown) 13 Total Fraction of Initial DCV Retained within DMA 0.00 0.00 - - - - - - - - fraction 14 Percent of Average Annual Runoff Retention Provided O'(P, 0,00/0 - - - - - - - % 15 Percent of Average Annual Runoff Retention Required 80.0% 80.00/6 - - - - - - - % 16 Percent of Pollution Control Standard Satisfied 0.00/0 0.00/0 - - - - - - - - % 17 Discharges to Secondary Treatment in Drainage Basin - - - - - - - - - - umdess 18 Impervious Surface Area Still Requiring Treatment 11,653 11,196 - - - - - - - - square feet 19 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Downstream Dispersion - _ _ _ - square feet Area q 20 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Downstream square feet Dispersion Area q 21 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stoanwater ;,.. r - - - - - - - - cubic-feet Summary Notes: All fields in this summary worksheet are populated based on previous user inputs.If applicable,drainage basin elements that require revisions and/or supplemental information outside the scope of these worksheets are highlighted in orange and summaiczed in the red text below.If all drainage basins achieve full compliance without a need for supplemental information,a green message will appear below. Attenrionl -Requirements for minimum annual retention are not satisfied at the drainage area level. Incorporate additional retention features or demonstrate minimum retention criteria is satisfied as the project-level-scale. -Performance standards for onsite pollutant control are not satisfied.The applicant must implement onsite flow-thm BhIPs per Worksheet B.6-1 and an offsite alternative compliance project to mitigate for the deficit of effectively treated stormwater. 14 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Structural Pollutant Control BMP Checklist Provide the following items for each Structural BMP selected Refer to Figure 5-2: Stormwater Pollutant Control Structural BMP Selection Flow Chart DMA ID No. f At 1 Structural BMP ID No. [ 1 1 Construction Plan Sheet No. SHT 2 OF 2 OF GRADING PLAN M Structural BMP Feasibility-Worksheet B.3-1: Project-Scale BMP Feasibility Analysis ❑ Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Refer to Appendices C and D to complete. ❑ Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs ❑ Worksheet D.5-1 Infiltration & partial retention Safety Factor Structural BMP Selection and Design (Chapter 5.5): ❑ Worksheet B.6-1 - Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) ❑ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) ❑ Continuous simulation Model ® Worksheet B.4-1 ® Infiltration basin (INF-1) ❑ Bioretention (INF-2) ❑ Permeable pavement (INF-3) ❑ Worksheet B.5-1 ❑ Biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) . ❑ Biofiltration (BF-1) ❑ Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) ❑ Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern ❑ Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) ❑ Appendix F checklist ❑ Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern ❑ -Worksheet B.5-3 Minimum Footprint ❑ -Worksheet B.5-4 Biofiltration + Storage ❑ Selected BMPs have been designed to address the entire DCV. The DMA is compliant with Pollution Control BMP sizing requirements. STOP ❑ Other (describe in discussion section below) ❑ Worksheet B.6-1 - Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below) ❑ Describe in discussion section below why the remaining BMP size could not fit on site. ❑ Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern ❑ Selection of Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs with high or medium effectiveness ❑ FT-1 Vegetated swales ❑ FT-2 Media Filters ❑ FT-3 Sand Filters ❑ FT-4 Dry Extended Detention Basin ❑ FT-5 Proprietary flow-thru treatment control ❑ Pollutant Control Offsite Alternative Compliance Participation form • ❑ Water Quality Equivalency Worksheets20 Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 15 • Purpose: ❑ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP ® Pollutant control only ❑ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control (see Attachment 2) ❑ Other (describe in discussion section below) Who will certify construction of this BMP? Muhammad Mushed Alam Provide name and contact information for the Majestic Design 3D party responsible to sign BMP verification P.O Box 223 forms (See Chapter 1.12 of the BMP Design Temecula, CA. 92593) Manual Who will be the final owner of this BMP? ❑ HOA ® Property Owner ❑ City ❑ Other (describe) [ ] Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? ❑ HOA ® Property Owner ❑ City ❑ Other (describe) [ ] Discussion (as needed): (Continue on subsequent pages as necessary) • If this box is checked, Worksheet B.6-1 does not need to be filled out. • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 16 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water and Pollutants of Concern Describe flow path of stormwater from the project site discharge location(s), through urban storm conveyance systems as applicable, to receiving creeks, rivers, and lagoons as applicable, and ultimate discharge to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): Runoff from the project site will flow towards concrete v-ditch until it reaches its discharge pt to a natuaral flow path towards Temecula creek and Santa Margarita river until it reaches its ultimate discharge point the Pacific ocean. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies3 within the path of stormwater from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs and/or Highest Priority Pollutants from the WQIP for the impaired water bodies: TMDLs/WQIP Highest 303(d) Impaired Water Bodv Pollutant s /Stressor s Priority Pollutant Temecula Creek Pesticides, Metals, Nutrient [ ] Santa Margarita River Pathogens, Nutrients [ ] Santa Margarita Lagoon Pathogens, Nutrients [ ] Identification of Project Site Pollutants" *Identification of project site pollutants below is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs. Note the project must also • participate in an alternative compliance program (unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated). Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual A pendix B.6): Also a Receiving Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern Sediment ❑ Nutrients ❑ 0 19 Heavy Metals ❑ Organic Compounds ❑ Trash & Debris ❑ ® N Oxygen Demanding ❑ Substances Oil & Grease ❑ IK Bacteria & Viruses ❑ Pesticides ❑ • 3 The current list of Section 303(d)impaired water bodies can be found at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/water quality assessment/#impaired Template Date:July 41, 2018 •o a mew °q� E Mu to i mq�b N0P,M9ey t Pe V �S Yanld al•lis R. Fb*au o° TOM we ? �° PROJECT +� vA 1 SITE 1 per. , •40 1/ �r s a M Q, R� 4 S /I N Majestic VICINITY MAP ► ` `' P.O.Box 223 Temecula,CA.92593 Tel.(951)595-3839 l� Majesticdesign3D@Gmail.com MAJESTIC I t. N .— _7 °k F �... �2 � J. )� ti• n.r...mrne..y e.� 5 AYE B E P it,F bl 8mm Q I 0 A l i0 P E 5 Y i, x.a.naa.w�e.ae..y�nul ^^C+ r �- �,-' € * - 1� j ,• xra..a.e.v ev..a..yixa 0 N Atj. .:.Q, ew, .. � - •,} o \,�y,,, II yd • - � � _____ xre,..a•ae..v ay..ev,r isn / `N'-6 .63 2.62 �i� -- r t,�`'" /:••�- �1^. , !' f �^�` _ __� A? � ,r �xw.w.m,.x.u.e,wc M., uq� �. - � ^.. 51 - ✓` v r ., 1 J}" a.Ww P„y\,. r w -,:�V'riC'.' I 232 222 1- '�d __ Rrr Z 4x- / w 221 ` '.2P2 ski243_ A cAMIi- m 283 w•,��. 4� v'"" - wl pe•v. �s' - - aw a rE P.nyp 4 I 4171r '�y"}•�3 213 yv 53 w�. 2.12 r YJ ,eb a..I _ '% s• hn ash ,`� � ;2.7 t 1!f .._ . A• r , _J , ."'.Mpu Ic-.. ` ' s`_ r 1 4 £ f �� '� --. ems.,� -,•uL x, OCEANSDE "�4 •i " mow..„v - ;-ice -.-Y.. y� RECEIVING WATERS MAP PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 17 Pollutant Control Offsite Alternative Compliance Participation Form Refer to Chapter 1.8 Onsite Project Information Record ID: [ ] Assessor's Parcel Number(s) [APN(s)] [ ] Quantity of Pollutant Control Debits or Credits (cubic feet) [ ] ❑ Debits ❑ Credits 'See Attachment 1 of the PDP WQMP Record ID: APN(s) Project Owner/Address Credit/Debit Quantity (cubic feet 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit 2 [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit • 3. [ ] [ ] [ ] ElCredit [ ] ❑ Debit 4 [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit 5 [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit 6 [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit Total sum of Credits and Debits (Credits -IDebits) (cubic feet) [ ] Additional Information Are offsite project(s) in the same credit trading area as the onsite project? ❑ Yes ❑ No Will projects providing credits be completed prior to completion of projects ❑ Yes receiving credits? ❑ No Are all deficits accounted for? ❑ Yes If No, onsite and offsite projects must be redesigned to account for all deficits. ❑ No Provide supporting WOE calculations as part of this attachment. • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 • N • • 18 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • ATTACHMENT HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Sequence Contents Checklist Attachment 2a Do Hydromodification Management ❑ Hydromodification management Requirements apply? See Chapter controls required. 1.6 and Figure 1-2. ❑ Green Streets Project (Exempt from hydromodification management requirements) STOP ' ❑ Exempt from hydromodification management requirements ❑ Include Figure 1-2 and document any "NO" answer STOP ' Attachment 2b HMP Exhibit (Required) See ❑ Included Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. see Chapter 6.3.1 • Attachment 2c Management of Critical Coarse ❑ Exhibit depicting onsite/upstream Sediment Yield Areas CCSYAs (Figure H.1-1) AND, ❑ Documentation that project See Chapter 6.2 and Appendix H of avoids CCSYA per Appendix H.1. the BMP Design Manual. OR ❑ Sediment Supply BMPs implemented. Attachment 2d Structural BMP Design Calculations, ❑ Included Drawdown Calculations, and ❑ Submitted as separate stand- Overflow Design Summary alone document (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual Attachment 2e Geomorphic Assessment of ❑ Included Receiving Channels (Optional ❑ low flow threshold is 0.302 default low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2) ❑ low flow threshold is 0.502 See Chapter 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2f Vector Control Plan (Required when ❑ Included structural BMPs will not drain in 96 ❑ Not required because BMPs will hours) drain in less than 96 hours Attachment 2g Offsite Alternative Compliance for ❑ Full Compliance Onsite Hydromodification ❑ Partial Compliance Onsite with • Offsite ACP or Full Offsite ACP. Refer to Figure 1-3:Pathways to Document onsite structural BMPs Participating in Offsite Alternative and complete Hydromodification Compliance Program Offsite Alternative Compliance Template Date: July 4'h, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 19 • Participation Form, and WQE worksheets * If this box is checked, the remainder of Attachment 2 does not need to be filled out. • • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 n 'Awl qp Mnh ASK •, � ` 1 T `I i• e:Y: me M Ov XX /� �� IAy* • -� 0 -.O 1A aI r! ♦. y.♦. . ..- '44� �1 �t • 0 • .! d� ...7 CampNndiDton Wtine Corps Base x. L �e i 20 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: ❑ Point(s) of Compliance with name or number ® Project Site Boundary ® Project Disturbed Area Footprint ® Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to structural BMP, self-retaining, self- mitigating, or de-minimis) Note on exhibit De-minimis areas and reason they could not be included. Include offsite areas receiving treatment to mitigate Onsite Water Quality Equivalency. ❑ Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source control BMPs (see Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Step 3.5) ® Proposed Site Design BMPs and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness. Show sections, details, and dimensions of site design BMP's (tree wells, dispersion areas, rain gardens, permeable pavement, rain barrels, green roofs, etc.) ❑ Proposed Harvest and Use BMPs ❑ Underlying hydrologic soil group (Web Soil Survey) ® Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands, pond, lake) ® Existing topography and impervious areas ® Proposed grading and impervious areas. If the project is a subdivision or spans multiple lots show pervious and impervious totals for each lot. ® Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite • ❑ Potable water wells, onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic), underground utilities ❑ Structural BMPs (identify location, structural BMP ID No., type of BMP, and size/detail) ❑ Approximate depth to groundwater at each structural BMP ❑ Approximate infiltration rate and feasibility (full retention, partial retention, biofiltration) at each structural BMP ® Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected and or conveyed through the project site. ® Temporary Construction BMPs. Include protection of source control, site design and structural BMPs during construction. ❑ Onsite and Offsite Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected ❑ Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness ❑ Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) ❑ Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) • Template Date: July 4'", 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 21 • Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas (Attachment 2c) Document the findings of Site-specific Critical Coarse Sediment Analysis below. Include any calculations, and additional documentation completed as part of the analysis. Refer to Chapter 6.2 and Appendix H of the City of Temecula BMP Design Manual for additional guidance. The project effectively manages Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas (CCSYAs) using the following methodology: ❑ Step A. A Site-Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Analysis was performed: ❑ Step A.1. Determine whether the project site is a significant source of critical coarse sediment to the channel receiving runoff (refer to CCSYA mapping in Appendix H): ❑ The project site is a significant source of Bed Sediment Supply. All channels on the project site are preserved or bypassed within the site plan. (Complete Step A.2, below) ❑ The project site is a source of Bed Sediment Supply. Channels identified as verified critical coarse sediment yield areas are preserved. (Complete Step A.2, below) ❑ The Project site is not a significant source of Bed Sediment Supply. (STOP, supporting information provided with this checklist) ❑ Impacts to verified CCSYAs cannot be avoided. (Complete Step B, below) ❑ Step A.2. Project site design avoids CCSYAs and maintains sediment supply pathways, documentation is provided following this checklist. (STOP, include supporting • documentation with this checklist) ❑ Step B. Sediment Supply BMPs are implemented onsite to mitigate impacts of development in CCSYAs, documentation is provided following this checklist. (STOP, include supporting documentation with this checklist) • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 22 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Hydromodification Offsite Alternative Compliance Participation Form Refer to Chapter 1.8 Onsite Project Information Record ID: [ ] Assessor's Parcel Number(s) [APN(s)] [ ] Quantity of Hydromodification Debits or Credits (DCIA) ❑ Debits ❑ Credits [ ] 'See Attachment 1 of the PDP WQMP • . . Record ID: APN(s) Project Owner/Address Credit/Debit Quantity (DCIA) 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit 2. [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit 3. [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit 4. [ ] [ ] [ ] El Credit [ ] ❑ Debit • 5. [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit 6. [ ] [ ] [ ] ❑ Credit [ ] ❑ Debit Total sum of Credits and Debits (yCredits - Debits) (DCIA) [ ] Additional Information Are offsite projects in the same credit trading area as the onsite project? ❑ Yes ❑ No Do offsite projects discharge directly to the same susceptible stream reach as ❑ Yes the onsite project? (required for certain hydromodification scenarios) ❑ No Will projects providing credits be complied prior to completion of projects ❑ Yes receiving credits? ❑ No Are all deficits accounted for? ❑ Yes If No, onsite and offsite projects must be redesigned to account for all deficits. ❑ No Provide supporting WQE calculations as part of this attachment. • Template Date: July 4', 2018 • w • PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 23 ATTACHMENT 3 Structural BMP Maintenance Information Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: ❑ Project does not propose structural BMPs Attachment Sequence Contents Checklist Attachment 3a Structural BMP Maintenance Plan ❑ Included (Required) See Structural BMP Maintenance Information Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 3b Standard Structural BMP Draft ® Included Water Quality Maintenance Agreement Management Plan Operation and Maintenance Agreement ❑ Not applicable —City Maintained ❑ Not applicable — Discretionary Project Attachment 3c Individual Structural BMP DMA ❑ Included Mapbook (Required) ❑ Not applicable — Discretionary -Place each map on 8.5'x11" paper. Project -Show at a minimum the DMA, Structural BMP, and any existing hydrologic features within the DMA. • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 24 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Attachment 3a must identify: ❑ Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This must be based on Chapter 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) ❑ How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance ❑ Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) ❑ Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable ❑ Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP) ❑ Recommended equipment to perform maintenance ❑ When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management Attachment 3b: For all Structural BMPs, Attachment 3b must include a Water Quality management Plan Operation and Maintenance Agreement in the City's standard format Found in • Appendix A.3. Refer to Chapter 7.3 in the BMP Design Manual. • Template Date: July 41h, 2018 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: • Kent Porter 2019-0190737 (Property Owner's Name) 05/29/2019 04:08 PM Fee: $ 128.00 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Page 1 of 14 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside 13013 Temescal Canyon Rd. Peter Aldana Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder (Property Owner's Mailing Address) 'III��y ,u `. i'u�j`'y�,�ff'I II Corona, CA. 92883 I��tT��fff u�y1{�r''Ir 1 562 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE • RECORDING OF A WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR APN 959-010-008 (Name of Project) 31043 JEDIDIAH SMITH ROAD, TEMECULA, CA. 92592 (Address or Tract Map/Lot No.) Page I Water Quality Management Plan • Operation and Maintenance Agreement Property Owner Name: Kent Porter Property Owner Mailing Address: 13013 Temescal Canyon Rd. Corona,CA.92883 Project Address or Location: 31043 Jedidiah Smith Rd. Temecula, CA. 92592 Project's Assessor Parcel Number: 959-010-008 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 Kent Porter (Owner), this (insert day) of (insert month and year) WHEREAS, the Owncr 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 project (Project) known as(insert name of project) Residential Project 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-storm 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 localion(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 storm water and non-stormwater runoff, and may also require compliance with Local. Stale, and Federal laws and regulations pertaining to confined space entry and waste disposal methods in effect at the time such maintenance occurs; Page 2 NOW THEREFORE„ the Owner and Successors shall be subject to the following • conditions: 1. This Agreement shall he 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 he 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 exercise(] 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. 1 Owner hereby provides the City complete access at any time and of any duration during business homy 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 propose of inspecting the BMPs and/or sampling nmoff 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 procce(Is 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 Properly 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. • Pagc 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) K��.1 ► V0(L 1&(L to � Name Signature Signature Title Title A notary acknowledgement is required for recordation (attach appropriate acknowledgement). • • Page 4 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE§ 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy,or validity of that document. State of C Mfornia ) County oftu`ev5tf _ On Ir a,4. : 20IS before me, n � �1!11 1212 Date Here Insert Name and Title of the cer personally appeared btc+ ]M - V— Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(sQ2�Vare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me thalUshe/they executed the same in I er/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by&Yher/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. 