Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 20591 WQMP Temecula Community Church Water Quality Management Plan For: TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH EXPANSION LOT 8, TR20591 PA05-0399 Prepared for: TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH 29525 SANTIAGO RD. TEMECULA, CA 92592 (951) 676-4021 DOMENICKOCCHIPINTI, PASTOR Prepared by: HECTOR CORREA, RCE HLC CIVIL ENGINEERING 28465 Old Town Front Street SUITE 315 TEMECULA, CA 92590 (951) 506-4869 VOICE (951) 506-4979 FAX WQMP Preparation Date: December 7, 2007 • Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION . "] certify under a penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. ide2IU7 "HECTOR' O A Date RCE 36306 E) P 6/30/08 QpOVEMU10pq� ~ HECTOR Gy\ LUCIO CORREA No.363C6 m } CIVIL . MNEMN6 ��OF CpL�4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) • OWNER'S CERTIFICATION This project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Lot 8, TR20591 by HLC CIVIL ENGINEERING for the project known as PA05-0389 located at 29525 Santiago Road Temecula, CA 92592. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of City of Temecula for development requirement for the preparation and implementation of a project-specific WQMP. The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the implementation of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, employeess, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party (or parties) having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity. The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementation of this WQMP is enforceable under City of Temecula Water Quality Ordinance(Municipal Code Section 8.28.500) If the undersigned transfers its interest in the subject property/project, its successor in interest the undersigned shall notify the successor in interest of its responsibility to implement this WQMP. I certify under penalty of law that the provision of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest." �5Z 7Ze�97 xx ,ner's Signature �1 Date ,SJOMEn/!Ck J 'CJ�FL/P/.t�77 Owner's Printed Name Owner's Title/Position i ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Ca ornia County of % On &j 7772.CC7 before me, -�p7Cl� �, �r l� ►'la 'T w (here insert name-and title oft officer) personally appeared y' - personally known to me (or p Aved to ne nn th basis of satisfactory�ce) to be the person(s) whose names is afesubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me tha he abaAlaey executed the same i is he0their authorized capacity0es), and that by(ghe4&teir signatures) on the instrument the persen(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the persor�s) acted, executed the instrument. APRIL M.ROBERTS WITNESS my hand and official seal. commmon#issia% Wary KbBc•CCd1b Mc °`acouy Signature � 01MYCOMM.Een0(Seal) Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents Section Pale I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 II SITE CHARACTERIZATION 3 III POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 4 IV HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN 5 V BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 6 V.1 Site Design BMPs 7 V.2 Source Control BMPs 10 V.3 Treatment Control BMPs 14 VA Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives 16 V.5 Regionally-Based Treatment Control BMPs 16 VI OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs 17 VII FUNDING 19 APPENDICES A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL B. VICINITY MAP AND SITE PLAN C. SUPPORTING DETAIL RELATED TO HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN D. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS E. SOIlS REPORT F. TREATMENT CONTROL BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS AND DESIGN DETAILS G. AGREEMENTS H. PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT- A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was not performed on this property Page i Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) I. Project Description Project Description This project is presently an existing religious institution consisting of a local historic chapel, four modular structures including two small sheds with AC parking lot. The proposed development will replace the four existing modular structures and sheds with two new buildings; one building will be an 8,780 square feet sanctuary building and the other a 4,600 S.F. classrooms building. The 8,780 sanctuary will be located on the western portion of the site. The classroom building will be located on the southwest portion of the site. The existing 1,663 square foot historic chapel will not be rehabilitated under this development plan and will remain in its existing condition. The new development will disturb 1.63 acres of the gross 3.92 acres 41.6%. See WQMP Exhibit A for summary of areas. Project Owner TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH 29525 SANTIAGO RD. TEMECULA, CA 92592 (951) 676-4021 Voice (951) 303-2989 Fax DOMENICK OCCHIPINTI, PASTOR WOMP Preparer HECTOR CORREA, RCE, PRINCIPLE HLC CIVIL ENGINEERING 28465 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET SUITE 315 • TEMECULA, CA 92590 (951) 506-4869 VOICE (951) 506-4979 FAX Location of on-site facilities The 8,780 square foot sanctuary building will be located on the western portion of the site. The 4,600 square foot classroom building will be located on the southwest portion of the site. The existing 1,663 square foot local historic chapel is located on the eastern side of the site next. The development will have grass infiltration Swale along the southerly boundary of the properly. Materials Storage and Delivery Areas Material storage areas, loading and unloading docks are not proposed. Outdoor storage will not be allowed and deliveries will continue through main entrances of each builidng. Wastes generated by project activities Normal office, school, and church waste will be generated on-site. The project will have large covered trash enclosures to service the site. Project Site Address: 29525 SANTIAGO RD. TEMECULA, CA 92592 Planning Area/Community Name: 0 Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (SP-2), Planning Area 19 Page 1 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) APN Number(s): APN 922-130-016 Thomas Bros. Man: Page 979, Grid A-1, (2006) Project Watershed: Santa Margarita River, Hydrologic Unit 902 Sub-watershed: Murrieta Creek, HAS 902.32 Project Site Size: 3.92 acres gross and 3.66 acres net but with only 1.63 acres being disturbed (41.6%of site). Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: Industry Group 821: Elementary and Secondary Schools Formation of Home Owners' Association (HOA)or Property Owners Association (POA): None proposed. This property owned by single entity Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project AGENCY =eq . State Department of Fish and Game, 1601 Streambed No Alteration Agreement State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act No (CWA) section 401 Water Quality Certification US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA section 404 permit No US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act section 7 No biological opinion Other (please list in the space below as required) SWRCB General Construction Permit Yes City of Temecula (Grading & Building) Yes Riverside County Flood Control No • Page 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) . II. Site Characterization Land Use Designation or Zoning: Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (SP-2), Planning Area 19, Very Low Residential (VL) Current Property Use: Existing religious institution Proposed Property Use: religious institution Availability of Soils Report: Yes, See Appendix E Phase 1 Site Assessment: None Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from Site 303(d) List Designated Beneficial Uses Proximity to Receiving Waters Impairments RARE Beneficial Use MURRIETA CREEK PHOSPHORUS MUN, AGR, IND, PROC, RECl, REC2, WARM, NOT A RARE HU 2.32,2.52 COLD, WILD WATER BODY NITROGEN, IRON, . MANGANESE SANTAMARGARITA PHOSPHORUS MUN, AGIL, IND, RECI, REC2, WARM, COLD, APPROXIMATELY RIVER WILD RARE 3.5 MILES Hu 2.52,2.22 SANTA MARGARIT A PHOSPHORUS MUN, AGR, IND, RECI, REC2, WARM, COLD, APPROXIMATELY RIVER WILD,RARE 9 MILES HU 2.21 SANTA MARGARITA NONE MUN, AGR, IND, RECl, REC2, WARM, COLD, APPROXIMATELY RIVER WILD,RARE 12 MILES HU 2.13 SANTA MARGARITA _IT NONE MUN, AGR, IND, REci, REC2, WARM, COLD, APPROXIMATELY RIVER WILD RARE 16 MILES Hu 2.12 SANTA MARGARITA NONE MUN, AUK, IND, RECI, REC2, WARM, COLD, APPROXIMATELY RIVER WILD,RARE 30 MILES Hu 2.11 SANTA MARGARITA EUTROPHIC RE0, REC2, EST, WILD, RARE, MAR, MIGR, APPROXIMATELY RIVER LAGOON SPWN 30 MILES HU 2.211 PACIFIC OCEAN NONE IND, NAV, REcI, REC2, COMM, BIOL, WILD APPROXIMATELY RARE MAR,AQUA,MIGR, SPWN,SHELL 33 MILES Page 3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) III. Pollutants of Concern Urban Runoff Pollutants: This WQMP will use parking lots as the land use category. As such, this religious institution project can expect or potentially expect the following pollutants: Urban Runoff Pollutants: POLLUTANTS EXPECTED POTENTIAL POTENTIAL SOURCE 303(d) LISTING SEDIMENT/TURBIDITY X PARKING LOT,ROOF&LANDS CAPE NUTRIENTS X LANDSCAPE X ORGANIC COMPOUNDS X PARKING LOT,ROOF&LANDS CAPE TRASH&DEBRIS X CUSTOMER&EMPLOYEE OXYGEN DEMANDING X LANDSCAPE SUBSTANCES PATHOGENS(BACTERIA& X GARBAGE&ROOF VIRUSES) . OILS&GREASE X PARKING LOT PESTICIDES X LANDSCAPE METALS X PARKING LOT&ROOF DRAIN X Pollutants of concern: Phosphorus,Nitrogen, Iron, and Manganese are the pollutants of concern, since this site runoff will discharge into Murrieta Creek, and Murrieta Creek is listed on the 2002 303(d) list as impaired for these pollutants of concern. Legacy Pollutants: The project site has been a church and private school for over ten years and prior to that was vacant land. No known hazardous substances have been used on the property. Page 4 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) IV. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern • Impacts to the hydrologic regime resulting from the Project may include increased runoff volume and velocity; reduced infiltration; increased flow frequency, duration, and peaks, faster time to reach peak flow; and water quality degradation. Under certain circumstances, changes could also result in the reduction in the amount of available sediment for transport; storm flows could fill this sediment-carrying capacity by eroding the downstream channel. These changes have the potential to permanently impact downstream channels and habitat integrity. A change to the hydrologic regime of a Project's site would be considered a hydrologic condition of concern if the change would have a significant impact on downstream erosion compared to the pre-development condition or have significant impacts on stream habitat,alone or as part of a cumulative impact from development in the watershed. This project-specific WQMP must address the issue of Hydrologic Conditions of Concern unless one of the following conditions is met: Condition A: Runoff from the Project is discharged directly to a publicly-owned, operated and maintained MS4;the discharge is in full compliance with Co-Permittee requirements for connections and discharges to the MS4 (including both quality and quantity requirements); the discharge would not significantly impact stream habitat in proximate Receiving Waters; and the discharge is authorized by the Co-Permittee. Condition B: The project disturbs less than 1 acre. The disturbed area calculation should include all disturbances associated with larger plans of development. Condition C: The project's runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post-development condition do not exceed the pre-development condition for the 2-year, 24-hour and 10-year 24-hour rainfall events. This condition can be achieved by minimizing impervious area on a site and incorporating other site-design concepts that mimic pre-development conditions. This condition must be substantiated • by hydrologic modeling methods acceptable to the Co-Permittee. This Project meets Condition A: Supporting engineering studies, calculations, and reports are included in Appendix C. BMP SUMMARY DISCHARGE POINT 1 2 YEAR-24HR 10 YEAR-24HR 100 YEAR-24HR PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST RUNOFF-CFS 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.17 0.18 VELOCITY-FPS 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.67 VOLUME-CUBIC FT 506 1,716 1,377 2,765 3,336 4,814 VOLUME-AC FT 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 DURATION-MIN 780 780 720 720 840 840 DISCHARGE POINT 2 2 YEAR-24HR 10 YEAR-241IR 100 YEAR-24HR PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST RUNOFF-CFS 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.19 0.30 0.42 VELOCITY-FPS 025 0.56 0.31 0.31 0.67 0.71 VOLUME-CUBIC FT 1,725 4,030 2,297 6,913 5,432 10,577 VOLUME-AC FT 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.16 0.12 0.24 • DURATION-MIN 840 840 840 840 840 840 Page 5 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) V. Best Management Practices VA SITE DESIGN BMPS PROPOSED PROJECT BMPS The following BMP concepts will be used. 1. Walkways will be at the minimum width allowed by the City. 2. Driveways and parking lot aisles will be held at the minimum widths allowed by the City. 3. Vegetated/Sand Swale Infiltration Trench 4. Rooftops will drain into landscape areas. 5. KriStar FloGard Plus model catch basin filter inserts will be installed in proposed catch basin to catch debris and litter. Page 6 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) TABLE 1. SITE DESIGN BMPS Included . Design Technique Specific BMP yes no Concept Site Design Minimize Concept 1 Urban Runoff Maximize the permeable area (See Section Yes, minimizing 4.5.1 of the WQMP). building foot print. Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between Yes, existing sidewalks and streets. landscape located between parking and sidewalk Maximize canopy interception and water Yes, new Trees conservation by preserving existing native and shrubs will trees and shrubs, and planting additional be planted. native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. Use natural drainage systems. No existing natural drainage system Where soils conditions are suitable, use Using infiltration perforated pipe or gravel filtration pits for low swale • flow infiltration. Construct onsite ponding areas or retention Using infiltration facilities to increase opportunities for swale infiltration consistent with vector control objectives. Other comparable and equally effective site None design concepts as approved by the Co- proposed Permittee (Note: Additional narrative required to describe BMP and how it addresses Site Design concept). • Page 7 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Included Design Technique Specific BMP yes no . Concept Site Design Minimize Concept 1 Impervious Footprint Maximize the permeable area (See Yes, Section 4.5.1 of the WQMP). Construct walkways, trails, patios, Not used overflow parking lots, alleys, driveways, low-traffic streets and other low -traffic areas with open-jointed paving materials or permeable surfaces, such as pervious concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and granular materials. Construct streets, sidewalks and parking Walk way and lot aisles to the minimum widths Parking stalls necessary, provided that public safety and are minimum a walk able environment for pedestrians width or lengths are not compromised. allowed by Planning Department. Reduce widths of street where off-street Street is parking is available. existing. Minimize the use of impervious surfaces, Yes, only using such as decorative concrete, in the walks where . landscape design. required for ADA purposes Other comparable and equally effective None used site design concepts as approved by the Co-Permittee (Note: Additional narrative required describing BMP and how it addresses Site Design concept). Conserve Natural Areas Conserve natural areas (See WQMP None Section 4.5.1). existing Maximize canopy interception and water Planting native conservation by preserving existing native trees and shrubs trees and shrubs, and planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. Use natural drainage systems. None existing Other comparable and equally effective Not used site design concepts as approved by the Co-Permittee (Note: Additional narrative required describing BMP and how it • addresses Site Design concept . Page 8 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) included Design Technique Specific BMP yes no • Concept Design Minimize Residential and commercial sites must be Roof drains to Site Site t 2 Directly designed to contain and infiltrate roof drain onto ConceConnected runoff, or direct roof runoff to vegetative landsape. impervious swales or buffer areas, where feasible. Areas Where landscaping is proposed, drain Impervious (DCIAs) impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, areas drain to and patios into adjacent landscaping. adjacent landscape area Increase the use of vegetated drainage Using grassy swales in lieu of underground piping or Swale. imperviously lined swales. Rural Swale system: street sheet flows to Not Applicable, vegetated swale or gravel shoulder, curbs existing street at street corners, culverts under driveways and street crossings. Urban curb/swale system: street slopes to Yes, Draining curb; periodic swale inlets drain to onto landscape vegetated swalelbiofilter. swale Dual drainage system: First flush captured Yes, Draining in street catch basins and discharged to onto grassy adjacent vegetated swale or gravel swale or shoulder, high flows connect directly to landscape area. • Design driveways with shared access, Yes, Draining flared (single lane at street)or wheel strips onto landscape (paving only under tires); or, drain into swale landscaping prior to discharging to the M S4. Uncovered temporary or guest parking on Designed to private residential lots may be paved with drain to veg. a permeable surface, or designed to drain swale into landscaping prior to discharging to the M S4. Where landscaping is proposed in parking Using grassy areas, incorporate landscape areas into swale. the drainage design. Overflow parking (parking stalls provided Not providing in excess of the Co-Permittee's minimum overflow parking parking requirements) may be constructed with permeable paving. Other comparable and equally effective Not used design concepts as approved by the Co- Permittee (Note: Additional narrative required describing BMP and how it addresses Site Design concept). • Page 9 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) . V.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS Table 2.Source Control BMPS Check One Not If not applicable, state BMP Name Included A livable brief reason Non-Structural Source Control BMPS Education for Property Owners, Operators, X Em to ees, Occu ants, or Employees Activity Restrictions X Ini ation S stem and Landscape Maintenance X Common Area Litter Control X Street Swee 'n Private Streets and Parkin2 Lots X Drain a Fadli Ins 'on and Maintenance X , Structural Source Control BMPS MS4 Stencilin and Si na e X Landsca and Ini ation system Desi n X Protect So es and Channels X Provide Communi Car Wash Racks X Not Part of Pro ect Pro d Desi n: Fuelin Areas X Not Part of Pro'ect AirlWater Su Area Drainage X Not Part of Pro'ect Trash Stora a Areas X X Not Part of Pro'ect Loadin Dods Maintenance Bays X Not Part of Project VehiGa and E ui ment Wash Areas X Not Part of Project Outdoor Materim Stora a Areas X Not Part of Pro ect Outdoor Work Areas or Processing Areas X Not Part of Pro eel Provide Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas X Not Part of Pro eel Page 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) ACTIVITY FREQUENCY RESPONSIBLEPARTY NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROLS Education Provide at occupancy, within 3 months Property Owner for new hires, and annually for existing employees Activity Restrictions Daily Property Owner Landscape Maintenance Bi-weekly Property Owner Litter Control Daily Property Owner Parking Lot/Street Sweeping Monthly at a minimum;more frequently as Property Owner needed. Drainage Facility Inspection Monthly Property Owner and Maintenance STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROLS Stenciling and Signage Bi-annually Property Owner Irrigation System Same as landscape maintenance Property Owner Maintenance Slope and Channels Same as landscape maintenance Property Owner Trash Storage Areas Conducted Daily Property Owner Page 11 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) PROPOSED NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS Education for Employees: The Developer will review and distribute to the Employee a public education program. The employees will sign a form acknowledging receipt of discussion and the storm water pollution prevention materials, (See Appendix D), and will keep a log of employees that have certified that they have received the information and the log will be kept with the Property Owner. Employee training will be provided within 30 days of hiring date with annual training All Employees and Employees will be provided educational material available from the City of Temecula Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control and State Water Resources Board. Activity Restrictions: Property Owner will restrict the following activities that may contribute pollutants: 1. Prohibiting the blowing, sweeping, or hosing of debris (leaf litter, grass clippings, litter, etc.) into streets, storm drain inlets, or other conveyances. 2. Require dumpster lids to be closed at all times. 3. Prohibit vehicle washing, maintenance, or repair on the premises. 4. Prohibit outdoor storage 5. Prohibit Outdoor Material Storage Areas 6. Prohibit Outdoor Work Areas or Processing Areas 7. Prohibit Outdoor Food Preparation Areas 8. Washing down sidewalks, patios, streets, alleys, walkways, etc. Irrigation System and Landscape Maintenance 1 Pesticides, fertilizers and other chemical products shall be used in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 2 Pesticides, fertilizers and other chemical products shall be stored in closed, labeled containers, under cover and off the ground. 3 Landscaping waste shall be properly disposed by at an approved composting location or permitted landfill. 4 Stockpiles shall be placed away from watercourses, and covered to prevent the release if materials to the Stormwater Conveyance System or Receiving Waters. 5 Where practicable, native vegetation shall be retained or planted to reduce water, fertilizer and pesticide needs. 6 Areas where work is being actively conducted shall be routinely cleaned up using dry methods (e.g., sweeping, raking, etc.). Wet methods(e.g., hosing, etc.)may only be used if adequate precautions have been taken to prevent the discharge of wash water or other materials to the Stormwater Conveyance System or Receiving Waters. Page 12 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 7 The use of blowers is permitted so long as materials are collected and properly disposed. 8 Measures will be taken to reduce or eliminate landscaping and irrigation runoff. Examples • of practices include proper irrigation programming, programming shorter irrigation cycle times, and decreasing frequency after the application of fertilizers and pesticides. 9 Fertilizers and pesticides will not be applied prior to storm events. These products will not be applied during storm events. 10 Maintenance of irrigation systems and landscaping will be consistent with the City of Temecula landscape ordinance, which can be obtained at the City of Temecula planning counter. 11 Irrigation system maintenance will be conducted weekly to detect overspray, broken sprinkler heads, and other system failures. 12 The frequency of irrigation is anticipated to be daily during summer months and every other day during the rest of the year. Site irrigation will be monitored to minimize irrigation to a level that will not overwhelm infiltration trench. Inspection& Maintenance Frequency will be conducted weekly Property Owner will be responsible for implementation, maintenance, inspection and funding. Common Area Litter Control Property Owner will hire grounds keeper to inspect and collect all litter on a daily schedule. • Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Property Owner will hire street sweeping service to sweep driveways and parking lots bi-monthly and more frequently if needed. Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance All drainage facilities will be inspected before and after each major rain storm and will be maintained by the Property Owner. