HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 37925 WQMP (WITH RECORDED O&M)
City of Temecula
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP)
PROJECT NAME & PERMIT NO:
Wingsweep Property Planning Area 10 – Tract # 37925
Permit # PA20-0567
LD21-2039
PROJECT ADDRESS:
Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road
PROJECT APN:
960-460-007
PREPARED BY:
Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road
San Diego, California 92110
PREPARED FOR:
Wingsweep Corporation
38445 Overview Rd
Temecula, California 92592
DATE OF WQMP:
04/16/2021
Revised: 06/30/2021
Revised: 08/30/2021
APPROVED BY:
APPROVAL DATE:
APPROVED BY
CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC WORKS
valerie.caragan 01/22/2025
01/22/2025 01/22/2025
01/22/20
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
WINGSWEEP PLANNING AREA 10
REVISION PAGE
AUGUST 30, 2021
This Water Quality Management Plan presents a revision to the report titled “Water
Quality Management Plan for Wingsweep Planning Area 10” dated June 30, 2021,
pursuant to 2nd plan check review comments and minor project design changes.
Redline review comments have been addressed and included on a separate
document.
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 must be
provided and show locations on the project plans. 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 X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Discussion / justification:
Several of the ultimate intended uses may result in non-stormwater discharges that are not to
enter the MS4. Source Control BMPs can be effective in preventing illicit discharges.
Source control BMPs include Stenciling On-Site Storm Drains indicating illicit discharges are
not permissible, adhering to plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots sweeping and washing
requirements, Maintaining Landscaping using minimum or no pesticides.
4.2.2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Discussion / justification:
Posted notices that can prevent waste dumping will be employed.
4.2.3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall,
Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Discussion / justification:
There will be no outdoor materials storage areas associated with this project.
4.2.4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from
Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Discussion / justification:
There will be no outdoor work areas associated with this project.
4.2.5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On,
Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Discussion / justification:
There will be no trash storage areas associated with this project.
4.2.6 Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff
Pollutants
☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Discussion / justification. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discussed:
Template Date: October 31st, 2018 Preparation Date: 8-30-21
BH:JR:vs/C_RIV_G/Report/17883-H.005
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 column on the left below. Then select “yes” if the BMP has been implemented and shown
on the project plans, “No” if the BMP has not been implemented, or “N/A” if the BMP is not
applicable to your project.
X SC-A. On-site storm drain inlets X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
☐ SC-B. Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump
pumps
☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-C. Interior parking garages ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-D1. Need for future indoor & structural pest control ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
X SC-D2. Landscape/outdoor pesticide use X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
☐ SC-E. Pools, spas, ponds, fountains, and other water
features
☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-F. Food service ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-G. Refuse areas ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-H. Industrial processes ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-I. Outdoor storage of equipment or materials ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-J. Vehicle and equipment cleaning ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-K. Vehicle/equipment repair and maintenance ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-L. Fuel dispensing areas ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-M. Loading docks ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-N. Fire sprinkler test water ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-O. Miscellaneous drain or wash water ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
X SC-P. Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
☐ SC-Q. Large trash generating facilities ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-R. Animal facilities ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-S. Plant nurseries and garden centers ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
☐ SC-T. Automotive facilities ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Note: Show all source control measures applied above on the plan sheets.
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 must be
provided and show locations on the project plans.
• "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
Features ☐Yes ☐No XN/A
Discussion / justification:
Post-construction drainage pathways will closely mimic the pre-project conditions in that
runoff will generally flow southerly eventually discharging to Santa Gertrudis Creek.
However, the site has been previously mass graded and therefore no natural storage reservoirs
or natural drainage corridors currently occur.
4.3.2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Discussion / justification:
The project site was previously mass-graded over a decade ago and there is currently no
appreciable vegetation present on the site. Several steps have been taken to restore and mimic
the benefits provided by the natural vegetation, however.
The site will be developed so as to have landscaped areas that mimic the natural vegetation.
4.3.3 Minimize Impervious Area X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Discussion / justification:
Impervious surfaces have been minimized per landscape design. Streets and sidewalks have
been designed to the minimum widths necessary per specific plan.
4.3.4 Minimize Soil Compaction X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Discussion / justification:
As mentioned above, the site was previously mass-graded over a decade ago and the soil
has been compacted. Several steps have been taken to restore and minimize additional soil
compaction, however.
Protected areas have been identified and will be left undisturbed by the development envelope.
The site will be developed so as to have landscaped areas that mimic the natural vegetation,
with landscaped areas to be re-tilled and un-compacted to the extent practicable to allow for
plant growth, also allowing for greater infiltrative capacity.
4.3.5 Impervious Area Dispersion X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Discussion / justification:
The impervious areas will be interspersed with landscaped area. Where feasible, flow from
impervious areas such as roofs, will be routed through pervious areas.
Template Date: October 31st, 2018 Preparation Date: 8-30-21
BH:JR:vs/C_RIV_G/Report/17883-H.005
As roadways will be crowned, the potential to use landscaped medians to collect impervious
areas is limited. Residential lots will be designed to sheet flow prior to collection by conveyance
systems.
4.3.6 Runoff Collection ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Discussion / justification:
Rainwater harvest is not considered feasible for this project per worksheet B.3-1.
4.3.7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species X Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Discussion / justification:
It is anticipated that right of way landscaped areas will use drought tolerant and native species
and are to be shown on landscape plans.
4.3.8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation ☐Yes ☐No X N/A
Discussion / justification:
Harvest and use is not considered feasible for this project per worksheet B.3-1.
Step 3: 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 BMPs 1, 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?
(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.
X Yes ☐No
2. Will there be asphalt paving, including patching?
Reference Table 1 Items D and F X Yes ☐No
3. Will there be slurries from mortar mixing, coring, or concrete saw cutting?
Reference Table 1 Items D and F X Yes ☐No
4. Will there be solid wastes from concrete demolition and removal, wall
construction, or form work?
Reference Table 1 Items D and F
X Yes ☐No
5. Will there be stockpiling (soil, compost, asphalt, concrete, solid waste) for over
24 hours?
Reference Table 1 Items D and F
X Yes ☐No
6. Will there be dewatering operations?
Reference Table 1 Items C and D X Yes ☐No
7. Will there be temporary on-site storage of construction materials, including
mortar mix, raw landscaping and soil stabilization materials, treated lumber,
rebar, and plated metal fencing materials?
Reference Table 1 Items E and F
X Yes ☐No
8. Will trash or solid waste product be generated from this project?
Reference Table 1 Item F X Yes ☐No
1 Minimum required BMPs are those necessary to comply with the City of Temecula Erosion and Sediment Control
Ordinance (Chapter 18.18 et seq.) and the City of Temecula Engineering and Construction Manual (Chapter 18).
9. Will construction equipment be stored on site (e.g.: fuels, oils, trucks, etc.?)
Reference Table 1 Item F
☐Yes X No
10. Will Portable Sanitary Services (“Porta-potty”) be used on the site?
Reference Table 1 Item F X Yes ☐No
Template Date: October 31st, 2018 Preparation Date: 8-30-21
BH:JR:vs/C_RIV_G/Report/17883-H.005
Table 1. Construction Stormwater BMP Checklist
Minimum Required
Best Management Practices
(BMPs)
CALTRANS
SW
Handbook 2
Detail
BMP
Selected
Reference sheet No.’s where each
selected BMP is shown on the
plans.
If no BMP is selected, an
explanation must be provided.
A. Select Erosion Control Method for Disturbed Slopes (choose at least one for the appropriate
season)
Vegetation Stabilization
Planting 3 (Summer)
SS-2, SS-4 ☐
Plan sheet number will be
referenced when available. Hydraulic Stabilization
Hydroseeding2 (Summer)
SS-4 X
Bonded Fiber Matrix or
Stabilized Fiber Matrix 4 (Winter)
SS-3 X
Physical Stabilization
Erosion Control Blanket3
(Winter)
SS-7 ☐
B. Select erosion control method for disturbed flat areas (slope < 5%) (choose at least one)
Will use erosion control
measures from Item A on flat
areas also
SS-3, 4, 7 ☐
Plan sheet number will be
referenced when available. Sediment Desilting Basin (must
treat all site runoff)
SC-2 X
Mulch, straw, wood chips, soil
application
SS-6, SS-8 ☐
2 State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2003. Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Construction
Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual. March. Available online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/manuals.htm.
3 If Vegetation Stabilization (Planting or Hydroseeding) is proposed for erosion control it may be installed between
May 1st 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 1st. The owner must implement a contingency physical BMP
by August 15th if vegetation establishment does not occur by that date. If 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.
Table 1. Construction Stormwater BMP Checklist (continued)
Minimum Required
Best Management Practices
(BMPs)
CALTRANS
SW Handbook
Detail
BMP
Selected
Reference sheet No.’s where each
selected BMP is shown on the
plans.
If no BMP is selected, an
explanation must be provided.
C. If runoff or dewatering operation is concentrated, velocity must be controlled using an energy
dissipater
Energy Dissipater Outlet
Protection 5
SS-10 X Plan sheet number will be
referenced when available.
D. Select sediment control method for all disturbed areas (choose at least one)
Silt Fence SC-1 X
Plan sheet number will be
referenced when available.
Fiber Rolls (Straw Wattles) SC-5 X
Gravel & Sand Bags SC-6 & 8 X
Dewatering Filtration NS-2 ☐
Storm Drain Inlet Protection SC-10 X
Engineered Desilting Basin
(sized for 10-year flow)
SC-2 ☐
E. Select method for preventing offsite tracking of sediment (choose at least one)
Stabilized Construction Entrance TC-1 X
Plan sheet number will be
referenced when available.
Construction Road Stabilization TC-2 ☐
Entrance/Exit Tire Wash TC-3 ☐
Entrance/Exit Inspection &
Cleaning Facility
TC-1 ☐
Street Sweeping and Vacuuming SC-7 ☐
F. Select the general site management BMPs
F.1 Materials Management
Material Delivery & Storage WM-1 X Plan sheet number will be
referenced when available. Spill Prevention and Control WM-4 ☐
F.2 Waste Management 6
Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
WM-8 X
Plan sheet number will be
referenced when available. 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-DWQ) 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.
6 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.
Template Date: October 31st, 2018 Preparation Date: 8-30-21
BH:JR:vs/C_RIV_G/Report/17883-H.005
Step 4: Project type determination (Standard or Priority
Development Project)
Is the project part of another Priority Development Project (PDP)? X Yes ☐ No
If so, Standard and PDP requirements apply. Go to Step 4.1 and select “PDP”
The project is (select one): X New Development ☐ Redevelopment 7
The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is: 103,873 ft2
The total existing (pre-project) impervious area is: 0 ft2
The total area disturbed by the project is: 257,327 ft2
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 the project in any of the following categories, (a) through (f)?8
Yes
X
No
☐
(a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces
9(collectively over the entire project site). This includes commercial, industrial, residential,
mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.
Yes
☐
No
X
(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
X
(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.
Project type determination (continued)
Yes
☐
No
X
(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
X
(e) New development projects, or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000
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
X
(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).
X 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
Template Date: October 31st, 2018 Preparation Date: 8-30-21
BH:JR:vs/C_RIV_G/Report/17883-H.005
Step 4.1: Water Quality Management Plan requirements
Step Answer Progression
Is the project a Standard Project,
Priority Development Project (PDP), or
exception to PDP definitions?
To answer this item, complete Step 4
Project Type Determination Checklist,
and see PDP exemption information
below.
For further guidance, see Chapter 1.4
of the BMP Design Manual in its
entirety.
☐ Standard
Project
Standard Project requirements apply, STOP,
you have satisfied stormwater
requirements.
X PDP
Standard and PDP requirements apply.
Complete Exhibit A “PDP
Requirements.”
http://temeculaca.gov/wqmpa2
☐ PDP
Exemption
Go to Step 4.2 below.
Step 4.2: Exemption to PDP definitions
Is the project exempt from PDP definitions based on either of the following:
☐ Projects that are only new or retrofit paved sidewalks, bicycle
lanes, or trails that meet the following criteria:
(i) Designed and constructed to direct stormwater runoff to
adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-erodible permeable
areas; OR
(ii) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected
from paved streets or roads [i.e., runoff from the new
improvement does not drain directly onto paved streets or
roads]; OR
(iii) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or
surfaces in accordance with City of Temecula Guidance on
Green Infrastructure;
If so:
Standard Project
requirements apply, AND
any additional requirements
specific to the type of
project. City concurrence
with the exemption is
required. Provide
discussion and list any
additional requirements
below in this form.
STOP, you have
satisfied stormwater
requirements.
☐ Projects that are only retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved
alleys, streets or roads that are designed and constructed in
accordance with the City of Temecula Guidance on Green
Infrastructure.
Complete Exhibit A
“PDP Requirements.”
Select Green Streets
Exemptions where
applicable.
Discussion / justification, and additional requirements for exceptions to PDP definitions, if applicable:
Exhibit A
City of Temecula
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
ii PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
This page was left intentionally blank.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS iii
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 8-30-21
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... iii
Attachments ............................................................................................................................... iii
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 ............................................11
Attachments
Attachment 1: Stormwater Pollutant Control BMP Selection
Attachment 1a: DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1b: 85th percentile 24-hour Isohyetal Map
Attachment 1c: Worksheet B.1-1 DCV
Attachment 1d: Structural Pollutant Control BMP Checklist(s)
Attachment 1e:
Attachment 1f:
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 Map book
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
iv PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
This page was left intentionally blank.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS v
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 8-30-21
Preparer's Certification Page
Project Name: Wingsweep Property Planning Area 10 Tract #37925
Permit Application Number: PA20-0567 LD21-2039
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.
Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date
Print Name
Rick Engineering Company 619-291-0707
Company & Phone No.
_____________________________
Date
Engineer's Seal:
Brendan Hastie
#65809, Exp. 9/23
3-2-22
vi PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
This page was left intentionally blank.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 7
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
Step 1: Site Information Checklist
Step 1.1: Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns
Project Watershed (Complete Hydrologic Unit,
Area, and Subarea Name with Numeric Identifier;
e.g., 902.52 Santa Margarita HU, Pechanga HA,
Wolf HSA)
902.00 Santa Margarita HU, 902.40 Auld HA,
2.43 Gertrudis HSA
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply):
☐ Existing development
X 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 has been previously mass graded by others. An existing sediment basin is found in the
southwest corner of the site. The majority of the runoff from the site flows southwest before
being collected in the sediment basin and discharged to Santa Gertrudis creek via the existing
storm drain system.
Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply and provide each area on site):
X Pervious Area 8.1 Acres (356,305 Square Feet)
X Impervious Areas 0 Acres (0 Square Feet)
Description / Additional Information:
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:
The site has been previously mass graded by others. An existing sediment basin is found in the
southwest corner of the site. The majority of the runoff from the site sheet flows southwest
before being collected in the sediment basin and discharged to Santa Gertrudis creek.
8 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
Step 1.2: Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:
Planning Area 10 (PA10) provides for the development of 13 single family residential dwelling
units, and one street. The drainage pattern will mimic existing conditions drainage, flowing
generally southwest before being collected in a Biofiltration BMP and discharged to Santa
Gertrudis Creek.
Proposed Land Cover Includes (select all that apply and provide each area on site):
Existing to Remain
X Pervious Area 1.4 Acres (61,802 Square Feet)
☐ Impervious Areas _______ Acres (_______ Square Feet)
Existing to Be Replaced
☐ Pervious Area Acres (Square Feet)
☐ Impervious Areas _______ Acres (_______ Square Feet)
Newly Created
X Pervious Area 4.3 Acres (188,963 Square Feet)
X Impervious Areas 2.4 Acres (105,567 Square Feet)
Total
X Pervious Area ___5.7_ Acres (250,738) Square Feet)
X Impervious Areas _2.4_ Acres (105,567 Square Feet)
Description / Additional Information:
List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking
lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):
The proposed site will consist of one street with curbs, sidewalks and approximately 13
detached residential units.
List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):
The proposed site will consist of approximately 13 detached residential units with landscaped
yard areas, and one (1) Biofiltration BMP area. The site also includes landscaped slopes with
amended soils and vegetation, and also undisturbed natural slopes, both of which are
considered self-mitigating areas and designated as such. The project area also includes a
perimeter D.G. trail with a section deep enough to retain the 85th percentile rainfall event which
is designated as a self-retaining area.
Describe any grading or changes to site topography:
Proposed grading changes will mimic drainage patterns of existing conditions.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 9
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
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:
The proposed project site drainage will consist of curb and gutter conveyance directing flow to
the Biofiltration basin located in the southwest corner of the project site. The Biofiltration basin
will be sized for water quality treatment, hydromodification management, and detention
requirements (for detention requirements reference “Final Drainage Study for Wingsweep
Property Planning Area 10” dated June 21, 2021 (or subsequent versions thereof). Since there
is an existing graded sediment basin, the proposed biofiltration basin will occupy the same
space, therefore preserving the point of discharge to the existing storm drain system that drains
to Santa Gertrudis Creek.
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.
10 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
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.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 11
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
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.
12 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
Describe the general strategy for BMP implementation at the site.
Following direction from the City of Temecula BMP Design Manual, one (1) Biofiltration basin is
proposed for the pollutant control requirements of the project. The DCV was calculated using
the County of San Diego Automated Stormwater Pollutant Control Worksheet (Version 1.3).
The worksheets show the proposed design satisfy the Annual Retention Requirements and
effectively treats captured stormwater. The Biofiltration basin will be sized to address
Hydromodification management as well as Detention requirements.
There is one (1) proposed Biofiltration basin; BMP 10.
In addition, three (3) site design BMPs have been implemented on-site.
1. 4.3.3 Minimize directly connected impervious area
In order to minimize the impervious footprint of the project, site streets and sidewalks
have been designed to the minimum widths necessary.
2. 4.3.5 Disperse impervious areas
In order to disconnect impervious surfaces, roof runoff will be directed to pervious
areas before discharging to storm drain conveyance where feasible.
3. 4.3.7 Landscape with native or drought tolerant species
It is anticipated that right of way landscaped areas will use drought tolerant and other
native species and are to be shown on landscape plans.
The site includes slopes along the perimeter of the site which are to remain either undisturbed,
or are to be vegetated with drought tolerant species, which drain directly off site and have been
identified as Self-Mitigating areas as they meet all 5 criteria listed in Section 5.2.1 of the
Temecula BMP Manual.
The site also includes a DG trail along the perimeter of the site which has been designed to
contain a water quality volume to meet stormwater pollutant control obligations as a Self-
Retaining area, per the calculations included with Attachment 1. This area has been included in
the hydromodification analysis.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 13
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
(Continue on following page as necessary.)
14 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
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)
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 15
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
ATTACHMENT 1
STORMWATER POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP SELECTION
Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment
Sequence Contents Checklist
Special Considerations for
Redevelopment Projects (50% Rule)
see chapter 1.7 and Step 4 of
Appendix A.1.
☐ Less than or equal to fifty
percent (50%)
☐ Greater than fifty percent (50%)
Refer to Figure 5-1: Stormwater Pollutant Control BMP Selection Flow Chart
Attachment 1a DMA Exhibit (Required)
See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the
back of this form.
See Chapter 3.3.3 for guidance
X Included
☐ Entire project is designed with
Self-Mitigating and De-Minimis
DMAs. The project is compliant
with Pollution Control BMP sizing
requirements. STOP *
Attachment 1b Figure B.1-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour
Isohyetal Map with project location
X Included
Attachment 1c Worksheet B.2-1 DCV 1
X Included
Attachment 1d Applicable Site Design BMP Fact
Sheet(s) from Appendix E
X Included
☐ Entire project is designed with
Self-Retaining DMAs. The project
is compliant with Pollution Control
BMP sizing requirements. STOP *
Attachment 1e Structural Pollutant Control BMP
Checklist(s)
X Included
Attachment 1f Is Onsite Alternative Compliance
proposed?2
X No
☐ Yes - Include WQE worksheets
Attachment 1g Offsite Alternative Compliance
Participation Form - Pollutant Control
Refer to Figure 1-3:Pathways to
Participating in Offsite Alternative
Compliance Program
☐ Full Compliance Onsite
X Partial Compliance Onsite with
Offsite Alternative Compliance or
Full Offsite Alternative
Compliance. Document onsite
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.
1 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
2 Water Quality Equivalency Guidance and automated worksheets for Region 9:
http://www.projectcleanwater.org/water-quality-equivalency-guidance/
16 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
Attachment 1a: DMA Exhibit Checklist
See Chapter 3.3.3 for guidance
X Point(s) of Compliance
X Project Site Boundary
X Project Disturbed Area Footprint
X Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, DMA areas (square
footage or acreage), DMA land use and pollutants of concern, 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.
X Include summary table of worksheet inputs for each DMA.
X Include description of self-mitigating areas.
X Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source control BMPs (see
Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Step 3.5)
X 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.)
N/A Proposed Harvest and Use BMPs
X Underlying hydrologic soil group (Web Soil Survey)
N/A Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands, pond, lake)
X Existing topography and impervious areas
X Proposed grading and impervious areas. If the project is a subdivision or spans multiple lots
show pervious and impervious totals for each lot.
X Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite
X Potable water wells, onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic), underground utilities
X Structural BMPs (identify location, structural BMP ID No., type of BMP, and size/detail)
X Approximate depth to groundwater at each structural BMP
X Approximate infiltration rate and feasibility (full retention, partial retention, biofiltration) at
each structural BMP
X Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected and or conveyed through the project site,
if applicable.
Temporary Construction BMPs. Include protection of source control, site design and
structural BMPs during construction.
X
X
X
XXX
X
13
15
X
X
X
1320
13
2
0
X
MHX
X
1325
13
2
5
13
3
0
13
3
0
1335
13
3
5
1
3
4
0
1340
13
4
0
13
4
0
1340
1
3
4
5
13
4
5
1345
13
5
0
1350
1350
13
5
0
X
1
3
5
5
1355
13
5
5
13
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1360
1360
1360
1360
13
6
0
1360
X
X
X
1365
13
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1365
13
6
5
1365
1365
1365 1365
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1375
1375
1
3
7
5
EX LOT LINE
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
EX LOT LINE
DAYLIGHT LINE
DAYLIGHT LINE
EX LOT LINE
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
EX LOT LINE
DAYLIGHT LINE
DAYLIGHT LINE
DAYLIGHT LINE
EX LOT LINEEX LOT LINE
DAY LIGHT LINEDAY LIGHT LINE
EX LOT LINEEX LOT LINE
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
PA 10
2.0 AC
# 10
DMA 10-1
0.3 AC
1.2 AC
0.4 ACDMA 10-6
POC 1
AREA
SELF-MITIGATING
DMA 10-9
EXISTING LOT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
ROW
ROW
SC-A
AREA
SELF-MITIGATING
DMA 10-4
0.4 AC
AREA
SELF-RETAINING
DMA 10-5
0.2 AC
AREA
SELF-RETAINING
DMA 10-7
0.1 AC
DMA 10-2
0.3 AC
DMA 10-3
0.1 AC
1.0 AC
DMA 10-1.1
DMA 10-1.2
1.7 AC
SC-P
4.3.3
4.3.3
4.3.3
SC-D2
SC-D2
AREA
UNTREATED
1369.2
13 12
1369.9
11
1370.6 1371.2
10
1371.9
9 8
1372.7
7
1372.81371.8
6
1370.4
43
1369.61368.9
2
1368.2
1
EXISTING LOT LINE
ROW
ROW
1369.2
13 12
1369.9
11
1370.6 1371.2
10
1371.9
9 8
1372.7
7
1372.81371.8
6
1370.4
43
1369.61368.9
2
1368.2
1
EXISTING LOT LINE
PROJECT FOOTPRINT
ROW
ROW
AREA
SELF-MITIGATING
DMA 10-8.2
AREA
SELF-MITIGATING
DMA 10-8.1
0.2 AC
0.1 AC
AREA
SELF-MITIGATING
DMA 10-8.3
AREA
SELF-MITIGATING
DMA 10-8.3
0.1 AC
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
13651365
1365
1
3
6
5
13
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1
3
6
5
13701370
1370
1
3
7
0
1
3
7
0 NOTES
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BMP LEGEND
2
6
-
A
U
G
-
2
0
2
1
0
8
:
2
8
C
:
\
R
I
C
K
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
_
R
I
V
_
G
\
1
7
8
8
3
\
1
7
8
8
3
-
H
_
P
A
1
0
\
Wa
t
e
r
R
e
s
\
S
D
C
o
r
p
S
t
d
s
2
0
0
5
.
d
s
c
r
i
p
t
C
:
\
R
I
C
K
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
C
_
R
I
V
_
G
\
1
7
8
8
3
\
1
7
8
8
3
-
H
_
P
A
1
0
\
Wa
t
e
r
R
e
s
\
1
7
8
8
3
H
_
P
A
1
0
w
q
m
p
0
1
.
d
g
n
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - EXHIBIT FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ONLY
BMP
LOCATION OF PROPOSED BIOFILTRATION
27.6 AC DMA AREA
BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA)
DMA ID
BMP ID
1SHT OF 1
PLANNING AREA PER SPECIFIC PLAN
c
2
0
2
0
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
DMA 10-1
# 10
J-17883-E
POINT OF CONCERN
PLANNING AREA 10
WINGSWEEP PROPERTY
FOR
PLAN EXHIBIT
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DEPTH OF 36.5' DID NOT ENCOUNTER GROUNDWATER.
6. GEOTECHNICAL BORING AT THE BMP LOCATION TO A
SEDIMENT YIELD AREA.
5. SITE LOCATION IS OUTSIDE OF CRITICAL COARSE
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT INDICATES 0.16IN/HR.
4.APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION RATE AT BMP PER
CALCULATE RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
3. HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TYPE "C" USED TO
PROPERTY PLANNING AREA 10.
2. THIS WQMP EXHIBIT COVERS THE WINGSWEEP
DESIGN MANUAL.
QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BMP
THIS EXHIBIT ADDRESSES THE PERMANENT STORM WATER
1. SIZES OF THE POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP SHOWN ON
Date: April 16, 2021
Revised: June 30, 2021
SELF-MITIGATING AREAS.
DISCUSSION OF SELF-RETAINING AND
NOTE: REFER TO STEP 2 OF WQMP FOR
Revised: August 30, 2021
PA 10
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
SUMMARY BMP DESIGN SITEIMPLEMENTED
DESCRIPTION LOCATIONSTYPICAL
4.3.3 AREAIMPERVIOUS
MINIMIZE
PRIVATEALONG
AREASSIDEWALK
4.3.5 DISPERSION
AREAIMPERVIOUS
LOTSRESIDENTIAL
4.3.7 SPECIESTOLERANT
DROUGHT ORNATIVE
WITHLANDSCAPING
PLANS
LANDSCAPINGPER
SLOPES,VEGETATED
LOTS,RESIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
ADDITIONAL FOR WQMP THE OF 2 STEP TO REFERNOTE:
UNTREATED AREA OF DMA 10-6.
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM TO MITIGATE
CITY OF TEMCULA ALTERNATIVE
*PROJECT IS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SUMMARY DMA PA10WINGSWEEP
DMA
(SF)
AREA
(AC)
AREA
TYPESLANDUSE/SURFACE %IMPERVIOUS
(SF)
BMPTO
DRAINING
AREA
IMPERVIOUS
(AC)
BMPTO
DRAINING
AREA
IMPERVIOUS
(SF)
BMPTO
GDRAININ
AREA
PERVIOUS
(AC)
BMPTO
GDRAININ
AREA
PERVIOUS
FACTOR
RUNOFF
EDADJUST
FINAL
(AC)
BMPTO
NGDRAINI
AREA
10-1 87,359 2.0 RESIDENTIALDETACHED 34%29,702 0.7 57,657 1.3 -2.0
10-1.1 41,762 1.0 SURFACE/SIDEWALKROAD 99%41,344 0.9 418 0.0 -1.0
10-1.2 72,632 1.7 RESIDENTIALDETACHED 34%24,695 0.6 47,937 1.1 -1.7
10-2 13,112 0.3 BMP TO SLOPEVEGETATED 0%0 0.0 13,112 0.3 -0.3
10-3 4,468 0.1 SURFACE PONDING WQBMP 100%4,468 0.1 0 0.0 -0.1
10-4 18,313 0.4 SLOPEVEGETATED SELF-MITIGATING ------
10-5 15,359 0.4 TRAIL SURFACED.G.SELF-RETAINING ------
*10-6 5,550 0.1 SURFACEROAD AREAUNTREATED ------
10-7 10,376 0.2 TRAIL SURFACED.G.SELF-RETAINING ------
10-8.1 15,192 0.3 SLOPEVEGETATED SELF-MITIGATING ------
10-8.2 10,563 0.2 SLOPEVEGETATED SELF-MITIGATING ------
10-8.3 5,883 0.1 SLOPEVEGETATED SELF-MITIGATING ------
10-8.4 2,486 0.1 SLOPEVEGETATED SELF-MITIGATING ------
10-9 53,433 1.2 SLOPEVEGETATED SELF-MITIGATING ------
Totals 356,488 8.1 46%100,209 2.4 119,124 2.7 0.55 5.1
July 2018 B-3
Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods
Figure B.1-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour Isohyetal Map
Approximate Project Location
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 10 DMA 10.6 unitless
1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Biofiltration Other unitless
2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.70 0.70 inches
3 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.024 0.040 in/hr
4 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 100,209 5,550 sq-ft
5 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft
6 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft
7 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft
8 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft
9 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23) 119,124 sq-ft
10 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft
11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No No No No No No No yes/no
12 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft
13 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft
14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
15 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
16 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft
17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft
18 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-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 gal
23 Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in Downstream Drainage? No No No No No No No No No No unitless
24 Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series unitless
25 Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas percent
26 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area (Ci=0.90) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 219,333 0 5,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft
29 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.54 0.00 0.90 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 0.54 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
32 Initial Design Capture Volume 6,909 0 291 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 sq-ft
34 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-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 Techniques 0.54 n/a 0.90 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless
38 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 6,909 0 291 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 0.54 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
42 Final Effective Tributary Area 118,440 0 4,995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft
43 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
44 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 6,909 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
Worksheet B.1-1 General Notes:
False
False
False
Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V1.3)
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 worksheet, proceed to the appropriate BMP Sizing worksheet(s).
Dispersion
Area, Tree Well
& Rain Barrel
Inputs
(Optional)
Standard
Drainage Basin
Inputs
Results
Tree & Barrel
Adjustments
Initial Runoff
Factor
Calculation
Dispersion
Area
Adjustments
Treatment
Train Inputs &
Calculations
False
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 17
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
Attachment 1e: 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. 10 Structural BMP ID No. 10 Construction Plan Sheet No. TBD
X Worksheet B.3-1 Structural BMP Feasibility: Project-Scale BMP Feasibility Analysis
X 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
X Worksheet D.5-1 Infiltration & partial retention Safety Factor
Structural BMP Selection and Design (Chapter 5.5) complete an include the applicable
worksheet(s) found in appendix B and design criteria checklists from the associated fact sheets
found in appendix E for selected Structural BMP(s):
☐ 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)
X Worksheet B.5-1
☐ Biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
X Biofiltration (BF-1)
X Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2)
X 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
X Worksheet B.5-3 Minimum Footprint
☐ Worksheet B.5-4 Biofiltration + Storage
X 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
18 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
Purpose:
☐ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
☐ Pollutant control only
X Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control (see Attachment 2)
☐ Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification
forms (See Chapter 1.12 of the BMP Design
Manual)
Who will be the final owner of this BMP?
X HOA ☐ Property Owner ☐ City
☐ Other (describe)
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity?
X 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.
Category # Description Value Units
0 Design Capture Volume for Entire Project Site 6,909 cubic-feet
1 Proposed Development Type Residential unitless
2 Number of Residents or Employees at Proposed Development 50 #
3 Total Planted Area within Development 89,237 sq-ft
4 Water Use Category for Proposed Planted Areas Low unitless
5 Is Average Site Design Infiltration Rate ≤0.500 Inches per Hour?Yes 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? No yes/no
9 36-Hour Toilet Use Per Resident or Employee 1.86 cubic-feet
10 Subtotal: Anticipated 36 Hour Toilet Use 93 cubic-feet
11 Anticipated 1 Acre Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 52.14 cubic-feet
12 Subtotal: Anticipated Landscape Use Over 36 Hours 107 cubic-feet
13 Total Anticipated Use Over 36 Hours 200 cubic-feet
14 Total Anticipated Use / Design Capture Volume 0.03 cubic-feet
15 Are Full Capture and Use Techniques Feasible for this Project? No unitless
16 Is Full Retention Feasible for this Project? No yes/no
17 Is Partial Retention Feasible for this Project? Yes yes/no
Result 18 Feasibility Category 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Worksheet B.3-1 General Notes:
H. PDPs participating in an offsite alternative compliance program are not held to the feasibility categories presented herein.
Capture & Use
Inputs
Automated Worksheet B.3-1: Project-Scale BMP Feasibility Analysis (V1.3)
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.
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.
Infiltration
Inputs
G. Feasibility Category 5: Applicant must implement standard lined biofiltration BMPs sized at ≥3% 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.
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 BMPDM). 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.
F. Feasibility Category 4: Applicant must implement standard unlined biofiltration BMPs sized at ≥3% 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.
Calculations
C-11 July 2018
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Worksheet C.4-1
Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Note that it is not necessary to investigate each and every criterion in the worksheet if infiltration is
precluded. Instead a letter of justification from a geotechnical professional familiar with the local conditions
substantiating any geotechnical issues will be required.
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
1
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility
locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this
Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
2
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability,
groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be
mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Percolation testing performed and test results included in :
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
X
X
Percolation rates below 0.5 in/hr based on testing performed in:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
C-12 July 2018
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 2 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
3
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow
water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
4
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without causing potential water balance issues such as change of
seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of
contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this
Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Part 1
Result*
If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are “Yes” a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.
The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration
If any answer from row 1-4 is “No”, infiltration may be possible to some extent but
would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a “full infiltration” design.
Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in
the Regional MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City staff to substantiate findings.
X
Provide basis:
Groundwater was not encountered within the depth explored of 51.5', boring logs included in:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
X
Provide basis:
Groundwater was not encountered within the depth explored of 51.5' per:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
C-13 July 2018
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 3 of 4
Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
5
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any
appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening
Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
6
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability,
groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
X
Provide basis:
Percolation/infiltration testing has yielded an average infiltration rate of 0.11in/hr. Soil is not impermeable,
however the infiltration rate is low. Testing performed in:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
X
Proposed infiltration areas are away from cut/fill slopes, retaining walls, are located +10' from high groundwater level
and are not near utilities.
C-14 July 2018
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
Worksheet C.4-1 Page 4 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
7
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns
(shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)?
The response to this Screening Question must be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
8
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water
rights? The response to this Screening Question must be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
Part 2
Result*
If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.
The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.
If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be
infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in
the Regional MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate
findings.
X
Groundwater not encountered within the upper 51.5', boring logs:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
X
Based on low infiltration rate and depth to groundwater. Rates and depth to groundwater:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
Appendix D: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods
D-19 July 2018
Worksheet D.5-1: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet
Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration
Rate Worksheet Worksheet D.5-1
Factor Category Factor Description
Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
A Suitability
Assessment
Soil assessment methods 0.25
Predominant soil texture 0.25
Site soil variability 0.25
Depth to groundwater / impervious
layer 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p
B Design
Level of pretreatment/ expected
sediment loads 0.5
Redundancy/resiliency 0.25
Compaction during construction 0.25
Design Safety Factor, SB = p
Combined Safety Factor, Stotal= SA x SB
Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobserved
(corrected for test-specific bias)
Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Kdesign = Kobserved / Stotal
Supporting Data
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
1.00
0.5
0.75
2.00
2.25
4.50
0.11 (average)
0.024
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:
Infiltration tests performed in general accordance with procedures of Section 2.3 of the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District Design Handbook.
Results included in :
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update), Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, City of
Temecula, California, by Leighton and Associates, Inc., project no. 12673.001, dated June 30, 2020.
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 10 - - - - - - - - - sq-ft
1 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.024 - - - - - - - - - in/hr
2 Effective Tributary Area 118,440 - - - - - - - - - sq-ft
3 Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Sizing Factor 0.030 - - - - - - - - - ratio
4 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 6,909 - - - - - - - - - cubic-feet
5 Is Biofiltration Basin Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Unlined unitless
6 Provided Biofiltration BMP Surface Area 4,468 sq-ft
7 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 6 inches
8 Provided Soil Media Thickness 33 inches
9 Provided Depth of Gravel Above Underdrain Invert 11 inches
10 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 2.00 inches
11 Provided Depth of Gravel Below the Underdrain 3 inches
12 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 54 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
15 Effective Retention Depth 2.85 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) 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours
17 Volume Retained by BMP 1,115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
18 Fraction of DCV Retained 0.16 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 0.24 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) 0.13 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 6,011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
22 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.2123 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 2.05 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 Sizing 2.05 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 12.31 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 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches
29 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours
30 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours
31 Total Depth Biofiltered 29.31 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 9,017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
33 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 9,017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
34 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 4,508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
35 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 4,508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
36 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 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? Yes - - - - - - - - - yes/no
38 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 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 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet
Worksheet B.5-1 General Notes:
False
Biofiltration
Calculations
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.
False
False
False
False
Result
False
False
Retention
Calculations
Automated Worksheet B.5-1: Sizing Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (V1.3)
False
BMP Inputs
False
RICK
Engineering Company
5620 Friars Roaci
San Diego, CA 92110-2596
Tel: (619) 291-0707
Fax: (619) 291-4165
Date
Job No.
Page
Done By
Checked By
r—
•
.
1
1 •
•
••
—
•
—
S’--
_____
85TH PERCENTILE
RAINFALL = 0.7"
MAX WIDTH OF TRAIL AND
SELF-RETAINING SLOPE IS
~45 FEET
TRAIL WIDTH = 13'
0.7" x MAX WIDTH OF 45' = 31.5 INCH-FEET
31.5 (INCH-FT) DIVIDED BY TYP. TRAIL
WIDTH (FT) = 2.4" OF RAINFALL TO RETAIN
DIVIDED BY POROSITY OF STONE (~0.3)
MIN. TRAIL DEPTH IS 8" TO BE
SELF-RETAINING OF THE TRAIL SECTION
AND CONTRIBUTING SELF-MITIGATING
SLOPE
06/30/2021
DG Trail Aggregate Depth for DCV Storage
Calculation Backup
Wingsweep PA10
~13
'
~3
2
'
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-120 July 2018
E.18 BF-1 Biofiltration
Location: 43rd Street and Logan Avenue, San Diego, California
Biofiltration (Biofiltration with underdrain) facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter
water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via underdrain or
overflow to the downstream conveyance system. Biofiltration with underdrain facilities are
commonly incorporated into the site within parking lot landscaping, along roadsides, and in open
spaces. Because these types of facilities have limited or no infiltration, they are typically designed to
provide enough hydraulic head to move flows through the underdrain connection to the storm drain
system. Treatment is achieved through filtration, sedimentation, sorption, biochemical processes and
plant uptake.
Typical biofiltration with underdrain components include:
Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g, perimeter flow spreader or filter strips)
Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap)
Shallow surface ponding for captured flows
Side slope and basin bottom vegetation selected based on expected climate and ponding
depth
Non-floating mulch layer (Optional)
Media layer (planting mix or engineered media) capable of supporting vegetation growth
Filter course layer consisting of aggregate to prevent the migration of fines into
uncompacted native soils or the aggregate storage layer
Aggregate storage layer with underdrain(s)
Description
MS4 Permit Category
Biofiltration
Manual Category
Biofiltration
Applicable Performance
Standard
Pollutant Control
Flow Control
Primary Benefits
Treatment
Volume Reduction (Incidental)
Peak Flow Attenuation (Optional)
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-121 July 2018
Impermeable liner or uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility
Overflow structure
Typical plan and Section view of a Biofiltration BMP
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-122 July 2018
Biofiltration Treatment BMP for storm water pollutant control. The system is lined or un-lined
to provide incidental infiltration, and an underdrain is provided at the bottom to carry away filtered
runoff. This configuration is considered to provide biofiltration treatment via flow through the
media layer. Storage provided above the underdrain within surface ponding, media, and aggregate
storage is considered included in the biofiltration treatment volume. Saturated storage within the
aggregate storage layer can be added to this design by raising the underdrain above the bottom of
the aggregate storage layer or via an internal weir structure designed to maintain a specific water level
elevation.
Integrated storm water flow control and pollutant control configuration. The system can be
designed to provide flow rate and duration control by primarily providing increased surface ponding
and/or having a deeper aggregate storage layer above the underdrain. This will allow for significant
detention storage, which can be controlled via inclusion of an outlet structure at the downstream
end of the underdrain.
Siting Criteria Intent/Rationale
□
Placement observes geotechnical
recommendations regarding potential hazards
(e.g., slope stability, landslides, liquefaction
zones) and setbacks (e.g., slopes, foundations,
utilities).
Must not negatively impact existing site
geotechnical concerns.
□
An impermeable liner or other hydraulic
restriction layer is included if site constraints
indicate that infiltration or lateral flows should
not be allowed.
Lining prevents storm water from
impacting groundwater and/or sensitive
environmental or geotechnical features.
Incidental infiltration, when allowable,
can aid in pollutant removal and
groundwater recharge.
□
Contributing tributary area shall be ≤ 5 acres (≤
1 acre preferred).
Bigger BMPs require additional design
features for proper performance.
Contributing tributary area greater than 5
acres may be allowed at the discretion of
the City Engineer if the following
conditions are met: 1) incorporate design
features (e.g. flow spreaders) to
minimizing short circuiting of flows in the
BMP and 2) incorporate additional design
features requested by the City Engineer
Design Adaptations for Project Goals
Recommended Siting Criteria
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-123 July 2018
Siting Criteria Intent/Rationale
for proper performance of the regional
BMP.
□ Finish grade of the facility is ≤ 2%. Flatter surfaces reduce erosion and
channelization within the facility.
BMP Component Dimension Intent/Rationale
Freeboard
≥ 2 inches
Freeboard provides room for head
over overflow structures and
minimizes risk of uncontrolled
surface discharge.
Surface Ponding
≥ 6 and ≤ 12 inches
Surface ponding capacity lowers
subsurface storage requirements.
Deep surface ponding raises safety
concerns.
Surface ponding depth greater than
12 inches (for additional pollutant
control or surface outlet structures
or flow-control orifices) may be
allowed at the discretion of the City
Engineer if the following
conditions are met: 1) surface
ponding depth drawdown time is
less than 24 hours; and 2) safety
issues and fencing requirements are
considered (typically ponding
greater than 18” will require a fence
and/or flatter side slopes) and 3)
potential for elevated clogging risk
is considered.
Recommended BMP Component Dimensions
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-124 July 2018
BMP Component Dimension Intent/Rationale
Ponding Area Side Slopes
3H:1V or shallower
Gentler side slopes are safer, less
prone to erosion, able to establish
vegetation more quickly and easier
to maintain.
Mulch
≥ 3 inches
Mulch will suppress weeds and
maintain moisture for plant growth.
Aging mulch kills pathogens and
weed seeds and allows the beneficial
microbes to multiply.
Media Layer
≥ 18 inches
A deep media layer provides
additional filtration and supports
plants with deeper roots. Standard
specifications shall be followed. For
non-standard or proprietary designs,
compliance with F.1 ensures that
adequate treatment performance
will be provided.
Underdrain Diameter
≥ 6 inches
Smaller diameter underdrains are
prone to clogging.
Cleanout Diameter
≥ 6 inches
Properly spaced cleanouts will
facilitate underdrain maintenance.
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-125 July 2018
Biofiltration with underdrain must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below
criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate:
Design Criteria Intent/Rationale
Surface Ponding
□
Surface ponding is limited to a 24-hour
drawdown time.
Surface ponding limited to 24 hours for
plant health. Surface ponding drawdown
time greater than 24-hours but less than
96 hours may be allowed at the discretion
of the City Engineer if certified by a
landscape architect or agronomist.
Vegetation
□
Plantings are suitable for the climate and
expected ponding depth. A plant list to aid in
selection can be found in Appendix E.26.
Plants suited to the climate and ponding
depth are more likely to survive.
□ An irrigation system with a connection to water
supply should be provided as needed.
Seasonal irrigation might be needed to
keep plants healthy.
Mulch (Optional or Mandatory – Dependent on jurisdiction)
□ A minimum of 3 inches of well-aged, shredded
hardwood mulch that has been stockpiled or
stored for at least 12 months is provided.
Mulch will suppress weeds and maintain
moisture for plant growth. Aging mulch
kills pathogens and weed seeds and allows
the beneficial microbes to multiply.
Media Layer
□
Media maintains a minimum filtration rate of 5
in/hr over lifetime of facility. An initial filtration
rate of 8 to 12 in/hr is recommended to allow
for clogging over time; the initial filtration rate
should not exceed 12 inches per hour.
A filtration rate of at least 5 inches per
hour allows soil to drain between events.