1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. • MARIAEDITNDUMTES WITNESS my had nd officials al '': Notry PuMk-Caplan+ G . +r Rlverelde County Commit Wn a 2218934 My Comm.E:Wiea Oct 29.2021 Signature Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above OPTIONAL Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capecity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑General ❑Individual ❑Attorney in Fact ❑ Individual ❑Attorney in Fact ❑Trustee ❑Guardian or Conservator ❑Trustee ❑Guardian or Conservator ❑Other: ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: 02016 National Notary Association•www.NationalNotary.org • 1-800-US NOTARY(1-800-876-6827) Item #5907 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 9 OF TRACT MAP 9833 ON FILE IN MB 121 PAGES 9- 14 RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF. APN# 959-010-008 • • 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"XII". Do not include color exhibits. Page 6 EXHIBIT "B " M,S[,D .69S OZ 60E / BMP NO. 2 INFILTRATION TRENCH / �M O /S • J LU �s y1 ti a LL � n BMP NO. 3 INFILTRATION TRENCH \ a ;L A 8S\9 100' 0 100 / SCALE: 1" = 100' S(Jx i • ,�O/ / i EXHIBIT "B " OBSERVATION WELL W/ SCREENED REMOVABLE CAP —\ 9.0' OVERFLOW 6" PVC PIPE 00 ( r J � oo it i'{ i III W a _ k3 a cl) L/ _-.fit+. L `y �— o o� o GEOTEXTILE /�i� GEOTEXTILE I >_ _ 00 �\— d C_ I-, FABRIC PER FABRIC PER �' �C �L_ oo� SOILS REPORT SOILS REPORT _ l U 1=- (SIDES ONLY) � oo c /- � - -�I (SIDES ONLY) =� > c o 04 ) f AASHTO #3 OR 57 MATERIAL OR CLEAN, WASHED AGGREGATE 1 6" PVC o = II PERFORATED = > >� ooC TO 3" IN DIAMETER PIPE 1= . �.] �` =III EQUIVALENT ;III 111-III-III III 1IE-all . - I_I I=-III; -III_ BMP NO. 1 TO 3 INFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL NOT TO SCALE • • EXHIBIT C (Operation and Maintenance Manual) I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this manual is to provide maintenance instructions for the infiltration trenches located along the cast, west and south side of the project, just north of Rancho California Road The infiltration trenches 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 infiltration trenches 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 infiltration trenches and how it functions • A description of the location of Infiltration trenches An understanding of the procedures required to effectively maintain the infiltration trenches on a regular basis Reproducible copies of the forms, logs and guidance sheets necessary for recording maintenance activities associated with the Infiltration trenches. 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND FUNCTION The infiltration trenches are long, narrow basin comprised of layers of porous • materials that allow collective urban runoff to infiltrate into the ground. From the top of the trench to the bottom, the porous materials consist of • Varying depth layer of mulch (minimum depth of 3") • 12" of 3/8" Gravel (Pea Gravel) • 30" of 1.5"-2.5" Dia. Washed Drain Rock • Impermeable Liner on the sides of the Basin A 4" diameter perforated pvc will be installed at the bottom of the 30" (1.5"-Z.S") layer. This pipe connects to a storm drain box and serves to provide a positive outlet for collected water that has built up into the trench as the rate of inf7owing runoff exceeds the infiltration rate of the trench. This prevents standing water from occurring in the trench, which in turn could create vector concerns. Pollution Is mitigated through infiltration of runoff Into the porous materials within the trenches and ultimately through infiltration in to the ground below the trench. 3. MAINTENACE RESPONSIBILITY The property Owner, KentPorler, is ultimately responsible formaintaining the infiltration trenches. The goal in maintaining the trenches is to ensure that infiltration is occurring. Regular inspection and replacement of materials within the trenches once they become 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 trench at least twice a year, The first inspection should happen prior to August I 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. MAINTENANCE INDICATORS AND ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONAL MAINTENACE: Regular functional maintenance is required to ensure that the infiltration trenches perform 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 infiltration trenches are functioning as designed. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE Preventative maintenance shall 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: Corrective maintenance will be required on an emergency or non-routine basis to correct problems and restore the intended operation and safe function of the infiltration wench. INFILTRATION TRENCH MAINTENACE • inspect a minimum of twice a year, before and after the rainy season, after large storms or more frequently as needed. • Clean the trench 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. This is an expensive activity and the need for it may be minimized through the prevention of upstream erosion. • Control mosquitoes as necessary. • Remove litter and debris from surface as required. • Table 1, Typical Maintenance Activities for the Infiltration Trench Design Criteria and Maintenance Indicator inspection Frequency Maintenance Activitv Routine Actions Inspection for standing Presence of water that has been Annually and 72 hours after a Check the 4"pvc drain pipe for Presence of water that standing for 72 hours storm event blockages and unclog. water in the infiltration trench. Inspect for sediment buildup .Sediment depth within 2"of Bi-Annually Remove and replace top layer within the 4"underdrain the bottom of basin of infiltration trench materials (12"of 3/8"gravel(Pea Gravel) Maintenance Indicators: Maintenance Indicators are signs or triggers that indicate that maintenance personnel need to check the infiltration trenches for maintenance needs. The most common triggers include warnings or accounts ofstanding water and sediment accumulation. The proceeding Table I shows conditions and criteria that trigger the need for sonic specific routine infiltration trench maintenance activities. Emergencies may occasionally arise that would require a more urgent, critical response. Sediment Removal: 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 orsolvents. When the sediment reaches a level within 2: of the invert of the 4: pvc underdrain, the sediment must he removed. 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, if 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 (TTLC;c). Chemicals that exceed the allowable concentrations are considered hazardous wastes and must he removed from the sediment. 5. Inspection and Maintenance Checklist • Infiltr2tion Trench Inspection and Maintenance Checklist Date of Inspection: Type of Inspections: o Monthly o pre-Wet Season o After Heavy Runoff (I" or greater) o End of Wet Season ❑ Other Defect Conditions when Maintenace is Maintenance Comments !Describe Results Exnected when required Needed(Yes or maintenance completed and if maintenance is No) needed maintenance was not performed is conducted,and if needed maintenance was not conducted, Standing Water When water stand in the There should be no infiltration trench longer than 72 standing water in excess hours of 7? hiirdq Trash and Debris Visible confirmation of Trash and debris Accumulation accumulated trash and debris. removed from infiltration trench and Sediment Evidence of sedimentation in Materials removed and trench disposed of properly so that there is no standing water Bedding Lavers/ Visual inspection reveals Uniform graded Side slopes materials is not uniform or has surfaces, no erosion Miscellaneous Anv condition not covered above Meet the design but need attention to ensure specification proper function of the infiltration Water quality Management Plan WQMP APN 959-010-008 Structural Quantity Capital Annual Start up O & M Responsible Responsible Treatment Costs O & M Dates Frequency Funding Funding BMP's ($) (Weekly/ Party for Party Monthly/ Installation Quarterly) Infiltration 44.5' L X $2,500.00 $750.00 Prior to Monthly Developer Developer Trench 9.01W X Occupancy BMP 5.0'D Infiltration 40.0' L X $2,500.00 $750.00 Prior to Monthly Developer Developer Trench 9,0+W X Occupancy BMP 5.0'D Infiltration 40.0' L X $2,500.00 $750.00 Prior to Monthly Developer Developer Trench 9.01W X Occupancy BMP 5.0'D • • • • A PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 25 • ATTACHMENT 4 City of Temecula PDP Structural BMP Verification for Permitted Land Development Projects ❑ Not Applicable— Discretionary Project • • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 26 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • This page was left intentionally blank. • • Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 27 City of Temecula Structural BMP• Verification Form Project Summa Information Project Name PORTER RESIDENCE Record ID (e.g., grading/improvement plan LD18-1463 number Project Address 391043 JEDIDIAH SMITH RD TEMECULA, CA 92592. Assessor's Parcel Numbers APN s 959-010-008 Project Watershed SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (Complete Hydrologic Unit, Area, and Subarea Name with Numeric Identifier Responsible Party for Construction Phase Developer's Name KENT PORTER Address 13013 TEMESCAL CANYON RD. CORONA, CA. 92883 Email Address kent@her--Ilc.com Phone Number 951-674-9999 Engineer of Work Muhammad Musled Alam • Engineer's Phone Number 951-595-3839 Responsible Partyfor Onaoing Maintenance Owner's Names ' KENT PORTER Address 13013 TEMESCAL CANYON RD CORONA, CA. 92883 Email Address kent@her-Ilc.com Phone Number 951-674-9999 "Note: If a corporation or LLC, provide information for principal partner or Agent for Service of Process. If an HOA, provide information for the Board or property manager at time of project closeout. • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 28 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS City of Temecula Structural BMP Verification Form Page 2 of 4 isStormwater Structural Pollutant Control & Hydromodif!cation Control BMPs* List all from WOMP Maintenance Plan STRUCT- Agreement Description/Type of Sheet URAL BMP Recorded Doc Structural BMP # ID# # Revisions INFILTRATION TRENCH 2 1 INFILTRATION TRENCH 2 2 INFILTRATION TRENCH 2 13 • Note: If this is a partial verification of Structural BMPs, provide a list and map denoting Structural BMPs that have already been submitted,those for this submission, and those anticipated in future submissions. • Template Date: July 411, 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 29 Checklist for Applicant to submit to City inspector: ❑ Copy of the final accepted WQMP and any accepted addendum. ❑ Copy of the most current plan showing the construction detail sheets of the Structural BMPs and the location of each verified as-built Structural BMP. ❑ Photograph of each Structural BMP. ❑ Photograph(s) of each Structural BMP during the construction process to illustrate proper construction. ❑ Copy of the approved Water Quality Management Plan Operation and Maintenance Agreement(s). By signing below, I certify that the Structural BMP(s) for this project have been constructed and all BMPs are in substantial conformance with the approved plans and applicable regulations. I understand the City reserves the right to inspect the above BMPs to verify compliance with the approved plans and City Ordinances. Should it be determined that the BMPs were not constructed to plan or code, corrective actions may be necessary before permits can be closed. Please sign your name and seal. Professional Engineer's Printed Name: [SEAL] • Professional Engineer's Signed Name: Date: • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 30 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS City- OFFICIAL USE ONLY: ir For City Inspector: Verification Package #: City Inspector: Date Project has/expects to close: Date verification received from EOW: By signing below, City Inspector concurs that every noted Structural BMP has been installed per plan. City Inspector's Signature: Date: For Land Development Staff: Date Received from City Inspector: Land Development Submittal Reviewer: • Land Development Reviewer concurs that the information provided for the following Structural BMPs is acceptable to enter into the Structural BMP Maintenance verification inventory: List acceptable Structural BMPs: Land Development Reviewer's Signature: Date: • Template Date: July 4", 2018 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 31 • ATTACHMENT 5 Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Stormwater BMPs, Source Control, and Site Design Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the plans: The plans must identify: ® Structural BMP(s) with ID numbers ® The grading and drainage design shown on the plans must be consistent with the delineation of DMAs shown on the DMA exhibit ❑ Improvements within City Public Right-of-Way have been designed in accordance with Appendix K: Guidance on Green Infrastructure. ® Details and specifications for construction of structural BMP(s). ❑ Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable. ❑ Signage indicating the location and boundary of source control, site design, and structural BMP(s) as required by City staff. ❑ How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance. ❑ Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, benchmarks or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) • ❑ Include landscaping plan sheets showing vegetation and amended soil requirements for vegetated structural BMP(s), amended soil areas, dispersion areas, tree-wells, and self- mitigating areas ® All BMPs must be fully dimensioned on the plans ❑ Include all Construction stormwater, source control, and site design measures described in the WQMP. Can be included as separate plan sheets as necessary. ❑ When proprietary BMPs are used, site-specific cross section with outflow, inflow, and model number must be provided. Photocopies of general brochures are not acceptable. • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 32 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS This page was left intentionally blank. • • • Template Date: July 411, 2018 • o� • • PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 33 • ATTACHMENT 6 Copy of Project's Drainage Report Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Drainage Report: ❑ The project is required to prepare and submit a CEQA Drainage Study in compliance withRiverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual: httt ://rcflood.org/downloads/Planning/Hydrology%20Manual%20-%20Complete.pdf In addition to the guideline, the study shall include the following but not limited to: ❑ The final CEQA Drainage report shall be signed, stamped and dated by the responsible Registered Civil Engineer. ❑ In the narrative of the report please provide a summary table of: pre- and post- development C, Tc, I, A, V100, Q100 without mitigation and Q100 with mitigation for each area (or point) where drainage discharges from the project. Peak runoff rates (cfs), velocities (fps) and identification of all erosive velocities (at all points of discharge) calculations for pre- development and post-development. The comparisons should be made about the same discharge points for each drainage basin affecting the site and adjacent properties. ❑ Summary/Conclusion: Please discuss whether or not the proposed project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial • erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Provide reasons and mitigations proposed. ❑ Discuss whether or not the proposed project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Provide reasons and mitigations proposed. ❑ Discuss whether or not the proposed project would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems? Provide reasons and mitigations proposed. ❑ Discuss whether or not the proposed project would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, including County Floodplain Maps? Provide reasons and mitigations proposed. ❑ Discuss whether or not the proposed project would place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ Discuss whether or not the proposed project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 34 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS ❑ Provide existing and proposed Hydrology Maps for each phase. The maps shall show isexisting and proposed culverts, discharge point with A & C, flow path direction for each drainage basin. Show existing FEMA floodplain/floodway which flow through the property. A minimum map size is 11"x17". ❑ Provide Hydrologic Soil Group Map. ❑ Provide Rainfall Isopluvials for 100 Year Rainfall Event - 6 Hours and 24 Hours Maps. ❑ The report should have numbered pages and a corresponding Table of Contents. ❑ Improvements within City Public Right-of-Way have been designed in accordance with Appendix K: Guidance on Green Infrastructure. ❑ BMP's have been designed to safely convey the 100 year flood If hardcopy or CD is not attached, the following information should be provided: Title: Prepared By: Date: • • Template Date: July 4'h, 2018 • V • • PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 35 • ATTACHMENT 7 Copy of Project's Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Report ❑ This attachment is empty because a geotechnical and groundwater report is not required. If hardcopy or CD is not attached, the following information should be provided: Title: Prepared By: Date: • • Template Date: July 4th, 2018 'a r` I LGC GEO - ENVIRONMENTALy INC . GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 31043 JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD, IN THE CITY OFTEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Dated. February 12, 2018 Project No. G18-1584-10 Prepared For. Mr. Kent Porter 13013 Temesca/Canyon Road Corona, CA 92883 • 27570 Commerce Center Drive,Suite 128,Temecula,California 92590 Phone: 951.291.2450 1 Fax: 951.719.2998 1 Wmigc9eoeou.com LGC GEO - ENVIRONMENTAL , INC . GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS TESTING - 9WPPP Amok February 12, 2017 Project No. G18-1584-10 Mr. Kent Porter 13013 Temescal Canyon Rd Corona, CA 92883 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical and Infiltration Investigation Report, For the Proposed Single Family Residence, Located at 31043 Jedediah Smith Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc. (LGC) is pleased to submit herewith our preliminary geotechnical and infiltration investigation report, for the proposed single family residence, located in the city of Temecula. This report presents the results of our research of published geologic/geotechnical reports and maps, geologic mapping and review of aerial imagery, field exploration and laboratory testing; in addition to our geotechnical and geologic judgment, opinions, conclusions and preliminary recommendations associated with the proposed residential development and associated infiltration device. Based on the results of our field exploration, geologic mapping, preliminary infiltration testing, laboratory testing, Weologic and geotechnical engineering evaluations, along with our review of published literature and the referenced recise Grading Plan it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed single family residence provided that the recommendations presented herein are utilized during the design, grading, and construction. LGC should review any grading plans, as well as any foundation/structural plans when they become available, and revise the recommendations presented herein, if necessary. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you during the design stages of this project. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, LGC GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL,INC. �5\CNAL DUNCAN WAI.I(F.R �- �� a No. EG 1395 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING Duncan Walker, CEG 1395 v)> GEOLOGIST �Q �ptiES5/0" Larry D. ooley, RICE Certified Engineering Geologist 9T �' Q O�kfOCI4(�- Project gineer qp A)R/DW/LDC / G ?� 00<� . Distribution: (4) Addressee No. C54037 "&f Exp. 12/31/11 S NIr' 4Tf OF CA0f 275713 COMMERCE CENTER DR., #1 282 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 PHONE: (951 ) 297-2450 . FAX: (951 ) 71 9-2998 WWW.LSCOEOENV.COM TABLE OF CONTENTS • Sec ion pane 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................I 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services............................................................................ 1 1.2 Proposed Construction and Grading.................................................................... 1 1.3 Location and Site Description............................................................................... 1 1.7 Aerial Imagery and Stereo Photograph Analysis...............................................2 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION...................................................................................................2 2.1 Surface Reconnaissance.......................................................................................2 2.2 Field Exploration ....................................................................................................2 2.3 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................2 2.4 Infiltration Testing.................................................................................................2 3.0 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................4 3.1 Regional Geologic Setting.....................................................................................4 3.2 Local Geology and Soil Conditions.......................................................................4 3.3 Groundwater.......................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Caving .....................................................................................................................6 3.5 Surface Water........................................................................................................6 3.6 Faulting................................................................................................................... 6 3.7 Secondary Seismic Effects.................................................................................... 7 • 3.8 Liquefaction............................................................................................................7 3.9 Subsidence .............................................................................................................7 3.10 Landsliding..............................................................................................................7 3.11 Shallow Ground Rupture...................................................................................... 7 3.12 Lateral Spreading.................................................................................................. 