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS Stenciling and Signage All catch basin will be stenciling with the following prohibitive language; "NO DUMPING DRAINS TO CREEK". Trash Storage Areas Trash enclosures will be covered to protect containers from rainfall. Inspection& Maintenance Frequency will be conducted daily. PROPOSED SOURCE CONTROL BMPS MAINTENANC RESPONSIBILITY The Source Control BMP's will be implemented by the project developer prior to certificate of Occupancy. Maintenance and Inspection will be the responsibility of the Property Owner. Page 13 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) V.3 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS GRASSY SWALE Grass Swale will be installed to treat the following: TARGETED CONSTITUENTS REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS SEDIMENT HIGH OR MEDIUM NUTRIENTS LOW TRASH LOW METALS HIGH/MEDIUM BACTERIA UNKNOWN OIL AND GREASE HIGH ORGANICS UNKNOWN OXYGEND DEMANDING LOW PESTICIDES(non-soil bound) UNKNOWN The grass swale bottom is 3-feet wide and consists of 4" turf top layer,6" top soil and 36-inches of non- compacted gravel bed at a length of the swale. SAND INFILTRATION TRENCH Infiltration trench will be located beneath the grass swale to treat the following: TARGETED CONSTITUENTS REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS SEDIMENT HIGH OR MEDIUM NUTRIENTS HIGH OR MEDIUM TRASH UNKNOWN METALS HIGH BACTERIA HIGH OR MEDIUM OIL AND GREASE HIGH ORGANICS UNKNOWN OXYGEND DEMANDING HIGH OR MEDIUM PESTICIDES (non-soil bound) UNKNOWN CATCH BASIN FILTER KriStar F1oGard Plus catch basin filter inserts will be installed in all catch basin that collect flows from driveway. The FloGard insert filter is designed to fit just under the grate of a drainage inlet catch basin. The key element of this filter is to catch debris and litter. • Page 14 0 • Water Quality Management Plan (AP) Table 3: Treatment Control SUP Selection Matrix Treatment Control BMP Categories(e) Veg. Swale Detention Infiltration Basins Wet Sand Water Hydrodynamic Manufactured/ /Veg. Filter Basins(Z) & Ponds or Filter or Quality Separator Proprietary Pollutant of Concern Strips Trenches/Porous Wetlands Filtration Inlets Systems idl Devices Pavement(')(") Sediment/Turbidity HIM M HIM HIM HIM L HIM U L for turbidit Yes/No? Yes V ✓ Nutrients L M HIM HIM LIM L L U Yes/No? Yes V/ ✓ Organic Compounds U U U U HIM L L U Yes/No? Yes V V ✓ Trash&Debris L M U U HIM M HIM U Yes/No? Yes V/ ✓ Oxygen Demanding Substances L M HIM HIM HIM L L U Yes/No? Yes V/ V ✓ Bacteria&Viruses U U HIM U HIM L L U Yes/No? Yes V V/ ✓ Oils&Grease HIM M U U HIM M LIM U Yes/No? Yes �/ �/ ✓ Pesticides(non-soil bound) U U U U U L L U Yes/No? Yes ✓ Metals HIM M H H H L L U Yes/No? Yes V V ✓ Page-15 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Abbreviations: L: Low removal efficiency HIM:High or medium removal efficiency U: Unknown removal efficiency Notes: (1) Periodic performance assessment and updating of the guidance provided by this table may be necessary. (2) Includes grass swales,grass strips,wetland vegetation swales, and bioretention. (3) Incudes extended/dry detention basins with grass lining and extended/dry detention basins with impervious lining. Effectiveness based upon minimum 36- 8-hour drawdown time. (4) Includes infiltration basins,infiltration trenches, and porous pavements. (5) Includes permanent pool wet ponds and constructed wetlands. (6) Incudes sand filters and media filters. (7) Also known as hydrodynamic devices, baffle boxes,swid concentrators,or cyclone separators. (8) Includes proprietary stormwater treatment devices as listed in the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks, other stormwater treatment BMPs not specifically listed in this WQMP, or newly developed/emerging stonmwater treatment technologies. (9) Project proponents should base BMP designs on the Riverside County Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook. However, project proponents may also wish to reference the California Stormwater BMP Handbook— New Development and Redevelopment Handbook contains additional information on BMP operation and maintenance. (10) Note: Projects that will utilize infiltration-based Treatment Control BMPs (e.g., Infiltration Basins, Infiltration Trenches, Porous Pavement)must include a copy of the property/project soils report as Appendix E to the project-specific WQMP. The selection of a Treatment Control BMP (or BMPs) for the project must specifically consider the effectiveness of the Treatment Control BMP for pollutants identified as causing an impairment of Receiving Waters to which the project will discharge Urban Runoff. TREATEMENT CONTROL BMPS MAINTENANCE . The Treatment Control BMPs will be implemented by the project developer at initial construction of the development. Inspection will be the responsibility of the Property Owner. V.4 EQUIVALENT TREATMENT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES NOT APPLICABLE V.5 REGIONALLY-BASED TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs NOT APPLICABLE Page-16 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) VI Operation and Maintenance Responsibility for Treatment Control BMPs Operation and maintenance(O&M)for all Treatment Control BMPs will be the responsibility of the current and future Property Owner. PROPOSED PROJECT BMPS MAINTENANCE The BMP's will be implemented by the project developer prior to any certificate of occupancy. Maintenance and Inspection will be the responsibility of the current Property Owner. Treatment Control BMPs: VEGETATED SWALE BMP START-UP DATES The start-up date for vegetated infiltration Swale will after the installation of landscaping. SCHEDULE OF THE FREQUENCY: Maintenance The maintenance objectives for vegetated swale systems include keeping up the hydraulic and removal efficiency of the channel and maintaining a dense, healthy grass cover. Maintenance activities will include mowing, weed control, watering, reseeding of bare areas, and clearing of debris and blockages. Cuttings will be removed from the channel and disposed in a local composting facility. Accumulated sediment will also be removed manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. The application of fertilizers and pesticides will be minimal. If vegetated swale develops ruts or holes, it will be repaired utilizing a suitable soil that is properly tamped and seeded. Inspection I. Inspect swales during routine landscape maintenance for erosion, damage to vegetation, and sediment and debris accumulation and at the beginning and end of the wet season and before major fall runoff to be sure the swale is ready for heavy runoff. The swale will be checked for debris and litter, and areas of sediment accumulation. 2. Weekly inspect swales for pools of standing water. Swales can become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding in standing water if obstructions develop (e.g. debris accumulation, invasive vegetation) and/or if proper drainage slopes are not implemented and maintained. Parties responsible for O&M The Property Owner will be responsible for the O&M of this BMP. Proof of entities responsible for O&M Page-17 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Agreement with the City will be in place that will have sufficient language to guarantee perpetual O&M. Inspection and record keeping requirements and responsible Party The Property Owner will be responsible for the inspection and record keeping of O&M of this BMP. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE Structural QuantiTy Capital Annual Start-up O&m Responsible Responsible BMP Cost O &M Dates Frequency funding party funding party Cost For For long-term installation O&M VEGETATED/ 282 LF $10,500 $2000 Prior to Weekly Current Current and INFILTRATION Occupancy Property Future Property SWALE Owner Owner 4 EA $2000 $100 At Monthly Current Current and INLET/CB Installation Property Future Property FILTERS Owner Owner Page-18 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) VII. Funding Maintenance funding will be provided by the current Property Owner and be will be enforced by an implementation Agreement with the City. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH 29525 SANTIAGO RD. TEMECULA, CA 92592 (951) 676-4021 DOMENICK OCCHIPINTI, PASTOR • Page-19 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) FUNDING CERTIFICATION A source of funding is required for all site design, source control, and treatment BMPs. For this project,the owner will fund the installation, and operation and maintenance of all BMPs set forth in the WQMP until the project is transferred to a new owner. Each owner shall record this WQMP with the County of Riverside as an attachment to the title of the property in order to transfer the O &M responsibilities to each new owner. Where the owner requires a lessee or other party to install, and operate and maintain the BMPs,the owner will maintain ultimate funding responsibilities, and will, upon default of the lessee or other party to fulfill these responsibilities shall cause the same to be performed at owner's expense. Nothing in this WQMP shall prevent the owner from pursuing cost recovery from any lessee or other party responsible for the BMPs, or from pursing remedies for the default of responsibilities as provided by the lease contract and law. The owner for TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH_ located in the City of Temecula. Riverside County will be responsible for the installation, and operation and maintenance of all BMPs until such time that the site is transferred to a new owner. 7 z1- Owner's Signature Date Owner's Printed Name Owner's or company Official's Title/Position TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH 29525 SANTIAGO RD. TEMECULA, CA 92592 (951) 676-4021 Pa4e.-70 Appendix A Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Resolution 05-0056 Dated Sept. 6, 2006 • • • PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0389, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A CHURCH SANCTUARY AND SCHOOL FACILITY AND AN EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC CHAPEL TOTALING 15,043 SQUARE-FEET Section 1. On December 15, 2b05 Matthew Fagan Consulting Services filed Planning Application No. PA05-0389, in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. Section 2. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. Section 3. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on September 6, 2006, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. . Section 4. At the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and . based upon the findings set forth hereunder. Section 5. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 6. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 7. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E (Conditional Use Permit), and as required by Section 17.05.010.17(Development Plan): Conditional Use Permit A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; The proposed use is conditionally permitted in the Very Low Density Residential zoning designation contained in the Ciiy's Development Code and consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation contained in the General Plan and the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. The site is propedy planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the use type. The use, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and focal ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), and fire and building codes. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and . development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures; The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed church facility against the adjacent land uses and has determined that the proposed use will be a complimentary addition to the area. Additionally, the proposed use wilt not adversely affect, nor be affected by, any of the surrounding properties as the adjacent uses are similar use types. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood; Staff has reviewed the proposed conditional use to determine consistency with the Development Code and has found that the project meets all of the applicable requirements. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use without affecting the yard, parking and loading, landscaping, and other development features required by the Development Code in order to integrate the use with other uses on the site and in the neighborhood. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community; Staff has reviewed Me proposed conditional use and found that it in no way will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general wellare of the community. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the use will function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Development Plan A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City; The proposed religious facility is permitted in the Very Low Residential land use designation standards contained in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Very Low Residential land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is property planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type of development Proposed- B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; The architecture proposed for the building is consistent with the Architectural requirements as stated in the Design Guidelines and the Development Code. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the-public health, safety and welfare. Section & Environmental Compliance. The Planning Director finds in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed use has been deemed to be categorically.exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332, in-fill Development Projects. Section 9. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves the Application PA05 0369, all of the foregoing masons and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section % PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 61h day of September 2006. Ron Guernero, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary (SEAL] STATE OF CAL-IFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECC1lA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 06-56 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the a day of September 2006, by the following vote: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guernero, Harter,Telesio NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary EXHIBIT A • FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • at p EXHIBIT A • CITY OF TEMECULA FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA05-0389 Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to construct and operate an 8,780 square foot church sanctuary,000 square feet of classroom space, and an existing 1,663 square foot local historic chapel Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-016 MSHCP Category: Subject to MSHCP DIF Category: Exempt TUMF Category: Exempt Approval Date: September 6, 2006 Expiration Date: September 6, 2008 • WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department 1. The applicantideveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-four Dollars($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. if within said 48-hour period the applicant1developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above,the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). GAPlanning12005WA05.03N Temecula Community Church-CUPPIanningWINAL COMA= • GENERAL REQUIREMENTS • GAP1anning120051PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church-CUP\Planning\FINAL COAs.doc Planning Department ons oval at will be 2. The by the Planning Departmlicant shall sign enstaff,th and return one signes of the final ed set he Planning Department for their files. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards,judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials,officers,employees, consultants,contractors,legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action,or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 4. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 5. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date;otherwise,it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two-year period,which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 6. The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration,and for good cause,grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 8. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 9. The conditions of approval specified in this resolution,to the extent specific items, materials, equipment,techniques,finishes or similar matters are specified, shall be deemed satisfied by staffs prior approval of the use or utilization of an item, material, equipment, finish or technique that City staff determines to be the substantial equivalent of that required by the condition of approval. Staff may elect to reject the request to substitute, in which case the real party in interest may appeal, after payment of the regular cost of an appeal,the decision to the Planning Commission for its decision. Material Color Stucco Cape Cod P-20, Glacier White P-100, Agate P-505 Roof Trim Wind Tunnel 30BB 10/150 Doors Harvest Cranberry • Steeple 00 White Deck 6 Asphalt Shingle Roof Estate Grey G:Wlanning=05%PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church-CUF1Manning%FINAL COAs.doc 10. Any rehabilitation to the historic chapel on site will require Planning Department approval and shall be carried out in accordance with the City of Temecula's Old Town Specific Plan Care and Maintenance provision. 11. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not b ing to erty owner maintained,the Planning Director shall,have the authority to require the prop the roved landscape nued maibrinntenance a the nce of all landscaped areaping into conformance a I be theprespons responsibility of the developer on. The r any successors in interest. 12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site.These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 14. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17,03.080 of the City's Development Code. of tted er 15, 15 The 2005, on filetwith shall comply Planning l Department,Statement essOperations superrseded byrthe a Conditions of Approval. 16. Regular hours of operation shall be 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays and 6:00 p.m.to 9 p.m. on Wednesdays for worship services, and Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.for school and administrative operations. (Changed at the September 6, 2006 Planning Commission) he property owner to 17 The Planning Director shall have the authority to require Temporary Use Permit approval for any use not speck t obtain specified in the Statement of Operations. 18. No overnight activities/events shall be conducted onsite in association with the church facility. 19. Playground and basketball court activities are not permitted after 8:00 p.m. Facility administrators are required to monitor all recreational activities during permitted hours. (Added at the September 6, 2006 Planning Commission) and classroom ng 20 All outdoor lighting for the south parking lot� play be turned off by 9:00 p.m. (Added at the September re6,�20 6 Planning Commission) shall issin) 21. The maximum permitted capacity of this facility at any given time shall not exceed 200 299. Worship services and/or school operations are not permitted to operate at the same time. (Changed at the September 6, 2006 Planning Commission) GAPlanning%20051PA05.0389 Temecula Community church.CUPWIannirngWINAL COAs.doc _ Public Works Department 22. A Grading Permit for a precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 23 commencementnof any construct ont Permit sall be btwithin an existing orppr posed City nigh of-wayained from t Deartment of Pubic Works ricr to 24. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and. existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24"x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 25. The project shall include construction-phase pollution prevention controls and permanent post-construction water quality protection measures into the design of the project to prevent non-permitted runoff from discharging offsite or entering any storm drain system or receiving water. he City. The MP will 26 ncl de sited sign BM s (Best Management Pra toes), source re Quality Management Plan(WQMP)shall be controls, and mechanisms. Building and Safety Department 27. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2004 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 28. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No.655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 29. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 30. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 31. Show all building setbacks. 32. Developments with Multi-tenant Buildings or Shell Buildings shall provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with Single User Buildings shall clearly show on the plans the location of a dedicated panel in place for the purpose of the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. 33, Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. G:%PlanningVG0S?Ao5-0339 Temecula community Church-cumplanning0NAL COAs.doc 34. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). 35. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 36. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 37. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 38. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 39. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-21, specifically Section G (1)of Riverside County Ordinance No.457.73,for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. —6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. —6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays 40. Please be advised of the following shell building/complete building policy in the City of Temecula when preparing plans for submittals. It is our recommendation that buildings with a known tenant or occupant be submitted as a complete building. Please consider the Building and Safety Department policy, attached as Exhibit 1, in determining the course of your design work and subsequent submittal. Fire Prevention 41. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code(CBC), California Fire Code(CFC),and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 42. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1600 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 2000 GPM with 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type,or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A). 43. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B,Table A-III-B-1.A combination of on-site and off-site superfire hydrants(6'x 4"x 2-2 1/2 outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart,at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) • in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B). G:1P1enning120051PA05.0389 Temecula Community Church-CUPxPlanningkFINAL COAs.doc • 44. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required (CFC 903.2). 45. If construction is phased,each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2). 46. Fire Department vehicle access roads shell have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four(24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)inches(CFC 902.2.2.1). 47. All/any manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC 902.4). Community Services Department 48. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction and demolition debris. 49. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. GAPlanning\2005\PA05.0389 Temecula Community Church-CUMPlanningWIKAL COAsAoe PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS GAPlanning00051PA05.0389 Temecula Community Church-CUPtiPlanningWINAL COAs.doc Planning Department 50. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 51. Double detector check valves shall be either installed underground or internal to the project site at locations not visible from the public right-of-way,subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 52. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources,or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered,the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/cultural resource,the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation_plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning.' Public Works Department 53. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 54. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 55. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 56. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. • G:VIannina120051PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church-CUMPlanning7INAL COAs.doc 57. Construction-phase pollution prevention controls shall be consistent with the City's Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance and associated technical manual, and the City's standard notes for Erosion and Sediment Control. 58. The project shall demonstrate coverage under the State NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities by providing a copy of the Waste Discharge Identification number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)shall be available at the site throughout the duration of construction activities. 59. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department- b. Department of Public Works 60. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which maybe shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet(ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 61. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code(Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 62. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. G:1PlanningV0051PA05-0389 Temecula Community Church-CUPIPlanningTINAL COAs.doc PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:T1anning@0051PA0"389 Temecula Community Church-CUPtPlanninolNAL COAs.doc • Planning Department 63. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan including the parking lot to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 64, Three copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per-the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. Provide a minimum five foot wide planter to be installed at the perimeter of all parking areas. Curbs,walkways, etc. are not to infringe on this area. C. Provide an agronomic soils report with the construction landscape plans. d. One copy of the approved grading plan. e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). • g. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. h. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval,which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. i. Specifications shall indicate that a minimum of two landscape site inspections will be required. One inspection to verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems have head-to-head coverage, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Department to schedule inspections. 65. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees. 66. Large evergreen screen trees shall be installed continuous along the south property line Immediately against the existing wall as approved by the Planning Director. Trees shall be planted from minimum 24 inch box size containers and shall be spaced • at no more than 30 feet on center. (Added at the September 6, 2006 Planning Commission) GAPlanning%2005WA05-0389 Temecula CommuNty Church-CUPwlanningf(NAL COAs.doc • 67. A copy of Internal Revenue Service form 501(c)(3) verifying tax-exempt status is required prior to building permit issuance. If such form is not provided the project may be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF) and Development Impact Fees (DIF). Public Works Department 68. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Building and Safety Department Prior to Submitting for Plan Review 69. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. At Plan Review Submittal 70. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 71. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. 72. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer • engineer are required for plan review submittal. 73. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. Prior to Permit Issuance 74. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. Prior to Beginning Construction 75. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. Fire Prevention 76. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type,location,spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company,the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire • Protection Association 24 1-4.1). G VI9nnin900051PA0"389 Temecula Community Church-W"lanningtFINAL COAs.doc 77. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have . approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed.Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,0001bs. GVW(CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). 78. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1). 79. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902). Community Services Department 80. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris • GAPlannlnq\20051PA05.0389 Temecula Community Church-CUP1PlanningT-INAL COAs.doc PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT G:W1anning120D51PA05-Mg Temecula Community Church-CUPTIanningTINAL COAs.doc Planning Department 81. Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. if upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening tf reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 82. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved Construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 83. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for a period of one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 84. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,at each entrance to the off- street parking facility,not less than 17 inches by 22 inches,dearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 951 696-3000.' 85. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least three square feet in size. 86. All site improvements including but not limited to parking areas and striping shall be installed prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 87. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Public Works Department 88. The project shall demonstrate that the pollution prevention BMPs outlined in the WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and are ready for immediate implementation. GAP1ann1ng%2005WA05.0389 Temecula Community Church•cUPVPtanningTINAL COAS.doc 89, As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District C. Department of Public Works 90. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 91, The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. Fire Prevention 92. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 93. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identity fire hydrant locations (CFC 901.4.3). 94. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve inches in height for buildings and six inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s) (CFC 901.4.4). 95, Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9). 96. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use,the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation(CFC Article 10). 97. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a"Knox-Box"shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six(6)feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door (CFC 902.4). G:VP1ann1nliV0051PA05-0389 Temecula Community church.CupWlanningTINAL 00M.doe • OUTSIDE AGENCIES • • rx Planning0005YW5-0389 Temewla Community Church-CUPrPlanning+FINAL COAS.doc . 98. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 4,2006,a copy of which is attached. 99. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated December 23, 2005, a copy of which is attached. 100. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information Center's transmittal dated February 27, 2006, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, 1 confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant s Signature Date Applicant's Printed Name • • G.'Pianning\2005VPA05.0389 Temecula Community Church-CUPVPIanningTINAL COAs.doc 0 JUNTY OF RIVERSIDE • HE�fH SERVICES AGENCY (] DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL'I'I • January 4,2006 fl l� Q U LS City of Temecula Planning Department JAN 0 2006 P.O.Box 9033 Temecula,CA 92589-9033 B Attention:Katie Leconte y RE: Development Plan No.PA05-0389 Dear Me.Leconte: Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit fro an addition of three buildings to include a chapel, sanctuary, classroom and removal of modular and trellises. Although, the site plan indicates that water and sewer services are existing we have no recent information in regards water and sewer availability. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMI`17S THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED: a) "WiUrserve"letters from the appropriate water and sewermg districts. • Sincerely, C3afn Martin avironmental xealth specialist (909)955-8980 NOTE: Any onneat additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for Seal Dot of Envitwfineatal Health clearance. • Local Enforcement Agency • P.O.Box 1280.Riverside, CA 92502.1280 • t909)955-8982 • FAX 1909)781-%53 • 4080 Lemon Street,9th floor, Riverside, CA 925( th 1 �ylr ntr. RANCHO ,(F CALIFORNIA Q p /� WATER < DISTRICT rm.0 a,m.i aa..rwam..- December 23, 2005 TG G L `,: (1 Beard arDireckn i aahaF•Ho Katie Lecomte DEC Z 9 2005 President aaa H.Hraha City of Temecula &•Am Pnetaaat Planning Department B Stephan LT.Comm 43200 Business Park Drive y a°'p61Dafly Post Office Box 9033 UND'Harn'nn Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Jahn L Hoaytwd h R SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH ofs " LOT NO.8 OF TRACT NO.20591; APN 922-130-016 Cmend CITY PROJECT NO. PA05-0389 [MATTHEW FAGANJ PhWip L Farb" Aadetaat Gaaed2/wgar/ ch�rero,.�a1 oGixr Dear Ms. Lecomte: Dinrtara[BMaaapnll .Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries ParrDiry much of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Wager service, therefore, would be Jae n.wrmt.vas available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site water facilities C aua, and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property Kam IL Garda owner. a�s"r tao a Micheal eo.ate If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property. owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an. Engineering Services Representative at this office at(951)296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Mi eel G. Meye�A'�.rpeteVP, Development Engineering Manager 05%MM:1m1231FEG c: Laurie Williams,Engineering Services Supervisor FEB-27-2006 iS:S1 RRl4 ; .:/WTHM UCR 951 827 5409 P.02/02 EAMRN INFORMATION CENTER CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Department of Anthropology,University of California,Riverside,CA 92621-0418 (951)827-5745-Fox(951)827-5409-eick**ucr edu Ingo,Mono,and Riverside Counties February 27, 2006 TO: Veronica McCoy or We Lecomte City of Temecula Planning Department RE: Cultural Resource Review Case: PA05-0389/Temecula Community Church CUP Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: _ - The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or Is adjacent to known cultural resouroeW. A Phase I study is recommended. F Based upon existing data the proposed project areahas the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study Is recommended. _ A Phase I cultural resource study(RI- )Identified one or more cultural resources. _ The project area contains,or has the possibility of containing,cultural resources. However,due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies,an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. ✓ A Phase I cultural resource study(part of RI-I048)Identified no cultural resources within the boundaries of the project area. _ There is a tow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. it,during construction,cultural resources are encountered,work should be halted or diverted in the Immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. _ Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area,earthmov►ng during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. The submission of a cultural resource management report Is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, presermp'on F4wn1129 Butte&4(a) December 1989. y/ Phase I Records search and field survey Phase it Testing[Evaluate resource significance;propose midgation measures for'stgnificane sites.) _ Phase III Mitigation[Data recovery by excavation,preservation in place,or a combination of the two.) _ Phase Iv Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS:The project area was examined in a non-systematic manner. it is recommended that the project area be surveyed systematically. If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern information Center EXHIBIT 1 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT POLICY Waanningt2005112AOS-OM Temecula Community Chum-CUP1Pianning\RNAL COAs.doc 21 Page 1 of 3 • CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION 1989 POLICY AND PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION: Shell Buildings APPROVED BY: Anthony J.Elmo,Director of Building and Safety REPLACES: 5/3on M3 Acceptance of Construction Plans for new commercial buildings shall fit one of the two (2)following categories: Shell Building Complete Building DEFINITIONS Shell Building-a shell building is one that does not support occupancy. It may be a building built for speculation or built prior to finalization of lease agreements and/or tenant improvement plans. A Shell Building is comprised of Finalized exterior walls Finalized roof diaphragm and roof covering,and may contain; Lobby Corridors Core Restroom Facilities Stairshafts Elevators Mechanical Equipment mounted on roof(no distribution) Complete Building- a complete building is one that can support occupancy. It also may be built for speculation but has all components in place to support occupancy. A Complete Building is comprised of: • Finalized exterior walls Finalized roof diaphragm and roof covering Created on 06/03/2003 9:59 AM C:\Documents and SettingADana.WeaverU.ocai Settings\Temporary Internet T::1....1llT V[1GG1..i.e11 i.n:l.l:nnc ii..r Page 2 of 3 • Core Restroom facilities Complete lighting and mechanical distribution systems Complete automatic fire sprinkler and alarm system, and may have: Lobby Corridors Stairshafts Elevators M M MUM PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL It1+,OUIItEMLN LS Shell BuildinE Soils Report Structural Frame Automatic Fire Sprinket Plan Underground Plumbing Plan Mechanical Equipme Roof Mount Layout Only Underground Electrical Plan LandscapefIrtigation an(separate submittal) Electrical Switchgear Plan Complete Buildiin Soils Report } Structural Frame/Architectural Plan Complete Plumbing Plan and schematics Complete Electrical Plan and Load Calcs Complete Mechanical and Energy Plans • Automatic Fire Sprinkler and Alarm Plans Landscape and Irrigation PIan (separate submittal) RELEASE OF UTILITY REOUIItEMENTB Shell Bulldlne-House Meter Only Building Shall Be Weatherized Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Shall Be Operational and Accepted Fire Department Access Provided Exterior Shell and Site Improvements Shall Be Complete Interior Elements Shall Be Deemed Safe as Determined by Building Inspector Complete Buildine-House Meter Oniv All Building and Site Construction Shall Be Completed or Deemed Safe by the Building Inspector All Project Conditions of Approval Shall Be Complete and Accepted by the Conditioning City Department • Created on 06/03/2003 9:59 AM C:\Documents and Settings\Dana.Weaver\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK9661shell buildings.doc Page 3 of 3 RELEASE OF MM EW PRO VEM ENTPERMIT Shell Building-Release of Tenant Improvement Permit will Not Be Issued Until After the Release of the House Electrical Meter Comuh x Modine-8 elease of Tenant Improvef�tt permit M� {ifGrant d Until Approval of Buildin Shell Ene Inspection ( g.rough and insulation). Any variance to these requirements must be submitted in writing to the Director of Building and Safety for consideration. • Created on 06/03/=3 9:59 AM C:\Documents and Settings\Dana.Weaver\Loca1 Settings%Temporary Internet Filet\nl X966\shell buildings.doc • Appendix B Vicinity Map, Receiving Waters Map and WQMP Site Plan • f.�jrr��,31 f LY I 3� n { z �la; Z'i' dn�',tr �R a 1�. •.� u -'. . k K � ' a I )r rL �`�n z� 4y ri c �a t,. PI ' A' ) ' 9ss ti� .rr� ✓ 4'� ' + �rtyys�'�'�w� � w a°�.. � t u `,L5 nS�n' .710 zA 5 > EL +f'i t�a.,,} w �'�,�, :�''`++a����' .,m,. �*��i,yr�rc:l �t .sae�.,a �'�:' I,c.� �;��'"v� •b �X,: ua��i' . RECEIVING WATERS MAP 17 7- 51iON sFAK 1 ^ " / C p Rank !• � x -;F 0 ;R EIS T' J r I �.Y4+tnt1J �� ars.cn 6�G rdd Sr Wei RStDL COUNTY ✓. -4 3 1 -- f`.rt S- ' �..j �� t 4 `..•• DIM—couNIV, wrL� t r ctaaw.t. MARQ4R(M Rtf: 1 1 ( 'i - ,y nm i t j7,w 1 - i `!Ilan f C!7 a V v°r i t .v` ,o-a.: Cu s e rda ) A Tt)uu,uwtNi c — .: .- 3 d e F C)p \ ALA rva b Ir. �zr n 1)� IN 1 r a� hN aeae tiwj 5r& l Res RVA 9w, .,. !+ �—CW.Tp Pa dl I 1H3ir�� 1`x.n n r �><i is r r.A � ,q r l 1 1 1 ry c i s i Ce TI Pen ILLffi� I p(:r/r� F M,�OhliL. 4! I' S M.Gat 1 - y "IA.YFR, L IN 1 .._._ �f �� °tom. 1 x�- - c PA rAi - r2 lrvl�tdmcs.f'��i ',- rl° \ z 3• 't c,� in✓r y _�4 �� � �.,.�� yr1\ � � \o c \f c�-.n �Y `� �" -a / 1 -✓ a VNiAI�� a _ I dewOCEA a /� a� �� F'`s.�i� y mac.. ,/ aa•___--}_� ; EXHIBIT A WQMP LEGEND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN �qsD„ARGE POINT TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH NEW AC PAVEMENT ]Os 1029.1 gSCXARGE ELEVATION EX GIMB \\ IX . _= � PA05-0389 L ', ', -: l /T y E%. PAVEMENT Ex Ac vAK \� r_ 22Z X. C&G _ WRDING BNRCNRE (x �/ LS __ ROAD -"""""""' NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT SECTION A - - (` q p T Q /� O -- -. R O /..\ D GRASS SWALE NEW NAROSCAPE NN _ AN V . . . . . .. DRAINAGE BOUNDARY NEW LANDSCAPE "lA1NLINK lAL 11 0.51 AC DRAINAGE AREA 6 Ex nt 011y FLOW DIRECTION USING AREA NOT A PART OF NCMP - -- Tr EX EX nG Om _65t BF 2Z x C" .. -� ® CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERT EX. CURB-?� - ZJ Ex OIpXu/ LS--' -T----- --_ 4 OF AC OWY r SECTION B I - NM BMP SUMMARY TABLE ID3 6' MO DISCHARGE MINT 2YEAR-20HR 10 YEAR-EdHR 100YEAR-2dHR 1 PRE MIST PRE POST oI PRE POST PH W 12- \\` EX. WF 3 EX � \ X W� �I \- RUNOFF ICES OM005 008 009 0.1 0.1] 8 IX nCG ---- ( VEGETATED SWALE ""-- '--.3 1 - SR LF VELOCITY FPS 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.67 1� Y 1,3]] ,.765 3,336 4,81 4YE VOLUMECUBICFT 506 1,716 SECTION C 63 F RIa LEAD ctsa ARCF VOLUME-AC PT 0.01 0.04 003 006 0.08 0.11 .0 IE '�fl0.1 tBTch :- ' DURATION- MIN 780 780 RO 720 940 840 I � - F"'MAE LINK r 4 vµ AI DISCHARGE POINi2 2YEAR-21HR IO YEAR-TAHR IN YEAR-24HR E ill @ PRE POST PRE POST PRE MST IX AC DM - --- - � - 4 AND A GF 1 RUNOFF-0PS 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.19 0.30 0.02 2X A chC l" _ VELOCITY - FPS 025 0.56 031 031 067 OJI IX. G40A9/ LS (+ - k SC PF - VOLUME-CUBICFT V25 4.030 2,297 6.913 5.432 10,5]] i ��S SECTION D - - ` .�- . VOLUME-AC FT 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.16 0.12 014 HER I ('. +' �, 0.48 AC nufinuon- A91v x40 sao Eao 840 TOO Rro - IT _ROO(q' IjRf. +p9 E .Au Cr { yy k a ... PROP. CURB A PNtJPK r WOW RO r mG c `. i FOP. D 3 - �l MbGD - l SECTION E ITS N 5 4 LK a �XIGTNG FINS1 ftCL'F 4S /"IX (R'XXU N :.la h rJN1UnG T. MASS SWALE I' WIDE OPENING � I p J. 0 l0' GO /O 1.JZ AC ; D AC PAIENENi SP' II E mn. FREG SECTION F �, '.r E I J AA R sof R" ' - GEo1E1 NN ' .I � • PARER tlIPFRNWS X111E GEOIEXTLE RMP RIM Y E1 - - x' ®.. } IN'-D ' CRn 1SL MRR FAONC PER CALMANS FARM III 11- «li .:,k SM.. 88-1.03 SURROUNDING RPERVIOUB AREA 1 I _ GRAVEL DRY & PARKING PAVEMENT 0 SF O Y i � 1 % 1 SAND WIW FILTER FABRIC Il \ WRRWNDING SANG EX NMDSCAPE BAR BE I,633 IF rx. eIWLGwc AREA I'mo sF $ao s '� a D„c 1` VEGETATED INFILTRATION SWALE UNNERNWS AREA-SO FT Z70 IF ),O{p IF _ � ' LL P LAVCRWNO � NOT TO SCALE AFERNWS AREA - ACRES 0.06 AC 0.16 AC 2 MANAGE AREA 0.4E AC 1.32 AC I 1=1A/DA 0.13 QLL9 1036,80 4. 96C S, 1 SE[ NY[T W A ` _ _ _ _ _ CJI'_ I _ _ _ _ ` E c0 15 scALe ]�-,/ ]/ // Civil Bnpi9leettinp WER 4: 90 a Is 20 GG u41LN.A DWY W EARRING PAVEMENT 05F WTTE IF Y .. _ VEGETATED SWALE mummIS� 130 LF (81)3R-NR I%II106'BA LAY HE 95 HARDSf.ME 5116 S 196 IF sSCALE. I - JG am um PREPARED 1]-01-0] BUILDING AREA $625 Y 1.600 Si INPERNWS AREA-50 FT uzn sF J$zsz BE NIE BTZT EWE EXHIBIT A DRAWING NO. NPERNWS AREA - ACRES 032 AG 061 AG -" BonAl"II GRASS WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAINAGE AREA 0.46 AC L32 AC TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH WQMP I_Ln/ELA 067 061 PA05-0389 INLET DETAL-N NOT O SCMF TRACT 20591, LOT 8 STEEL I OF 1 Pftr�-o389 Appendix C Supporting Detail Related to Hydraulic Conditions of Concern TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH EXPANSION DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 8, TR20591 PA05-0389 Dec. 10,2007 Prepared For: TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH 29525 SANTIAGO RD. TEMECULA, CA 92592 (951) 676-4021 • Prepared By: HLC CIVIL ENGINEERING 28465 old TOWN FRONT STREET . Suite 315 Temecula,CA 92590 (951)506-4869 RCE STAMP EXP.6/30/08 QpOFESSIOryq�Fy HECTOR ems` LUCIO CORREA No.363C6 CIVIL ENGINEEIIIN6 a Hector L Correa,RCE 306 'r! � OF • DRAINAGE STUDY STUDY AREA The site is presently an existing religious institution consisting of a local historic chapel, four modular structures, and two small sheds including AC parking lot. The proposed development will replace the existing modular structures and sheds with two new buildings; one building will be an 8,780 square feet sanctuary building and the other a 4,600 classrooms building. The 8,780 sanctuary will be located on the western portion of the site. The classroom building will be located on the southwest portion of the site. The existing 1,663 square foot historic chapel will not he rehabilitated under this development plan and will remain in its existing condition. The subject property consists of approximately3.92 acres but only 1.63 acres will be disturbed and is protected from off-site storm runoff by existing street system. EXISTING DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The developments will not change existing drainage patterns and will continue to discharge onsite flows under existing conditions PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The proposed development will continue to discharge storm runoff under existing drainage patterns. See Calculations on next page • 1 EXISTING CONDITION • 10 YEAR-EXISTING CONDITION ----=----____--- - ----------------------- - --------_--- ____________----------- = RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 6 WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AES] xx*+' ++++DESCRIPTION OF RESOLTS*****xxxx+xx+++++++x+xxxxxxxxxx+xx++++++++++ * EXISTING CONDITION * 10 YEAR STORM xx+++++++xxxxxxxxxxxxx+x+x++++x+xxxxxxxx«xxxxx++++++++x++xxxxxxxxxxxxxx++*++ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.360 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = .880 100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.480 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 1.300 SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5505732 SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5495536 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 10.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = .8888 • SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = .5506 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED Advanced Engineering Software [AES] SERIAL No. I00971 VER. 3.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 xxxxxxxx+++++++++x++++x++x++x+xx+xx+x«+x++x+xx+xxxxxxx+xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx+xxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ___________________ _____ _________ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]-*.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 304.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1038.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.60 TC = .303*[( 304.00**3)/( 2.60)]**.2 = 7.732 10.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.746 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8751 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.62 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.62 • +xxxxxxxxxx+xxxx+xx+++x+++x+x++++xx+x++x++++++++x+xx+xx+xxxxx+xxxxxxxxxx«x«x FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 2 EXISTING CONDITION »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*( (LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 500.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1021.90 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 18.70 TC = .303*[ ( 500.00**3)/( 18.70)]**.2 = 7.024 10.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.895 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8761 SUBAREA RONOFF(CFS) = 2.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .86 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.18 4#+4#*#xkrk}444*4#h***}44#+kk*kx}x*}###**#*hk*x}}4#4+#*4xx*#kx*}#+4#***x***} FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 2 ___ ____ _ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ___________________ ________________________________________________ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[ (LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 305.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1029.10 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 11.50 TC = .303*[( 305.00**3)/( 11.50)]**.2 = 5.755 10.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.231 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8780 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.70 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) • #44}#tx#kxx*xx}xx44+++++k**krxxrx4x}}4+4#k+xk*ttx*xh*x**}}}}}}x}}4+}x+x*k*kk FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC - K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 200.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1038.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.10 TC = .303*[ ( 200.00**3)/( 2.10)]**.2 = 6.277 10.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.080 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8772 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.30 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .48 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.30 ------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS • EXISTING CONDITION • 100 YEAR-EXISTING CONDITION -----------________---_------------ ------------- ---- RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 6 WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AES) **********DESCRIPTION OF * EXISTING CONDITION + * 100 YEAR STORM- 1 HR # __________________________________________________________ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ____________________________________________________________________________ USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.360 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = .880 100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.480 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.300 SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5505732 SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5495536 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.3000 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = .5496 • RCFCSWCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED «««««««««<G««G««««««<»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» Advanced Engineering Software [AES] SERIAL No. 100971 VER. 3.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 «««««««««««««««<C««<O»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 2 ___________ __ __________________________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< _______==_-________________________________________ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[ (LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 304.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1038.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.60 TC = .303*(( 304.00**3)/( 2.60)]**.2 = 7.732 100.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.008 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8814 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 1.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 3.85 • %#xx*x**xtxk#x+#+##+#++++##%#+##4#4**+***%*x%*xx*tk*fi t%x*kx*%k*%x*x#%xk*%*x* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< EXISTING CONDITION ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[ (LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 500.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1021.90 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 18.70 TC = .303*[( 500.00**3)/( 18.70)]**.2 - 7.024 100.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.226 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8821 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .86 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.21 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---_---________________________________ ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[ (LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 305.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1029.10 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 11.50 TC = .303*[ ( 305.00**3)/( 11.50)]**.2 = 5.755 100.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.715 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8836 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.50 • #4+##hk*xkxi++##+4x*xx###*###+}#x*h##x#i+##+++h}*x#xhi#+#+##h}**#x*##*##+#+# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 2 ________________________________________________ ___________ _ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 200.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 1040.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1038.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.10 TC = .303*[( 200.00**3)/( 2.10)]**.2 = 6.277 100.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.495 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .8830 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CF$) = 1.91 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .48 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.91 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS DEVELOPED CONDITION POINT #1 1HR-100 =YEAR-DEVELOPED _-CONDITION ==- RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 6 WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 197E HYDROLOGY MANUAL (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AES] *rrx*x+***DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS+++rx++**x**x*+x++x++++r+*r++xrxx*xx*x**++++ * POINT NO. 1 DEV. CONDITION r + + x +++rx+rxxxx*xx*++++++r+xxrx*xx*xx*x++r+++++++r**xxxx*rx*xx*++++++++++*+*+x+x ____________________________________________________________________________ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ____________________________________________________________________________ USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.360 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINOTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = .880 100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.480 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.300 SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5505732 SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5495536 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 1.3000 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = .5496 • RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED Advanced Engineering Software [AES] SERIAL No. 100971 VER. 3.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 x*++++++++x+r*++*xx*xx*x**x*+x*xx*+**+*+x++++x++++++*+++++++++x+++++++++r+++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = R*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 244.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1037.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.20 TC = .303*[( 244.00**3)/( 3.20)]**.2 = 6.501 100.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 4.409 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8827 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .48 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.87 ------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS • DEVELOPED CONDITION • POINT #1 1HR-10 YEAR-DEVELOPED CONDITION RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL S WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFCSWCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL «««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»>»»»»»»> (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AES] +x*x*x+*+*DESCRIPTION OF RESOLTSx++x++xx++xxxxxx+x++x+++xxxxx+++++x++x++xxxx * POINT 1 10 YEAR STORM x ++xxxxxx+x+++++xxxxxx++x++*+xxxxxx++x++++++xxxxxx+x++++++xxxxxxxx+++++++++++ _____________________________________ -_-__ --__________ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ______________________________ ___ __-__-_ USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.360 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) _ .880 100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.480 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.300 SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5505732 SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5495536 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT - 10.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) _ .8888 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE _ .5506 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES OSED Advanced Engineering Software [AES] SERIAL NO. 100971 VER. 3.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 +++xxxxxxx+x++x*++x+xxxxxxxxxxx++x++++x++xx*++++++xxxxxxxxxxxx+xx+x++x+++++x FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[ (LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 244.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1037.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.20 TC = .303*[( 244.00**3)/( 3.20)]**.2 = 6.501 10.