The initial rate should be higher than long
term target rate to account for clogging
over time. However an excessively high
initial rate can have a negative impact on
treatment performance, therefore an
upper limit is needed.
□
Media is a minimum 18 inches deep, meeting
either of these two media specifications:
Section F.3 Biofiltration Soil Media (BSM) or
specific jurisdictional guidance.
A deep media layer provides additional
filtration and supports plants with deeper
roots.
Design Criteria and Considerations
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-126 July 2018
Design Criteria Intent/Rationale
Alternatively, for proprietary designs and
custom media mixes not meeting the media
specifications, the media meets the pollutant
treatment performance criteria in Section F.1.
Standard specifications shall be followed.
For non-standard or proprietary designs,
compliance with F.1 ensures that
adequate treatment performance will be
provided.
□
Media surface area is 3% of contributing area
times adjusted runoff factor or greater. Unless
demonstrated that the BMP surface area can be
smaller than 3%.
Greater surface area to tributary area
ratios: a) maximizes volume retention as
required by the MS4 Permit and b)
decrease loading rates per square foot and
therefore increase longevity.
Adjusted runoff factor is to account for
site design BMPs implemented upstream
of the BMP (such as rain barrels,
impervious area dispersion, etc.). Refer to
Appendix B.2 guidance.
□
Where receiving waters are impaired or have a
TMDL for nutrients, the system is designed
with nutrient sensitive media design (see fact
sheet BF-2).
Potential for pollutant export is partly a
function of media composition; media
design must minimize potential for export
of nutrients, particularly where receiving
waters are impaired for nutrients.
Filter Course Layer
□ A filter course is used to prevent migration of
fines through layers of the facility. Filter fabric
is not used.
Migration of media can cause clogging of
the aggregate storage layer void spaces or
subgrade. Filter fabric is more likely to
clog.
□
Filter course is washed and free of fines.
Washing aggregate will help eliminate
fines that could clog the facility and
impede infiltration.
□
Filter course calculations assessing suitability for
particle migration prevention have been
completed.
Gradation relationship between layers can
evaluate factors (e.g., bridging,
permeability, and uniformity) to
determine if particle sizing is appropriate
or if an intermediate layer is needed.
Aggregate Storage Layer
□ Class 2 Permeable per Caltrans specification 68-
1.025 is recommended for the storage layer.
Washing aggregate will help eliminate
fines that could clog the aggregate storage
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-127 July 2018
Design Criteria Intent/Rationale
Washed, open-graded crushed rock may be
used, however a 4-6 inch washed pea gravel
filter course layer at the top of the crushed rock
is required.
layer void spaces or subgrade.
□
The depth of aggregate provided (12-inch
typical) and storage layer configuration is
adequate for providing conveyance for
underdrain flows to the outlet structure.
Proper storage layer configuration and
underdrain placement will minimize
facility drawdown time.
Inflow, Underdrain, and Outflow Structures
□ Inflow, underdrains and outflow structures are
accessible for inspection and maintenance.
Maintenance will prevent clogging and
ensure proper operation of the flow
control structures.
□ Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or
use energy dissipation methods. (e.g., riprap,
level spreader) for concentrated inflows.
High inflow velocities can cause erosion,
scour and/or channeling.
□ Curb cut inlets are at least 12 inches wide, have
a 4-6 inch reveal (drop) and an apron and
energy dissipation as needed.
Inlets must not restrict flow and apron
prevents blockage from vegetation as it
grows in. Energy dissipation prevents
erosion.
□
Underdrain outlet elevation should be a
minimum of 3 inches above the bottom
elevation of the aggregate storage layer.
A minimal separation from subgrade or
the liner lessens the risk of fines entering
the underdrain and can improve hydraulic
performance by allowing perforations to
remain unblocked.
□ Minimum underdrain diameter is 6 inches. Smaller diameter underdrains are prone to
clogging.
□
Underdrains are made of slotted, PVC pipe
conforming to ASTM D 3034 or equivalent or
corrugated, HDPE pipe conforming to
AASHTO 252M or equivalent.
Slotted underdrains provide greater intake
capacity, clog resistant drainage, and
reduced entrance velocity into the pipe,
thereby reducing the chances of solids
migration.
□ An underdrain cleanout with a minimum 6-inch
diameter and lockable cap is placed every 250 to
300 feet as required based on underdrain length.
Properly spaced cleanouts will facilitate
underdrain maintenance.
□
Overflow is safely conveyed to a downstream
storm drain system or discharge point Size
overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow
for on-line infiltration basins and water quality
Peak flow for off-line basins.
Planning for overflow lessens the risk of
property damage due to flooding.
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-128 July 2018
To design biofiltration with underdrain for storm water pollutant control only (no flow control
required), the following steps should be taken:
1. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements,
contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended
media surface area tributary ratio.
2. Calculate the DCV per Appendix B based on expected site design runoff for tributary areas.
3. Use the sizing worksheet presented in Appendix B.5 to size biofiltration BMPs.
Control of flow rates and/or durations will typically require significant surface ponding and/or
aggregate storage volumes, and therefore the following steps should be taken prior to determination
of storm water pollutant control design. Pre-development and allowable post-project flow rates and
durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual.
1. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements,
contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended
media surface area tributary ratio.
2. Iteratively determine the facility footprint area, surface ponding and/or aggregate storage
layer depth required to provide detention storage to reduce flow rates and durations to
allowable limits. Flow rates and durations can be controlled from detention storage by
altering outlet structure orifice size(s) and/or water control levels. Multi-level orifices can be
used within an outlet structure to control the full range of flows.
3. If biofiltration with underdrain cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control
required by this manual, an upstream or downstream structure with significant storage
volume such as an underground vault can be used to provide remaining controls.
4. After biofiltration with underdrain has been designed to meet flow control requirements,
calculations must be completed to verify if storm water pollutant control requirements to
treat the DCV have been met.
Normal Expected Maintenance. Biofiltration requires routine maintenance to: remove
accumulated materials such as sediment, trash or debris; maintain vegetation health; maintain
Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Storm Water Pollutant Control Only
Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach when Storm Water Flow Control is Applicable
Maintenance Overview
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-129 July 2018
infiltration capacity of the media layer; replenish mulch; and maintain integrity of side slopes, inlets,
energy dissipators, and outlets. A summary table of standard inspection and maintenance indicators
is provided within this Fact Sheet.
Non-Standard Maintenance or BMP Failure. If any of the following scenarios are observed, the
BMP is not performing as intended to protect downstream waterways from pollution and/or
erosion. Corrective maintenance, increased inspection and maintenance, BMP replacement, or a
different BMP type will be required.
The BMP is not drained between storm events. Surface ponding longer than approximately
24 hours following a storm event may be detrimental to vegetation health, and surface
ponding longer than approximately 96 hours following a storm event poses a risk of vector
(mosquito) breeding. Poor drainage can result from clogging of the media layer, filter course,
aggregate storage layer, underdrain, or outlet structure. The specific cause of the drainage
issue must be determined and corrected.
Sediment, trash, or debris accumulation greater than 25% of the surface ponding volume
within one month. This means the load from the tributary drainage area is too high, reducing
BMP function or clogging the BMP. This would require pretreatment measures within the
tributary area draining to the BMP to intercept the materials. Pretreatment components,
especially for sediment, will extend the life of components that are more expensive to
replace such as media, filter course, and aggregate layers.
Erosion due to concentrated storm water runoff flow that is not readily corrected by adding
erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore
proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the
BMP to the original plan and grade, the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any
additional repairs or reconstruction.
Other Special Considerations. Biofiltration is a vegetated structural BMP. Vegetated structural
BMPs that are constructed in the vicinity of, or connected to, an existing jurisdic tional water or
wetland could inadvertently result in creation of expanded waters or wetlands. As such, vegetated
structural BMPs have the potential to come under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, San Diego Water Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. This could result in the need for specific resource agency permits
and costly mitigation to perform maintenance of the structural BMP. Along with proper placement
of a structural BMP, routine maintenance is key to preventing this scenario.
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-130 July 2018
The property owner is responsible to ensure inspection, operation and maintenance of permanent BMPs on their property unless
responsibility has been formally transferred to an agency, community facilities district, homeowners association, property owners
association, or other special district.
Maintenance frequencies listed in this table are average/typical frequencies. Actual maintenance needs are site -specific, and maintenance
may be required more frequently. Maintenance must be performed whenever needed, based on maintenance indicators presented in this
table. The BMP owner is responsible for conducting regular inspections to see when maintenance is needed based on the mainten ance
indicators. During the first year of operation of a structural BMP, inspection is recommended at least once prior to August 31 and then
monthly from September through May. Inspection during a storm event is also recommended. After the initial period of frequent
inspections, the minimum inspection and maintenance frequency can be determined based on the results of the first year inspections.
Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency
Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris Remove and properly dispose of
accumulated materials, without damage to
the vegetation or compaction of the media
layer.
Inspect monthly. If the BMP is 25% full*
or more in one month, increase inspection
frequency to monthly plus after every 0.1-
inch or larger storm event.
Remove any accumulated materials found
at each inspection.
Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear blockage. Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch
or larger storm event.
Remove any accumulated materials found
at each inspection.
Damage to structural components such as
weirs, inlet or outlet structures
Repair or replace as applicable Inspect annually.
Maintain when needed.
Summary of Standard Inspection and Maintenance
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-131 July 2018
Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency
Poor vegetation establishment Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation
per original plans.
Inspect monthly.
Maintain when needed.
Dead or diseased vegetation Remove dead or diseased vegetation, re-
seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per
original plans.
Inspect monthly.
Maintain when needed.
Overgrown vegetation Mow or trim as appropriate. Inspect monthly.
Maintain when needed.
2/3 of mulch has decomposed, or mulch
has been removed
Remove decomposed fraction and top off
with fresh mulch to a total depth of 3
inches.
Inspect monthly.
Replenish mulch annually, or more
frequently when needed based on
inspection.
Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flow Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and
adjust the irrigation system.
Inspect monthly.
Maintain when needed.
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-132 July 2018
Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency
Erosion due to concentrated storm water
runoff flow
Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and
make appropriate corrective measures such
as adding erosion control blankets, adding
stone at flow entry points, or minor re-
grading to restore proper drainage according
to the original plan. If the issue is not
corrected by restoring the BMP to the
original plan and grade, the City Engineer
shall be contacted prior to any additional
repairs or reconstruction.
Inspect after every 0.5-inch or larger storm
event. If erosion due to storm water flow
has been observed, increase inspection
frequency to after every 0.1-inch or larger
storm event.
Maintain when needed. If the issue is not
corrected by restoring the BMP to the
original plan and grade, the City Engineer
shall be contacted prior to any additional
repairs or reconstruction.
Standing water in BMP for longer than 24
hours following a storm event
Surface ponding longer than approximately
24 hours following a storm event may be
detrimental to vegetation health
Make appropriate corrective measures such
as adjusting irrigation system, removing
obstructions of debris or invasive
vegetation, clearing underdrains, or
repairing/replacing clogged or compacted
soils.
Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch
or larger storm event. If standing water is
observed, increase inspection frequency to
after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event.
Maintain when needed.
BF-1 Biofiltration
E-133 July 2018
Threshold/Indicator Maintenance Action Typical Maintenance Frequency
Presence of mosquitos/larvae
For images of egg rafts, larva, pupa, and
adult mosquitos, see
http://www.mosquito.org/biology
If mosquitos/larvae are observed: first,
immediately remove any standing water by
dispersing to nearby landscaping; second,
make corrective measures as applicable to
restore BMP drainage to prevent standing
water.
If mosquitos persist following corrective
measures to remove standing water, or if the
BMP design does not meet the 96-hour
drawdown criteria due to release rates
controlled by an orifice installed on the
underdrain, the City Engineer shall be
contacted to determine a solution. A
different BMP type, or a Vector
Management Plan prepared with
concurrence from the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health, may
be required.
Inspect monthly and after every 0.5-inch
or larger storm event. If mosquitos are
observed, increase inspection frequency to
after every 0.1-inch or larger storm event.
Maintain when needed.
Underdrain clogged Clear blockage. Inspect if standing water is observed for
longer than 24-96 hours following a storm
event.
Maintain when needed.
“25% full” is defined as ¼ of the depth from the design bottom elevation to the crest of the outflow structure (e.g., if the height to the outflow opening is 12 inches from the bottom
elevation, then the materials must be removed when there is 3 inches of accumulation – this should be marked on the outflow structure).
BF-2 Nutrient Sensitive Media Design
www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater E-164 Effective January 1, 2019
E.20 BF-2 Nutrient Sensitive Media Design
Some studies of bioretention with underdrains have observed export of nutrients, particularly
inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) and dissolved phosphorus. This has been observed to be a
short-lived phenomenon in some studies or a long term issue in some studies. The composition of
the soil media, including the chemistry of individual elements is believed to be an important factor in
the potential for nutrient export. Organic amendments, often compost, have been identified as the
most likely source of nutrient export. The quality and stability of organic amendments can vary widely.
The biofiltration media specifications contained in Appendix F.2 of this Manual and also contained in
the County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook: Appendix G -Bioretention Soil
Specification (June 2014, unless superseded by more recent edition) were developed with
consideration of the potential for nutrient export. These specifications include criteria for individual
component characteristics and quality in order to control the overall quality of the blended mixes. As
of the publication of this manual, the specifications contained in Appendix F.2 of the County of San
Diego BMP Design Manual provide more detail regarding mix design and quality control.
The specifications noted above were developed for general purposes to meet permeability and
treatment goals. In cases where the BMP discharges to receiving waters with nutrient impairments or
nutrient TMDLs, the biofiltration media should be designed with the specific goal of minimizing the
potential for export of nutrients from the media. Therefore, in addition to adhering to the County
media specifications, the following guidelines should be followed:
1. Select plant palette to minimize plant nutrient needs
A landscape architect or agronomist should be consulted to select a plant palette that minimizes
nutrient needs. Utilizing plants with low nutrient needs results in less need to enrich the biofiltration
soil mix. If nutrient quantity is then tailored to plants with lower nutrient needs, these plants will
generally have less competition from weeds, which typically need higher nutrient content. The
following practices are recommended to minimize nutrient needs of the plant palette:
• Utilize native, drought-tolerant plants and grasses where possible. Native plants
generally have a broader tolerance for nutrient content, and can be longer lived in
leaner/lower nutrient soils.
• Start plants from smaller starts or seed. Younger plants are generally more tolerant of
lower nutrient levels and tend to help develop soil structure as they grow. Given the lower
cost of smaller plants, the project should be able to accept a plant mortality rate that is
somewhat higher than starting from larger plants and providing high organic content.
2. Minimize excess nutrients in media mix
Once the low-nutrient plant palette is established (item 1), the landscape architect and/or agronomist
should be consulted to assist in the design of a biofiltration media to balance the interests of plant
BF-2 Nutrient Sensitive Media Design
www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater E-165 Effective January 1, 2019
establishment, water retention capacity (irrigation demand), and the potential for nutrient export.
Specifications for Biofiltration Soil Media outlined in Appendix F, particularly sections 803-2.5.4 and
803-5.5.5 shall be followed along with the following guidelines:The mix should not exceed the
nutrient needs of plants. In conventional landscape design, the nutrient needs of plants are often
exceeded intentionally in order to provide a factor of safety for plant survival. This practice must be
avoided in biofiltration media as excess nutrients will increase the chance of export. The mix designer
should keep in mind that nutrients can be added later (through mulching, tilling of amendments into
the surface), but it is not possible to remove nutrients, once added.
• The actual nutrient content and organic content of the selected organic amendment
source should be determined when specifying mix proportions. Nutrient content (i.e.,
C:N ratio; plant extractable nutrients) and organic content (i.e, % organic material) are
relatively inexpensive to measure via standard agronomic methods and can provide important
information about mix design. If mix design relies on approximate assumption about
nutrient/organic content and this is not confirmed with testing (or the results of prior
representative testing), it is possible that the mix could contain much more nutrient than
intended.
• Nutrients are better retained in soils with higher cation exchange capacity. Cation
exchange capacity can be increased through selection of organic material with naturally high
cation exchange capacity, such as peat or coconut coir pith, and/or selection of inorganic
material with high cation exchange capacity such as some sands or engineered minerals (e.g.,
low P-index sands, zeolites, rhyolites, etc). Including higher cation exchange capacity materials
would tend to reduce the net export of nutrients. Natural silty materials also provide cation
exchange capacity; however potential impacts to permeability need to be considered.
• Focus on soil structure as well as nutrient content. Soil structure is loosely defined as the
ability of the soil to conduct and store water and nutrients as well as the degree of aeration of
the soil. Soil structure can be more important than nutrient content in plant survival and
biologic health of the system. If a good soil structure can be created with very low amounts of
organic amendment, plants survivability should still be provided. While soil structure generally
develops with time, biofiltration media can be designed to promote earlier development of
soil structure. Soil structure is enhanced by the use of amendments with high humus content
(as found in well-aged organic material). In addition, soil structure can be enhanced through
the use of organic material with a distribution of particle sizes (i.e., a more heterogeneous mix).
• Consider alternatives to compost. Compost, by nature, is a material that is continually
evolving and decaying. It can be challenging to determine whether tests previously done on a
given compost stock are still representative. It can also be challenging to determine how the
properties of the compost will change once placed in the media bed. More stable materials
such as aged coco coir pith, peat, biochar, shredded bark, and/or other amendments should
be considered.
With these considerations, it is anticipated that less than 10 percent organic amendment by volume
could be used, while still balancing plant survivability and water retention. If compost is used,
BF-2 Nutrient Sensitive Media Design
www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater E-166 Effective January 1, 2019
designers should strongly consider utilizing less than 10 percent by volume.
3. Design with partial retention and/or internal water storage
An internal water storage zone, as described in Fact Sheet PR-1 is believed to improve retention of
nutrients. For lined systems, an internal water storage zone worked by providing a zone that fluctuates
between aerobic and anaerobic conditions, resulting in nitrification/denitrification. In soils that will
allow infiltration, a partial retention design (PR-1) allows significant volume reduction and can also
promote nitrification/denitrification.
Acknowledgment: This fact sheet has been adapted from the Orange County Technical Guidance
Document (May 2011). It was originally developed based on input from: Deborah Deets, City of Los
Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Drew Ready, Center for Watershed Health, Rick Fisher, ASLA, City of
Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Dr. Garn Wallace, Wallace Laboratories, Glen Dake, GDML,
and Jason Schmidt, Tree People. The guidance provided herein does not reflect the individual opinions
of any individual listed above and should not be cited or otherwise attributed to those listed.
Maintenance Overview
Refer to maintenance information provided in the Biofiltration (BF-1) Fact Sheet. Adjust maintenance
actions and reporting if required based on the specific media design.
BF-2 Nutrient Sensitive Media Design
www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater E-167 Effective January 1, 2019
This page was left intentionally blank.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 19
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
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):
The receiving channel Santa Gertrudis Creek is located approximately 0.5 miles south of the
site, and continues downstream ultimately joining with the Santa Margarita River which
ultimately discharges to 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 (see BMP Design Manual Appendix
B.6.1):
303(d)
Impaired
Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s)
TMDLs / WQIP Highest Priority
Pollutant
Santa
Gertrudis Creek
Chlorpyrifos, Copper, Indicator
Bacteria, Iron, Manganese,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus
Chlorpyrifos, Copper, Indicator
Bacteria, Iron, Manganese, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus
Murrieta Creek Chlorpyrifos, Copper, Indicator
Bacteria, Iron, Manganese,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus
Chlorpyrifos, Copper, Indicator
Bacteria, Iron, Manganese, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus
Santa
Margarita River
Indicator Bacteria, Iron,
Manganese, Nitrogen, Phosphorus
Indicator Bacteria, Iron, Manganese,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus
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 Appendix B.6.):
Pollutant
Not Applicable to
the Project Site
Anticipated from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving
Water Pollutant of
Concern
Sediment ☐ X ☐
Nutrients ☐ X X
Heavy Metals ☐ ☐ X
Organic Compounds ☐ ☐ ☐
Trash & Debris ☐ X ☐
Oxygen Demanding
Substances ☐ X ☐
Oil & Grease ☐ X ☐
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
20 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
Bacteria & Viruses ☐ ☐ X
Pesticides ☐ ☐ ☐
Attachment 1g: Offsite Alternative Compliance Participation Form -
Pollutant Control
Refer to Chapter 1.8
Onsite Project Information
Record ID:
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) [APN(s)] 960-460-007
Quantity of Pollutant Control Debits or Credits (cubic feet)
X Debits
☐ Credits
*See Attachment 1 of the PDP WQMP
291
Offsite Project Information – Projects providing or receiving credits (add rows as needed)
Record ID: APN(s) Project Owner/Address Credit/Debit Quantity (cubic
feet)
1. 964-460-009 Wingsweep PA12 X Credit
☐ Debit 1,803
2. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
3. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
4. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
5. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
6. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
Total sum of Credits and Debits (∑Credits -∑Debits) (cubic feet) 1,512
Additional Information
Are offsite project(s) in the same credit trading area as the onsite project? X Yes
☐ No
Will projects providing credits be completed prior to completion of projects
receiving credits?
☐ Yes
☐ No
Are all deficits accounted for?
If No, onsite and offsite projects must be redesigned to account for all deficits.
X Yes
☐ No
Provide Alternative Compliance In-Lieu Fee Agreement and supporting WQE calculations
as part of this attachment.
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 10 DMA 10.6 unitless
1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Biofiltration Other unitless
2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.70 0.70 inches
3 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.024 0.040 in/hr
4 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 100,209 5,550 sq-ft
5 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft
6 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft
7 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft
8 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft
9 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23) 119,124 sq-ft
10 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft
11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No No No No No No No yes/no
12 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft
13 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft
14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
15 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
16 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft
17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft
18 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-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 gal
23 Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in Downstream Drainage? No No No No No No No No No No unitless
24 Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series unitless
25 Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas percent
26 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area (Ci=0.90) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 219,333 0 5,550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft
29 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.54 0.00 0.90 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 0.54 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
32 Initial Design Capture Volume 6,909 0 291 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 sq-ft
34 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-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 Techniques 0.54 n/a 0.90 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless
38 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 6,909 0 291 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 0.54 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
42 Final Effective Tributary Area 118,440 0 4,995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft
43 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
44 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 6,909 0 291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
Worksheet B.1-1 General Notes:
False
False
False
Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V1.3)
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 worksheet, proceed to the appropriate BMP Sizing worksheet(s).
Dispersion
Area, Tree Well
& Rain Barrel
Inputs
(Optional)
Standard
Drainage Basin
Inputs
Results
Tree & Barrel
Adjustments
Initial Runoff
Factor
Calculation
Dispersion
Area
Adjustments
Treatment
Train Inputs &
Calculations
False
PA 10 Worksheet indicating DMA 10.6 as area deficient of water quality treatment area DCV of 291 cubic feet.
Note: DMA 10.6 consists of "roadway" landuse
Attachment 1c
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 12 DMA 12-10 Offsite unitless
1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Biofiltration Biofiltration unitless
2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.70 0.70 inches
3 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.024 0.024 in/hr
4 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 429,889 34,345 sq-ft
5 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft
6 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft
7 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft
8 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft
9 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23)sq-ft
10 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) 276,989 sq-ft
11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No No No No No No No yes/no
12 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft
13 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft
14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
15 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft
16 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft
17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft
18 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-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 gal
23 Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in Downstream Drainage? No No No No No No No No No No unitless
24 Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series unitless
25 Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas percent
26 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area (Ci=0.90) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 706,878 0 34,345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft
29 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.66 0.00 0.90 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 0.66 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
32 Initial Design Capture Volume 27,215 0 1,803 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 sq-ft
34 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-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 Techniques 0.66 n/a 0.90 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless
38 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 27,215 0 1,803 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 0.66 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
42 Final Effective Tributary Area 466,539 0 30,911 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft
43 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
44 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 27,215 0 1,803 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
Worksheet B.1-1 General Notes:
False
False
False
Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V1.3)
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 worksheet, proceed to the appropriate BMP Sizing worksheet(s).
Dispersion
Area, Tree Well
& Rain Barrel
Inputs
(Optional)
Standard
Drainage Basin
Inputs
Results
Tree & Barrel
Adjustments
Initial Runoff
Factor
Calculation
Dispersion
Area
Adjustments
Treatment
Train Inputs &
Calculations
False
PA 12 Worksheet showing offsite area DMA 12-10 as additional water quality treatment area DCV of 1,803 cubic feet.
Note: DMA 12-10 consists of "roadway" landuse
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units
0 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 12 - DMA 12-10 Offsite - - - - - - - sq-ft
1 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer 0.024 - 0.024 - - - - - - - in/hr
2 Effective Tributary Area 466,539 - 30,911 - - - - - - - sq-ft
3 Minimum Biofiltration Footprint Sizing Factor 0.015 - 0.030 - - - - - - - ratio
4 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 27,215 - 1,803 - - - - - - - cubic-feet
5 Is Biofiltration Basin Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Unlined unitless
6 Provided Biofiltration BMP Surface Area 11,286 sq-ft
7 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 12 inches
8 Provided Soil Media Thickness 27 inches
9 Provided Depth of Gravel Above Underdrain Invert 11 inches
10 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 3.25 inches
11 Provided Depth of Gravel Below the Underdrain 3 inches
12 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 135 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless
15 Effective Retention Depth 2.55 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) 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours
17 Volume Retained by BMP 2,534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
18 Fraction of DCV Retained 0.09 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 0.15 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) 0.07 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 25,310 0 1,803 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
22 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.5569 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 2.13 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 Sizing 2.13 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 12.79 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 21.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches
29 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours
30 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours
31 Total Depth Biofiltered 34.59 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 37,965 0 2,705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
33 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 32,533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
34 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 18,983 0 1,352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
35 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 18,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet
36 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 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? Yes -No - - - - - - - yes/no
38 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 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 0 n/a -1,803 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet
Worksheet B.5-1 General Notes:
Attention!
Biofiltration
Calculations
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.
-This BMP does not fully satisfy the performance standards for pollutant control and must be supplemented with flow-thru treatment and an offsite alternative compliance project.
False
False
False
Result
-Minimum annual retention criteria are not satisfied for each individual drainage area. Implement additional site design elements, increase structural BMP retention capacity, or demonstrate that such requirements are satisfied at the project-level-scale.
False
Retention
Calculations
Automated Worksheet B.5-1: Sizing Lined or Unlined Biofiltration BMPs (V1.3)
False
BMP Inputs
False
DMA 12-10 Effective Tributary
Area is included within column i,
DMA 12. This worksheet suite
carries this column through from
the DCV worksheet B.1-1.
Therefore there is no deficiency as
this area is routed to, and
accounted for in the DMA 12 BMP.
PA 12 Worksheet showing DMA 12 Biofiltration BMP as effectively treating entire DCV area draining to BMP, including additional offsite area DMA 12-10
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 21
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
ATTACHMENT 2
HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES
Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment
Sequence Contents Checklist
Attachment 2a Do Hydromodification Management
Requirements apply? See Chapter
1.6 and Figure 1-2.
X Hydromodification management
controls required.
☐ 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 Exhibits (Required) See
Checklist on the back of this
Attachment cover sheet. see
Chapter 6.3.1
X Combined with DMA Exhibit
☐ Included
Attachment 2c Management of Critical Coarse
Sediment Yield Areas
See Chapter 6.2 and Appendix H of
the BMP Design Manual.
X Exhibit depicting onsite/ upstream
CCSYAs (Figure H.1-1) AND,
documentation that project avoids
CCSYA per Appendix H.1. OR
☐ Sediment Supply BMPs
implemented.
Attachment 2d Structural BMP Design Calculations,
Drawdown Calculations, & Overflow
Design. See Chapter 6 & Appendix
G of the BMP Design Manual
X Included
☐ Project is designed entirely with
De-Minimus, Self–Mitigating,
and/or qualifying Self-Retaining
Areas. STOP *
Attachment 2e Geomorphic Assessment of
Receiving Channels. See Chapter
6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual.
X low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
☐ low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
☐ low flow threshold is 0.5Q2
Attachment 2f Vector Control Plan (Required when
structural BMPs will not drain in 96
hours)
☐ Included
X Not required because BMPs will
drain in less than 96 hours
Attachment 2g Hydromodification Offsite Alternative
Compliance form. Refer to Figure 1-
3: Pathways to Participating in
Offsite Alternative Compliance
Program
Full Compliance Onsite
X Offsite ACP. Document onsite
structural BMPs and complete
Hydromodification Offsite Alternative
Compliance Participation Form, and
WQE worksheets
* If this box is checked, the remainder of Attachment 2 does not need to be filled out.
22 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the
Hydromodification Management Exhibit:
X Point(s) of Compliance with name or number
X Project Site Boundary
X Project Disturbed Area Footprint
X 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.
X Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source control BMPs (see
Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Step 3.5)
X 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.)
N/A Proposed Harvest and Use BMPs
X Underlying hydrologic soil group (Web Soil Survey)
X Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands, pond, lake)
X Existing topography and impervious areas
X Proposed grading and impervious areas. If the project is a subdivision or spans multiple lots
show pervious and impervious totals for each lot.
X Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite
X Potable water wells, onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic), underground utilities
X Structural BMPs (identify location, structural BMP ID No., type of BMP, and size/detail)
X Approximate depth to groundwater at each structural BMP
X Approximate infiltration rate and feasibility (full retention, partial retention, biofiltration) at
each structural BMP
X Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected and or conveyed through the project site.
X Temporary Construction BMPs. Include protection of source control, site design and
structural BMPs during construction.
X Onsite and Offsite Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
X Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness
X Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary,
create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions)
X Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and
size/detail)
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 23
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
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:
X Step A. A Site-Specific Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Analysis was performed:
X 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)
X 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)
Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
July 2018 H-7
Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
Figure H.2-1: Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas and Potential Sediment Source Areas
Approximate site
location
HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE
The Wingsweep Property Planning Area 10 project (herein referred to as “project”) is a proposed
residential development located within the City of Temecula, located northwest of the
intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The site will be re-
developed and has a total area of approximately 8.1 acres, with approximately 5.1 acres draining
to the permanent BMP. Approximately 0.7 acres consist of D.G. trails and a section of untreated
roadway with adjacent pervious parkway areas and have been included in the hydromodification
analysis as by-pass area. The remaining 2.3 acres are self-mitigating areas and have been
excluded from the flow control analysis as the three conditions described by Section 6.1 of the
BMP Design Manual are met.
The purpose of this report is to document the methods, parameters, and results of the
hydromodification analysis, which was performed pursuant to the guidance described in the City
of Temecula BMP Design Manual, dated July 2018 (herein referred to as “BMP Design
Manual”).
This narrative includes:
1. General Methodology
2. Pre-developed condition analysis
3. Post-project condition analysis
2.0 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
In accordance with the BMP Design Manual a hydromodification management analysis was
performed to demonstrate that flows at the point of compliance (POC) in the post-project
condition will not be greater than flows at the POC in the pre-developed condition for both the
peak flow rates and duration for the range of flows of concern.
Pre-project Condition Drainage Characteristics
The pre-project condition of the site consists of mass grading preformed previously by others per
Mass Grading Plan number LD04-004GR. The majority of the runoff from the site flows
southwest before being collected in a temporary sedimentation basin that outlets to the storm
drain system in Murrieta Hot Springs Road / Butterfield Stage Road that eventually discharges to
Santa Gertrudis Creek.
Post-project Condition Drainage Characteristics
In the post-project condition, the drainage characteristics will be maintained similar as compared
to the pre-project condition and runoff from the site will be directed to a proposed biofiltration
BMP for pollutant control, hydromodification management, and flood control prior to connecting
to an existing stub out and storm drain system in Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield
Stage Road that conveys runoff to Santa Gertrudis Creek.
The ranges of flows of concern for this project are between 10% of the 2-year peak flow and the
10-year peak flow. The pre-development and post-project conditions were analyzed via
continuous simulation modeling performed using the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) 5.1. Temecula rainfall gauge data, extracted
from the Project Santa Margarita Region Hydrology Model (SMRHM), was incorporated into
the SWMM analysis. Hourly data from the SWMM modeling were exported to Excel
spreadsheets for post-processing analysis. Based on the data presented in the Excel spreadsheets,
BMP parameters were adjusted until the management criteria were met (i.e., orifice diameters
and basin depths were designed through iterative modeling process, post-processing, and
parameter adjustments).
3.0 PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION MODELING
3.1 Drainage Area Delineations
Based on the project topographic survey, the pre-developed (existing) condition drainage area
was determined for the site. The current regulations and guidance require that the pre-developed
condition area be incorporated into modeling with zero impervious cover. Table 3-1 provides a
summary of the pre-project areas. Refer to the DMA exhibit for pre-development area.
Table 3-1. Pre-Development Subarea Summary
POC ID Basin
ID
Pervious
Area (Acres)
Impervious
Area (Acres)
Total
Area (Acres)
Impervious
Fraction
1 DMA10 5.8 0.0 5.8 0%
3.2 Catchment Modeling Parameters
In accordance the Table G.1-4 of the BMP Design Manual, the parameters presented in Table 3-
2 were incorporated into the SWMM analysis for the pre-developed condition.
Table 3-2. Summary of ‘DMA 10’
Pre-Development Condition SWMM Catchment Parameters
Parameter Value Notes
Area 5.8 acres Impervious area in pre-project condition
% Imperv 0%
N-Imperv 0.012 Manning's n for impervious.
N-Perv 0.10 Manning's n for pervious.
Dstore-Imperv 0.05 Depth of depression storage on impervious portion.
Dstore-Perv 0.10 Depth of depression storage on pervious portion.
Subarea Routing Outlet
Infiltration Method Green-Ampt
Suction Head 9.0 Soil capillary suction head.
Conductivity 0.025 in/hr
Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity with 25% reduction
due to impervious area.
(Hydrologic soil group D)
Initial Deficit 0.30 Difference between soil porosity and initial moisture
content (Hydrologic soil group D)
Evaporation CIMIS Zone 6
Values
It is important to note that the existing site was mass-graded over a decade ago and consists of
compact soil with patchy short grass; therefore, the pervious condition Manning’s n-value (“N-
Perv”) of 0.10 was utilized in the pre-development condition SWMM analysis. The existing site
primarily consists of Type ‘C’ hydrologic soils based on the Web Soil Survey (online source);
however, due to the existing site’s compacted soil over a long period of time, the site’s
infiltration rate has been reduced. Therefore, for the purpose of the hydromodification
management analysis, Type ‘D’ soil was assumed for modeling the infiltration method both in
the pre-development and post-project conditions.
4.0 POST-PROJECT CONDITION MODELING
4.1 Drainage Area Delineations
Based on the proposed project topography, the post-developed condition drainage areas were
determined for the site. The impervious areas and pervious areas were determined based on the
proposed improvements. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the post-project areas. Refer to the
DMA exhibit for post-project area.
Table 4-1. Post-Project Subarea Summary
POC ID DMA Pervious
Area (Acres)
Impervious
Area (Acres)
Total
Area (Acres)
Impervious
Fraction
1 D10_IMP 2.7 2.4 5.1 46%
1 DMA_BYPASS 0.6 0.1 0.7 10%
4.2 Catchment Modeling Parameters
In accordance the Table G.1-4 of the BMP Design Manual, the parameters presented in Table 4-
2 and Table 4-3 were incorporated into the SWMM analysis for the post-project condition.
Table 4-2. Summary of ‘D10_IMP’ (Draining to BMP)
Post-Project Condition SWMM Catchment Parameters
Parameter Value Notes
Area 5.1 acres
% Imperv 46%
N-Imperv 0.012 Manning's n for impervious.
N-Perv 0.15 Manning's n for pervious.
Dstore-Imperv 0.05 Depth of depression storage on impervious portion.
Dstore-Perv 0.10 Depth of depression storage on pervious portion.
Subarea Routing Outlet
Percent Routed 100% Percent of runoff routed between sub-areas.
Infiltration Method Green-Ampt
Suction Head 9.0 Soil capillary suction head. (soil group D)
Conductivity 0.01875
in/hr
Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity. (Hydrologic soil
group D)
Initial Deficit 0.30 Difference between soil porosity and initial moisture
content (Hydrologic soil group D)
Evaporation CIMIS Zone 6 Values
Table 4-3. Summary of ‘DMA_BYPASS’ (Bypass Area)
Post-Project Condition SWMM Catchment Parameters
Parameter Value Notes
Area 0.7 acres
% Imperv 10%
N-Imperv 0.012 Manning's n for impervious.
N-Perv 0.15 Manning's n for pervious.
Dstore-Imperv 0.05 Depth of depression storage on impervious portion.
Dstore-Perv 0.10 Depth of depression storage on pervious portion.
Subarea Routing Outlet
Percent Routed 100% Percent of runoff routed between sub-areas.
Infiltration Method Green-Ampt
Suction Head 9.0 Soil capillary suction head. (soil group D)
Conductivity 0.025
in/hr
Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity. (Hydrologic soil
group D)
Initial Deficit 0.30 Difference between soil porosity and initial moisture
content (Hydrologic soil group D)
Evaporation CIMIS Zone 6 Values
5.0 SUMMARY
A hydromodification management analysis was performed in accordance with the BMP Design
Manual using EPA SWMM software. The results of the analysis indicate that proposed project as
design complies with the current hydromodification management criteria. Compliance has been
demonstrated through proposed implementation of one multi-purpose biofiltration basin. The
BMPs have been designed to provide water quality pollutant control, hydromodification
management, flood control and conveyance. Following this report are the results of the SWMM
analysis and add.
Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simulation and Hydromodification Management Sizing
Factors
www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater G-5 Effective January 1, 2019
Figure G.1-2: California Irrigation Management Information System "Reference
Evapotranspiration Zones"
Project Site
Wingsweep Property – PA 10
JN – 17883-H
4/15/2021
SWMM Model Schematics – POC
Pre-development Model
Post-project Model
Wingsweep Property - PA 10
17883-H
6/29/2021
SWMM - Subcatchment Input Parameters
Planning Area Project Condition Subcatchment ID Rain Gauge Outlet Area (acres)
Width
(feet)
% Slope
(percent)% Impervious N-Imperv N-Perv Dstore-Imperv Dstore-Perv
%Zero-Imperv
(percent)Subarea Routing Percent Routed
(percent)Infiltration Suction Head
(inches)
Conductivity
(inches/hour)
Initial Deficit
(fraction)
Pre-development DMA10 TEMECULA POC 5.8 350 2.2% 0.0% 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET 100 GREEN_AMPT 9.0 0.025 0.30
Post-project D10_IMP TEMECULA POC 5.1 240 1.0% 46.0% 0.012 0.15 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET 100 GREEN_AMPT 9.0 0.01875 0.30
Post-project DMA_BYPASS TEMECULA POC 0.7 45 1.0% 10.0% 0.012 0.15 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET 100 GREEN_AMPT 9.0 0.02500 0.30
Source: McCuen, R. et al. (1996), Hydrology, FHWA-SA-96-067, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC
Source: ASCE, (1992). Design & Construction of Urban Stormwater Management Systems, New York, NY.
Infiltration Editor
Green-Ampt Infiltration
10
C:\RICK\Projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\WaterRes\Hydromodification\17883H_PA10_SWMM_Parameters.xlsx
Wingsweep Property - PA 10
17883-H
6/29/2021
DMA-10: Stage-Storage-Discharge Rating Curve Summary
Proposed BMP Outletwork Detail Stage-Discharge Summary Stage-Storage Summary
Elevation
(ft)
Discharge
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(sf)Porosity
Effective
Surface Area
(sf)
Storage
(Cumulative)
(ac-ft)
WQ ponding depth (ft) = 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 4471 0.40 1788 0.000
Mulch layer (ft) = 0.25 1.17 0.12 1.17 4471 0.20 894 0.043
Bioretention soil media (ft) = 2.25 3.17 0.21 3.17 4471 0.20 894 0.084
Gravel choker layer (ft) = 0.25 3.42 0.22 3.42 4471 0.20 894 0.089
Gravel layer (ft) = 0.67 3.92 0.23 3.92 5122 1.00 5122 0.145
Dead storage (ft) 0.25 4.92 2.59 4.92 6424 1.00 6424 0.278
7.92 16.41 7.92 10329 1.00 10329 0.859
Bottom surface area (ft2) = 4,471 8.92 66.73 8.92 11631 1.00 11631 1.112
Grade break elevation (ft) = 3.42
Surface area @ grade break (ft2) = 4,471
Top surface area (ft2) = 11,631
Num. of orifices = 1
Orifice invert elevation (ft) = 0.0
Orifice diameter (in) = 2.13
Num. of orifices = 4
Orifice invert elevation (ft) = 3.92
Orifice diameter (in) = 5.0
Num. of orifices = 4
Orifice invert elevation (ft) = 4.92
Orifice diameter (in) = 8.00
Outlet invert elevation (ft) = 7.92
B (ft) = 16.00
Orifice coefficient, Cg = 0.60
Weir coefficient, Cs = 3.0
Orifice/Weir Coefficient
Basin Characteristics
Low-flow Orifice (Restrictor)
Mid-flow Orifice (1st)
Overflow Outlet
Mid-flow Orifice (2nd)
Total Drawdown Time (hrs) = 11.25
Depth (ft) Area (ft2) Vol. (ft3)
Detention Depth =7.92 3.42 4,471 0
Top of Grate Volume (ft3) = 33,329 3.92 5,122 2,398
LID Orifice Size (in) =2.125 4.92 6,424 8,171
7.92 10,329 33,329
Cg = 0.6 8.92 11,631 44,309
LID Orifice Subsurface Depth (ft) = 0
Time (hrs)LID Orifice Discharge
Rate (cfs)*
Outlet Structure
Discharge (cfs)*
Volume
(ft3) Depth (ft)
0.00 0.3210 14.6506 33,329 7.920
0.25 0.2780 7.0298 19,855 6.090
0.50 0.2560 2.0706 13,278 5.281
0.75 0.2491 1.6010 11,184 5.024
1.00 0.2419 0.9160 9,518 4.819
1.25 0.2395 0.5142 8,476 4.691
1.50 0.2370 0.1650 7,798 4.608
1.75 0.2345 0.0566 7,436 4.563
2.00 0.2345 0.0566 7,174 4.531
2.25 0.2320 0.0000 6,912 4.499
2.50 0.2320 0.0000 6,703 4.473
2.75 0.2320 0.0000 6,495 4.447
3.00 0.2320 0.0000 6,286 4.422
3.25 0.2295 0.0000 6,077 4.396
3.50 0.2295 0.0000 5,870 4.371
3.75 0.2295 0.0000 5,664 4.345
4.00 0.2269 0.0000 5,457 4.320
4.25 0.2269 0.0000 5,253 4.295
4.50 0.2269 0.0000 5,049 4.270
4.75 0.2243 0.0000 4,845 4.244
5.00 0.2243 0.0000 4,643 4.220
5.25 0.2243 0.0000 4,441 4.195
5.50 0.2243 0.0000 4,239 4.170
5.75 0.2217 0.0000 4,037 4.145
6.00 0.2217 0.0000 3,838 4.121
6.25 0.2217 0.0000 3,638 4.096
6.50 0.2190 0.0000 3,439 4.072
6.75 0.2190 0.0000 3,241 4.047
7.00 0.2190 0.0000 3,044 4.051
7.25 0.2190 0.0000 2,847 4.010
7.50 0.2163 0.0000 2,650 3.969
7.75 0.2163 0.0000 2,455 3.929
8.00 0.2136 0.0000 2,261 3.888
8.25 0.2136 0.0000 2,068 3.848
8.50 0.2109 0.0000 1,876 3.808
Drawdown Calculations
Basin 33
Storage Curve Data
Basin Parameter
8.75 0.2109 0.0000 1,686 3.768
9.00 0.2081 0.0000 1,497 3.729
9.25 0.2081 0.0000 1,309 3.690
9.50 0.2052 0.0000 1,122 3.651
9.75 0.2052 0.0000 937 3.612
10.00 0.2023 0.0000 753 3.574
10.25 0.2023 0.0000 571 3.536
10.50 0.1994 0.0000 388 3.498
10.75 0.1994 0.0000 209 3.460
11.00 0.1994 0.0000 29 3.423
11.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
11.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
11.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
12.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
12.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
12.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
12.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
13.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
13.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
13.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
13.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
14.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
14.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
14.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
14.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
15.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
15.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
15.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
15.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
16.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
16.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
16.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
16.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
17.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
17.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
17.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
17.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
18.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
18.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
18.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
18.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
19.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
19.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
19.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
19.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
20.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
20.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
20.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
20.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
21.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
21.25 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
21.50 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
21.75 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
22.00 0.1994 0.0000 0 3.417
*Discharge Flow Rate is based on time step depth minus 0.5' (conservative approach)
TM 5610 Frirn llo.-~ Q Da re RICK gm r>iriro, CJ\ 9211 (1.25% Job No .