7 3.13 Tsunamis and Seiches..........................................................................................7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................8 4.1 General....................................................................................................................8 5.0 SEISMIC-DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................8 5.1 Ground Motions .....................................................................................................8 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................9 6.1 Shrinkage/Bulking and Subsidence.....................................................................9 6.2 Cut/Fill Transition and Fill Differentials............................................................. 10 6.2 Excavation Characteristics.................................................................................. 10 6.3 Compressible/Collapsible Soils........................................................................... 10 6.4 Preliminary Infiltration Design Rates................................................................. 10 7.0 SITE EARTHWORK......................................................................................................10 7.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications................................................ 10 7.2 Geotechnical Observations and Testing............................................................ 10 7.3 Clearing and Grubbing........................................................................................ 11 7.4 Overexcavation and Ground Preparation ......................................................... 11 • 7.5 Fill Suitability........................................................................................................ 11 7.6 Oversized Material ............................................................................................... 11 7.7 Benching............................................................................................................... 12 Project No. G18-1584-10 i February 12, 2018 7.8 Fill Placement....................................................................................................... 12 7.9 Inclement Weather.............................................................................................. 12 8.0 SLOPE CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................12 8.1 Slope Stability....................................................................................................... 12 8.2 Fill Slopes.............................................................................................................. 12 8.3 Cut Slopes............................................................................................................. 12 8.4 Temporary Excavations....................................................................................... 12 9.0 POST-GRADING CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................13 9.1 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control.............................................. 13 9.2 Utility Trenches.................................................................................................... 13 10.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.....................14 10.1 General.................................................................................................................. 14 10.2 Allowable-Bearing Values ................................................................................... 14 10.3 Settlement............................................................................................................ 14 10.4 Lateral Resistance................................................................................................ 14 10.5 Footing Setbacks from Descending Slopes ...................................................... 14 10.6 Building Clearances from Ascending Slopes..................................................... 14 10.7 Footing Observations.......................................................................................... 15 10.8 Expansive Soil Considerations............................................................................ 15 11.10 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork....................................................................... 16 11.0 SOIL CORROSIVITY....................................................................................................16 11.1 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal ..................................................................... 16 �2.0 RETAINING WALLS.....................................................................................................17 12.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations............ 17 12.2 Footing Embedments.......................................................................................... 18 12.3 Drainage ............................................................................................................... 18 12.4 Temporary Excavations....................................................................................... 18 12.5 Retaining Wall Backfill......................................................................................... 19 14.0 PLAN REVIEWS AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES............................................19 15.0 LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................19 LIST OF TABLES,APPENDICES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Tables Table 1 -Infiltration Design Rates (Page 4) Table 2- Significant Faults in Proximity of the Project Site (Page 6) Table 3 -Seismic Design Soil Parameters (Page 11) Table 4 -Estimated Shrinkage/Bulking (Page 9) Table 5- Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork for Low Expansive Soils (Page 16) Table 6- Lateral Earth Pressures (Page 17) Figures&Plates 0 figure 1 - Site Location Map (Page 3) igure 2- Regional Geologic Map (Page 5) lates 1 -Geotechnical and Infiltration Map(Rear of Text) Project No. G18-1584-10 ii February 12, 2018 Appendices •Appendix A— References (Rear of Text) Appendix B—Trench Logs (Rear of Text) Appendix C— Laboratory Test Procedures and Test Results (Rear of Text) Appendix D —Infiltration Test Data Sheets Appendix E—General Earthwork and Grading Specifications(Rear of Text) • • Project No. G18-1584-10 iii February 12, 2018 1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1,1 Purpose and Scope of Services This report presents the results of LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc.'s (LGC) preliminary geologic and geotechnical investigation, as well as preliminary infiltration testing results for an onsite storm water infiltration device, for the proposed single family residence, located within the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The purpose of this Preliminary Geotechnical and Infiltration Report is to determine the nature of surface and subsurface soil conditions, evaluate their characteristics, and provide geotechnical recommendations with respect to grading, construction, foundation design, onsite storm water infiltration and other aspects relative to the proposed development of the site. The referenced Precise Grading Plan was utilized as the base map for our Geotechnical and Infiltration Map (Plate 1) for the site. Our scope of services include: Review of previous preliminary geotechnical and geologic reports for the site (if available), as well as readily available published geologic maps, recent aerial imagery, and pertinent documents regarding the anticipated geologic and geotechnical conditions at the site (Appendix A). Geologic observations and mapping of the existing surface conditions at the site. Field exploration consisting of six (6) exploratory trenches for the purpose of determining existing subsurface geological conditions, to depths of approximately 5.5 feet to 7.5 feet, utilizing a track excavator; in addition to six (6) exploratory infiltration trenches for the purposes of infiltration testing, to depths of approximately 3 feet to 3.5 feet, utilizing a track excavator. • Conduct preliminary infiltration tests, utilizing a standard percolation test methodology, within exploratory infiltration trenches IF-1 thru IF-6. • Laboratory testing of selected representative samples of soils for characterization of the engineering properties of onsite soils. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analysis of the data with respect to the proposed single family residence. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and preliminary geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed single family residence, as well as providing preliminary infiltration rates for the proposed storm water infiltration device. 1.2 Proposed Construction and Gradino The referenced Precise Grading Plans indicates that the proposed single family residence will be comprised of 1 single family residential building, landscape and hardscape areas. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be constructed of wood and steel framing, with concrete footings and floor slabs constructed on-grade. For this type of construction, relatively light to moderate loads will likely be imposed on the underlying soils. Additionally, a storm water infiltration device is proposed near the southeasterly corner of the site. According to the referenced Precise Grading Plan, proposed maximum cut of 20 feet and fill depths appear to be approximately 20 feet respectively. Proposed maximum cut and fill slope heights appear to be approximately 60 feet or less, at slope ratios of 2:1 horizontal to vertical (h:v) or flatter. 1,3 Location and Site Description The subject site is rectangular in shape, with the highest section in an hour glass shape with slopes on each side. The site is located on the eastside of Jedediah Smith Road; between Lillian Avenue and Gibson Boulevard, • in the Lakeland Village area, Riverside County, California. The existing site elevations vary from approximately 1,200 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the highest point onsite, to approximately 1,125 msl in the southeasterly lowest section of the site. Local drainage is generally directed to the north to the southeast and Project No. G18-1584-10 1 February 12, 2018 the north to the southwest; down the slopes. The general location and configuration of the site is shown on • the Site Location Map (Figure 1). A site reconnaissance and aerial imagery shows the site to be covered with a moderate to heavy growth of grass and shrubs, with a sparse growth of trees along the northeastern property boundary. 1.4 Aeriai Imagery and Stereo Photograph Anaivsis Google Earth Pro aerial imagery (from 1995 to 2016) was evaluated for the subject site and surrounding vicinity. The available information, as it pertains to the geologic and geotechnical issues of the proposed single family residence, has been included herein. 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION 2.1 Surface Reconnaissance Surface reconnaissance of the site and accessible surrounding areas was accomplished by a geologist from this firm on January 6, 2018, to document existing surface geological conditions - utilizing the referenced Precise Grading Plan for plotting geologic units. This information has been plotted on the enclosed Geotechnical and Infiltration Map (Plate 1). 2.2 Field Exploration Subsurface exploration at the subject site was performed on January 6, 2018, and involved the advancement of six (6) exploratory trenches (TR-1 thru TR-6) to depths ranging from approximately 5.5 feet to 7.5 feet, utilizing a track excavator and the excavation of six (6) exploratory infiltration trenches (IF-1 thru IF-6), for the • purposes of infiltration testing, within the location of the proposed storm water infiltration device, to depths ranging from approximately 3 feet to 16.5 feet, utilizing a track excavator. Earth materials encountered within the exploratory trenches were classified and logged by a geologist from this firm in accordance with the visual- manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). At the conclusion of the subsurface exploration, all trenches were backfilled with excavated spoils, with minor compactive effort. Minor settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. The approximate locations of the exploratory trenches are shown on the Geotechnical and Infiltration Map (Plate 1). Prior to subsurface work, an underground utilities clearance was obtained from Underground Service Alert of Southern California. 2.3 Laboratory Testing During our subsurface exploration, representative soil samples were retained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing was performed on selected representative samples of onsite soil materials and included in-situ maximum density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, direct shear, sulfate content, chloride content, and minimum resistivity and pH. A brief description of the laboratory test criteria and test data are presented in Appendix C. 2.4 InRitration Testing Shallow infiltration tests, labeled IF-1 thru IF-6, were performed on January 7, 2017, within exploratory trenches IF-1 thru IF-6, respectfully, at an approximate depth of 3.0 feet. The tests were performed as per the referenced Riverside County Low Impact Development Manual. Test holes of 20-inch depth and 8-inch diameter were excavated in all trenches at the approximate depth of the proposed infiltration device bottom. Approximately two inches of 3/4-inch gravel was placed at the bottom of each test hole to prevent scouring; and 20 inches of clean water (5 times the radius of the test hole) was filled within each of the test holes. The drop in water level, in inches, was measured and recorded at 30 minute intervals over a period of at least 6 • hours; or 10 minute intervals over a period of at least 1 hour (if sandy-soil criteria was achieved). The field percolation rates, which have vertical and sidewall infiltration, were reduced utilizing a reduction factor per the Porchet Method standard in order to determine the vertical design infiltration rate. Project No. G18-1584-10 2 February 12, 2018 L ' N ' Ar Vol- Vol CAL I , 1 The results of the percolation method infiltration tests are presented in Table 1 below. The infiltration test data . sheets are presented in Appendix D. In summary, the comprehensive infiltration testing for the proposed storm water infiltration device yielded two different composite average design infiltration rates for the two different locations. Infiltration rates are higher in the southeastern part of the site (infiltration trenches IF-1 — IF-3) and yielded an average rate of 7.9 inches/hour. In the northwest(infiltration trenches IF-5 & IF-6), the infiltration rates are slower and yielded an average rate of 0.105 inches/hour. TABLE 1 Infiltration Design Rates INFILTRATION RATES TEST FIELD DESIGN TEST REDUCTION SOIL DESCRIPTION DEPTH PERCOLATION INFILTRATION NO. (feet) FACTOR RATE RATE (USCS) inches hour inches/hour IF-1 3.0 2.0 20.98 12.00 Well-Graded SAND (SW)/Silty SAND SM with some gravel IF-2 3.0 1.94 29.27 11.20 Well-Graded SAND (SW)/Silty SAND SM with some gravel IF-3 3.5 2.88 20.83 0.84 Well-Graded SAND (SW)/Silty SAND SM IF-5 3.5 3.19 0.25 0.17 Poorly-Graded SAND (SP)/Silty SAND SM IF-6 3.0 3.24 0.120 0.04 Poorly-Graded SAND (SP)/Silty SAND SM • 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 Regional Geologic Setting Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. The northwest-trending topography is controlled by the Elsinore fault zone, which extends from the San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly to the United States/Mexico border. The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore fault zone, while the Perris Block is located along the eastern side of the fault zone. The mountainous regions are underlain by Pre-Cretaceous, metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California Batholith. Tertiary and quaternary rocks are generally comprised of non- marine sediments consisting of sandstone, mudstones, conglomerates, and occasional volcanic units. A map of the regional geology is presented on the Regional Geologic Map (Figure 2). 3.2 Local Geology and Soil Conditions Based on our review of available geological and geotechnical literature, field mapping, and our subsurface exploration conducted at the site, it is our understanding that the site is primarily underlain by artificial fill (undocumented), topsoil and the Pauba Formation. The subsurface geological contacts are described in greater detail below and presented within the exploratory trenches (Appendix B). The observed geologic unit is depicted on the Geotechnical and Infiltration Map (Plate 1). • Artificial Fill (Undocumented) (Afu): During our subsurface exploration, artificial fill (undocumented) was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 3.0 foot to 8.0 feet. This fill is generally comprised of silty sand and is characterized as being dark grey-brown; very fine to medium grained, with some • coarse grains; dry to damp; loose to medium dense; contains pores and pinhole pores; roots and roothairs; lift layers in TR-3, and construction debris. Project No. G18-1584-10 4 February 12, 2018 _lf ' ��n /rJ •`�7— I 1°J�J ' �'J tt " (r�.l'�. �t� �i - �f'� Ale... .., :— 8M;' 64naJ Gr :. 59. .190 . . .. . :�'�`...`.: .. •. :. , . .. ;ram . ./, • .r.• �'t . . .w ::.... ... ,: :�,,i .,.%•: (� 1. 10 x Wit:= :'. 'emec �t «: ' :.•-��- �._�-,•' LEGEND '� ii °• - - - \Op-Pauba Formation(early Pleistocene) GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE PECHANGA 7.5'OUADRANGLE SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES CALIFORNIA.VERSION 1.0 Geologic Contact Compiled By Michael P.Kennedyt \\ Fault-dashed where Digital Database by Brad L Nelson2 and Rachel M Hauser2 Inferred 1.California Division of Mines and Geology,Los Angeles CA '- 2.U.S.Geological Survery,Riverside,CA Project Name JEDEDIAH SMITH FIGURE 2 Project No. G18-1584-10 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Geol./En . DW/LDC Scale NOT TO SCALE Date FEBRUARY 2018 • Topsoil: Topsoil encountered on the site during our subsurface exploration, was observed to be • approximately 0.5 foot to 3.5 feet thick. The topsoil is generally comprised of silty sand and is characterized as being greyish brown to dark greyish brown; dry to damp; soft to medium stiff; very fine to medium grained, with occasional coarse grains; blocky; pores and pinhole pores; and roots and rootlets. • Pauba Formation (Oa): During our subsurface exploration, bedrock units of the Pauba Formation were encountered below the topsoil and artificial fill (undocumented), at depths ranging from approximately 1.0 feet to 13.0 feet. The Pauba Formation is generally comprised of poorly-graded sandstone with clayey matrix and silty very fine sandstone and is characterized as being yellowish tan to yellowish brown; very fine to fine with some medium grains and fine to coarse grained with clayey matrix; damp to moist; medium dense to very dense; oxidation staining; locally friable, micaceous; mottling; manganese staining; and contains caliche. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered within any of the exploratory trenches or infiltration trenches during the subsurface exploration, to the maximum depth explored of approximately 16.5 feet. Groundwater data, acquired from the California Department of Water Resources', "Water Data Library", reveals past groundwater readings at a depth of approximately 17 feet below ground surface, from a well located approximately one mile away (well station 08SO2W18ROO1S), at surface elevation of approximately 1,012.7 feet msl. 3.4 Cavina Caving was not encountered within the exploratory trenches and infiltration trenches of the subsurface investigation. Localized minor caving may occur within low-density sections of artificial fill (undocumented) and/or topsoil. •3.5 Surface Water Based on our review of the referenced 30-scale Precise Grading Plan, proposed on-site surface water flow is generally trending toward the southwest and southeast. A proposed storm water infiltration device is located near the southeasterly corner of property. Surface water runoff relative to project design is the purview of the project civil engineer and should be designed to be directed away from the proposed structures and walls. 3.6 Faultina The geologic structure of the Southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. Faults such as the Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas, are major faults in this system and are known to be active and may produce moderate to strong ground shaking during an earthquake. In addition, the San Andreas, Elsinore and San Jacinto faults are known to have ruptured the ground surface in historic times. The following table is comprised of a list of the significant faults located within 63 miles of the proposed project site. We have also included the Maximum Earthquake Magnitude predicted for each of these faults. TABLE 2 Sianificant Faults in Proximity of the Proiect Site ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE DISTANCE km) MAGNITUDE Llyw Elsinore-Temecula 2.3 6.8 Elsinore-Julian 9.6 7.1 Elsinore-Glen Ivy 17.5 6.8 • Source: EQFAULT for Windows Version 3.00b Project No. G18-1584-10 6 February 12, 2018 3.7 Secondary Seismic Effects • Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Other secondary seismic effects include shallow ground rupture, lateral spreading, seiches and tsunamis. In general, these secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault, and the onsite geology. An evaluation of these secondary seismic effects is included herein. 3.8 Lyuefaction Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. The site is not located within a County of Riverside designated liquefaction hazard zone. Groundwater was not encountered below the surface at an elevation of approximately 1,125 feet above msl to the maximum depth explored of approximately 16.5 feet(approximately 1,108.5 feet above msl). 3.9 Subsidence In consideration of the anticipated grading, recommended overexcavations, proposed structures and improvements, and subsurface material types and their conditions, unfavorable ground subsidence is not anticipated. •3.10 Landsliding Landslides or surface failures were not observed at or directly adjacent to the site. As a result, the possibility of the site being affected by land sliding is not anticipated. 