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.021 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8768 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .48 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.27 __________________________ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS • DEVELOPED CONDITION POINT #2 1HR-100 YEAR-DEVELOPED CONDITION - RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AES] Especially prepared for: xxxx++++x*DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS*************************++++xxxxxxx+++++x++ * POINT 2 DISCHARGE DEVELOPED COND. x x ++++xxxx+x+x+++xxxxxxx+xx+xx+xxxxxx+x+++++xxxxxxxxxxx++++++xxxxxxxxx+++xxxxx _-____ __ __________________________________________________ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ____________________________________________________________________________ USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.360 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = .880 100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.480 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.300 SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5505732 SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5495536 • COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.3000 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = .5496 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED Advanced Engineering Software (AES] SERIAL No. 100971 VER. 3.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 xxxxx++++++xxxxxxxxxxxxx+x++++x++++++x+xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx++x+x+++++++++++++x FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 2 __________________________________________________ _ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 425.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1036.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.80 TC = .303*[ ( 425.00**3)/( 3.80)]**.2 = 8.763 100.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.742 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8803 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.32 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.35 • -----------------======_________`___________ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS DEVELOPED CONDITION • POINT #2 -1HR=10 YEAR-DEVELOPED CONDITION -- RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AFS] Especially prepared for: *x++**+**xDESCRZPTION OF RESULTS*x++x++*++*++xx«x«xxx++++++x+xx*xx«xxxx+++++ * PT # 2 DEV. CONDTION +++++*++x+xx«xz++*+++**+xxxxxx«x+x+++*++*+«xxxx«+x«+x+x*+*+«++«x«xxx«xxxx++z _____________________________ _-__________________--___________ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ____________________________________________________________________ USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90 10-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.360 10-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) _ .880 100-YEAR STORM 10-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 3.480 100-YEAR STORM 60-MINUTE INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.300 SLOPE OF 10-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5505732 SLOPE OF 100-YEAR INTENSITY-DURATION CURVE _ .5495536 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 10.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) _ .8888 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE _ .5506 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED Advanced Engineering Software [AES] SERIAL No. 100971 VER. 3.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 xxxxx*xxzxxx*+x++++*x+**++x«x*«+xxxxxxxxxxxz«xzxxzxx+x+++x+++++++*++++x+++++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 2 _ ____________________________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 425.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 1040.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 1036.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.80 TC = .303*[ ( 925.00**3)/( 3.80)]**.2 = 8.763 10.00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.563 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "B" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8739 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.32 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.96 • END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS PRE-CONSTRUCTION 24 HOUR STORM HYDROLOGY DISCHARGE PINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION 24 HOUR STORM HYDROLOGY DISCHARGE POINT I PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCCPT1X242.out ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________________________________________________ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 --------------_______________________________________________________ English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format _____________________________________________________________________ POINT 1 EXISITNG 24 HR YEAR 2 ____________________________________________________________________ Drainage Area = 0.48(Ac.) = 0.001 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 260.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 160.00(Ft. ) Length along longest watercourse = 0.049 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.034 Mi. • Difference in elevation = 3.20(Ft. ) Slope along watercourse = 64.9846 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.014 Hr. Lag time = 0.86 Min. 25% of lag time= 0.22 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.34 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) t2] Weighting[1*2] 0.48 1.80 0.86 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) t1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2) 0.48 4.50 2.16 STORM EVENT (YEAR) - 2.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 1.800(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 1.800(ln) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac. ) Runoff Index Impervious 9 0.480 70.00 0.500 . Total Area Entered = 0.48(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F Page I of 3 DISCHARGE POINT I PRE-CONSTRUCTION-2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH . AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) 70.0 70.0 0.362 0.500 0.199 1.000 0.199 Sum (F) = 0.199 Area averaaed mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.199 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr)) = 0.100 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.800 ----------------------------------___________________________________ U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve ____________________________________________________________________ Unit Hydrograph Data _____________________________________________________________________ Unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS) _____________________________________________________________________ 1 1.000 6960.491 100.000 0.484 Sum = 100.000 Sum= 0.484 _______________________________________________________________________ Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr. ) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.022 0.345 0.017 0.00 2 2.00 1.30 0.023 0.329 0.019 0.00 3 3.00 1.90 0.032 0.314 0.026 0.01 4 4.00 2.10 0.038 0.299 0.030 0.01 5 5.00 2.80 0.050 0.284 0.040 0.01 6 6.00 2.90 0.052 0.269 0.042 0.01 7 7.00 3.80 0.068 0.255 0.055 0.01 8 8.00 4.60 0.083 0.242 0.066 0.02 9 9.00 6.30 0.113 0.229 0.091 0.02 10 10.00 8.20 0.148 0.216 0.118 0.03 • 11 11.00 7.00 0.126 0.204 0.101 0.03 12 12.00 7.30 0.131 0.192 0.105 0.03 13 13.00 10.80 0.194 0.181 0.01 14 14.00 11.40 0.205 0.170 --- 0.04 15 15.00 10.40 0.187 0.160 --- 0.03 16 16.00 8.50 0.153 0.150 --- 0.00 17 17.00 1.40 0.025 0.141 0.020 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.034 0.133 0.027 0.01 19 19.00 1.30 0.023 0.125 0.019 0.00 20 20.00 1.20 0.022 0.119 0.017 0.00 21 21.00 1.10 0.020 0.112 0.016 0.00 22 22.00 1.00 0.018 0.107 0.014 0.00 23 23.00 0.90 0.016 0.103 0.013 0.00 24 24.00 0.80 0.014 0.100 0.012 0.00 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 0.3 • Page 2 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.29(In) • times area 0.5(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.0(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 1.51(In) Total soil loss = 0.060(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 1.80(Tn) Flood volume = 506.3 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 2630.0 Cubic Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.017(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS)) ____________________________________________________________________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1+ 0 0.0002 0.00 Q 2+ 0 0.0004 0.00 QV 1 3+ 0 0.0006 0.00 Q V 4+ 0 0.0009 0.00 Q V I I 5+ 0 0.0013 0.00 Q V 6+ 0 0.0017 0.01 Q V 7+ 0 0.0023 0.01 Q V 8+ 0 0.0030 0.01 Q V 9+ 0 0.0039 0.01 Q V 10+ 0 0.0050 0.01 Q V 11+ 0 0.0060 0.01 Q V I 12+ 0 0.0071 0.01 Q I I V I 13+ 0 0.0076 0.01 Q V 1 14+ 0 0.0090 0.02 Q V 15+ 0 0.0101 0.01 Q I V 16+ 0 0.0102 0.00 Q V • 17+ 0 0.0104 0.00 Q V 18+ 0 0.0107 0.00 Q 1 V 1 19+ 0 0.0109 0.00 Q V 1 20+ 0 0.0111 0.00 Q I I V 1 21+ 0 0.0112 0.00 Q V 1 22+ 0 0.0114 0.00 Q VI 23+ 0 0.0115 0.()0 Q VI 24+ 0 0.0116 0.00 Q 1 V ----------------------------------------------------------'_----__----_ • Page 3 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCCPT1X2410.cut ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 6 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 _ ------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format -----------------------------------------------------__ POINT 1 EXISTING CONDITON 24 HOUR STORM 10 YEAR -------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 0.48(Ac.) = 0.001 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 260.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 180.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.049 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.034 Mi. • Difference in elevation = 3.20(Ft. ) Slope along watercourse = 64.9846 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.014 Hr. Lag time = 0.86 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.22 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.34 Min. Unit time = .60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0:.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) [21 Weighting[1`21 0.48 1.80 0.86 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [21 Weighting[1"2) 0.48 4.50 2.16 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 10.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 2.911(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 2.911(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 0.480 70.00 0.500 • Total Area Entered = 0.48(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F Pagel of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION-10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec. ) (In/Hr) • 70.0 70.0 0.362 0.500 0.199 1.000 0.199 Sum (F) = 0.199 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.199 Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr) ) = 0.100 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.800 --------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve ---------------------Y--9__P____ __ _ _ Unit H dro ra h Data ---------------------------- _____ __-__ Unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 8 (CFS) --------------------------------------------- ___-_-_-------_- 1 1.000 6960.491 100.000 0.484 Sum = 100.000 Sum- 0.484 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.035 0.345 0.028 0.01 2 2.00 1.30 0.038 0.329 0.030 0.01 3 3.00 1.80 0.052 0.314 0.042 0.01 4 4.00 2.10 0.061 0.299 0.049 0.01 5 5.00 2.80 0.082 0.284 0.065 0.02 6 6.00 2.90 0.084 0.269 0.068 0.02 7 7.00 3.80 0.111 0.255 0.088 0.02 8 8.00 4.60 0.134 0.242 0.107 0.03 9 9.00 6.30 0.183 0.229 0.147 0.04 10 10.00 8.20 0.239 0.216 --- 0.02 11 11.00 7.00 0.204 0.204 --- 0.00 • 12 12.00 7.30 0.212 0.192 __- 0.02 13 13.00 10.80 0.314 0.181 0.13 14 14.00 11.40 0.332 0.170 --- 0.16 15 15.00 10.40 0.303 0.160 --- 0.14 16 16.00 8.50 0.247 0.150 --- 0.10 17 17.00 1.40 0.041 0.141 0.033 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.055 0.133 0.044 0.01 19 19.00 1.30 0.038 0.125 0.030 0.01 20 20.00 1.20 0.035 0.119 0.028 0.01 21 21.00 1.10 0.032 0.112 0.026 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.029 0.107 0.023 0.01 23 23.00 0.90 0.026 0.103 0.021 0.01 24 24.00 0.80 0.023 0.100 0.019 0.00 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 0.8 • Page 2 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.79(In) • times area 0.5(Ac.)/[ (In)/(Ft. )] = 0.0(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 2.12(In) Total soil loss = 0.085(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 2.91(In) Flood volume = 1377.1 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 3694.7 Cubic Feet ------------------------------- ______----------__-___-_--- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.078(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------y--9-p----_____---------_---__-__-_ _____ H dro ra h 1n 60 Minute intervals ((CFS)) ____________________________________________________________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1+ 0 0.0003 0.00 Q 2+ 0 0.0006 0.00 Q 3+ 0 0.0010 0.01 QV 4+ 0 0.0015 0.01 QV I I 5+ 0 0.0021 0.01 Q V I I 6+ 0 0.0028 0.01 Q V I I 7+ 0 0.0037 0.01 Q V I I 8+ 0 0.0048 0.01 Q V I 9+ 0 0.0062 0.02 Q V I 1.0+ 0 0.0072 0.01 Q VI 11+ 0 0.0072 0.00 Q VI 12+ 0 0.0080 0.01 Q V I I 13+ 0 0.0133 0.06 Q V I 14+ 0 0.0198 0.08 Q V 15+ 0 0.0255 0.07 Q V 1 16+ 0 0.0294 0.05 Q V 1 • 17+ 0 0.0297 0.00 Q I V I 18+ 0 0.0301 0.01 Q V 1 19+ 0 0.0304 0.00 Q V 1 20+ 0 0.0307 0.00 Q I V 1 21+ 0 0.0310 0.00 Q VI 22+ 0 0.0312 0.00 Q VI 23+ 0 0.0314 0.00 Q VI 24+ 0 0.0316 0.00 Q V ----------------------------------------------------------------------- • Page 3 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • Unit H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCCPT1X24100.OUt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 6 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 ---------------------------- __---_-__ English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format --------------------------------------------------------------------- POINT 1 EXISTING CONDITON 24 HOUR STORM 100 YEAR -------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 0.48(Ac.) = 0.001 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 260.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 180.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.049 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.034 Mi. • Difference in elevation = 3.20(Ft. ) Slope along watercourse = 64.9846 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.014 Hr. Lag time = 0.86 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.22 Min. 408 of lag time = 0.34 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [l) Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1"2] 0.48 1.80 0.66 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2] 0.48 4.50 2.16 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 4.500(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 4.500(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 0.480 70.00 0.500 • Total Area Entered = 0.48(Ac. ) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F Pagel of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec. ) (In/Hr) 70.0 70.0 0.362 0.500 0.199 1.000 0.199 Sum (F) = 0.199 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.199 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr) ) = 0.100 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.800 --------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data --------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 8 (CPS) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.000 6960.491 100.000 0.484 Sum = 100.000 Sum- 0.484 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.054 0.345 0.043 0.01 2 2.00 1.30 0.056 0.329 0.043 0.01 3 3.00 1.80 0.081 0.314 0.065 0.02 4 4.00 2.10 0.094 0.299 0.076 0.02 5 5.00 2.80 0.126 0.284 0.101 0.03 6 6.00 2.90 0.130 0.269 0.104 0.03 7 7.00 3.80 0.171 0.255 0.137 0.03 8 8.00 4.60 0.207 0.242 0.166 0.04 9 9.00 6.30 0.283 0.229 --- 0.05 10 10.00 8.20 0.369 0.216 --- 0.15 • 11 12.00 7.30 0.328 0.192 --- 0.14 12 12.00 7.30 0.328 0.192 0.14 13 13.00 10.80 0.486 0.181 0.31 14 14.00 11.40 0.513 0.170 --- 0.34 15 15.00 10.40 0.468 0.160 --- 0.31 16 16.00 8.50 0.382 0.150 --- 0.23 17 17.00 1.40 0.063 0.141 0.050 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.085 0.133 0.068 0.02 19 19.00 1.30 0.058 0.125 0.047 0.01 20 20.00 1.20 0.054 0.119 0.043 0.01 21 21.00 1.10 0.049 0.112 0.040 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.045 0.107 0.036 0.01 23 23.00 0.90 0.040 0.103 0.032 0.01 24 24.00 0.80 0.036 0.100 0.029 0.01 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 1.9 • Pape 2 of I DISCHARGE POINT 1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 1.91(In) • times area 0.5(Ac. )/[ (In)/(Ft. )] = 0.1(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 2.58(In) Total soil loss = 0.103(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 4.50(In) Flood volume = 3336.7 Cubic Feet Total Boll loss = 4504.1 Cubic Feet ____________________________________________________________________ Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.166(CFS) ____________________________________________________________________ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h ____________________________________________________________________ Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS) ) ____________________________________________________________________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 _______________________________________________________________________ 1+ 0 0.0004 0.01 Q 2+ 0 0.0009 0.01 Q 3+ 0 0.0015 0.01 Q 4+ 0 0.0023 0.01 QV I I 5+ 0 0.0033 0.01 QV 6+ 0 0.0044 0.01 Q V I 7+ 0 0.0057 0.02 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0074 0.02 Q V I 9+ 0 0.0096 0.03 Q V I 10+ 0 0.0157 0.07 Q V I 11+ 0 0.0202 0.05 Q V 12+ 0 0.0256 0.07 Q V I 13+ 0 0.0378 0.15 Q VI 14+ 0 0.0515 0.17 Q V 15+ 0 0.0639 0.15 Q V 16+ 0 0.0731 0.11 Q V • 17+ 0 0.0736 0.01 Q V 18+ 0 0.0743 0.01 Q V 19+ 0 0.0748 0.01 Q VI 20+ 0 0.0752 0.01 Q I V1 21+ 0 0.0756 0.00 Q VI 22+ 0 0.0760 0.00 Q V) 23+ 0 0.0763 0.00 Q VI 24+ 0 0.0766 0.00 Q VI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 2 PILE-CONSTRUCTION 24 DOUR STORM HYDROLOGY DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCC2EX242.out ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 6 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 --------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format ------------------------------------ _--------___ POINT 2 EXISTING CONDITON 24 HOUR 2 YEAR ---------------------- _--_-----__ ___-_-----_ _ Drainage Area = 1.32(Ac.) = 0.002 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 305.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 150.00(Ft. ) Length along longest watercourse = 0.056 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.028 Mi. • Difference in elevation = 2.60(Ft.) Slope along watercourse = 45.0098 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.020 Lag time = 0.020 Hr. Lag time = 1.22 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.31 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.49 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1`2] 1.32 1.80 2.38 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(AC.) [I] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2] 1.32 4.50 5.94 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 2.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 1.800(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 1.800(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 1.320 70.00 0.080 • Total Area Entered = 1.32(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • 70.0 70.0 0.362 0.080 0.336 1.000 0.336 Sum (F) = 0.336Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.336 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr) ) = 0.168 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.800 --------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data _____________________________________________________________________ Unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 8 (CFS) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.000 4910.665 100.000 1.330 Sum = 100.000 Sum- 1.330 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.022 0.583 0.017 0.00 2 2.00 1.30 0.023 0.556 0.019 0.00 3 3.00 1.80 0.032 0.529 0.026 0.01 4 4.00 2.10 0.038 0.504 0.030 0.01 5 5.00 2.80 0.050 0.479 0.040 0.01 6 6.00 2.90 0.052 0.454 0.042 0.01 7 7.00 3.80 0.068 0.431 0.055 0.01 6 8.00 4.60 0.083 0.409 0.066 0.02 9 9.00 6.30 0.113 0.386 0.091 0.02 10 10.00 8.20 0.148 0.364 0.118 0.03 11 11.00 7.00 0.126 0.344 0.101 0.03 • 12 12.00 7.30 0.131 0.324 0.105 0.03 13 13.00 10.80 0.194 0.305 0.156 0.04 14 14.00 11.40 0.205 0.287 0.164 0.04 15 15.00 10.40 0.187 0.270 0.150 0.04 16 16.00 8.50 0.153 0.254 0.122 0.03 17 17.00 1.40 0.025 0.239 0.020 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.034 0.225 0.027 0.01 19 19.00 1.30 0.023 0.212 0.019 0.00 20 20.00 1.20 0.022 0.200 0.017 0.00 21 21.00 1.10 0.020 0.190 0.016 0.00 22 22.00 1.00 0.018 0.181 0.014 0.00 23 23.00 0.90 0.016 0.174 0.013 0.00 24 24.00 0.80 0.014 0.169 0.012 0.00 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 0.4 • DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.36(In) • times area 1.3(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft. )] = 0.0(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 1.44(In) Total soil loss = 0.158(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 1.80(In) Flood volume = 1725.0 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 6899.9 Cubic Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.055(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T 0 R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph In 60 Minute intervals ((CFS)) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1+ 0 0.0005 0.01 Q 2+ 0 0.0010 0.01 Q 3+ 0 0.0017 0.01 QV 4+ 0 0.0025 0.01 Q V I I 5+ 0 0.0036 0.01 Q V I 6+ 0 0.0048 0.01 Q V 7+ 0 0.0063 0.02 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0081 0.02 Q V I 9+ 0 0.0106 0.03 Q V 10+ 0 0.0139 0.04 Q V 11+ 0 0.0166 0.03 Q V I 12+ 0 0.0195 0.03 Q I VI i 13+ 0 0.0238 0.05 Q V 14+ 0 0.0283 0.05 Q V I 15+ 0 0.0324 0.05 Q V 16+ 0 0.0358 0.04 Q V • 17+ 0 0.0364 0.01 Q V 18+ 0 0.0371 0.01 Q V 19+ 0 0.0376 0.01 Q I V 20+ 0 0.0381 0.01 Q I I V I 21+ 0 0.0385 0.01 Q V 1 22+ 0 0.0389 0.00 Q VI 23+ 0 0.0393 0.00 Q VI 24+ 0 0.0396 0.00 Q V ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCC2EX2410.out ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 6 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 ________________ __ ____ __ English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format _-_ ------------------- ____ ___-_ POINT 2 EXISTING CONDITON 24 HOUR 100 YEAR ----------------------------------------- _____------- Drainage Area = 1.32(Ac.) = 0.002 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 305.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 150.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse - 0.058 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.028 Mi. • Difference in elevation = 2.60(Ft.) Slope along watercourse = 45.0098 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.020 Lag time = 0.020 Hr. Lag time = 1.22 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.31 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.49 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm - 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1) Rainfali(In) (2] Weighting[1*2] 1.32 1.80 2.38 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) (2] Weighting[1*2] 1.32 4.50 5.94 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 10.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 2.911(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 2.911(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 1.320 70.00 0.080 • Total Area Entered = 1.32(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec. ) (In/Hr) DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • 70.0 70.0 0.362 0.080 0.336 1.000 0.336 Sum (F) = 0.336 Area averaged mean sail loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.336 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr) ) = 0.168 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.800 --------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve __ ------------------------------------------ Unit Hydrograph Data ___________________ _-----_-----------_----------------- Unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 8 (CFS) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.000 4910.665 100.000 1.330 Sum = 100.000 Sum= 1.330 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.035 0.583 0.028 0.01 2 2.00 1.30 0.038 0.556 0.030 0.01 3 3.00 1.80 0.052 0.529 0.042 0.01 4 4.00 2.10 0.061 0.504 0.049 0.01 5 5.00 2.80 0.082 0.479 0.065 0.02 6 6.00 2.90 0.084 0.454 0.068 0.02 7 7.00 3.80 0.111 0.431 0.088 0.02 8 8.00 4.60 0.134 0.408 0.107 0.03 9 9.00 6.30 0.183 0.366 0.147 0.04 10 10.00 8.20 0.239 0.364 0.191 0.05 11 11.00 7.00 0.204 0.344 0.163 0.04 • 12 12.00 7.30 0.212 0.324 0.170 0.04 13 13.00 10.80 0.314 0.305 0.01 14 14.00 11.40 0.332 0.287 0.04 15 15.00 10.40 0.303 0.270 -- 0.03 16 16.00 8.50 0.247 0.254 0.198 0.05 17 17.00 1.40 0.041 0.239 0.033 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.055 0.225 0.044 0.01 19 19.00 1.30 0.038 0.212 0.030 0.01 20 20.00 1.20 0.035 0.200 0.028 0.01 21 21.00 1.10 0.032 0.190 0.026 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.029 0.181 0.023 0.01 23 23.00 0.90 0.026 0.174 0.021 0.01 24 24.00 0.80 0.023 0.169 0.019 0.00 Sum - 100.0 Sum = 0.5 • DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.98(In) • times area 1.3(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.1(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 2.43(In) Total soil loss = 0.267(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 2.91(In) Flood volume = 2296.9 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 11650.4 Cubic Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.066(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------y-_g-P_-_-----__------_---_-______--__ H dro ra h in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS)) __ _____________________ ____________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------` 1+ 0 0.0008 0.01 Q 2+ 0 0.0016 0.01 QV 3+ 0 0.0028 0.01 Q V 4+ 0 0.0041 0.02 Q V I I 5+ 0 0.0059 0.02 Q V I 6+ 0 0.0077 0.02 Q V I I 7+ 0 0.0102 0.03 Q V j I 8+ 0 0.0131 0.04 Q VI I 9+ 0 0.0172 0.05 Q V 10+ 0 0.0224 0.06 Q V I I I ll+ 0 0.0269 0.05 Q I V 12+ 0 0.0316 0.06 Q I V I 13+ 0 0.0326 0.01 Q V 1 1 14+ 0 0.0375 0.06 Q V I 15+ 0 0.0411 0.04 Q I I V 16+ 0 0.0466 0.07 Q V • 17+ 0 0.0475 0.01 Q V I 18+ 0 0.0487 0.01 Q I I V 1 19+ 0 0.0495 0.01 Q I I V 1 20+ 0 0.0503 0.01 Q I I I V 1 21+ 0 0.0510 0.01 Q I I I V 1 22+ 0 0.0516 0.01 Q I I I VI 23+ 0 0.0522 0.01 Q I I I VI 24+ 0 0.0527 0.01 Q I I I V --------------------------------------------'_---_-_------_----_------- • DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCC2EX24100.out ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 ------------------------------------------ _-__ English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format --------------------------------------------------------------------- POINT 2 EXISTING CONDITON 24 HOUR 100 YEAR -------------------------------------------- ___-___-__--- Drainage Area = 1.32(Ac.) 0.002 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 305.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 150.