Page
Don e By
ENGl:-I El:.HINO COMPA:-IY Tel (6 19) 29 1.{1707
fa,t_ (6 19) ~9 1-i 165
"/Jlo-f)l-TfA7 tu r.J
' ' 1 1 •
--1
• • ♦
➔ --+
-i--
I
' ·t I-I l _J_
r -
I I
-·-L--1-1
I -· I
7Y(1IA.L C'£oJJ !~710,J
I
I 1 1
l I
➔ J -t ' . .
• T • -1-•
I
' . ~ b 11 r~./-OR.-A --y:f &> I r
fe
Che cked By _____ _
I
... -♦ ..
rt NOT TD f f -Alt
~ Wote.tc 1N (=, (of ~
.J: NoT -FDK CDN~u cputJ
+ ---, -fl'f~ I j T -~
•-t --I 1-~ -• 1 --
-•---..,.-L -. ---
-r-• : _ ]I --r---~ -~
I I -·--,----,----·-i ----,-----7--+
. -1 ---... ~-~ . . . ,
---7
I
;
• p +--
(PER GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER RECOMMENDATIONS)
0.00
0.67
1.17
3.17
3.42
3.92
4.92
7.92
8.92
12"
1-2(1/8)" Low-flow Restrictor
4 - 5.0" Mid Flow
4 - 8.0" Mid Flow
PA 10
HMP &
DETENTION
48"
(4x4 Box Structure)
H
3" C33 FINE
AGGREGAGE SAND
3" NO. 8 STONE
( )
NO. 57 OPEN
GRADED STONE
NO. 57 OPEN
GRADED STONE
( )
( )
HARDWOOD
FL OUT ~ 1319.94 '
FG = 1354.85'
FG = 1360.35'
FILTER FABRIC
30' Long Overflow
Structure
17883H_PA10_POC_pre.inp
[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
Wingsweep Property - PA 10
Pre-Project Condition
J-17883-H
[OPTIONS]
;;Option Value
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
ALLOW_PONDING NO
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO
START_DATE 08/18/1982
START_TIME 00:00:00
REPORT_START_DATE 08/18/1982
REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00
END_DATE 07/12/2012
END_TIME 17:45:00
SWEEP_START 01/01
SWEEP_END 12/31
DRY_DAYS 0
REPORT_STEP 00:15:00
WET_STEP 00:15:00
DRY_STEP 04:00:00
ROUTING_STEP 0:01:00
INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL
NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH
FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W
VARIABLE_STEP 0.75
LENGTHENING_STEP 0
MIN_SURFAREA 12.557
MAX_TRIALS 8
HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005
SYS_FLOW_TOL 5
LAT_FLOW_TOL 5
MINIMUM_STEP 0.5
THREADS 1
[EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
;;-------------- ----------------
MONTHLY 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.06
DRY_ONLY NO
[RAINGAGES]
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source
;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
Temecula VOLUME 0:15 1.0 TIMESERIES TS-Temecula
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack
;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----------------
DMA10 Temecula POC 5.8 0 350 2.25 0
[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA10 0.012 0.10 0.05 0.10 25 OUTLET
[INFILTRATION]
1
17883H_PA10_POC_pre.inp
;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
DMA10 9.0 0.025 0.30
[OUTFALLS]
;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ----------------
POC 0 FREE NO
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
TS-Temecula FILE "Temecula.dat"
[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options
INPUT NO
CONTROLS NO
SUBCATCHMENTS ALL
NODES ALL
LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None
[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC 4169.550 5513.264
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
DMA10 4621.178 7790.602
DMA10 4621.178 6918.509
DMA10 3710.325 6918.509
DMA10 3710.325 7790.602
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
Temecula 4187.706 8408.342
2
PA10_PRE.rpt
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wingsweep Property - PA 10
Pre-Project Condition
J-17883-H
*********************************************************
NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are
based on results found at every computational time step,
not just on results from each reporting time step.
*********************************************************
****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ............... CFS
Process Models:
Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES
RDII ................... NO
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Starting Date ............ 08/18/1982 00:00:00
Ending Date .............. 07/12/2012 17:45:00
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00
Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00
Dry Time Step ............ 04:00:00
************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 226.145 467.886
Evaporation Loss ......... 8.021 16.594
Infiltration Loss ........ 162.103 335.386
Surface Runoff ........... 59.526 123.157
Final Storage ............ 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.550
************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 59.526 19.397
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 59.526 19.397
Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000
Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000
Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000
***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
1
PA10_PRE.rpt
***************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff
Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff
Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMA10 467.89 0.00 16.59 335.39 123.16 19.40 6.67 0.263
Analysis begun on: Tue Jun 29 15:50:08 2021
Analysis ended on: Tue Jun 29 15:50:23 2021
Total elapsed time: 00:00:15
2
17883H_PA10_POC_post.inp
[TITLE]
;;Project Title/Notes
Wingsweep Property - PA 10
Post-Project Condition
J-17883-H
[OPTIONS]
;;Option Value
FLOW_UNITS CFS
INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT
FLOW_ROUTING KINWAVE
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH
MIN_SLOPE 0
ALLOW_PONDING NO
SKIP_STEADY_STATE NO
START_DATE 08/18/1982
START_TIME 00:00:00
REPORT_START_DATE 08/18/1982
REPORT_START_TIME 00:00:00
END_DATE 07/12/2012
END_TIME 17:45:00
SWEEP_START 01/01
SWEEP_END 12/31
DRY_DAYS 0
REPORT_STEP 00:15:00
WET_STEP 00:15:00
DRY_STEP 04:00:00
ROUTING_STEP 0:01:00
INERTIAL_DAMPING PARTIAL
NORMAL_FLOW_LIMITED BOTH
FORCE_MAIN_EQUATION H-W
VARIABLE_STEP 0.75
LENGTHENING_STEP 0
MIN_SURFAREA 12.557
MAX_TRIALS 8
HEAD_TOLERANCE 0.005
SYS_FLOW_TOL 5
LAT_FLOW_TOL 5
MINIMUM_STEP 0.5
THREADS 1
[EVAPORATION]
;;Data Source Parameters
;;-------------- ----------------
MONTHLY 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.06
DRY_ONLY NO
[RAINGAGES]
;;Name Format Interval SCF Source
;;-------------- --------- ------ ------ ----------
Temecula VOLUME 0:15 1.0 TIMESERIES TS-Temecula
[SUBCATCHMENTS]
;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Imperv Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack
;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----------------
D10_IMP Temecula D10_STOR 5.1 46 240 1.0 0
DMA_BYPASS Temecula POC 0.7 10 45 1.0 0
[SUBAREAS]
;;Subcatchment N-Imperv N-Perv S-Imperv S-Perv PctZero RouteTo PctRouted
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
D10_IMP 0.012 0.15 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
DMA_BYPASS 0.012 0.15 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET
1
17883H_PA10_POC_post.inp
[INFILTRATION]
;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
D10_IMP 9.0 0.01875 0.30
DMA_BYPASS 9.0 0.025 0.30
[OUTFALLS]
;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- -------- ----------------
POC 0 FREE NO
[STORAGE]
;;Name Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi
Ksat IMD
;;-------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------------------- -------- --------
-------- --------
D10_STOR 0 15 0 TABULAR BMP 0 1
[OUTLETS]
;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated
;;-------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------- ----------
--------
Outlet D10_STOR POC 0 TABULAR/DEPTH Outflow NO
[CURVES]
;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Rating3C Rating 0.000 0.000
Rating3C 3.500 0.194
Rating3C 4.000 0.208
Rating3C 4.250 0.214
Rating3C 4.500 0.221
Rating3C 4.750 0.561
Rating3C 5.500 8.284
Rating3C 6.500 49.3841
;
Rating3D Rating 0.000 0.000
Rating3D 3.500 0.049
Rating3D 4.500 0.055
Rating3D 5.000 0.194
Rating3D 5.500 12.99
;
Rating3B Rating 0.000 0.0
Rating3B 3.750 0.0
Rating3B 4.000 0.0
Rating3B 4.250 3.0
Rating3B 4.417 6.45
;
InfiltrationRate Rating 0 0.0426
InfiltrationRate 5 0.0426
;
;Biofiltration BMP Outflow
Outflow Rating 0.00 0.000
Outflow 1.17 0.123
Outflow 3.17 0.208
Outflow 3.42 0.216
Outflow 3.92 0.232
Outflow 4.92 2.592
Outflow 7.92 16.415
Outflow 8.92 66.727
;
;Biofiltration BMP Storage
2
17883H_PA10_POC_post.inp
BMP Storage 0.00 1788
BMP 0.92 1788
BMP 0.93 894
BMP 3.17 894
BMP 3.42 894
BMP 3.43 4471
BMP 3.92 5122
BMP 4.92 6424
BMP 7.92 10329
BMP 8.92 11631
[TIMESERIES]
;;Name Date Time Value
;;-------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
TS-Temecula FILE "Temecula.dat"
[REPORT]
;;Reporting Options
INPUT NO
CONTROLS NO
SUBCATCHMENTS ALL
NODES ALL
LINKS ALL
[TAGS]
[MAP]
DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000
Units None
[COORDINATES]
;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
POC 4670.692 3743.139
D10_STOR 4681.668 5718.990
[VERTICES]
;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
[Polygons]
;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
D10_IMP 4972.558 7480.790
D10_IMP 4972.558 6899.012
D10_IMP 4368.826 6899.012
D10_IMP 4368.826 7480.790
DMA_BYPASS 2782.656 4588.364
DMA_BYPASS 3298.573 4588.364
DMA_BYPASS 3309.550 5159.166
DMA_BYPASS 2782.656 5159.166
[SYMBOLS]
;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord
;;-------------- ------------------ ------------------
Temecula 4714.599 8375.412
3
PA10_POST.rpt
EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wingsweep Property - PA 10
Post-Project Condition
J-17883-H
*********************************************************
NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are
based on results found at every computational time step,
not just on results from each reporting time step.
*********************************************************
****************
Analysis Options
****************
Flow Units ............... CFS
Process Models:
Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES
RDII ................... NO
Snowmelt ............... NO
Groundwater ............ NO
Flow Routing ........... YES
Ponding Allowed ........ NO
Water Quality .......... NO
Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT
Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE
Starting Date ............ 08/18/1982 00:00:00
Ending Date .............. 07/12/2012 17:45:00
Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0
Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00
Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00
Dry Time Step ............ 04:00:00
Routing Time Step ........ 60.00 sec
************************** Volume Depth
Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-feet inches
************************** --------- -------
Total Precipitation ...... 226.145 467.886
Evaporation Loss ......... 16.362 33.852
Infiltration Loss ........ 88.551 183.209
Surface Runoff ........... 124.335 257.244
Final Storage ............ 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... -1.372
************************** Volume Volume
Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal
************************** --------- ---------
Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
Wet Weather Inflow ....... 124.335 40.516
Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000
RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000
External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000
External Outflow ......... 123.916 40.380
Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000
Evaporation Loss ......... 0.364 0.119
Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000
Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000
Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000
Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.044
1
PA10_POST.rpt
********************************
Highest Flow Instability Indexes
********************************
All links are stable.
*************************
Routing Time Step Summary
*************************
Minimum Time Step : 60.00 sec
Average Time Step : 60.00 sec
Maximum Time Step : 60.00 sec
Percent in Steady State : 0.00
Average Iterations per Step : 1.00
Percent Not Converging : 0.00
***************************
Subcatchment Runoff Summary
***************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff
Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff
Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D10_IMP 467.89 0.00 35.99 166.30 272.27 37.70 6.90 0.582
DMA_BYPASS 467.89 0.00 18.29 306.42 147.81 2.81 0.67 0.316
******************
Node Depth Summary
******************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported
Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth
Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POC OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00
D10_STOR STORAGE 0.05 5.25 5.25 3827 01:43 5.25
*******************
Node Inflow Summary
*******************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow
Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance
Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error
Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POC OUTFALL 0.67 4.66 3794 08:16 2.81 40.4 0.000
D10_STOR STORAGE 6.90 6.90 104 09:31 37.7 37.7 0.047
*********************
Node Flooding Summary
*********************
No nodes were flooded.
2
PA10_POST.rpt
**********************
Storage Volume Summary
**********************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum
Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow
Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D10_STOR 0.080 0 0 0 14.265 10 3827 01:42 4.13
***********************
Outfall Loading Summary
***********************
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flow Avg Max Total
Freq Flow Flow Volume
Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal
-----------------------------------------------------------
POC 7.24 0.08 4.66 40.377
-----------------------------------------------------------
System 7.24 0.08 4.66 40.377
********************
Link Flow Summary
********************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/
|Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full
Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlet DUMMY 4.13 3827 01:43
*************************
Conduit Surcharge Summary
*************************
No conduits were surcharged.
Analysis begun on: Tue Jun 29 15:57:11 2021
Analysis ended on: Tue Jun 29 15:57:31 2021
Total elapsed time: 00:00:20
3
Wingsweep - PA 10
JN - 17883-H
6/29/2021
[POC]
Peak Flow Frequency Summary
Return Period Pre-development Qpeak
(cfs)
Post-project - Mitigated Q
(cfs)
LF = 0.1*Q2 0.283 0.221
2-year 2.834 2.211
3-year 3.281 2.549
4-year 3.606 2.813
5-year 3.824 2.886
6-year 4.518 3.728
7-year 4.756 4.005
8-year 4.894 4.092
9-year 5.158 4.145
10-year 5.422 4.198
C:\RICK\Projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\WaterRes\Hydromodification\17883H_PA10_SWMM_PostProcessing_POC.xlsm
Q10 (5.422 cfs)
Q5 (3.824 cfs)
Q2 (2.834 cfs)
Qlf (0.283 cfs)
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pe
a
k
F
l
o
w
(
c
f
s
)
Return Period in Years
Peak Flow Frequency Curves - POC
Pre-development Qpeak
Post-project Mitigated Qpeak
Wingsweep - PA 10
JN - 17883-H
6/29/2021
[POC]
Low-flow Threshold:10%
0.1xQ2 (Pre):0.283 cfs
Q10 (Pre):5.422 cfs
Ordinate #:100
Incremental Q (Pre):0.05138 cfs
Total Hourly Data:1048487 hours The proposed BMP:PASSED
Beginning of
Interval
Pre-develop. Flow
(cfs)
Pre-develop.
Hours
Pre-develop.
% Time Exceeding
Post-project
Hours
Post-project
% Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
1 0.283 2996 2.86E-03 3054 2.91E-03 102%Pass^
2 0.335 2668 2.54E-03 2598 2.48E-03 97% Pass
3 0.386 2389 2.28E-03 2340 2.23E-03 98% Pass
4 0.438 2131 2.03E-03 2130 2.03E-03 100% Pass
5 0.489 1947 1.86E-03 1955 1.86E-03 100%Pass^
6 0.540 1750 1.67E-03 1791 1.71E-03 102%Pass^
7 0.592 1548 1.48E-03 1631 1.56E-03 105%Pass^
8 0.643 1406 1.34E-03 1497 1.43E-03 106%Pass^
9 0.694 1268 1.21E-03 1349 1.29E-03 106%Pass^
10 0.746 1144 1.09E-03 1241 1.18E-03 108%Pass^
11 0.797 1026 9.79E-04 1120 1.07E-03 109%Pass^
12 0.849 951 9.07E-04 1018 9.71E-04 107%Pass^
13 0.900 853 8.14E-04 908 8.66E-04 106%Pass^
14 0.951 787 7.51E-04 828 7.90E-04 105%Pass^
15 1.003 716 6.83E-04 750 7.15E-04 105%Pass^
16 1.054 659 6.29E-04 678 6.47E-04 103%Pass^
17 1.106 607 5.79E-04 632 6.03E-04 104%Pass^
18 1.157 559 5.33E-04 578 5.51E-04 103%Pass^
19 1.208 514 4.90E-04 523 4.99E-04 102%Pass^
20 1.260 471 4.49E-04 477 4.55E-04 101%Pass^
21 1.311 442 4.22E-04 435 4.15E-04 98% Pass
22 1.362 410 3.91E-04 402 3.83E-04 98% Pass
23 1.414 379 3.61E-04 363 3.46E-04 96% Pass
24 1.465 351 3.35E-04 326 3.11E-04 93% Pass
25 1.517 325 3.10E-04 290 2.77E-04 89% Pass
26 1.568 296 2.82E-04 264 2.52E-04 89% Pass
27 1.619 275 2.62E-04 237 2.26E-04 86% Pass
28 1.671 254 2.42E-04 213 2.03E-04 84% Pass
29 1.722 230 2.19E-04 194 1.85E-04 84% Pass
30 1.774 215 2.05E-04 174 1.66E-04 81% Pass
31 1.825 199 1.90E-04 158 1.51E-04 79% Pass
32 1.876 184 1.75E-04 147 1.40E-04 80% Pass
33 1.928 173 1.65E-04 138 1.32E-04 80% Pass
34 1.979 165 1.57E-04 128 1.22E-04 78% Pass
35 2.030 153 1.46E-04 123 1.17E-04 80% Pass
36 2.082 144 1.37E-04 108 1.03E-04 75% Pass
37 2.133 127 1.21E-04 101 9.63E-05 80% Pass
38 2.185 112 1.07E-04 98 9.35E-05 88% Pass
39 2.236 104 9.92E-05 89 8.49E-05 86% Pass
40 2.287 100 9.54E-05 83 7.92E-05 83% Pass
41 2.339 97 9.25E-05 78 7.44E-05 80% Pass
42 2.390 94 8.97E-05 73 6.96E-05 78% Pass
43 2.442 89 8.49E-05 69 6.58E-05 78% Pass
44 2.493 83 7.92E-05 64 6.10E-05 77% Pass
45 2.544 81 7.73E-05 61 5.82E-05 75% Pass
46 2.596 76 7.25E-05 56 5.34E-05 74% Pass
47 2.647 72 6.87E-05 51 4.86E-05 71% Pass
48 2.699 66 6.29E-05 48 4.58E-05 73% Pass
49 2.750 61 5.82E-05 44 4.20E-05 72% Pass
50 2.801 61 5.82E-05 41 3.91E-05 67% Pass
51 2.853 58 5.53E-05 36 3.43E-05 62% Pass
52 2.904 56 5.34E-05 33 3.15E-05 59% Pass
Wingsweep - PA 10
JN - 17883-H
6/29/2021
[POC]
Beginning of
Interval
Pre-develop. Flow
(cfs)
Pre-develop.
Hours
Pre-develop.
% Time Exceeding
Post-project
Hours
Post-project
% Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail
53 2.955 54 5.15E-05 31 2.96E-05 57% Pass
54 3.007 48 4.58E-05 31 2.96E-05 65% Pass
55 3.058 41 3.91E-05 30 2.86E-05 73% Pass
56 3.110 38 3.62E-05 29 2.77E-05 76% Pass
57 3.161 36 3.43E-05 28 2.67E-05 78% Pass
58 3.212 32 3.05E-05 25 2.38E-05 78% Pass
59 3.264 30 2.86E-05 24 2.29E-05 80% Pass
60 3.315 27 2.58E-05 24 2.29E-05 89% Pass
61 3.367 27 2.58E-05 22 2.10E-05 81% Pass
62 3.418 25 2.38E-05 21 2.00E-05 84% Pass
63 3.469 25 2.38E-05 16 1.53E-05 64% Pass
64 3.521 23 2.19E-05 15 1.43E-05 65% Pass
65 3.572 21 2.00E-05 15 1.43E-05 71% Pass
66 3.623 19 1.81E-05 15 1.43E-05 79% Pass
67 3.675 19 1.81E-05 13 1.24E-05 68% Pass
68 3.726 18 1.72E-05 13 1.24E-05 72% Pass
69 3.778 16 1.53E-05 12 1.14E-05 75% Pass
70 3.829 15 1.43E-05 12 1.14E-05 80% Pass
71 3.880 14 1.34E-05 12 1.14E-05 86% Pass
72 3.932 13 1.24E-05 9 8.58E-06 69% Pass
73 3.983 13 1.24E-05 9 8.58E-06 69% Pass
74 4.035 13 1.24E-05 8 7.63E-06 62% Pass
75 4.086 13 1.24E-05 7 6.68E-06 54% Pass
76 4.137 13 1.24E-05 5 4.77E-06 38% Pass
77 4.189 13 1.24E-05 5 4.77E-06 38% Pass
78 4.240 12 1.14E-05 4 3.82E-06 33% Pass
79 4.291 12 1.14E-05 4 3.82E-06 33% Pass
80 4.343 12 1.14E-05 3 2.86E-06 25% Pass
81 4.394 10 9.54E-06 2 1.91E-06 20% Pass
82 4.446 10 9.54E-06 2 1.91E-06 20% Pass
83 4.497 7 6.68E-06 2 1.91E-06 29% Pass
84 4.548 7 6.68E-06 2 1.91E-06 29% Pass
85 4.600 7 6.68E-06 2 1.91E-06 29% Pass
86 4.651 6 5.72E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
87 4.703 5 4.77E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
88 4.754 5 4.77E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
89 4.805 5 4.77E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
90 4.857 4 3.82E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
91 4.908 4 3.82E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
92 4.959 4 3.82E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
93 5.011 4 3.82E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
94 5.062 3 2.86E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
95 5.114 3 2.86E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
96 5.165 3 2.86E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
97 5.216 3 2.86E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
98 5.268 3 2.86E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
99 5.319 3 2.86E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
100 5.371 3 2.86E-06 0 0.00E+00 0% Pass
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01
Fl
o
w
(
c
f
s
)
% Time Exceeding
Flow Duration Curves - POC
Pre-development Qpeak
Post-project Mitigated Qpeak
24 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
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
Offsite Project Information – Projects providing or receiving credits (add rows as needed)
Record ID: APN(s) Project Owner/Address Credit/Debit Quantity (DCIA)
1. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
2. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
3. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
4. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
5. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
6. ☐ Credit
☐ Debit
Total sum of Credits and Debits (∑Credits -∑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
the onsite project? (required for certain hydromodification scenarios)
☐ Yes
☐ No
Will projects providing credits be completed prior to completion of projects
receiving credits?
☐ Yes
☐ No
Are all deficits accounted for?
If No, onsite and offsite projects must be redesigned to account for all deficits.
☐ Yes
☐ No
Provide supporting WQE calculations as part of this attachment.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 25
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
ATTACHMENT 3
Structural BMP Maintenance Information
Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Maintenance Responsibility has been assigned to:
☐ Property Owner
☐ Special District
☐ City of Temecula
☐ Attachment 3 is not required because the project does not propose structural BMPs
☐ Not applicable at this time
Attachment
Sequence Contents Checklist
Attachment 3 Standard Structural BMP Water
Quality Management Plan Operation
and Maintenance Agreement (BMP
Design Manual Appendix A.3)
X Included
☐ Signed, Notarized, and
Recorded*
☐ City Maintained – Do Not
Record, must be reviewed &
accepted by City Maintenance
Dept.
Exhibit A Legal Description X Included
Exhibit B Individual Structural BMP DMA
Mapbook (WQMP Exhibits)
X Included
X Place each map on 8.5”x11”
paper
X BMP Site layout – Clearly
depict location of each BMP
X Legible construction details of
each BMP.
Exhibit C Structural BMP Maintenance Plan
(Required)
☒ Included
See Structural BMP Maintenance
Information Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.
Exhibit D Structural BMP Design Fact Sheets
(Appendix E)
X Included
Note* Do not notarize & record until City staff has reviewed and approved the final Water
Quality Management Plan Operation and Maintenance Agreement.
26 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the
Structural BMP Maintenance Plan Exhibit:
Attachment 3 Exhibit C must identify:
X Purpose of the Operation and Maintenance Manual
X General description and function of all Structural BMPs implemented
X Inspection & Maintenance Documentation. Refer to Chapter 7.4
X Inspection, Maintenance, & Reporting Frequency: Refer to Chapter 7.5
X Measures to Control Maintenance Costs. Refer to Chapter 7.6
X Maintenance indicators and actions for structural BMP(s). Refer to Chapter 7.7
X Structural BMP Life Cycle Cost Analysis including Inspection, Maintenance,
documentation, reporting, and replacement.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 27
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Temecula PDP Structural BMP Verification for
Permitted Land Development Projects
☐ Not applicable at this time
☐ Attachment 4 is not required because the project does not propose structural BMPs
28 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
This page was left intentionally blank.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 29
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
City of Temecula Structural BMP Verification Form
Project Summary Information
Project Name Wingsweep Property Planning Area 10
Record ID (e.g., grading/improvement plan
number)
Project Address
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 964-460-007
Project Watershed
(Complete Hydrologic Unit, Area, and
Subarea Name with Numeric Identifier)
Santa Margarita Watershed – Santa Gertrudis
Creek
Responsible Party for Construction Phase
Developer's Name
Address
Email Address
Phone Number
Engineer of Work
Engineer's Phone Number
Responsible Party for Ongoing Maintenance
Owner's Name(s)*
Address
Email Address
Phone Number
*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.
30 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
City of Temecula Structural BMP Verification Form Page 2 of 4
Stormwater Structural Pollutant Control & Hydromodification Control BMPs*
(List all from WQMP)
Description/Type of
Structural BMP
Plan
Sheet
#
STRUCT-
URAL BMP
ID#
Maintenance
Agreement
Recorded Doc
# Revisions
BMP 10; Biofiltration 10
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.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 31
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
City of Temecula Structural BMP Verification Form Page 3 of 4
Checklist for Applicant to submit to City inspector:
☐ Photograph of each completed Structural BMP.
☐ Photograph(s) of each Structural BMP during the construction process to illustrate
proper construction as described in the Structural BMP Fact sheets.
☐ Certificates of compliance for materials as required in the Structural BMP Fact sheets.
☐ Infiltration Tests as required in the Structural BMP Fact sheets.
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:
Professional Engineer's Signed Name:
Date:
32 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
City of Temecula Structural BMP Verification Form Page 4 of 4
City - OFFICIAL USE ONLY:
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:
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 33
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
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.
34 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
This page was left intentionally blank.
B
E 6,302,000 E 6,302,200 E 6,302,400 E 6,302,600 E 6,302,800 E 6,303,000 E 6,303,200
1290
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1295
1300
X
XXX
1305
MHX
X
X
X
X
X
13
10
1310
X
X
X
XX
13
15
1315
X
X
X
1320
13
2
0
1320
X
X
MHX
X
MHX
X
1325
13
2
5
1325
X
X
1330
13
3
0
1330
P
BX
X
X
X
X
1335
1335
13
3
5
1335
X
1
3
4
0
1340
13
4
0
1340
13
4
0
1340
1340
X
MHX
P
BXP
BX
X
X
P
BXP
BX
XXXX
P
BX
13
4
5
1345
13
4
5
1345
1345
XXXX
X
X
TANKXXXX
XP
BXP
BX
P
BX
13
5
0
1350
1350
1350
1350
1350
13
5
0
X
XXXX
X
X
P
BX
X
X
X
X
13
5
5
1355
1355
135
5
13
5
5XXXXXX
X
X
X
XXXX
X
151358.10XXXXXX
XXP
BX
X
1
3
6
0
13
6
0
1360
1360
1360
1360
13
6
0
1360
P
BX
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
1365
13
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
13
6
5
1365
1365
1365
1365
MHX
P
BX
X
X
X
X
X
X
MHX
X
X
X
X
X
X
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD
X
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1375
1375
1
3
7
5
MHX
MHX
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S
215
15
15
79
AULD RD
SITE
T. 7S, R. 2W, S. 20
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
D
R YORRUO
P
DR
GNIRPS
T
O
H
A
T
EITTUM
N
IC
O
L
AS RD
D
R
DOO
WET
IH
W
EV
A
N
OSREFFEJ
L
A
SERENA W AY
D
R
SKA
O
AC
DI
A
Z
R
D
DR A
TIR
A
G
R
AM
Y
W
K
P
SW
OD
A
E
M
1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES GRADING NOTE:
BURROWING OWL GRADING NOTE:
CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND QUANTITIES
2
3
GRADING NOTES
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
GRADING TOLERANCE NOTE
ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES
ESTIMATED EMBANKMENT:
ESTIMATED EXCAVATION:
TOTAL ACREAGE:
AREA OF GRADED/DISTURBED SITE:
CALCULATED TO THE STREET UNDERCUT SECTIONS.
ACCOUNT FOR LOSS DUE TO SHRINKAGE OR COMPACTION. GRADING QUANTITIES ARE
ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE GEOMETRIC VOLUMES AND DO NOT
PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR FINAL PAY QUANTITIES.
NOTE: THE GRADING QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE RAW QUANTITIES FOR PERMIT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
CONTACT: BARRY JONES
PHONE: (619) 462-1515
LA MESA, CA 91942
7578 EL CAJON BOULEVARD
HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC.
CONTACT: SIMON I. SAIID, PE,GE
PHONE: (951) 296-0530
TEMECULA, CA 92590-5661
41715 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE N., SUITE 103
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DEVELOPER/OWNER ENGINEER
NOTIFICATION
WORK TO BE DONE
PRIVATE ENGINEER'S NOTE TO CONTRACTOR
PROTECTION TO THESE LINES.
WORK, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN HERE ON, AND FOR ANY DAMAGE OR
DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATIONS OF ALL LINES AFFECTING THIS
AND IRRIGATION COMPANIES PRIOR TO WORK OR EXCAVATION TO
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ALL UTILITY
UTILITY OR IRRIGATION LINES WHOSE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN.
NO LIABILITY AS TO THE EXACT LOCATION OF SAID LINES NOR FOR
A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CIVIL ENGINEER ASSUMES
UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE OBTAINED BY
THE EXISTENCE AND APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF ANY UNDERGROUND
NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR ENGINEER.
ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTION FOR LIABILITY RISING FROM THE SOLE
REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK
OWNER AND CIVIL ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY,
THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE
CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND
ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY
COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF
COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB-SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE
CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND
WITH SAID REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.
IN ANY WAY FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S AND SUBCONTRACTOR'S COMPLIANCE
SAFETY ORDERS. THE CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CONSTRUCTION
REGULATIONS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE STATE OF
SHALL COMPLY WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
PUBLIC IS PROTECTED. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED A SAFE PLACE TO WORK AND THE
OR RELATED TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO
ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK SHOWN ON
SHEET INDEX
48 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION OR EXCAVATION
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING UTILITIES OR AGENCIES
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON:
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS:
(951) 928-3777
(800) 427-2200
(800) 655-4555
(877) 906-9121
SWPPP INFORMATION
CITY OF TEMECULA:
24 HOUR CONTACT
CONSTRUCTION ("GREEN BOOK").
EDITION OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND THE LATEST
ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS, THE CURRENT CITY OF TEMECULA AND
THESE IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING WORK TO BE DONE
TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION
BASIS OF BEARINGS
SHOWN HEREON. (I.E. N 28° 53' 23" E)
CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING REFERENCE STATIONS (CORS) "P477" AND "BILL" AS
OF RIVERSIDE ZONE 6, AS DETERMINED LOCALLY BY A TIE BETWEEN
THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) EPOCH 2010.00, COUNTY
(951) 694-6444
LDINSPECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOVVIA EMAIL:
TR 37925
APN 964-460-007
MURRIETA
HOT
SPRINGS
ROAD
VA
L
LE
Y R
O
A
D
R
O
R
IP
A
U
G
H
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-001
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-016
LOT 14 13 12 11 10 9 8
7654312
0
SCALE: 1" = 100'
200100100
INDEX MAP
1"=100'
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-016
1
TITLE SHEET
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
1
2
3
5
6
4
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 7
8
CROSS SECTION SHEET
BASIN SHEET
3
(619) 851-5121
CONTACT: JIM KILGORE
(24 HOUR PHONE #)
PHONE: (619) 823-3533
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
PO BOX 2016
WINGSWEEP CORPORATION
16,300 C.Y.
16,300 C.Y.
6.3 AC
8.1 AC
THE SURVEY, THE AREA SHALL BE RESURVEYED.
CONSTRUCTION IS DELAYED OR SUSPENDED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER
DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE BY A QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST. IF
ANY) THAT EGG LAYING OR CHICK REARING IS NOT TAKING PLACE. THIS
PROVEN TO THE CITY AND THE APPROPRIATE REGULATORY AGENCIES (IF
31 EXCLUSION AND RELOCATION ACTIVITIES MAY TAKE PLACE IF IT IS
FROM MARCH 1 THROUGH MARCH 15 AND FROM AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST
DEFINED AS MARCH 1 THROUGH AUGUST 31, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:
ACTIVITIES MAY NOT OCCUR DURING THE BREEDING SEASON, WHICH IS
RECOMMENDATIONS MUST BE ADHERED TO: EXCLUSION AND RELOCATION
ON-SITE DURING THE PRE CONSTRUCTION SURVEY, THEN THE FOLLOWING
APPROVAL. IF BURROWING OWLS ARE FOUND TO BE PRESENT OR NESTING
PROJECT MAY MOVE FORWARD WITH GRADING, UPON PLANNING DIVISION
INDICATE THAT NO BURROWING OWLS ARE PRESENT ON-SITE, THEN THE
DIRECT TAKE OF BURROWING OWLS. IF THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
BE CONDUCTED WITHIN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO GROUND DISTURBANCE TO AVOID
FOUND OR NOT, REQUIRE A 30 DAY PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY THAT SHALL
CONTAINING SUITABLE HABITAT FOR BURROWING OWLS, WHETHER OWLS WERE
THE PRE-GRADING MEETING WITH PUBLIC WORKS. ALL PROJECT SITES
NO GRUBBING/CLEARING OF THE SITE SHALL OCCUR PRIOR TO SCHEDULING
APN : 964-460-007.
OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 342, PAGES 73 THROUGH 85 INCLUSIVE
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 29353-2, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE
IMPORT:
1 EA
125 LF
EROSION CONTROL QUANTITIES
GRAVEL BAG
FIBER ROLL PER CASQA SE-5
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT PER CASQA TC-1
3,700 LFSILT FENCE
5,050 LF
1 EA
HYDRAULIC MULCH PER CASQA EC-3
175,800 SFPAD STABILIZATION SOIL BINDER PER CASQA EC-5
44,000 SF
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
TRACT MAP 37925
4 30 CY
0 C.Y.
920 LF
PLAN)
CONSTRUCT CMP RISER INLET TYPE X PER RCFC&WCD STD CB108 & MODIFIED PER DETAIL SHEET 6 (CSP RISER SIZE PER
1600 EA
INSTALL RIPRAP NO. 2 BACKING (T=1.5') ON 10'x10' PAD AND 3:1 SLOPE
GRID E6
MAP: PAGE 929,
THOMAS BROS.
NAME: DATE:
JUNE 30, 2020.
ENTITLEMENT, PA-10, PA-12 AND PA-33A CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA" DATED
ENTITLED "GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT (UPDATE), WINGSWEEP
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC,
TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE
THIS GRADING PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AND FOUND
TITLE SHEET
ARCHAEOLOGIST
DETAIL SHEET
WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAIL SHEET
6. ALL SACRED SITES ARE TO BE AVOIDED AND PRESERVED.
ARE FOUND ON THE PROJECT AREA, TO THE PECHANGA TRIBE FOR PROPER TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION.
5. THE LANDOWNER AGREES TO RELINQUISH OWNERSHIP OF ALL CULTURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING ALL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS THAT
POTENTIAL RESOURCES DISCOVERED ON THE PROPERTY.
CONSULTATION WITH THE PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST AND THEIR DESIGNATED MONITORS, TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANY
4. A PECHANGA TRIBAL MONITOR WILL BE PRESENT AND WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP AND REDIRECT GRADING ACTIVITIES, IN
RESOURCES DISCOVERED ON THE PROPERTY.
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PECHANGA TRIBE AND THEIR DESIGNATED MONITORS, TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANY POTENTIAL
3. A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR WILL BE PRESENT AND WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP AND REDIRECT GRADING ACTIVITIES,
RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO TREATMENT.
THE FIND SHALL CEASE, AND THE QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST AND THE PECHANGA MONITOR SHALL INVESTIGATE THE FIND, AND MAKE
2. IF CULTURAL RESOURCES ARE DISCOVERED DURING THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (INADVERTENT DISCOVERIES), ALL WORK IN THE AREA OF
CORRECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT NO FURTHER EXCAVATION OR DEVELOPMENT MAY TAKE PLACE UNTIL A MITIGATION PLAN OR OTHER
DETERMINING THAT THE DISCOVERY IS AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SHALL
PLANNING DIRECTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OF SUCH DETERMINATION AND SHALL AUTHORIZE THE RESUMPTION OR WORK.UPON
ASSESS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIND. UPON DETERMINING THAT THE DISCOVERY IS NOT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL/CULTURAL RESOURCE, THE
AND/OR AUTHORIZE AN INDEPENDENT, FULLY QUALIFIED SPECIALIST TO INSPECT THE SITE AT NO COST TO THE CITY, IN ORDER TO
REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DEPOSIT A SUM OF MONEY IT DEEMS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE CITY TO CONSULT
DISTURBANCE OF THE AREA TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AT HIS/HER SOLE DISCRETION MAY
PROPERTY OWNER SHALL IMMEDIATELY ADVISE THE CITY OF SUCH AND THE CITY SHALL CAUSE ALL FURTHER EXCAVATION OR OTHER
OTHER OBJECTS WHICH REASONABLY APPEARS TO BE EVIDENCE OF CULTURAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE ARE DISCOVERED, THE
1. IF AT ANY TIME DURING EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES, OR ANY ARTIFACTS OR
DAOR YELLAV HGUAPIROR HTRON
11. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "PAVING," "GENERAL" AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS.
FOUR FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT SHALL HAVE PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES PER THE U.P.C.
TREES, SHRUBS OR A COMBINATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. SLOPES OVER
10. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, INSTALLING WHERE APPLICABLE: GROUNDCOVER,
9. FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.
COMPLIES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT.
B. ONE SET OF PAD COMPACTION CERTIFICATION (I.E., FINAL GEOTECHNICAL/SOILS REPORT) TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE GRADING
APPROVED GRADING PLAN. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE TO LINE, GRADE, ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF CUT/FILL SLOPES.
A. ONE SET OF PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION (I.E., ROUGH GRADE) TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE PAD ELEVATION COMPLIES WITH THE
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
LDINSPECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST TWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE (PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR PERMIT # IN THE SUBJECT LINE) .
8. ROUGH GRADING INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED VIA EMAIL TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT
CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITY, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
7. PROPERTY CORNERS. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY
F. THE MINIMUM GRADE FOR CONCRETE SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE A ONE-HALF PERCENT (0.5%).
EASEMENTS.
E. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS; NO BUILDING OR WALLS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
GRADING PROJECT.
D. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.
IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT ADJOINING AND DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND PONDING WATER DURING
C. TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE
SHALL BE PERMITTED.
B. EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO OBSTRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES
THE TOP OF SLOPES. ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLANS.
GRADED SLOPES OVER THREE FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO GRADED AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM
A. AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR STORM FLOWS OR PROVIDE GRADED BERMS ALONG THE TOP OF ALL
6. DRAINAGE.
TWO SETS OF WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FOOT IN DEPTH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PLACED.
D. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST, WHO SHALL SUBMIT
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES OVER 30 FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT.
C. STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTOR-OF-SAFETY OF AT LEAST ONE AND FIVE TENTHS (1.5) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS BY A
BENCHED INTO EITHER BEDROCK OR NATIVE SOIL, AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. IF THE SLOPE RATIO EXCEEDS 5:1 AND IS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET, THE TERRAIN MUST BE KEYED AND
B. FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON EXISTING GROUND UNTIL THE GROUND HAS BEEN CLEARED OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, TOPSOIL, VEGETATION
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT. FILL SLOPES SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISH SURFACE.
A. MAXIMUM CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER; AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
5. CUT/FILL.
30, 2020. SAID REPORT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN
"GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT (UPDATE), WINGSWEEP ENTITLEMENT, PA-10, PA-12 AND PA-33A CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA" DATED JUNE
ALL CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ENTITLED
4. SOILS.
OF BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SHALL BE NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL AT LDINSPECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST TWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE
3. NOTIFICATIONS.
A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK ON THE SITE.
2. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
ACTIVITIES.
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION
APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (APPENDIX J) AND, IF APPLICABLE, THE STATE WATER
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, ALL
ALL CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING RELATED ACTIVITIES (I.E., STOCKPILING, LAND CLEARING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL, ETC.) SHALL BE
1. STANDARDS.
SOURCE: AERIAL RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
DATE: 10/12/2016
APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2018
BY RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY. PLAN # LD18-0784
CURRENT CONDITION REFLECTS APPROVED ROUGH/MASS GRADING PLAN
CONSTRUCT 3' CONCRETE V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 2.
PROVIDING A FINISHED SURFACE THAT WILL NOT POND.
ABOVE TOLERANCES RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
WITHIN 0.5' OF THE LOCATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. IN NO WAY DO THE
ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. ALL SLOPES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
GRADING SHALL BE DONE WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF 0.1' OF THE GRADES AND
GRADING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS.
MEETING BY CALLING THE DISTRICT OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING YOUR
OF THE ROUGH GRADING, ARRANGE FOR A PRE-GRADING/PRE-CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE AN APPROXIMATE TIMETABLE FOR THE COMPLETION
TO DISCUSS THE VARIOUS ASPECTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GRADING
GRADING INSPECTOR. THE FOCUS OF THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE
OF BUILDING AND SAFETY SHALL BE THE GRADING PLAN CHECKER AND/OR
AND THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTOR. REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT
SUPERINTENDENT, ENGINEER-OF-RECORD, SOIL ENGINEER, GRADING CONTRACTOR,
MEETING SHALL INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE DEVELOPER, PROJECT
OPERATIONS. THOSE PARTIES REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION
ARRANGED FOR BY THE SITE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO COMMENCING GRADING
A PRE-GRADING/PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND SITE INSPECTION SHALL BE
CONTACT: RICHARD O'NEILL
PHONE: (951) 782-0707
RIVERSIDE, CA. 92507
1770 IOWA AVE, SUITE 100
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
QSP: THOM FULLER, PE
QSD: RICK ENGINEERING
RISK LEVEL:
WDID #X XXXXXX
5 35 LF
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER SEPARATE PERMIT
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER CITY OF TEMECULA RETAINING WALL STANDARD PER SEPARATE PERMIT
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
13651365
1365
1
3
6
5
13
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1
3
6
51365
13701370
1370
1
3
7
0
1
3
7
0
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd01.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
1250
1251.3
LEGEND
C
F
1250.6 FG
1250.6 TC
1250
ENTRAINMENT OF SOIL RUNOFF FROM DISTURBED SOIL AREAS ON CONSTRUCTION SITES.
EROSION CONTROL BMP'S SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO MINIMIZE THE
SEDIMENTATION.
BE REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND
BMP'S IS REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE JOBSITE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. CERTAIN BMP'S MAY
THROUGHOUT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SITE
ARRANGEMENTS SHALL BE MADE BY THE DEVELOPER TO RETAIN THE SWPPP ON THE JOBSITE
WHICH THEREBY BECOMES THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP).
WATER AND NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES SHALL BE DOCUMENTED ON THE GRADING PLAN
CONSTRUCTION SITE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF STORM
TRANSPORT OF SOIL FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AND MAINTAINED TO MINIMIZE THE
EXTENT FEASIBLE.
GRADING SHALL BE PHASED TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBED AREA EXPOSED TO THE
SCHEDULING OF GRADING AND THE USE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SOIL STABILIZATION.
TO MINIMIZE THE EXPOSURE TIME OF DISTURBED SOIL AREAS THROUGH PHASING AND AND
THE SITE THAT IS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE MANAGED
AREAS THAT ARE CLEARED AND GRADED SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONLY THE PORTION OF OF
REVEGETATED AS EARLY AS FEASIBLE AFTER SOIL DISTURBANCE.
STABILIZED PRIOR TO A PREDICTED STORM EVENT. CONSTRUCTION SITES SHALL BE
NOT BE WORKED ON WITHIN 21 DAYS. DURING THE STORM SEASON, ALL SLOPES SHALL BE
ONCE DISTURBED, SLOPES (TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT) SHALL BE STABILIZED IF THEY WILL
VIA RUNOFF, VEHICLE TRACKING, OR WIND.