3.11 Shallow Ground Rupture The potential for shallow ground rupture is considered moderate at the subject site, due to potentially active faults near the site. Cracking because of shaking from nearby or distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 3.12 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the outward and downward movement of soil adjacent to a descending slope that occurs during a seismic event and is usually associated with liquefaction of underlying soils. This typically occurs adjacent to drainage channels as the affected soil moves laterally into the open channel area. The potential for lateral spreading is considered a possibility, due to the loose to medium dense nature of the artificial fill (undocumented) and topsoil. 3.13 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the elevation and location of the proposed single family residence at the site with respect to sea level and its distance from large open bodies of water, the potential of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be a nil possibility. • Project No. G18-1584-10 7 February 12, 2018 4.0 tyONCLVSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS • 4.1 Genera/ Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed single family residence as indicated on the referenced 30-scale Precise Grading Plan, is feasible from a geotechnical and geologic standpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and project specifications. When foundation/structural plans for the proposed development are available, a comprehensive plan review should be performed by LGC. Depending on the results, additional recommendations may be necessary for geotechnical design parameters for both earthwork and foundations. Grading should be conducted in accordance with local and state codes, including the 2016 edition of the California Building Code (CBC), the recommendations within this report, and future geotechnical reports. It is also our opinion that the proposed grading and construction will not adversely impact the geologic stability of adjoining properties. The following is a summary of the primary geotechnical factors, as determined from our geotechnical evaluation of the data, published/unpublished literature, and geotechnical reports: • Based on our subsurface explorations, the site is found to be primarily underlain by Artificial Fill (Undocumented), Topsoil, and Pauba Formation. • Groundwater is not considered a constraint for the proposed development. • Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on the site. • There are no known landslides impacting the site. • • Laboratory test results of the upper soils indicate a LOW expansion potential; a negligible potential for soluble sulfate attack on normal concrete; and negligible chloride effects on reinforcing steel. • Laboratory test results of the soil encountered indicated a negligible corrosion potential to buried metals. • The site is underlain by approximately 3 feet to 11 feet of potentially compressible artificial fill (undocumented) and topsoil which may be prone to potential intolerable post-grading settlement and/or hydroconsolidation, under the surcharge of the future proposed structural loads and/or fill loads. These materials should be overexcavated to underlying competent Pauba Formation bedrock. • From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as fill, provided that they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and organic material. It is anticipated that the onsite soils may be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. 5.0 SEISMIC-DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Ground Motions The site will probably experience ground shaking from moderate to large size earthquakes during the life of the proposed development. Furthermore, it should be recognized that the Southern California region is an area of high seismic risk, and that it is not considered feasible to make structures totally resistant to seismic-related hazards. Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as • provided in the 2016 CBC Sections 1613 and 1616, and 2010 ASCE 7. The method of design is dependent on the seismic zoning, site characterizations, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system, and building height. Project No. G18-1584-10 8 February 12, 2018 The following seismic design parameters, presented in Table 4, were developed based on the CBC 2016 and • should be used for the proposed structures. A site coordinate of 33.48350 N, 117.1142, W was used to derive the seismic parameters presented below. TABLE 3 Seismic Desion Soil Parameters SEISMIC,DESIGN.SOIL PARAMETERS ZOI6 CBC Section 1613 and 2010 ASCE7 Site Class Definition (ASCE 7; Chapter 20) [Table 20.3-1] D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter Ss(for 0.2 second) [Table 1613.5.3(1)] 1.890 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S, (for 1.0 second) [Table 1613.5.3(2)] 0.770 Site Coefficient Fa (short period) [Table 1613.3.3(1)] 1.00 Site Coefficient Fv (1-second period) [Table 1613.3.3(2)] 1.50 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter SMs 1.890 short period) [Eq. 16-37 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter SM, 1.155 1-second period) [Eq. 16-38 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDs (short period) [Eq. 16-39] 1.260 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD, (1-second period) [Eq. 16-40] 0.770 • Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAm) 0.778 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS 6.1 Shrinkaoe/Buikinn and Subsidence Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soils are replaced as properly compacted fill. Table 4 contains an estimate of the shrinkage and bulking factors for the various geologic units present onsite. These estimates are based on in-place densities of the various materials and on the estimated average degree of relative compaction that will be achieved during grading. TABLE 4 Estimated Shrinkaoe/Buikina GEOLOGIC UNIT' SHRINKAGE/BULKING' Topsoil 12% to 17% (Shrinkage) Artificial Fill (Undocumented) 10% to 15% (Shrinkage) Pauba Formation 0% to 5% (Shrinkage) Subsidence due to recompaction of exposed overexcavation bottom prior to fill placement, and placement of proposed fills, is estimated to be about 0.15 foot to 0.25 foot. The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. These are preliminary rough estimates which may vary with depth of removal, stripping • losses, field conditions at the time of grading, etc. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage and subsidence that occurs during the grading operations. Project No. G18-1584-10 9 February 12, 2018 6.2 Cut/Fill Transition and Fill Differentials • To mitigate distress to structures related to the potential adverse effects of excessive differential settlement, cut/fill transitions should be eliminated from all building areas where the depth of fill placed within the "fill" portion exceeds proposed footing depths. The entire structure should be founded on a uniform bearing material. This should be accomplished by overexcavating the "cut" portion and replacing the excavated materials as properly compacted fill. Recommended depths of overexcavation are provided in the following table: Cut/Fill Transition DEPTH OF FILL. ,irwr onion DEPTHOFOVEREXCAVATION C"cut ortion' Up to 5 feet Equal Depth 5 to 10 feet 5 feet Greater than 10 feet One-half the maximum thickness of fill placed on the"fill" portion 20 feet maximum Overexcavation of the "cut" portion should extend beyond the perimeter building lines to a horizontal distance equal to the depth of overexcavation or to a minimum distance of 5 feet, whichever is greater. 6.3 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated that the onsite soils may be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment, based on our subsurface exploration and experience with these materials in the area. 6.4 Comoressible/Collaasible Soils • The results of laboratory testing indicate that the upper 3 feet to 11 feet of surficial soils/material are susceptible to varying degrees of intolerable settlement and/or hydro-consolidation (collapse) when a load is applied or the soil is saturated. Consequently, these materials should be overexcavated to underlying competent Pauba Formation and replaced as engineered fill. 6.5 Preliminary Infiltration Desion Rates Shallow infiltration testing for the proposed storm water infiltration device indicates a design rates of approximately 4.85 inches/hour, as presented in Table 1 of Section 2.4. Furthermore, based on the exploratory investigation, including historic data, groundwater should not be present within the allowable limit (of within 10 feet of the bottom of testing and/or drainage device), as set forth by the County of Riverside. 7.0 SITE EARTHWORK Zi Genera/Earthwork and Gradina Soec/tications Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with applicable requirements of the grading code of the County of Riverside, and in accordance with the following recommendations prepared by this firm. Grading should also be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the attached "General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading" (Appendix D) prepared by this firm, unless specifically revised or amended herein. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix F. Z2 Geotechn/cal Observations and Testino Prior to the start of grading, a meeting should be held at the site with the owner, developer, grading • contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical consultant to discuss the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading. Rough grading, which includes clearing, overexcavation, scarification/processing and fill placement, should be accomplished under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. Fills should not be placed without prior approval from the geotechnical consultant. Project No. G18-1584-10 10 February 12, 2018 A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should also be present onsite during grading operations • to document proper placement and compaction of fills, as well as to document excavations and compliance with the other recommendations presented herein. 7.3 CleaHM7 and Grubbino Weeds, grasses, and trees in areas to be graded should be stripped and hauled offsite. Trees to be removed should be grubbed so that their stumps and major-root systems are also removed and the organic materials hauled offsite. During site grading, laborers should clear from fills roots, tree branches and other deleterious materials missed during clearing and grubbing operations. The project geotechnical consultant or a qualified representative should be notified at the appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during clearing and grubbing operations to observe and document compliance with the above recommendations. In addition, buried structures, and any unusual or adverse soil conditions encountered that are not described or anticipated herein, should be brought to the immediate attention of the geotechnical consultant. 7.4 Overexcavation and Ground Preparation The site is underlain by up to approximately 8 feet of potentially compressible undocumented artificial fill and topsoil. Therefore, surficial fill soils considered unsuitable for support of proposed fills, structures, and/or improvements, should be overexcavated to expose underlying competent Pauba Formation. Within fill areas of the proposed building pads, overexcavations should be as deep as 11.0 feet below existing grade in depth, or until a competent bottom has been exposed. Within the cut areas of the proposed building pads, overexcavations should be approximately 3.0 feet to 5.0 feet below proposed grade in depth or until a competent bottom has been exposed. The proposed grading should provide a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill below the proposed footings. The overexcavation should also extend at least 5 feet outside the building is pavement (or a 1:1 projection away from the footing to the approved removal bottom, whichever is greater). In pavement areas, generally the upper 3 feet to 6 feet of artificial fill (undocumented) and topsoil should be overexcavated and recompacted. Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during site grading. Actual depths of overexcavation should be evaluated upon review of final grading and foundation plans on the basis of observations and testing during grading by the project geotechnical consultant. Prior to placing engineered fill, exposed bottom surfaces in each overexcavated area should first be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a uniform moisture content of optimum or higher and then compacted in place to a relative compaction of 90 percent or more (based on American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557). The estimated locations, extent and approximate depths for overexcavation of unsuitable materials are indicated on the enclosed Geotechnical and Infiltration Map (Plate 1). The geotechnical consultant should be provided with appropriate survey staking during grading to document that depths and/or locations of recommended overexcavation are adequate. Sidewalls for overexcavations greater than 5 feet in height should be no steeper than 1:1 (h:v) and should be periodically slope-boarded during their excavation to remove loose surficial debris and facilitate mapping. Flatter excavations may be necessary for stability. The grading contractor will need to consider appropriate measures necessary to excavate adjacent existing improvements adjacent to the site without endangering them due to caving or sloughing. 7,5 Fill Suitability Earth materials excavated during grading are generally considered suitable for use as compacted fill provided 0 7. they do not contain significant amounts of trash, vegetation, construction debris and oversize material. 6 Oversized Material Project No. G18-1584-10 11 February 12, 2018 Oversized material that may be encountered during grading, greater than 8 inches, should be reduced in size or removed from the site. 7.7 Benching Where compacted fills are to be placed on natural slope surfaces inclining at 5:1 (h:v) or greater, the ground should be excavated to create a series of level benches, which are at least a minimum height of 4 feet, excavated into competent bedrock. 7.8 Fill Placement Fills should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve a uniform moisture content of at least optimum moisture content and then compacted in place to relative compaction of 90 percent or more. Fills should be maintained in a relatively level condition. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. 7.9 Inclement Weather Inclement weather may cause rapid erosion during mass grading and/or construction. Proper erosion and drainage control measures should be taken during periods of inclement weather in accordance with County of Riverside and California State requirements. 8.0 SLOPE CONSTRUCTION 8.1 Slope Stability • Based on the referenced 30-scale Precise Grading Plan, the proposed cut and fill slopes at ratios of approximately 2:1 (H:V) or flatter and should be grossly and surficially stable. A proposed fill slope of 60 feet is located at the southeastern section of the site. A slope stability evaluation was performed for this slope, which is the maximum proposed fill slope on this site, achieved factors of safety of 1.30 for Psuedo Static and a 1.86 for Static. The factors of safety for other proposed fill slopes on the site should be less than or equal to these factors of safety. 8.2 Fill Slopes Following overexcavation of unsuitable soils, a 20-foot wide fill key excavated into competent bedrock should be provided at the toes of fill and fill over cut slopes. The bottom of the fill keys should be tilted at 2 percent back into the slope. 8.3 Cut Slopes Proposed cut slopes may expose low-density, dry and/or cohesionless soils, which will likely require stabilization by overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill. 8.4 TemyoraryExcavations Based on the physical properties of the onsite soils, temporary excavations exceeding 5 feet in height should be cut back at a ratio of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter, for the duration of the overexcavation and recompaction of unsuitable soil material. Temporary slopes excavated at the above slope configurations are expected to remain stable during grading operations. However, the temporary excavations should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant for any evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of • these observations, revised slope configurations may be necessary. Other factors which should be considered with respect to the stability of the temporary slopes include construction traffic and storage of materials on or near the tops of the slopes; construction scheduling; Project No. G18-1584-10 12 February 12, 2018 presence of nearby walls or structures on adjacent properties; drainage; and weather conditions at the time of • construction. Applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders; the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; and the Construction Safety Act should also be followed. 9.0 POST-GRADING CONSIDERATIONS 9.1 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control Positive-drainage device, such as sloping sidewalks, graded-swales and/or area drains, should be provided to collect and direct water away from the structure and slopes. Neither rain nor excess irrigation water should be allowed to collect or pond against building foundations. Roof gutters and downspouts should be provided on the sides of structures. Drainage should be directed to adjacent driveways, adjacent streets or storm-drain faculties. The ground surface adjacent to the structures should be sloped at a gradient of at least 5 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet, and further maintained by a Swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 2 percent. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. The civil engineer is responsible for designing drain control devices on the site. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Over watering must be avoided. 9.2 Utility Trenches Utility-trench backfill within roadways, utility easements, under walls, sidewalks, driveways, floor slabs and any other structures or improvements should be compacted. The onsite soils should generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks and other material over 3 inches in diameter and organic matter. • Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 6 inches to 8 inches in uncompacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative density (per ASTM Test Method D1557). Where onsite soils are utilized as backfill, mechanical compaction should be used. Density testing, along with probing, should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant or his representative, to document proper compaction. If trenches are shallow and the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities; clean sand, having sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, should be used to bed and shade the utilities. Sand backfill should be densified. The densification may be accomplished by jetting or Flooding and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction. A representative from LGC should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project specifications. Utility-trench sidewalls deeper than 5 feet should be laid back at a ratio of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter or braced. A trench box may be used in lieu of shoring. If shoring is anticipated, LGC should be contacted to provide design parameters. To avoid point-loads and subsequent distress to clay, cement or plastic pipe, imported sand bedding should be placed 1 foot or more above pipe in areas where excavated trench materials contain significant cobbles. Sand- bedding materials should be compacted and tested prior to placement of backfill. Where utility trenches are proposed parallel to building footings (interior and/or exterior trenches), the bottom of the trench should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing. • Project No. G18-1584-10 13 February 12, 2016 10.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS • 10.1 Genera/ Provided that site grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, conventional shallow foundations are still considered feasible for support of the proposed structures. Tentative foundation recommendations are provided herein. However, these recommendations may require modification depending on as-graded conditions within the building pad areas upon completion of grading. 10.2 Allowable-Bearing Values An allowable-bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for 24-inch square pad footings and 12-inch or more wide continuous footings founded in compacted fill or competent native soil/material at a depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width and depth, to a value no greater than 3,000 psf. The recommended allowable- bearing value includes both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for short-duration wind and seismic forces. 10.3 Settlement Based on the general settlement characteristics of compacted fill, as well as the aforementioned overexcavation recommendations and anticipated loading, it is estimated that the total settlement of conventional footings will be approximately 0.50 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be 0.25-inch over 30 feet. It is anticipated that the majority of the static settlement will occur during construction or shortly thereafter as building loads are applied. The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the grading will be performed in accordance with the grading recommendations presented in this report and that the project geotechnical consultant will observe or test the soil conditions in the footing excavations. •10.4 Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure of 345 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 3,000 psf may be used to determine lateral-bearing resistance for footings. The passive earth pressure incorporates a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. Where structures are planned in or near descending slopes, the passive earth pressure should be reduced to 150 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 1,500 psf. In addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.46 times the dead-load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. The above values may be increased by one-third when designing for short-duration wind or seismic forces. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third. The above values are based on footings placed directly against engineered compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, backfill placed against the footings should be compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. 10.5 Footing Setbacks from Descending S/ones Where structures are proposed near the tops of descending graded or natural slopes, the footing setbacks from the slope face should conform to the 2016 CBC, Figure 1808.7.1. The required setback is H/3 (one-third the slope height) measured along a horizontal line projected from the lower outside face of the footing to the slope face. The footing setbacks should be 5 feet where the slope height is 15 feet or less and up to a maximum of 40 feet where the slope height exceeds 15 feet. 10.6 Sui/ding Clearances from Ascending S/ones • Building setbacks from ascending graded or natural slopes should conform with the 2016 CBC, Figure 1808.7.1, which requires a building clearance of H/2 (one-half the slope height) varying from 5 to 15 feet. The building clearance is measured along a horizontal line projected from the toe of the slope to the face of the building. A retaining wall may be constructed at the base of the slope to achieve the required building clearance. Project No. G18-1584-10 14 February 12, 2018 10.7 Footing Observations • Footing excavations should be observed by LGC to document that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils. The foundation excavations should be observed prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. Loose, sloughed or moisture-softened soil should be removed prior to concrete placement. Excavated materials from footing excavations should not be placed in slab-on-ground areas unless the soils are compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. 10.8 Expansive Soil Considerations The results of laboratory testing indicate that onsite soil materials exhibit an expansion potential of LOW in accordance with 2016 CBC, Chapter 18. However, expansive soil conditions should be evaluated for the subject building pad during and at the completion of rough grading to observe and document the anticipated conditions. The design and construction details presented herein are intended to provide recommendations for the levels of expansion potential which may be evident at the completion of rough grading. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement more stringent than the recommendations that follow should be provided as recommended by the project architect or structural engineer. 10.9 Footing/Floor Slabs—Low Expansion Potential[Expansion Index of 21 to 5O) The following are our recommendations where the foundation soils exhibit a LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with the 2016 CBC, which specifies that slab-on-ground foundations resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20 require special design considerations. For this condition, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following criteria. • However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes, and/or reinforcement may be required by the project architect or structural engineer. For final design purposes an assumed plasticity index of 15 may be used in accordance with 2016 CBC. • Footings o Exterior continuous footings should be founded into compacted engineered fill below the lowest adjacent final grade at minimum depths of 12 inches and 18 inches deep for one-story to two-story construction, respectively. Interior continuous footings may be founded at a depth of 12-inches or greater for one-story and two-story structures, into compacted engineered fill below the lowest adjacent final grade. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 15 inches for one-story and two-story structures, respectively. o Continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four (4) No. 4 bars, two top and two bottom, subject to concurrence of the structural engineer. o Both interior and exterior pad footings should be 24 inches or more square and founded at a depth of 18 inches or more below the lowest adjacent grade. Footings should be reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. • Floor Slabs - Concrete floor slabs should be 5 inches or more thick and reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches or less on-centers, both ways. Slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks so that the desired placement is near mid-depth. - Concrete floors should be underlain with a moisture-vapor retarder consisting of 15-mil thick vapor barrier. Laps within the membrane should be sealed and overlapped 12 inches. Two inches or more of clean sand should be placed above and below the membrane to promote uniform curing of • the concrete. These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or modified) by the foundation engineer with our concurrence, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture/vapor barrier systems are placed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, and that the moisture/vapor retarder Project No. G18-1584-10 15 February 12, 2018 materials are free of tears and punctures prior to concrete placement. Additional moisture • reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements of future interior floor coverings. Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened to approximately 110% of optimum moisture content, due to the expansive nature of the soils. The moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 18 inches. 10.10 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, etc.) has a high potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines for LOW expansive soils, outlined in Table 5. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. TABLE 5 NONSTRUCTURAL CONCRETE FLATWORK FOR LOW EXPANSIVE SOILS City Sidewalk Private Sidewalks Private Drives Patios/Entryways Curb'and Gutters Minimum 4 (nominal) 4(full) 4 (full) City/Agency Thickness flnJ Standard Presaturation Presoak to 18 inches Presoak to 18 inches Presoak to 18 inches City/Agency Standard • Reinforcement — No. 3 at 18 inches on No. 3 at 18 inches City/Agency centers on centers Standard Thickened 8"x 8" 8"X 8" City/Agency Ede Standard Saw cut or deep Saw cut or deep open Saw cut or deep Crack Control open tool joint to a tool joint to a open tool joint to a City/Agency minimum of 1/3 the minimum of 1/3 the minimum of 1/3 the Standard concrete thickness concrete thickness concrete thickness Maximum 5 feet 10 feet or quarter cut 6 feet City/Agency JoIntSpacing I I whichever is closer Standard 11.0 SOIL CORROSIVITY 11.1 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (MACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment". From a geotechnical viewpoint, the"environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebar, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates. ACI 318R-05, Table 4.3.1 provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design based on different amount of soluble sulfate content. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel • pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532 and ACI 318R-05, Table 4.4.1. The corrosion potential of the onsite materials was evaluated for its effect on steel and concrete. The corrosion potential was evaluated using the results of laboratory tests performed on representative samples obtained Project No. G18-1584-10 16 February 12, 2018 during the subsurface exploration. Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pH, resistivity, chloride • content, and soluble sulfate content. Based on the laboratory testing performed, the onsite soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R-05, Table 4.3.1, and negligible chloride exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R-05, Table 4.4.1. Based on laboratory testing of on-site soils, it is also our opinion that onsite soil should be considered to have a mild corrosion risk to buried metals due to the mild resistivity. Metal piping should be corrosion-protected or consideration should be given to using plastic piping instead of metal. Despite the minimum recommendation above, LGC is not a corrosion-engineering firm. Therefore, we recommend that you consult with a competent corrosion engineer and conduct additional testing (if required) to evaluate the actual corrosion potential of the site and to provide recommendations to reduce the corrosion potential with respect to the proposed improvements. The recommendations of the corrosion engineer may supersede the above requirements. These recommendations are based on representative samples of the near surface engineered fill soils. The initiation of grading at the site could blend various soil types and import soils may be used locally. These changes made to the foundation soils could alter sulfate-content levels. Accordingly, it is recommended that additional testing may be performed at the completion of grading. 12.0 RETAINING WALLS 12.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Desion Parameters Conventional foundations for retaining walls within properly compacted fill within competent bedrock should be embedded at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf may be assumed for retaining walls founded in competent compacted fill. • The following lateral earth pressures are recommended for retaining walls that may be proposed. The recommended lateral pressures for approved on-site soils or import material (with an expansion index of 20 or less and phi angle of internal friction of at least 38 degrees), for level or sloping backfill are presented in Table 7. Onsite fill soil with an expansion index of greater than 20 should not be used as backfill due to the expansive nature. Onsite soil should be screened of rocks and other material over 3 inches in diameter. TABLE 6 Lateral Earth Pressures E UIVALENTFLUID,WEZGHT ct CONDITIONS Level Backfrll Level Backfill- 2;1'Sackfiill 2:1 BackFll (up to 6 feet) Dynamic Ascending- Ascending-Dynamic >6 feetto lO'feet) (up to 6 ftejt ,>6,.feettm4O feet Active 31 55 42 66 At-Rest 50 1 74 72 97 Passive 345 1 345 203 203 For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.45 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. Restrained structural walls should be designed for at rest conditions. The magnitude of those pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for"active"pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, • the shear strength of the retained soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for"at-rest"conditions. Project No. G18-1584-10 17 February 12, 2018 The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions and a soil expansion index of 20 or less. If • conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, revised equivalent Fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. 12.2 Footing Embedments The base of retaining wall footings constructed on level ground may be founded at a depth of 12 inches or more below the lowest adjacent final grade. Where retaining walls are proposed on or within 15 feet from the top of an adjacent descending fill slope, the footings should be deepened such that a horizontal clearance of H/3 or more (one-third the slope height) is maintained between the outside bottom edges of the footings and the face of the slope but not to exceed 15 feet nor be less than 5 feet. The above recommended footing setbacks are preliminary and may be revised based on site specific soil conditions. Footing or pier excavations should be observed by the project geotechnical representative to document that the footing trenches have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the embedments recommended above. These observations should be performed prior to placing forms or reinforcing steel. 12.3 Drainage All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. It should be noted that that recommended subdrains does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. Weep holes or open vertical masonry joints should be provided in retaining walls 3 feet or less in height to reduce • the likelihood of entrapment of water in the backflll. Weep holes, if used, should be 3 inches or more in diameter and provided at intervals of 6 feet or less along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints, if used, should be provided at 32-inch or less intervals. A continuous gravel fill, 12 inches by 12 inches, should be placed behind the weep holes or open masonry joints. The gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric to reduce infiltration of fines and subsequent clogging of the gravel. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. In lieu of weep holes or open joints, for retaining walls less than 3 feet, a perforated pipe and gravel subdrain may be used. Perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch or more diameter PVC Schedule 40 or ABS SDR-35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be embedded in 1.5 cubic feet per foot of 0.75 or 1.5-inch open graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Filter fabric may consist of Mirafi 140N equivalent. Retaining walls greater than 3 feet high should be provided with a continuous backdrain for the full height of the wall. This drain could consist of geosynthetic drainage composite, such as Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, or a permeable drain material, placed against the entire backside of the wall. If a permeable drain material is used, the backdrain should be 1 or more feet thick. Caltrans Class II permeable material or open graded gravel or crushed stone (described above) may be used as permeable drain material. If gravel or crushed stone is used, it should have less than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The drain should be separated from the backfill with a geofabric. The upper 1 foot of the backdrain should be covered with compacted fill. A drainage pipe consisting of 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (described above) surrounded by 1 cubic foot per foot of gravel or crushed rock wrapped in a filter fabric should be provided along the back of the wall. The pipe should be placed with perforations down, sloped at 2 percent or more and discharge to an appropriate outlet through a solid pipe. The pipe should outlet away from structures and slopes.The outside portions of retaining walls supporting backfill should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. 12.4 TemDoramExcavations Retaining walls, if any are proposed, should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavations are constructed. Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. To facilitate retaining wall construction, the lower S feet of temporary slopes may be cut vertical and the upper portions exceeding a height of 5 feet should be cut back at a gradient of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter for the duration of Project No. G18-1584-10 18 February 12, 2018 construction. However, temporary slopes should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant for evidence • of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, Flatter slopes may be necessary. The potential effects of various parameters such as weather, heavy equipment travel, storage near the tops of the temporary excavations and construction scheduling should also be considered in the stability of temporary slopes. Water should not be permitted to drain away from the slope. Surcharges, due to equipment, spoil piles, etc., should not be allowed within 10 feet of the top of the slope. All excavations should be made in accordance with Cal/OSHA. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. 11.5 Retaininn Wall BackfUl Any retaining wall backfill soils (with an expansion index of 20 or less) should be placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to at least 90 percent relative density (based on ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). 14.0 PLAN REVIEWS AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Kent Porter to assist the project engineer and architect in the design of the proposed single family residence. It is recommended that LGC be engaged to review the rough grading plans, storm-drain/storm water mitigation plans, structural plans and the final design drawings and specifications prior to construction. This is to document that the recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted are incorporated into the project specifications. LGC's review of the rough grading plan may indicate that additional subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and analysis should be performed to address areas of concern. If LGC is not accorded the opportunity to review these documents, we can take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. •We recommend that LGC be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during both the rough grading and construction phases of the work. This is to document compliance with the design, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. If the project plans change significantly (e.g., building loads or type of structures), we should be retained to review our original design recommendations and their applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during construction that appears to be different than those indicated in this report, this office should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required. 15.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The subsurface observations and information contained herein are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. The findings of this report may be modified upon performing future geotechnical/geologic evaluations. However, changes in the conditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. �This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to nsure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or Project No. G18-1584-10 19 February 12, 2018 subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify • the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the described geotechnical evaluations and represent our professional judgment. The findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are to be considered tentative only and subject to confirmation by LGC during the construction process. Without this confirmation, this report is to be considered incomplete and LGC will not assume any responsibility for its use. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are valid up to a period of 2 years from the date of this report or adopted changes within the California Building Code, whichever occurs first. Changes in the conditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether those be because of natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes or standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside LGC's control. Therefore, if any of the above mentioned situations occur, an update of this report must be completed. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or designed above. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this report, or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your earliest convenience. • • Project No. G18-1584-10 20 February 12, 2018 APPENDIX A REFERENCES • APPENDIXA References Blake, T.F., 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, Prepared by California Division of Mines and Geology. California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library, Groundwater Levels for Station 08S02W18ROO1S accessed February 15, 2018. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California" Special Publication 117. EQFAULT, Seismic Hazard Analysis, (33.4835, -117.1142), accessed February 13, 2018. Kennedy, Michael P., 2000 Geologic Map of The Pechanga 7.5' Quadrangle San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital Database, Version 1.0, USGS, California. Majestic Designs 3D, 2018, Precisel Grading Plan, 31043 Jedediah Smith RD, Scale 1" = 30', Sheet 2 of 3. Mann, J.F., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, Division of Mines Special Report 43, dated October 1955. •Riverside County Open Data, http://data-countyofriverside.opendata.arcgis.com, Natural Hazards, Faults, accessed February 13, 2018 Riverside County Open Data, http://data-countyofriverside.opendata.arcgis.com, Natural Hazards, Fault Zones, accessed February 13, 2018 Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines For Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999. USGS, 2017 Design Maps Summary Report, Site Coordinates: 33.48350N, -117.1142°W, Site Soil Classification "D", Risk Category I/II/III, accessed February 13, 2018. • APPENDrX B TRENCH LOGS Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH TRA Project Number. G18-1s84.10 Elevation: 1164 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 Sample Moisture Dry USCS Density Depth Date: 2/6/18 Description: Geologic No. fi) (pcf) Unit 0.0'-1.0' A TOPSOIL: SM Silty SAND; grey brown, dry to damp, loose,very fine to medium grains, roots and root hairs, pinhole pores, and blocky 1.0'-5.5' B PAUBA FORMATION; Qp Poorly Sorted SANDSTONE; yellowish brown, damp to moist, medium hard to hard, fine to coarse grains,liable, micaceous, and clayey matrix 5.5'-7.5' C PAUBA FORMATION; Qp Nuke @ 7.5 16.6 108.6 Sandy SILTSTONE; reddish brawn, damp, hard, very fine to fine grains, with occasional medium grains, mottling, and micaceous GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: r = S. SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND: N32W .... . ...... 7. s I TOTAL DEPTF = 7.5 FEET - - - I NO GROUND\kATER ENCOUNTERED Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH TR-2 Project Number. G18-1584-10 Elevation: 1165 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 USCS Sample Moisture Dens Depth Date: 2/6118 Description: Geologic No. lil Ipc� Unit 0.0'-2.5' A TOPSOIL: 001 SM Silty SAND; dark greyish brown, damp,loose to medium dense, very fine to medium grained,with trace coarse grains 2.5-6-0' B PAUBA FORMATION; OP Poorly Sorted SANDSTONE;yellowish brown,damp to moist, medium hard, fine to coarse grained,friable, clayey matrix, and micaceous GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND: N45W ...... �.:, : rr �. ::try:..