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.058 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.028 Mi. Difference in elevation = 2.60(Ft. ) • Slope along watercourse = 45.0098 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.020 Lag time = 0.020 Hr. Lag time = 1.22 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.31 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.49 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2] 1.32 1.80 2.38 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2] 1.32 4.50 5.94 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 4.500(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 4.500(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious $ 1.320 70.00 0.080 Total Area Entered = 1.32(Ac. ) • RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) 70.0 70.0 0.362 0.080 0.336 1.000 0.336 DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • Sum (F) = 0.336 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.336 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr)) = 0.168 lfor 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.800 --------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data ------------------------------- -__ ----------____- Unit time period Time 9 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 8 (CFS) ----------------------------------' --' --' 1 1.000 4910.665 100.000 1.330 Sum = 100.000 Sum= 1.330 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.054 0.583 0.043 0.01 2 2.00 1.30 0.058 0.556 0.047 0.01 3 3.00 1.80 0.081 0.529 0.065 0.02 4 4.00 2.10 0.094 0.504 0.076 0.02 5 5.00 2.80 0.126 0.479 0.101 0.03 6 6.00 2.90 0.130 0.454 0.104 0.03 7 7.00 3.80 0.171 0.431 0.137 0.03 8 8.00 4.60 0.207 0.408 0.166 0.04 9 9.00 6.30 0.283 0.386 0.227 0.06 10 10.00 8.20 0.369 0.364 --- 0.00 11 11.00 7.00 0.315 0.344 0.252 0.06 12 12.00 7.30 0.328 0.324 --- 0.00 • 13 13.00 11.40 0.513 0.287 --- 0.11 23 14 19.00 11.40 0.513 0.287 0.23 15 15.00 10.40 0.468 0.270 0.20 16 16.00 8.50 0.382 0.254 --- 0.13 17 17.00 1.40 0.063 0.239 0.050 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.085 0.225 0.068 0.02 19 19.00 1.30 0.058 0.212 0.047 0.01 20 20.00 1.20 0.054 0.200 0.043 0.01 21 21.00 1.10 0.049 0.190 0.040 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.045 0.181 0.036 0.01 23 23.00 0.90 0.040 0.174 0.032 0.01 24 24.00 0.60 0.036 0.169 0.029 0.01 Sum = 100.0 Sum • DISCHARGE POINT 2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 1.13(In) • times area 1.3(Ac. )/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.1(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 3.37(In) Total soil loss 0.370(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 4.50(In) Flood volume = 5432.2 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 16130.0 Cubic Feet -- --------------- _-__---__-____________________________--__ Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.301(CFS) ____________________________________________________________________ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h _____________Y--9-p---------------_ _-___-_-____________ H dro ra h in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS)) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 _____- __Q 1---------------- __--_--______- 1+ 0 0.0012 0.01 1 2+ 0 0.0025 0.02 Q I I 3+ 0 0.0043 0.02 QV I I 1 1 4+ 0 0.0063 0.03 Q V I I I 5+ 0 0.0091 0.03 Q V I I 1 1 6+ 0 0.0120 0.03 Q V 7+ 0 0.0157 0.05 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0203 0.06 Q V 9+ 0 0.0265 0.08 Q V I 10+ 0 0.0271 0.01 Q V I I 11+ 0 0.0340 0.08 Q V I 12+ 0 0.0345 0.01 Q V I 13+ 0 0.0544 0.24 Q V I 14+ 0 0.0792 0.30 IQ I V 1 1 15+ 0 0.1010 0.26 IQ I V I 16+ 0 0.1152 0.17 Q V • 17+ 0 0.1166 0.02 Q I I I V 18+ 0 0.1185 0.02 Q I I I V 1 19+ 0 0.1198 0.02 Q I I I V 1 20+ 0 0.1209 0.01 Q I I I V 1 21+ 0 0.1220 0.01 Q I I I VI 22+ 0 0.1230 0.01 Q I I I VI 23+ 0 0.1239 0.01 Q I I I VI 24+ 0 0.1247 0.01 Q I I I V1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- • POST-CONSTRUCTION 24 HOUR STORM HYDROLOGY • DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION 24 HOUR STORM HYDROLOGY DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCCPTID242.OUt +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++....I ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 --------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format --------------------------------------------------------------------- POINT 1 2 YEAR 24 HR DEVELOPED STORM -------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 0.48(Ac_) = 0.001 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 260.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 180.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.049 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.034 Mi. Difference in elevation = 3.20(Ft.) • Slope along watercourse = 64.9846 Ft./Mi. Average Manuing's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.014 Hr. Lag time = 0.86 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.22 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.34 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2] 0.48 1.80 0.86 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[112] 0.48 4.50 2.16 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 2.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 1.800(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 E Adjusted average point rain = 1.800(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac. ) Runoff Index Impervious 8 0.460 39.00 0.840 Total Area Entered = 0.48(Ac. ) • RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F Pagel of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec. ) (In/Hr) 39.0 39.0 0.679 0.840 0.166 1.000 0.166 Sum (F) = 0.166 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.166 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr)) = 0.083 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.250 _____________________________________________________________________ U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve ____________________________________________________________________ Unit Hydrograph Data ----------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 8 (CFS) _____________________________________________________________________ 1 1.000 6960.491 100.000 0.484 Sum = 100.000 Sum= 0.484 _______________________________________________________________________ Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr. ) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.022 0.287 0.005 0.02 2 2.00 1.30 0.023 0.274 0.006 0.02 3 3.00 1.80 0.032 0.261 0.008 0.02 4 4.00 2.10 0.038 0.248 0.009 0.03 5 5.00 2.80 0.050 0.236 0.013 0.04 6 6.00 2.90 0.052 0.224 0.013 0.04 7 7.00 3.80 0.068 0.212 0.017 0.05 8 8.00 4.60 0.083 0.201 0.021 0.06 9 9.00 6.30 0.113 0.190 0.028 0.09 10 10.00 8.20 0.148 0.180 0.037 0.11 11 11.00 7.00 0.126 0.170 0.031 0.09 • 12 12.00 7.30 0.131 0.160 0.033 0.10 13 13.00 10.80 0.194 0.150 0.04 14 14.00 11.40 0.205 0.142 --- 0.06 15 15.00 10.40 0.187 0.133 --- 0.05 16 16.00 8.50 0.153 0.125 --- 0.03 17 17.00 1.40 0.025 0.118 0.006 0.02 18 18.00 1.90 0.034 0.ill 0.009 0.03 19 19.00 1.30 0.023 0.104 0.006 0.02 20 20.00 1.20 0.022 0.099 0.005 0.02 21 21.00 1.10 0.020 0.094 0.005 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.018 0.089 0.004 0.01 23 23.00 0.90 0.016 0.086 0.004 0.01 24 24.00 0.80 0.014 0.083 0.004 0.01 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 1.0 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0.98(In) times area 0.5(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.0(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 0.82(In) Total soil loss = 0.033(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 1.80(In) Flood volume = 1715.8 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 1420.5 Cubic Feet • Page 2 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH -------------------------------------------------------------------- • Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.054(CFS) _ 24 - H O U R S T 0 R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h ____________________________________________________________________ Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ( (CPS)) ____________________________________________________________________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 _____ __________ __________ _______________________ 1+ 0 0.0006 0.01 Q I I 2+ 0 0.0013 0.01 QV 3+ 0 0.0023 0.01 Q V I I 4+ 0 0.0035 0.01 Q V 5+ 0 0.0050 0.02 Q V 1 6+ 0 0.0065 0.02 Q V I 7+ 0 0.0086 0.02 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0111 0.03 Q V 9+ 0 0.0145 0.04 Q V 10+ 0 0.0189 0.05 Q VI 11+ 0 0.0227 0.05 Q I V I 12+ 0 0.0266 0.05 Q V 13+ 0 0.0284 0.02 Q V I 14+ 0 0.0309 0.03 Q V 15+ 0 0.0331 0.03 Q V 16+ 0 0.0342 0.01 Q V 17+ 0 0.0350 0.01 Q V 18+ 0 0.0360 0.01 Q V 1 19+ 0 0.0367 0.01 Q I V 1 20+ 0 0.0373 0.01 Q V 1 21+ 0 0.0379 0.01 Q V 1 22+ 0 0.0385 0.01 Q VI 23+ 0 0.0390 0.01 Q VI • --- 0 ------ ---- Q I 1 V _______________________________________________________________________ • Page 3 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT I POST-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a 1 y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCCPT11)2410.out +++++++++++++++++++++++h++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 6 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 --------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format -----------------------------------------------------------"------- POINT 1 10 YEAR 24 HR DEVELOPED STORM -------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 0.48(Ac.) = 0.001 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 260.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 180.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.049 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.034 Mi. Difference in elevation 3.20(Ft.) • Slope along watercourse = 64.9846 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.014 Hr. Lag time = 0.86 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.22 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.34 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1.2] 0.48 1.80 0.86 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2] 0.48 4.50 2.16 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 10.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 2.911(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 2.911(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 0.480 39.00 0.840 Total Area Entered = 0.48(Ac.) • RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F Pagel of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) 39.0 39.0 0.679 0.840 0.166 1.000 0.166 Sum (F) = 0.166 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.166 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr)) = 0.083 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.250 --------------------------------------------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data --------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time $ of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 8 (CFS) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.000 6960.491 100.000 0.484 Sum = 100.000 Sum- 0.484 --------------------------------------------'_------------_----_------- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr. ) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.035 0.287 0.009 0.03 2 2.00 1.30 0.036 0.274 0.009 0.03 3 3.00 1.80 0.052 0.261 0.013 0.04 4 4.00 2.10 0.061 0.248 0.015 0.05 5 5.00 2.80 0.082 0.236 0.020 0.06 6 6.00 2.90 0.084 0.224 0.021 0.06 7 7.00 3.80 0.111. 0.212 0.028 0.08 8 8.00 4.60 0.134 0.201 0.033 0.10 9 9.00 6.30 0.183 0.190 0.046 0.14 10 10.00 8.20 0.239 0.180 --- 0.06 • 11 1 .00 7. 0 0.2 0.10 --- 0.03 12 12.00 7.30 0.212 12 0.160 0.05 13 13.00 10.80 0.314 0.150 0.16 14 14.00 11.40 0.332 0.142 --- 0.19 15 15.00 10.40 0.303 0.133 --- 0.17 16 16.00 8.50 0.247 0.125 --- 0.12 17 17.00 1.40 0.041 0.118 0.010 0.03 18 18.00 1.90 0.055 0.111 0.014 0.04 19 19.00 1.30 0.038 0.104 0.009 0.03 20 20.00 1.20 0.035 0.099 0.009 0.03 21 21.00 1.10 0.032 0.094 0.008 0.02 22 22.00 1.00 0.029 0.089 0.007 0.02 23 23.00 0.90 0.026 0.086 0.007 0.02 24 24.00 0.80 0.023 0.083 0.006 0.02 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 1.6 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 1.59(In) times area 0.5(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.1(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 1.32(In) Total soil loss = 0.053(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 2.91(In) Flood volume = 2764.8 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 2307.0 Cubic Feet • Page 2 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • -------------------------Y__ __P -_ _------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this h drog ra h 0.092(CFS) _----_----_----____----_----------__________________________________ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h ____________________________________________________________________ Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ((CFS) ) -----------------------------------------------------_______________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ----------------------------------------------------------_____________ 1+ 0 0.0010 0.01 Q 2+ 0 0.0022 0.01 QV I I I 3+ 0 0.0038 0.02 Q V 4+ 0 0.0056 0.02 Q V 5+ 0 0.0080 0.03 Q V 6+ 0 0.0106 0.03 Q V I 7+ 0 0.0139 0.04 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0179 0.05 Q V 9+ 0 0.0234 0.07 Q V 10+ 0 0.0258 0.03 Q V I I I ll+ 0 0.0271 0.02 Q V I 12+ 0 0.0292 0.03 Q V I 13+ 0 0.0358 0.08 Q V 14+ 0 0.0434 0.09 Q V I 15+ 0 0.0502 0.08 Q V 16+ 0 0.0551 0.06 Q I V 17+ 0 0.0563 0.01 Q I V 18+ 0 0.0580 0.02 Q I I V 1 19+ 0 0.0591 0.01 Q V 1 20+ 0 0.0602 0.01 Q V 1 21+ 0 0.0611 0.01 Q V 1 22+ 0 0.0620 0.01 Q I VI • 23+ 0 0.0628 0.01 Q VI 24+ 0 0.0635 0.01 Q VI _______________________________________________________________________ • Page 3 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 12/14/07 File: TCCPTID24100.OUt ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 6 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 667 --------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format --------------------------------------------------------------------- POINT 1 100 YEAR 24 HR DEV. STORM _--------_ _---_--------------' Drainage Area = 0.46(Ac. ) = 0.001 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 260.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 180.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.049 Mi.. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.034 Mi. Difference in elevation = 3.20(Ft.) • Slope along watercourse = 64.9846 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.014 Hr. Lag time = 0.86 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.22 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.34 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm - 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [11 Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1*2) 0.48 1.80 0.86 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [2) Weighting W 2] 0.48 4.50 2.16 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 4.500(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 4.500(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 0.480 39.00 0.840 Total Area Entered = 0.48(Ac. ) • RI RT Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F Pagel of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) • 39.0 39.0 0.679 0.840 0.166 1.000 0.166 Sum (F) = 0.166 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.166 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr)) = 0.083 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.250 ----------------------------------___________________________________ U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve ____________________________________________________________________ Unit Hydrograph Data ----------------------------------------------------- unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph S (CPS) _____________________________________________________________________ 1 1.000 6960.491 100.000 0.484 Sum = 100.000 Sum- 0.484 _______________________________________________________________________ Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr. ) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.054 0.267 0.013 0.04 2 2.00 1.30 0.058 0.274 0.015 0.04 3 3.00 1.80 0.081 0.261 0.020 0.06 4 4.00 2.10 0.094 0.248 0.024 0.07 5 5.00 2.60 0.126 0.236 0.031 0.09 6 6.00 2.90 0.130 0.224 0.033 0.10 7 7.00 3.80 0.171 0.212 0.043 0.13 8 8.00 4.60 0.207 0.201 --- 0.01 9 9.00 6.30 0.283 0.190 --- 0.09 10 10.00 8.20 0.369 0.180 --- 0.19 • 11 12.00 7.30 0.328 0.160 --- 0.17 12 12.00 7.30 0.328 0.160 0.17 13 13.00 10.80 0.486 0.150 0.34 14 14.00 11.40 0.513 0.142 --- 0.37 15 15.00 10.40 0.468 0.133 --- 0.33 16 16.00 8.50 0.382 0.125 --- 0.26 17 17.00 1.40 0.063 0.118 0.016 0.05 18 18.00 1.90 0.085 0.111 0.021 0.06 19 19.00 1.30 0.058 0.104 0.015 0.04 20 20.00 1.20 0.054 0.099 0.013 0.04 21 21.00 1.10 0.049 0.094 0.012 0.04 22 22.00 1.00 0.045 0.089 0.011 0.03 23 23.00 0.90 0.040 0.086 0.010 0.03 24 24.00 0.80 0.036 0.083 0.009 0.03 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 2.8 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 2.76(In) times area 0.5(Ac.)/[ (In)/(Ft.)] = 0.1(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 1.74(In) Total soil loss = 0.069(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 4.50(In) Flood volume = 4613.6 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 3027.2 Cubic Feet • Page 2 of 3 DISCHARGE POINT 1 POST-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH -------------------------------------------------------------------- • Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.180(CFS) +h++++++++i+++++++++++++++++i+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h ____________________________________________________________________ Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS) ) ____________________________________________________________________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ___ _______________________ _ 1+ 0 0.0016 0.02 Q 1 I 2+ 0 0.0034 0.02 QV 3+ 0 0.0058 0.03 Q V I I I 4+ 0 0.0086 0.03 Q V 5+ 0 0.0124 0.05 Q V 6+ 0 0.0163 0.05 Q V 7+ 0 0.0215 0.06 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0217 0.00 Q V I 9+ 0 0.0254 0.05 Q VI 10+ 0 0.0330 0.09 Q V 11+ 0 0.0388 0.07 Q I V I I 1 12+ 0 0.0456 0.08 Q V 13+ 0 0.0590 0.16 Q V 14+ 0 0.0739 0.18 Q V 15+ 0 0.0873 0.16 Q V 16+ 0 0.0975 0.12 Q V 17+ 0 0.0994 0.02 Q V 18+ 0 0.1020 0.03 Q V 1 19+ 0 0.1038 0.02 Q I I V 1 20+ 0 0.1054 0.02 Q V I 21+ 0 0.1069 0.02 Q V 1 22+ 0 0.1062 0.02 Q VI 23+ 0 0.1094 0.01 Q V1 • 24+ 0 0.1105 0.01 Q V • Page 3 of 3 • DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION 24 HOUR STORM HYDROLOGY DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION 2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 04/24/07 File: TCC2DV242.out ++++++++++++++++++....4.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC s WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 --------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lh) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 1.32(Ac.) = 0.002 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 440.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 220.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.083 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid - 0.042 Mi. Difference in elevation = 3.80(Ft. ) Slope along watercourse = 45.6000 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.020 Hr. • Lag time = 1.22 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.30 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.49 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(AC.) [I] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1"2] 1.32 1.80 2.38 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Acea(AC. ) [I] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1`21 1.32 4.50 5.94 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 2.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 1.800(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 1.800(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 1.320 56.00 0.610 Total Area Entered = 1.32(Ac.) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) • 56.0 56.0 0.511 0.610 0.230 1.000 0.230 Sum (F) = 0.230 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.230 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr)) = 0.115 DISCHARGE POINT 2-POST-CONSTRUCTION 2YR-24HR DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION 2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal.) = 0.410 ----_---_----_----_---------__________ U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve ____________________________________________________________________ Unit Hydrograph Data _____________________________________________________________________ Unit time period Time 9 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph {hrs) Graph 6 (CPS) _____________________________________________________________________ 1 1.000 4937.078 100.000 1.330 Sum = 100.000 Sum- 1.330 _______________________________________________________________________ Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.022 0.400 0.009 0.01 2 2.00 1.30 0.023 0.381 0.010 0.01 3 3.00 1.80 0.032 0.363 0.013 0.02 4 4.00 2.10 0.038 0.345 0.015 0.02 5 5.00 2.80 0.050 0.328 0.021 0.03 6 6.00 2.90 0.052 0.312 0.021 0.03 7 7.00 3.80 0.068 0.295 0.028 0.04 6 8.00 4.60 0.083 0.280 0.034 0.05 9 9.00 6.30 0.113 0.264 0.046 0.07 10 10.00 8.20 0.148 0.250 0.061 0.09 11 11.00 7.00 0.126 0.236 0.052 0.07 12 12.00 7.30 0.131 0.222 0.054 0.08 13 13.00 10.80 0.194 0.209 0.080 0.11 14 14.00 11.40 0.205 0.197 --- 0.01 15 15.00 10.40 0.187 0.185 --- 0.00 • 16 16.00 8.50 0.153 0.174 0.063 0.01 17 17.00 1.40 0.025 0.164 0.010 0.01 16 18.00 1.90 0.034 0.154 0.014 0.02 19 1.9.00 1.30 0.023 0.145 0.010 0.01 20 20.00 1.20 0.022 0.137 0.009 0.01 21 21.00 1.10 0.020 0.130 0.008 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.018 0.124 0.007 0.01 23 23.00 0.90 0.016 0.119 0.007 0.01 24 24.00 0.80 0.014 0.116 0.006 0.01 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 0.6 • DISCHARGE POINT 2-POST-CONSTRUCTION 2YR-241-IR DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION 2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • Flood volume = Effective rainfall 0,811151 times area 1.3(Ac. )/[ (In)/(Ft.)7 = 0.1(Ac.Ftj Total soil loss = 0.96(In) -otal soil loss = 0.105(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 1.80(In) Flood volume = 4029.6 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 4595.2 Cubic Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------- Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.153(CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume Ao.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1+ 0 0.0014 0.02 Q 2+ 0 0.0029 0.02 QV 3+ 0 0.0050 0.03 Q V I I 4+ 0 0.0075 0.03 Q V 5+ 0 0.0107 0.04 Q V 6+ 0 0.0141 0.04 Q V I 7+ 0 0.0186 0.05 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0239 0.07 Q V 9+ 0 0.0313 0.09 Q V 10+ 0 0.0409 0.12 Q V 11+ 0 0.0491 0.10 Q V I 12+ 0 0.0576 0.10 Q I V 13+ 0 0.0702 0.15 Q V 14+ 0 0.0711 0.01 Q V 15+ 0 0.0714 0.00 Q V • 16+ 0 0.0813 0.12 Q V 17+ 0 0.0829 0.02 Q V 18+ 0 0.0851 0.03 Q V 1 19+ 0 0.0867 0.02 Q V 1 20+ 0 0.0881 0.02 Q V 21+ 0 0.0894 0.02 Q V 22+ 0 0.0905 0.01 Q VI 23+ 0 0.0916 0.01 Q VI 24+ 0 0.0925 0.01 Q VI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- • DISCHARGE POINT 2-POST-CONSTRUCTION 2YR-24HR DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 04/24/07 File: TCC2DV2410.out +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++t++++++++++++++++t++++4' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 6 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - SIN 867 --------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 1.32(Ac. ) = 0.002 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 440.00(Ft. ) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 220.00(Ft. ) Length along longest watercourse = 0.083 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.042 Mi. Difference in elevation = 3.80(Ft.) Slope along watercourse = 45.6000 Ft./Mi.. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.020 Hr. Lag time = 1.22 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.30 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.49 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[I*2] 1.32 1.80 2.38 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weightin9[1'2] 1.32 4.50 5.94 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 10.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 2.911(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 % Adjusted average point rain = 2.911(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious % 1.320 56.00 0.610 Total Area Entered = 1.32(Ac. ) RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec. ) (In/Hr) 56.0 56.0 0.511 0.610 0.230 1.000 0.230 Sum (F) — 0.230 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.230 Minimum soil loss rate ( (In/Hr)) = 0.115 DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.410 ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h VALLEY S-Curve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data --------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time 8 of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % (CFS) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.000 4937 078 100.000 1.330 Sum = 100.000 Sum= 1.330 ---------------------------------------------'_-------------------_---- Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr. ) Percent (In/Hr) Max I Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.035 0.400 0.014 0.02 2 2.00 1.30 0.038 0.381 0.016 0.02 3 3.00 1.80 0.052 0.363 0.021 0.03 4 4.00 2.10 0.061 0.345 0.025 0.04 5 5.00 2.80 0.082 0.328 0.033 0.05 6 6.00 2.90 0.084 0.312 0.035 0.05 7 7.00 3.80 0.111 0.295 0.045 0.07 8 8.00 4.60 0.134 0.280 0.055 0.08 9 9.00 6.30 0.183 0.264 0.075 0.11 10 10.00 6.20 0.239 0.250 0.096 0.14 11 11.00 7.00 0.204 0.236 0.084 0.12 12 12.00 1.30 0.212 0.222 0.087 0.13 13 13.00 10.80 0.314 0.209 --- 0.11 14 14.00 11.40 0.332 0.197 --- 0.14 15 15.00 10.40 0.303 0.185 --- 0.12 16 16.00 8.50 0.217 0.171 --- 0.01 • 17 17.00 1.40 0.041 0.164 0.017 0.02 18 18.00 1.90 0.055 0.154 0.023 0.03 19 19.00 1.30 0.038 0.145 0.016 0.02 20 20.00 1.20 0.035 0.137 0.014 0.02 21 21.00 1.10 0.032 0.130 0.013 0.02 22 22.00 1.00 0.029 0.124 0.012 0.02 23 23.00 0.90 0.026 0.119 0.011 0.02 24 24.00 0.80 0.023 0.116 0.010 0.01 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 1.4 • DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION -10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 1.44(In) • times area 1.3(Ac.)/[ (In)/(Ft. )1 = 0.2(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 1.47(In) Total soil lass = 0.161(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 2.91(In) Flood volume = 6913.2 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 1034.2 Cubic Feet ____________________________________________________________________ Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.187(CFS) ____________________________________________________________________ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++i++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h ____________________________________________________________________ Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS) ) ____________________________________________________________________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 _______________________________________________________________________ 1+ 0 0.0023 0.03 Q 2+ 0 0.0047 0.03 QV 3+ 0 0.0081 0.04 Q V I I 4+ 0 0.0121 0.05 Q V 5+ 0 0.0174 0.06 Q V 6+ 0 0.0229 0.07 Q V I 7+ 0 0.0300 0.09 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0387 0.11 Q VI 9+ 0 0.0506 0.14 Q V 10+ 0 0.0661 0.19 Q V ll+ 0 0.0793 0.16 Q VI 1 12+ 0 0.0931 0.17 Q V 13+ 0 0.1047 0.14 Q V 14+ 0 0.1196 0.18 Q V 15+ 0 0.1325 0.16 Q V • 16+ 0 0.1406 0.10 Q V 17+ 0 0.1432 0.03 Q V 18+ 0 0.1468 0.04 Q V 19+ 0 0.1493 0.03 Q I I V 1 20+ 0 0.1515 0.03 Q V 1 21+ 0 0.1536 0.03 Q V 1 22+ 0 0.1555 0.02 Q VI 23+ 0 0.1572 0.02 Q VI 24+ 0 0.1587 0.02 Q V _______________________________________________________________________ • DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 - 1999, Version 6.0 Study date 04/24/07 File: TCC2DV24100.out ++++++++++r+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC 5 WCD Manual date - April 1978 Frank D. Gorman, P.E. - S/N 867 --------------------------------------------------------------------- English (in-lb) Input Units Used English Rainfall Data (Inches) Input Values Used English Units used in output format --------------------------------------------------------------------- POINT 2 24 HR STORM 100 YEAR STORM --------------------------------------- -__ - Drainage Area = 1.32(Ac.) = 0.002 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 440.