TRANSPORT FROM THE SITE TO THE STREETS, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES
STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE PROPERLY CONTAINED TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE SEDIMENT
ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM POTENTIAL STORM WATER RUNOFF, WITH ULTIMATE DISPOSAL IN
MATERIALS SHOULD OCCUR IN A SPECIFIED AND CONTROLLED TEMPORARY AREA ON-SITE
POTABLE WATER FROM LINE FLUSHING AND TESTING. DURING CONSTRUCTION, DISPOSAL OF SUCH
CLEANING OR CHEMICAL DEGREASING; WASTES FROM STREET CLEANING; AND SUPER-CHLORINATED
CUTTING OR CURING RESIDUES; FLOATABLE WASTES; WASTES FROM ENGINE/EQUIPMENT STORM
OIL LUBRICANTS, AND HYDRAULIC, RADIATOR, OR BATTERY FLUIDS; CONCRETE OR RELATED
WOOD PRESERVATIVES, AND ASBESTOS FIBERS, PAINT FLAKES, OR STUCCO FRAGMENTS; FUELS,
STAINS, SEALANTS, SOLVENTS, DETERGENTS, GLUES, LIME, PESTICIDES, HERBICIDES, FERTILIZERS,
INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: SOLID OR LIQUID CHEMICAL SPILLS; WASTES FROM PAINT,
PERMIT, THE STATEWIDE GENERAL PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS
STORM WATER DISCHARGES) ARE PROHIBITED, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY AN INDIVIDUAL NPDES
CARRY WASTES OR POLLUTANTS OFF THE SITE. DISCHARGES OTHER THAN STORM WATER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN SUCH A CONDITION THAT A STORM DOES NOT
SYSTEM.
SITE AND MUST NOT BE DISCHARGED TO RECEIVING WATERS OR THE LOCAL STORM DRAIN
RUNOFF FROM EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE WASHING SHALL BE CONTAINED AT THE CONSTRUCTION
10.
DRAINAGE FACILITIES, OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES BY WIND OR RUNOFF.
SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE TRANSPORT FROM THE SITE TO THE STREETS,
APPROPRIATE BMP'S FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED MATERIALS, WASTES, SPILLS, OR RESIDUES
11.
ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS.
OF THE REQUIRED BMP'S AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT SITE AND ANY
ALL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTOR PERSONNEL ARE TO BE MADE AWARE
12.
BOARD.
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT FROM THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
GROUNDWATER PRODUCED BY DEWATERING ACTIVITIES MAY REQUIRE A NATIONAL POLLUTANT
SOILS VIA SURFACE EROSION IS ALSO PROHIBITED. DISCHARGING NON-CONTAMINATED
HAS INFILTRATED THE CONSTRUCTION SITE IS PROHIBITED. DISCHARGING OF CONTAMINATED
DISCHARGING CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER PRODUCED BY DEWATERING GROUNDWATER THAT
13.
TO PREDICTED STORM EVENTS AND FOLLOWING STORM EVENTS.
BMP'S SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES. IN ADDITION, BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED PRIOR
14.
BINS.
WASTE MATERIALS SHALL BE COLLECTED AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN TRASH OR RECYCLE
AT THE END OF EACH DAY OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
NPDES INSPECTION NOTES
2:1
PAD
PAD
PER PLAN
H=
1.0'
TYPICAL REAR YARD (ROUGH GRADE)
0
.
5
'
GREATER
SLOPES 5' HIGH OR
THE TOP OF FILL
PROVIDE A BERM AT
N.T.S.
TYPICAL LOT GRADING DETAIL
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
TYPICAL SIDE YARD (ROUGH GRADE)
PL
3.0'
0
.
5
'
2:1
PAD
PAD
PER PLAN
H=
GREATER
SLOPES 3' HIGH OR
THE TOP OF FILL
PROVIDE A BERM AT
3.0'
1.0'
PL
2
1
NOT TO SCALE
3"18"18"3"
3
"
1
2
"
3' CONCRETE V-DITCH DETAIL
1
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
PER SEPARATE PERMIT
**NOTE: RETAINING WALL TO BE
FENCE
LOT LINE
RETAINING WALL**
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE FLOW
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
FINISH CONTOUR (MINOR)
FINISH CONTOUR (MAJOR)
EXISING CONTOUR (MINOR)
EXISTING CONTOUR (MAJOR)
TRACT BOUNDARY
DAYLIGHT LINE
CUT/FILL LINE
FUTURE TOP OF CURB ELEVATION
FINISH ELEVATION
(UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN)
CUT/FILL BANK 2:1
CURB LINE
1
2
%
M
A
X
HP
2
%
M
A
X
1
%
M
I
N
S
W
A
L
E
1
%
M
I
N
S
W
A
L
E
P
U
E
FENCE
VIEW
M
I
N
1
%
PAD RIDGE LINE
3
'
5
'
65' MIN
67' MIN
1
0
5
'
5
'
S
/
W STREET GRADE
B
B
AA
2:1 M AX
PL
FINISH PAD GRADE
SLOPE PER PLAN
PL
0.5'*
0.5'*
2:1 MAX
VARIES
5'-70'
5' PREFERRED
SLOPE
TOE OF
5'
MIN
SEE PLAN
LOT WIDTH VARIES
SEE DETAILS THIS SHEET FOR BERM PLACEMENT.
BE REMOVED WITH PRECISE GRADING.
* - 0.5' BERMS ARE TEMPORARY AND TO
3' MIN
N.T.S.
SECTIONA-A
N.T.S.
SECTIONB-B
10'
SEE DETAILS THIS SHEET FOR BERM PLACEMENT.
BE REMOVED WITH PRECISE GRADING.
* - 0.5' BERMS ARE TEMPORARY AND TO
2%
GB
PL
VARIES
5'
2:1
M
A
X
BERM
0.5'*
PAD ELEVATION
PAD LINE
ROUGH GRADE
FENCE
VIEW
TRAIL
2
5'
3
FL 1% MIN SLOPE
2%
2:1
M
AX.
2:1 MAX.
UNDERCUT SURFACE
25'25'
50' PRIVATE STREET EASEMENT
P/L P/L
20'20'
2:1 MAX.
2:1
M
AX.
2% 2%
5'5'
1.5'1.5'
EASEMENT
PUBLIC UTILITY
3' BENCH/
EASEMENT
PUBLIC UTILITY
3' BENCH/
2%
MODIFIED LOCAL STREET (PRIVATE)
SOILS REPORT
PRELIMINARY
4" AC/6" AB PER
P/L
4
3:1 SLOPE
INSTALL RIPRAP NO. 2 BACKING (T=1.5') ON 10'x10' PAD AND
DETAIL SHEET
8'8'
PARKINGPARKING
AND "TRAFFIC" REQUIREMENTS, IF APPLICABLE.
FOR "GRADING," "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL," "PAVING"
14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES
INSPECTION FROM THE CITY MAY BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION.
13. INSPECTIONS. ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT PROPER
THE CONTRACTOR.
MAINTENANCE OF THE FENCE IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF
NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE
UNTIL ROOF SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETED OR AS DEEMED
REQUIRED ON ALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
12. CONSTRUCTION FENCING. A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS
DISTRICT'S (SCAQMD) RULE 403.
SHALL COMPLY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
OTHER METHODS, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND
11. DUST CONTROL. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING OR
SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER.
BY THE CITY ENGINEER. UPON REQUEST, SURVEY CUTS SHEETS
ACT AND THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE, AND AS APPROVED
CITY STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND SURVEYORS
DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION) SHALL BE REPLACED TO
GRANTED. ALL EXISTING MONUMENTATION (DISTURBED OR
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE ACCEPTANCE IS
SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER, UPON
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 461. CENTERLINE TIES
INSTALL STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY
CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND TO
10. SURVEY. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
BY THE CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE.
REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY
PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED OR
PROJECT LIMITS. ANY UTILITY DAMAGED DURING THE
NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THE
OR COMPLETENESS OF THE LOCATION, NOR THE EXISTENCE OR
NOT CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY
9. UTILITIES. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES
THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES.
RESPONSIVE CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE AT
OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, A DEPENDABLE AND
SHALL BE SCHEDULED TWO WORK DAYS PRIOR TO THE START
8. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING
CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.
IN THE FIELD. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE
FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS A REDLINE REVISION FOR
7. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE. ANY CONSTRUCTION CHANGE MUST BE
GENERAL NOTES
(RESPONSIBLE PERSON/DEVELOPER)(COMPANY)
JIM KILGORE
PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBANCE OR GRADING.
CLEARANCES FROM THESE AGENCIES SHALL BE OBTAINED
ACTS OR WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. THE APPROPRIATE
THE PROVISIONS OF STATE OR FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES
CLEARANCES FROM STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES REGULATING
PERMIT BY THE CITY DOES NOT IMPLY OR PROVIDE ANY
6. REGULATORY AGENCY CLEARANCES. THE ISSUANCE OF A
RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS.
SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ON SUNDAY AND NATIONALLY
AND 6:30 PM ON SATURDAY. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 AM
THROUGH FRIDAY AND SHALL ONLY ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:30 PM AND 6:30 AM, MONDAY
ONE-QUARTER OF A MILE OF AN OCCUPIED RESIDENCE,
ACTIVITY, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION SITE IS WITHIN
PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION
5. WORKING HOURS. CITY ORDINANCE NO. 94-25 STATES THAT NO
ERRORS OR OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
RECORD FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTION OF
CITY DOES NOT RELIEVE THE APPLICANT AND ENGINEER OF
4. ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE
AT THE JOBSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
APPROVED SET OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS MUST BE PRESENT
WORK ON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. THE PERMIT AND AN
B. A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED, PRIOR TO ANY
SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY.
A. PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK, A BUSINESS LICENSE
3. LICENSE/PERMIT REQUIREMENT:
ANSWERING MACHINE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE).
2. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER.
CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, CITY CODES AND REQUIREMENTS.
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS), THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND
STANDARD DRAWINGS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (AND
OF THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE CITY'S IMPROVEMENT
1. STANDARDS. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS
DECATUR ADVISORS
AND ENCROACHMENTS".
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, "CONSTRUCTION, GRADING
15. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. REFER TO THE CITY OF
(24-HR PHONE NUMBER)
619-823-3533
GA. STUCCO NETTING
WITH 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" 17
PLACED CONCRETE
OR 3" 2500 PSI AIR
3" 560-C-3250 CONCRETE
STD NO. 202 (TYP)
CITY OF TEMECULA
PER
GUTTER
CURB &
PROP. ROLLED
TYPICAL UNDERCUT SECTION FOR NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
LD21-3742
PER STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
N.T.S.
CONSTRUCT 3' CONCRETE V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 2.
3'
P.U.E.
105'
FL 1% MIN SLOPE
10'
M AX2:1
NOT USED
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER SEPARATE PERMIT
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd02.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
B
X
MHX
X
X
X
X
13
10
X
X
X
X
X
13
15
X
X
X
1320
13
2
0
1320
X
X
MHX
X
MHX
X
1325
13
2
5
1325
X
X
13
3
0
13
3
0
1330
P
B
X
X
X
X
X
1335
13
3
5
1335
X
1
3
4
0
1340
13
4
0
13
4
0
1340
1340
P
BXP
BX
X
P
BX
1
3
4
5
13
4
5
1345
1345
X
TANKXXX
X
P
BXP
BXP
BX
13
5
0
1350
1350
1350
1350
13
5
0
13
5
0
X
XXXX
X
X
P
BX
X
X
X
X
1
3
5
5
1355
1355
13
5
5
13
5
5XXX
X
X
X
XXXX
X
X
P
BX
X
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1360
1360
1360
1360
13
6
0
1360
P
BX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1365
1
3
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1365
13
6
5
1365
1365
1365 1365X
X
X
X
X
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1375
1375
1
3
7
5
MHX
MHX
B
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
1369.63 FL
1362.89 FL
1362.54 FL
1362.46 FL
1362.42 FL
1362.39 FL
1367.82 FL
1365.37 FL
1368.84 FL
1361.77 TG/LP
1360.07 FL
FL
1362.72
1368.05 FS
LINE
HINGE
LINE
HINGE
LINE
HINGE
LINE
HINGE
LINE
HINGE
LINE
HINGE
HABITAT FENCE
PROPOSED
EX LOT LINE
EX LOT LINE
EX LOT LINE
DAY LIGHT LINE
DAYLIGHT LINE
DAYLIGHT LINE
PROP R/W
PROP R/W
EX WATER
EX SEWER
DAYLIGHT LINE
QUITCLAIMED
PER PR 00128177-996 TO BE
354239 O.R. PLOTTED PER RS 87/28-34,
RECORDED DEC 5, 1988 AS INST. NO
AND OTHER PURPOSES PER INST
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR COMMUNICATION
GENERAL TELEPHONE FOR TRANSMISSION
EASEMENT STRIP OF LAND GRANTED TO
10'
LD21-3742
PER SEPARATE PLAN
PROP STORM DRAIN
PER LD05-159C0
EX STORM DRAIN
L=19.99'
L=15.74'
L=11.38'
19.04'
18.40'
7.03'
9.06'
7.22'
107.44'
N87°10'30"
LD21-3742
PER SEPARATE PLAN
PROP STORM DRAIN
B
4
F4
E
4
D
4
C 4
3
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
1%
1
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
CONSTRUCT V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 2.
2
4 INSTALL RIPRAP NO. 2 BACKING (T=1.5') ON 10'x10' PAD AND 3:1 SLOPE
4
A
G
4
1357.79 TF
1359.11 FS
1360.35 TW
1357.79 TF
1358.99 FS
1358.99 TW
1357.79 TF
1358.12 FS
1358.12 TW
2.0%
2.0%
5
6.67'
2
1
.
8
2
'
6.86'
5
1357.79 TF
1358.27 FS
1360.35 TW
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER CITY OF TEMECULA RETAINING WALL STANDARD PER SEPARATE PERMIT
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER SEPARATE PERMIT
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
13651365
1365
1
3
6
5
1
3
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1
3
6
5
13701370
1370
1
3
7
0
1
3
7
0
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd03.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
MURRIETA
HOT
SPRINGS
ROAD
R
O
R
IP
A
U
G
H
VA
L
L
E
Y R
O
A
D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8910111213
LOT 14
WQ+HMP
OPEN SPACE
LOT 15
| = 4° 55' 03"
R=3000'L=257.48'
N87°10'30"E108.90'
R
=3
0
0
'
L=5
8
.6
1'
2
%
(
T
Y
P
)
2
%
(
T
Y
P
)
2
%
(
T
Y
P
)
2
%
(
T
Y
P
)
2
%
(
T
Y
P
)
2
%
(
T
Y
P
)
2
%
(
T
Y
P
)
3:1
1
5
'
M
I
N
660.51'
15' MIN
5
7
4
.2
8
'
2
:
1
2
:
1 2
:
1 2
:
1
2
:
1 2
:
1
2:1
2:1
3
:1
3:1
OPEN SPACE
LOT 15OPEN SPACE
LOT 15
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-016
11
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-001
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-016
1368.2 1368.9 1369.6 1370.4 1371.1 1371.8 1372.8
1372.71371.91371.21370.61369.91369.2
4
:
1
3
:
1
3
:
1
3:1
1
3
6
6
.
9
F
G
1
3
6
7
.
7
F
G
1
3
6
8
.
4
F
G
1
3
6
9
.
0
F
G
1
3
6
9
.
8
F
G
1
3
7
0
.
4
F
G
1
3
6
8
.
9
F
G
1
3
6
8
.
2
F
G
1
3
6
7
.
5
F
G
1
3
6
6
.
8
F
G
1
3
6
6
.
0
F
G
1
3
6
5
.
0
F
G
1
3
6
6
.
3
F
G
1
3
6
9
.
6
F
G
2
5
'
2
5
'
5
'
5
0
'
25'25'
LC
LC
1
6
.
9
'
15' MIN
1
7
.
6
8
'
(1361.7 FG)
(1361.7 FG)
(1363.0 FG)
(1360.0 FG)
FOR BASIN DETAIL
SEE SHEET 5
(1365.1 FG)
3
'
3
3
.
4
2
'
2
4
.
8
9
'
1
7
.
2
2
'
(1370.2 FG)
(1364.9 FG)
(1362.9 FG)
(1364.0 FG)
(1370.9 FG)
(1370.9 FG)
(1370.2 FG)
(1370.2 FG)
(1361.9 FG)
(1363.0 FG)
(1360.40 FG)
(1359.2 FG)
(1366.41 FG)
(1359.6 EP)
(1365.39 FG)
(1363.0 FG)
2
2
2
2
1352.77 FL
1353.27 TC
10+43.38 BCR
1357.40 FL
1
1
1363.22 TF
1363.72 FG
1364.38 TW
1359.99 TF
1360.49 FG
1361.95 TW
65'
1
3
7
2
.
3
F
G
1
3
7
2
.
9
F
G
1
3
7
3
.
7
F
G
1
3
7
3
.
7
F
G
1
3
6
9
.
3
F
G
1
3
7
0
.
1
F
G
1
3
7
0
.
8
F
G
1
3
7
1
.
6
F
G
1
3
7
2
.
3
F
G
1
3
7
2
.
8
F
G
1
3
7
3
.
4
F
G
1373.4
F
G
1364.49 FL
1
1
0
%
|
= 11° 11' 3
8
"
10
1
1
1
2
13 14 15
16
17
20'
R=2945
'L=578
.28
'
| = 11° 15
' 02"
3:1
2:1
3:1
4
1361.55 TF
1362.05 FG
1363.89 TW
1361.82 TF
1362.32 FG
1362.33 TW
1362.74 TF
1363.24 FG
1363.28 TW
1
3
6
0
.
4
3
F
L
1
3
6
0
.
7
6
T
C
1
1
+
8
0
.
1
3
B
C
E
C
1
3
6
1.
7
0
T
C
1
3
6
1.
3
7
F
L
1362.70 FL1363.03 TC
BC
13
6
4
.6
9
FL
1
3
6
5
.0
2
TC
EC
BC
1365.63 TC
1365.30 FL 1365.73 FL
1366.06 TC
13+93.64 EC
13 6 2.4 7 FL
13 6 2.8 0 TC
12+3 0.12 BCR
1365.20 FL
1365.53 TC
13+40.94 ECR
1370.21 FS
17+97.00
1369.77 FL
1370.10 TC
17+97.14 EC
1357.05 FL
1357.55 TC
10+86.77 ECR
1355.90 FL
1356.40 TC
10+73.00 ECR
1370.5 FG
2
:
1
1
1
1352.48 EP
1%
4
%
1368.9 FG
1369.6 FG
1370.4 FG 1371.1 FG
1371.8 FG
1368.2 FG
1369.2 FG 1369.9 FG 1370.6 FG
1371.2 FG
1371.9 FG 1372.7 FG
3' PUE
2:1
2
:1
4
113.2
4
1.
0
4'
7
8
.7
9
'
2
4
.13
'
16
7
.0
0
'
16
9
.
5
0
'
17
1.
3
0
'
17
1.
3
0
'
16
9
.4
8
'
7'
2
5
.
6
8
'
1
3
7
0
.
3
F
G
1
3
7
1
.
0
F
G
1
3
7
1
.
7
F
G
1369.13 FL
1369.46 TC
EC
1369.60 FL
1369.93 TC
BC
1358.61 FL
1359.11 TC
10+43.79 BCR
1368.08 FL/HP
0.6%
1362.80 TF
1363.30 FG
1366.77 TW2
VALLEY ROAD
NORTH RORIPAUGH
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
N
O
R
T
H
R
O
R
I
P
A
U
G
H
1356.80 FS
VALLEY ROAD
10+00.00 NORTH RORIPAUGH
JOIN EXISTING
(1352.32 FL)
(1352.82 TC)
2
PLAN LD21-3742
PER SEPARATE
IMPROVEMENTS
VALLEY ROAD
NORTH RORIPAUGH1364.92 FS
12+86.12
3
'
P
U
E
1368.68 FL1369.01 TC16+88.24 BC
20.00'
ESMT
46
.97
'29.81'27.08'
L=3
0
.7
1'
40.72'
4
1.
0
4'
L=60.64'L=72.00'L=52.96'70.00'
42.96''42
.3
6=L
'97.64=L
'
51
.
0
5
=
L
6
8
.
6
3
'
89.38'
59.17'70.02'70.02'68.95'
67.88'75.08'
15
0
.8
3
'
'58.04=L42.39'70.00'
70.00'33.95''55.53=L'05.96=L'05.96=L'54.76=L42.30'
12
9
.8
3
'
16
7
.0
0
'
17
2
.7
9
'
72.78'
70.05'
70.05'
71.46'73.33'73.34'
16
6
.
2
7
'
16
7
.
0
0
'
16
4
.
3
5
'
16
1.
7
0
'
68.85'
15
4
.
5
4
'
17
1.5
1'
0
.
5
%
4
4
7
.0
4
'
1362.16 FL
1
1357.54 FL
1
GROUND
PROPOSED
DAYLIGHT LINE
GROUND
PROPOSED
DAYLIGHT LINE
EXIST. GROUND
EXIST. GROUND
FENCE
HABITAT
PROPOSED
EXIST. GROUND
EXIST. GROUNDEXIST. GROUND
EXIST. GROUND
FENCE
HABITAT
PROPOSED
PROPOSED GROUND
EXIST. GROUND
PER LD21-3742
IMPROVEMENTS
STREET
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
WEST BOUNDARYA
4
2:
1
BOUNDARY
W'LY TRACT
LOT 15
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
WEST BOUNDARYB
4
PL
10'
SETBACK
SIDEYARD
BOUNDARY
W'LY TRACT
65'
1368.2 PE
LOT 1
VARIES**
27' TO 29'
VARIES*
36' TO 38'
LOT 15
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
NORTH BOUNDARYC
4
LOT 5
1371.1
60'BOUNDARY
N'LY TRACT
PL
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
ADJACENT LOTSD
4
2:1
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
10' MIN.
SETBACK
SIDE YARD
PL
10' MIN.
LOT 8
LOT 9
1371.9
1372.7
PL
2:1
SPRINGS ROAD
MURRIETA HOT
BOUNDARY
S'LY TRACT
20'VARIES 58' TO 138'
SETBACK
REAR
LOT 11
1370.6
LOT 15
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
SOUTH BOUNDARYF
4
PL
2:1
SPRINGS ROAD
MURRIETA HOT
MAX2:120'VARIES 58' TO 138'
TRAIL
SOIL FIRE ACCESS
15' MIN. NATIVE
SETBACK
REAR
LOT 11
1370.6
LOT 15
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
EAST BOUNDARYE
4
PL
1372.7
LOT 8
2:1
BOUNDARY
E'LY TRACT
1362 FG
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
15' MIN.
65'
LOT 15
4
3:1
LINE
DAYLIGHT
** FUEL MOD ZONE 2
* FUEL MOD ZONE 1
NOTE:
M
A
X
3:1
1
TRAIL
FIRE ACCESS
NATIVE SOIL
15' MIN.
1
15' MIN.
NATIVE SOIL
FIRE ACCESS
TRAIL
2
1
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
2 CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER SEPARATE PERMIT
CROSS SECTION SHEET
R/W
CLR/W
10.86'25'25'
LINE
EX LOT
R/W
3:1
0
.04%
3:1
2.58'
11.03'13.12'
ROAD
ACCESS
1
1' SETBACK
1' SETBACK
2:1
CONSTRUCT 3' CONCRETE V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 2
VALLEY ROAD
NORTH RORIPAUGH
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROADG
4
MAX
2:1 2
2
VARIES
WIDTH
SPACE
OPEN
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd04_Cross section sheet.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
B
X
P
BXP
BXP
BX
X
X
X
13
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
1
3
6
0
1360
1360
1365
1365
MHX
DAYLIGHT LINE
PROP R/W
PROP R/W
DAYLIGHT LINE
W.S.E.
100 YEAR
BASIN BOTTOM 1351.15
BASIN BOTTOM 1351.15
1360.35 FG
1360.35 FG
W.S.E.
100 YEAR
EXISTING R/W
LD21-3742
SEPARATE PLAN
PROP 18" SD PER
LD21-3742
SEPARATE PLAN
PROP 18" SD PER
LD21-3742
SEPARATE PLAN
OUTLET PER
5
MURR
IETA
HO
T
S
PR
ING
S
ROAD
LOT 13
R
O
R
IP
A
U
G
H
VA
L
LE
Y R
O
A
D
LOT 14
WQ+HMP
1360.3 FG
1360.3 FG
1358.5 FG
1359.7 FG
LOT 1 LOT 2
25'25'
PE 1369.20
PE 1368.20 PE 1368.90
1362.9 FG
1365.6 FG
20 0 20 40
SCALE: 1" = 20'
6
'
6'
LOT 1
PE 1368.20
P/L
CL
CL
P/L
P/L
PE 1369.20
LOT 13
LOT LINE
3:1
3:1
2
:1
2:
1
6'
BENCH
BASIN BOTTOM 1351.15
6'
BENCH
2:
1
3:1 3:1
LINE
DAYLIGHT
A-
-
B
A
-
B
-NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
SECTION
SECTION
3
:
1
3:1
3:1
3
:1
3:1
2:1
2:1
2
:
1
B
E
N
C
H
BENCH
1
0
%
1368.6 FG
1364.8 FG
1
7
.
3
7
'
1
7
.3
1
'
2
5
'
2
5
'
20.00'8'12.78'27.62'115.62'27.69'2.8'17.17'
LINE
EX LOT
14.17'25'25'7.6'19.7'
12.
00'
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
H
BASIN
WAT
D
H
FB
H
BASIN
INTERM CONDITION FOR PERMANENT BMP BASIN TABLE
BASIN ID
DRAINAGE AREA (AC)
RISER DIAMETER (INCHES)
RISER HEIGHT (FT)
REQUIRED HEAD TO PASS 100 YEAR (FT)
TOTAL DEPTH OF 100 YR WSE (FT)
MIN. FREEBOARD (FT)
MIN. TOTAL DEPTH OF BASIN (FT)
)
3
CONCRETE ANCHOR BLOCK VOLUME (FT
SHEET NUMBER
FG @TOP OF BASIN/TRAP (FT)
BOTTOM OF BASIN (FT)
SB-BB-10
5.9
14.4
48
5
0.5
5.5
9.2
315
5
RH
H
100
WAT
D
HFB
H
BASIN
V
CONC
INTERM Q
100
3.7
1360.35
1351.15
H
FB
WAT
D
13.12'
31.31'8'27.62'
1
3
5
1
.
1
1
3
5
4
.
8
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
.
3
1
3
6
5
1
3
5
1
.1
1
3
5
4
.
8
1
3
6
0
.
3
1
3
6
0
4
4
3:1 SLOPE
INSTALL RIPRAP NO. 2 BACKING (T=1.5') ON 10'x10' PAD AND
BASIN BOT 1351.15
1360.3 FG
1354.8 FG
1354.8 FG
BASIN SHEET
1360.3 FG
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
N
O
R
T
H
R
O
R
I
P
A
U
G
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
4
20'
20.00'
EASEMENT
3' PUE
3' PUE
5
5
5
RETAINING WALL STANDARD PER SEPARATE PERMIT
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER CITY OF TEMECULA
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd05_Basin Sheet.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
6
3
DRAIN PIPE & RISER
DESILTING BASIN
N.T.S
12 :1SLOPE
RECOMMENDATIONS
PER GEOTECHNICAL
GRADING SHALL BE
P.C.C. ANCHOR BLOCK,
FL ELEV
@ RISER
FG OF TRAP
BLANKET & GRAVEL CONE
RISER PIPE WRAPPED W/FILTER
CL
(SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)
ABOVE TOP OF RISER
2' DEBRIS CAGE
DIAMETER PER PLAN
1
.
5
'
TOP OF RISER
3:1(
T
Y
P)
FRONT VIEW
N.T.S
DEBRIS ROCK CAGE
2'
TOP VIEW
BOTH SIDES
TO END OF POST
SPACED & SPOTWELDED
5 #3 REBARS EVENLY
BAND COUPLERS
UNIVERSAL
TOP OF RISER
OF COUPLER W/
MATCH TOP
@ 6 O.C.
#3 BARS
POST 4 PLACES
SPOTWELD EACH
12" ABOVE TOP OF PIPE. SOIL CEMENT AROUND PIPE SHALL CONSIST OF A
SLIGHTLY MOISTENED MIXTURE OF ONE PART CEMENT TO FIVE PARTS OF
MIXED AND TAMPED INTO PLACE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
GRANULAR MATERIAL. THE SOIL CEMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY
PLACEMENT OF THE PIPE.
BY THE SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. OPEN-GRADED,
HIGHLY PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE USED AS BACKFILL.
CONCRETE PCC 560-C-3250, SEE PLANS FOR THICKNESS ON ALL SIDES .
CONCRETE SHALL BE POURED DIRECTLY AGAINST THE SIDES OF THE
EXCAVATION FOR THE ANCHOR BLOCK FOLLOWING COMPACTION OF
THE SOIL WITHIN THE BASIN. REINFORCE CONCRETE WITH 4-#4 BARS
EACH WAY OR 6"X6" 10-GAUGE WELDED WIRE FABRIC. EMBED STEEL
3" MINIMUM IN CONCRETE.
INSTALLATION NOTES
2. C.M.P. RISER HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED 12 GAUGE 2-2/3"X1/2"
CORRUGATIONS, HEIGHT AND DIAMETER PER PLANS.
3. PAINT 4" WIDE BAND (RED) AROUND CIRCUMFERENCE OF RISER. TOP
FLOW LINE, AND SLOPE OF OUTLET PIPE.
1. REFER TO GRADING PLAN AND DETAILS
FOR HEIGHT AND DIAMETER OF RISER, GRADING OF BASIN, DIAMETER,
OF BAND TO BE 1.0 FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE OF BASIN BOTTOM.
RISER AND FILTER FABRIC. TOP OF FILTER FABRIC AND GRAVEL CONE
AT TOP OF PAINTED BAND PER NOTE 3, FULLY COVERING PAINTED
4. WRAP FILTER FABRIC AROUND RISER FROM FINISHED GRADE TO 1.0
BAND.
SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP DETAIL NOTES
5. P.C.C. ANCHOR BLOCK: SURROUND RISER AND OUTLET PIPE WITH
6. SOIL CEMENT AROUND OUTLET PIPE TO LIMITS OF TRENCH AND
7. TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF NATIVE MATERIALS, APPROVED
SEQUENCE AND USE OF STORM WATER BASINS DURING CONSTRUCTION
TABLE A.2 - PERMANENT STORM WATER BMP SUMMARY
IDBMP TYPEBMP FINAL DESIGN WQMP REPORT* SET PLAN PERCONSTRUCTED
BASINSEDIMENT
TEMPORARY
REPLACES
(AC) DMADESIGN
FINALAPPROX.
TO) (PRIOROPERATIONAL
BE TO TIMELINERECQUIRED
BMP-10 BIOFILTRATION 5.9
TOP OF BASIN BASIN
TOP OF
WQMP FOR PA10 STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN SB-BB-10 CERT. OF OCCUPANCY
FEET HIGH, THEN INSTALL 3/4 " GRAVEL MOUND 1.5 FEET HIGH AROUND
WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS
BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATELY.
CONVERSION FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS TO PERMANENT BIOFILTRATION BASINS WILL NEED TO
OF A TRIBUTARY PAVED ROAD SEGMENT; SO THE PUBLIC OPENINGANY UPSTREAM BUILDING PERMIT, OR
FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCYWATER BMPS TO BE FULLY OPERATIONAL SHOULD OCCUR PRIOR TO
BIOFILTRATION SOIL MIX LAYER, MULCH/COBBLE/PLANTS, ETC.). THE TIMING FOR PERMANENT STORM
OF PERMANENT BMP COMPONENTS (I.E. SUBSURFACE AGGREGATE LAYER, PERFORATED PVC SUBDRAIN,
CRITICAL THAT THESE LOCATIONS ARE NOT USED FOR SEDIMENT COLLECTION FOLLOWING INSTALLATION
WELL AS THROUGHOUT THE UPSTREAM DRAINAGE AREA CONTRIBUTING FLOWS TO EACH LOCATION. IT IS
MEASURES SHOULD STILL BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE ENTRANCE AND OUTLET(S) OF THE BASIN AREA, AS
COMPONENTS. DURING THE INTERIM GRADING OPERATIONS, ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
DESIGN SUBGRADE ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT STORM WATER BMP
SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP MEASURES, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IT IS EXCAVATED AND RESTORED TO THE
DURING GRADING OF THE SITE. IF THIS AREA IS USED AS PART OF THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND
SITE, AND MAY BE USEFUL TO SERVE AS TEMPORARY SEDIMENT/STORM WATER COLLECTION AREA
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS OR SEDIMENT TRAP; HOWEVER, IT IS LOCATED AT THE LOW POINT ON THE
THE PERMANENT BIOFILTRATION BASIN HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO SERVE AS A 3.
ON THE ROUGH GRADING PLAN SUMMARIZES THE FUTURE PERMANENT STORM WATER BMPS.
PLANS. FOR THE ULTIMATE BUILD-OUT OF THE SITE, ONE (1) PERMANENT BMP IS PROPOSED. TABLE A.2
PER FINAL WQMP FOR THE PROJECT, AND FINAL DESIGN DETAILS WILL BE SHOWN BY THE IMPROVEMENT
PORTIONS OF THE SITE, AS THEY ARE BROUGHT ON-LINE . THE PERMANENT BMPS HAVE BEEN SIZED
NECESSITATE PERMANENT BMP)S) (CONFIGURED FOR BIOFILTRATION OR INFILTRATION) TO TREAT THESE
PHASED SEQUENCE. THE CREATION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND OCCUPANCY/USE OF THE SITE WILL
FOLLOWING MASS-GRADING OF THE ENTIRE SITE, CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE WILL PROCEED IN A 2.
BASINS (IF APPLICABLE) WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE PROJECT SWPPP FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES.
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDOUT. SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS FOR THE TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS AND
THE PHASED TIMELINE OF THIS PROJECT INCLUDES MASS-GRADED PADS IN THE INTERIM CONDITION, 1.
H
R
H
B
A
S
IN
OR 12" THICK MINIMUM)
CALCULATION,
(SIZED PER BUOYANCY
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd06_WQ Notes.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
X
XX
X
X
X
X
13
10
X
X
X
X
13
15
X
X
X
1320
13
2
0
X
MHX
X
1325
13
2
5
13
3
0
13
3
0
P
B
X
X
X
1335
13
3
5
13
3
5
1335
1
3
4
0
1340
13
4
0
1340
13
4
0
1340
1340
P
BXP
BX
X
P
BX
1
3
4
5
1345
13
4
5
1345
1345X
P
BXP
BXP
BX
13
5
0
1350
1350
1350
1350
13
5
0
X
X
X
P
BX
X
X
X
X
1
3
5
5
1355
1355
13
5
5
13
5
5
X
X
X
XXXX
X
X
P
BX
X
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1360
1360
1360
1360
13
6
0
1360
P
BX
X
X
X
X
X
X
1365
1
3
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1365
13
6
5
1365
1365
1365
1365
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
1375
1375
1
3
7
5
GRAVEL BAG
DIRECTION OF FLOW
HYDRAULIC MULCH PER CASQA EC-3
PAD STABILIZATION SOIL BINDER PER CASQA EC-5
SYMBOLEROSION CONTROL LEGEND AND QUANTITIES
SILT FENCE PER CASQA SE-1
FIBER ROLL PER CASQA SE-5
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT PER CASQA TC-1
NOTE:
ACCORDANCE WITH CASQA STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
*NOTE: QUANTITIES ARE FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY QUANTITIES IN
VISQUEEN LINED SWALE
MURRIETA
HOT
SPRINGS
ROAD
R
O
R
IP
A
U
G
H
VA
LL
E
Y R
O
A
D
7EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
BY THE DETAILS ON THIS PLAN AND THE CORRESPONDING CASQA SPECIFICATIONS.
SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS. ACTUAL SPACING AND QUANTITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED
1.THIS IS A SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE REQUIRED TEMPORARY EROSION AND
E
8
B
8
C
8
D
8
A
8
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
C
8
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
N
O
R
T
H
R
O
R
IP
A
U
G
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
13651365
1365
1
3
6
5
1
3
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1
3
6
5
1365
13701370
1370
1
3
7
0
1
3
7
0
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd07_ec.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
1. FILTERED RUNOFF. ALL RUNOFF SHALL BE FILTERED PRIOR TO DISCHARGING
FROM A SITE OR TO ANY TYPE OF PRIVATE OR
PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (NATURAL WATERCOURSES, STREETS,
GUTTERS, CONCRETE-LINED V-DITCHES,
STORM DRAINS, FLOW-LINES, INLETS, OUTLETS, ETC.). ALL NON-PERMITTED
DISCHARGES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING
ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM YEAR-ROUND.
A. STOCKPILING OF BMPS. ADDITIONAL ESC MATERIALS SHALL BE STOCKPILED AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT
THE SITE FOR IMMEDIATE USE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST
RAIN. ON EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, THE
DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY MAKE EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS
AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THE SITE.
3. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS. ALL ESC MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED,
RESTORED, REPAIRED OR MODIFIED
YEAR-ROUND THROUGHOUT THE SITE TO PROTECT PERIMETERS, ADJACENT
PROPERTIES, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS AND ALL PRIVATE/PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. IF ANY
EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROLS FAIL
DURING ANY RAIN EVENT, MORE EFFECTIVE ONES WILL BE REQUIRED IN THEIR
PLACE.
5. PERIMETER PROTECTION. PERIMETER PROTECTION MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR
TO ANY CLEARING ACTIVITIES. CLEARING
SHALL BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT WILL BE IMMEDIATELY GRADED OR
DISTURBED. A COMBINATION OF ESC MEASURES
SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED. ALL DISTURBED
AREAS OF AN INACTIVE SITE, AS
DESCRIBED IN THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, SHALL ALSO BE
PROTECTED.
6. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE
STABILIZED WITH A COMBINATION OF ROCK
AND SHAKER PLATES YEAR-ROUND TO PREVENT TRACK-OUT. INTERIOR ACCESS
POINTS (ALL PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS,
MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREA ENTRANCES/EXITS, ETC.) SHALL ALSO BE
PROTECTED WITH ROCK TO PREVENT
TRACK-OUT ONTO INTERIOR STREETS. ROUTINE STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE
PERFORMED ON ALL PAVED STREETS WHERE
TRACKING IS OBSERVED. VACUUM SWEEPERS SHALL BE USED WHEN STREET
SWEEPING BECOMES INEFFECTIVE.
CONTROLLED STREET WASHING SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED PRIOR TO THE
APPLICATION OF ASPHALT SEAL COATS, AND ONLY
WHEN ALL PERTINENT DRAINAGE INLETS ARE PROTECTED.
7. DESILTING BASINS. DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO THE
GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN CASQA'S
CONSTRUCTION BMP HANDBOOK. IMPOUNDED WATER SHALL BE SECURED FROM THE
PUBLIC. SIGNAGE INDICATING
"PONDED WATER- DO NOT ENTER," OR AN EQUIVALENT WARNING NOTICE, SHALL BE
POSTED.
8. MATERIAL STORAGE. MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREAS SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED. FUEL TANKS, PORTABLE TOILETS,
LIQUIDS, GELS, POWDERS, LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL
BE STORED AWAY FROM ALL
PRIVATE/PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, SIDEWALKS,
RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND FLOW-LINES AND SHALL HAVE
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. INACTIVE STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE COVERED AT
ALL TIMES. ACTIVE STOCKPILES SHALL
BE COVERED PRIOR TO A FORECAST RAIN.
9. CONSTRUCTION WASTE. CONSTRUCTION WASTE AND MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS
SHALL BE PLACED IN WATER-TIGHT BINS.
WIRE MESH RECEPTACLES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. WASH-OUT STATIONS SHALL
BE PROVIDED FOR CONCRETE, PAINTS,
STUCCO AND OTHER LIQUID WASTE, AND SHALL BE LINED WITH PLASTIC AND
LOCATED AWAY FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS,
FLOW LINES, ETC. PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN, BINS AND WASH-OUTS SHALL BE
COVERED WITH LIDS OR PLASTIC TARPS.
10. SLOPE PROTECTION. STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT BE DIRECTED OVER
SLOPES WITHOUT PERMANENT DOWN DRAINS
INSTALLED. ESC MEASURES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES UNTIL
SUFFICIENT/PERMANENT LANDSCAPE IS
ESTABLISHED. THERE SHALL BE 100% SLOPE PROTECTION IN PLACE PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
11. PORTABLE MIXERS. ALL PORTABLE MIXERS SHALL HAVE PLASTIC LINERS
UNDERNEATH THEM WITH GRAVEL-BAGS PLACED
ON THE DOWN-HILL SIDE OF THE LINERS TO CONTAIN DISCHARGES.
BASINS SHALL BE FREE OF SEDIMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, WASTE,
CHEVRONS, SILT FENCES AND DESILTING
CURB GUTTERS, ETC.), STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, CHECK DAMS,
BROW-DITCHES, TERRACE DRAINS, RIBBON GUTTERS,
12. MAINTENANCE. ALL ONSITE AND OFFSITE FLOW LINES (I.E., V- AND
YEAR-ROUND.ESC MEASURES
MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS AND DETERIORATED
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
4. STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. IF THE PROJECT DISTURBS, EXPOSES
OR STOCKPILES ONE ACRE OR MORE OF
SOIL, THE SITE MUST BE COVERED UNDER THE STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL
PERMIT. A WASTE DISCHARGE
IDENTIFICATION (WOLD) NUMBER, A RISK LEVEL DETERMINATION NUMBER AND THE
QUALIFIED "STORM WATER
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN" (SWPPP) DEVELOPER (QSD) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF
A GRADING PERMIT. A SWPPP SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION
OF THE PROJECT AND SHALL BE
READILY AVAILABLE TO CITY AND STATE INSPECTORS AND UPDATED TO REFLECT
CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS DURING
CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT:
WWW.WATERBOARDS.CA.GOV/WATERISSUES/PROGRAMS/STORMWATER/CONSTRUCTION.
8
N/A
C
C
SECTION D-D
NOT TO SCALE
BURLAP BAGS
GRAVEL FILLED
LINE
CURB
10' WEIR
(1 BAGS HIGH)(2 BAGS HIGH)
BURLAP BAGS
GRAVEL FILLED
BURLAP BAGS
GRAVEL FILLED
C
C
SECTION E-E
NOT TO SCALE
FLOW LINE
GUTTER
10' WEIR
(1 BAGS HIGH)
(2 BAGS HIGH)
BURLAP BAGS
GRAVEL FILLED
BURLAP BAGS
GRAVEL FILLED
SECTION C-C
HIGH
2 BAGS
NOT TO SCALE
D
D
GUTTER
E
E
CURB AND GUTTER
SECTION D-D
BAGS PER
PLACE GRAVEL
TABLE A
DAMS PER
CHECK
SPACE
TABLE A
DAMS PER
CHECK
SPACE
SECTION E-E
BAGS PER
PLACE GRAVEL
NOT TO SCALE
IN GUTTER
VELOCITY CHECK DAMS
TABLE A
VELOCITY CHECK DAM SPACING
GRADE INTERVAL
6.0% TO 10.0% 25'
LESS THAN 2% 200'
2.0% TO 4.0% 75'
4.0% TO 6.0% 40'
*NOTE: REFER TO CASQA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK SE-4 FOR MORE INFORMATION
B
8
FILTER FABRIC
NATIVE
COARSE AGGREGATE, 3" MIN, 6" MAX
NOT TO SCALE
SECTION B-B
CORRUGATED STEEL PANELS
NOT TO SCALE
LC
GRAVEL BAGS AROUND CATCH BASINS
LINE
CURB
F
L
O
W
HIGH
2 BAGS
HIGH
2 BAGS
F
L
O
W
CC
HIGH
1 BAG
D
8
*NOTE: REFER TO CASQA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK SE-10 FOR MORE INFORMATION
5'
C C
FLOW
F
L
O
W
FLOW3' R
A
DIUS
F
L
O
W
NOT TO SCALE
1
2
"
M
I
N
.
FIBER ROLL 8" MIN.
VARIES
SLOPE
4
"
M
A
X
2
"
M
I
N
4' SPACING
STAKES MAX.
3/4"x3/4" WOOD
TABLE B
FIBER ROLL SPACING
GRADE INTERVAL
2:1 AND GREATER
OR EQUAL TO
LESS THAN 4:1
20'
15'
10'
INTO A STEEPER SLOPE
SLOPE WHERE IT TRANSITTIONS
INSTALL A FIBER ROLL NEAR
ALONG A LEVEL CONTOUR
INSTALL FIBER ROLL
NOTE:
FIBER ROLLS
NOT TO SCALE
C
8
F
F
4' MAX
4' MAX
10' AND 20'
VARIES BETWEEN
VERTICAL SPACING
TYPICAL FIBER ROLL INSTALLATION
*NOTE: REFER TO CASQA STORMWATER BMP SE-5 FOR MORE INFORMATION
4:1 AND 2:1
BETWEEN
SECTION F-F
NOT TO SCALE
MINIMUM WIDTH OF ROAD - 30 FEET
PUBLIC ROADHARD SURFACE
5
0'
M
IN
. **
FILTER FABRIC
NATIVE
*
*
OF ROAD
WIDTH
NOTE:
B
B
A
8
NOTE:
VEHICLE TIRE, WHICEVER IS GREATER
OF THE LARGEST CONSTRUCTION
OR FOUR TIMES THE CIRCUMFERENCE
BY SOILS ENGINEER
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
MIN.