• I ---- :Tr•. ::::• •i:•r:_ir:•: T. TOTAL DEPT 1= 6.0 FEET I_ NO GROUND ATER ENCOUNTER D La -I I I Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH TR-3 Project Number. G18-158410 Elevation: 1180 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 USCS Sample Moisture Density ry Depth Date: 2/8/18 Description: Geologic No. t%I ip Unit 0.0'-4.0' A ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED: Afu SM Silty SAND; dark greyish brown, damp, loose to medium dense, very fine to medium grained,with trace coarse grains and visible lifts 4.0'-6.0' B PAUBA FORMATION; Op Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE; yellowish tan, dry to damp, hard,very fine to fine grained, some oxidation staining, and trace caliche GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1" = 5. SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND:N20W ` ' :}................. :?i s .J.. .............. :'::i:�.:::::r:r: blocky I I TOTAL DEPTtp= 6.0 FEET NO GROUND*ATER ENCOUNTER D I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH TR-4 Project Number. G1 8-1 5 841 0 Elevation: 1155 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 USCS Sample Moisture Dry °ensSY Depth Date: 2/6/18 Description: Geologic No. (%) Unit (Pal) 0.0'-2.5' A TOPSOIL: SM Silty SAND;dark greyish brown, moist, loose, very fine to medium grained, and slight clayey matrix 2.5'-5.5' B PAUBA FORMATION; Poorly Sorted SANDSTONE;yellowish brown,dry to damp, hard, very Op NUKE @ 5.0' 3.8 98.1 fine to coarse, oxidation staining, pores, micaceous,caliche nodules,and a 6 inch thick Gay layer. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1' = W SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND:N71W ...................... ., ;• clay Ia -I- I-- I- I-- TOTAL DEPP -= 5.5 FEET GROUNDI 1ATER ENCOUNTERED LA 1- Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH TR-5 Project Number.G18.1584-10 Elevation: 1145 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE i Sample Moisture Dry Depth Date: y8I18 Description: Geologic USCS No, t 1 Density Unit 0.0'-3.5' A TOPSOIL: Qol SM Silty SAND;dark brown,damp, loose to medium dense,very fine to medium grained,with occasional medium grains, pores, pinhole pores, roots and roothairs, and blocky 3.5'-5.5' B PAUBA FORMATION; Qp NUKE @ 5.5' 6.5 111.3 Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE; yellowish tan, dry, hard,very fine to fine grained, trace oxidation staining, caliche nodules and stringers GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND:N40W ...5>:...... . bloc _I it can stringersi - _ _TOTAL DE-P_= 5.5 FEET I -I NO GROUND% IATER ENCOUNTER I D Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH TR-8 Project Number. G18-1584.10 Elevation: 1175 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 USC$ Sample Moisture Density Depth Data: 2/6/18 Description: Geologic No. (xi nY Unit (pct) A TOPSOIL: 0.0'-0.5' Silty SAND; dark greyish brown, dry, loose, very fine to medium grained, SM NUKE @ 0.0 5.98 114.1 roots and root hairs, and blocky 0.5'-4.5' B PAUBA FORMATION; Op Poorly Sorted SANDSTONE interbedded with Clayey SANDSTONE; Poorly Sorted SANDSTONE, yellowish brown, damp to moist, medium hard, fine to coarse grained, clayey matrix, and root hairs Sandy CLAY, reddish dark brown, damp, hard to very hard, very fine to fine grained with occasional coarse grains, trace root hairs, and slight blocky texture 4.5'-6.5' C PAUBA FORMATION; Op Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE; yellowish tan, dry, hard, very fine to fine grained,trace oxidation staining, and calcite veining GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND:NOE bloc TOTAL DEPT4= 6.5 FEET NO GROUND*ATER ENCOUNTER D Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH IF-1 Project Number. G18-15ti4-10 Elevation: 1135 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 U$C$ sample Moisturo Dry Depth Date: 216/18 Description: Geologic No. (%) h' Unit (Per) 0.0'-0.5, A ARTIFICIAL FILL, UNDOCUMENTED: Afu SM Silty SAND; dark greyish brown,dry,loose,very fine to fine grained with some medium grains, roots and root hairs. 0.5'-3.0 B pAUBA FORMATION: Op Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE;yellowish tan, dry to damp, medium hard, very fine to fine grained,with occasional medium grains, micaceous, and crossbedded GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONiNORTH WALL SCALlt 1'■ S' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND: N29E - -- _� TOTAL DEPT4= 3 FEET_ NO GROUND ENCOUNTE D Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH IF-2 Project Number. G18-1584-10 Elevation: 1130 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE i Sample Moisture Dry Depth Date: Geologic USCS No. Density P 2/6/18 Description: s- t° I fl Unit (pc 0.0'-0.5 A ARTIFICIAL FILL, UNDOCUMENTED Afu SM Silty SAND; dark greyish brown, dry, loose, very fine to fine grained with some medium grains, pinhole pores, roots and root hairs. 0.6-3.0 B PAUBA FORMATION: Qp Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE; yellowish tan, dry to damp, medium hard, very fine to fine grained,with some medium grains and fine to coarse grain lenses, micaceous, crossbedded, and has a 7inx12in dark brown clayey layer. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND: N84E .............a........ ........:........... A I I -J TOTAL DEPTI- = 3 FEET _I I NO GROUNDbf ATER ENCOUNTERED Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH IF-3 Project Number. GIB-1584-10 Elevation: 1125 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 USCS Sample Moistens Dry Density Depth Date: 2/6/18 Description: Geologic No. (x) Unit (pet) 0.0'-3.0 A ARTIFICIAL FILL. UNDOCUMENTED: Afu SM Silty SAND; dark greyish brown, damp, loose to medium dense,very fine to fine grained with some coarse grains, roots, root hairs, and construction debris 3.0'-3.5' B pAUBA FORMATION: Qp Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE; yellowish tan, dry to damp, medium hard, very fine to fine grained,with occasional medium grains, micaceous, and oxidation staining GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND:N89E ............... ... II' - TOTAL DEPT4= 3.5 FEET NO GROUND*ATER ENCOUNTER D Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH IF-4 Project Number. G18-15"10 Elevation: 1130 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 US Sample Moisture Density Depth Date: Description: Geologic No. (%I h Unit (per 0.0'-8.0' A ARTIFICIAL FILL, UNDOCUMENTED: Afu SM Silty SAND; dark greyish brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, very fine to medium grained with some coarse grains, roots, root hairs, and construction debris 8.0'-13.0' B PAUBA FORMATION: Qp Well Sorted SANDSTONE; light greyish white, dry to damp, medium hard to hard,very fine to coarse grained,with very fine to medium grains interbedded, micaceous, and oxidation staining 13.0'-16.5' C PAUBA FORMATION: Qp Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE;yellowish tan,damp, medium dense,very fine to fine grained,with occasional medium grains, micaceous, pinhole pores, and manganese staining GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SC,,.Ar�LE: 1^ = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND:N80W - -- I------ {ii}:: i• _:^..............•:}r:?: rr:i:ii(iii......... ...................tE • .. ..::. .::......... --- - ::.:: ::................... —I— — —I— -- I TOTAL DE --16.5 FEET ::::::..::.... ::: — L ts.. m:_•'•% >;'tt — — —I -- — I — I— NO GROUND ATER ENCOUNTER D —I - I— — Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH IF-5 Project Number: G18-1584-10 Elevation: 1145 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 USCS Sample Moisture Deny Depth Date: 2/6/18 Description: Geologic No. (55) b Unit (pef) 0.0'-3.0. A TOPSOIL: SM Silty SAND;dark brown, damp, loose, very fine to fine grained with some medium grains, roots, root hairs, pores, pinhole pores and blocky 3.0'-3.5' B PAUBA FORMATION: Qp Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE; yellowish tan, dry to damp, hard, very fine to fine grained,with occasional medium grains, and caliche nodules GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: In n W SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND: N85W blocky I — B ...............:: TOTALDEPT�= 3,5 FEET NOGROUND�IATER EN—BUNTER D I Project Name: JEDEDIAH SMITH Logged by: AJR LOG OF TRENCH IF-6 Project Number: G18-1584-10 Elevation: 1130 Engineering Properties Equipment: EXCAVATOR Location/Grid: SEE PLATE 1 Sample Moisture Dry Depth Date: Geologic USCS No. t%i Density P 2/6/18 Description: Unit (per) Off-2.0' A TOPSOIL: SM Silty SAND;dark brown, damp, loose,very fine to fine grained with some medium grains, pinhole pores,roots, root hairs and blocky 2.0'-3.0' B PAUBA FORMATION; op Silty Very Fine SANDSTONE;yelktwish tan,damp, hard, very fine to fine grained,with occasional medium grains, micaceous, oxidation staining, and caliche nodules GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION:NORTH WALL SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: LEVEL TREND: N45W kY _ I ,_.W....._ — _ TOTAL DEPT = 3 FEET �-NO GROUND ATE_R ENCOUNTER D -- --L - - � - -- I APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX C • Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. SW Classification: Soils were classified according the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2487 and D2488.This system uses relies on the Atterberg Limits and grain size distribution of a soil. The soil classifications (or group symbol)are shown on the laboratory test data, and boring log. Maximum Dry Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The test results are presented in the table below: MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM SAMPLELOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION(USCS) DENSITY MOISTURE by weight) CONTENT TR-2 @ 4.0' Well-Graded SAND SW 132.0 7.0 Soluble Su/fates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geotechnical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below: SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION SULFATE CONTENT SULFATE m EXPOSURE TR-6 @ 0.0' Silty SAND SM Non-Detect Negligible Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested with CTM 422. The results are presented in the table below: SAMPLELOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION CHLORIDE CONTENT m TR-6 @ 0.0' Silty SAND (SM) 21 Minimum Resistivity and nH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed with CTM 643. The results are presented in the table below: SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION PH MINIMUM RESISTIVITY ohm-cm TR-6 @ 0.0' Silty SAND SM 7.8 8,400 Direct Shear., Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample into the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of about 0.005 Inch per minute (depending upon the soil/bedrock type).The test results are in the table presented below: SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ANGLEOFINTERNAL COHESION FRICTION(degrees) (pcf) B-1 @ 0'-5' Silty SAND/ Sandy SILT SM ML 37.3 40 Expansion Index Tests Expansion Index of selected samples was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D4829. • Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: SAMPLELOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION EXPANSIONINDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL TR-2 @4.0' Well-Graded SAND SW 0 Low • • APPENDIX D INFILTRATION TEST DATA SHEETS Project: Jedediah Smith Job No.: G18-1584-10 Test Hole No.: IF-1 Date Excavated: 2/6/2018 • Depth of Test Hole: 14"/Pit Depth:2' Soil Classification: Check for Sandy Soil Criteria By: SP Date of Perc Test: 217/2018 Diameter: 8 inches SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST Time Interval Time Interval Initial Water Final Water Change In TIME Level Water Level (Minutes) (Minutes) Level(Inches) Inches Inches 9:23:00 AM 20 8.0 0.00 8.0 9:43:00 AM 9:44:00 AM 10 6.0 0.0 6.0 PRESOAK PERIOD Date Time Interval Amount of Water Used Start 2/7/18 24hrs 5 gal Stop 2/7118 TEST PERIOD Time Total Change In Field Elaspes Initial Water Final Water Percolation Time Interval Time Level(Inches) Level(Inches) Water Level Rate (min.) (min.) (Inches) (minutesllnch) 923 20 8 0.00 8.00 2.50 9:43 9:44 10 6 0.00 6.00 1.67 9:54 • 9:55 10 61/4 0.00 6.00 1.67 10:05 10:06 10 61/4 1.63 4.63 2.16 10:16 10:17 10 6 1.75 4.25 2.35 10:27 1029 10 6 1.50 4.50 2.22 10:39 10:40 10 6 3.25 2.75 3.64 10:50 10:51 10 6 3.25 2.75 3.64 11:01 11:02 10 6 3.25 2.75 3.64 11:12 11:13 10 61/2 3.00 3.50 2.86 11:23 0.07 Reduction 2,00 Factor: • Design Infiltration 12.00 0.5 Rate(inlhr): LGC GEO-ENVIRONMENTALt INC. Project: Jedediah Smith Job No.: G18-1584-10 Test Hole No.: IF-2 Date Excavated: 2/6/2018 • Depth of Test Hole: 14"/Pit Depth:2' Soil Classification: Check for Sandy Soil Criteria By: Date of Perc Test: 2/7/2018 Diameter: 8 inches SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST Time Interval Time Interval Initial Water Final Water Change In TIME Level Water Level (Minutes) (Minutes) Level(inches) Inches Inches 9:24:00 AM 20 7.0 0.00 7.0 9:44:00 AM 9:45:00 AM 10 6.0 0.0 6.0 9:55:00 AM PRESOAK PERIOD Date Time Interval Amount of Water Used Start 2/7/18 24hr 5 gal Stop 2f7/18 TEST PERIOD Time Total Change In Field Elanped Initial Water Final Water Percolation Time Interval Time Level(Inches) Level(inches) Water Level Rate (min.) (min.) (Inches) (minuteslinch) 9:24 20 0 7 0.00 7.00 2.86 9:44 9:45 10 0 6 0.00 6.00 1.67 • 9:55 9:56 10 0 7 0.00 7.00 1.43 10:06 10:07 10 0 6 0.13 5.88 1.70 10:17 10:18 10 0 7 0.50 6.50 1.54 10:28 10:30 10 0 61/4 0.00 6.25 1.60 10:40 10:41 10 0 6 1.25 4.75 2.11 10:51 10:52 10 0 6 1.25 4.75 2.11 11:02 11:03 10 0 6 1.13 4.88 2.05 11:13 11:14 10 0 6 1.13 4.87 2.05 11:24 0.07 Reduction 194 Factor: • Design Infiltration 11.20 Rate(inlhr): LGC 13 E O-E N V I R 0 N M E NTA Lr INC. Project: Jedediah Smith Job No.: G18-1584-10 Test Hole No.: IF-3 Date Excavated: 2/6/2018 • Depth of Test Hole: 14"/Pit Depth:2' Soil Classification: Check for Sandy Soil Criteria By: SP Date of Perc Test: 2/7/2018 Diameter: 8 inches SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST Time Interval Time Interval Initial Water Final Water Change In TIME Level Water Level (Minutes) (Minutes) Level(inches) Inches Inches PRESOAK PERIOD Dale Time Interval Amount of Water Used Start 2/7118 24hr 5 gal Stop 2/7/18 TESTPERIOD Time Total Change In Field Elasped Initial Water Final Water Percolation Time Inurval Time Level(inches) Level(Inches) Water Level Rate (min.) (min.) (Inches) (minutes/inch) 9:25 30 0 9 6.00 3.00 10.00 9:55 9:56 30 0 6 4.38 1.63 18.46 • 10:28 10.27 30 0 6 4.88 1.13 26.67 10:57 10:58 30 0 6 4.75 1.25 24.00 11:28 1129 30 0 6 4.88 1.13 26.67 11:59 12:00 30 0 6 5.00 1.00 30.00 12:30 12:31 30 0 6 4.88 1.13 26.67 1:00 1:02 30 0 6 4.88 1.13 26.67 1:32 1:33 30 0 6 5.00 1.00 30.00 2:03 2:04 30 0 6 4.88 1.13 26.67 2:34 2:35 30 0 6 4.88 0.07 428.57 3:05 3:06 30 0 6 4.88 1.13 26.67 3:36 Reduction 2.88 Factor: • Design Infiltration 0.84 Rate(in/hr): LGC GEC-ENVIRONMENTALr INC. Project: Jedediah Smith Job No.: G18-184-10 Test Hole No.: IF-5 Date Excavated: 2l6/2018 • Depth of Test Hole: 14"/Pit Depth:2' Soil Classification: Check for Sandy Soil Criteria By: SP Date of Perc Test: 2/7/2018 Diameter: 8 inches SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST Time Interval Time Interval Initial Water Final Water Change In TIME Level Water Level (Minutes) (Minutes) Level(Inches) Inches Inches 9:36:00 AM 25 0 9.0 8.50 0.5 10:01:00 AM PRESOAK PERIOD Date Time Interval Amount of Water Used Start 2/7118 24Hr 5 gal stop 11I30/17 TESTPERIOD Time Total Change In Field Elasped Initial Water Final Water Percolation Time Interval Time Level(inches) Level(inches) Water Level Rate (min.) (min.) (Inches) (minuteslinch) 9:36 30 0 9 8.50 0.50 60.00 10:06 10:07 30 0 8 1/2 8.00 0.60 60.00 • 10:37 10:38 30 0 B 7.75 0.25 120.00 11:08 11:09 30 0 7 3/4 7.50 0.25 120.00 11:39 11:40 30 0 7112 7.25 0.25 120.00 12:10 12:11 30 0 71/4 7.00 0.25 120.00 12:41 12:42 30 0 7 6.88 0.125 240.00 1:12 1:13 30 0 6 7/8 6.75 0,125 240.00 1:43 1:44 30 0 6 3/4 6.63 0.125 240.00 2:14 2:15 30 0 6 5/8 6.50 0.13 240.00 2:45 2.46 30 0 61/2 6.38 0.07 428.57 3:16 3'17 30 0 6 3/8 6.25 0.13 240.00 3:47 Reduction 319 Factor: • Design Infiltration 0.17 Rate Inlhr): LGC GEO-ENVIRONMENTALr INC. Project: Jedediah Smith Job No.: G18-1584-10 Test Hole No.: IF-6 Date Excavated: 2/6/2018 • Depth of Test Hole: 14"/Pit Depth:2' Soil Classification: Check for Sandy Soil Criteria By: SP Date of Perc Test: 2/7/2018 Diameter: 8 inches SANDY SOIL CRITERIA TEST Time Interval Time Interval Initial Water Final Water Change in TIME Level Water Level (Minutes) (Minutes) Level(inches) Inches Inches PRESOAK PERIOD Date Time Interval Amount of Water Used Start 217118 24hr 3 gal Stop 2/7118 TEST PERIOD Time Total Change In Field Elasped Initial Water Final Water Percolation Time Interval Time Level(Inches) Level(Inches) Water Level Rate (min.) (min.) (Inches) (minutes/Inch) 9:37 30 9.00 8.94 0.06 480.00 10:07 10:08 30 8.94 8.75 0.19 160.00 • 10:38 10:39 30 8.75 8.50 0.25 120.00 11:09 11:10 30 8.50 8.13 0.56 53.57 11:40 11:41 30 8.50 8.32 0.18 166.67 12:11 12:12 30 8.31 8.13 0.19 160.00 12:42 12:43 30 8.13 7.94 0.1875 160.00 1:13 1:14 30 T94 7.75 0.1875 160.00 1:44 1:45 30 7.75 7.56 0.1875 160.00 2:15 2:16 30 7.56 7.38 0.1875 160.00 2:46 2:47 30 7.38 7.31 0.07 428.57 3:17 3:18 30 7.31 7.25 0.06 500.00 3:38 Reduction 3.24 Factor: • Design Infiltration 0.04 Rate(in/hr): i LGC G EO-ENVIRONMENTALt INC. � .i APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORKAND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING APPENDIX E • LGCGeo-Environmental, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Snecilications for Rough Graam 1.0 General 1.1 Intent. These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record.• Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" • prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor. The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "equipment' of work and the estimated • quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not • assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor's sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Fi//ed 2.1 C/ear/na and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 10 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. • If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2,3 Overexcavat/on: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. • 2.4 Benching; Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to • vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (h:v) shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Eva/cation/Acceptance of Fill Areas; All, areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 NY Material 3.1 General. Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize; Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum • dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import; If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet all the requirements of this section. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Lavers; Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning; Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the • American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill; After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either • specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill S/ones: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 4.5 Compaction Testing. Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing. Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one (1) test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these • minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two (2) grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and City requirements and standards. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrain and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 40 NATURAL GROUND PROPOSED GRADE .Iuti eft•.. „�i...:/, .,: x4;+1'.;,••,:+x. y.� :•, ,:�.. \\r::i.y:" ~ Y� : ..._ N,,AI'.nr1 h'�`: S. 4.F:C•�k A�...:�:1,yr�n...,. Y„n �SN,:a.^ ..w,Y i.t q.^:r'•'••r�n_`r :t.`11_C.�::.�wi.:lvH,^a.+i�l'�1.MMw.w._ .r,•h.+:':�'.i;;�...w:�t� .::-t, ✓g t.•i `:`. Yx.:..„r',. Cw It a•w is;''..'a:�✓t•:l,'+.y v'. - LPt^.:''."''� X."I�•.+^:t"r �4 �,�'w;,�•.`:r i:.F•' :� h ��.• �A .: i.l`3.:c;••yt" -�1tbiC::'..�, ' .x.e.:•4;t ':Y;'w•Y•`J'• fi4 _�. :^ v.}- :::," . :,''1.'.'ri•e. y�:_;i. .,fi.;..�. y;.1;.......•vw °t J•.y'rtYr:..d �3 µy a:.q:':m�'.. :`.�,+�:':•.".+./`ti•�".:�r:Yt•Yt,^'�.r :!.s y;`(a• �^: '.t'.:}j•�:'.;'4.1 v .:'y,•.". .•:•.'. . Y`y_.L'.i:_}.... t:`\°,• �' 'w'a .3.�"4 `�,v. •,'. .. 'A' i��+ .}:"' :'c:'.i','•�'>:,a..�MPA�ED FILL I:-,'.✓Z •n i'�.r.,v: �'l•y a�•',t:w'i" ;i-'' .:.,F�f4:�ha4•;.�. ::.!.•t. �•c..,. :•<' � 'i:.fir d.:F:<;'s' �o�..�.•�;`:.>,F JCS •::i::.a�:l' : ': �.:: .. ::L4:.: � �i,':.i '?':."'.aa•,". R:_vim?5,t:.. Cv!•':1='::^:. ',s1�h`:.y'xt�'s'r'��ti+.`-'�;�4�'ti.:1i'".;..•.'4:1` +.e y>r•,,;�.�..a .`.�1_n"r ° 4:::d.Y.t.:,! _ .^:r:t�:,*r,y�_3i:irfi�.."x7 .itx �L" ,H�_e :r:i. ..i:"'>;'?�': }_•'„v. �y). •.``J9'±,taa,RP�i_•vti t•'`^::J�a:".y.:.`..1r:ii.,�:S�;�...v�'t. ' 'X,:r:•:Y dn.:f.��:��.lF;:V:• ^' .S: 'r YxMt.a�)"S'.4(yY -t .�-:L •: ii't:•.";♦ +. .Y•>+' +'�it;C .t.ta/i..JvJ.4 ?'v►y.,�q�a`S��h^:ix•}r-'>"..;.. xai7.''.^'n''Siir"" v': r:';•x��vM'.Y:.l: 4 L ; 1 1Y.:.n.•r:'1:ii',,.x.•,.:y"•v}. .. 4 :��Y••:4v'N',i.'.rytw..l "7.',�<'1y.:v�i;;ii"�.t�.+n�✓qw�t'.•Y�«':„,..n•..�a.�!.";Jy,•rw:"v'i::i.: REMOVE :.'tyt,�� '•':' ' .1-0''•'yat:.\::tr".:.is.tJ.,;w�•di:r':r�.t4�.�.r�:_+% UNSUITABLE ;'a 44:>":MSi,i.. vYSiY-.Ll�lf�[r Ltb:YS-i •c?.>2ti „f7 MATERIALS VERTICAL .Y. �; ?�4�`-..Ii.' ..:�f.:w'i:£•e xT �`N Y?�.^.•,bh BENCHES a .F : :9:r_. i:a.i•h{:1: Notes: \ 1)Continuous runs in excess of 500' shall use 8"diameter pipe. 12"MIN.OVERLAP " 2)Final 20'of pipe at outlet shall be TIED EVERY 6 FEET non-perforated and backfilled with 6"n fine-grained material. 