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 220.00(Ft.) Length along longest watercourse = 0.083 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.042 Mi. Difference in elevation = 3.80(Ft. ) • Slope along watercourse = 45.6000 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.020 Hr. Lag time = 1.22 Min. 25% of lag time = 0.30 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.49 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) User Entered Base Flow = 0.00(CFS) 2 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac. ) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting[1"2] 1.32 1.80 2.38 100 YEAR Area rainfall data: Area(Ac.) [1] Rainfall(In) [2] Weighting(1*2] 1.32 4.50 5.94 STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 Area Averaged 2-Year Rainfall = 1.800(In) Area Averaged 100-Year Rainfall = 4.500(In) Point rain (area averaged) = 4.500(In) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 4 Adjusted average point rain = 4.500(In) Sub-Area Data: Area(Ac.) Runoff Index Impervious 8 1.320 56.00 0.610 Total Area Entered = 1.32(Ac.) • RI RI Infil. Rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F AMC2 AMC-2 (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr) DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH • 56.0 56.0 0.511 0.610 0.230 1.000 0.230 Sum (F) = 0.230 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In/Hr) = 0.230 Minimum soil loss rate ((In/Hr) ) = 0.115 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.410 _____________________________________________________________________ U n i t H y d r 0 g r a p In VALLEY S-Curve ____________________________________________________________________ Unit Hydrograph Data -----------------------------------------------------________________ Unit time period Time S of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph 6 (CFS) _____________________________________________________________________ 1 1.000 4937.078 100.000 1.330 Sum = 100.000 Sum- 1.330 _______________________________________________________________________ Unit Time Pattern Storm Rain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (In/Hr) Max Low (In/Hr) 1 1.00 1.20 0.054 0.400 0.022 0.03 2 2.00 1.30 0.058 0.391 0.024 0.03 3 3.00 1.80 0.081 0.363 0.033 0.05 4 4.00 2.10 0.094 0.345 0.039 0.06 5 5.00 2.80 0.126 0.328 0.052 0.07 6 6.00 2.90 0.130 0.312 0.054 0.08 7 7.00 3.80 0.171 0.295 0.070 0.10 8 6.00 4.60 0.207 0.280 0.085 0.12 9 9.00 6.30 0.283 0.264 --- 0.02 10 10.00 8.20 0.369 0.250 --- 0.12 11 11.00 7.00 0.315 0.236 --- 0.08 • 12 12.00 0.30 0.486 0.209 --- 0.11 28 13 13.00 10.80 0.486 0.209 0.28 14 14.00 11.40 0.513 0.197 0.32 15 15.00 10.40 0.468 0.185 --- 0.28 16 16.00 8.50 0.382 0.174 --- 0.21 17 17.00 1.40 0.063 0.164 0.026 0.04 18 18.00 1.90 0.085 0.154 0.035 0.05 19 19.00 1.30 0.058 0.145 0.024 0.03 20 20.00 1.20 0.054 0.133 0.022 0.03 21 21.00 1.10 0.049 0.130 0.020 0.03 22 22.00 1.00 0.045 0.124 0.018 0.03 23 23.00 0.90 0.040 0.119 0.017 0.02 24 24.00 0.80 0.036 0.116 0.015 0.02 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 2.2 • DISCHARGE POINT 2 POST-CONSTRUCTION -100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH Flood volume = Effective rainfall 2.21(In) • times area 1.3(Ac.)/[(In)/(Ft.)] = 0.2(Ac.Ft) Total soil loss = 2.29(In) Total soil loss = 0.252(Ac.Ft) Total rainfall = 4.50(In) Flood volume = 10577.1 Cubic Feet Total soil loss = 10585.0 Cubic Feet ____________________________________________________________________ Peak flow rate of this hydrograph = 0.421(CFS) ____________________________________________________________________ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T 0 R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h ____________________________________________________________________ Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals ( (CFS) ) ____________________________________________________________________ Time(h+m) Volume Ac.Ft Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 __i+_O 0 0035 0.09 Q _____- -_____ ________________I_______ ____I 2+ 0 0.0073 0.05 QV 3+ 0 0.0126 0.06 Q V I I 1 4+ 0 0.0187 0.07 Q V 5+ 0 0.0269 0.10 Q V I 6+ 0 0.0353 0.10 Q V I 7+ 0 0.0464 0.13 Q V I 8+ 0 0.0599 0.16 Q VI 9+ 0 0.0620 0.03 Q V 10+ 0 0.0751 0.16 Q V 11+ 0 0.0838 0.11 Q I V I 1 12+ 0 0.0955 0.14 Q I V 13+ 0 0.1259 0.37 IQ I V 14+ 0 0.1607 0.42 IQ I I V 15+ 0 0.1918 0.38 IQ I I V 1 • 16+ 0 0.2148 0.28 IQ I I I V I 17+ 0 0.2189 0.05 Q I I I V I 18+ 0 0.2244 0.07 Q I I I V I 19+ 0 0.2282. 0.05 Q I I I V I 20+ 0 0.2317 0.04 Q I I I V 21+ 0 0.2349 0.04 Q I I I V 22+ 0 0.2379 0.04 Q I I I VI 23+ 0 0.2405 0.03 Q I I I VI 24+ 0 0.2428 0.03 Q I I I VI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HYDROLOGY MAP r I TF.MECULA COMMUNITY C U C PA05�0389 NUDE ELEVATION NODE NUMBER ���� STORM DRAIN INVERT ELEVATION r TIAG_6 (2 2R ' AD 00 DRAINAGE BOUNDARY ='9 � .2 i M E L 24 1 0-51 AC\ DRAINAGE AREA � `• -� ��T� ` ( E M WD M H m " � 2859TdQ10=146chs100 YEAR T RM� � � , .\ �� �r� \ -�-�--- STORM RUNOFF v-, :�c 26 SGFL _ 27.20Td ( 26,89TO w `�' 26.98Td \ \ �_ Q100=2.62ef s 10 YEAR STORM RUNOFF _�"`� �_ e.h� -_ 26,43TC) EXIS. Cdc C - F'- ..._-^- . I r J��'.�� ,., -•�e._:` X �y„r --- - -- 7 \, J v EX. SIDEWALK 2� EX. DWYLij VAULT 1030 Z BMP SUMMARY _ 1.0eTc Cur , � 6�T DISC11��1WE POINT 1 2 YEAR-241IR 10 YEitR-241IR 100 Y&W-2411R D 9 r PRE POST F IRE POST I IRE POST I +_ r C 7TC RUNOFF CFS 0.02 0.05 o.08 0.0.E 0.17 0.18 Cr, EX. AC PARKING LOT C.) (30 44FS �'�� M VELOCITY - FPS 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.67 ' VOLUME-CCJ�3IC F'I' S06 1,716 1,377 2,765 3 336 Ll g1�1 \� \\\ ` r E CURE \ \� -" FENCE AINLIP FENC� VOL UNIE-AC Frr 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 EX, WALK 4C6FS) `. -- {T �... 1 (35�aTS) ` \. I L� D URA"I"ION- TMIN 780 7 0 720 770 0 0 EX. LIGHT � ,.� C 'k 5pr -AMA "` �` ,, � �'\ � r r . r � , , 33.5 � - 1 DISC�LE1I�G�. 1'(]IN 12 2 Y�,�IIt�-24III� 10 YL+�,Ii-241II� lUU YL+��It-24IIIt 1 �rJ 34.4� E I'ItF, YoSrr YI�E POST YID I'OSrIAL 1 \ - TCH E l~X. WOOD FENCE EX. _. ��A �Q .__.. �� IzuNOF�•-cF•� 0.06 0.1 s o.07 0.1� 0.30 0.4� -- • VELOC,I rY -FPS 0.25 0.56 0.31 0.31 0.67 0.71 X. GK rn � r r ` ,�V J . Ex, WAIL �- � �-- �``` �-�- � �( r``I VoLUT'WIE-C,UI3I�, I�'1' 1 725 U,3U 2' 297 61. 5 r132 10 577 N x 1 \/) f ,, . VOL UNIE-PLC FT 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.16 0.12 0.24 i , I f > r � � �� � � � EX151:NG G!-lA.F'Lc '- <o L t, Ln s; DURATION-ION MIN 8110 840 840 840 840 840 o EX. CHAPLE v j � EX. WOOD FENCE1:�0`F 1 x = n� aa.3a c 39.3aINv x - LOT' - �Jf � S � r rI, '1JJ91 �� I 36,GOTC r a'' �\� 1 ,�� FF a` s0. F - 5O S 104� 33 PE 2 .- x EX, WnoD DECK I \ - vCID - 7 i LU 415 AUEX, t�Ic, Lo \ r Q n C �. F PROTECT INPL -_ S �T EX. W EX. YYAlX 1 1039,,4 T Ex SHED � -�� EX, h NUMEN� r _ - N. r� IMF EX. SHED ; Via. .,.,.;, EX, MODULAR ACE x REMAIN' 1N L EX. FLAG TO 4 MODULAR - -� Y.. Qt7UiI�� r"] REMOVED - _•1 i - GE •1 _ Ah ^rl U (38.29TC u, cave r "-o PANEL "� �' � a EX ELEG i --�f � VYALK .� c - L'fc(3 (-�0.3"Tc allX S "� S _ ,f i (41,03 G _ �*w� 40, T. 40,451 4 G Q 40 15T � 'r 5 39.Q�E ��. FgFc� �'' �• ° r � 1 `.1 1 1 J ti3j c.a d}5 a• 6� 59')�V o �3 9S r 39.65FS S r- STT • - r9 r r T r EX. CUR 40,09TC `� 1 ' ` Ex. AC PAVE, 39.75Tc _.._.��-� = S U'G. 40.577C ( 0,6%)\ 39.1 T(' �' �\ r a u)o 1p \ c�cn 37.85F5 �6 � / a _..• �G/o F ,� i`j i .�----'�_"... ,�� /(�Vl +--" �" . •...-.r-'" y E1�. A\��%'!���C 37. a G �' v� c� c,a o�� �5,1011, r" LUNCH % 8.50TC r 4�.50TC 41.45T� �' y►TrIACOVER �J- �'o� 4a.OaFS 40 95FS ¢ l �. 1 - E X S F(7 n ,^• i Ln 27 -- - TOLE REMO ED x o 38,00FL _ `^"EX, CHAINLINK FENCE } �r =� Ex r� uI �c EXISTING FENCE TO Et El n I �\ \ \ E CHFn,INLINK FF,SIC TURF PLAYGROUND F 'SCE ®®,�� ouND �M� SUMMARY �_ 10.38 50 Pc - p 3% �I © o �' 4n�, ` ` M \ 1 4U. EX.pLAYGRAND (�onC, IMPERVIOUS AREA 1 /� ._xrc/ Q 40.2 FS f � r DWY & PARKING PAVEMENT 0 SF 0 SF Y ' - 4 EX HARDSCAPE _ _. , , \ 858 or 1,0 3_ SF _ , � 1 ~�- EX CHAINLINK FENCE \ 1 7 T EX. BUILDING AREA 1,890 SF 5 410 SF� � S' FGNcE �- c7 4 T 4 T� IMPERVIOUS AREA-SQ FT Z748 SF 7,042 SF1!-: --� _ a c f 4a.4oEs 4o.2O S o ` IMPERVIOUS AREA -- ACRES ,�.Q6 AC 0.1 6 AC ��_ _ ` , `'' 4 J� .'� 39.20FS o ��` G � z .a ./ Ex AC�Ac CUUR r DRAINAGE AREA 0.48 AC 1.32 AC -\mot i �o� �8� a� � 4% � o� � x aA�� �,2G 1 38.65TC r'r' �, /� 3c 20Fj ec _ y� ----� - ,., D.13 0.U8 V �� r o W �, Ex AC, ED aAsKE�aALL cr�uRT A 5. a rL 1=IA 0 � b. POST CONSIRUCTIO 019CKAMEIVOII I ,% - 1 ( \ EX. CONC, WALL IMPERVIOUSAREA 2 \ 80 DWY & PARKING PAVEMENT 0 SF 30,136 SF /' ��-__ ^ - -- low HARDSCAPE 5148 SF 496 SF ® '� GRAPHIC SCALE - • L ng tn ge,e nono g _/ _* BUILDING AREA 8,625 SF 4,600 SF ' r f sawA % D�r t 28465 DID TOWN FRONT STREET (951) M-4869 (951) ,%6-4919 FAX �-_ �r fl r)f1�f"/� 130 LF SUITE 315 r - ___ � � -,� �,.._ 1:131J'�,1.:� �-r '"-�. �r•,,�,�-� �EI�VLIj� 11A J�59V IMPERVIOUS AREA-SQ FT 13773 SF 35,232 SF - _ Gr s s �� r���,� �ti PREPARED 12110107 f �(� � � f � �� �,-'ems � � �� � ' IMPERVIOUS AREA - ACRES 0.81 AC SCALE. I 3O D.32 AC DRAINAGE AREA 0.48 AC 1.32 AC DRAWING N0. HYD(o)' L(oJ"` GY m`aArv% E)(HIBIT I=1A/DA 0.67 0.61 1 DE VFL OPED 0 ONDI TION A '& 'm R A H YD TEsmalEGUILA 0(ift' im'1101UNITY LOTTR20591 P A 0"5-o SHEET OF 1 Appendix D Educational Materials • • EMPLOYEES CERTIFICATION I certify that at the time of employment, I have received, reviewed and discussed all WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) materials provided to me by (Print Name) with an Authorized Representative of the development and fully understand the importance of following the WQMP requirements and Activity Restrictions. Date Employees Name(s) (Print) Date Date Employees Signature(s) Date • Address CA Zip: Owner's Representative Signature Date • • EMPLOYEES EDUCATION LOG EMPLOYEES NAME DATE WQMP MATERIALS PROVIDED 1m and finks; Y F y5 >. 5 S... . pall 7sa- 7601 sm � Ixb� uz w .750;WAY r11 r`Uh`y'Pr6Z3�'0. DONO minnow some Dole All move a 7<• maw" .I. . ?,? 0 CP rF . yµ .a rYrk>> .Yo��,k3ny✓nf nvre3F�.ak .. C3>4:d r ! ♦ _ t.. t}.r S�3F&:.,k1�3'Fr�J.>/i.� o.vx'.�i. S > ?��Nwyq COMA VAS Dzzilii-�" �tl 3 y $ STIMs ilk yn a "5 ns j is 'a IMMyT.- XX 2 St' :L St - t v ..,.. b 4� �d� sir. .,,a+a•,,, v; o ! (lms.WlRPKd4 t d� • ggw} of tij sy T i.t$i < ' z kbt4 }��4f4i �¢%�j xs,y�tn < N'Iv� si5.�3; ^^ i�yq� �ssY :✓w• ��.1`'.. �a/n���'i.E sv�i�H"ff �$� aii'ie9/L� r. or RS MCI } s t• f>... 13' n ,1 £ a 3 P .k,U;<,Si3;Sd SP f Arl , t i '. C.7.t t Fr; , t..x..,, x.a . £ •_:y fi.. .�;£<f_.,1....4, .,Y,x� _, T.�. � ? _ i { 7 L ... . y F k'< grid WNW .01 NO raide f t�"3fiTu 54'p,, e52Zbv`3 ¢�`fi �k�E>/�g... a i a':•<x4 >t x<x tt 4 'C 3j £ 0 f / H � 4 t b,,I". < Y ':iJ 9 "LE WNGXl� .ai/.'�j)#,C�(• to.i'.L (,.4 A; )£...{`;j•_e. .i.. w..2 :)5 .. . ........... ., rs s {StYh }'�#ng `?.1#'6# t# t o ? {�Ya�g1� :� �° 'Z�`)#3.ny� �{ s C rca a p b£':;a r W s #tx- agaF 4{# Rt -°fA t U €}i'3 >e3 '� is Y # L• 4 e 't e (frog and tlr s y s s r t3- sx"?Y£< eK°ac9i f _ ^lic i °y{ 34/ j Paint :ct''£ , .<�,.i.f:#o:i G n •f�.,i..£ ;} #li F'- t €-Fksu - - 5" .. - C: 3 aa�. Y #Z or ssra #Ld Y� IS - t # y 5 f iF1i'" "•.[\ € ay i' ebfiC #fEState ltYtb to 3y !fi"m 3 m or.� � Iiid § d� •f '3r_" )i7 .Y' t1T ���# cl��'{ 'I:✓Ui3.£� "d> # !`> ,�.i. . ,#..�)fs' :s a3'Lii _...r.3:'•.'. a a/ ,ix- J1 s be Ll �`&� .f s..di at3is"s{"fib;,. g s c-?#r 3.z#}d s• vYs: >u:e #-f s': :Jf # r>j3<'' "#3d cart 3rx 3 6d k or a �f:',.sz {.3?s t.f ..�,/ S{i€h r `x cabsot`?Zt?.'?�a; sis���l"3 With a N)$ and 19 :#E n X }{ "s 'a-re 4�a� c J steer: . P Y#` , #'i''''£•i 3 - ,f'£` U c t n ii#£t £ 1#Z'S.^f3 6#L: C'fla^ i'i r#L{.03 tonal y h£`£.rauti C "- aU{ be taven `it »t JL6 z su { �tiy 'F3xaY P#E �`i sL sf '"§.�16 sue: pi-'Venn the dhIIa3gC..r'i .#3to e.hp: y'L 5� #3F °: .)t J3 f 7E"#iJ.. �3 #�Y£_c ..># } pK; li'OCI.. i;'.3€:`Y3 3t'3s,'t. ..i' 4L•#?4, iif *, two rn- x'kt S V a 0 -` U7'i:::...£u..'M�t)Lj. 5:.v�"<1j7,,:r�3i<1t)-.'` .) Jog.ofij,- _.Cct#'3rrE✓'( :a2f Ci?.k'i `s # $-i or cqii ;i.3::;- Equip:1Zen f .:t:ti :vtl.•E,.� IG:f'e Y Ertf3r#r3;<s fii T contaminate I0< q �:t'si'i :}{ Yi`# 3rici ;iat:?5 3F 1>3ri> • lit MIT- WON U10911 77777 .,3 l i, iiE:' ty�J 3ti i.i d i �..Fa:!I+''.t,.> sr i,: ° .'. �_.:£,'' ,,,.:st(::dei:":en� . 3 i5 r ? eat ^7 i:is ..`s!'#e?(:'"'.L u<'. Tiiyi ik 4z. _. ] rtri,x€x'Pal 3 v: c) �enii'I "i tz JC 3iF. 1...1C .§ ::? £J ,�_':a'1?f'?:3, ve::tii.. may eet ifc $ > i a # t t > a. 3} 5 i ' ash sS .::e�i o �1 tVe i Aa , '€1�i Li. f C 3' 1 �..<3 a'E' ".i'..." F ;f..,r, { ,3.'<_P:L ;.,', ! "- ;> ,s.. U£,t:3di{^^{ 13f`g.�.0+ #r'ti .E': t rx( t_ir3 i I e a riixl'u.f , i fta o>r'.t..."I-dran, 'c t Ali _it•=c..€" mm: v -. E�..}..£�,?', of °.i .. .3 . t.i7 �i t �t'i ,C;3£ <?.,:, °{itF �?Jt ..L.. <r .uL ).. .3, or .3 ,l li uil i # it f3'<<}scY 7�s"i3 3 - or 3"" x 4 7 <:3 dry od,x , or i.,. Li 3; z3. �uLv. + 5ti �,t 1£p'} ,....es „g, <n ,3 do .; n <3 3} -A it` - pw 33u. .. Nfe ov-Al.;,{ S j<.,.i£..?acai( 3 a. ::iL3 c.h..Tr3Lci > i, l .: t'aus of (Ythe r41:: .r'`.cause :l.?#>..mo Yiobif;,,is b c :.b eFia z befo e, ust `j df'{3t:?, 't'K v 3" : You- safl5. "i v e,},v...4:1" _ ? is :o .e ix,i.h 'e"£{i£ S" !y: not . . pok;oj and c,. .e.r ,4.F.rh You ili rt3 i:iii. Fi:x :d the ;t v3L.t:rv.t. Ct;;< tt. t4 s::3 .i3fsv .,1ay 41:.L` v kr3'hg.. with :pecirk- ?:'TYrtc at3F .i3..e th. 3:4 1-800-5064555 js .av:` ..x:h<-%{.., y:t} ✓Y �i SJ.Cc{Sl_ rx�a :Y°}C.b.E.1s3ti£i Ciive v t 9)f'S vt rat r to tic we as Be- ?°4 i"a i.-at " may damage +, • Appendix E Soils Report INLAND, INC. Geotechnical, Environmental, and Material Testing Consultants PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONAND PERCOLATION TESTING,PROPOSED NEW SANCTUARY BUILDING AND OTHER ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD, CITY OF TEMECULA,RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNL4 Dated: August 3,2007 . Project No.:1071767--10 Prepared For: Pastor Domenick Occipinti TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH c% WALTALLENARCHITECT 28465 Old Town Front Street, Suite 201 Temecula, California 92590 41531 Date Street• Murrieta • CA 92562-7086.Office(951)461-1919• Fax (951)461-7677 INLAND, INC. Geotechnical, Environmental, and Material Testing Consultants August 3, 2007 Project No. I071767-10 Pastor Domenick Occipinti TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH clo WALT ALLEN ARCHITECT 28465 Old Town Front Street, Suite 201 Temecula, California 92590 Subject. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, and Percolation Testing, Proposed New Sanctuary Building and Other On-Site Improvements, 29825 Santiago Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California LGC Inland, Inc. (LGC) is pleased to submit herewith our preliminary geotechnical investigation and percolation testing report for the proposed new sanctuary building and other on-site improvements located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing and our engineering judgment, opinions, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical design aspects of the proposed development. 0 t has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this report or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, LGC INLAND, INC. Mark Bergmann President AW/YP/SER/kg/ko Distribution: (6) Addressee • 41531 Date Street• Murrieta • CA 92662-7086 • Office (951)461-1919• Fax(951)461-7677 TABLE OF CONTENTS ectinn Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services.............................................................................................1 1.2 Location and Site Description..............................................................................................3 1.3 Proposed Development and Grading....................................................................................3 1.4 Subsurface Investigation......................................................................................................3 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS...............................................................................................4 2.1 Regional Geologic Setting 4 2.2 Location Geology and Soil Conditions.................................................................................4 2.3 Landslides............................................................................................................................4 2.4 Groundwater........................................................................................................................4 2.5 Surface Water......................................................................................................................4 2.6 Faulting 6 2.6.I Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement...................................................................6 2.6.2 Shallow Ground Rupture........................................................................................6 2.6.3 Tsunamis and Seiches............................................................................................6 2.7 Seismicity............................................................................................................................7 2.8 Seismic Design Criteria.......................................................................................................7 2.9 Sloe Stability 7 2.10 Laboratory Testing..............................................................................................................7 2.11 Percolation Testing.............................................................................................................. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................8 �4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................9 4.1 Site Earthwork.....................................................................................................................9 4.1.1 Site Preparation.......................................................................................................9 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction....................................................................................9 4.1.3 Import Soils for Grading.......................................................................................10 4.1.4 Shrinkage,Bulkage and Subsidence......................................................................10 4.1.5 Temporary Stability of Removal Excavations.......................................................10 4.1.6 Cal/OSHA Soil Classification..............................................................................I I 4.1.7 Fill Placement and Compaction...........................................................................11 4.1.8 Trench Backfill and Compaction.........................................................................11 4.2 Foundation Selection.........................................................................................................11 4.2.1 General.................................................................................................................11 4.2.2 Conventional Foundations.....................................................................................12 4.2.3 Building Floor Slabs ............................................................................................12 4.2.4 Post-Tension Foundations....................................................................................13 4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations...................................14 4.4 Structural Setbacks............................................................................................................15 4.5 Pavement Recommendations.............................................................................................15 4.6 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal............................................................... 15 4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork................................................................ 16 4.8 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control.............................................. 17 4.9 Detention Basin.................................................................................................................17 4.10 Slope Landscaping and Maintenance............................................................ 17 4.11 Plan Review, Construction Observation and Testing......................................... 17 �5.0 LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................................18 TABLE OF CONTENTS(Cont'd) LIST OF TABLES APPENDICES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Tables Table 1 —Seismic Design parameters (Page 7) Table 2—Shrinkage and Bulkage(Page 10) Table 3 —Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Foundation Design(Page 13) Table 4—Lateral Earth Pressures(Page 14) Table 5 —Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections(Page 15) Table 6—Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork (Page 16) Firures Figure 1 —Site Location Map (Page 2) Figure 2 - Regional Geologic Map (Page S) Figure 3 —Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (Rear of Text) Plate 1 —Geotechnical Map (In Pocket) Appendices Appendix A—References (Rear of Text) Appendix B—Field Exploration (Rear of Text) Appendix C—Laboratory Test Procedures and Test Results (Rear of Text) Appendix D—Percolation Test Results (Rear of Text) Appendix E—Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis(Rear of Text) Appendix F—General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading(Rear of Text) Project No, 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page ii August 3, 2007 LO INTRODUCTION �.1 Purpose and Scope of Services The main purpose of our investigation and percolation testing was to evaluate the pertinent geotechnical conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical design criteria for the proposed detention basin, grading construction, foundation design, retaining walls, pavement design and other relevant aspects relative to the proposed development of the site. This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation, conclusions, and recommendations that can be used for the design and construction of the proposed development. Environmental issues pertaining to the site were not investigated by LGC and it is our understanding that environmental issues(if any)will be addressed at another time. Our scope of services included: Review of geotechnical reports and geologic maps pertinent to the site(Appendix A). Perform a site reconnaissance to evaluate if the existing conditions of the site. A subsurface investigation including the excavation, sampling, and logging of three small-diameter exploratory borings, labeled B-1 through B- 3. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B, and their approximate locations are depicted on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. All of the excavations were logged and sampled under the supervision of an engineer or geologist from our firm. The borings were excavated to evaluate the general characteristics of the subsurface conditions on the site including • classification of site soils, determination of depth to groundwater, and to obtain representative soil samples. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface investigation (Appendix Q. Two percolation borings, P-1 and P-2, were excavated and tested per WQMP standards. Percolation Test Results are presented in Appendix D. Geologic mapping of the site. Engineering and geologic analysis of the data with respect to the proposed development. _ An evaluation of faulting and seismicity of the region as it pertains to the site and probabilistic seismic hazard analyses(Appendix E). Preparation of General Earthwork and Grading Specifications(Appendix F). • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. • CAR J �u 5 s s a s i U4- m t � F 3 aawoA��9°P � �' ` vaUeaav � 3'~W r - e 11071767-10 TENIECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH P (APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION J \ .9 5 5S P➢ \�� R1rCA R s e c aF $ rn� � s T m P� 20 Ro 4 Y (yy d m t � C n -xe aF S yi c �c?F r 5 G 79 �- m CpA aF%" canie+:>m oa � G15A ESF®O /~ t t( j 6 l'e J 41 v t 3- ti l � ` 4 S iP 4 '©2004 DeLorme(w .delorme.00m)Topo USA®". o C=Z.73-0 Project Name TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH ' H FIGURE 1 Project No. 1071767-10 SITE LOCATION MAP Geol./ Eng. SER/YP i p X: Scale NOT TO SCALE �kq ,r r c Sjx Date August 2007 1.2 Location and Site Description • The site is located at 29825 Santiago Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The general location and configuration of the site is shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The topography of the site is relatively flat, with a general elevation of the property of 1,035 feet above mean sea level. Local drainage generally flows north and east. Review of the Megaland, 2004 report indicates that the pad area is entirely cut into the Pauba Formation sandstone. Our site reconnaissance indicates the property has a sparse to cover of annual weeds and grasses in the undeveloped areas. Several landscape areas have bushes and grass, and there are trees around the border of the property. There are several existing modular trailers and sheds scattered over the property that are currently in use. Several driveway, parking, and flat-work areas are located throughout the site. 1.3 Proposed Development and Grading The proposed development consists of an additional building adjacent to the existing chapel and a future building located near the southwest corner of the site. Associated improvements such as additional parking areas and a detention basin are also proposed. The 30-scale Preliminary Grading Plan, dated March 20, 2006 provided by HLC Civil Engineering was utilized in our investigation and forms the base for our Geotechnical Map(Plate 1). Since the site is relatively flat, standard cut and fill grading techniques are expected to be utilized to achieve the design grade which is assumed to be within t5-feet of existing grades. L4 Subsurface Investigation Our subsurface investigation was performed on July 25, 2007 and consisted of drilling three(3)borings(13- 1 to B-3) extending to depths ranging from approximately 21 to 37 feet below existing ground surface. A hollow-stem auger drill rig was utilized to drill these three borings. We attempted to advance at least one boring to a depth of at least 50 feet below ground surface. However, due to refusal in drilling, we terminated advancing the boring at a depth of 37 feet below ground surface. A summary of field exploration and boring logs are presented in Appendix B. The locations of the borings were coordinated on the site in order to avoid potential underground conflicts and to accommodate rig accessibility. Prior to the subsurface work, an underground utilities clearance was obtained from Underground Service Alert of Souther California. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1. At the conclusion of the subsurface investigation, all the borings were backfilled with native materials. Minor settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time. During our subsurface investigation, representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were retained for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples and included • moisture and density tests, maximum density and optimum moisture content, corrosion and expansion. A discussion of the tests performed and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix C. The moisture and density test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. Project No. I0 71 76 7-10 Page 3 August 3, 2007 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS �.I Regional Geologic Setting Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. The northwest-trending topography is controlled by the Elsinore fault zone, which extends from the San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly to the United States/Mexico border. The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore fault zone, while the Perris Block is located along the eastern side of the fault zone. The mountainous regions are underlain by Pre-Cretaceous, metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California Batholith. Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are generally comprised of non-marine sediments consisting of sandstone, mudstones, conglomerates, and occasional volcanic units. A map of the regional geology is presented on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 2. 2.2 Local Geology and Soil Conditions The property is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, and is underlain by Pauba Formation sandstones. The earth materials on the site are comprised of Quaternary age Pauba Formation sandstone. A general description of the soil materials observed on the site is provided in the following paragraphs: • Quaternary Pauba Formation (map symbol Op): Pauba Formation bedrock was encountered at the surface. These materials consisted primarily of olive gray to yellow brown, fine to coarse grained sandstone with varying amounts of silt and clay. These materials were typically moderately hard to very hard and dry to moist. 2.3 Landslides Review of geologic literature does not indicate the presence of landslides on or adjacent to the site. The potential for the existence of landslides is considered insignificant since the site is relatively flat. 24 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation to the maximum depth explored of . 37 feet below existing ground. A review of California Department of Water Resources well data (well no. 08503W-I IB00, approximately 1.4 miles from the subject site) indicated that historic high groundwater elevation is more than 25 feet below the ground surface. 2.5 Surface Water Based on our review of site maps, sheet flow is to the north. Surface water runoff relative to project design is the purview of the project civil engineer and should be designed to be directed away from planned structures. Project No. 10 71 76 7-10 Page 4 August 3, 2007 AQ ' rr � IA COMMUNMCj tAPPROx7NIATESITE LOCATIONr;_;°`` iok / y, 9 ,•,.quay'YF �. +rtip/ mot« r, I'� -y ) Z/ {�)u[Fi`,pu 'C �e+✓ I r p' �'� ' t ,� +r -'r 3 r,.-ya {•r _ t �� � r� � uti Qrn +a', .r�i ,- R �/` PA. ,,• "µ�a � .� ¢.� °�aRn 4 t s. v� X+ � �`r�Zr "3� c°a ��'t �- � �\�'. 3 1 IN - A LEGEND Qp - Quaternary Pauba Formation � 1t ---�-i Qoa - Quaternary Old Axial Channel �i�-\� ° o` ' Deposits 1, 0 I�r I � aF _ Qa - Quaternary Axial Channel ,` Deposits - Geologic Contact Fault Trace c (Dopetl where conceeed) �{ S - � � 4. GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE TEMECULA 7 5 QUADRANGLE SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA A DIGITAL DATABASE VERSION 1.0 By Slang S Tan and Michael P.Kennedy Digital Database by Brad Nelson and Gary Patt 2000,California Division of Mines and Geology,Los Angeles.CA,U.S.Geological Survey,Riverside.CA GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE PECHANGA 7.5'QUADRANGLE SAN DIEGO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, �7�t CALIFORNIA:A DIGITAL DATABASE VERSION 1.0 By Michael P.Kennedy,Digital Database by Brad L.Nelson . °� —� and Rachel M.Hauser 2000,California Division of Mines and Geology.Los Angeles,CA,U.S.Geological Survey. Riverside,CA "G * o DY Zoao 1ay1 Project Name TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH FIGURE 2 Project No. 1071767-10 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Geol./ Eng. SEW YP p �.vr Scale NOT TO SCALE �_', Date August2007 2.6 Faulting The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) onsite. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered nil since active faults are not known to cross the site. Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the southern California region, which may affect the site, include soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Other secondary seismic effects include shallow ground rupture, and seiches and tsunamis. In general, these secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependant on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. The major active fault that could produce these secondary effects is the Elsinore-Temecula fault located approximately 0.5 miles from the site. Other faults within 20 miles to the subject site that may result in shaking to the site include the Elsinore-Julian Fault, Elsinore-Glen Ivy Fault, San Jacinto-San Jacinto Valley, San Bernardino, and Anza faults, among others. A risk assessment of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections. 2.6.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Cohesive soils may be susceptible to liquefaction if they meet all of the following criteria that are commonly referred to as the "Chinese Criteria" (Seed et al, 1985): Clay content (defined as percent finer than 0.005 mm) less than 15 percent A liquid limit less than 35 percent An in-situ moisture content greater than 0.9 times the liquid limit Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Due to the dense nature of onsite Pauba Formation sandstone, the potential for liquefaction is" considered nil; and liquefaction related damages are expected to be remote. 2.6.2 Shallow Ground Rupture Ground rupture due to active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the absence of known active fault traces. Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 2.6.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the elevation of the proposed development at the site with respect to sea level and its distance from large open bodes of water, the potential of seiche and/or tsunami is considered to be nil. Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 6 August 3, 2007 2.7 Seismicity . The main seismic parameters to be considered when discussing the potential for earthquake-induced damage on the site are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. LGC performed a site-specific analysis based on these seismic parameters for the site using the computer program FRISKSP prepared by Thomas Blake (Blake, 2000), using site coordinates of 33.4884' N, and 117.1386' W. The results of our analysis are discussed in terms of the"Design-Basis Earthquake Ground Motion" which is defined as the ground motion that has a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years (2001 CBC Section 1627). The Elsinore-Temecula Fault is located approximately 0.5 miles westerly from the site and is considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a probabilistic design standpoint. Attenuation relations prepared by Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997), Sadigh et a] (1997) and Abrahamson & Silva (1997) were used to determine the probabilistic horizontal ground motion for the subject site (Appendix E). Based on the average of the attenuation relations used, we conclude the design earthquake (10 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years) could produce a magnitude weighted Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) of 0.58g for a moment magnitude of 7.5 using Idriss's magnitude-weighting factor(1998). 2.8 Seismic Design Criteria The seismic design soil parameters determined in accordance with 2001, CBC are presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 Seismic Design Parameters • - ". ;° UBC=1997TAALE ,'...` 1: Figure 16-2 Seismic Zone 4 Table 16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.4 Table 16-U Seismic Source Type B Table 16-J Seismic Profile Type So Table 16-S Near-Source factor, Na 1.3 Table 16-T Near-Source Factor,N 1.6 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.57 Table 16-R Seismic Coefficient, C 1.02 2.9 Slone Stability Only minor 2:1 cut/fill slopes under 5 feet are anticipated. Therefore, slope stability is not considered a constraint to the site development. 2.10 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing of the onsite soils was performed dry on representative samples obtained from the borings and included moisture and density tests, maximum density and optimum moisture, sieve analysis, Expansion Index, R-Value, Sulfate and Chloride Content, resistivity, and pH. A discussion of the tests _. performed and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix C. The moisture and density test results . are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. These results should be confirmed at the completion of site grading. Project No. 10 71 76 7-10 Page 7 August 3, 2007 Expansion potential testing indicated expansion index of 0 ("Very Low" 2001 CBC, EI from 0 to 20). . Sulfate testing indicated soluble sulfate content was negligible. ("Negligible" per 2001 CBC Table 19-A- 4). Corrosion testing indicated on site soils are moderately corrosive due to low resistivity and corrosive due to high chloride content. 2.11 Percolation Testing Percolation rates were determined per Section 3.4 of the County of Riverside, Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health's manual "Waste Disposal for Individual Homes, Commercial and Industrial". Two test holes, P-1 and P-2, were excavated on July 25 b, 2007; presoak periods were begun the same day the two test holes were excavated. Due to the sandy nature of the soils we were able to conduct the testing the next day following the presoak period outlined in the aforementioned manual. A percolation rate of 11.5 gallons/square feet/day may be used for the design of the proposed detention basin. Tables presenting the results of the percolation tests are presented in Appendix D. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are considered and incorporated into the project design process. The following is a summary of the primary �eotechnical factors determined from our geotechnical investigation. Based on our subsurface exploration and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports, the site is underlain by Quaternary Pauba Formation Bedrock. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake fault zone. The upper 2 to 3 feet of weathered Pauba Formation bedrock is not suitable to support the proposed structures. Groundwater was not encountered in our borings during this investigation; however, perched groundwater conditions may occur during seasonal fluctuations. Based on the conclusions of our subsurface explorations and review of the data, the potential for liquefaction on site is nil. Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on the site. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is from ground shaking from one of the nearby active regional faults. The estimated magnitude weighted peak horizontal ground acceleration with a 10 percent of probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.58g. Other secondary seismic effects are not considered significant for the proposed development. There are no known landslides impacting the site. Laboratory test results of the onsite soils indicate a low expansion potential and negligible potential for soluble sulfate attack on normal concrete. A percolation rate of 11.5 gallons/square feet/day may be used for the design purposes of the proposed catch basin. _ From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as fill, • provided they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and organic material. It is anticipated that the onsite soils may be excavated with conventional heavy- duty construction equipment. Project No. 10 71 76 7-10 Page 8 August 3, 2007 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS �.1 Site Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation and remedial grading followed by construction of slab-on-grade type foundations followed by asphalt paving of the parking area and driveways. All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of the appropriate reviewing agency, the provisions of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), including Appendix Chapter 33, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix F. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included as part of Appendix F. 4.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures, the areas should be cleared of surface obstructions, any existing debris, potentially compressible material (such as undocumented fill soils, or unsuitable alluvium) and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. All debris from the proposed demolition activities at the site should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from the _ removal of buried obstructions or utilities, which extend below finished site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557). • 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction The upper portion of the site is underlain by potentially compressible soils (Quaternary very old fan deposits), which may settle under the surcharge of fill and/or foundation loads. Compressible materials not removed by the planned grading should be excavated to competent material and replaced with compacted fill soils. The upper 3 feet or 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings, whichever is deeper, should be removed and recompacted; however, localized, deeper removals may be deemed necessary by the geotechnical consultant based on observations during grading. The proposed grading should provide at least a 1:1 fill prism below the proposed structures. In pavement areas of the upper 2 feet should be removed and recompacted. Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during site grading. Removal bottom should have a minimum of 85 percent relative compaction per ASTMD-1557 to be considered as a competent bottom. Field density should be verified by taking at least two tests per building pad. However, the frequency of testing may be increased based upon field observations during grading. From a geotechnical perspective, material that is removed may be placed as fill provided the material is relatively free from rocks (greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension), organic material and construction debris, is moisture-conditioned or dried (as needed) to obtain above- optimum moisture content, and then recompacted prior to additional fill placement or construction. Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 9 August 3, 2007 4.1.3 Import Soils for Grading • In the event import soils are needed to achieve final design grades, all potential import materials should be free of deleterious/oversize materials, non-expansive, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to commencement of delivery onsite. 4.1.4 Shrinkage. Bulkage and Subsidence Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite earth materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. The following (Table 2) is an estimate of shrinkage and bulking factors for the various geologic units found onsite. These estimates are based on in-place densities of the various materials and on the estimated average degree of relative compaction achieved during grading. TABLE 2 Shrinkage and Bulkage _ s SHRINKAGE�PER'CENT� r GEOLOGIC,�UNIT�:�, Quaternary Pauba Formation 0 to 5 Subsidence from scarification and recompaction of exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas to receive fill is expected to vary from negligible to approximately 0.1-foot. The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. These are preliminary rough estimates which may vary with depth of removal, stripping losses, field conditions at the time of grading, etc. (Handling losses, and reduction in volume due to removal of oversized material, are not included in the estimates). 4.1.5 Temporary Stability of Removal Excavations Due to the recommended depth of remedial grading (on the order of 3 feet), the temporary stability of the excavations along the perimeter of the site needs to be considered. All excavations for the proposed development should be performed in accordance with current OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) regulations and those of other regulatory agencies, as appropriate. Temporary excavations maybe cut vertically up to five feet. Excavations over five feet should be slot-cut, shored, or cut to a 1 H:1 V (horizontal, H: vertical, V) slope gradient. Surface water should be diverted away from the exposed cut, and not be allowed to pond on top of the excavations. Temporary cuts should not be left open for an extended period of time. • Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 10 August 3, 2007 4.1.6 CaIUOSHA Soil Classification Based on the soil types encountered during our preliminary investigation, onsite soils should be generally classified as Type B. LGC does not limit the soil classification to one type as soil may locally change over short distances. Furthermore, this classification should not preclude a Cal/OSHA "competent person" from determining soil type on a case-by-case basis. 4.1.7 Fill Placement and Compaction From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are screened of rocks greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension, organic materials and construction debris. Areas prepared to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to at least optimum-moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts generally not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. In general, oversized material (if any) shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. Oversize material may be incorporated into design fills in accordance with our standard grading details. • 4.1.8 Trench Backlill and Compaction The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks and other material over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction(per ASTM Test Method D1557). If trenches are shallow and the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities; clean sand, having sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, should be used to bed and shade the utilities. Sand backfill should be densified. The densification may be accomplished by _. jetting or flooding and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction. A representative from LGC should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project specifications. 4.2 Foundation Selection 4.2.1 General Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented herein. When the final structural loads for the proposed structures are know they should be provided to our office for the recommendations presented herein should be verified. Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 11 August 3, 2007 The following foundation recommendations are provided. The two foundations recommended for the proposed structures are: (1) Conventional foundation and(2) Post-Tension foundations. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design nor a corrosion consultant. 4.2.2 Conventional Foundations Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in UBC Table 18-I-C (i.e. 12-inch and 18-inch minimum depth for both single and two-story construction, respectively). Interior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 and 15 inches, for one-story and two-story buildings, respectively, and should be reinforced with a minimum of two (2) No. 4 bars, one (1) top and one (1)bottom. Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 lb/ftz (gross), for continuous and spread footings with a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep into certified compacted fill. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity values. The bearing capacities should be re-evaluated when loads and footing sizes have been finalized. Lateral forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom of the footing. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and a passive . earth pressure of 250 lb/ftz/ft. The passive earth pressure incorporates a factor of safety of about 1.5. All footing excavations should be cut square and level, and should be free of sloughed materials. 4.2.3 Building Floor Slabs We recommend a minimum floor slab thickness of 4 inches, reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center, both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement near mid-depth. Interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a 15-mil thick moisture/vapor barrier to help reduce the upward migration of moisture from the underlying -. subgrade soils. The moisture/vapor barrier product used should meet the performance standards of an ASTM E 1745 Class A material, and be properly installed in accordance with ACI publication 302. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture/vapor barrier systems are placed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, and that the moisture/vapor retarder materials are free of tears and punctures prior to concrete placement. Additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements of future interior floor coverings. Sand layer requirements are the purview of the structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction". Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and curing are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 12 August 3, 2007 Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all floor slabs should be pre-watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal or slightly greater than optimum moisture . content. This moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade soils. 4.2.4 Post-Tension Foundations Based on the site geotechnical conditions and provided the remedial recommendations provided herein are implemented, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the anticipated structures using a post-tensioned slab-on-grade foundation system. Table 3 presented below summarizes our recommendations for the foundation system. TABLE 3 Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post-TensionedFoundation Design /P ".i*A "" `" T .i5t &'T` ++ �;', 'Y'sM MAOMMAR'� ic3�zT a�. - � FARAMETER ,' 4. AZF W. . Expansion Classification: Very Low Expansion Percent that is Finer than 0.002 mm in the Fraction < 30 percent (assumed) Passing the No. 200 Sieve: Clay Mineral Type: Montmorillonite(assumed) Thomthwaite Moisture Index: -20 Depth to Constant Soil Suction (estimated as the depth to constant moisture content over time, but within U.B.C. 7 feet limits): Constant Soil Suction: PF 3.6 Moisture Velocity: 0.7 inches/month Center Lift 5.5 feet Edge moisture variation distance, em: 1.5 inches Center lift, m: Edge Lift 2.5 feet Edge moisture variation distance, em: 0.5 inches Edge lift, m: Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mix in Negligible Exposure Contact with Site Soils in Accordance with U.B.C., 1997 (see report) Table 19-A-4: Corrosivity of Earth Materials to Ferrous Metals: Corrosive Modulus of Subgrade Reaction,k(assuming presaturation 200 pci as indicated below): Additional Recommendations: I. Presaturate slab subgrade to slightly above or at optimum-moisture content, to a minimum depth of 12 inches below ground - surface. 2. Install a 15-mil Visqueen(or equivalent)moisture barrier*. 3. Minimum perimeteTfoundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12 inches. * The sand and Visqueen requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/corrosion engineer and the homebuilder to ensure that the concrete cures correctly, is protected from corrosive environments and moisture penetration of the floor is acceptable to the future homeowners.Therefore,the above recommendations may be superceded by the requirements of the previously mentioned parties. • Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 13 August 3, 2007 4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations(IfAny) • The following are lateral earth pressures for retaining walls, if any are proposed. Due to the expansive nature of onsite soils, we recommend the import of low expansive soils for retaining wall backfill. The recommended lateral pressures for approved import soils (expansion index less than 20 per U.B.C. 18-I-13) for level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 5. TABLE 4 Lateral Earth Pressures ' � y E UIVALENTmFLUID WEIGRA(06 ` ice ma`s CONDITIONS Active 40 55 At-Rest 60 1 73 Passive 250 1 — Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for"active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the 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. The passive earth pressure values assumes sufficient slope setback(see previous section). • For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static groundwater and backfilled with import soils (expansion index less than 20 or Sand Equivalent greater than 30) is provided in Table 4. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. The backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated on Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water, which contains soluble salts, migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. Foundations for retaining walls in properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 18 inches below • lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf may be assumed. Project No. I071767-10 Page 14 August 3, 2007 All excavations should be made in accordance with Cal OSHA. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. 04.4 Structural Setbacks Structural setbacks, in addition to those required per the UBC, are not required due to geologic or geotechnical conditions within the site. Building setbacks from slopes, property lines, etc. should conform to 1997 UBC requirements. 4.5 Pavement Recommendations Based on the laboratory R-value of 59, and assumed Traffic Indices (TI's) of 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, we recommend the following minimum pavement sections. These recommendations should be confirmed by additional testing at the completion of grading. Final pavement sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the project Traffic Index and the City of Temecula minimum requirements. TABLE 5 Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections "saal aid Czi sS -en Stree[� I =."��,£�- Assumed Traffic 5.0 6.0 7.0 Index • Design R-value 59 59 59 AC Thickness 3.0 3.5 4 (inches) AB Thickness 6* 6* 8* (inches) *Indicates the minimum section required by the City of Temecula. The aggregate base material should conform to the specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base (Caltrans) or Crushed Aggregate Base (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction). The base material should be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The subgrade should achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent through the upper 12 inches. Base and subgrade materials should be moisture-conditioned to a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. The R-value should be obtained during the concluding stages of grading, and the final pavement section will then be designed accordingly. TI's for the streets within the subject project site should be obtained from the City of Temecula or calculated by a traffic engineer. The above recommendations are considered applicable if complete removals of the compressible materials are performed in the pavement areas. 4.6 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (MACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment". From a geotechnical viewpoint, the "environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete . foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebars, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. Project No. 10 7176 7-1 0 Page 15 August 3, 2007 in general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. Table 19-A-4 of the 2001 U.B.C., provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532. Based on testing performed during this investigation within the project site, the onsite soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of U.B.C., 1997. It is also our opinion that onsite soils should be considered moderately corrosive due to moderate resistivity and corrosive due to high chloride content. Despite the minimum recommendation above, LGC is not a corrosion-engineering firm. Therefore, we recommend that you consult with a competent corrosion engineer and conduct additional testing (if required) to evaluate the actual corrosion potential of the site and to provide recommendations to reduce the corrosion potential with respect to the proposed improvements. The recommendations of the corrosion engineer may supercede the above requirements. 