12"
3" MIN, 6" MAX
COARSE AGGREGATE
ENTRANCE/EXIT
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION
*NOTE: REFER TO CASQA STORMWATER BMP HANDBOOK TC-1 FOR MORE INFORMATION
STEEL PANELS
CORRUGATED
**
N.T.S.
SECTIONB-B
TYPICAL LOT GRADING DETAIL
N.T.S.
GRAVELBAGS
IN PLACE BY
DOWNDRAIN HELD
VISQUEEN LINED
2:1 M AX
PL
FINISH PAD GRADE
SLOPE PER PLAN
PL
0.5'*
0.5'*
2:1 MAX
VARIES
5'-70'
FL 20% MAX SLOPE
FL 5% MIN SLOPE
5' PREFERRED
SLOPE
TOE OF
5'
MIN
SEE PLAN
LOT WIDTH VARIES
SEE DETAILS THIS SHEET FOR BERM PLACEMENT.
BE REMOVED WITH PRECISE GRADING.
* - 0.5' BERMS ARE TEMPORARY AND TO
3' MIN
N.T.S.
SECTIONA-A
E
8
2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S).
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S), MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY FIELD
ACTIVITIES. BMP HANDBOOKS CAN BE
DOWNLOADED AT WWW.CABMPHANDBOOKS.COM. ADDITIONAL EROSION PREVENTION
AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC)
MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED PRIOR TO AND THROUGHOUT
EACH RAINY SEASON. THE
DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESC MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE
DURATION OF THE PROJECT FOR ALL
ALL EXPOSED SLOPES AND INACTIVE
PADS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS ALSO
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DISCHARGES FROM
SUBCONTRACTORS.
YEAR-ROUND, POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES, ALSO KNOWN AS BEST
CLEARING, DISKING, GRADING, EXCAVATING AND STOCKPILING ACTIVITIES, AND ON
A. EROSION CONTROLS. EROSION CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED
TO APPLYING AND ESTABLISHING:
VEGETATIVE COVER, WOOD MULCH, STAPLED OR PINNED BLANKETS (STRAW,
COCONUT OR OTHER), PLASTIC SHEETING
(MINIMUM 10-MIL), POLYPROPYLENE MATS, SPRAY-ON CONTROLS TO ALL
DISTURBED AREAS OR OTHER MEASURES
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. JUTE NETTING SHALL NOT BE USED AS A
STAND-ALONE EROSION CONTROL. FOR
SLOPES GREATER THAN 4:1, PROVIDE FIBER ROLLS AND EITHER A BONDED FIBER
MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE
OF 3500 LB/ACRE OR A STABILIZED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A
RATE OF 10 GAL/ACRE. THE CITY ENGINEER
MAY APPROVE DIFFERENT APPLICATION RATES FOR SLOPES LESS THAN 4:1.
B. SEDIMENT CONTROLS. SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO: DESILTING BASINS, GRADED
BERMS, FIBER ROLLS, SILT FENCES, GRAVEL BAG CHEVRONS (FILLED WITH MINIMUM
3/4" GRAVEL), CHECK DAMS,
DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION, ETC. FIBER ROLLS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 15-FOOT
INCREMENTS MEASURED ALONG THE
FACE OF THE SLOPE. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG INTERIOR STREETS
AND COMBINED WITH GRAVEL-BAG OR
SILT FENCE CHEVRONS INSIDE THE SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY OR BACK OF CURBS.
MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.18 "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL"
15. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. REFER TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA
"GRADING" AND "PAVING" REQUIREMENTS.
14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GENERAL,"
THE CITY ENGINEER.
WITHIN ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE
SYSTEM, UNLESS ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY
13. OBSTRUCTIONS. NO OBSTRUCTIONS, OTHER THAN BMP'S, SHALL BE ALLOWED
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAIL SHEET
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
CURB LINE
1
2
%
M
A
X
HP
2
%
M
A
X
1
%
M
I
N
S
W
A
L
E
1
%
M
I
N
S
W
A
L
E
P
U
E
FENCE
VIEW
M
I
N
1
%
PAD RIDGE LINE
3
'
5
'
65' MIN
67' MIN
1
0
5
'
5
'
S
/
W STREET GRADE
B
B
AA
10'
SEE DETAILS THIS SHEET FOR BERM PLACEMENT.
BE REMOVED WITH PRECISE GRADING.
* - 0.5' BERMS ARE TEMPORARY AND TO
2%
GB
PL
VARIES
5'
2:1
M
A
X
BERM
0.5'*
PAD ELEVATION
PAD LINE
ROUGH GRADE
FENCE
VIEW
TRAIL
5'
P/L
3'
P.U.E.
105'
FL 1% MIN SLOPE
10'
PRECISE GRADING
GRAVELBAGS. TEMPORARY SLOPE TO BE REMOVED IN
VISQUEEN LINED DOWNDRAIN HELD IN PLACE BY
M AX2:1
Drawn By
Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of
Date
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
R.C.E. No.
SEAL:Designed By
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
Checked By
DATE:
DATE:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
63285
\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hrgd08_ec details.dgn JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:
Ric
k
E
n
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
of Sheet 1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
M
ETFOYTI
C
N/A
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
8
MM
(NGVD 29) 9-13-82
ELEVATION = 1305.535
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
MM
N/A
JM/RO
LD21-2039
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
RICHARD C. O'NEILLST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
RE
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRA
H
CI
R
B
P
B
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P
B
X
P
B
X
MHX
XXXXXXX
XXX
MHX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
MHX
MHX
X
X
P
BX
X
X
P
B
XP
BXX
P
BX
X
XP
BXP
BXP
BX
X
XXXX
X
X
P
BX
X
X
X
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXX
XXP
BX
X
P
BX
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXX
X
X
X
MHX
P
BX
X
X
X
X
X
MHX
XXXX
X
X
X
X
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
PAVING NOTES
TITLE SHEET
SHEET INDEX
STREET DETAIL SHEET
STORM DRAIN INDEX SHEET
1
2
6
9
NOTIFICATION
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT:(951) 928-3777
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT:(213) 217-6000
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT:(951) 296-6900
EXCAVATION
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING UTILITIES OR AGENCIES 48 HOURS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION OR
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON:
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS:
(800) 427-2200
(800) 655-4555
(877) 906-9121
DEVELOPER/OWNER ENGINEER
CONTACT: NATE SMITH
PHONE: (951) 782-0707
RIVERSIDE, CA. 92507
1770 IOWA AVE, SUITE 100
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
GEOTECH. ENGINEER
GENERAL NOTES
CONTACT: SIMON I. SAIID, PE,GE
PHONE: 951-296-0530
TEMECULA, CA 92590-5661
41715 ENTERPRISE CIRC N., STE 103
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
SWPPP INFO.
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S
215
15
15
79
AULD RD
SITE
T. 7S, R. 2W, S. 20
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
B
U
T
T
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
D
R Y
O
RRU
O
P
N
IC
O
LAS RD
PRIVATE ENGINEER'S NOTE TO CONTRACTOR
DAMAGE OR PROTECTION TO THESE LINES.
WORK OR EXCAVATION TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATIONS OF ALL LINES AFFECTING THIS WORK, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN HERE ON, AND FOR ANY
LINES WHOSE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ALL UTILITY AND IRRIGATION COMPANIES PRIOR TO
OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CIVIL ENGINEER ASSUMES NO LIABILITY AS TO THE EXACT LOCATION OF SAID LINES NOR FOR UTILITY OR IRRIGATION
THE EXISTENCE AND APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH
FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR ENGINEER.
FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTION FOR LIABILITY RISING
BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER AND CIVIL ENGINEER HARMLESS
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT
CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB-SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF
SUBCONTRACTOR'S COMPLIANCE WITH SAID REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.
RELATIONS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS. THE CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S AND
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED A SAFE PLACE TO WORK AND THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK SHOWN ON OR RELATED TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT ALL
WORK TO BE DONE
TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION
BASIS OF BEARINGS
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORK CONSTRUCTION ("GREENBOOK").
PLAN (SWPPP) REFERENCED HEREON AND THE LATEST EDITION OF THE
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION
ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS, THE CURRENT CITY OF TEMECULA
THESE IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING WORK TO BE DONE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
3 4
APN : 964-460-007.
RECORDED IN BOOK 342, PAGES 73 THROUGH 85 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 29353-2, IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP
0
SCALE: 1" = 100'
200100100
INDEX MAP
1"=100'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8910111213 LOT 14
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-001
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-016
NOT A PART
APN 964-460-016
APN 964-460-007
SOURCE: AERIAL COMPILED BY RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
DATE: 10/12/2016
WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS
QSP:
QSD:
RISK LEVEL:
WDID #
1
OWNER REPRESENTATIVE
DECATUR ADVISORS
CONTACT: JIM KILGORE
(24 HOUR PHONE #)
PHONE: (619)823-3533
MISSION HILLS, CA 91345
SUITE 310
15535 SAN FERNANDO MISSION BLVD
WINGSWEEP CORPORATION
MURRIETA
HOT
SPRING
RD
PAGE 929, GRID E6
THOMAS BROS. MAP:
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
TRACT MAP NO. 37925
CITY OF TEMECULA
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD.
AND ENCROACHMENTS".
15. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. REFER TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, "CONSTRUCTION, GRADING
AND "TRAFFIC" REQUIREMENTS, IF APPLICABLE.
14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GRADING", "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL," "PAVING"
13. INSPECTIONS. ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT PROPER INSPECTION FROM THE CITY MAY BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION.
MAINTENANCE OF THE FENCE IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
UNTIL ROOFS SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETED OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE
12. CONSTRUCTION FENCING. A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS REQUIRED ON ALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S (SCAQMD) RULE 403.
11. DUST CONTROL. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING OR OTHER METHODS, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER
ENGINEER. UPON REQUEST, SURVEY CUTS SHEETS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER.
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT AND THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE, AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY
EXISTING MONUMENTS (DISTURBED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION) SHALL BE REPLACED TO CITY STANDARDS IN
PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER, UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE ACCEPTANCE IS GRANTED. ALL
STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY RIVERSIDED COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 461. CENTERLINE TIES SHALL BE
10. SURVEY. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRCTOR TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND TO INSTALL
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY BY THE CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE.
THE PROJECT LIMITS. ANY UTILITY DAMAGED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED
OR COMPLETENESS OF THE LOCATION, NOR THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN
9. UTILITIES. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT CONSTITUDE A REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY
BE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES.
START OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, A DEPENDABLE AND RESPONSIVE CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL
8. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED TWO WORK DAYS PRIOR TO THE
CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN THE FIELD. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND
7. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE. ANY CONSTRUCTION CHANGE MUST BE FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS A REDLINE REVISION
OBTAINED PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBANCE OR GRADING.
SPECIES ACTS OR WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. THE APPRORIATE CLEARANCES FROM THESE AGENCIES SHALL BE
CLEARANCES FROM STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES REGULATING THE PROVISIONS OF STATE OF FEDERAL ENDANGERED
6. REGULATORY AGENCY CLEARANCES. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE CITY DOES NOT IMPLY OR PROVIDE ANY
ON SUNDAY AND NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS.
ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00AM AND 6:30 ON SATURDAY. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN
HOURS OF 6:30 PM AND 6:30 AM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND SHALL ONLY ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION SITE IS WITHIN ONE-QUARTER OF A MILE OF AN OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, BETWEEN THE
5. WORKING HOURS. CITY ORDINANCE NO. 94-25 STATES THAT NO PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION
RECORD FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
4. ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT RELIEVE THE APPLICANT AND ENGINEER OF
APPROVED SET OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS MUST BE PRESENT AT THE JOBSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
B. A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED, PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. THE PERMIT AND AN
A. PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK, A BUSINESS LICENSE SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY.
3. LICENSE/PERMIT REQUIREMENT:
(24-HR PHONE NUMBER)COMPANY(RESPONSIBLE PERSON/CONTRACTOR)
(24-HR PHONE NUMBER)COMPANY(RESPONSIBLE PERSON/DEVELOPER)
2. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBER. (ANSWERING MACHINE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE).
CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, CITY CODES AND REQUIREMENTS.
STANDARD DRAWINGS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS), THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND
1. STANDARDS. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE CITY'S IMPROVEMENT
JIM KILGORE, PE DECATUR ADVISORS LLC, CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE (619) 823-3533
---
AND ENCROACHMENTS.
19. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. REFER TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, CONSTRUCTION, GRADING
CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
18. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR GENERAL, GRADING, AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT
OPERATION OF VALVES AFTER PAVING, REMOVE ALL DEBRIS, RUBBISH AND EXCESS MATERIAL FROM WORK AREA, ETC.).
CLEAN THE SITE (I.E., REMOVE LOOSE PAVEMENT AND AGGREGATE, CLEAN OUT ALL MANHOLE PITS, ENSURE FREE
LOADS) SHALL BE KEPT OFF NEWLY PAVED AREAS UNTIL PAVEMENT SURFACES HAVE COOLED DOWN ADEQUATELY; (C)
OPERATIONS AND ASPHALT SPRAY; (B) PROTECT COMPLETED WORK; ALL VEHICULAR TRAFFIC (I.E., MOVING OR STATIONARY
LANDSCAPING, CATCH BASIN DEPRESSIONS AND OTHER SURFACE FEATURES AGAINST DAMAGE CAUSED BY PAVING
17. PROTECTION OF WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL: (A) PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURES, CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS,
DEVIATIONS GREATER THAN 1/8 INCH IN SIX FEET (6 ) SHALL BE ACCEPTED.
FILLS, TRENCH FILLS OR BASE MATERIAL, AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. NO PAVEMENT BIRDBATHS OR
16. ACCEPTANCE OF PRODUCT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DEFECTIVE SURFACING DUE TO GRADE SETTLEMENT OF
MACHINE) AND ROLLING AC SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK.
15. AC PLACEMENT. THE METHOD OF DEPOSITING, DISTRIBUTING (I.E., USING A SELF-PROPELLED SPREADING/FINISHING
ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO CITY STANDARD NO. 503 PAVING DETAIL AROUND MANHOLE.
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK REQUIREMENTS, UTILITY AGENCY REQUIREMENTS, AND CITY AND
14. PAVING DETAIL AROUND MANHOLES, VALVE COVERS, ETC. ALL PAVING AROUND MANHOLES, UTILITY VALVE COVERS, ETC.
ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO STANDARD NO. 200.
13. GUTTER LIP. A 3/8 INCH LIP SHALL BE PLACED ADJACENT TO CONCRETE GUTTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY AND
12. PARKING LOT GRADE. THE MINIMUM AC OR CONCRETE PAVEMENT GRADE SHALL BE ONE PERCENT (1%).
CONCRETE AND VERTICAL SURFACES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK.
REPAVED, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. A TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO JOIN EXISTING ASPHALT
FEET (2 ) IN WIDTH (BETWEEN THE TRENCH AND GUTTER LINE), SAID PAVEMENT STRIPS SHALL BE REMOVED AND
PROXIMITY AND PARALLEL TO GUTTER LINES RESULT IN LEAVING PAVEMENT STRIPS IN DISTRESS OR LESS THAN TWO
CITY STANDARD NO. 407 TRENCH/POTHOLE REPAIR FOR TRENCH MAINTENANCE AND/OR REPAIRS. IF TRENCHES IN CLOSE
11. TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES. ALL STREET TRENCHES SHALL CONFORM TO CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO
FROM UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO FINAL CAP.
10. UTILITIES. ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND LATERALS SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO PAVING. PROVIDE CLEARANCE
STANDARDS, AND SHALL BE INSPECTED AND CLEARED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PAVING.
C. DRIVEWAYS. ALL ONSITE PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND CITY
TO PAVING, AT BASE GRADE COMPLETION; AND (1) DURING PLACEMENT OF AC.
B. PAVING INSPECTIONS. TWO (2) PAVING INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: (1) PRIOR
REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
A. BASE GRADE INSPECTION. ONE (1) INSPECTION AT SUB-GRADE COMPLETION (PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BASE) IS
9. PAVING INSPECTIONS.
SOILS ENGINEER AND THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR.
COMPACTION TEST OBSERVATION OF SUB-GRADE AND BASE GRADE MATERIALS SHALL BE COORDINATED TO INCLUDE THE
95% COMPACTION OF SUB-GRADE, BASE MATERIAL AND TOP 1 FOOT, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER.
8. COMPACTION. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF BASE MATERIAL AND AC, COMPACTION REPORTS BY A SOILS ENGINEER, CERTIFYING
TESTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
TEST NO. 301 AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER). THE NUMBER AND LOCATIONS OF THESE
SHALL UTILIZE THE R VALUE METHOD (I.E., R VALUE TESTS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
DESIGN SHALL ADHERE TO THE METHODOLOGY SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 600 OF CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL AND
ROUGH GRADING. THE STRUCTURAL SECTION DESIGN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SAID
PURPOSES). THE FINAL STRUCTURAL SECTION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTS, AFTER
7. STREET SECTIONS. STREET STRUCTURAL SECTIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE TENTATIVE (I.E., THEY RE USED FOR BONDING
SHOW THAT THE DESIGN MEETS ALL CITY AND GREENBOOK REQUIREMENTS.
CONCRETE PLANT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE MIX DESIGN(S) SHALL CLEARLY
6. MIX DESIGNS. TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO PAVING, THE PROPOSED MIX DESIGN(S) FROM THE SUPPLYING ASPHALT OR
C. PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT. ALL PCC USED SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE GREENBOOK.
ARTERIAL ROADS REQUIRE CAB.
2. FOR STREET SECTIONS, BASE COURSE MATERIAL SHALL BE CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE (CAB). PRINCIPAL AND URBAN
1.BASE MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO PROVISIONS OF THE GREENBOOK AND CURRENT CITY STANDARDS.
B. BASE MATERIALS.
TEXTURE, ETC.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GREENBOOK AND/OR CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS.
STABILITY (I.E., ABILITY TO RESIST SHOVING AND RUTTING, ANGULAR AGGREGATE PARTICLES WITH A ROUGH SURFACE
SHOVING, THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE A MODIFIED AC MIX DESIGN WITH PROPERTIES THAT PROVIDE HIGH
CURVES OR INTERSECTIONS, CAUSED BY BRAKING OR ACCELERATING VEHICULAR FORCES. TO PREVENT OR MINIMIZE
IN ASPHALT, THAT HAVE COURSE/FINE AGGREGATE THAT IS TOO ROUNDED, ETC. TYPICALLY, SHOVING RESULTS AT HILLS,
NOTE: SHOVING IS A TYPE OF AC PAVEMENT FAILURE THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY ASPHALT MIXES THAT ARE TOO RICH
3. THE MAXIMUM AC LIFT IS 0.33 FOOT (4 INCHES).
2. THE MINIMUM AC THICKNESS IS 0.33 FOOT (4 INCHES).
CONCRETE THICKNESS. THE MINIMUM AC LIFT FOR BASE COURSE IS 0.21 FOOT (2 INCHES).
II. TYPE B PG70-10 FOR BASE COURSE. THIS COURSE SHALL CONTAIN THE BALANCE OF THE REQUIRED ASPHALT
THICK INCLUDING GRIND AND OVERLAY INSTALLATIONS.
I. TYPE C2 PG70-10 FOR FINISH AND OVERLAY COURSES. THIS COURSE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 0.12 FOOT (1 INCHES)
1. AC MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 203-6 OF THE GREENBOOK AND CITY STANDARDS.
A. AC MATERIALS.
DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
AND AC MATERIALS SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP) AND/OR AS
5. CERTIFICATION/TESTING. ALL SUBGRADE AND BASE GRADE SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. BASE
SETTING ANIONIC EMULSIFIED ASPHALT TYPE SS-1H CONFORMING TO THE GREENBOOK.
ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, IF IT HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO VEHICULAR LOADS. THE TACK COAT SHALL BE SLOW
4. TACK COAT. A TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO EXISTING PAVEMENT AND VERTICAL JOINTS, CONCRETE SURFACES AND
SPECIFIED.
3. SOIL STERILIZER. AN APPROVED SOIL STERILIZER SHALL BE USED ON ALL BASE GRADE SURFACES PRIOR TO PAVING, IF
IMPROVEMENTS) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. A CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED.
OBTAINING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE AND THE REQUIRED BONDING (FOR PUBLIC
2. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING OR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT(S) SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO PAVING. BEFORE
LATEST EDITION, THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, CITY AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS.
COURSE, ETC.) SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (I.E., GREENBOOK)
1. STANDARDS. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS (I.E., ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC) PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT (PCC), BASE
CITY OF TEMECULA: LDINSPECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOV
28° 53' 23" E)
CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING REFERENCE STATIONS (CORS) "P477" AND "BILL". (I.E. N
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ZONE 6, AS DETERMINED LOCALLY BY A TIE BETWEEN
THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) EPOCH 2010.00,
PER COA #75, ALL ONSITE DRAINAGE AND WATER FACILITIES SHALL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
TOTAL ACREAGE:
AREA OF GRADED/DISTURBED SITE:6.3 AC
8.1 AC
5INTERSECTION DETAIL SHEET
10-11
DAOR YELLAV HGUAPIROR HTRON
BASIN DETAIL SHEET
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE STA 10+00 TO 13+93.64
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE STA 13+93.64 TO 17+97.14
3
4
7
8
STORM DRAIN PLAN AND PROFILE LINE A, LINE B, AND LAT C-1
D
R
DOO
WET
IH
W
EV
A
N
OSREFFEJ
L
A
SERENA W AY
D
R
SKA
O
AC
DI
A
Z
R
D
DR
A
TIR
A
G
R
AM
YW
K
P
SW
OD
A
E
M
STORM DRAIN PLAN AND PROFILE LINE C
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
xTITLE SHEET
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Himp01.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
NSG
NSG
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
ST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
NO. 401
REPORT AND CITY STD
QUALITY IN GEOTECHNICAL
SPECIFIED PER SOIL
BASE TO BE USED AS
CRUSHED AGGREGATE
TC= FS-0.12 TC=FS-0.12
DRIVEWAY PER PRECISE GRADING PLAN
CURB AND GUTTER
PER FUTURE PRECISE GRADING PLAN
FUTURE DRIVEWAY. HOUSE PLOTTING AND DRIVEWAY
6" THICK SIDEWALK REQUIRED AT LOCATION OF
COMPACTION TO 1-FT MIN DEPTH)
SUBGRADE (95% MIN RELATIVE
PER CALTRANS STD. A24D
"STOP" PAVEMENT LEGEND
TC= FS-0.12 TC=FS-0.12
PER CALTRANS STD, A24E
12" WHITE STOP BAR
FT
AC
TOP OF CURB TC
FL
FS
FLOW LINE
FINISHED SURFACE
BEGINNING OF CURB RETURN
END OF CURB RETURN
BCR
ECR
R/WRIGHT OF WAY
CENTERLINE CL
CURB FACE CF
BCBEGINNING OF CURVE
ECEND OF CURVE
VC
HP
VERTICAL CURVE
HIGH POINT
BEGINNING OF VERTICAL CURVE
END OF VERTICAL CURVE
BVC
EVC
MANHOLE MH
GBGRADE BREAK
PRVC
ASPHALT CONCRETE
ELEVATION ELEV.
EDGE OF PAVEMENT EP
FEET
LLENGTH
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MAX.
MIN.
NO.NUMBER
NTSNOT TO SCALE
PROPERTY LINE PL
STRENGTH OF MATERIAL
STANDARD STD
TYPICAL TYP.
SQUARE FEET SF
SQUARE YARDS SY
EAEACH
CURB AND GUTTER C&G
EX.EXISTING
PROPOSED PROP.
XS
X
EX
XTPB
X
CBX
CURB (SIZE AND TYPE NOTED)
EXISTING FLOWLINE
EXISTING FENCE
PROJECT BOUNDARY
EXEXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE
A XEXISTING AIR RELEASE VALVE
EXISTING WATER METER
EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING ELECTRIC PULL BOX
EXISTING TRAFFIC PULL BOX
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
REMOVE EXIST. PAVEMENT
SIDEWALK
GRIND AND OVERLAY EXIST. PAVEMENT
DAYLIGHT
PRCPOINT OF REVERSE CURVE
POINT OF REVERSE VERICAL CURVE
MIDDLE OF VERTICAL CURVE MVC
R-VALUE
LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
GENERAL SIGNING & STRIPING NOTES
2DETAIL SHEET
1
2
4
3
5
PLACE MIN 0.33' A.C. OVER MIN. O.5' CLASS II C.A.B. PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD NO. 115
6
137 LF
10 LF
R/W
5'
MODIFIED SIDEWALK
4" MIN
4" MIN
3
2
SIDEWALK
3
MIN 5' SIDEWALK WIDTH
CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO 401 MODIFIED TO
N.T.S.
L
I
N
E
C
U
R
B
2% MAX
CONCRETE
560-C-3250
CLASS
N.T.S.
TYPICAL PAVEMENT JOIN DETAIL
56
SAW CUT
EXIST EP
2' MIN
AND AB
NEW AC
5
6
AND AB
EXIST AC
MIN. DEPTH AND OVERLAY
PAVEMENT TO 0.10'
COLDPLANE EXIST.
2' MIN. OR AS DIRECTED,
HEADER CUT
0.10' MIN. DEEP
CONSTRUCT TYPE "C" CURB PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 202
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED SIDEWALK (5' WIDE) PER CITY OF TEMECULA MODIFIED STD. NO. 401 SHOWN HEREON
GRIND AND OVERLAY EXIST. PAVEMENT. SEE TYPICAL PAVEMENT JOINT ON THIS SHEET
SAWCUT EXISTING A.C. PAVEMENT. SEE TYPICAL PAVEMENT JOINT ON THIS SHEET
50'
50' LOCAL ROAD (MODIFIED)
R/W
5'
25'
20'
R/W
CL
25'
20'5'
22
1
0.33' MIN AC PAVEMENT2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX33
PER PLAN
FS
2%2%
EASEMENT
PUBLIC UTILITY
3' BENCH/
EASEMENT
PUBLIC UTILITY
3' BENCH/
PARKING
8'8'
PARKING2% MAX 2% MAX
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CURB TRANSITION PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 213 & DETAIL ON THIS SHEET
A-6 CURB
2 144
33
4
N.T.S.
CURB TRANSITION AT CATCH BASIN
TRANS.
10'
CURB
ROLLED
7
N.T.S.
PLOT
HOUSE
FUTURE
3 37
6" THICK SIDEWALK AT LOCATION OF FUTURE DRIVEWAY
7 INSTALL 6" THICK SIDEWALK CLASS 560-C-3250 CONCRETE
8 2 EACONSTRUCT CURB RAMP PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 402
8,425 SF
1,400 LF
274 SF
9 CONSTRUCT CROSS GUTTER PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 210
STREET IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION NOTES & QUANTITY ESTIMATE
1,320 SF
~
~
N.T.S.
(GREENBOOK SPEC 200-2.2)
6.0" MIN. CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE
4.0" MIN. AC (GREENBOOK SPEC 203-6)
AC PAVING
1
PRIVATE
10
11
DETAIL A24D AND DETAIL ON THIS SHEET
INSTALL WHITE "STOP" LEGEND (THERMOPLASTIC) PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN
1 EA
12 5 EA
8'
11
STOP BAR AND "STOP" LEGEND DETAIL
N.T.S.
10
13 2 EA
(785 TONS/ 405 CY)
A-6 CURB
14 CONSTRUCT TYPE "A-6" CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 200 160 LF
1 EA
15 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK (5' WIDE) PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 401
16
840 SF
5 LF
50'
50' LOCAL ROAD (MODIFIED)
R/W
5'
25'
20'
R/W
CL
25'
20'5'
1414
1
0.33' MIN AC PAVEMENT2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX1515
PER PLAN
FS
2%2%
EASEMENT
PUBLIC UTILITY
3' BENCH/
PARKING
8'8'
PARKING2% MAX 2% MAX
PRIVATE
OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE
0.50' MIN. CLASS II
OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE
0.50' MIN. CLASS II
34
MUTCD
CONTROL DEVICES
MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC
1,040 SF
LEAD OUT DEPATURE SIDE.
WHERE IT BREAKS ACROSS AN INTERSECTION. 50' OF LEAD IN LINE ON THE APPROACH SIDE AND 50' ON THE
16. A 6" SOLID WHITE LEAD LINE WITH TYPE 'G' RPM'S AT 25' SPACING SHOULD BE USED FOR EACH LANE LINE
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.
15. ALL PAVEMENT STRIPING SHALL HAVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKINGS (RPM) PER SECTION 81-3 OF THE CALTRANS
OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
14. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, AND LINE 8" OR WIDER SHALL BE THERMOPLASTIC UNLESS
FROM DATE OF INITIAL INSTALLATION.
13. ALL PAINTED STRIPING SHALL BE DOUBLE COATED IN NOT LESS THAN 7 DAYS, BUT NO MORE THAN 14 DAYS
CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.
MARKINGS SHALL BE REMOVED BY GRINDING METHOD, PRIOR TO GRIND AND OVERLAY, PER SECTION 84-9 OF THE
12. ALL CONFLICTING PAVEMENT LEGENDS, STRIPING (INCLUDING RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS), AND PAVEMENT
SPECIFICATIONS.
11. ALL PAVEMENT STRIPING AND LEGENDS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER SECTION 84.2 OF THE CALTRANS STANDARD
36-INCH ANCHOR ASSEMBLY.
10. THE POST MATERIAL SHALL BE "TELESPAR QWIK-PUNK" OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH RECEPTIVE 30-INCH OR
OR AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN.
9. STREET NAME SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL INTERSECTIONS AND MAY BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE R1 SIGN
THROUGH A24-E.
CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD), AND CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS: A20-A
8. ALL PAVEMENT MARKERS, STRIPING, AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE
8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP BAR OR 8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP LEGENDS.
7. THE STOP LEGEND SHALL BE 8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP BAR. IF REQUIRED, DIRECTIONAL ARROWS SHALL ALSO BE
THE WHEELCHAIR ACCESS RAMPS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN.
6. ALL STOP BARS WILL LOCATED AT THE PROLONGATION OF THE CENTER DELTA OF THE CURB RETURN OR BEHIND
5. ALL R1 SIGNS WILL BE LOCATED 2 FEET BEHIND CURB AT THE B.C.R. OR AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN.
RETURN, OR BACK OF THE CROSSWALK OR STOP BAR.
4. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL STRIPING SHALL BEGIN AND TERMINATE AT QUARTER DELTA OF THE CURB
SHEETING.
AND BE A MINIMUM OF 30"x30". OTHER REGULATORY OR GUIDE SIGNS MAY BE ENGINEERING GRADE REFLECTIVE
3. ALL REGULATORY SIGNS AND WARNING SIGNS SHALL USE HI-INTENSITY DIAMOND GRADE REFLECTIVE SHEETING
THE INSPECTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LIMITS OF THE MATCH STRIPING.
2. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGN LOCATIONS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE STRIPING BEGINS.
APPROVAL BY THE INSPECTOR.
1. STRIPING, SIGNING, OR PAVEMENT LEGENDS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FIELD INSPECTION AND
17 1 EA
18 1 EA
INSTALL "25 MPH" SIGN R2-1 (24"x30") PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 403, 404
INSTALL "25 MPH" PAVEMENT LEGEND PER CALTRANS STD. A24C
INSTALL "STOP" SIGN R1-1 (30"X30") PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 403, 404 & 405
INSTALL STREET NAME PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 403, 404 & 405
GRADING NOTES
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT FOR SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PLAN SEE LD21-4685
CONSTRUCT CURB OUTLET PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 301
11. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "PAVING," "GENERAL" AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS.
PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES PER THE U.P.C.
COMBINATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. SLOPES OVER FOUR FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT SHALL HAVE
10. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, INSTALLING WHERE APPLICABLE: GROUNDCOVER, TREES, SHRUBS OR A
9. FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT.
B. ONE SET OF PAD COMPACTION CERTIFICATION (I.E., FINAL GEOTECHNICAL/SOILS REPORT) TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE GRADING COMPLIES WITH
CERTIFICATION SHALL BE TO LINE, GRADE, ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF CUT/FILL SLOPES.
A. ONE SET OF PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION (I.E., ROUGH GRADE) TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE PAD ELEVATION COMPLIES WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN.
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:
LDINSPECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST TWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE (PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR PERMIT # IN THE SUBJECT LINE) .
8. ROUGH GRADING INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED VIA EMAIL TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT
DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
7. PROPERTY CORNERS. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITY, AS
F. THE MINIMUM GRADE FOR CONCRETE SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE A ONE-HALF PERCENT (0.5%).
E. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS; NO BUILDING OR WALLS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EASEMENTS.
D. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT.
ADJOINING AND DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND PONDING WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.
C. TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT
B. EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO OBSTRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE PERMITTED.
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLANS.
THREE FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO GRADED AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE TOP OF SLOPES. ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES
A. AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR STORM FLOWS OR PROVIDE GRADED BERMS ALONG THE TOP OF ALL GRADED SLOPES OVER
6. DRAINAGE.
WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FOOT IN DEPTH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PLACED.
D. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST, WHO SHALL SUBMIT TWO SETS OF
ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES OVER 30 FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT.
C. STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTOR-OF-SAFETY OF AT LEAST ONE AND FIVE TENTHS (1.5) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS BY A REGISTERED CIVIL
NATIVE SOIL, AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. IF THE SLOPE RATIO EXCEEDS 5:1 AND IS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET, THE TERRAIN MUST BE KEYED AND BENCHED INTO EITHER BEDROCK OR
B. FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON EXISTING GROUND UNTIL THE GROUND HAS BEEN CLEARED OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND OTHER
SOILS REPORT. FILL SLOPES SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISH SURFACE.
A. MAXIMUM CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER; AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
5. CUT/FILL.
CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN
EVALUATION REPORT (UPDATE), WINGSWEEP ENTITLEMENT, PA-10, PA-12 AND PA-33A CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA" DATED JUNE 30, 2020. SAID REPORT SHALL BE
ALL CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ENTITLED "GEOTECHNICAL
4. SOILS.
CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SHALL BE NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL AT LDINSPECTIONS@TEMECULACA.GOV AT LEAST TWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING ANY
3. NOTIFICATIONS.
A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK ON THE SITE.
2. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (APPENDIX J) AND, IF APPLICABLE, THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE
WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE LATEST EDITION OF
ALL CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING RELATED ACTIVITIES (I.E., STOCKPILING, LAND CLEARING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL, ETC.) SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
1. STANDARDS.
R-VALUE=25
DESIGN SPEEN=25MPH
MODIFIED STD 103A TI=8
STA 10+00.00 TO 11+63.47
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
N.T.S.
R-VALUE=25
DESIGN SPEEN=25MPH
MODIFIED STD 103A TI=8
STA 11+63.47 TO 17+97.14
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
N.T.S.
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
x
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Himp02.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
NSG
NSG
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
ST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
B
X
X
X
X
PBX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
PB
X
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
INTERSECTION
PER CALTRANS STD. A20D 200' PRIOR TO
INTERSECTION AND REPLACE WITH DETAIL 39A
REMOVE EXISTING BIKE LANE DETAIL 39 ACROSS
RW
PUE
RW
PUE
FOR INTERSECTION DETAIL
SEE SHEET 5
ORNO.RADIUS LENGTHDELTA BRG.
CURB DATA
ORNO.RADIUS LENGTHDELTA BRG.
CENTERLINE DATA
12+00 13+00
MATCHLINE STATION 13+93.64 SEE SHEET NO. 4
1
2
3
4
5
N 13°17'11" E 42.73'
11°11'38" 300.00' 58.61' 29.39'
TANGENT
N 2°05'33" E 184.78'
1°20'35" 3000.00' 70.32' 35.16'
N 87°54'27" W 37.20'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
N
O
.
4
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
1
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
9+00 10+00 11+00 14+00
LT 1360
RT 1360
3
99°32'29" 35.00' 60.81' 41.37'
2°46'58" 280.00' 13.60' 6.80'
14°00'56" 110.00' 26.91' 13.52'
117°28'04" 60.00' 123.01' 98.81'
N 11°55'23" W 41.04'
14°47'43" 110.00' 28.41' 14.28'
5°24'49" 320.00' 30.24' 15.13'
89°39'58" 35.00' 54.77' 34.80'
1°00'33" 3020.00' 53.19' 26.59'
N 75°0'39" E 14.44'
N 2°05'33" E 57.13'
N 74°27'18" W 41.04'
N 78°19'46" E 9.67'
N 2°05'33" E 57.13'
2
4
3
5
PLACE MIN 0.33' A.C. OVER MIN. O.5' CLASS II C.A.B. PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD NO. 115
6
CONSTRUCT TYPE "C" CURB PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 202
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED SIDEWALK (5' WIDE) PER CITY OF TEMECULA MODIFIED STD. NO. 401 SHOWN HEREON
8
9 CONSTRUCT CROSS GUTTER PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 210
10
11
12
13
14 CONSTRUCT TYPE "A-6" CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 200
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CURB TRANSITION PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 213 & DETAIL SHEET 2
GRIND AND OVERLAY EXIST. PAVEMENT. SEE TYPICAL PAVEMENT JOINT ON SHEET 2
DETAIL A24D AND DETAIL SHEET 2
INSTALL WHITE "STOP" LEGEND (THERMOPLASTIC) PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN
SAWCUT EXISTING A.C. PAVEMENT. SEE TYPICAL PAVEMENT JOINT ON SHEET 2
16
17
18
N 2°05'33" E 10.00'
19
N 2°05'33" E 11.66'
N 2°05'33" E 62.70'
15 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK (5' WIDE) PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 401
6 89°39'58" 55.00' 86.07' 54.68'
16
CL 1360
14
2
4
4
2
INSTALL STREET NAME SIGN AND POST PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 403, 404 & 405
85°50'8" 35.00' 52.44' 32.54'
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CURB RAMP PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 402 PER DETAIL ON SHEET 5
INSTALL "STOP" SIGN R1-1 (30"X30") PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 403, 404 & 405
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD STA 10+00.00 TO 13+93.64
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT. FOR SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PLAN SEE LD21-4685
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CURB OUTLET PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 301
ROR
IPAUGH
VALLEY
ROAD
N 2°05'33" E 10.00'
TANGENT
4.00%
1
2
5
8
.
0
6
T
C
1
1
+
0
1
.
3
4
E
C
1
0
+
8
6
.
7
7
E
C
R
1
3
5
7
.
5
5
T
C
PI=1357.58
@ 10+96.51
G1=1.43%
G2=4.00%
50' VC
PARTIAL
1
3
5
7
.
4
0
T
C
1.0%
4.06%
1
3
5
8
.
5
8
T
C
1
1
+
2
1
.
5
1
E
V
C
14
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
6
.
8
6
T
C
1
1
+
1
7
.
1
8
T
C
1
3
5
8
.
4
1
T
C
1
1
+
0
7
.
1
8
T
C
1
3
5
8
.
2
3
T
C
10' TRANSITION
1
3
5
7
.
9
5
T
C
1
0
+
9
7
.
4
9
T
C
10' TRANSITION
1
0
+
8
7
.
4
9
T
C
1
3
5
7
.
5
6
T
C
16
6" TO 8" CURB
8" TO 6" CURB
4
4
14
10.0%2
|
/
4
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
6
.
8
8
T
C
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
6
.
9
0
T
C
1357.82 FL
1
3
5
5
.
6
1
I
E
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Himp03.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
VERT 1" = 4'
HORIZ 1" =40'
PROFILE:
11
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
X
PLANNING AREA 10
TRACT MAP 37925
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
10
11 12
1
3
1
2
2
0
'
2
0
'
5
'
5
'
4
0
'
5
0
'
15
1
2
1
2 3
4
5
2
3
4
1
1364.69 FL
1365.02 TC
EC
1365.30 FL
1365.63 TC
BC
1365.73 FL
1366.06 TC
12
ST. LIGHT
13+06.40
3
2
10
8
8
65
1355.66 FS
10+42.73 BC
1362.47 FL
1362.80 TC
12+31.17 BCR
1365.20 FL
1365.53 TC
13+40.80 ECR/BC
1357.72 FS
11+01.34 EC
9 11
12
13
1366.18 FS
1
3
5
8
.
5
7
F
L
1
3
5
9
.
2
4
T
C
1
1
+
3
7
.
9
7
C
B
C
L
1
3
6
0
.
4
3
F
L
1
3
6
0
.
7
6
T
C
1
1
+
8
0
.
1
3
B
C
1
3
6
1
.
3
7
F
L
1
3
6
1
.
7
0
T
C
E
C
1
3
6
2
.
7
0
F
L
1
3
6
3
.
0
3
T
C
B
C
1358.57 FL
1359.24 TC
11+37.97
CB CL
JOIN EXISTING
(1352.32 FL)
(1352.82 TC)
JOIN EXISTING
(1359.44 FL)
(1359.94 TC)
17
4
4
5
16
7
8 9
10
1
1
12
13 14 15
18
1
9
14
14
6
3
3
'
3
'61358.61 FL
1359.11 TC
BCR
1356.51 FL
1355.55 FL
1354.46 FL
16
1352.77 FL
1353.27 TC
BCR
15
ST. LIGHT
1355.90 FL
1356.40 TC
10+73.00 ECR
(1356.80 FS)
PER PLAN LD02-208CO
153+64.36 MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD.
1+00.00 RORIPAUGH VALLEY RD
10+00.00 NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
1365.73 FL
1366.06 TC
PRC/GB
1
3
5
7
.
4
0
F
L
1
3
5
8
.
0
7
T
C
1
1
+
0
1
.
7
0
S
P
R
IN
G
S
R
O
A
D
M
U
R
R
IE
T
A
H
O
T
S
T
.
L
I
G
H
T
1
3
5
7
.
0
5
F
L
1
3
5
7
.
5
5
T
C
1
0
+
8
6
.
7
7
E
C
R
1
3
5
7
.
3
9
F
L
1
2
5
8
.
0
6
T
C
1
1
+
0
1
.
3
4
E
C
1357.23 FL
1357.73 TC
11+01.34 EC
1
3
6
1
.
6
7
F
S
1
3
5
7
.
6
7
F
S
1
3
5
5
.
7
1
F
S
1
2
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
+
5
1
.
0
9
G
B
(-2
.
6
7%
)
1
3
5
5
.
5
5
F
L
1
0
+
4
6
.
0
9
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
IN
G
(
13
5
5
.7
1
F
S
)
10
+4
1.0
9
G
B
1
1
+
8
0
.
1
3
B
C
1
0
+
8
6
.
7
7
E
C
R
1
1
+
0
1
.
3
4
E
C
50' VC
PARTIAL
1
3
6
0
.
7
6
T
C
1
3
+
4
0
.
8
0
E
C
1
3
6
5
.
5
3
T
C
1
1
+
0
1
.
3
4
E
C
1
3
5
7
.
7
3
T
C
1
3
5
7
.
5
5
T
C
1
3
5
8
.
0
6
T
C
27.39' VC
@ |/4
1
2
+
3
1
.
1
7
B
V
C
2
|
/
4
27.39' VC
|
/
4
1
3
6
3
.
4
7
T
C
3
|
/
4
1
3
6
5
.
1
7
T
C
1
3
6
4
.
3
7
T
C
CURB RETURN
|/4=13.69'
L=54.77'
1
3
6
2
.
8
0
T
C
1
3
6
5
.
5
3
T
C
G2=7.47%
G1=4.00%
PI=1363.35
G2=1.00%
G1=7.47%
@ 10+41.08
PI=1365.39
1
3
6
6
.
0
6
T
C
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
4.00%
1
3
5
8
.
5
8
T
C
1
1
+
2
1
.
5
1
E
V
C
4.00%
G2=4.00%
G1=1.43%
@ 10+96.51
PI=1357.58
1
3
5
6
.
4
0
T
C
1
3
5
8
.
6
4
T
C
1
1
+
2
3
.
0
0
E
V
C
4.00%
G2=4.00%
G1=4.96%
@ 10+98.00
PI=1357.47
50' VC
3
|
/
4
2
|
/
4
|
/
4
L=9.67'
(
13
5
2
.8
2
T
C
)
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
CURB RETURN
|/4=13.11'
L=52.44'
4.66%
L=26.91'
L=17.79'
L=41.04'L=28.41'
1
2
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
6
1
.
5
5
T
C
1.00%
1.00%
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED 20' RT 4" ROLLED CURB
4" ROLLED CURB
PROPOSED 20' LT
TO 4" ROLLED CURB
TRANSITION 6" CURB
1
3
6
1
.
7
0
T
C
1
3
6
5
.
0
2
T
C
1
3
6
6
.
0
6
T
C
1
3
6
5
.
6
3
T
C
1
3
6
2
.
3
2
T
C
1
3
6
3
.
5
7
T
C
B
V
C
E
V
C
E
C
50' VC
PI=1363.20
G1=3.50%
G2=1.50%
L=41.04'
1
3
6
3
.
0
3
T
C
B
C
L=123.01'
1.50%
3.50%
1
3
6
0
.