6"COLLECTOR PIPE \ (SCHED.40,PERF.PVC) 9 F13/ OUTLET DETAIL 3/4"CRUSHED ROCK FINISHED DESIGN GRADE POSSIBLE DEEPER DEPENDENT GEOFABRIC(MIRAFI 140N UPON SITE CONDITIONS OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 10'mill. "PERFORATED PVC SCHEDULE 40 3/4"CRUSHED ROCK ' 5'MIN. GEOFABRIC(MIRAFI 14DN ��NON-PERF.PVC P PE OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) CANYON & STREET SUBDRAINS 40 DEEPER IN AREAS OF FINISHED SURFACE SWIMMING POOLS, ETC. SLOPE FACE / r ,✓ r'��' / / / / / - - - - - - - e15 15'MIN. - - --70'MIN. - 23'MIN.15'MIN. _A - - - - - - - - - - _ -p' ___ OVERSIZED =_tz TMIN. - - - - - - BOULDERK - - -- - - - - - -WMDROW VrM- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -OXERSIZF-MATERAL - - - - - COMPACTED - - - - FILL WINDROW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE - - - - - JETTED OR FLOODED =_______ _ GRANULAR MATERIAL - - - - - - - - - - - [Sand Equivalent(S.E.)of 30 or Greater] - -..- EXCAVATED TRENCH -OR DOZER V-CUT - - - NOTE: OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 12"IN DIMENSION. SECTION A-A' OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL T TYPICAL COMPACTED FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY SOILS ENGINEER PROPOSED GRADE 15'MIN. 4"PERF. PVC BACKDRAIN :, ;p�•'`� ;F�)c�:.. 4"SOLID PVC OUTLET ;:�.1:` ' .', H/2(30'MAX.) OMPETENT MATERIAL 5'M N. — — — — — / 2: c cut far ,4 1 - - - - - �i s ) asdd ne _ yeorecrin al en / 15'MIN. uttr (TYP ENSIOLtlrH OR OILS EATER OF 2% \ 1 MI5' N.) BACK OR I'TILT BACK PERF. PVC PIPE-1/4" 1 DIA. PERFORATIONS IN LOWER HALF OF PIPE 12"MIN.OVERLAP, `l TIED EVERY FEET SCHED.40 SOLID PVC OUTLET PIPE, } (TRENCH TO BE FILLED WITH NATIVE MATERIALS) OUTLETS TO BE PLACED EVERY 100'(max)O.C. F 'l�f {t POSITIVE SEAL AT JOINT 9 FT,/FT. 3/4"CRUSHED ROCK GEOFABRIC(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL CUT LOT (Exposing Unsuitable Soils/Bedrock Q Design Grade) OItIGINALGROUNT? — — / � ' _ — — TOPSOIL,COLLUVIUM &WEATHERED Proposed Grade BEDROCK S Remove unsuitable 51 material i �V :1.. .�: 1. •' . ,�;.,...•. .�...,:.,.•. \..:.. k :..;owe d.' 5' IN. COMPACTED "" : :'• cn _`. ;::��?c` COMPETE MATERIAL ::,....':: '. :'';.;t=: ;• ,' Cut at no �!: r=� �•, steeper than OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT ;.;.,'•r x;"`_• 2:1 (h:v) Note: Where design cut lots `y below building footprint are excavated entirely into COMPETENT MATERIAL P competent material, overexcavation may still be CUT/FILL TRANSITION LOT required for hard-rock conditions or for materials at different expansion characteristics. Proposed Grad OR�G114N- ROc7NU i 5' 5' oft 51111 "y`'••:'.,:>:,;,:..; GOVV�KOGK `"" "': }•}'` OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT ";'.;:.->•tO�ONKaK ,:::; :;.mac:. VISA t • ; ,,„ Cut at no steeper than 2:1 (h:v) building footprint COMPETENT MATERIAL 2%slope(min.) TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION DETAIL FILL SLOPE PROPOSED — — — — — — — i GRADE — — — — — — _COMPACTED_ — FILL NATURAL _ — -- GROUND — — — �M A_ NO _ O L—h L 7 p�ZON��F 4'TYPI AL h 9' MIN. BENCH WIDTH — — — — COMPETENT MATERIAL G eater of 20/, Slope or 1' . back 2' MIN. 15' MIN.KEY WIDTH FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE COMPACTED PROPOSED — — FILL _ GRADE — — — — — i — NATURAL _GROUND ON�Q UNSulSpB�E�— — — R�MO� 4'7"YPI AL CUT FACE * — — COMPETENT MATERIAL 2'M —Greater oft%Slope It back i Varies 9' MIN. BENCH WIDTH G ' 15' MIN. KEY WIDTH CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / NATURAL GROUND OVERBUILD AND TRIM BACK CUT FACE PROPOSED GRADE — _ � — COMPACTED FILL L=H COMPETENT MATERIAL — — — *CUT FACE SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED —� PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT 2' MIN. h Greater of /u Slope or 1'Tilt back �— --�� 15'min.Key Width Note: Natural slopes steeper than 5:1 (h:v) must be benched. KEYING AND BENCHING ss PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS • This page was left intentionally blank. • • Template Date: July 4'h, 2018 TABLE SUMMARY: DMA ID AREA IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS BMP TYPE VOL VOLUME (S.F) AREA AREA BMP PROVIDED WATER UALITY __\4ANAG M NT (S.F) (S.F) (CF) (CF) Al 18,083.18 9,468.40 8,614.78 INFILTRATION 744 831 '_�' IT PLAN TRENCH A2 25,835.34 5,994.31 19,841.03 INFILTRATION 593 671 TRENCH __ �\ ( 6"PVC PIPE B 14,481.75 0 14,481.75SELF-TREATING14 @ MIN 1%SLOPE AREA BMP N01 82.00 FL S20 C 7,212.23 0 7,212.23 SELF-TREATING . 81.00INv ° 564 "E AREA (INFILTRATION _ -- -- \ 58.50 D 2,304.06 0 2,304.06 SELF-TREATING FUHP TRENCH / % 300.16' FUHP � AREA E 8,735.90 0 8,735.90 SELF-TREATING \ [1 �0 l� �0 bo AREA � •� __ __ SELF-TREATING � g �� Y��y (1165) i F \672.20 0 6,672.20 AREA �� 25.25 Q Q1.50 FULP I G 7,\99.1 4 7,909.14 0 INFILTRATION 564 576 \ rr� UHP 30.0 TRENCH (1150) I FL 82.00 1609 ��\ In 4 S\\ \ / FULP /A1 PROP. SEEPAGE PIT \ F L. (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) L \ � 45.50 M ` O� > >>XO 35.00 FUHP f��4 o FUHP o \r h o1 ' !` �\� \ ,�S ,', ill° 6O \° c90 �S U �9.�OF 0) 28.00 INV PSQ00 '`� ��62 83.7 ��6's`so i r 3 / 61.00 FL/HP� 6"PV C PIPE° FULP O• CONNECT TO / @MIN 1/o SLOPE I P 7 �Q / � ' / BMP N0.3 OVERFLOW ' ; �°�° O \ 84.10 Ij? / V�� PIPE �^ t3` O /��'' FL (INFILTRATION 1 \ �' TRENCH EX.CONC. p _ 0000, \\\�. C SwP\� V-DITCH �OJ ✓ d - \ DFC� 3 /�QGICG lE� ��N �'� �� 6"PVC PIPE \`� 84.50 A2 \Y � :� ° � / \. `' FUHP ��O j P�4 @ MIN 1/ SLOPE oG ` 5 '�i CONN 0 0 //0 OV FLOW PIPE \\e�� 112.59 i cV ` 6"P PIPE - IN\ 1%SLOPE lE.�oMP DEC C SW ALE / \ \ / 84.00 rn O / / FS 84.00 82.40 FL FS / 81.40INV 8FL FS 3-.00 8 � FUHP 70 85 1180 � �Z) S \ /- OBSERVATION 1190 CREflgE7 _ REM6VABLE CAP -� OVERFLOW �� / PROPERTY LINE 302_05_ /— PVC-PIPEWELL _ — \ _ N 10 41' 02 _ o o J - _ I = z BMP NO.2 I o w � cn � Z (INFILTRATION \ I =► a 0 I TRENCH zl QG3 vzg 0 \ 00 __ QoQo 00 O 0 GEOTEXTILE �I \ O O FABRIC PER O O O O = SOILS REPORT GRAPHIC SCALE GEOTEXTILE - O 00 (SIDES ONLY) FABRIC PER 30 0 15 30 60 90 SOILS REPORT- O O O O — o (SIDES ONLY) - AASHTO #3 OR 57 MATERIAL OR CLEAN, ( 00 IN FEET ) - WASHED AGGREGATE 1 _ O 6" PVC �— TO 3" IN DIAMETER 1 inch = 30 ft. PERFORATED O 00 _ EQUIVALENT PIPE _I - O 00 - Underground Service Alert _ — _ SUBMITTED BY:_ _ _ // _ Majestic Design 3D " Call: TOLL FREE o P.O.Box 223 7' 1 -800 Temecula, CA. 92593 227-2600 INFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL Tel. (951)595-3839 NOT TO SCALE Majesticdesign3D@Gmail.com MAJESTIC D E S I G N TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS DATE ACC'D BENCHMARK SEAL: DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING NO. SCALE o q AP AP RJ RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: CITY O F TE M E C U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET: 1 Qao� CONTRACTOR HORIZONTAL `� `F��, PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF TBM MUHAMMAD m ACCEPTED BY: DATE: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TOP OF IRON PIPE AT MOST �> > MURSHEDALAM M INSPECTOR NORTHERLY PROPERTY CORNER 1 =30 c 74379 PATRICK A. THOMAS SITE PLAN ASSUMED ELEVATION = 1113.00 civil DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER a � 31043 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD OF: DATE COMPLETED VERTICAL sqT a,P MUHAMMAD MURSHED ALAM DATE p _ 1 "=30' FOFCAL�FOEi RCE C74379 R.C.E. 44223 NO LOT 9 T.R. 9833 GRADING GENERAL NOTES 1. f� I S STANDARDS. ALL CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING RELATED ACTIVITIES (I.E., STOCKPILING, UP R SITE ADDRESS L�1�v '1 :LEARING,EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL, ETC.) SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE I I PLAN 3 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD SITE Wl 1 UHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ENGINEERING AND 1043 CQN4�"TRUCTION MANUAL, ALL _APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE LATEST EDITION OF THE TEMECULA, CA 92592 C,geR� �p OrL CA ..° ORNIA BUILDING CO (APPENDIX J) AND, IF APPLICABLE, THE STATE WATER RESOURCES FOR r� M NPDES C�n> T ROL BOARD (SWRCB) NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTE ( ) SOILS ENGINEERS CO I "RAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. lry 2. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING PERMIT SMALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO 31043 JEDEDIAn SMITH RD LGC GEO- ENVIRONMENTAL, INC 0").M.ME.NCEMENT OF ANY WORK ON THE SITE. EROSION CONTROL NOTES 27570 COMMERCE DR., #128, TEMECULA, CA. 92590 � 3 NOTIFICATIONS. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SHALL BE NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL AT TEL: (951) 297-24501. FILTERED RUNOFF. ALL RUNOFF SHALL BE FILTERED PRIOR TO DISCHARGING FROM A 7. DESILTING BASINS. DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED P� LGl", �PECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING ANY SITE OR TO ANY TYPE OF PRIVATE OR PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ( ) 719-2998 N ACCORDING TO THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN CASQA S CONSTRUCTION FAX: (951) BERGMANN C STRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS. (NATURAL WATERCOURSES, STREETS, GUTTERS, CONCRETE-LINED V-DITCHES, STORM BMP HANDBOOK. IMPOUNDED WATER SHALL BE SECURED FROM THE DRAINS, FLOW-LINES, INLETS, OUTLETS, ETC.). ALL NON-PERMITTED DISCHARGES ARE PUBLIC. SIGNAGE INDICATING "PONDED WATER - DO NOT ENTER," 4. SOiLS. ALL ;CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM YEAR-ROUND. OR AN EQUIVALENT WARNING NOTICE, SHALL BE POSTED. LEGAL DESCRIPTION P� RL'� MMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION BY LGC GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL, LOT 9 OF TRACT MAP 9833 ON FILE IN ECv� g INC` `DATED F`EBRUARY 12, 2018. 2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S). YEAR-ROUND, POLLUTION PREVENTION 8. MATERIAL STORAGE. MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREAS MB 121 PAGES 9-14 RECORDS OF SAIL: REPORT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN. MEASURES, ALSO KNOWN AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S), MUST BE INSTALLED SHALL BE ESTABLISHED. FUEL TANKS, PORTABLE TOILETS, LIQUIDS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIF. PRIOR TO ANY FIELD ACTIVITIES. BMP HANDBOOKS CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT GELS, POWDERS, LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND STOCKPILES OF SOIL APN 959-010-008 = 5. CUT/FILL. WWW.CABMPHANDBOOKS.COM. ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SHALL BE STORED AWAY FROM ALL PRIVATE/PUBLIC STORM WATER a_ MAXIMUM CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2: 1, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ESC MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED PRIOR TO AND THROUGHOUT EACH CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS SIDEWALKS RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND CI: ENGINEER; AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT. FILL ( )='. FLOW-LINES AND SHALL HAVE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. INACTIVE SLOPES SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISH RAINY SEASON. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESC MEASURES TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE THOMAS BROS. 979 GRIDS: C2 & D2 THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT FOR ALL CLEARING, DISKING, GRADING, STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE COVERED AT ALL TIMES. ACTIVE TOWNSHIP: T8SR2W SEC 17 RHO SURFACE. LCF SURVEYING INC. b_ " FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON EXISTING GROUND UNTIL THE GROUND HAS EXCAVATING AND STOCKPILING ACTIVITIES, AND ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES AND INACTIVE STOCKPILES SHALL BE COVERED PRIOR TO A FORECAST RAIN. LEONARD C. FOWLER, PLS 24-HOUR CONTACT VICINITY MAP BEE.1 CLEARED OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. PADS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE 9 CONSTRUCTION WASTE. CONSTRUCTION WASTE AND 39888 SWEETBRIER CIRCLE KENT PORTER IF ' 'HE SLOPE RATIO EXCEEDS 5: 1 AND IS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET, THE TERRAIN MUST BE FOR ANY DISCHARGES FROM SUBCONTRACTORS. N.�.S KEYED AND BENCHED INTO EITHER BEDROCK OR NATIVE SOIL, AS DIRECTED BY THE a. STOCKPILING OF BMPS. ADDITIONAL ESC MATERIALS SHALL BE STOCKPILED AT MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED IN WATER-TIGHT BINS. TEMECULA, CA 92591 TEL: (951) 674-9999 GETECHNICAL ENGINEER: VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE SITE FOR IMMEDIATE USE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR WIRE MESH RECEPTACLES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. WASH-OUT OFFICE: 951-699-2603 CELL:(909) 841-3956 STATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR CONCRETE, PAINTS, STUCCO FAX: 951-699-5157 c. STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTOR-OF-SAFETY OF AT LEAST ONE AND FIVE TO ANY FORECAST RAIN. ON EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL LEGEND TEN 1HS: (1.5) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, IMMEDIATELY MAKE EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THE SITE. AND OTHER LIQUID WASTE, AND SHALL BE LINED WITH PLASTIC AND CEL: 951-757-7272 SG:=::S ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES OVER 30 FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT. LOCATED AWAY FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS, FLOW LINES, ETC. DATE OF SURVEYING: NOV. 13, 2017 SYMBOLS DESCRIPTON d.- ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED CIVIL 3. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS. ALL ESC MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED, PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN, BINS AND WASH-OUTS SHALL BE EN GIINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST, WHO SHALL SUBMIT TWO SETS OF WRITTEN RESTORED, REPAIRED OR MODIFIED YEAR-ROUND THROUGHOUT THE SITE TO PROTECT COVERED WITH LIDS OR PLASTIC TARPS. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES - - PROPERTY LINE CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FOOT IN DEPTH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PLACED. PERIMETERS, ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND ALL 10. SLOPE PROTECTION. STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT BE RAW CUT- 12,000 C.Y. PRIVATE/PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. IF ANY EROSION OR SEDIMENT DIRECTED OVER SLOPES WITHOUT PERMANENT DOWN DRAINS RAW FILL- 12,000 C.Y. I y PROPOSED CUT SLOPE 6. DRAINAGE. CONTROLS FAIL DURING ANY RAIN EVENT, MORE EFFECTIVE ONES WILL BE REQUIRED IN INSTALLED. ESC MEASURES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATES ONLY AND CONTRACTOR a. AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR STORM FLOWS THEIR PLACE. UNTIL SUFFICIENT/PERMANENT LANDSCAPE IS ESTABLISHED. THERE IS TO VERIFY QUANTITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION s OFF PROVIDE GRADED BERMS ALONG THE TOP OF ALL GRADED SLOPES OVER THREE FEET IN a. EROSION CONTROLS. EROSION CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO SHALL BE 100% SLOPE PROTECTION IN PLACE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE PROPOSED FILL SLOPE VERTICAL. HEIGHT OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO GRADED AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF APPLYING AND ESTABLISHING: VEGETATIVE COVER, WOOD MULCH, STAPLED OR PINNED OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AREA OF DISTURBANCE AWE Y FROM . THE TOP OF SLOPES. BLANKETS (STRAW, COCONUT OR OTHER), PLASTIC SHEETING (MINIMUM 10-MIL), AL-1:_ DRAINAGE DEVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLANS. POLYPROPYLENE MATS, SPRAY-ON CONTROLS TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OR OTHER TOTAL AREA = 3.18 AC 1950 PROPOSED ELEV. b 1XISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO MEASURES APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. JUTE NETTING SHALL NOT BE USED AS A 11. PORTABLE MIXERS. ALL PORTABLE MIXERS SHALL HAVE DISTURBED AREA= (95,000 S.F) 2.18 AC OB_ FRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE PERMITTED. STAND-ALONE EROSION CONTROL. FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 4: 1 PROVIDE FIBER ROLLS PLASTIC LINERS UNDERNEATH THEM WITH GRAVEL-BAGS PLACED ON TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA= 23,372 S.F (0.54 AC) ' THE DOWN-HILL SIDE OF THE LINERS TO CONTAIN DISCHARGES. LENGTH OF DRIVEWAY = 600 L.F (1940) EXISTING ELEV. c TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND EITHER- A BONDED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF 3500 LB/ACRE OR ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT ADJOINING AND A STABILIZED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF 10 GAL/ACRE. THE CITY 12. MAINTENANCE. ALL ONSITE AND OFFSITE FLOW LINES (I.E., V- DGWNSTREAM PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND PONDING WATER DURING ENGINEER MAY APPROVE DIFFERENT APPLICATION RATES FOR SLOPES LESS THAN 4: 1. DRAINAGE FLOW C�' aSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS. b. SEDIMENT CONTROLS. SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED T0: AND BROW-DITCHES, TERRACE DRAINS, RIBBON GUTTERS, CURB SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATE STATEMENT: d. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE DESILTING BASINS, GRADED BERMS, FIBER ROLLS, SILT FENCES, GRAVEL BAG CHEVRONS GUTTERS, ETC.), STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, CHECK ASPHALT CONCRETE U� :� TE? PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT. DAMS, CHEVRONS, SILT FENCES AND DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE I, MARK BERGMANN OF LGC GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., A PAVEMENT e DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL ER KEPT CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS; NO BUILDING- OR (FILLED WITH MINIMUM 3/4 GRAVEL), CHECK DAMS, DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION, ETC. FREE OF SEDIMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, WASTE, REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER,. PRINCIPALLY DOING BUSINESS IN FIBER ROLLS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 15-FOOT INCREMENTS MEASURED ALONG THE FACE MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS AND DETERIORATED ESC MEASURES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND/OR APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, FL FLOW LINE WA ,.LS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EASEMENTS. z OF THE SLOPE. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG INTERIOR STREETS AND COMBINED HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SAMPLING AND STUDY OF THE SOIL HP YEAR-ROUND. HIGH POINT f. THE MINIMUM GRADE FOR CONCRETE SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE A WITH GRAVEL-BAG OR SILT FENCE CHEVRONS INSIDE THE SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY OR CONDITIONS PREVALENT WITHIN THIS SITE WAS MADE BY ME AND LP LOW POINT ON.1 --HALF PERCENT .5%.0 _ -- UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ( ) BACK OF CURBS. 13. OBSTRUCTIONS. NO OBSTRUCTIONS, OTHER THAN BMP S, SHALL STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY LIQUEFACTION FG FINISH GRADE BE ALLOWED WITHIN ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (SEISMIC HAZARD). THESE GRADING PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FS FINISH SURFACE 7 PROPERTY CORNERS. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED IN THE 4. STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. IF THE PROJECT DISTURBS, EXPOSES OR BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND CONFORM TO THE FF FINISH FLOOR FIE:.v , PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITY, AS DIRECTED BY STOCKPILES ONE ACRE OR MORE OF SOIL, THE SITE MUST BE COVERED UNDER THE STATE UNLESS ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN APPROVED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN OUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PE PAD ELEVATION THE; CITY ENGINEER. BY THE CITY ENGINEER. INVESTIGATION REPORT ENTITLED "PORTER RESIDENCE"DATED TBM TEMPORARY BENCH MARK CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. A WASTE DISCHARGE IDENTIFICATION (WDID) NUMBER, A FEBRUARY 12, 2018. RISK LEVEL DETERMINATION NUMBER AND THE QUALIFIED "STORM WATER POLLUTION 14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE REFERENCED REPORT EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT 8 ROUGH GRADING INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REPRESENTS THE MOST CURRENT AND COMPLETE INFORMATION REQUESTED VIA EMAIL TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) DEVELOPER (OSD) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO GENERAL," GRADING AND PAVING REQUIREMENTS. RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED GRADING OF THE SITE. IT IS THE Lu' SPECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOV (PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR PERMIT # IN THE SUBJECT LINE) ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT. A SWPPP SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT THE PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF LGC GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. THAT FIRE DEPT. NOTES DURATION OF THE PROJECT AND SHALL BE READILY AVAILABLE TO CITY AND STATE THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RENDERED IN OUR SU,HVP THE FOLLOWING: INSPECTORS AND UPDATED TO REFLECT CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ENGINEERS NOTES: REPORT ARE APPROPRIATE AND APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT AND C. WO SETS OF PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION (I.E., ROUGH GRADE) TO INCLUDE A THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT: THEY ARE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE 100 FEET AROUND ALL STRUCTURES: VEGETATION H MENT THAT THE PAD ELEVATION COMPLIES WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN. WWW.WATER BOARDS.CA.GOV/WATER ISSUES/PROGRAMS/STORMWATER/CONSTRUCTION. CODE, ORDINANCE, AND STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR THE SHALL BE MAINTAINED PER RC. ORD. 787.7 C I- -�' �- SHALL BE TO LINE, - GRADE, ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF CUT FLL . ALL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDINGS (INCLUDING SETBACKS AND PROJECT PROPOSED. r f / I SLOPES FF ELEVATIONS) IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND THE APPROVAL OF THIS GRADING DRIVEWAY SURFACES AREA AS NOTED b. - WO SETS OF PAD COMPACTION CERTIFICATION (I.E., FINAL GEOTECHNICAL/SOILS REPORT) 5. PERIMETER PROTECTION. PERIMETER PROTECTION MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY PROVISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDINGS. ARE DESIGNED TO SUSTAIN THE 40,000 LBS Tt: ��._LUDE .A STATEMENT THAT THE GRADING COMPLIES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CLEARING ACTIVITIES. CLEARING SHALL BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT WILL BE IMMEDIATELY PI�:.-_.'MINARY SOILS REPORT. GRADED OR DISTURBED. A COMBINATION OF ESC MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN DRIVEWAY SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 15% GRADE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OF AN INACTIVE SITE, AS NOTE TO OWNER ZCONTRACTOR: DRIVEWAYS MUST BE ALL WEATHER SURFACE ROAD 9 FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND DESCRIBED IN THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED. ENGINEER OF RECORD IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY C. I- ,TRUCTION MANUAL. CHANGES THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY 6. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED APPROVED GRADING PLANS MADE DURING GRADING NAME & SIGNATURE OF THE SOILS ENGINEER STAMP DATE SHEET INDEX 1 C•: POST GRADING ACTIVITIES. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE WITH A COMBINATION OF ROCK AND SHAKER PLATES YEAR-ROUND TO PREVENT OPERATION. LIM '�C. TO,. INSTALLING WHERE APPLICABLE: GROUNDCOVER, TREES, SHRUBS OR A TRACK-OUT. INTERIOR ACCESS POINTS (ALL PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, MATERIAL STORAGE SHEET 1 TITLE SHEET & GENERAL NOTES C(Ift-'BINATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR 'TO FINAL AND STAGING AREA ENTRANCES/EXITS, ETC.) SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED WITH ROCK TO SHEET 2 PRECISE GRADING PLAN INSJ _GTION: SLOPES OVER FOUR FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT SHALL HAVE PERMANENT PREVENT TRACK-OUT ONTO INTERIOR STREETS. ROUTINE STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTION NOTES SHEET 3 SECTION AND DETAILS lRk .,AT.ON SYSTEMS WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES PER THE U.P.C. PERFORMED ON ALL PAVED STREETS WHERE TRACKING IS OBSERVED. VACUUM SWEEPERS ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY SHEET 4 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE USED WHEN STREET SWEEPING BECOMES INEFFECTIVE. CONTROLLED STREET BURROWING OWL GRADING NOTE 1 OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR `PAVING," WASHING SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF ASPHALT SEAL COATS, t CONSTRUCT GRADED SWALE @MIN 1% SLOPE LF 700 NO GRUBBING/CLEARING OF THE SITE SHALL OCCUR PRIOR TO Fi ``'�r{ZAL` AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS. AND ONLY WHEN ALL PERTINENT DRAINAGE INLETS ARE PROTECTED. 2 CONSTRUCT RIBBON-GUTTER @ MIN 1% SLOPE PER DETAIL ON SHEET LF 60 SCHEDULING THE PRE-GRADING MEETING WITH PUBLIC WORKS. 3 CONSTRUCT V-DITCH @ MIN 1% SLOPE PER PER CITY STD. NO. 304 LF 484 ALL PROJECT SITES CONTAINING SUITABLE HABITAT FOR 4 PROP. 20 WIDE 4 AC OVER 4 AB DRIVEWAY OR PER SOILS ENG. RECOMMENDATIONS TON 387 BURROWING OWLS, WHETHER OWLS WERE FOUND OR NOT, ® CONSTRUCT INFILTRATION TRENCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 CF 5,603 REQUIRE A 3 CONSTRUCTT SURVEY THAT SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITHIN 30 DAY T DDAYAYS PRIOORR TO GROUND DISTURBANCE TO _ 0--CONSTRUCT 10 X10 NO. 2 BACKING RIPRAP PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 CY 12 AVOID DIRECT TAKE OF BURROWING OWLS. IF THE RESULTS OF ENGINEERS NOTE: OWNER / APPLICANT: PLANS PREPARED BY: � CONSTRUCT CLASS II BASE FROM ITEM 4 CY 191 THE SURVEY INDICATE THAT NO BURROWING OWLS ARE PRESENT fi \� �V .t, ON-SITE, THEN THE PROJECT MAY MOVE FORWARD WITH GRADING, CONSTRUCT Underground Service Alert THE PRIVATE ENGINEER SIGNING THESE PLANS IS ��r 8 6 AC DIKE LF 675 UPON PLANNING DIVISION APPROVAL. IF BURROWING OWLS ARE 9 INSTALL SILT FENCE PER DETAIL HEREON LF 1 550 ARE FOUND TO BE PRESENT OR NESTING ONSITE DURING THE RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSURING THE ACCURACY OF DESIGN KENT PORTER PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY, THEN THE FOLLOWING ' AND ACCEPTABILITY OF THE WORK HEREON. IN THE 13013 TEMESCAL CANYON RD. Majestic Design 3D INSTALL FIBER ROLLS PER DETAIL HEREON LF 2,670 Call: TOLL FREE EVENT OF DISCREPANCIES ARISING AFTER COUNTY CORONA, \,.�:� RECOMMENDATIONS MUST BE ADHERED T0: EXCLUSION .AND CA 92883 » INSTALL CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA PER CALTRANS WM-8 EA 1 RELOCATION ACTMTIES MY NOT OCCUR DURING THE BREEDING APPROVAL OR DURING CONSTRUCTION THE PRIVATE P.O.Box 223 ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE F0�2 DETERMINING TEL: (951) 674-9999 Temecula,CA. 92593 �� INSTALL 2-BAGS HIGH RAVEL BAGS PER DETAIL HEREON EA 85O SEASON, WHICH IS DEFINED AS MARCH 1 THROUGH AUGUST 31 -BOO CELL:(909) 841-3956 �' g.„ EXCLUSION AND RELOCATION ACTIVITIES MAY TAKE PLACE IF IT IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION AND REVISING THE PLANS EMAIL:KENT®I-IER-LLC.COM Tel. (951)595-3839 j� (`` PROVIDE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER CASQA TC-1 TYPE-1 EA 1 WDID 933C383955 227-2600 FOR APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY. Majesticdesign3D@Gmail.com .t Y 1 I E ST.I �...i INSTALL 6" PVC PIPE @ MIN 1% SLOPE LF 305 PROVEN TO THE CITY AND APPROPRIATE REGULATORY AGENCIES RISK LEVEL 2 (IF ANY) THAT EGG LAYING OR CHICK REARING IS NOT TAKING INSTALL 18 IN. X 14 IN. STORM WATER PIT AND CATCH BASIN WITH ALUMINUM GRATE OR EQUAL EA 1 PLACE. THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE BY A QUALIFIED =wo WORKING oats BEFORE You olc 6I PROVIDE DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION PER CALTRANS SC-10 EA 1 BIOLOGIST. LD 18-1631 BY REVISIONS DATE ACCD SEAL: DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING N0. CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BENCHMARK CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SCALE AP AP RJ RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: 1 CONTRACTOR HORIZONTAL °p Q<< PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF SHEET: TBM �cA TOP OF IRON PIPE AT MOST MUHAMMAD R ACCEPTED BY: DATE: ws�i<croR N A MURSHEDAt.AM �, --.� TITLE SHEET NORTHERLY PROPERTY CORNER / 2 - �122119 PATRICK A. THOMAS ASSUMED ELEVATION = 1113.00 c'�3r� DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER o 31043 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD OF: 4 DA COMPLETED VERTICAL sr civic �� MUHAMMAD MURSHED ALAM DATE _ �� Fr.r cAttefl RCE C74379 R.C.E. 44223 LOT 9 T.R. 9833�.Nam, N / A "PR uIS IVOXRADING PLAN FOR 31043 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD BMPN0.1 5 NOTE -1, ml (INFILTRATION Z M CONNECT TO OVERFLOW PIPE NFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDINGS (INCLUDING v TRENCH 6"PVC PIPE 04 14 @MIN 1%SLOPE E TBACKS AND FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS) IS FOR REFERENCE ( s2.00 FL Idi'Y AND THE APPROVAL OF THIS GRADING PLAN DOES NOT 81.00INV S20° 56' 48"E 300.16' }• CLUDE"ANY PROVISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDINGS. ` � E 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE ON PROP LINE PROP. 1500 GALLON 8'50 83.20 . '- � - 1 j SEPTIC TANK `', ♦�. pE FL r 5 (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) ` =.Y $�O _i UHP ,..._ 1g5 \ \ CONC_V-DITCH @ 2% MIN SLOPE 3 ( PER CITY STD. t f' ION OF SEEPAGE PIT AND SEPTIC TANK TO BE 4C g a �� $$•� s2.00 ��\\ NO.304 VL`!flED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. �l (1165)� \.\� ` ! j;�Swp,LE ' 3 CONC.V-DITCH O,</ Q i // tj G�pEpNS�ppE \\ @ 2%MIN SLOPE \ . `� 25.25 I UHP / �/ ? 1°I°M\ 83'60 \ PER CITY STD. 30.00 FULP 3 CONC.V-DITCH /� %f @ I �125� PROP. 10'X10'N0.2 6 0 1 , BACKING RIPRAP/ o, 2.38, ' / ego F � � 4 ( 1 FUHP @ 2/°MIN SLOPE 1 \ ` U FL 6 PER CITY STD. N0.304 \♦ �\ �S MOTE 4 , , N � . (1170 sLd PROP.SEEPAGE PIT \ DEEPENS WORK SHALL COMMENCE WITHIN ( / ��\\ `mac. .�'" .o so- UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) Gk. ``. _ � \\ \ � c ro. FOOTING FL a 4 .� ,.\ � � -.- �'� 6"PVC PIPE \ \\ � �.€; �a:.. .c •F 9 O .. � � . �i� `�O a �_. ROAD RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT \ " \ 45.505Q �� 14 0 ♦c 0 ,C\`•�,'Qy s� ) S z CONC.V-DITCH 3 `�-,�`-_ ,` @MIN 1/o SLOPE i ' �� ` J., 7 G Q S U A N C E OF ENCROACHMENT RIBBO GUTTER �' FL ---` V �, \\ \\ \ ;.: �; \ ',��s \ @ 2%MIN SLOPE 2 ° M SLOPES - \ \ ':,�\�`Yt:,<� S O� \ \\ Z T... RMI BY CITY OF TEMECULA. " " ATERPITAND @1/° X 14 STORM W \ � � ``` � 6' ', R 35.00 18 �Cij 38.50 TE7F --- --- \ \ \ ..t �;♦-c��, r I"S `� � � \. \. \ 1` O FUHP - - 15 \ r�\. : , _ -..,:,..:: .:rr>'�?'�.?.:'�,.>-�• F ..; 51•?h .;i. ♦ . r� Y - CATCH BASIN WI I H ALUMINUM GRATE S ;♦\,'_\' a ..:� .♦,• ,, . Y' u1 ;.., C;r \ ) CS+ Z w „ / 4.:ti• :<.• : . >' ".�: .,.: . !S , >> I I n , J 1 G� 30.0 (31 0 FS 19.00 FL Q OJ 20'WIDE 3"AC �i AREA UNDER BUILDING SHOULD BE OVER Fib O a. - - B DRIVEWAY I . ` O .� \ : ♦. ROP. A .t�\ O, (/� cP j P� ��6 f AVE ENT rl EX'_ VATED PER SOILS ENGINEER'S - - 1 1l �!\! ��!� .!'� 3 �l \`'�:� OR PER SOILS ENG,., \r \ Q S \ o �(�R ( ECOMMENDATIONS) i�', ' <�� s \,!,\ \\\ \) f$ >�; ;; :{ cPb, '`Sp \ O N COMMENDATIONS. PQN -�' ��\ \\\� h\\ \ ♦ 4.eo \ \� \\ \!\; l ,\`,ry\ \ T. ',' \``83.70 "'��K�1,�1�\`� ... �♦ ' � 41u �l5 \ 0. _.- .V DITCH \` 85.10 \ 2 o MIN SLOPE G# �6,,:< .: TR 3 CO@ Fu°P- °v1 6� O o25.50 �� ►, \' \ \ y �.' ,; \ k \ ; ,t :> FS \.♦ �° \ a j 2 D. -..: PVC PIPE w. ��\ _.4 : , ., '„� \ t t , .;: r \ PER CITY 14 FULP O• B 121 _._. ° SLOPE , CONNECT TO'a ' i \ i;;a ;; j \ ' '�\ i, :?:;. . \ / c A MIN 1/o / � ��' 1 ,..\` 4\ c� OVERFLOW .; \ \ - D . I 85.20 PPE \ / ._. � 4.7 S , , '•'� R r' o B M P N 0.3 �' \ \ � ..<�... 70 , .•, x•y:4; \ D \ c ' o INFILTRATION , . 4 . =`.:.•, £..(� G El t o ( " t \\\ 84.50 l Q g0 6 PVC PIPE . \, x ••::...:�:••.<:,;�•. C H 14 ° 6' \ \\ ,` \\ AC FUHP � :::k •.. :;;. 6 � TRENCH MIN 1/ SLOPE \` `\` \ ` :\ > .:: ::•:.;/ c'o lE� !j @ ,oG \: \ \ , \�` \� \\\ \ \ .. ,< 15,1 NDS HERE ;• . CONNEE J �` OJ � � �' `'•; �_1^ \\\' \\ \ r\ \�� \\ ��. a� ��:c;' h1 N FLOW PIPE j( h \ \ <�t 85.20 TD •�::: :. 1 6"pp. . PIPE ry -14 \ • >" 7 RADED SWALE .i s. L 'p� 1 ..r^' I I ^ \ • .� \ \ \ , ` ♦`�`\, f ,Yi 5 'C)`F. O FS E"�v�FzF 0 \ $WALE I \, '�w• �'w' i @1%MIN SLOPE b DE t \ fV41N 1/o SLOPE 1 : , ; 0000 Vol `` .+'"' i /fey `` \ ' \ \\\ 4 `.l .;\J•':Z ei:.•:}.•. •i{Ylx;:• g{ - Q { /' Y Y z;,' ,. ., .. FS 84.00 82.40 FLFS O 81.40 INV 0 TD `� :;. FL '_� 83.50 .. 8?i �7 '- - 6 . 80 0 FS •,,,..--' "HIGH FS „�� .___.-... j AC DIKE ' 8 FL�11 P ,. ... ......... AC DIKE t'�PE _ E i 8 ULP _ ._. r 0 ti e .. ,,. _.-. ._.-. PER CITY END HERE _ - .., -._ .. - i� STD.N0.214 -- _ `-- _ -__ r 17 �_ 1s z ,. ..._ _. _.._.. _.... PROPERTY LINE _ .j = - 30 .OS' 1 5 1 GRADED SWALEN,?Io 4.0 02 ._ O 1%MIN SLOPE t f `y �, zW @ �`! Z BMP N0.2 5 \ ICo (INFILTRATION m P, ZLL m TRENCH .� )A- I [h o�L� C� w a 4 F 4Q N RAPxIc SCALE PRE-GRADINGZPRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTE: 0 15 30 so so NOTE TO OWNER CONTRACTOR: A PRE-GRADING / PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND SITE INSPECTION CONSTRUCTION NOTES I _ - --- ENGINEER OF RECORD IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CHANCES SHALL BE ARRANGED FOR BY THE SITE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO ITEM DESCRIPTION THAT IS NOT W COMPUANCE WITH THE CRY APPROVED GRADING COMMENCING GRADING OPERATIONS.THOSE PARTIES REQUIRED TO ( ><rr FEET 1 CONSTRUCT GRADED SWALE @MIN 1 % SLOPE PLANS MADE DURING GRADING OPERATION. ATTEND THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL INCLUDE BUT ARE inch = 30 tt NOT LIMITED TO THE DEVELOPER, PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT, ENGINEER CONSTRUCT RIBBON-GUTTER ® MIN 1� SLOPE PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 _ OF RECORD, SOIL ENGINEER, GRADING CONTRACTOR AND UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCT V DITCH @ MIN 2% SLOPE 4 PROP. 20 WIDE 4 AC OVER 4 AB DRIVEWAY OR PER SOILS ENG. RECOMMEND0ONS UTILITIES CONTRACTOR. REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SUBMITTED BY: SHALL BE THE GRADING PLAN CHECKER AND/OR GRADING INSPECTOR.underground Service Service Alert s CONSTRUCT INFILTRATION TRENCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 � �p �. 8�� / -0-' CONSTRUCT 10 X10 NO. 2 BACKING RIPRAP PER DETAIL ON SHEET 3 Majestic Design 3D THE FOCUS OF THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE TO E 7 CONSTRUCT CLASS II BASE FROM ITEM 4 DISCUSS THE VARIOUS ASPECTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE { Call: TOLL FREE P.O.Box 223 \� GRADING PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE AN APPROXIMATE TIMETABLE FOR s CONSTRUCT 6 AC DIKEr -800 PIPE Temecula,CA. 92593 �d THE COMPLETION OF THE ROUGH GRADING. ARRANGE FOR A 227-2600 INSTALL 6 PVC MIN 1% SLOPE Tel. (951)595-3839 WDID 933C383955 INSTALL 18 IN. X 14 IN. STORM WATER PIT AND CATCH BASIN WITH ALUMINUM GRATE OR EQUAL Majesticdesign3D@Gmail.com �,�AJESTIC PRE-GRADING/PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING BY CALLING THE DISTRICT RISK LEVEL 2 OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING YOUR GRADING AND BUILDING WORKING DA YS BEFORE YOU DIG -" I3 INSPECTIONS. LD18- 1631 I I- 4-ONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS DATE ACC'D BENCHMARK SEAL: DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DRAWING NO. _ SCALE AP AP RJ RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: CITY OF TEM ECU LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR HORIZONTAL puF - TBM ° `A PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF SHEET: TOP OF IRON PIPE AT MOST MUHAMMAD �, ACCEPTED BY: DATE: -^; .%'` INSFIE ;TOR NORTHERLY PROPERTY CORNER 1 =30 rtnuRs'.{tnA�.A"' n _ PRECISE GRADING PLAN ASSUMED ELEVATION = 1113.R r:ras7s -'' 5122119 PATRICK A. THOMAS DF,at:v COMPLETED VERTICAL c{v}i MUHAMMAD MURSHED ALAM DATE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER S P 31043 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD OF: 1 -30 srar�OFCA1stU RCE C74379 R.C.E. 44223 � ,,,, M LOT 9 T.R. 9833 COMPACTED FILL oQ� P/L P/L A P-.`.''JECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 N I EXIST. GROUND FROM TOE OF SLOPE �= APPROVED GROUND PROP. HOUSE I REMovE uNsuITABLE I FINISHED F.F=1186.17 FINISHED MATERIAL GRADE 36" MIN EXIST. P.E=1185.50 GRADE X ` GROUND 1 6" HIGH 1' WIDE GROUND 2% 2.0 BERM 2� �— MIN Gv� 4' MIN. BENCH HT. 2% MIN. -- \\.\- . ' \ \/\/\/ ,,� � �\ '.. \. \ \ \ \r �f \ \ \\\ \�\ \ \\\ \\\ \ \\ �\\\ \��\,\\\\\ \\\\��\,\\\\ �\\ \\/�/ �;//�/i.//.�.//i./��///\.�///.�/,�/��/\i�l��\\�,�' 2� MIN. A5' MIN. OR H 2 BMP NO.2 KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH BMP NO.1 (KEY) VEGETATED (INFILTRATION TRENCH) (INFILTRATION TRENCH) SWALE PER WQMP PLANS PER WQMP PLANS KEYING BENCHING DETAIL SWALE DETAIL / NOT TE SCALE NOT TO SCALE SECTION "A-All SCALE: 1" = 20' AS SHOWN ON PLANS RIPRAP —_ (NON-SLURRY) ——-- BACKING RIPRAP O 0 2.5' MIN. MIRA:_ :=ON FILTER FABRIC.--. " APPROVED EQUAL 6 GRADED SWALE EXIST. PROP. HOUSE GRADED SWALE _ - F.F=1186.17 " MIN 1% SLOPE GROUND MIN 1% SLOPE - CLASS 2 BasE _ - @ P.E=1185.50 @ 6" HIGH V WIDE BERM N 2% 6" HIGH 1' WIDE BERM - RIPRAP DETAIL CL MIN NOT TO SCALE AC /\ / �r/� �i //�i� /�r/\\%, /\\ /%//�%//i�!�\//:irii\.ri��/i��ii i�:rig; �/i�yi��i�� /�:riiyi��/`�i/ice/i/ P/L DIKE /\ �� ,�\,:�\,\,�.�\!� .♦�\,.\..\.\i\,.\ �\i/��\\\ 2:1 CONC. V DITCH AC \ @ MIN 5/o SLOPE 2' 2' P/L DIKE 2•io 2•ia r/�\,/�y�2:1 FINISHED w FILL CUT GRADE ��\\ 2:1 /,/i�\i\ i�i/, `/i\\/i��%\\��r• �i�;�`�\\/// 6' WIDE I oe oQ 2% MIN FILL//r� r \/r\/�/i\/\ \f\ BENCH I PROP 20' WIDE 3" AC EXIST %\ :;� EXIST. OVER 4" AB DRIVEWAY GROUND I GROUND ,�/�f�' OR PER SOILS ENG. 3" CONCRETE OR 3" 2500 AIR PLACED � �\\/\/ (" " � � <r- RECOMMENDATIONS) CONCRETE W/ 6 X6 1.4WX1.4W WELDED WIRE MESH N o SECTION 11B_B11 _. RIBBON GUTTER DETAIL SCALE: 1° = 20' NOT TO SCALE VARIES 20' MIN 9.0, ACCESS ROAD OBSERVATION SCREENED " ?� 3"AC OVER 4"AB WITH 95% WELL A OVERFLOW 6 RELATIVE COMPACTION REMOVABLE CAP PVC PIPE (OR PER SOILS ENG. RECOMMENDATIONS) ...�. �._: >", -f ,\ < {:..�.. }..: ._� O O ..� }..,..>-t... , ,... ..< ..� J AC DIKE ACDIKE E r ,.�. •_-r r-c ^' ?^'. ,.; ._.! y.. _{ ; ,--i a.a .i y .. , � - O O �. r _. /{ \ O O / a Y \ : i 9 f 00 f ............, 2 LAYERS 10 MIL TYPICAL SECTION I... G . (SIDES O O � f ; . i .. ,. ._../,.._... �_ � y .l 3 , ACCESS DRIVEWAY O O \ NOT TO SCALE i ..:..... AASHTO OR 57 MATERIAL OR CLEAN, ' _ +_ f- O O ' HE METER 6 PVC : `_ � - -.�,.....-,.w.. TO IN DIAMETER PERFORATED _...... i` >._. .f O O ' ._. ; _..�.}f I EQUIVALENT , PIPE p O i , ......... ........... I ........ _ .......; : !.__.._, _. _...__ _. SUBMITTED BY. ��` 00 ��-W { _. L I a �. nderground Service Alert - _.-_. _ _. __ ��€�, �.� i , \o i I •- Majestic Design 3D J g `; " Coll: TOLL FREE P.O.Box 223 _ 1-80o INFILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL Temecula,CA.92593 a 227-2600 Tel. (951)595-3839 '"ate WDID 933C383955 NOT TD SCALE Majesticdesign3D@Gmail.com MAJESTIC RISK LEVEL 2 r a`ri WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG } ._ LD 18-1631 SEAL: DRAWING NO. :::ONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS DATE ACC'D BENCHMARK .- DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY CITY OF TE M E C U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SCALE '' AP AP RJ RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: n i RACTOR HORIZONTAL apKof. SHEET: 3 CO_ TBM tic PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ACCEPTED BY: DATE: f, TOP OF IRON PIPE AT MOST r. r�uRs ie"cMr�i°M r�`- SECTION AND DETAILS INSh TOR NORTHERLY PROPERTY CORNER 1 —2O _.-- ,�— 5/22I19 PATRICK A. THOMAS ASSUMED ELEVATION = 1113.00 ` ra.,ra MM ALAM DATE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER MUHA AD MURSHED � 31043 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD OF; 4 DA fr:.- COMPLETED VERTICAL � civ1,. � — 1"=20' T�T£l3p�;H�IFp��\ RCE C74379 R.C.E. 44223 Ne„ LOT 9 T.R. 9833 N r ROSION' ' ' AND d04 O I 4G3 �34�� 1 _ RAVEL BAGS ARE REQUIRED IN AREAS WHICH ARE ARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO SEDIMENT DEPOSITION . ` ""� ONTROL PLAN 2 � LQUIREMENTS FOR AND SPACING OF VELOCITY 9 szo° 56' 4s"E 300.16� r =� U (,ERS FOR STREETS WITH GRADES OF LESS THAN s% SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE EROSION - CONTROL 4� go�� 6 1a �,�� \��1�`\ . \, a.., _..._. 12 FOR \\ AN }-� 3 `1043 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD 3. \ WIDE CONTROLS AROUND ENTIRE DISTURBED AREAS =_UDING TOP OF CUT SLOPE TO REDUCE OFF— SITE -- 10 10 13 \ / Note: Install fiber roll a -- ��, ) •.. \�� \\ ,_ , ; r ,�" � � �. \\\\ .p � ' �, A /',' ,/,/,/,/ along a level contour. ,o:`' - 1 0 _ ,o Fiber rolls ccp+ 00 �,�' ,�, - y '� 1, J ` 1 1 �z 9 .. '�\��.� i\ �� !\�\ i�,>> ,��,��, LOT 9' ��\� 4G3 w •` TR 9833'\ ° LO MB 121 /'9-1 \ .....\ �\ N Install a fiber roll near .� ? �1 ,gyp \�\ ;C, slope where it transitions O ' \\ ;'A ' . 11 :\ \\\� \ into a si!leeper,,slope y >� \ y TYPICAL FIBER ROLL INSTALLATION N.T.S. Fiber roll X. 1,( ,� 8 min _ f� 'f ope 119 ZX ;- SI �� FR va—` - - - - r. - ,1 0 CP - - - _ - - - - - -- i = - 11g5 � ;` 1180 - � Q _.. __ - — _ NeF --_ f N210 41y02" 9 N 3/4" x O \ E _ 3 4" yfl I I �O4 wood stakes max 4.0' ` r�04 6 4 n 3dog spacing `, I I R LE �Rg@�2 ENTRENCHMENT DETAIL GRAPHIC SCALE N.T.S. 40 0 20 40 80 120 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. I FILTER FABRIC 11'! L=200' MAX. I . o VEHICLE ACCESS L. .� L�ND . k'. 0 12' 9 DIRECTION OF - _ a a •-- -- - -- PROPERTY LINE x o STREET FLOW LU - 5)----- EXISTING CONTOUR VEHICLE ACCESS 8' NOTE: THE SILT FENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A WIRE MESH IF THE FILTER FABRIC PROPOSED SLOPE DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT STRENGTH AND BURSTING STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS FINISH, SURFACE 8' (AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FABRIC MANUFACTURER) ==L FLOWLINE 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE 2. STAPLE THE FILTER -=r FINISHED ,FLOOR GRAVEL BAG VELOCITY REDUCER A 6 INCH BY 6 INCH FABRIC TO THE FENCE. -- DIRECTION OF FLOW 12 TRENCH UPSLOPE FROM AND HF HIGH POINT SLOPE "X" "L" HEIGHT ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS. SECTION A-A < 4% 8' 200' MAX. 1 BAG 6' MAX. 4% TO 9% 8' 200' MAX. 1 BAG ` 8 200 MAX. 2 BAGS N 3 MAX. GRAVEL BAG > 9% 2, MIN. SILT FENCEi-- .FR.— FIBER ROLL CONSTRUCTION NOTES TEM DESCRIPTION � 6" (inderground Service Alert sueMITTED BY: W AM gQ INSTALL SILT FENCE PER DETAIL HEREON . • 10 INSTALL FIBER ROLLS PER DETAIL HEREON Majestic Design 3D 3. EXTEND THE FILTER FABRIC 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACT Call: TOLL FREED � `,� INTO THE 6 x 6 TRENCH. THE EXCAVATED SOIL. ' 11 INSTALL CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA PER CALTRANS WM-8 P.O.Box 223 ` 1-800 Temecula,CA.92593 WDID 933C383955 1 INSTALL 2—BAGS HIGH GRAVEL BAGS PER DETAIL HEREON Tel. (951)595-3839 227-2600 13 PROVIDE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER CASQA TC-1 Majesticdesign3D@Gmail.com MAJESTIC SILT FENCE DETAIL RISK LEVEL 2 v; WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 16 PROVIDE DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION PER CALTRANS SC-10 — 3 ( �; — 9 NOT TO SCALE LD18-1631 BY REVISIONS DATE ACC'D SEAL: DRAWING NO. �,�NSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BENCHMARK SCALE ,,.-� DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY AP AP RJ CITY OF TE M E C U LA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: CON TRACTOR HORIZONTAL I SHEET.-LA - — TBM �� PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF TOP OF IRON PIPE AT MOST 1»-4O' ,; a . raii�?isn�t^M c - ` . ACCEPTED BY: DATE: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN INS .TOR NORTHERLY PROPERTY CORNER — ' 512211 y PATRICK A. THOMAS ASSUMED ELEVATION = 1113.00 C74379 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER e I+ 31043 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD OFc `� DA = k-OMPLETED VERTICAL crvsi- MUHAMMAD MURSHED ALAM DATE _ -. --- - » , `cp CAW-o\1`'� RCE C74379 R.C.E. 44223 �.�.N� LOT 9 T.R. 9833 _ 1 =40