0
6
T
C
1
3
6
0
.
2
9
T
C
1
1
+
5
8
.
4
7
1
1
+
6
8
.
4
7
1
3
6
0
.
0
6
T
C
1
3
6
0
.
2
9
T
C
1
1
+
5
8
.
4
7
1
1
+
6
8
.
4
7
TRANSITION 6" CURB TO 4" ROLLED CURB
PROPOSED 20' RT 6" CURB AND GUTTER
4.00%
1
3
5
9
.
1
1
T
C
1
3
5
8
.
2
3
T
C
1
3
5
7
.
4
0
T
C
-
5.
7
5
%
M
A
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
(
13
5
9
.9
4
T
C
)
3
|
/
4
2
|
/
4|
/
4
CURB RETURN
|/4=15.29'
L=61.16'
B
C
R
L=14.44'
B
V
C
L=86.07'
CROWNLINE
4.08%
G2=1.00%
G1=4.08%
PI=1365.40
50' VC36.07'
1
2
+
3
1
.
1
7
G
B
1
3
6
6
.
1
8
F
S
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
L=52.84'
CENTERLINE
1355.61 IE
1378.98 FL
1355.20 IE
1357.82 FL 1358.98 FL
|
/
4
2
|
/
4
3
|
/
4
|/4=24.07'
L=96.26'
1
3
6
3
.
9
3
T
C
1
3
6
4
.
2
9
T
C
1
3
6
4
.
6
5
T
C
23.25'
|
/
2
1
3
6
4
.
3
8
F
S
1
3
6
2
.
9
1
F
S
1
3
6
5
.
6
5
F
S
1
3
6
5
.
2
1
F
S
B
V
C
/
B
C
R
1357.82 FL
P
R
C
/
G
B
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
E
V
C
1.50%1.50%
3.50%
4.0%
2.33%
1
3
+
4
0
.
8
0
E
V
C
/
E
C
1
3
5
7
.
7
2
F
S
1
3
5
9
.
2
4
T
C
4.00% 1
1
+
3
7
.
9
7
C
B
C
L
1
1
+
3
7
.
9
7
C
B
C
L
1
3
5
9
.
2
4
T
C
4.00%
2.33% -
5.
7
5
% 1.0%10.0%4.06%
6.18%10.0%
2.43%
(
1
3
5
6
.
8
0
F
S
)
1
5
3
+
6
4
.
3
6
M
U
R
I
E
T
A
H
O
T
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
D
.
1
+
0
0
.
0
0
R
O
R
I
P
A
U
G
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
1
0
+
0
0
.
0
0
N
O
R
T
H
R
O
R
I
P
A
U
G
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
10' CURB TRANSITION
10' CURB
E
C B
C
(-
5.
7
1
%)
(4.48%)
TRANSITION
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
6
.
8
8
T
C
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
6
.
8
6
T
C
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
6
.
9
0
T
C
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
4
.
4
6
T
C
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
4
.
4
4
T
C
0
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
4
.
4
8
T
C
6.87%
1
0
+
7
3
.
0
0
B
V
C
/
E
C
R
/
G
B
1
1
+
0
1
.
3
4
E
C
1
3
5
5
.
5
9
T
C
6
"
C
U
R
B
1
3
5
3
.
2
7
T
C
1
3
5
4
.
1
7
T
C
6
"
C
U
R
B
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
RW
PUE
RW
PUE
PROPOSED SEWER PER EMWD WO77-423
EMWD WO 77-423
PROPOSED WATER PER
ORNO.RADIUS LENGTHDELTA BRG.
CENTERLINE DATA
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
N
O
.
3
1
2
3
PLACE MIN 0.33' A.C. OVER MIN. O.5' CLASS II C.A.B. PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD NO. 115
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
CONSTRUCT TYPE "C" CURB PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 202
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED SIDEWALK (5' WIDE) PER CITY OF TEMECULA MODIFIED STD. NO. 401
8
9
S 87°10'30" W 216.33'
ORNO.RADIUS LENGTHDELTA BRG.TANGENT
CURB DATA
N 61°38'42" E 49.99'
S 87°10'30" W 107.43'
M
A
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
N
O
.
3
4
12
RT 1370
14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00
LT 1370
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
CL 1370
TANGENT1
0
10
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD STA 13+93.64 TO 17+97.14
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT. FOR SEPARATE ELECTRICAL PLAN SEE LD21-4685
205°31'48" 38.00' 136.31' -1.00'
25°31'48" 110.00' 49.01' 24.92'
3°34'28" 2980.00' 185.91' 92.98'
3°34'28" 3020.00' 188.41' 94.23'
N 2°49'30" W 18.00'
25°31'48" 184.35' 82.14' 41.76'
N 87°10'30" E 216.34'
3°34'28" 3000.00' 187.16' 93.61'
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Himp04.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
VERT 1" = 4'
HORIZ 1" =40'
PROFILE:
11
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
X
PLANNING AREA 10
TRACT MAP 37925
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
14 15
16
17
1370.21 FS
17+97.14
2 3 4 5 6 7
8910111213
1 2
3
1365.73 FL
1366.06 TC
EC/BC
1365.73 FL
1366.06 TC
12
12
ST. LIGHT
5
0
'
4
0
'
2
0
'
2
0
'
3
'
5
'
5
'
3
'
12
72.00'60.64'52.96'70.00'46.79'
42.96'6
3.
24'
'
5
1
.
0
5
'58.04
42.39'70.00'
70.00'33.95'35.55'69.50'69.50'
ST. LIGHT
16+14.75
1369.77 FL
1370.10 TC
17+97.14 BC
1367.60 FL
1367.93 TC
EC
1367.60 FL
1367.93 TC
EC
1368.68 FL
1369.01 TC
16+88.24 BC
1369.60 FL
1369.93 TC
EC
1369.13 FL
1369.46 TC
EC
ST. LIGHT
14+54.79
20
21
2
2
23
24
25
26
7
8
9
2 1.00%
1368.05 FS
15+80.80 EC
1366.18 FS
1370.40 TC
HP
1369.42 FS
17+17.69
1370.61 FS
HP
1370.34 FS
BVC
1.00%
1
3
6
9
.
2
4
F
S
1
3
6
8
.
2
4
F
S
1
3
6
7
.
2
4
F
S
1
3
6
6
.
2
4
F
S 1
7
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
6
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
5
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
4
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
6
6
.
0
6
T
C
1
3
6
9
.
0
1
T
C
1
6
+
8
8
.
2
4
B
C
1.00%
1
5
+
8
0
.
8
0
E
C
1
5
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
6
7
.
1
2
T
C
1
3
6
7
.
9
3
T
C
1
6
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
6
8
.
1
2
T
C 1
3
7
0
.
2
5
T
C
1
3
7
0
.
3
6
T
C
1
3
7
0
.
1
0
T
C
0.93%
-0.50%
G2=-0.50%
G1=0.93%
PI=1370.48
50' VC
B
V
C
E
V
C
1
3
7
0
.
1
0
T
C
1.00%
1
5
+
8
0
.
8
0
E
C
1
4
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
5
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
6
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
7
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
6
6
.
1
2
T
C
1
3
6
7
.
1
2
T
C
1
3
6
7
.
9
3
T
C
1
3
6
8
.
1
2
T
C
1
3
6
9
.
1
2
T
C
1
3
7
0
.
1
9
2.00%
G2=2.10%
G1=1.00%
PI=1369.67
50' VC
@ L=25.00'
1
3
6
9
.
7
4
F
S L=7.14'
H
P 1
3
7
0
.
1
5
E
P
CROWNLINE L=82.14'
1
7
+
1
7
.
6
9
B
V
C
1
3
6
6
.
1
8
F
S
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
1
3
6
6
.
0
6
T
C
E
C E
C
1
3
6
9
.
4
6
T
C
1
2
6
9
.
9
3
T
C
L=51.63'
L=136.32'
@ L=25'
L=50.00'L=49.01'
L=34.69'
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
P
R
C
/
G
B
1
3
+
9
3
.
6
4
PROPOSED CENTERLINE
PROPOSED 20' LT 4" ROLLED CURB
PROPOSED 20' RT 4" ROLLED CURB
EXISTING GROUND
H
P
1
3
7
0
.
4
0
T
C
31.87'
IDENTICAL POINT
1
3
7
0
.
3
9
T
C
|
/
2
E
V
C
1
3
6
8
.
0
5
T
C
1
5
+
8
0
.
8
0
E
C
1.00%
1.00%
1.00% 1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00% 1.00%
0.93%
0.93%
2
2
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00% 1.00%
50' VC
@ L=25.00'
L=11.25'
G1=2.10%
G2=2.00%
PI=1370.87
E
V
C
1
3
6
9
.
4
2
F
S
B
V
C
1
3
7
0
.
3
4
1
3
7
0
.
3
6
F
S
1
3
7
0
.
6
1
F
S
1
7
+
9
7
.
1
4
B
C
/
G
B
1
7
+
9
7
.
1
4
B
C
/
G
B
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
R/W
LOT LINE
R/W
1358.61 FL
1359.11 TC
BCR
1359.23 FS
1359.35 FS
1357.92 FS
1357.65 FS
1356.51 FL
1356.90 FL
1357.40 TC
3|/4
1357.73 FS
1358.23 TC
|/4
1357.05 FL
1357.55 TC
10+86.77 ECR
1354.46 FL
1353.39 FS
1353.51 FS
1355.55 FL
1355.90 FL
1356.40 TC
10+73.00 ECR
1355.09 FL
1355.59 TC
3|/4
1353.67 FL
1354.17 TC
|/4
1352.77 FL
1353.27 TC
BCR
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD
1354.72 FS
5.45%
4.80%
1
.
4
3
%
4
.
9
6
%
6.5
9
%
2
.
0
0
%
1
.
3
3
%
7.33%
2
.
0
0
%
1
.
6
7
%
2
.
0
0
%
2
.
0
0
%
2.00%
2.00%
7.90
%
2.99%
10.00%
4.0 6 %
JOIN EXISTING
(1352.32 FL)
(1352.82 TC)
JOIN EXISTING
(1353.20 FS)
JOIN EXISTING
(1353.10 FS)
JOIN EXISTING
(1360.37 FS)
JOIN EXISTING
(1360.29 FS)
JOIN EXISTING
1359.44 FL
1359.94 TC
7.05%
5.75%
1357.97 FS
1357.93 FS
4
.
0
0
%
1355.71 EP
NORTHWEST CURB RAMP
R=35.0'
|/4=15.29'
L=61.16'
CURB RETURN DATA
1.00
%
1.00%
1.33%
8.86%
1
.9
3
%
1.
6
8
%
1357.88 FS
12.89'4.00'5.46'5.03'
15.57'
21.12'
1.0
0
%
2
5 0 5 10
SCALE: 1" = 5'
NORTHEAST CURB RAMP
R=35.0'
|/4=13.11'
L=52.44'
CURB RETURN DATA
13
1354.68 FS
6
.87%
2.
4
3
%
10.00
%
6
.
1
8
%
9.5
7
%
8.5
9
%
1.00
%1.00%
1.81%6.22%
6.81%
3
.
4
1
%
4.00'5.60'5.05'
18.6
0'
1354.67 FS
1354.63 FS
13.6
2'
2.99%
3.11%
1357.72 FS
11+01.34 EC
5INTERSECTION DETAIL
57.40 FL
58.07 TC
11+01.70
D
A
O
R
Y
E
L
L
A
V
H
G
U
A
P
I
R
O
R
H
T
R
O
N
1356.50 FS
4.69%
6.
9
3
%
5.49
%
4.66%
0.30
%
2.63%
5.38%
6.25%
5.75%
1356.80 FS
PER PLAN LD02-208CO
153+64.36 MURIETA HOT SPRINGS RD.
1+00.00 RORIPAUGH VALLEY RD
10+00.00 NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
1
0
'
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
1357.56 FL
1358.23 TC
11+07.18
1357.29 FL
1357.95 TC
10+97.49
1
0
'
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
I
O
N
1357.91 FL
1358.41 TC
11+17.18
1357.54 FL
1358.11 FS
11+05.18
8
8
16
14
15
1
15
14
10.48'
1358.05 FS
1358.17 FS
1358.51 FS
11
CURB DATA
ORNO.DELTA BRG.RADIUS LENGTH REMARK
99°32'29" 35.00' 60.81' 41.37' 2
13 85°50'8" 35.00' 52.44' 32.54'
14
14
2
2
14
14
4
2.0
%
2
4
PLACE MIN 0.33' A.C. OVER MIN. O.5' CLASS II C.A.B. PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD NO. 115
CONSTRUCT TYPE "C" CURB PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 202
8 CONSTRUCT CURB RAMP PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 402
11
14 CONSTRUCT TYPE "A-6" CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 200
15 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK (5' WIDE) PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 401
16 CONSTRUCT CURB OUTLET PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 301
1
0" CURB
1354.48 FS/TC
0" CURB
1354.46 FS
2|/4
0" CURB
1354.44 FS/TC
0" CURB
1356.86 FS/TC/LP
0" CURB
1356.90 FS/TC
0" CURB
1356.88 FS
2|/4
6
"
T
O
8
"
C
U
R
B
6
"
T
O
8
"
C
U
R
B
1356.81 FS
1356.77 FS5.00'4.00'
2.
9
6
%
1354.47 FS
1354.43 FS
5.00'4.00'1.00
%0.20%
1.90
%1.00%
0.15%
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CURB TRANSITION PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. NO. 213 & DETAIL SHEET 2
DETAIL A24D AND DETAIL ON SHEET 2
INSTALL WHITE "STOP" LEGEND (THERMOPLASTIC) PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
CITY OF TEMECULA
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
x
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883H09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Himp05.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
NSG
NSG
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
TRACT MAP 37925
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
ST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
13651365
1365
1
3
6
5
13
6
5
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1
3
6
51365
13701370
1370
1
3
7
0
1
3
7
0
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MHX
MHX
X
X
P
BX
X
X
P
BXP
BX
X
P
BX
XP
BXP
BXP
BX
X
X
X
X
P
BX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXX
X
X
P
BX
X
P
BX
X
X
X
X
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
LINE A
LAT C-1
LINE B
LINE C
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
PROPERTY
TC
CL
TOP OF CURB
CENTERLINE
WATWATER
SDSTORM DRAIN
SEWER SEW
R/WRIGHT OF WAY
SEWER LINE
WATER LINE
R/W
FENCE
STORM DRAIN DATA NO.
CONSTRUCTION NOTE ITEM NO.
XX
BC
EC
BEGIN CURVE
END CURVE
INVERT ELEVATION IE
EXISTING EX
STORM DRAIN
FINISHED SURFACE FS
CLEARANCE CLR
SLOPE S
PROPOSED PROP
POINT OF REVERSING CURVE PRC
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE RCP
FIBER OPTIC LINE
ELECTRIC LINE
xx
FLOW LINE DIRECTION
LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
32
34
35
36
37
S
W
FO
E
33
31
WATER SURFACE WS
DUMPING DRAINS TO LAKE") ON ALL CATCH BASINS.
3"X5 1/4"DAS MANUFACTURING INC. DURACAST STORM DRAIN MARKER MODEL #NDL ("NO
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CB NO.1 PER RCFC&WCD STD CB100 (V AND W PER PLAN). INSTALL
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED LOCAL DEPRESSION NO. 2 PER RCFC&WCD STD LD201 (CASE PER PLAN)
STORM DRAIN NOTES AND QUANTITIES
213 LF
717 LF
2 EA
1 EA
1 EA
F. THE MINIMUM GRADE FOR CONCRETE SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE A ONE-HALF PERCENT (0.5%).
THE LIMITS OF EASEMENTS.
E. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS; NO BUILDING OR WALLS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN
PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT.
D. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING
PONDING WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.
MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT ADJOINING AND DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND
C. TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDE UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE
NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE PERMITTED.
B. EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO OBSTRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR
THE APPROVED PLANS.
AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE TOP OF SLOPES. ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER
ALONG THE TOP OF ALL GRADED SLOPES OVER THREE FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO GRADED
A. AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR STORM FLOWS OR PROVIDE GRADED BERMS
DRAINAGE NOTES
STORM DRAIN CROSSING WATER
STORM DRAIN CROSSING SEWER
WAT
SEW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8910111213
LOT 14
WQ+HMP
CONSTRUCT 18" RCP (D-LOAD PER PROFILE)
38 CONSTRUCT 100 YEAR OVERFLOW WEIR PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
39
40 3 EA
1 EA41
42 2 EA
87 LF
2 EA
7
9
8
6
60 0 60
SCALE: 1" = 60'
120
INDEX MAP
1"=60'
43 CONSTRUCT 24" RCP (D-LOAD PER PROFILE)30 LF
14 CY
CONSTRUCT MH NO.1 PER RCFC&WCD STD MH251
INSTALL 8" HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE
44 INSTALL 24"X24" BROOKS BOX, OR APPROVED EQUAL 1 EA
45 1 EA
1 EA
INSTALL UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT PER RCFC&WCD LID HANDBOOK
STORM DRAIN INDEX
MURR
IETA
HOT
SPR
INGS
ROAD
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL RCFC&WCD
DAOR YELLAV HGUAPIROR HTRON
PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE FOREBAY AND BAFFLE WALL WITH SLOT OPENINGS
INSTALL 8" ADS HDPE 45° BEND, OR APPROVED EQUAL
INSTALL 8" PVC PERFORATED SUBDRAIN
CONSTRUCT STRAIGHT HEADWALL, PER CALTRANS STD NO.D89
INSTALL 1/4 TON RIPRAP (D=3.3 FEET) OVER CLASS B FILTER FABRIC
INSTALL RCFC&WCD CB110 CONCRETE DROP INLET (W,A,V PER PLAN), MODIFIED FOR ADDED DEPTH
MHX
MHX
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883C09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hsd06.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSCITY OF TEMECULA
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TRACT MAP 37925
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
1355
13
6
0
1360
1
3
6
5
1365
1365
1365
1
3
7
0
B
X
PB
X
PB
X
PB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXX
X
X
X
LINE A
R/W
LINE B
1354.37 TOP SD
1358.54 BOT WAT
8" SD X-ING 8" WAT
1353.98 TOP WAT
1355.34 BOT SD
18" SD X-ING 8" SEW
1349.42 TOP SEW
1355.13 BOT SD
18" SD X-ING 8" SEW
1352.94 TOP SD
1354.29 BOT SEW
8" SD X-ING 8" SEW
IE/GB
1352.00
10+95.30
1355.18 IE
10+29.96 LINE B
PER EMWD WO 77-423
PROP. 8" SEWER
PER EMWD WO 77-423
PROP 8" WATER
1351.43 IE
1357.10 TG
10+00.00 LINE A
1351.33 IE
10+28.51 LAT C-1
@ CL OF SD
PROP. FS
1354.35 TF
1357.85 TW
@ CL OF SD
PROP. FS
100-YR HGL
1254.86 FL
1354.56 FL
1354.86 FL
1354.56 FL
SHEET 9
SUBDRAIN SEE
8" PERFORATED
@ CL OF SD
PROP. FS
BOT SEW
1354.29
BOT WAT
1358.54
100-YR HGL
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
ORNO.RADIUS LENGTHDELTA BRG.
STORM DRAIN DATA
REMARK
1
2
3 18" RCP
18" RCP
8" HDPE
10+00 11+00
1350
1360
1370
1360
1370
1350
10+00 11+00
1350
1360
1370
1350
1360
1370
LATERAL C-1
24" RCP
18" RCP
LINE B
7
4
9
8" HDPE10
N 87°54'27" W 41.00'
N 87°54'27" W 41.00'
N 46°05'05" W 28.51'
N 44°13'46" W 95.29'
N 00°46'14" E 117.31'
STORM DRAIN LINE A, LINE B & LAT C-1
10+00 11+00
LINE A
12+00
STORM DRAIN NOTES
INSTALL 8" HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE
CONSTRUCT 18" RCP (D-LOAD PER PROFILE)
STORM DRAIN MARKER MODEL #NDL ("NO DUMPING DRAINS TO LAKE") ON ALL CATCH BASINS.
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED CB NO.1 PER RCFC&WCD STD CB100 (V AND W PER PLAN). INSTALL 3"X5 1/4"DAS MANUFACTURING INC. DURACAST
CONSTRUCT MODIFIED LOCAL DEPRESSION NO. 2 PER RCFC&WCD STD LD201 (CASE PER PLAN)
PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE FOREBAY AND BAFFLE WALL WITH SLOT OPENINGS
CONSTRUCT STRAIGHT HEADWALL, PER CALTRANS STD NO.D89
CONSTRUCT 100 YEAR OVERFLOW WEIR PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
INSTALL 8" PVC PERFORATED SUBDRAIN
CONSTRUCT 24" RCP (D-LOAD PER PROFILE)
INSTALL 24"X24" BROOKS BOX, OR APPROVED EQUAL
INSTALL 8" ADS HDPE 45° BEND, OR APPROVED EQUAL
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
43
44
45
INSTALL 1/4 TON RIPRAP (D=3.3 FEET) OVER CLASS B FILTER FABRIC
INSTALL RCFC&WCD CB110 CONCRETE DROP INLET (W,A,V PER PLAN), MODIFIED FOR ADDED DEPTH
LINES A, B, & LATERAL C-1
1370
1360
1350
1370
1360
1350CATCH BASIN
IDENTICAL
N 79°7'27" W 29.96'
PROFILE SCALE:
VERT: 1"=4'
HORIZ: 1"=40'
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883C09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hsd07.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSCITY OF TEMECULA
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 36285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TRACT MAP 37341
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
ST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
M
H
X
M
H
X
31
32
38
41
33 34
34 33
36
1358.77 IE
1361.77 TG
12+12.61 LINE A
1348.64 IE
1357.10 TG
10+00.00 LAT C-1
1
2
4
910
43
32
S=0.0577
S=0.0063
44
M
U
R
R
IE
T
A
H
O
T
S
P
R
IN
G
S
R
O
A
D
45
37
12
11
10
1
3
1
4
VALLEY ROAD
NORTH RORIPAUGH
31
35
DEPRESSION CASE B)
(W=28', V=2.99', LOCAL
VALLEY ROAD
20.5' LT NORTH RORIPAUGH
11+37.97 CB
DEPRESSION CASE B)
(W=28', V=3.42', LOCAL
VALLEY ROAD
20.5 RT NORTH RORIPAUGH
11+37.97 CB
15
16
TF=1357.81'
A=3.5'
L=16.05'
1354.85 IE
10+00.00 LINE B
1
3
5
4
.
8
5
I
E
1
0
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
5
5
.
1
8
I
E
1
3
5
5
.
2
0
I
E
1
3
5
5
.
6
1
I
E
S=0.0100
33
33
36
35
41 LF
HOA MAINTAINED
VMAX=7.45 FPS
Q100=14.8 CFS
D-LOAD=2000
24" RCP
HOA MAINTAINED
VMAX=2.32 FPS
(4.1 CFS/PIPE)
Q100=8.2 CFS
D-LOAD=2000
2-18" RCP
1
'
M
I
N37
C
B
C
B
(
W
=
2
8
'
,
V
=
2
.
9
9
'
)
1
3
5
9
.
2
4
T
C
R
O
R
I
P
A
U
G
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
2
0
.
5
'
L
T
N
O
R
T
H
1
1
+
3
7
.
9
7
(
W
=
2
8
'
,
V
=
3
.
4
2
'
)
1
3
5
9
.
2
4
T
C
R
O
R
I
P
A
U
G
H
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
2
0
.
5
R
T
N
O
R
T
H
1
1
+
3
7
.
9
7
1
0
+
2
9
.
9
6
1
0
+
3
1
.
9
6
1
0
+
7
2
.
9
6
S=0.0110
29.96 LF
41
VMAX=10.67 FPS
Q100=17.1 CFS
18" RCP
W
=
4
'
,
A
=
8
'
,
V
=
8
.
4
6
'
1
3
5
7
.
1
0
T
G
38
W
=
4
.
5
'
,
A
=
4
.
5
'
,
V
=
5
.
6
7
'
1
3
5
7
.
1
0
T
G
1
0
+
2
8
.
5
1
1
3
5
1
.
3
3
I
E
L
A
T
C
-
1
1
0
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
4
8
.
6
4
I
E
28.51 LF
HOA MAINTAINED
D-LOAD=2000
39S=0.094
41
W
=
4
.
5
'
,
A
=
4
.
5
'
,
V
=
5
.
6
7
'
1
3
5
7
.
1
0
T
G
1
0
+
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
5
1
.
4
3
I
E
44
S=0.0577
S=0.006
1
3
5
2
.
0
0
I
E
/
G
B
1
0
+
9
5
.
3
0
1
2
+
1
2
.
6
1
1
3
5
8
.
7
7
I
E
1
3
6
1
.
7
7
T
G
212.61 LF 8" HDPE
VMAX=8.76 FPS
Q100=1.8 CFS
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
1
3
5
5
1
3
6
0
1
3
6
0
1365 1365
1365
1
3
6
5
13
6
5
1
3
6
5
1370 1370
1370
1
3
7
0
B
X X X
X
X
MHX
X
X
P
BX
X
X
P
B
X P
BX
X
P
BX
X
P
BXP
BX P
BX
X
X
X
P
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
P
BX
X
P
BX
X
X
X
X
DAYLIGHT LINE
FOR DETAIL
SEE SHEET 7
LINE B
FOR DETAIL
SEE SHEET 7
LAT C-1
RCP
EXIST 18"
PER LD05-159CO
DRAIN LINE "M8-E"
EXISTING STORM
UTILITIES
CITY IRRIGATION
PROTECT IN PLACE
PER LD05-159CO
DRAIN LINE "M8-D"
EXISTING STORM
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
REQUIRE VIDEO OF EXISTING STORM DRAIN
AND REMOVE AS NECESSARY. CITY WILL
UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING
100-YR HGL
OF SD
FS @ CL
S=0.262
S=0.096
@ CL OF SD
PROP. FS
100-YR HGL
1354.56 FL
1354.86 FL
1354.56 FL
1354.86 FL
SEE SHEET 7
LAT C-1
1357.1 FL
1357.1 FL
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
ORNO.RADIUS LENGTHDELTA BRG.
STORM DRAIN DATA
REMARK
5
6
7
8
18" RCP
18" RCP
18" RCP
18" RCP
IDENTICAL POINT
LINE C LINE C10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00
1310
1320
1330
1360
1350
13401340
1350
1360
1310
1320
1330
32 CONSTRUCT 18" RCP (D-LOAD PER PROFILE)
38
STORM DRAIN NOTES
8
1340 1340
N 09°22'50" W 160.69'
N 87°01'46" E 314.67'
N 1°37'15" E 56.85'
94°35'29" 45.00' 74.29'
42 CONSTRUCT MH NO.1 PER RCFC&WCD STD MH251
41
CONSTRUCT 100 YEAR OVERFLOW WEIR PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
STORM DRAIN LINE C
12" W
24" W
12" W
24" W
12"
W
24"
W
18
"
W
2
4
"
W
SD
INSTALL RCFC&WCD CB110 CONCRETE DROP INLET (W,A,V PER PLAN), MODIFIED FOR ADDED DEPTH
PROFILE SCALE:
VERT: 1"=4'
HORIZ: 1"=40'
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883C09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hsd08.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSCITY OF TEMECULA
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 36285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TRACT MAP 37341
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLAN
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
ST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
MHX
MHX
15+53.72 EC
14+79.43 BC
32
38
32
42
1348.64 IE
1357.10 TG
16+10.57 LINE C
6 7
8
5
CL MH NO.111+62.72
10+72.44 GB
MURR
IETA
HOT
SPR
INGS
ROAD
1
2
1
1
10
32
32
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
N
O
R
T
H
R
O
R
I
P
A
U
G
H
41
(1311.53 IE)
RIM ELEV. 1321.78
JOIN EXIST LINE "M8"
15+55.50 LINE "M8"
10+00.00 LINE C
1
0
1
1
12
13
14 15
1
6
(1320.09 INV)
PER LD05-159CO
END 18" RCP
R
I
M
E
L
E
V
. 13
2
1.7
8
P
E
R
L
D
0
5
-
15
9
C
0
15
+5
5
.5
0
L
I
N
E
M
8
E
X
I
S
T
M
H
N
O
. 1
10+00.00
1
0
+
7
2
.
4
4
1
1
+
6
0
.
6
9
HOA MAINTAINED
D-LOAD=2000
160.69 LF 18" RCP
JOIN EXIST
(1311.53 IE)
4
2
R
I
M
E
L
E
V
.
1
3
6
1
.
4
1
0
+
7
4
.
4
4
C
L
M
H
N
O
.
1
1
3
1
8
.
1
0
I
E
1
3
1
8
.
4
7
I
E
1
0
+
7
6
.
9
3
VMAX=25.42 FPS
Q100=17.1 CFS
1
3
3
9
.
5
8
I
E
4
2
R
I
M
E
L
E
V
.
1
3
6
1
.
4
1
1
+
6
2
.
7
2
C
L
M
H
N
O
.
1
HOA MAINTAINED
D-LOAD =2000
1
1
+
6
0
.
6
9
1
1
+
6
4
.
7
6
1
4
+
7
9
.
4
3
B
C
1
5
+
5
3
.
7
2
E
C
1
6
+
1
0
.
5
7
38
445.81 LF 18" RCP
41
VMAX=9.68 FPS
Q100=17.1 CFS
W
=
4
'
,
A
=
8
'
,
V
=
8
.
4
6
'
1
3
5
7
.
1
0
T
G
1
3
3
9
.
5
8
I
E
1
3
3
9
.
6
6
I
E
1
3
4
6
.
0
0
I
E
1
3
4
7
.
4
9
I
E
1
3
4
8
.
6
4
I
E
S=0.0201
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
1355
1360
1365
1365
1365
B
X
PBX
PBX
PBX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6" PERFORATED PIPE
1-2(1/8)" LOW-FLOW RESTRICTOR
ENGINEER RECOMMENDATIONS)
(PER GEOTECHNICAL
FILTER FABRIC
1352.86 IE
1351.98 IE
SEE SHEET 7 FOR DETAIL
LINE B
1351.43 IE
1357.1 TG
1351.33 IE (LAT C-1)
1360.35 FG
1360.35 FG
1354.85 FG
1354.85 FG
1354.85 FG 1354.85 FG
DAYLIGHT LINE
PROP. R/W
1351.40 IE 8"
PLAN
STORM DRAIN
18" RCP PER
FL
1354.86
1354.56 FL 1354.56 FL
TG 1357.1
PER CB104
GRATE
1348.64 IE
1360.35 FG
1360.35 FG
1360.35 FG
V=8.02'
A=4.5'
W=4.5'
1351.40 IE 8"
SEE SHEET 7 FOR DETAIL
LINE A
SEE SHEET 7 FOR DETAIL
LINE B
1357.1 TG
(4X4 BOX STRUCTURE)
GRATE INLET
FL
1357.1
CB110
WITH GRATE PER
CATCH BASIN
1357.1 FS
1358.42 FS
1354.56 FL1354.56 FL1354.86 FL 1354.86 FL
1357.1 FS
1358.42 FS
FL PER PLAN
NETTING
1.5"X1.5" 17 GA. STUCCO
CONCRETE W/
P.S.I, AIR PLACED
CONCRETE OR 6" 2500
6" CLASS 560-C-3250
SEE SHEET 7 FOR DETAIL
LAT C-1
TO MATCH FL OF UNDERDRAIN PIPE
DRILL HOLE FOR LOW- FLOW
PVC CAP
PENETRATION
ENSURE WATER TIGHT
GROUT AS NECESSARY TO
PLEASE SEE SHEET 9
FOR SIZE AND SLOPE
PERFORATED PVC PIPESEE SHEET 8 FOR DETAIL
LINE C
1351.18 FG1351.18 FG
TG 1357.1
PER CB104
GRATE
TWO SIDES
W/ 2.5'x4' INLET ON
W=4, A=8, V=8.46'
FOR ADDED DEPTH
MODIFIED CB110
1355.35 WSE
1355.35 IE
4-5.0" MID FLOW
1356.35 IE
4-8.0" MID FLOW
1354.85 FG1354.85 FG
BASIN DETAIL SHEET
OPEN GRADED STONE)
8" GRAVEL LAYER(NO. 57
24" BIORETENTION MEDA SOIL
3" HARDWOOD MULCH
6" WATER QUALITY PONDING
3" C33 FINE AGGREGATE SAND
3" NO.8 STONE
B
-NOT TO SCALE
3" WIDE SLOT
1
2
"
1
8
"
FILL
90% COMPACTED
1354.85 FS
1355.85 FS
6"
1
2
"
37
1354.85 FS
1355.85 FS
1:1 MA
X
1
'
M
I
N
A
-NOT TO SCALE
MEDIA
BIO-FILTRATION
24" MIN
NOT TO SCALE
BAFFLE WALL WITH SLOT OPENINGS DETAIL
TYPICAL CONCRETE FORBAY AND
OPEN GRADED STONE)
3" DEAD STORAGE (NO. 57
DETENTION
21" HMP &
3
:
1
3
:
1
3:1
3:1
2:1
40
40
39
1348.64 IE
1357.10 TG
39
73.04'29.28'
A -
A
-
6'
3
:
1
2
:
1
12
'
10%
BENCH
3:1
3:1
R/W
3 :1
2
:1
PE = 1369.2
LOT 13
10'
35
37
38
39
40
41
35
ELEVATION VIEW
38
2
.
2
4
'
2%2.5'2%
38
41
2
.
2
4
'
FL
1354.86
37
20 0 20 40
SCALE: 1" = 20'
9
STORM DRAIN NOTES
39
38
6"
12"
FREEBOARD
CONVEYANCE
3.25'
M
U
R
R
IE
T
A
H
O
T
S
P
R
IN
G
S
R
O
A
D
FL
1357.1
DRAIN LINE "B"
24" RCP STORM
INSTALL UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT PER RCFC&WCD LID HANDBOOK
STUCCO NETTING
WITH 1.5"X1.5" 17 GA
BOTTOM OF 6" PCC SLAB
A -
B
-
5' M IN
10'
10'
L =D
IA
*4
M IN
2'
37
3" WIDE SLOT (TYP.)
2'
15'
PLAN VIEW
2%
15'
2%
15'
15'15'
4
'
8'
8'
1357.1 FS
1358.42 FS
41
38
CONSTRUCT 100 YEAR OVERFLOW WEIR PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
NORTH RORIPAUGH VALLEY ROAD
RECTANGULAR WEIR CHANNEL
6
"3:1
CONVEYANCE FLOW
HMP
38
V
A
R
I
E
S
V
A
R
I
E
S
N.T.S.
4'
0.5' MIN
41
FLOW
SEE SHEET 7
18" LATERAL C-1
S=0.020 S=0.020
STUCCO NETTING
1.5"X 1.5" 17 GA
6" PCC SLAB WITH
PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE FOREBAY AND BAFFLE WALL WITH SLOT OPENINGS
INSTALL 8" PVC PERFORATED SUBDRAIN
ROAD
ACCESS
8" PERFORATED PVC SUBDRAIN DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
39
1'
11'
1
2
"
1354.85 FS
1355.85 FS
6"
FS/IE
1354.85
37
1:1
M
A
X
1
'
M
I
N
MEDIA
BIO-FILTRATION
24" MIN
90% COMPACTED FILL
BOTTOM OF CUT-OFF WALL
CUT-OFF WALL
BOTTOM OF CUT-OFF WALL
6"6"
INSTALL 1/4 TON RIPRAP (D=3.3 FEET) OVER CLASS B FILTER FABRIC
FABRIC
FILTER
CLASS B
FABRIC
FILTER
CLASS B
MODIFIED FOR ADDED DEPTH
INSTALL RCFC&WCD CB110 CONCRETE DROP INLET (W,A,V PER PLAN),
(SUBGRADE=1351.18)
BMP-5
BOT. ELEV.=1354.85
HMP BASIN
PERMANENT BIOFILTRATION/
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883C09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hsd09.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSCITY OF TEMECULA
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TRACT MAP 37925
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
M
H
X
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
BIORETENTION BASIN SPECIFICATIONS
REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
THE WORK, SHALL BE REPAIRED, REALIGNED OR REPLACED AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S
5. PIPE THAT IS DAMAGED OR DISTURBED THROUGH ANY CAUSE PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF
BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
FOR INSTALLATION AND SHALL BE REPLACED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER AND AS DIRECTED
DETERMINED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AS UNREPAIRABLE, SHALL BE UNACCEPTABLE
4. PIPE WHICH IS DEFECTIVE FROM ANY CAUSE, INCLUDING DAMAGE CAUSED BY HANDLING, AND
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PIPE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
SHALL BE USED IN THE HANDLING OF THE PIPE. STORAGE OF PIPE ON THE JOB SHALL BE IN
SHOCK AND FREE FALL, AND ONLY EQUIPMENT OF SUFFICIENT CAPACITY AND PROPER DESIGN
3. STORAGE AND HANDLING OF PIPE - ALL PIPE SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST IMPACT,
AND BACKFILL SHALL GOVERN ALL WORK UNDER THIS SECTION.
2. EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL - THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 02305 - TRENCH EXCAVATION
AND GRADE. STRUCTURES SHALL BE ACCURATELY LOCATED AND PROPERLY ORIENTED.
TYPE AND SIZES SPECIFIED ON THE DRAWINGS AND SHALL BE LAID ACCURATELY TO LINE
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND/OR AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER. PIPE SHALL BE OF THE
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND PIPE IN THE LOCATIONS
A. GENERAL
3.04 UNDERDRAINAGE SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATIONS.
PENETRATIONS SHOULD BE SEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S
OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON, UNLESS OTHERWISE DETAILED ON PLANS. ALL LINER
E. NO PENETRATION OF THE LINER IS ALLOWED SUCH, AS FOR IRRIGATION PIPING PLANTING
TIGHT.
D. ALL SEAMS SHALL BE HEAT-WELDED OR AS DIRECTED BY THE MANUFACTURER AND WATER
PULL TIGHT.
HELP KEEP THE LINER DOWN. LEAVE THE LINER LOOSE FITTING IN THE INSTALLATION; DO NOT
LINER OUT OVER THE BASIN AREA, SECURE AREAS OF THE BASIN WITH SANDBAGS, ETC. TO
CROSSWISE ACROSS THE PERIMETER OF THE BASIN AREA. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PULL THE
AT ONE END OF THE BASIN AND THE LINER SHALL THEM BE PULLED OUT LENGTHWISE AND
C. THE LINER IS FOLDED IN AN ACCORDION STYLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE THE LINER
REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AT NO COST TO OWNER.
LINERS THAT HAVE BEEN DAMAGED IN TRANSIT OR IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS WILL BE
SUSPECT AREAS SHOULD BE NOTED AND MANUFACTURER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.
B. DURING THE UNFOLDING OF THE LINER IT SHOULD BE VISUALLY INSPECTED. DAMAGE OR
A. LINER SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
3.03 LINER
ALLOW INFILTRATION INTO THE UNDERLYING NATIVE SOIL.
ESPECIALLY FOR APPLICATIONS WITHOUT SUBDRAINS, AS THE INTENDED PURPOSE IS TO
MINIMIZE COMPACTION OF THE SUBGRADE FOR UNLINED BIORETENTION BASINS/SWALES,
DEPTH PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF BIORETENTION SOIL. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO
D. UNLINED BIORETENTION BASINS/SWALE SUBGRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED TO A SIX (6) INCH
(1) INCH. STANDING WATER AND MUD SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO LINER PLACEMENT.
ANGULAR ROCK, OR OTHER SHARP OBJECTS. SURFACE DEFORMATIONS SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE
SMOOTH, FIRM, AND UNYIELDING FOUNDATION. ALL SUBGRADE SURFACES SHALL BE FREE FROM
C. LINED BIORETENTION BASIN/SWALE SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO PROVIDE A
DETAILED ON THE PLANS.
B. TRENCH EXCAVATION FOR SUBDRAIN WIDTH REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE AS INDICATED AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT.
INDICATED ON THE GRADING PLANS AND OBTAIN AT LEAST THE DENSITY REQUIRED IN THE
A. BIORETENTION BASIN/SWALES SHALL BE EXCAVATED/GRADED TO THE SUBGRADES
3.02 EXCAVATION AND SUBGRADE OF BIORETENTION BASIN/SWALE
M. DISPOSE OF EXCESS EARTH MATERIAL FROM THE SITE.
DISPOSE OF AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
L. ALLOW NO DEBRIS TO ACCUMULATE ON-SITE. HAUL DEBRIS AWAY FROM THE SITE AND
AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.
FEDERAL OSHA REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL REGULATORY
K. SLOPING, SHORING, BRACING AND FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE END OF EACH DAY.
PROJECT'S GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ANY DISTURBED AREAS SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED AT
PLACE AND COMPACT THE SOIL WITHIN THE MOISTURE CONTENT RANGE DICTATED IN THE
CONTROL, AND MOISTURE CONTROL OF SOILS (E.G., WETTING OR DRYING, SCARIFYING) SO AS TO
WEATHER, PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEASURES FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE AND GROUND WATER
J. WHEN PERFORMING GRADING OPERATIONS DURING PERIODS OF PROLONGED WET OR DRY
ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, TESTS AND APPROVALS.
I. DO NOT PERFORM ANY WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECTION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF
PROPOSED SUBGRADE CONDITIONS INFERRED FROM THE DRAWINGS.
H. IDENTIFY REQUIRED LINES, LEVELS, CONTOURS AND DATUM TO BRING SITE GRADES TO THE
BACKFILLING.
OPINION OF OWNER OR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, IS UNSUITABLE OR UNDESIRABLE FOR
G. REMOVE FROM THE SITE MATERIAL ENCOUNTERED IN GRADING OPERATIONS THAT, IN
AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
REFERENCED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AND REPLACED, AS NECESSARY, BY THE SAME
DAMAGE OR DISPLACEMENT. IF A MARKER NEEDS TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED IT SHALL BE
F. PROTECT BENCHMARKS, PROPERTY CORNERS AND ALL OTHER SURVEY MONUMENTS FROM
EQUIPMENT AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
E. PROTECT FENCES, STRUCTURES, SIDEWALKS, PAVING, CURBS, ETC., TO REMAIN FROM
THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
D. NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES TO ALLOW REMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF ANY UTILITIES
FROM DAMAGE.
C. LOCATE AND IDENTIFY EXISTING UTILITIES THAT ARE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT THEM
TO COMMENCEMENT OF EARTHWORK.
EARTHWORK OPERATIONS AND FOR EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR
B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE EROSION CONTROL DRAWINGS FOR STAGING OF
THIS SECTION.
AS WELL AS THE SITE, SITE CONDITIONS, AND ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK FALLING WITHIN
THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. PRIOR TO BIDDING OF ALL WORK WITHIN THIS SECTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BECOME
3.01 GENERAL
PART 3 EXECUTION
PROPERTY
pH, UNITS
EC, DS/M
CHLORIDE, PPM
SODIUM ABSORPTION RATIO
CARBON TO NITROGEN RATIO
ORGANIC MATTER, % OF DRY WT
EXTRACTABLE NUTRIENTS
METHOD
SATURATION PASTE
SATURATION EXTRACT
LOSS ON IGNITION
REQUIREMENT
6.0 TO 8.0
0.5 TO 2.5
LESS THAN 800
LESS THAN 5.0
12 TO 40
2 TO 5
< 0.025
EXTRACT
SATURATED MEDIA
PHOSPHORUS, MG/L < 1
COPPER, MG/L
B. PIPE INSTALLATIONS
1. UNLOADING AND HANDLING: ALL PIPES SHALL BE UNLOADED AND HANDLED WITH
REASONABLE CARE. PIPES SHALL NOT BE ROLLED OR DRAGGED OVER GRAVEL OR ROCK
DURING HANDLING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO
ENSURE THE METHOD USED IN LIFTING OR PLACING THE PIPE DOES NOT INDUCE
STRESS FATIGUE IN THE PIPE, AND THAT THE LIFTING DEVICE UTILIZED UNIFORMLY
DISTRIBUTES THE WEIGHT OF THE PIPE ALONG ITS AXIS OR CIRCUMFERENCE.
2. EACH LENGTH OF PIPE SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR DEFECTS AND CRACKS BEFORE
BEING CAREFULLY LOWERED INTO THE TRENCH. ANY DAMAGED PIPE, OR ANY PIPE
THAT HAS HAD ITS GRADE DISTURBED AFTER LYING, SHALL BE REMOVED AND
REPLACED.
3. LAY PIPE ON PREPARED FOUNDATION STARTING AT THE DOWNGRADE END ACCORDING
TO LINE AND GRADE WITH THE NECESSARY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, FITTINGS, BENDS
AND APPURTENANCES AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. RIGID PIPES SHALL BE LAID WITH
THE BELL OR GROOVE ENDS UPGRADE WITH THE SPIGOT OR TONGUE FULLY INSERTED.
4. PIPE SECTIONS SHALL BE FIRMLY JOINED TOGETHER WITH APPROPRIATE GASKETS,
BANDS, OR JOINT COMPOUND PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH JOINTS
MADE WATERTIGHT.
5. PERFORATIONS SHALL BE PLACED CLOSEST TO THE INVERT OF THE PIPE (BOTTOM)
TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FOR DRAINING THE FACILITY. NO PERFORATIONS ARE
TO BE WITHIN 5' OF WHERE THE UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM CONNECTS TO A STORM DRAIN
STRUCTURE.
C. CLEANOUT AND OVERFLOW INSTALLATIONS
1. CLEANOUTS AND OVERFLOW STANDPIPE MUST CONSIST OF A RIGID NON-PERFORATED
PVC PIPE, MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) INCHES IN DIAMETER, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED
ON PLANS. CONNECTION TO PERFORATED PVC SUBDRAIN SHALL BE WITH A WYE TYPE
FITTING.
2. CLEANOUTS SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE UPSTREAM END OF THE UNDERDRAIN (AT
A MINIMUM, WITH OTHERS LOCATED ALONG THE SYSTEM WHERE SPECIFIED ON THE
PLAN), AND BE CAPPED FLUSH WITH THE FINISH GRADE ELEVATION OF THE BASINS AS
INDICATED ON THE PLANS. THE TOP OF THE WELL SHALL BE CAPPED WITH A SCREW
OR FLANGE-TYPE COVER TO DISCOURAGE VANDALISM AND TAMPERING.
3. OVERFLOWS SHALL BE LOCATED ALONG THE SYSTEM WHERE SPECIFIED ON THE
PLAN AND BE LOCATED FOUR (4) INCHES ABOVE THE FINISH GRADE ELEVATION OF THE
BASIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
D. GRAVEL PLACEMENT
1. INSTALL FOUR (4) INCHES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS, OF GRAVEL
STONE IN TRENCH PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAIN.
2. PLACEMENT OF THE GRAVEL OVER THE UNDERDRAIN MUST BE DONE WITH CARE.
AVOID DROPPING THE GRAVEL AT HIGH LEVELS FROM A BACKHOE OR FRONT-END
LOADER BUCKET. SPILL DIRECTLY OVER UNDERDRAIN AND SPREAD MANUALLY.
3.05 BIORETENTION SOIL PLACEMENT
A. IMPORTED BACKFILL MATERIAL FOR THE BIORETENTION ZONES SHOULD BE PLACED
IN A RELATIVELY LOOSE CONDITION, NO ROLLING OR OTHER HEAVY EQUIPMENT, TO
PROMOTE THE PLANNED INFILTRATION OF WATER THROUGH THE BIORETENTION SOIL
MIX LAYER.
B. BIORETENTION SOIL SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SIX (6) TO TWELVE (12) INCH LIFTS
AND LIGHTLY WATERED TO PROVIDE SETTLEMENT AND NATURAL COMPACTION. NO
MECHANICAL COMPACTION IS ALLOWED. AFTER NATURAL COMPACTION HAS BEEN
COMPLETED, ADD, IF NEEDED, ADDITIONAL BIORETENTION SOIL TO PROPOSED FINISH
GRADE AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
C. RAKE BIORETENTION SOIL AS NEEDED TO LEVEL IT OUT.
D. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT DRIVE-ON, MOVE ONTO,
OR DISTURB THE BIORETENTION SOIL ONCE PLACED AND WATER COMPACTED.
E. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL PERFORM AT LEAST ONE PERCOLATION TEST
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH PERCOLATION TESTING CRITERIA OR OTHER APPROVED METHODS IN SITU
PRIOR TO PLANTING THE BIORETENTION AREA (THE ENGINEER OF WORK MAY REQUIRE
MORE THAN ONE IN SITU TEST DEPENDING ON SIZE OF THE BIORETENTION AREA). IN
SITU PERCOLATION TEST(S) SHALL HAVE AN INITIAL RATE OF AT LEAST 8-10 INCHES
PER HOUR TO MAINTAIN A LONG TERM INFILTRATION RATE OF AT LEAST 5 INCHES
PER HOUR. IF THE PERCOLATION DOES NOT MEET THE AT LEAST 8-10 INCHES PER
HOUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND SUBMIT CORRECTIVE ACTION TO THE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL, SUCH AS ROTOTILLING OR
HAND-CULTIVATING, TO IMPROVE THE PERCOLATION RATE. ONCE THE APPROVED
CORRECTIONS ARE DETERMINED, THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM THE REQUIRED
CORRECTIVE ACTION TO IMPROVE THE PERCOLATION RATE AND RE-TEST AT HIS
EXPENSE.
F. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE
EMPLOYED TO PROTECT THE LONG-TERM FUNCTIONALITY OF THE BIORETENTION
BASIN/SWALE. THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR THIS REASON:
1. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL IN THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS TO THE
FACILITY AND STABILIZE UPSLOPE AREAS.
2. FACILITIES SHOULD NOT BE USED AS SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES, UNLESS
INSTALLATION OF ALL BIORETENTION-RELATED MATERIALS ARE WITHHELD TOWARD THE
END OF CONSTRUCTION ALLOWING THE TEMPORARY USE OF THE LOCATION AS A
SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITY, AND APPROPRIATE EXCAVATION OF SEDIMENT IS
PROVIDED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF BIORETENTION MATERIALS.
G. A TWO INCH LAYER OF BARK MULCH PER SECTION 02900 LANDSCAPE PLANTING
SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE SURFACE OF THE BIORETENTION SOIL IF PLANTING OF
CONTAINER STOCK AND NO HYDROSEEDING IS TO BE INSTALLED TO PREVENT FOOT
COMPACTION OF THE BIORETENTION SOIL.
2.03 E.
SECTION
5. AGRICULTURAL SOIL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FOR THE BIORETENTION SOIL AS SPECIFIED IN
ASTM D 422, STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS.
4. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS OF COMPOST COMPONENT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
WITH ASTM D 422, STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS.
3. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE SANDY LOAM COMPONENT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
ASTM D 422, STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS.
2. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE SAND COMPONENT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
1. A SAMPLE OF MIXED BIORETENTION SOIL.
BIORETENTION SOIL. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR APPROVAL:
CERTIFICATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS INSTALLING MORE THAN 100 CUBIC YARDS OF
RESULTS AND
THE DELIVERY DATE OF THE BIORETENTION SOIL TO THE PROJECT SITE. BATCH-SPECIFIC TEST
C. SUBMITTALS FOR BIORETENTION SOIL: TESTS MUST BE CONDUCTED WITHIN 120 DAYS PRIOR TO
REQUIREMENTS.
PRODUCTS MEET OR EXCEED ALL PHYSICAL PROPERTY, ENDURANCE, PERFORMANCE AND PACKAGING
B. CERTIFICATIONS: MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A LETTER OF CERTIFICATION THAT THE
PERCOLATION RATES.
INCLUDE REQUIRED SUBSTRATE PREPARATION, LIST OF MATERIALS, APPLICATION RATE/TESTING AND
A. PRODUCT DATA: SUBMIT MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCT DATA AND INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.
1.05 SUBMITTALS
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FREE ACCESS TO SITE FOR INSPECTION ACTIVITIES.
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS THAT ARE DEEMED TO BE REASONABLY NECESSARY. THE
CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
E. ALL COSTS RELATED TO RE-INSPECTION DUE TO FAILURES SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE
TEST WAS PERFORMED.
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH WRITTEN COPIES OF THE RESULTS WITHIN 24 HOURS FROM THE TIME THE
INFILTRATION RATES SHALL BE AT LEAST 5 INCHES PER HOUR. THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR
BIORETENTION SOIL INDICATING INITIAL RATE OF AT LEAST 8-10 INCHES PER HOUR. LONG TERM
D. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL PREPARE IN SITU PERCOLATION TEST(S) OF THE
PERFORMED.
TEST WAS
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH WRITTEN COPIES OF THE RESULTS WITHIN 24 HOURS FROM THE TIME THE
LOCATION, ELEVATION DATA, TESTING RESULTS AND ACCEPTABILITY. THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR
C. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL PREPARE FIELD REPORTS THAT INDICATE COMPACTION TEST
POSSIBLE OF THE TEST RESULTS.
OF THE CONSTRUCTION TESTING REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE INFORMED AS SOON AS
PLACEMENT PROCEDURES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE FIELD GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS PART
B. VISUAL FIELD CONFIRMATION AND DENSITY TESTING OF SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND FILL
COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
JUDGMENT. THIS INSPECTION WILL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION ON SITE BASED ON DENSITY TESTING, VISUAL OBSERVATION AND
ENGINEERING STUDY, SELECTED AND PAID FOR BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE RETAINED TO PERFORM
A. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL
1.04 QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROJECT COMPLETION.
SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
B. ACCURATELY RECORD ANY AS-BUILT VARIATION FROM THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND
OBSTRUCTIONS ENCOUNTERED.
A. ACCURATELY RECORD ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF ALL SUBSURFACE UTILITIES, STRUCTURES AND
1.03 PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS
2. NEC 710-36
1. NEC 300-5
C. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE
2. M 43 STANDARD SIZES OF COARSE AGGREGATE FOR HIGHWAY
1. T 88 MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS
EDITION
B. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS (AASHTO) LATEST
CONTROLLED INSIDE DIAMETER
10. F794 POLY VINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) PROFILE GRAVITY SEWER PIPE AND FITTINGS BASED ON
9. F477 ELASTOMERIC SEALS (GASKETS) FOR JOINING PLASTIC PIPE
8. D3212 JOINTS FOR DRAIN AND SEWER PLASTIC PIPES USING ELASTOMERIC SEALS
7. D3034 TYPE PSM POLY VINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) SEWER PIPE AND FITTINGS
6. D 4318 TEST FOR PLASTIC LIMIT, LIQUID LIMIT, & PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS
5. D 2487 CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
4. D 2216 LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOIL
DETERMINING HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY IN VADOSE ZONE.
3. ASTM D5126 / D5126M -90, STANDARD GUIDE FOR COMPARISON OF FIELD METHODS FOR
2. D 698 TEST OF MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONS OF SOILS - STANDARD PROCTOR METHOD
1. D 422 METHOD FOR PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
A. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM) LATEST EDITION
1.02 REFERENCE STANDARDS
SECTION 02920 - LANDSCAPE
SECTION 02630 - STORM DRAINAGE
SECTION 02305 - EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
SECTION 02300 - EARTHWORK; ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBGRADE
THIS SECTION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING:
B. RELATED SECTIONS: OTHER SPECIFICATION SECTIONS WHICH DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE WORK OF
DRAINAGE (LINED BIORETENTION BASIN/SWALE).
SYSTEM OR DAYLIGHTS TO SURFACE
GROUND TO AN UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM WHICH CONVEYS TREATED RUNOFF TO THE STORM DRAIN
EITHER INFILTRATE IT INTO THE GROUND (UNLINED BIORETENTION BASIN/SWALE) OR INTO THE
SURFACE RESERVOIR, FILTER IT THROUGH PLANT ROOTS AND A BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE SOIL AND
A. THIS SECTION SPECIFIES BIORETENTION BASINS AND/OR SWALES THAT DETAIN RUNOFF IN A
1.01 SUMMARY
PART 1 GENERAL
OBSERVATION VISIT BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER OR/AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
D. THE CONTRACTOR OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE ON-SITE AT THE TIME OF EACH SITE
OF ANY REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE.
SECTION, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING (1) WHETHER THE WORK IS ACCEPTABLE; OR (2)
C. ACCEPTANCE: UPON COMPLETION OF THE FINAL SITE OBSERVATION VISIT AND THE WORK OF THIS
MATERIAL.
OBSERVATION VISIT SHALL ESTABLISH THE BEGINNING DATE FOR THE WARRANTY PERIOD OF PLANT
6. FINAL SITE OBSERVATION VISIT AT THE COMPLETION OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD. THIS SITE
OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD.
PERIOD, HAS BEEN COMPLETED. ACCEPTANCE AND WRITTEN APPROVAL SHALL ESTABLISH BEGINNING
5. WHEN PLANTING, AND ALL OTHER INDICATED OR SPECIFIED WORK, EXCEPT THE MAINTENANCE
4. UPON COMPLETION OF THE PLACEMENT OF BIORETENTION SOIL.
3. UPON COMPLETION OF GRAVEL STORAGE LAYER, AND SUBDRAIN SYSTEM (IF APPLICABLE).
2. UPON COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION OF THE LINER (IF APPLICABLE).
1. UPON FINISH GRADING OF SUBGRADE OF BIORETENTION BASIN.
B. SITE OBSERVATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING PARTS OF THE WORK:
IN ADVANCE.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST SITE OBSERVATION A MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS
A. SITE OBSERVATION VISITS HEREIN SPECIFIED SHALL BE MADE BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER OR/AND
1.06 SITE OBSERVATION VISITS:
METHOD OF STANDARDS.
E) QUALIFICATIONS OF LABORATORY(IES), AND INCLUDING USE OF ASTM AND USDA HANDBOOK NUMBER 60
D) E-MAIL ADDRESS(ES)
C) PHONE CONTACT(S)
B) ADDRESS(ES)
A) CONTACT PERSON(S)
LABORATORY(IES), AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
6. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE TESTING LABORATORY(IES), INCLUDING THE NAME(S) OF
VOLUME OF SOIL FOR THE TYPE OF PLANTS TO BE GROWN IN THE SOIL.
SUPPLEMENTAL ADDITIONS TO THE SOIL AS CALCULATED BY THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL TO BE ADDED PER
ACCEPTANCE. NUTRIENT TESTS SHOULD INCLUDE THE TESTING LABORATORY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ANALYSIS FOR pH, SALINITY AND NUTRIENT LEVELS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO
REQUIREMENTS:
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS MUST DOCUMENT THAT MIXED BSM CONFORMS TO THE FOLLOWING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BMP DESIGN MANUAL.
BIORETENTION SOIL SHALL BE SOURCED AND CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY APPENDIX F-3
2.04 BIORETENTION SOIL
FASTENED TO PROVIDE COVERAGE AND PROTECTION FOR BOTH THE TOP AND THE SIDES OF THE LINER.
COVERED TO PROTECT IT FROM UNNECESSARY UV RAYS. THE COVER SHOULD BE SECURELY
E. THE LINER SHOULD BE STORED IN A DRY AREA. WHEN POSSIBLE, THE LINER SHOULD BE STORED AND
OF OPERATING UNDER JOB SITE CONDITIONS IS RECOMMENDED.
D. FOR UNLOADING AND JOB SITE HANDLING, A FRONT-END LOADER WITH FORKS OR A FORKLIFT CAPABLE
THAT DOES NOT CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE LINER.
C. WHEN UNLOADING AT THE JOB SITE, THE PALLET OR ROLLED GOODS SHOULD BE HANDLED IN A MANNER
OBVIOUSLY DAMAGED MATERIALS.
SHALL VISUALLY INSPECT THE LINER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ACCEPT
GEOTEXTILE AROUND THE PRODUCT TO HELP PROTECT THE LINER DURING TRANSPORT. THE CONTRACTOR
B. THE MATERIALS WILL BE DELIVERED TO THE JOB SITE ON A PALLET OR AS A ROLL WITH PROTECTIVE
EQUAL, AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
A. LINER SHALL BE FLEXIBLE 30 MIL VLDPE (VERY LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE) MATERIAL OR APPROVED
2.03 LINERS
AGGREGATE MATERIAL CONFORMING TO GRADATION LIMITS CONTAINED IN TABLE 200-1.2.1.
PIPE(S). THIS LAYER SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THOROUGHLY WASHED AASHTO NO. 57 OPEN GRADED
COURSE LAYERS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STORM WATER STORAGE CAPACITY AND CONTAIN THE UNDERDRAIN
C. OPEN-GRADED AGGREGATE STONE. OPEN-GRADED AGGREGATE MATERIAL IS INSTALLED BELOW FILTER
AGGREGATE MATERIAL CONFORMING TO GRADATION LIMITS CONTAINED IN TABLE 200-1.2.1.
THE BOTTOM LAYER OF THE FILTER COURSE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THOROUGHLY WASHED ASTM NO. 8
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF THOROUGHLY WASHED ASTMC33 CHOKER SAND AS DETAILED IN TABLE 200-1.5.5.
MATERIAL INCREASING IN PARTICLE SIZE. THE TOP LAYER (CLOSETS TO THE BSM) OF THE FILTER COURSE
SAND OR OTHER FINES FROM THE BSM. THE FILTER COURSE CONSISTS OF TWO LAYERS OF CHOKING
BSM FROM THE DRAINAGE ROCK RESERVOIR LAYER. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LAYER IS TO LIMIT MIGRATION OF
B. FILTER COURSE. GRADED AGGREGATE CHOKER MATERIAL IS INSTALLED AS A FILTER COURSE TO SEPARATE
WASHED.
A. ALL SAND AND STONE PRODUCTS USED IN BSM DRAINAGE LAYERS SHALL BE CLEAN AND THOROUGHLY
2.02 ROCK AND SAND MATERIALS FOR DRAINAGE LAYERS
D-1784, AND CLASS 12454.
FITTINGS AS SPECIFIED ABOVE IN SECTION 2.01 A. CLEANOUT CAP SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40, ASTM
C. CLEANOUT STANDPIPE SHALL BE RIGID NON-PERFORATED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) GRAVITY PIPE AND
(4) INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
PERFORMED ON-SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR. SIZE OF PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FOUR
FLOWLINE OF THE SUBDRAIN CENTERED BETWEEN THE PERFORATIONS. NO PERFORATION SHALL BE
ROWS WITH A DIAMETER OF 1/4 OR 1/2 INCH PERFORATIONS, SEPARATED BY 120 DEGREES WITH THE
D-3034. THE PIPE SHALL BE FURNISHED FACTORY-PERFORATED CONSISTING OF TWO LONGITUDINAL
B. PERFORATED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE (PVC) SHALL BE SDR-35 PIPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM
INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
PIPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D-3034. SIZE OF PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4)
A. RIGID NON-PERFORATED POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) GRAVITY PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL BE SDR-35
2.01 UNDERDRAINAGE SYSTEM
PART 2 PRODUCTS
H. IF HYDROSEEDING IS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SURFACE OF THE
BIORETENTION SOIL, NO STABILIZED MATRIX SHALL BE USED IN THE
HYDROSEED COMPONENTS OR MIX.
WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS 10
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883C09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hsd10_WQ Notes.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSCITY OF TEMECULA
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TRACT MAP 37925
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
1989
S
E
I
T
I
N
UTROPPOWEN*
S
NO
ITID
A
R
T
D
L
O
A
LUCE
METFOYTI
C
BIORETENTION BASIN SPECIFICATIONS (CONTINUED)
C. THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE, BUT UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES LESS THAN 1 YEAR AFTER SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION (UNLESS
OTHERWISE STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS).
D. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A TWO (2) TO THREE (3) INCH LAYER OF BARK
MULCH OVER THE ENTIRE BIORETENTION BASIN AT THE END OF THE ONE YEAR
MAINTENANCE PERIOD (IF APPLICABLE).
END OF SECTION
OR OUTLET STRUCTURES
COMPONENTS SUCH AS WEIRS, INLET
DAMAGE TO STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURE
OBSTRUCTED INLET OR OUTLET
MAY TAKE 72 HOURS TO DRAIN.
AS PART OF THEIR FUNCTION WHICH
INCLUDE A SURFACE PONDING LAYER
* BIORETENTION AREAS TYPICALLY
A STORM EVENT*
LONGER THAN 72 HOURS FOLLOWING
AREAS OR PLANTER BOXES FOR
STANDING WATER IN BIORETENTION
OR STRIPS
STANDING WATER IN SWALES
STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW
EROSION DUE TO CONCENTRATED
IRRIGATION FLOW
EROSION DUE TO CONCENTRATED
OVERGROWN VEGETATION
POOR VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT
LITTER, OR DEBRIS
ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT,
TYPICAL MAINTENANCE INDICATOR(S)
REPAIR OR REPLACE AS APPLICABLE.
CLEAR OBSTRUCTIONS.
COMPACTED BIORETENTION SOILS.
TILLING OR AERATING OR REPAIRING/REPLACING
CLEARING UNDERDRAINS (WHERE APPLICABLE),
OBSTRUCTIONS OF DEBRIS OR INVASIVE VEGETATION,
AS ADJUSTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM, REMOVING
MAKE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES SUCH
WITH THE ENGINEER OF WORK).
OR RE-GRADING FOR PROPER DRAINAGE (CONSULT
OBSTRUCTIONS OF DEBRIS OR INVASIVE VEGETATION,
AS ADJUSTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM, REMOVING
MAKE APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES SUCH
OF WORK).
WHERE NECESSARY (CONSULT WITH THE ENGINEER
STONE AT FLOW ENTRY POINTS, OR RE-GRADING
ADDING EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS, ADDING
APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES SUCH AS
REPAIR/RE-SEED ERODED AREAS AND MAKE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
REPAIR/RE-SEED ERODED AREAS AND ADJUST THE
(TYPICALLY 4 TO 6 INCHES FOR GRASS).
THE DESIGN HEIGHT OF THE VEGETATION
MOW OR TRIM AS APPROPRIATE, BUT NOT LESS THAN
RE-SEED, RE-ESTABLISH VEGETATION.
MATERIALS, WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE VEGETATION.
REMOVE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ACCUMULATED
MAINTENANCE ACTIONS
3.06 BIORETENTION BASIN/SWALE MAINTENANCE PERIOD
A. THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD BEGINS ON THE FIRST DAY AFTER ALL LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION WORK AND ALL OTHER INDICATED OR SPECIFIED WORK FOR THE
BIORETENTION BASIN/SWALE IS COMPLETE, CHECKED, ACCEPTED AND WRITTEN
APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND CIVIL ENGINEER IS GIVEN TO BEGIN
THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD.
B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN AS INDICATED BELOW ALL
INVOLVED AREAS OF THE CONTRACT DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK AND DURING
THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD UNTIL THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.
WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS
11
CONSTRUCTION RECORD
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
DATE BY REVISIONS BENCH MARKDATEACC'D
Vertical
Horizontal
SCALE
SEAL:
RECOMMENDED BY:
ACCEPTED BY:
R.C.E. No. 44223
DATE:
DATE:
of Sheet
Drawing No.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
PATRICK THOMAS, P.E.
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
1-800-422-4133
CALL TOLL FREE
EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES IS
UNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR TO
VERIFY IN FIELD.
:CAUTION
LD21-3742
11
Ric
k
En
g
in
e
e
rin
g
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
2
0
2
2
c
JN 17883C09-MAR-2022PLOT DATE:\\cp.rickeng.com\projects\C_RIV_G\17883\17883-H_PA10\Civil\17883Hsd11_WQ Notes.dgn
9-13-82
ELEVATION=1305.535(NGVD 29)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BM T-25-81
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON
PLANNING AREA 10
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSCITY OF TEMECULA
1770 IOWA AVENUE-SUITE 100
R.C.E 63285
6-30-22REGISTRATION EXPIRESDATE:
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:RCO
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TRACT MAP 37925
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PLANST
A
T
O
F
O
AII
IS
E
EDSS
O
ALE
N
I
E
E
R
E
CALIF RNICVL
R
E
G
T
R PROFE
I
N
G
N
No. 63285 L
L
I
E
N
'O
L
RAC DRAH
CI
R
RICHARD C. O'NEILL
NSG
NSG
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 35
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
ATTACHMENT 6
Copy of Project's Drainage Report
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Drainage
Report:
X The project is required to prepare and submit a CEQA Drainage Study in compliance with
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual:
http://rcflood.org/downloads/Planning/Hydrology%20Manual%20-%20Complete.pdf
In addition to the guideline, the study shall include the following but not limited to:
X The final CEQA Drainage report shall be signed, stamped and dated by the responsible
Registered Civil Engineer.
X 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.
X Summary/Conclusion: Please discuss whether 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.
X Discuss whether 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.
X Discuss whether 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.
X Discuss whether 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.
X Discuss whether the proposed project would place structures within a 100-year flood hazard
area, which would impede or redirect flood flows.
X Discuss whether 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.
36 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
X Provide existing and proposed Hydrology Maps for each phase. The maps shall show
existing and proposed culverts, discharge point with A & Q, flow path direction for each drainage
basin. Show existing FEMA floodplain/floodway which flow through the property. A minimum
map size is 11"x17".
X Provide Hydrologic Soil Group Map.
X Provide Rainfall Isopluvials for 100 Year Rainfall Event - 6 Hours and 24 Hours Maps.
X The report should have numbered pages and a corresponding Table of Contents.
X 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: Final Drainage Study for Wingsweep Property Planning Area 10
Prepared By: Rick Engineering Company
Date: April 16, 2021 (or subsequent versions thereof)
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 37
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
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:
The geotechnical and groundwater investigation report must address the following key elements,
and where appropriate, mitigation recommendations must be provided.
X Identify areas of the project site where infiltration is likely to be feasible and provide justifications
for selection of those areas based on soil types, slopes, proximity to existing features, etc. Include
completed and signed Worksheet C.4-1 (see Appendix I).
X Investigate, evaluate and estimate the vertical infiltration rates and capacities in accordance
with the guidance provided in Appendix D which describes infiltration testing and appropriate
factor of safety to be applied for infiltration testing results. The site may be broken into sub-basins,
each of which has different infiltration rates or capacities.
X Describe the infiltration/ percolation test results and correlation with published infiltration/
percolation rates based on soil parameters or classification. Recommend providing design
infiltration/percolation rate(s) at the sub-basins. Use Worksheet D.5-1 (see Appendix I).
X Investigate the subsurface geological conditions and geotechnical conditions that would affect
infiltration or migration of water toward structures, slopes, utilities, or other features. Describe the
anticipated flow path of infiltrated water. Indicate if the water will flow into pavement sections,
utility trench bedding, wall drains, foundation drains, or other permeable improvements.
X Investigate depth to groundwater and the nature of the groundwater. Include an estimate of the
high seasonal groundwater elevations.
X Evaluate proposed use of the site (industrial use, residential use, etc.), soil and groundwater
data and provide a concluding opinion whether proposed storm water infiltration could cause
adverse impacts to groundwater quality and if it does cause impacts whether the impacts could
be reasonably mitigated or not.
X Estimate the maximum allowable infiltration rates and volumes that could occur at the site that
would avoid damage to existing and proposed structures, utilities, slopes, or other features. In
addition the report must indicate if the recommended infiltration rate is appropriate based on the
conditions exposed during construction.
X Provide a concluding opinion regarding whether or not the proposed onsite storm water
infiltration/percolation BMP will result in soil piping, daylight water seepage, slope instability, or
ground settlement.
38 PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS
Preparation Date: 8-30-21 Template Date: September 26, 2019
X Recommend measures to substantially mitigate or avoid any potentially detrimental effects of
the storm water infiltration BMPs or associated soil response on existing or proposed
improvements or structures, utilities, slopes or other features within and adjacent to the site. For
example, minimize soil compaction.
X Provide guidance for the selection and location of infiltration BMPs, including the minimum
separations between such infiltration BMPs and structures, streets, utilities, manufactured and
existing slopes, engineered fills, utilities or other features. Include guidance for measures that
could be used to reduce the minimum separations or to mitigate the potential impacts of infiltration
BMPs.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) REQUIREMENTS 39
Template Date: September 26, 2019 Preparation Date: 6-30-21
This page was left intentionally blank.
1- Identify areas of the project site where infiltration is likely to be feasible and provide
justifications for selection of those areas based on soil types, slopes, proximity to
existing features, etc. Include completed and signed Worksheet C.4 -1 (see Appendix I).
No such specific areas - Similar subsurface soils are encountered throughout the site
(artificial fill over Pauba Formation). Infiltration rates are as provided (very low).
2- Investigate, evaluate and estimate the vertical infiltration rates and capacities in
accordance with the guidance provided in Appendix D which describes infiltration
testing and appropriate factor of safety to be applied for infiltration testing results. The
site may be broken into sub-basins, each of which has different infiltration rates or
capacities.
Infiltration rates are as provided and a factor of safety of 4.5 was applied per worksheet
D.5-1.
3- Describe the infiltration/ percolation test results and correlation with published
infiltration/ percolation rates based on soil parameters or classification. Recommend
providing design infiltration/percolation rate(s) at the sub-basins. Use Worksheet D.5-1
(see Appendix I).
Provided infiltration/percolation rates do correlate with previous testing in this area.
4- Investigate the subsurface geological conditions and geotechnical conditions that
would affect infiltration or migration of water toward structures, slopes, utilities, or other
features. Describe the anticipated flow path of infiltrated water. Indicate if the water will
flow into pavement sections, utility trench bedding, wall drains, foundation drains, or
other permeable improvements.
Subsurface conditions were investigated and the compacted fill and dense Pauba
formation yield very low rates. No appreciable seepage/flow anticipated.
5- Investigate depth to groundwater and the nature of the groundwater. Include an
estimate of the high seasonal groundwater elevations.
Groundwater was described in Section 3.3 of the soils report (Leighton, 2020).
6- Evaluate proposed use of the site (industrial use, residential use, etc.), soil and
groundwater data and provide a concluding opinion whether proposed storm water
infiltration could cause adverse impacts to groundwater quality and if it does cause
impacts whether the impacts could be reasonably mitigated or not.
Proposed use of the site is residential. Based on low infiltration rates and depth of
groundwater, proposed storm water infiltration is unlikely to cause adverse impacts to
groundwater quality.
7- Estimate the maximum allowable infiltration rates and volumes that could occur at the
site that would avoid damage to existing and proposed structures, utilities, slopes, or
Individual responses by Leighton and Associates (dated 6/1/2021) to the checklist for Attachment 7
other features. In addition the report must indicate if the recommended infiltration rate is
appropriate based on the conditions exposed during construction.
Provided rates are considered maximum for design purposes. Recommended infiltration
rate is appropriate based on the conditions exposed.
8- Provide a concluding opinion regarding whether or not the proposed onsite storm
water infiltration/percolation BMP will result in soil piping, daylight water seepage, slope
instability, or ground settlement.
Due to the anticipated low infiltration rates, the onsite storm water infiltration/percolation
BMP should not result in soil piping, daylight water seepage, slope instability or ground
settlement. .
9- Recommend measures to substantially mitigate or avoid any potentially detrimental
effects of the storm water infiltration BMPs or associated soil response on existing or
proposed improvements or structures, utilities, slopes or other features within and
adjacent to the site. For example, minimize soil compaction.
Storm water BMP’s should be designed to mitigate any potentially detrimental effects of
storm water infiltration. Storm water should be directed away from structures, slopes or
other features.
10- recommended infiltration rate is appropriate based on the conditions exposed during
construction Provide guidance for the selection and location of infiltration BMPs,
including the minimum separations between such infiltration BMPs and structures,
streets, utilities, manufactured and existing slopes, engineered fills, utilities or other
features. Include guidance for measures that could be used to reduce the minimum
separations or to mitigate the potential impacts of infiltration BMPs.
Due to the homogeneous nature of subsurface soils, including artificial fill, alluvium and
Pauba Formation, similar conditions are likely to exist throughout the site.
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT (UPDATE)
WINGSWEEP ENTITLEMENT, PA-10, PA-12 AND
PA-33A
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
WINGSWEEP CORPORATION
C/O DECATUR ADVISORS, LLC
P.O. Box 2016
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Project No. 12673.001
June 30, 2020
June 30, 2020
Project No. 12673.001
Wingsweep Corporation
c/o Decatur Advisors, LLC
P.O. Box 2016
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Attention: Mr. Thom Fuller
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update)
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A
City of Temecula, California - JDA Job # 2003
In accordance with your request, we are pleased to provide this geotechnical evaluation
report (Update) for the subject development located in the City of Temecula, California
(see Figure 1). This report summarizes our geotechnical findings, conclusions and
recommendations (including update responses to City reviewer comments) regarding the
design and construction of the proposed residential development and associated
improvements. Based on the results of our review, it is our opinion that the site is suitable
for the intended use provided the recommendations included in this report are
implemented during design and construction phases of development.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641
Principal Engineer
Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921
Senior Principal Geologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF copy)
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
-i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project and Site Description ............................................................................................ 1
1.3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................. 3
2.1 Field Exploration .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS .............................................. 4
3.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Site Specific Geology ....................................................................................................... 4
3.2.1 Earth Materials ................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water ..................................................................................... 5
3.4 Regional Faulting and Local Fault Activity ...................................................................... 5
3.5 Ground Shaking ............................................................................................................... 6
3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement) ................................................. 6
3.7 Flooding ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.8 Seiche and Tsunami ........................................................................................................ 7
3.9 Slope Stability .................................................................................................................. 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 8
4.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 Earthwork ......................................................................................................................... 8
4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading ........................................................................... 8
4.2.2 Suitability of Site Soils for Fills ........................................................................................... 9
4.2.3 Rippability ........................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.4 Slope Construction ............................................................................................................. 9
4.2.5 Import Soils ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.6 Utility Trenches ................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.7 Shrinkage ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.8 Drainage ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.3 Foundation Design ......................................................................................................... 11
4.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures ........................................................................................ 11
4.3.2 Post Tension Design Parameters .................................................................................... 12
4.4 Foundation Setback from Slopes .................................................................................. 12
4.5 Vapor Retarder ............................................................................................................... 13
4.6 Retaining Walls .............................................................................................................. 14
4.7 Sulfate Attack ................................................................................................................. 15
4.8 Concrete Flatwork .......................................................................................................... 15
4.9 Preliminary Pavement Design ....................................................................................... 16
4.10 Percolation/Infiltration Test Results ............................................................................... 17
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- ii -
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES .......................................... 18
6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................. 19
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 20
Accompanying Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices
Tables
Table 1. 2019 CBC Site Specific Seismic Coefficients ................................................... 6
Table 2. PTI Method Design Parameters (3rd Edition) ................................................. 12
Table 3. Footing Setbacks ............................................................................................ 13
Table 4. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) ............................... 14
Table 5. Asphalt Pavement Sections............................................................................ 16
Table 6. Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Test Results ............................................ 17
Figures (end of text)
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 4 – Liquefaction Map
Figure 5 – Boring Location Map
Appendices
Appendix A – Logs of Test Borings
Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C – Site-Specific Seismic and Settlement Analyses
Appendix D – Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix E – Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix F – GBA - Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 1 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This geotechnical evaluation report is for Planning Areas (PA) 10, 11, and 33A within
the Roripaugh Ranch Development located in the City of Temecula, California. Our
scope of services for this geotechnical evaluation included the following:
Review of previous geotechnical reports, available site-specific geologic
information and provided site plans.
A site geologic reconnaissance and visual observations of surface conditions.
Excavation, sampling and logging of 22 exploratory geotechnical hollow stem
auger borings for four planning areas including PA-11, which is not a part of
this geotechnical evaluation. As such, borings LB-3 through LB-17 are not
presented in Appendix A and will be included under a separate report
addressing specifically PA-11.
Field percolation/infiltration testing at 3 locations within the site (one test within
each PA) to depths of approximately 5 feet below existing ground surface.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface
exploration program. A brief description of laboratory testing procedures and
laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
Geotechnical engineering analyses performed or as directed by a California
registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) including preliminary foundation and
seismic design parameters based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).
A California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) performed engineering
geology review of site geologic hazards.
Preparation of this report, which presents the results of our exploration and
provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed
development.
This report is not intended to be used as an environmental assessment (Phase I or
other), or foundation/precise grade plan review.
1.2 Project and Site Description
As shown on Figure 1, PA-12 and PA-33A are two adjacent parcels generally located
southwest of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road (MHSR), while PA-10 is located northwest of this intersection. Previous
site grading has created sheet graded pads, roadways, and detention basins. The
site was mass-graded as part of the overall Roripaugh Ranch residential development
(Byerly, 2012). Moderate growth of weeds/grasses and local dense shrubs are
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 2 -
scattered throughout the site. Erosion protection features (sand bags, plastic liners,
etc.) were also noted throughout the site. We understand that these parcels will be
developed into typical residential lots with associated roadways, slopes, basins and
landscape areas (Rick, 2020a, b and c). A summary of preliminary lot amounts are
presented below:
PA-10: 12 Lots, 13 Lots, currently
PA-12: 95 Lots, 104 Lots, currently
PA-33A: 15 Lots
Site grading is expected to have cuts and fills up to approximately 5 feet, not including
remedial grading, where applicable. If site development significantly differs from the
assumptions made and the plans referenced herein, the recommendations included
in this report should be subject to further evaluation.
1.3 Background
Based on our review of referenced reports and aerial images (Google Earth Pro, 2020)
we understand that these existing PAs were graded to their current configuration
during the period between 2003 and 2007. Based on our review and field
observations, it appears that a large bench was created during grading to support the
fill portion of the project fill slopes. Observations of site concrete lined v-ditches did
not reveal any subdrain outlets. Although no documentation is available for the original
site grading work prior to 2005, previous reports provided field density testing until
2007 (Byerly, 2012a). Compacted fill extends to depths of 35± feet within PA-33A.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 3 -
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Field Exploration
Our field exploration program consisted site review and 22 hollow-stem auger borings
including 5 borings (LB-13 thru LB-17) for PA-11, which is not a part of this
study/report. During hollow stem auger excavation, bulk samples and relatively
“undisturbed” Ring samples were collected from the exploration borings for further
laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained
utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2⅜-inch inside diameter and 3-inch
outside diameter) driven 18 inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method
D3550. The number of blows to drive the samplers are recorded on the boring logs
for each 6-inch increment (unless encountering refusal or >50 blows per 6 inches).
Sampling was conducted by a staff geologist from our firm. After logging and
sampling, the excavations were loosely backfilled with spoils generated during
excavation. The logs of exploratory borings are presented in Appendix A and
locations are shown on Figure 5.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk and undisturbed drive
samples to provide a basis for development of remedial earthwork and geotechnical
design parameters. Selected samples were tested for the following parameters: insitu
moisture and density, maximum dry density (Proctor), R-Value, gradation, collapse,
soluble sulfate, pH, resistivity and chloride content. The results of our laboratory
testing are presented in Appendix B.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 4 -
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS
3.1 Regional Geology
The site is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern
California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated
ranges and valleys that trend northwestward. More specifically, the site is situated
within the Perris Block, an eroded mass of Cretaceous and older crystalline rock.
The Perris Block, approximately 20 miles by 50 miles in extent, is bounded by the San
Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast, the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwest, the
Cucamonga Fault Zone to the northwest, and the Temecula Basin to the southeast.
The southeast boundary of the Perris block is poorly defined. The Perris Block has
had a complex tectonic history, apparently undergoing relative vertical land
movements of several thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore and
San Jacinto Fault Zones. Thin sedimentary materials locally mantle the crystalline
bedrock and alluvial and colluvial deposits fill the lower valley areas.
3.2 Site Specific Geology
3.2.1 Earth Materials
Based on our field explorations and review of previous site-specific
geotechnical reports, the site is generally covered by artificial fill underlain by
Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation. These units are discussed in the
following sections in order of increasing age.
Artificial Fill: As encountered, the artificial fill extends up to an estimated
depth of 35±-feet in PA-33A and becomes shallower in PA-12 and PA-10.
The fill appears to vary in density and composition and generally consist
of medium dense to dense, silty to clayey sand (SM/SC). Based on the
results of the laboratory testing, these materials appear to generally
possess adequate relative density and very low expansion potential.
Localized pockets within the fill appear to possess a collapse potential of
up to 4 percent based on our laboratory testing.
Quaternary Alluvium: It appears that alluvial soils were encountered
beneath the artificial fill in Boring LB-2 at a depth of 30 to 45 feet BGS
underlain by the Pauba Formation. These materials generally consist of
silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), and well-graded sand with silt (SW-
SM). The alluvium is medium dense and possess a collapse potential of
up to 3 percent based on our laboratory testing.
Pauba Formation: Where encountered, Pleistocene-aged Pauba
Formation was generally encountered below the artificial fill at depths
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 5 -
ranging from 2.5 to 35 feet. These materials generally consist of medium-
dense to very dense poorly and silty to clayey sand (SM/SC), and local
layers of medium stiff to hard sandy/clayey silts (ML).
3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water
Surface water as not observed during our recent site visit. Groundwater was not
encountered during this exploration to a depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the
existing ground surface. The Department of Water Resource data for Well
335412N1170712W001 indicates a depth to groundwater on the order of 339 feet in
September 2017. The well is located along Vino Way, approximately 1 mile east of
the site. Fluctuations in ground water should be expected due to site irrigation and
infiltration of storm water.
3.4 Regional Faulting and Local Fault Activity
The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically
active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North
American and Pacific tectonic plates.
The principal source of seismic activity to affect the site is movement along the
northwest-trending regional fault systems such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto,
and Elsinore Fault Zones. Based on published geologic maps, this site is not located
within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2018) or
Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone (Riverside, 2020). A lithologic boundary
lineament was mapped trending into the site in a CDMG Special Report 131
(Kennedy, 1997) and shown on current County Fault Hazard Maps (Riverside,
2020). However, these lineaments are not part of a County Fault Hazard zone.
Lineaments were investigated (Leighton, 1990a, b) and concluded to be not related
to active faulting.
The nearest active State Zoned fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone located
approximately 3.9 miles southwest of the site. The nearest County Fault Zone is the
Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone located approximately 0.2 miles (1,025 feet) west
of the site. The nearest known active strand of the Murrieta Hot Springs fault is
approximately 1.5 Miles (7,800 feet) northwest of the site (Leighton, 1999). No active
fault traces are known to traverse or project into the project site (CGS, 2018, County
of Riverside, 2020 and Leighton, 1990, 1999, 2001).
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 6 -
3.5 Ground Shaking
Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe
earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern
California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon
earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type)
characteristics. The site-specific seismic coefficients provided in table below are
based on an interactive tools/programs currently available on USGS website and
OSHPD seismic maps.
Table 1. 2019 CBC Site Specific Seismic Coefficients
Site Seismic Coefficients / Coordinates PA-12 &
PA-33A PA-10
Latitude 33.5461 33.5528
Longitude -117.1023 -117.1002
Site Class D C
Spectral Response (short), SS 1.43g 1.41g
Spectral Response (1 sec), S1 0.53g 0.52g
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.69 0.74
Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.00 1.20
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv 1.77 1.48
Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.43g 1.69g
Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.94g 0.77g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.95g 1.13g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.63g 0.52g
Site-Specific Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.62 0.61
g = Gravity Acceleration
The above site-specific ground motion analyses were based on Site Class C for PA-
10 (Pauba formation) and site Class D for PA-12/PA-33 underlain by up to 35 feet
of fill. The seismic coefficients for Site Class D follows Exception (2) in Section
11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 that assumes a fundamental period of vibration less than 0.5s
for the proposed structures. The project structural engineer should confirm such
assumption or else a site–specific ground motion analysis will be required.
3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement)
PA-12 and PA-33A are located in areas of low to moderate susceptibility to
liquefaction (see Figure 4). Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the
liquefaction-induced settlement is considered very low. However, during a strong
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 7 -
seismic event, seismically-induced settlement can still occur within loose to
moderately dense, dry or saturated granular soils. Based on our analyses (Appendix
C), the total induced dynamic settlement can range from 1.0 to 2.0 inches in the
existing fill. However, the differential settlement is not expected to exceed 1-inch in
a 30-foot horizontal distance. Dynamic induced settlement in PA-10 is not
considered a geologic hazard due to underlying dense Pauba formation.
3.7 Flooding
The site is not within a flood plain and potential for flooding is considered very low.
3.8 Seiche and Tsunami
Due to the sites elevated location and lack of nearby open bodies of water, the
possibility of the affects due to seiches or tsunami is considered nil.
3.9 Slope Stability
The existing 2:1 slopes in PA-10 and PA-12 (see Figure 5) are considered stable in
their current configuration. As shown on Cross-Section AA’ (see Appendix D), the
approximately 55-foot high slope descending toward Murrieta Hot Springs Road is
cut into dense Pauba formation whereas the approximately 50-foot high slope in the
northwest corner of PA-12 consist of compacted fill over Pauba formation. The
results of our analyses indicate that both slopes are considered stable under static
and pseudo-static conditions. The results of our slope stability analysis are
presented in Appendix D.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 8 -
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
The proposed site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint
provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and
construction phases of the proposed development. Grading plans should be
reviewed by Leighton prior to construction to provide additional recommendations, if
needed.
4.2 Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations
and the Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E of this report.
In case of conflict, the following recommendations should supersede those in
Appendix E. The contract between the Owner and the earthwork contractor should
be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place fill properly and
in accordance with recommendations presented in this report, including the guide
specifications in Appendix E, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the
geotechnical consultant.
4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all-structural
fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of surface and
subsurface pipes, obstructions and erosion control materials. Heavy
vegetation, roots, sand bags, straw waddles and debris should be disposed
of offsite. Voids created by removal of buried/unsuitable materials should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the
recommendations of this report. Area specific remedial grading
recommendations are provided as follows:
Fill Areas: In areas requiring additional fill greater than 2 feet, the upper
12 inches of soils should be removed/over-excavated and recompacted.
Localized areas of deeper removals/ over-excavation may be required in
existing basins or localized loose areas depending on actual conditions
encountered and verification by our field representative during grading.
Cut and Transition Cut/Fill Lots: In cut areas or cut/fill transition lots
exposing Pauba formation or artificial fill, the cut portion should be over-
excavated to a minimum of 2 feet below pad grade or 1 foot below footing
bottom (whichever is deeper). Over-excavation and recompaction should
extend a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet from perimeter edges of
proposed buildings/foundations/settlement sensitive improvements.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 9 -
Localized areas of deeper over-excavation may be required pending
verification by our field representative during grading.
Pavement Areas: Whether exposing fill or Pauba formation, the cleared
and exposed surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches,
moisture conditioned and compacted to minimum 90 percent compaction
or to an unyielding condition.
Geotechnical observation of removal or over-excavation bottoms should be
performed during grading to confirm the competency of the materials being
left in place. After completion of the recommended removal of unsuitable or
surficial soils and prior to fill placement, the exposed surface should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 8-inches, moisture conditioned and
compacted using heavy pneumatic compaction equipment to minimum 90
percent compaction of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D1557)
and to an unyielding condition. In general, all structural fill should be
compacted throughout to 90 percent.
4.2.2 Suitability of Site Soils for Fills
Topsoil and vegetation layers, root zones, and similar surface materials
should be striped and stockpiled or removed from the site. Existing fill should
be considered suitable for re-use as compacted fills provided the
recommendations contained herein are followed. Fill materials with
expansion index greater than 21 should not be used in subgrade soils below
building pads. If cobbles and boulders larger than 6-inches in largest
diameter are encountered or produced during grading, these oversized
cobbles and boulders should be reduced to less than 6 inches or placed in
structural fill as outlined in Appendix E.
4.2.3 Rippability
The onsite Pauba formation and existing fill soils are considered rippable with
typical conventional grading equipment. Isolated lenses of dense or gravelly
or well cemented Pauba can be expected but are anticipated to be rippable
with typical heavy duty earth moving equipment.
4.2.4 Slope Construction
The existing and proposed 2:1 slopes are considered grossly stable. Any
new 2:1 slopes using the onsite soils compacted to minimum 90 percent
should also be stable under short and long-term conditions. The outer portion
of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back
to the finished slope configuration or compacted in vertical increments of 5
feet (maximum) by a weighted sheeps-foot roller as the fill is placed. The
slope face should then be track-walked by dozers of appropriate weight to
achieve the final slope configuration and compaction to the slope face.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 10 -
Slope faces are inherently subject to erosion, particularly if exposed to rainfall
and irrigation. Landscaping and slope maintenance should be conducted as
soon as possible in order to increase long-term surficial stability. Berms
should be provided at the top of fill slopes and drainage should be directed
such that surface runoff over slopes is prevented.
4.2.5 Import Soils
Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, should be evaluated by us prior to
import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of
organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have low expansion
potential (E<21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed
improvements and R-value greater than 30 if to be used in upper 12 inches
of street subgrade.
4.2.6 Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2018
Edition. Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) by mechanical means
only. Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils
are screened of rocks over 3 inches in diameter and organic matter. If imported
sand is used as backfill, the upper 3 feet in building and pavement areas should
be compacted to 95 percent. The upper 6 inches of backfill in all pavement
areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Where granular backfill is used in utility trenches adjacent moisture sensitive
subgrades and foundation soils, we recommend that a cut-off “plug” of
impermeable material be placed in these trenches at the perimeter of buildings,
and at pavement edges adjacent to irrigated landscaped areas. A “plug” can
consist of a 5-foot long section of clayey soils with more than 35-percent
passing the No. 200 sieve, or a Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM)
consisting of one sack of Portland-cement plus one sack of bentonite per cubic-
yard of sand. CLSM should generally conform to requirements of the
“Greenbook”. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of water permeating
trenches from landscaped areas, then seeping along permeable trench backfill
into the building and pavement subgrades, resulting in wetting of moisture
sensitive subgrade earth materials under buildings and pavements.
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the
project plans, specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders
(latest Edition). The contractor should be responsible for providing a
"competent person" as defined in Article 6 of the California Construction Safety
Orders. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated
from the onsite alluvium) could make excavations particularly unsafe if all
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 11 -
safety precautions are not properly implemented. In addition, excavations at
or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due
to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles from the
excavation(s) and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides
of the trenches.
4.2.7 Shrinkage
The volume change of excavated onsite soils upon recompaction is expected
to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, and location and
compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials
vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be
made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance
area or ability to adjust grades slightly to accommodate some variation.
Based on our geotechnical laboratory results, we expect recompaction
shrinkage (when recompacted to an average 92 percent of ASTM D1557) of
5- to 10-percent by volume for the existing fill. The Pauba formation can
experience up to 5 percent shrink for highly weathered materials and up to 5
percent bulk for less weathered or excavations deeper than 5 to 10 feet.
4.2.8 Drainage
All drainage should be directed away from structures, slopes and pavements
by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate
storm drainage of any proposed pad should be provided to avoid wetting of
foundation soils or slopes. Irrigation adjacent to buildings should be avoided
when possible. As an option, sealed-bottom planter boxes and/or drought
resistant vegetation should be used within 5-feet of buildings.
4.3 Foundation Design
4.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures
Based on our analysis, the proposed single-family residential structures may
be founded on conventional or Post-tensioned slab on-grade foundation
systems based on a Plasticity Index of 15 and the design parameters
provided below. The proposed foundations and slabs should be designed in
accordance with the structural consultants’ design, the minimum geotechnical
recommendations presented herein, and the applicable CBC. In utilizing the
minimum geotechnical foundation recommendations, the structural
consultant should design the foundation system to acceptable deflection
criteria as determined by the architect. Foundation footings may be designed
with the following geotechnical design parameters:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 12 -
- Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 12
inches (minimum width of 12 inches). This bearing
capacity may be increased by ⅓ for short-term
loading conditions (e.g., wind, seismic).
- Sliding Coefficient: 0.35
- Differential Settlement: 1-inch in 30 feet horizontal distance
The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-
grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based on
recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein. If exterior
footings are within 5 feet horizontally of side yard swales, the footing should
be embedded sufficiently to ensure embedment below the swale bottom is
maintained.
4.3.2 Post Tension Design Parameters
If needed for settlement considerations, the following post-tensioned design
parameters are provided in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute
(PTI) Method (3rd Edition).
Table 2. PTI Method Design Parameters (3rd Edition)
Design Parameters PI≤15 or EI≤51
Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20
Clay Content (% of total sample) ≤15
Depth to Constant Soil Suction 9.0 ft.
Constant Soil Suction 3.9 ft.
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
- Edge Lift
- Center Lift
4.9 ft
9.0 ft
Soil Differential Movement, ym
- Edge Lift - Swell
- Center Lift - Shrink
1.0 inches
0.7 inches
4.4 Foundation Setback from Slopes
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for
all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, flatwork, building footings,
pools, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing
horizontally to the slope face (or the face of a retaining wall) and should be a
minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet).
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 13 -
Table 3. Footing Setbacks
Slope Height Recommended Footing Setback
<5 feet 5 feet minimum
5 to 15 feet 7 feet minimum
>15 feet H/2, where H is the slope height, not to exceed 10
feet to 2:1 slope face
The soils within the structural setback area generally possess poor lateral stability
and improvements (such as retaining walls, pools, sidewalks, fences, pavements,
decorative flatwork, etc.) constructed within this setback area will be subject to lateral
movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements
may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam
foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet
the setback described above. Modifications of slope inclinations near foundations
may increase the setback and should be reviewed by the design team prior to
completion of design or implementation.
4.5 Vapor Retarder
It has been a standard of care to install a moisture-vapor retarder underneath all slabs
where moisture condensation is undesirable. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but
not totally eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through
the slabs. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of
concrete additives. Leighton and Associates, Inc. does not practice in the field of
moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a
qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate the general and specific
moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. This
person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse
impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as
deemed appropriate.
However, based on our experience, the standard of practice in Southern California
has evolved over the last 15 to 20 years into a construction of a vapor retarder system
that generally consisted of a membrane (such as 10-mil thick or greater), underlain by
a capillary break consisting of 4 inches of clean ½-inch-minimum gravel or 2-inch sand
layer (SE>30). The structural engineer/architect or concrete contractor often require
a sand layer be placed over the membrane (typically 2-inch thick layer) to help in
curing and reduction of curling of concrete. If such sand layer is placed on top of the
membrane, the contractor should not allow the sand to become wet prior to concrete
placement (e.g., sand should not be placed if rain is expected).
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 14 -
In conclusion, the construction of the vapor barrier/retarder system is dependent on
several variables which cannot be all geotechnically evaluated and/or tested. As
such, the design of this system should be a design team/owner decision taking into
consideration finish flooring materials and manufacture’s installation requirements of
proposed membrane. Moreover, we recommend that the design team also follow ACI
Committee 302 publication for “Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-
Sensitive Flooring Materials” (ACI 302.2R-06) which includes a flow chart that assists
in determining if a vapor barrier /retarder is required and where it is to be placed.
4.6 Retaining Walls
Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding
horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength
of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot
yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and
the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest"
conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed
by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive
soils can be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:
Table 4. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)
Loading
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill
Active 36 55
At-Rest 55 85
Passive* 350 125 (2:1, sloping down)
* This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the
duration of the project, not to exceed 2,000 psf at depth.
For walls retaining more than 6 feet of soils, we recommend for non-restrained walls
with level backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 13H psf with resultant force
applied at mid-height of wall, where H is the retaining wall stem height in feet. For
walls with 2:1 sloping backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 28H psf with
resultant force applied at mid-height. These seismic pressures should be added to
static pressures above or any applicable surcharge loads.
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalent-
fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils that are free
draining. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding)
such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 15 -
value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls
should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at
the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning
and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an
adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should
be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-standard wall designs
should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil
parameters have been incorporated into the wall design.
All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe
should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non-expansive
(EI ≤ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as wall
backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28-day
compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall
is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment
should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer.
4.7 Sulfate Attack
The results of the laboratory testing on representative soils samples indicate negligible
exposure to concrete per ACI 318. Further testing should be performed at the
completion of site grading to confirm soluble-sulfate content of finish subgrade soils.
4.8 Concrete Flatwork
Sidewalk/Flatwork should conform to City of Temecula standards. A representative of
Leighton should verify subgrade soil expansion, moisture conditions and compaction
prior to formwork and reinforcement placement. If subgrade soils possess expansion
index greater than 21, we recommend a minimum 8-inch deepened edge be
constructed for all flatwork to reduce moisture variation in subgrade soils along
concrete edges adjacent to open (unfinished) or irrigated landscape areas.
Concrete flatwork should be constructed of uniformly cured, low-slump concrete and
should contain sufficient control/contraction joints. Additional provisions such as
ascending/descending slope conditions, perched (irrigation) water, special surcharge
loading conditions, potential expansive soil pressure and differential settlement/heave
should be incorporated into the design of exterior improvements. Additional exterior
slab details are suggested in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 16 -
Homeowners (HOA) should be advised of their maintenance responsibilities as well as
geotechnical issues that could affect performance of site improvements.
4.9 Preliminary Pavement Design
The preliminary pavement design provided below is based on the locally accepted
Caltrans Highway Design Manual and a preliminary R-value of 29 based on our
laboratory testing for the proposed parking area. For planning and estimating
purposes, the pavement sections are calculated based on assumed Traffic Indexes
(TI) indicated in Table below
Table 5. Asphalt Pavement Sections
General Traffic
Condition*
Traffic Index
(TI)**
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate Base*
(inches)
Private Access Road 5.0 4.0 6.0
Local Street 6.0 4.0 6.0
*Per City of Temecula Standards
**Per city of Temecula Standard 115
Actual R-value of the subgrade soils will need to be verified after completion of site
grading to finalize the pavement design. Pavement design and minimum sections
should also conform to applicable City standards, where applicable.
For rigid pavement design, we recommend that a minimum of 6 inches of PCC
pavement be used, in high impact load areas or if to be subjected to truck traffic.
The PCC pavement should be placed on a minimum 4-inch aggregate base. The
PCC pavement may be placed directly on a compacted subgrade with an R-Value
of 40 or higher. The PCC pavement should have a minimum of 28-day compressive
strength of 3250 psi. Aggregate base should conform to the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction (Green Book), 2018 Edition. Placement of concrete
materials should follow applicable ACI and County standards.
The upper 6 inches of the subgrade soils should be moisture-conditioned to near
optimum moisture content, compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction
(ASTM D1557) and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed.
Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent
of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. If applicable,
aggregate base should conform to the “Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction” (Greenbook) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base and
applicable City standards
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 17 -
If pavement areas are adjacent to watered landscape areas, some deterioration of the
subgrade load bearing capacity may result. Moisture control measures such as
deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials may be used to prevent the
subgrade soils from becoming saturated. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers
should be considered when pavement is planned adjacent to either open (unfinished)
or irrigated landscaped areas.
4.10 Percolation/Infiltration Test Results
Three percolation tests were performed within selected areas of each site to provide
a general screening characterization of infiltration rates of onsite materials. The
percolation tests were performed in accordance with procedures of Section 2.3 of the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD)
Design Handbook (RCFC, 2011). Results presented below are the most conservative
reading in minutes per inch drop. The infiltration rates were estimated using the
Porchet Method. No factor of Safety was applied to these values. If infiltration basins
are proposed, additional testing will be needed to comply with County guidelines.
Table 6. Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Test Results
Test Hole # /
PA #
Depth
BGS (ft)
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr) Soil Description
P-1 / PA-33A 5 0.03 Silty SAND (SM) / Artificial Fill
P-2 / PA-12 5 0.14 Silty SAND (SM) / Artificial Fill
P-4 / PA-10 5 0.16 Silty SAND (SM) / Artificial Fill
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 18 -
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor
performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to
inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton and Associates, Inc. be
provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s) prior to bid.
Reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and
foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to
provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical
conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton
and Associates, Inc. during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions
encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and
testing should be provided:
After completion of site demolition and clearing,
During over-excavation of compressible soil,
During compaction of all fill materials,
After excavation of all footings and prior to placement of concrete,
During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and
When any unusual conditions are encountered.
Additional geotechnical exploration and analysis may be required based on final
development plans, for reasons such as significant changes in slopes locations, heights or
proposed structure locations/footprints. We should review grading (civil) and foundation
(structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 19 -
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations,
site visits, soil excavations, samples and tests. Such information is, by necessity,
incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can
be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in
subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that we
(Leighton and Associates, Inc.) will provide geotechnical observation and testing during
construction as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. Please refer to
Appendix F, GBA’s Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report,
prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) presenting additional
information and limitations regarding geotechnical engineering studies and reports.
This report was prepared for the sole use of Client and their design team, for application
to design of the proposed development, in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices at this time in California. Any unauthorized use of or
reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton and
Associates, Inc. from and against any liability, which may arise as a result of such use or
reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates,
Inc.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 20 -
REFERENCES
Army Corps of Engineers, Evaluation of Settlement for Dynamic and Transient Loads,
Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers Press.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16 Publication.
Byerly, John R., Inc., 2012, Interim Grading and Fill Evaluation Report - Planning Areas
(PAs) 14-24 and 27-31, Roripaugh Ranch, Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road, Temecula, California, Report No. 9794, File No. S-13141, dated
November 27, 2012.
Byerly, John R., Inc., 2012a, Report of Existing Grading and Fill; Roripaugh Ranch, Phase
II, Report No. 9794, File No. S-13141, dated December 10, 2012.
California Building Code, 2016, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2
of 2.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide for Government
Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, And Geoscience Practitioners for
Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Revised 2018.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology
Board, Special Publication 117A, Revised Sept. 11, 2008.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Maps, June 2003. By Tianquing Cao, William A. Bryant, Badie Rowshandel,
David Branum and Christopher J. Wills.
Geocon West Inc., 2020, Geotechnical Third-Party Review (PA20-0567), Proposed
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, Project No. T2652-22-14,
dated May 29, 2020.
Geocon West, Inc, 2020, Geotechnical Third-Party Review #2 (PA20-0567), Proposed
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, by Geocon West, Inc., Project
No. T2652-22-14, dated June 17, 2020.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in
Southern Riverside County, California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1999, Supplemental Fault Investigation, Winchester
Properties, planning Areas 6, 7 and 8, Murrieta Hot Springs Area, Riverside County,
California, Project No. 11861432.072, dated March 23.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 21 -
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2001a, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Portion of
Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula, Riverside Country,
California, Project No. 11990013-001, dated February 28.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2001b, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Portion of
Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula, Riverside Country,
California, Project No. 11990013-001, dated May 22.
Leighton and Associates Inc., 2017a, Geotechnical Review, Long Valley Wash Channel
Improvements, Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 – PN 4001, Temecula California, dated
April 19, 2017, Project No. 10967.108.
Leighton and Associates Inc., 2017b, Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed
Roripaugh Ranch Park and Ride (PA 33B) (PN 4002), Roripaugh Ranch, Temecula
California, dated October November 27, 2017, Project No. 10967.109.
OSHPD, 2020, Seismic Design Maps, an interactive computer program on OSHPD website
to calculate Seismic Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-16
seismic procedures, https://seismicmaps.org/.
Public Works Standard, Inc., 2018, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction: 2018 Edition, BNI Building News, Anaheim, California.
Rick Engineering Company, 2018a, Roripaugh Ranch Tentative Tract Map 37341, a
subdivision of TTM 37368, 60 scale, 37 sheets, plot date April 25, 2018.
Rick Engineering Company, 2018b, Rough Grading Plan TM 37368, 40 scale, 46 sheets,
plot date May 11, 2018.
Rick Engineering Company, 2020a, PA 10 Lot Fit Study: Options 1-3, dated February 26,
2020.
Rick Engineering Company, 2020b, PA 12 Lot Fit Study, dated February 26, 2020.
Rick Engineering Company, 2020c, PA 33A Lot Fit Study, dated February 26, 2020.
Riverside County, 2020, Map My County, Riverside County Integrated Project Website,
https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake
Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, dated August.
USGS, 2020, Web-Service Wrapper Around the nshmp-haz Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis (PSHA) Platform, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
³
0 4,000 8,000
Feet
Figure 1
Scale:
Leighton
Base Map: Bing Maps 2020
1 " = 4,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F01_SLM_2020-02-19.mxd on 4/1/2020 9:14:59 AM
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
SITE LOCATION MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Approximate Site Boundary
Date: June 2020
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qvoa
Qps
Qps
Kgd
Kgd
PA-33
PA-12
PA-10
Qvoa Kgd
TrmpKgd
KgbKgd
Kgb
K
g
b
Kgb
Kpvt Qvoa
Kgb
Qvoa
Qps
Qps
Qps
QTws
Qya
KgdQps
QTws
Qvof
Qps
Qps
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 2
Scale:
Leighton
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F02_RGM_2020-02-19.mxd on 4/1/2020 9:25:18 AM
REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Kgb - Gabbro, undifferentiated
Kgd - Granodiorite, undifferentiated
Kpvt - Paloma Valley Ring Complex
QTws - Sandstone and conglomerate of Wildomar area
Qps - Pauba Formation
Qvoa - Very old axial-channel deposits
Qvof - Very old alluvial-fan deposits
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!Qya - Young axial-channel deposits
Trmp - Rocks of Menifee Valley
Approximate Site Boundary
Reference: USGS, 2006 Geologic map of the San Bermardino and Santa Ana 30'x60 quadrangle, California Version 1,0 Open File Report 2006-1217.
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
Date: June 2020
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 3
Scale:
Leighton
Base Map: Bing Maps 2020
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F03_RFM_2020-02-19.mxd on 3/19/2020 12:31:50 PM
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
REGIONAL FAULT MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Fault Location (Riverside County)
Fault Zone Location (Riverside County)
Approximate Site Boundary
Date: June 2020
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 4
Scale:
Leighton
Base Map: Bing Maps 2020
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F04_LM_2020-02-19.mxd on 2/27/2020 3:06:15 PM
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
LIQUEFACTION MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Moderate
Low
Very low
Approximate Site Boundary
Date: June 2020
&<&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&(
&(
&(
&(
%
%
%
%PA-10
NOT A PART
PA-12
PA-33A
A
A'
B
B'
Murrieta Hot Sprint
s
R
d
But
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
a
g
e
R
d
LB-3
LB-4
LB-1LB-2
LB-11
LB-9
LB-8
LB-10
LB-7
LB-12
LB-5
LB-6
LB-14 LB-16
LB-17
LB-15
LB-13
LB-19
LB-22
LB-21
LB-20
LB-18
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F05_BLM_2020-02-19.mxd on 3/30/2020 4:20:34 PM
BORING LOCATION MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Figure 5
Leighton
³
0 250 500
Feet
Scale:
Base Map: Rick Engineering, 2020.
1 " = 250 '
Project: 12673.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR
Author: (mmurphy)
Legend
&<Approximate Location of Boring
&(Approximate Location of Percolation Test
Approximate Location of SlopeStability Cross-Section
Approximate Site Boundary
LB-22
P-4
%%
A A'
Date: June 2020
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF TEST BORINGS
19
23
28
12
22
29
11
18
24
27
32
38
122
123
111
SM
SC
R-1
B-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
9
11
17
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand, MD = 132.4 @ 8.4%, SE = 19
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown to grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 2"
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
SE
MD
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
10
30
36
12
24
34
10
22
31
19
22
26
12
26
35
116
118
126
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
9
11
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
18
19
10
23
23
19
17
20
25
47
43
23
30
32
108
114
107
104
SW-SM
SC
SM
SW
R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
5
13
16
4
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); Well-graded SAND with SILT,
medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand, CO = -2.88%
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL,
dense, light olive brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
with fine gravel
Well-graded SAND, dense, light olive gray, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
Drilled to 51.5' Sampled to 51.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 2 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
11
16
17
9
13
21
9
13
23
10
14
22
11
20
29
11
22
26
119
116
124
101
110
SM
SC
SM
SC
SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
12
15
11
22
18
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to medium grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown and dark
grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand, CO = -0.63%
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish
brown and dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
27
42
17
27
30
14
19
23
19
30
48
15
41
50
12
21
43
117
108
117
SM
SC
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
11
13
12
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dense, gray, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
27
32
13
27
50
SM
R-7
R-8
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse sand with fine
gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
Drilled to 36.5' Sampled to 36.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 2 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
15
14
25
19
27
34
14
23
50/5"
11
23
31
99
SM
SC-SM
SW
SM
SC
SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
28
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
Well-graded SAND, dense, light brownish gray, slightly moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown
and light olive gray, moist, very fine to fine grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
10
26
29
14
28
28
14
23
28
10
17
19
10
27
50/5"
117
116
SM
SC
SM
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
8
9
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, very fine to medium
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with
gravel to 1"
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand, CO = -3.79%
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray,
moist, fine to medium grained sand
Drilled to 21.42' Sampled to 21.42' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
17
28
29
16
22
24
15
21
30
17
23
47
19
27
49
121
118
SMB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
7
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, moist, very
fine to medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
9
15
18
10
18
21
10
20
21
11
15
28
114
113
SM
SC
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
10
16
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, moist, very
fine to fine grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
17
24
12
18
18
7
9
9
12
15
15
13
50/6"
115
106
114
107
SM
R-1
B-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
12
17
13
19
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand, MD = 125.1 @ 9.1%, RV = 29
SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand, CO = -0.80%
SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand, CO = -0.15%
SILTY SAND, dense, olive brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
MD, RV,
SA, CR
CO
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-9
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
15
24
24
22
27
14
36
50/4"
22
27
44
18
50/2"
102
SC-SM
SM
R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
24 SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark olive gray, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to medium grained sand
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark
grayish brown and dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, pale brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
Drilled to 50.67' Sampled to 50.67' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 2 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-9
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
13
22
27
13
22
27
9
24
38
8
15
26
120
116
SM
SC-SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
10
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with
fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown,
moist, fine to medium grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-10
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
47
50/3"
11
21
42
14
27
27
14
21
36
101
107
SM
SC
SC-SM
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
17
17
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 2",
sample disturbed
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, light olive brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-11
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
8
11
16
12
15
12
15
19
26
13
24
34
110
109
121
SM
SC-SM
SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
7
8
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand, CO = -3.41%
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-12
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
19
27
28
19
23
23
11
16
30
10
21
35
114
112
SW-SM
SM
SC-SM
SC
SC-SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
6
16
Artificial Fill (Af); Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL,
yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand
with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-18
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
15
16
18
15
22
28
15
22
30
121
116
SM
SC-SM
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
8
7
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand, metal wire in shoe
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-19
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
27
30
40
17
30
30
15
23
22
124
107
SM
SMR-1
R-2
R-3
5
14
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, olive gray, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-20
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
22
27
44
34
38
30
13
30
44
114
SM
SMR-1
R-2
R-3
5
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-21
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
13
18
21
14
21
33
18
26
35
119
115
SM
SC
SW
SM
SC-SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
5
8
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel, EI
= 8, 22% -200
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown to dark
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
Pauba Formation (Qps); Well-graded SAND, dense, light
brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark reddish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
EI, -200
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-22
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
S-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
SC
SMS-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
SC
SC-SM
S-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
SC
SMS-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
B-1
Feb-201:55 :44
Project Name:
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):5.0 - 10.0
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:LB-9 Sample No.:
Soil Type :12673.001
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; LB-9, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
12673.001
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:P-2 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish Brown.
0
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):4.0 - 5.0
Project Name:S-1
Feb-201:60 :39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; P-2, S-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
12673.001
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:P-3 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM), Brown.
SC-SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):4.0 - 5.0
Project Name:S-1
Feb-201:57 :42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; P-3, S-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
12673.001
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:P-4 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):4.0 - 5.0
Project Name:S-1
Feb-201:80 :19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; P-4, S-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Compaction; LB-1, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Tested By:F. Mina Date:02/18/20
Input By: M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
LB-1 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5631 5748 5705
3572 3572 3572
2059 2176 2133
1142.9 1518.9 1102.8
1095.4 1424.7 1028.6
332.6 329.0 326.2
6.2 8.6 10.6
135.9 143.6 140.8
127.9 132.3 127.3
132.4 8.4
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
Sample No.:
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Reddish Brown.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
12673.001
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Project Name:
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Compaction; LB-9, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Tested By:F. Mina Date:02/18/20
Input By: M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
LB-9 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5572 5641 5663 5640
3572 3572 3572 3572
2000 2069 2091 2068
1402.2 1053.3 1600.9 1238.8
1330.0 999.9 1468.5 1126.9
277.8 415.2 328.7 327.6
6.9 9.1 11.6 14.0
132.0 136.6 138.0 136.5
123.5 125.1 123.7 119.7
125.1 9.1
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:1:55:44GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
Sample No.:
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
12673.001
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Project Name:
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Compaction; LB-13, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Tested By:F. Mina Date:02/18/20
Input By: M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
LB-13 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5608 5757 5739
3572 3572 3572
2036 2185 2167
1075.1 1013.6 1261.9
1040.3 967.5 1174.6
309.3 311.4 217.4
4.8 7.0 9.1
134.4 144.2 143.0
128.3 134.8 131.1
134.9 7.1
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
12673.001
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Project Name:
Sample No.:
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:2/19/20
Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Boring No.:Depth:0 - 5.0
Sample No. :Location:
Sample Description:
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.
Rev. 03-08
0.50402/20/20
0
1130
Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000
6:00
1190 0.5040
4.0
1.0
4 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Wt. of Container (gm.)
117.8
0.5000
10 0.5000
2/20/20 7:00
1.0
1.0
11:10 1.02/19/20
2/19/20
118.2
Moisture Content (%)
Date
11:00
Void Ratio
Pore Volume (cc)
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
127.7
Time
After TestBefore Test
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
7
0.432
Dry Density (pcf)
Wet Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Specimen Height (in.)
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
98.8
4.01
2.70
2123.2
0.0
611.3
2123.2
25.3
1.0040
631.5
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
**
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
12673.001
LB-13
B-1
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
MOLDED SPECIMEN
4.01
1.0000
7Container No.
Specimen Diameter (in.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
188.0
2.70
391.9
188.0
13.2
0.301
62.7
188.0
631.5
133.2
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
82.350.7
Pressure
(psi)
0.299Total Porosity
SPECIMEN INUNDATION
61.8
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
8.0
577.5
555.3
0.426
277.5
Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:2/19/20
Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Boring No.:Depth:0 - 5.0
Sample No. :Location:
Sample Description:
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.
Rev. 03-08
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
8.5
577.5
554.0
0.470
277.5
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
81.948.9
Pressure
(psi)
0.320Total Porosity
SPECIMEN INUNDATION
66.2
380.3
182.7
14.6
0.325
67.8
182.7
618.5
130.4
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Reddish Brown.
MOLDED SPECIMEN
4.01
1.0000
7Container No.
Specimen Diameter (in.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
182.7
2.70
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
**
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
12673.001
LB-22
B-1
96.7
4.01
2.70
5325.8
0.0
595.3
5325.8
175.8
1.0080
618.5
After TestBefore Test
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
7
0.481
Dry Density (pcf)
Wet Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Specimen Height (in.)
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
2/19/20
114.7
Moisture Content (%)
Date
16:30
Void Ratio
Pore Volume (cc)
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
124.5
Time
2/20/20 9:00
1.0
1.0
16:40 1.02/19/20
1.0
8 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Wt. of Container (gm.)
113.8
0.5000
10 0.5000
0.50802/20/20
0
920
Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000
8:00
980 0.5080
8.0
Project Name:Date:2/18/20
Project Number:12673.001 Technician:F. Mina
Boring Number:LB-9 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0
Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location:
Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
TEST SPECIMEN A B C
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %12.5 13.6 14.7
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.49 2.50 2.53
DRY DENSITY, pcf 109.8 106.8 107.2
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 125 115 100
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 698 347 180
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 68 35 17
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)75 84 130
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.20 4.67 5.38
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 40 33 10
R-VALUE CORRECTED 40 33 10
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.0.96 1.08 1.45
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.2.57 1.32 0.64
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:29
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:29
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:29
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
N/A
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
CO
V
E
R
T
H
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
B
Y
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
i
n
fe
e
t
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in
feet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0100200300400500600700800
R-VA
L
U
E
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
Project Name:Date:2/18/20
Project Number:12673.001 Technician:F. Mina
Boring Number:LB-13 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0
Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location:
Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
TEST SPECIMEN A B C
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %8.8 9.4 10.5
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.50 2.45 2.48
DRY DENSITY, pcf 120.0 116.7 117.5
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 200 150 125
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 784 553 260
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 13 9 3
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)27 40 75
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.30 4.42 4.62
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 74 63 38
R-VALUE CORRECTED 74 63 38
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.0.41 0.59 0.99
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.0.49 0.34 0.11
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:69
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:42
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:42
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
N/A
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
CO
V
E
R
T
H
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
B
Y
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
i
n
fe
e
t
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in
feet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0100200300400500600700800
R-VA
L
U
E
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-2 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-6 Depth (ft.)30
Sample Description:
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )
** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density (pcf):102.4 Final Dry Density (pcf):107.4
Initial Moisture (%):5.7 Final Moisture (%) :16.9
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.6456
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):23.9
1.050 0.9898 0.00 -1.02 -1.02
2.013 0.9816 0.00 -1.84 -1.84
H2O 0.9533 0.00 -4.67 -4.67
-2.88
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.5688
0.0102
0.0184
0.0467
Well-Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM), Yellowish Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.6289
0.6154
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-3 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-4 Depth (ft.)10.0
Sample Description:
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )
** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density (pcf):101.0 Final Dry Density (pcf):103.3
Initial Moisture (%):22.0 Final Moisture (%) :24.5
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.6688
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):88.8
1.050 0.9924 0.00 -0.76 -0.76
2.013 0.9841 0.00 -1.59 -1.59
H2O 0.9779 0.00 -2.21 -2.21
-0.63
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.6319
0.0076
0.0159
0.0221
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.6561
0.6423
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-6 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-4 Depth (ft.)15.0
Sample Description:
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )
** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density (pcf):108.6 Final Dry Density (pcf):115.3
Initial Moisture (%):6.2 Final Moisture (%) :15.3
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.5526
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):30.5
1.050 0.9880 0.00 -1.20 -1.20
2.013 0.9791 0.00 -2.09 -2.09
H2O 0.9420 0.00 -5.80 -5.80
-3.79
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.4625
0.0120
0.0209
0.0580
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5339
0.5201
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-9 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-3 Depth (ft.)15.0
Sample Description:
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )
** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density (pcf):116.4 Final Dry Density (pcf):119.0
Initial Moisture (%):13.1 Final Moisture (%) :16.4
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.4482
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):78.7
1.050 0.9930 0.00 -0.70 -0.70
2.013 0.9862 0.00 -1.38 -1.38
H2O 0.9783 0.00 -2.17 -2.17
-0.80
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.4168
0.0070
0.0138
0.0217
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.4381
0.4283
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-9 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-4 Depth (ft.)20.0
Sample Description:
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )
** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density (pcf):104.4 Final Dry Density (pcf):106.2
Initial Moisture (%):21.4 Final Moisture (%) :22.7
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.6146
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):94.1
1.050 0.9898 0.00 -1.02 -1.02
2.013 0.9848 0.00 -1.52 -1.52
H2O 0.9833 0.00 -1.67 -1.67
-0.15
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.5876
0.0102
0.0152
0.0167
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5981
0.5900
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-12 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-2 Depth (ft.)5.0
Sample Description:
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )
** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density (pcf):108.9 Final Dry Density (pcf):115.2
Initial Moisture (%):7.2 Final Moisture (%) :16.2
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.5482
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):35.6
1.050 0.9889 0.00 -1.11 -1.11
2.013 0.9788 0.00 -2.12 -2.12
H2O 0.9454 0.00 -5.46 -5.46
-3.41
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.4636
0.0111
0.0212
0.0546
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5310
0.5153
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-14 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-3 Depth (ft.)10.0
Sample Description:
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled )
** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density (pcf):82.3 Final Dry Density (pcf):83.4
Initial Moisture (%):27.7 Final Moisture (%) :40.7
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:1.0483
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):71.4
1.050 0.9928 0.00 -0.72 -0.72
2.013 0.9880 0.00 -1.20 -1.20
H2O 0.9865 0.00 -1.35 -1.35
-0.15
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
1.0206
0.0072
0.0120
0.0135
Silt (ML), White.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
1.0335
1.0237
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
Sand Equivalent; LB-1, R-1 (02-10-20)
Project Name:G. Davila Date:
Project No. :G. Davila Date:
Client:M. Vinet Date:
18 9 18 5 #DIV/0!19 00
12:00 12:10 12:12 12:32 10.6 2.0 19
12:02 12:12 12:14 12:34 10.8 2.0 19
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
T1 = Starting Time T3 = Settlement Starting Time Sand Equivalent = R2 / R1 * 100
T2 = ( T1 + 10 min) Begin Agitation T4 = ( T3 + 20 min) Take Clay Reading (R1)Record SE as Next Higher Integer
LB-1 R-1 5 Silty Sand (SM)
12673.001
Wingsweep Commons Geo
Wingsweep Corporation
Sample No.
2/19/20
2/20/20
Tested By:
Computed By:
Checked By:
Depth (ft.)Average
SESoil Description SER1R2
19
SAND EQUIVALENT TEST
ASTM D 2419 / DOT CA Test 217
2/19/20
T1 T2 T3 T4Boring No.
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)f (o)Saturation (%)
Peak 224 38 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 400 28 Final Moisture Content (%)
03-20
Project No.:12673.001
42.3
0.9976
1.000
35.9
Wingsweep Commons Ent GeoDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
1.000
1.442
0.920
0.0033
13.63
90.2
2.415
Soil Identification:1.000
2.415
0.9764
41.0
33.2
13.63
79.9
0.0033
2.000
1.539
1.454
Silt (ML), White
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
LB-14
R-3
10
0.00
1.00
2.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Direct Shear; LB-14, R-3 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)f (o)Saturation (%)
Peak 207 38 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 111 30 Final Moisture Content (%)
1.552
1.175
Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish
Brown.
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
LB-20
R-3
10
56.2
14.22
100.2
0.0033
2.000
1.000
2.415
0.9786
29.9
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
1.000
1.398
0.920
0.0033
14.22
99.5
2.415
Soil Identification:
03-20
Project No.:12673.001
55.3
0.9919
1.000
30.6
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.00
1.00
2.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Direct Shear; LB-20, R-3 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Project Name:Wingsweep Common Ent Geo Tested By :M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
Project No. :12673.001 Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:02/21/20
Boring No.LB-9 LB-13
Sample No.B-1 B-1
Sample Depth (ft)5.0 - 10.0
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
100.00 100.00
1 2
1 2
850 850
Timer Timer
45 45
24.2322 25.0012
24.2300 24.9986
0.0022 0.0026
90.53 106.99
91 107
ml of Extract For Titration (B)30 30
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)1.8 0.4
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 160 20
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 160 20
7.03 6.23
21.0 21.0
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
Beaker No.
Crucible No.
Furnace Temperature (°C)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
Wt. of Crucible (g)
Silty Sand (SM)
Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Time In / Time Out
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Duration of Combustion (min)
Silty Sand (SM)
Temperature °C
pH Value
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Soil Identification:
Moisture Content (%)
Project Name:Tested By :M. Vinet Date:
Project No. :Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:
Boring No.:Depth (ft.) :
Sample No. :B-1
Container No.
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Box Constant16001600
Silty Sand (SM)
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
16.60
Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Wingsweep Common Ent Geo 02/20/20
02/21/20
5.0 - 10.0
12673.001
LB-9
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
Temp. (°C)pH
Soil pH
1700
1400
100.00
0.00
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
1400 23.2 91 160 7.03 21.0
4
83
116
149
A
500.003140023.20
1700
Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422
(%)(ppm)(ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)
29.80
Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5
1
2
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
50
Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC)Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
3700
Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity
testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.
Wt. of Container (g)10.00 3700
0.00
100.00
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)Specimen
No.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
So
i
l
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
o
h
m
-cm
)
Moisture Content (%)
Minimum resistivity
read here
Project Name:Tested By :M. Vinet Date:
Project No. :Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:
Boring No.:Depth (ft.) :
Sample No. :
Silty Sand (SM)
83
116 23.20
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)(%)(ppm)(ppm)
Min. Resistivity Moisture Content
5
3100
Container No.290016.60
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
4
Specimen
No.
1
2
3
420010.00 4200
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC)
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
2850 18.0 107 20 6.23
DOT CA Test 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422DOT CA Test 643
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
Temp. (°C)pH
Soil pH
1.000
A
500.00
2900
3100
100.00
0.00
21.0
Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Box Constant
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Sulfate Content
Wingsweep Common Ent Geo 02/20/20
02/21/20
0.0
12673.001
LB-13
B-1
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
50
Soil Identification:*
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity
testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.
0.00
100.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
So
i
l
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
o
h
m
-cm
)
Moisture Content (%)
Minimum resistivity
read here
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX C
SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSES
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Schmertmann Method
Date June 11, 2020
Identification Wingsweep 12673.001
Input Results
Units E E or SI
Shape sq SQ, CI, CO, or RE q =1950 lb/ft^2
B =5 ft delta =0.55 in
L =5 ft
D =1 ft
P =45 k
Dw =20 ft
gamma =125 lb/ft^3
t =10 yr
Depth to Soil Layer
Top Bottom Es zf I epsilon strain delta
(ft)(ft)(lb/ft^2)(ft)(%)(in)
0.0 1.0
1.0 2.0 200000 0.5 0.221 0.2725 0.0327
2.0 3.0 200000 1.5 0.463 0.5707 0.0685
3.0 4.0 200000 2.5 0.705 0.8693 0.1043
4.0 5.0 200000 3.5 0.611 0.7534 0.0904
5.0 6.0 200000 4.5 0.517 0.6375 0.0765
6.0 7.0 200000 5.5 0.423 0.5216 0.0626
7.0 8.0 200000 6.5 0.329 0.4057 0.0487
8.0 9.0 200000 7.5 0.235 0.2898 0.0348
9.0 10.0 200000 8.5 0.141 0.1739 0.0209
10.0 11.0 200000 9.5 0.047 0.0580 0.0070
11.0 12.0 200000 10.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
12.0 13.0 200000 11.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
13.0 14.0 200000 12.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
14.0 15.0 200000 13.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
15.0 16.0 200000 14.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
16.0 17.0 200000 15.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
17.0 18.0 200000 16.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
18.0 19.0 200000 17.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
19.0 20.0 200000 18.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
20.0 21.0 200000 19.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
21.0 22.0 200000 20.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
22.0 23.0 200000 21.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
23.0 24.0 200000 22.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
24.0 25.0 200000 23.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
25.0 26.0 200000 24.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
26.0 27.0 200000 25.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
27.0 28.0 200000 26.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
28.0 29.0 200000 27.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
29.0 30.0 200000 28.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
30.0 31.0 200000 29.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
31.0 32.0 200000 30.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
32.0 33.0 200000 31.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
33.0 34.0 200000 32.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
34.0 35.0 200000 33.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
35.0 36.0 200000 34.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
36.0 37.0 200000 35.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
37.0 38.0 200000 36.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
38.0 39.0 200000 37.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
39.0 40.0 200000 38.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
40.0 41.0 200000 39.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
41.0 42.0 200000 40.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
42.0 43.0 200000 41.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
43.0 44.0 200000 42.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
1.0051.0051.0051.005
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/Ō3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deg)
Pauba FormaƟon 132 Mohr‐Coulomb 111 30
0.2416
0
0
15
0
0
14
0
0
13
0
0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Analysis Description Seismic
Company Leighton and AssociatesScale1:750Drawn By BSS
Project Number 12673.001Date6/22/2020
Project
Wingsweep - PA10
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.022
1.17
1
1.17
1
1.17
1
1.1
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/Ō3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deg)
Water
Surface Ru
Pauba FormaƟon 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 400 28 None 0
ArƟficial Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 100 35 None 0
0.25
13
5
0
13
0
0
12
5
0
12
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Analysis Description Seismic
Company Leighton and AssociatesScale1:400Drawn By BSS
Project Number 12673.001Date6/22/2020
Project
Wingsweep - PA12
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.022
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX E
EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
-i-
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 GENERAL 1
1.1 Intent 1
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2
2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2
2.2 Processing 3
2.3 Overexcavation 3
2.4 Benching 3
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3
3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4
3.1 General 4
3.2 Oversize 4
3.3 Import 4
4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4
4.1 Fill Layers 4
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5
4.3 Compaction of Fill 5
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5
4.5 Compaction Testing 5
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5
4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6
5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6
6.0 EXCAVATION 6
7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6
7.1 Safety 6
7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7
7.3 Lift Thickness 7
7.4 Observation and Testing 7
Standard Details
A - Keying and Benching Rear of Text
Retaining Wall Rear of Text
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-1-
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 the Geotechnical
Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants
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. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped,
elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared
for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas,
all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and
processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction
testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical
Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a
routine and frequent basis.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-2-
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 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 "spreads" 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 observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. 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.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing 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 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be
allowed.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-3-
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.
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 large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform,
flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation
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 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat
subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/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
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-4-
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill 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 the requirements of Section 3.1. 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 Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) 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.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-5-
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to
attain a 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 of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test
Method D1557).
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). 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 Slopes
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.
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 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.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-6-
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 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. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains 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.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on
geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined
by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions
during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope
shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement
of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of
trench excavations.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-7-
7.2 Bedding and Backfill
All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works
Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30
(SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and
densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of
90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the
surface.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.
At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can
demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to
the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.4 Observation and Testing
The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX F
GBA - IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning,
collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from
widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined
with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained
from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site
reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models
of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology
and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and
proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical
engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment
to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface
model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that
will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected
performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or
affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a
geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion
of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering
assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed
to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be
titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.
Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an
engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context
of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic
inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A
geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer
will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared
solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-
engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during
a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of
the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental
remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can
be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed
subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or
regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is
required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on
an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and
refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors
when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing
the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report
Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s
subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical
engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific
locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from
that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer,
who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about
subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface
conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in
this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer
to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain
informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are
Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or
alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not
final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily
on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize
the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions
exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical
engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist,
the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have
occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you
fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of
the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and
specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-
phase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes
only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that
“informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on
the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the
report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific
project requirements, including options selected from the report, only
from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors
that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to
allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in
a position to give constructors the information available to you, while
requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and
preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on
project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials
with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That
lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have
resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,”
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’
responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own
responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.
Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental
site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a
geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering
report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or
recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground
storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface
environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not
obtained your own environmental information about the project site,
ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find
environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s
services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent
migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil
through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where
it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s
recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent
moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by
including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.
Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of
GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.
Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org