4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, etc.) has a high potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 7. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. TABLE 6 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork for Very Low Expansive Soils .rr E' { City-'.SIdCWQIk'CUrIJ''k, �' e Private` 3� Patios/ t , 3_ �� 3' PrlVatC�DrIVCS,,c� :,sr +: ..Ayk+ ,w ;:°`r wnSaN.,(, a Sidewalks.t vK �,a ta' Ent. wa saw - + . a,�and,Cutters Minimum Thickness 4 (nominal) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency (in.) Standard Presaturation Wet Down Wet Down Wet Down City/Agency Standard No. 3 at 24 inches on No. 3 at 24 inches on City/Agency Reinforcement — centers centers Standard Thickened Edge — 81, x 81, — City/Agency Standard Saw cut or deep open Saw cut or deep open Saw cut or deep open Crack Control tool joint to a tool joint to a tool joint to a City/Agency minimum of 1/3 the minimum of 1/3 the minimum of 1/3 the Standard concrete thickness concrete thickness concrete thickness Maximum Joint 5 feet 10 feet or quarter cut 6 feet City/Agency Spa" acin whichever is closer Standard Aggregate Base _ — City/Agency Thickness (in.) Standard Project No. I071767-10 Page 16 August 3, 2007 4.8 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1 percent. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Over watering must be avoided. 4.9 Detention Basin Percolation tests run in the proposed detention basin area indicate that a percolation rate of 11.5 gallons/square feet/day should be used for design purposes in the proposed area. Tables presenting the results of the percolation tests are presented in Appendix C. 4.10 Slope Landscaping and Maintenance Adequate slope and pad drainage facilities are essential in the design of the finish grading for the subject site. An anticipated rainfall equivalency of 60 to 100 inches per year at the site can result due to irrigation. The overall stability of graded slopes should not be adversely affected provided all drainage provisions are properly constructed and maintained thereafter and provided all engineered slopes are landscaped with a deep rooted, drought tolerant and maintenance free plant species, as recommended by the project landscape architect. Additional comments and recommendations are presented below with respect to slope drainage, landscaping and irrigation. A discussion of drainage is given in the following section. 4.11 Plan Review, Construction Observation and Testing Geotechnical review of the grading and improvement plan should be performed when the plan becomes available from the project civil engineer. Modifications to the plan may arise from our review therefore our review should be performed as soon as practical. The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC. Construction observation and testing should also be performed by the geotechnical consultant during future grading, excavations, backfill of utility trenches, preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base, foundation or retaining wall construction or when an unusual soil condition is encountered at the site. Grading plans, foundation plans, and final project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 17 August 3, 2007 5.0 LIMITATIONS 10Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s)recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this report, or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your earliest convenience. �S\oNA�eo< Respectfully submitted, PCF�s E R1CJY 2' 0s LGCINLAND, INC. _ w No 93 y Exp. No.58E08 ? //d e, �'e�FOFCAUFt/ Yogi Pirathapan, RCE 68698 s EXP.Jf0 �t Scott E. Richtmyer, PG 7933 - Engineering Division Manager ;: • Geology Division Manager AW/YP/SER/kg/ko Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 18 August 3, 2007 FENCE EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL,MINIMUM HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90%RELATIVE COMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D 1'MINIMU� 1 III�III=I I I=I I I=I I I=I I(=I I I I���I I I—I WATERPROOFING PER CIVIL ENGINEER „ FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL SE 30 OR GREATER w BACKCUT PER OSHA J >Q MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT _ BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN,CONSISTING OF 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 4 INCH DIAMETER,SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED -".... PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE a' — FOOTING/WALL DESIGN PER CIVIL ENGINEER • • � I, i-- I. I 4 — • d -'_ ' : '�, ,• :y ip. Project Name TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH �; I ; x Project No. I071767-10 FIGURE 3 Eng./Geol. SER/YP x Retaining Wall Detail .. Scale Not To Scale Date August 2007 I i APPENDIX A i REFERENCES i I j i I I APPENDIX A Re erenees Blake, T.F., 2000, "FRISKSP, Version 4.0, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources." "FRISKSP", Version 3.01b, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources." 1998b, "UBCSEIS, Version 1.30, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources. Campbell K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994 'Near Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Worldwide Accelerograms Recorder from 1957 to 1993;" Proceedings of the fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol III, Earthquake Engineering Institute, pp. 283-292. Campbell K.W., 1997 "Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68,No. 1, pp. 154-179. 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, Prepared by California Division of Mines and Geology. HLC Civil Engineering, 2006, Preliminary Grading Plan, Temecula Community Church, date March 20. *Jenkins, Olaf P., 1973, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet; Scale 1:250,000. 1973, 1965, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers 1985, An Explanatory Text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale Fault and Geologic Maps of California, California Division of Mines and Geology. 1994, Fault Activity Map of California Megaland Engineers &Assoc., 2004,"Preliminary Soils Investigation and Foundation Reccomendations and Existing Building Pad Soils Certification", dated July 5. State of California, 1980, Department of Conservation, Special Studies Zone, Temecula Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, dated January 1. APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION Fi APPENDIX B • Field Exploration B-I General A reconnaissance of the site was carried out by LGC's personnel. The locations of the exploratory excavations were chosen to obtain subsurface information needed to achieve the objective for this investigation. A visual survey was conducted to verify that the proposed excavations would not encounter any subsurface utility lines. No underground lines were encountered during the field exploratory program. B-2 Excavation,Drilling and Sampling The subsurface exploration program for this project was performed on July 25, 2007 and consisted of the excavation of five borings, B-1 through B-3 to a maximum depth of 37 feet below the existing grade. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Borings B-1 through B-3 were excavated using a truck-mounted, 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem auger drill rig supplied by Cal-Pac Drilling of Yucaipa, California. The borings were excavated and sampled at regular intervals: generally every 5 feet to the maximum excavated depth of each boring. The borings were sampled using a 2-3/8 inch-inside-diameter (ID) Modified California Sampler or a 1-3/8-inch ID Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Samples were obtained as the sampler was driven into the bottom of the boring by a 140-pound CME automatic-trip hammer free falling from a height of 37 inches. The ring samples were placed in plastic cans, labeled, and transported to the laboratory. The SPT soil samples were examined and carefully removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed, labeled, and transported to the laboratory for testing as well. Bulk samples also were collected during the course of drilling by taking cuttings obtained from the auger flights. The bulk samples were selected for classification and testing purposes and may represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths. Recovered samples were bagged and returned to the laboratory for further classification and testing. B-3 Miscellaneous The boring logs describe the earth materials encountered, sampling method used, and field and laboratory tests performed. The logs also show the boring number, date of completion, and the name of the logger and drilling subcontractor. A staff geologist logged the borings in accordance with the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) ASTM D2488- 93. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate and the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. The logs of the borings are presented on the following pages. APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX C • Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. Soil Classification: Soils were classified according the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2487 and D2488. This system uses relies on the Atterberg Limits and grain size distribution of a soil. The soil classifications (or group symbol) are shown on the laboratory test data, and boring logs. Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples. Maximum Dry Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: • 'a v+vs—r rr sr?'' r .z. - " '1 ". t"^ �.-�ray r^�'-`v •P -qi. �� S�AMPLE � SAMPLE �==kMAXIMUMt OPTTIMCIM 'L'OCA�TION� s��-� DESCRIPTION�w Yt �DRD� S�� a' wMOIS�TURE �T�� ` i "� � , xr� �e � � (pcllta � TCOIVTENTm(/o) 4�. c? �c S. 1. c4�.�.w Ce.s u,.«�?�aa,.,�_a .+ ✓sue...,- r�4 �a�w x.�t B-1 @ 0-5' SAND with clay 126.5 10 Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2 and/or ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch-thick by 4-inch-diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: " � SAMPLE �� a � SAMPLES �� °'� EXPANSION�.,� EXPANSION 'L`OCATION B-I @ 0-5' SAND with clay 0 Very Low *Per Table 18-1-B of 2001 CBC. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geotechnical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below: SAMPa s- 'SULFATE LE SAMPLE � .�eULFA�TE CONTENT" EXPOSURE*• LOCATION . DESCRIPTION . x (PPm) B-1 @ 0-5' SAND with clay 0 Negligible * Per Table No. 19-A4 of 2001 CBC. Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed with CTM 643. The results are presented in the table below: K 1SO RSON DESCRIPTION pH "£- (ohm�cm) B-1 @ 0-5 feet SAND with clay 6.8 2,200 Chloride Content. Chloride content was tested with CTM 422. The results are presented below: ffiWSAMPLE LOCAT_ON SAMPLE DES SCTI,ONE CHLOIUDECONT N,T(ppm B-1 @ 0-5 feet SAND with clay 851 R-Value: The resistance R-Value was determined by the ASTM D2844 soils. The sample(s) were prepared and exudation pressure and R-Value were determined. These/This result(s) were used for asphaltic concrete pavement design purposes. r� SA tiIPLE L'OGATIO&1,1M SAt IU DESCRIPTIONS B-1 @ 0-5 feet SAND with clay 59 Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 2 August 3, 2007 _ APPENDIX D PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS SEEPAGE PIT PERCOLATION DATA SHEET B NO.: I071767-10 TEST HOLE NO.: P-1 TEST HOLE SIZE: 8" PIPE SIZE: 4" MATERIAL TYPE: SANDSTONE DEPTH OF TEST HOLE: 10 feet DATE EXCAVATED: July 25, 2007 TESTED BY: AW PRE-SOAK TIME: Start: 7/25/07, 4:45 PM End: 7/26/07, 9:13 AM Reading No. Time Initial Water Level Final Water Ain Water Level Time Interval(hr) Rate Ft/Hr Q.Gall s.f.l day (it) Level(ft) 1 9'13 10.0 5.0 5.0 10:00.0 0.167 24.0 9:23 2 9:25 10.0 6.0 4.0 10:00.0 0.167 18.1 9:35 3 9:37 10.0 6.0 4.0 10:00.0 0.167 18.1 9:47 4 9:48 10.0 6.2 3.8 10:00.0 0.167 17.0 9:58 5 10,00 10.0 6.75 3.25 10:00.0 0.167 14.0 10:10 6 10:11 10.0 6.75 3.25 10:00.0 0.167 1 14.0 10:21 Q = Rate * A in Water Level * 9 Average wetted depth A B NO.: I071767-10 SEEPAGE PIT PERCOLATION DATA SHEET TEST HOLE NO.: P-2 TEST HOLE SIZE: 8" PIPE SIZE: 4" MATERUL TYPE: SANDSTONE DEPTH OF TEST HOLE: 10 feet DATE EXCAVATED: July 25, 2007 TESTED BY: AW PRE-SOAK TIME: Start: 7/25/07,4:50 PM End: 7/26/07, 9:15 AM Reading No. Time Initial Water Level Final Water A in Water Level Time Interval(hr) Rate Ft/Hr 0.Gall s.f.l day (ft) Level(ft) 1 9:15 10.0 5.0 5.0 10:00.0 0.167 24.0 9:25 2 9:27 10.0 6.0 4.0 10:00.0 0.167 18.1 9:37 3 9:38 10.0 6.2 3.8 10:00.0 0.167 17.0 9:48 4 9:49 10.0 6.25 3.75 10:00.0 0.167 16.7 9:59 5 10:01 10.0 6.8 3.2 10:00.0 0.167 13.8 10:11 6 10:12 10.0 7.25 2.75 10:00.0 0.167 11.5 10:22 Q = Rate * A in Water Level 9 Average wetted depth r � Oflf 1P �Y Y iS t i APPENDIX E PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSES 1 - APPENDIX E Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analvsis The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the site was completed for the three different attenuation relationships (Campbell & Bozorgnia, 1997, Sadigh et al., 1997, and Abrahamson & Silva, 1997). The peak ground acceleration value reported is the mean of the three values obtained. Probability curves were calculated using the computer program FRISKSP Version 4.0 (Blake, 2000). CALIFOFNIA FAULT MAP Temecula Community Church 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 ®,01t:10 rS e \ 0 -- -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 TEST.OUT U B C S E I S version 1.03 ^ * COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 1071767-10 DATE: 07-27-2007 JOB NAME: Temecula Communinty Church FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.4884 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.1386 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 17.0 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA DISTANCE: 0.9 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.3 Nv: 1.6 Ca: 0. 57 Cv: 1.02 Ts: 0.716 TO: 0.143 * CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are limited in number and have been digitized from small- scale maps (e.g. , 1:750,000 scale) . Consequently, * the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by * several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. Page 1 TEST.OUT • -------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE 1 MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,c) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 0.9 1 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 17.0 1 A 7.1 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 25.9 B 6.8 I 5.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 34.7 B 6.9 12.00 I ss SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 34.7 A I 7.2 12.00 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore) I 44.3 1 B 1 6.9 1. 50 SS ROSE CANYON I 47.9 B I 6.9 1. 50 SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) i 54.8 B I 6.7 1.00 DS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 58.6 B 6.8 I 4.00 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 59. 5 1 B 6.7 12.00 I SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 61.6 i B 6.81 2.50 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 61.9 I B 6. 5 I 2.00 i SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern 62.9 A I 7.4 1 24.00 I SS CORONADO BANK 71.8 B I 7.4 1 3.00 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 73.9 B i 6.9 1.00 SS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 74.2 B 1 7.0 2. 50 SS PALOS VERDES 1 77.5 B 7.1 I 3.00 SS CUCAMONGA I 82.1 A 7.0 I 5.00 DS • NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) i 85.1 B 7.0 I 1.00 I DS SAN JOSE I 86.1 B 6. 5 I 0.50 I DS BURNT MTN. I 87.0 I B 6.5 1 0.60 I SS CLEGHORN 88.1 I B 6. 5 I 3.00 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 89.8 I B 6.7 0. 50 I DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) 89.9 B 1 7.0 3.00 DS EUREKA PEAK I 91.6 B I 6. 5 0.60 SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 92.6 B 1 6.8 4.00 SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 93.3 B 6.6 I 4.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 98.4 A 7.8 I 34.00 I SS LANDERS I 100.6 B 7.3 1 0.60 I SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 101.2 B 7.1 0.60 I SS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 106.2 B 6.5 I 0.50 I DS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 107.0 I B 7.3 0.60 I SS RAYMOND 110.2 I B 6.5 0. 50 I DS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 112.4 1 B I 6.7 0.60 SS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 114.9 i B 1 6.9 0.60 SS VERDUGO 118.2 I B I 6.7 0.50 DS HOLLYWOOD 123.2 I B I 6. 5 1.00 DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 125.6 1 B i 6.6 I 5.00 I SS CALICO - HIDALGO I 126.3 B 7.1 I 0.60 I SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK I 126.8 B 7.1 1 0.60 I SS ELMORE RANCH I 129.6 B 6.6 I 1.00 I SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 131.7 B 6.6 4.00 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 133.7 B 6. 5. 25.00 I SS _ SANTA MONICA 1 135.0 B 6.6 1.00 1 DS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 138. 5 I B 6.7 2.00 DS SAN GABRIEL I 140.4 I B 7.0 I 1.00 Ss Page 2 TEST.OUT --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) MALIBU COAST 142.7 B I 6.7 0.30 I DS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I 144.2 B I 7.0 3. 50 I SS ANACAPA-DUME I 154. 5 B 7.3 I 3.00 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I 155.2 I B 6.9 I 0.60 SS SANTA SUSANA 156.4 I B 6.6 I 5.00 DS IMPERIAL I 158.8 I A I 7.0 I 20.00 I SS HOLSER 165.3 I B I 6.5 0.40 I DS BLACKWATER 171.1 B I 6.9 0.60 I SS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 176.3 B 6.9 I 4.00 I DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 177.9 B 6.7 I 1.00 DS SAN CAYETANO i 183.8 I B 6.8 I 6.00 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 202.9 I B I 7.0 I 2.00 SS GARLOCK (West) 208. 5 I A I 7.1 6.00 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT 208.7 B I 6.8 1.00 I DS GARLOCK (East) 215.9 A 7.3 I 7.00 I SS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA I 217.4 B 6.7 I 0.40 I DS PLEITO THRUST I 220.0 I B 6.8 i 2.00 DS RED MOUNTAIN 223.1 I B 6.8 I 2.00 DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 227.4 i B 6.8 1.00 I DS • BIG PINE 228.0 I B I 6.7 0.80 I SS WHITE WOLF I 235.2 B 7.2 I 2.00 I DS OWL LAKE I 236.8 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS PANAMINT VALLEY I 237.1 I B 7.2 I 2. 50 SS So. SIERRA NEVADA I 238.8 I B 7.1 I 0.10 DS _ TANK CANYON 239.7 I B I 6. 5 1.00 I DS LITTLE LAKE 240.7 I B I 6.7 0.70 I SS DEATH VALLEY (South) 244. 5 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I SS SANTA YNEZ (West) I 256.6 B I 6.9 I 2.00 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 263. 5 B 6.9 I 1.00 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) i 287.0 I B 6.9 I 4.00 DS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 299.6 I B 6.8 0.70 I DS OWENS VALLEY 310. 5 I B I 7.6 1. 50 I SS LIONS HEAD 317.1 I B I 6.6 0.02 I DS SAN 7UAN 320.2 B I 7.0 I 1.00 SS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 324.7 B I 7.0 I 0.20 DS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 333. 5 B 7.0 I 2. 50 SS _ CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 334.3 B I 6. 5 I 0.25 I DS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 340.9 I A I 7.2 I 5.00 I SS INDEPENDENCE I 346. 5 I B I 6.9 0.20 I DS " LOS OSOS I 354.1 I B i 6.8 0.50 I DS HOSGRI 363.2 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 SS RINCONADA 372.3 I B 7.3 I 1.00 SS BIRCH CREEK I 403.4 I B 6. 5 I 0.70 DS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 407.0 B 7.1 I 1.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I 422.9 B I 5.0 34.00 I SS DEEP SPRINGS I 424.8 I B I 6.6 0.80 I DS . Page 3 TEST.OUT --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 428.1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 439.4 B 1 6.8 1.00 1 DS FISH SLOUGH i 446.1 B I 6.6 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK 1 465.8 B I 6.7 2. 50 I DS HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 490.7 B 6.6 0.50 DS ORTIGALITA I 504.3 B 6.9 1.00 SS CALAVERAS (So.of CalaveraS Res) 511.9 1 B I 6.2 1 15.00 SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 517.7 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.50 DS PALO COLORADO - SUR 520.9 1 B 1 7.0 I 3.00 SS QUIEN SABE 524. 5 I B i 6.5 1 1.00 SS MONO LAKE 526.9 B 1 6.6 2.50 I DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 543.9 B 1 6.8 I 0.10 1 SS SARGENT 548.8 B 6.8 3.00 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 549.2 A 7.9 24.00 SS ROBINSON CREEK I 558.4 B 6. 5 1 0. 50 1 DS SAN GREGORIO I 592.8 A I 7.3 I 5.00 1 SS GREENVILLE I 596.0 B 1 6.9 I 2.00 SS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 598.0 1 B 1 6. 5 1 3.00 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 598.9 1 B 1 6.5 I 0.40 1 DS . ANTELOPE VALLEY 599.1 1 B 1 6.7 I 0.80 I DS HAYWARD (Total Length) 617.3 I A I 7.1 9.00 1 SS CALAVERAS (No.of CalaveraS Res) 1 617.3 B 1 6.8 6.00 I SS GENOA 625.1 B 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 663.7 B 6.9 I 6.00 SS _ RODGERS CREEK I 703.0 A 7.0 I 9.00 SS WEST NAPA i 703.2 B 6. 5 1 1.00 SS POINT REYES 1 724.1 B 6.8 1 0.30 DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 1 724.5 1 B 1 6.9 I 6.00 SS MAACAMA (South) 1 765.1 1 B 1 6.9 I 9.00 1 SS COLLAYOMI I 781.2 1 B i 6.5 0.60 i SS BARTLETT SPRINGS 783.7 I A 1 7.1 1 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (Central) 806.7 1 A I 7.1 1 9.00 SS MAACAMA (North) 865. 5 I A 7.1 9.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S. F.Bay) 870.3 I B I 6.8 1 6.00 SS BATTLE CREEK I 888.4 I B 6. 5 1 0.50 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 928.7 B 6.7 1 6.00 SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 1 946. 5 B 6.9 I 9.00 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1003.6 A 1 7.4 1 35.00 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 11008.7 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS MAD RIVER 1 1010.5 B 1 7.1 1 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1018.0 A 1 8.3 I 35.00 i DS MCKINLEYVILLE 1 1021.2 B 1 7.0 I 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD 11022.5 1 B 1 7.3 I 2. 50 DS FICKLE HILL 11023.3 1 B 1 6.9 0.60 DS TABLE BLUFF 1 1029.5 1 B 1 7.0 0.60 DS LITTLE SALMON (offshore) 11042.6 I B 1 7.1 1.00 DS • Page 4 TEST.OUT --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED 1DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME _ (km) I (A,B,C) I (MW) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) BIG LAGOON BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1 1059.0 B I 7.3 I 0.50 DS .. Page 5 DESIGN RESPd14SE SPECTRUM Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SIB 2 .50 2.25 .-. 2.00 C 1 .75 0 1 .50 1 .25 U Q 1 . 00 cu 0.75 U a 0.50 U) 0.25 0.00 0.0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Period Seconds fETURN PERIOD fs . ACCELERATIOlk CAMP. & B®Z. ( 1997 Rev.) AL, 2 100000 W 10000 0 a� 0. 1000 :3 Zoe 4-0 Ic- a� 100 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) • PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 2 0 0 25 yrs 500 rs 0 IVI 100 75 yrs 100 rs 90 80 -A A X0 O `J 70 60 co ° 50 a 40 c -tea 30 a� a� x 20 w 10 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (g) tETURN PERIOD IS . ACCELERAT1014 SADIGH ET AI_,. ( 1997) DEEP SOIL, 2 10000 0 1000 a� L W 100 or 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) • PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 2 25 yrs 50 yrs 0 100 75 yrs 100 rs 90 �. 80 -A O 0 70 m 60 ° 50 a 40 Cu a� 30 a� x 20 w 10 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) q�,ETURNPERIOD Is . ACCELERATIA ABRAHAMSON & SILVA ( 1997) SOIL 2 10000 Co 0 1000 a� 4-0 a� 100 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE ABRAHAMSON & SILVA (1997) SOIL 2 0 0 25 yrs 50 yrs 0 0 100 75 yrs 100 rs 90 80 -A 0 70 60 ° 50 CL 40 c a� 30 a� 20 w 10 13< 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) APPENDIX F GENERAL EARTHWORKAND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX F . LGC INLAND,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications For Roush Grading 1.0 General 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the • appropriate level of observation,mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for perfornung the grading in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "equipment" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan • at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to - accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. It is the contractor's sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 2.0 Preparation ofAreas 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 10 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.)have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant . does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 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. Project No. 10 71 763-1 0 Page 2 June 28, 2007 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. Please see the Standard Details for a . graphic illustration. 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 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 Lavers: 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. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the • American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Project No. I0 71 76 7-1 0 Page 3 July 27, 2007 4.3 Compaction of Fill. After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test • Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill 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 D1557-91. 4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one (1) test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is . such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two (2) grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. 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 Project No. 10 7176 7-1 0 Page 4 July 27, 2007 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 Backrlls 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done 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 maximum from I foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one (1) test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 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. Project No. 10 71 76 7-1 0 Page 5 July 27, 2007 Proposed Grade Deeper in Areas of - - - Swimming Pools, Etc. •�, _ - , Slope Face /// f0.;�Afi!•� . :. ':.::'. :?�.;-J20' Min. �`17J�.:V1M:••. •�\.` auflt lYl�n.:.n�: ia�l fi _ _ Oversized, ;7�<•j'L�� Boulder is e .a WlndfOW Wlth "�' i•Oversize Material y. Compacted Windrow Parallel to Slope Face Fill vY'• - Jetted or Flooded Approved Granular Material ":�� ' ' �•'�=-�"` Excavated Trench ' `a•s or Dozer V-cut Note: Oversize Rock is Larger than 8" in Maximum Dimension. Section A-A ' c .ga v OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL K'efn _ bbb - x. .. Cut Lot (Exposing Unsuitable Soils at Design Grade) Proposed Grade t:'i Projection To Remove Unsuitable Competent Material Material —, Compacted Fill 5' iin. 7:1 Projection To Competent Material Competent Material Overexcavate and Recompact Note 1: Removal Bottom Should be Graded Note 2: Where Design Cut Lots are With Minimum 2% Fall Towards Street or Excavated Entirely I nto Competent Other Suitable Area (as Determined by Material, Overexcavation May Still be Soils Engineer) to Avoid Ponding Below Required for Hard-Rock Conditions or for Building Materials With Variable Expansion Characteristics. Cut/Fill Transition Lot • Proposed Grade _. Or�cinalGr°j9d � / � 1:1 Projection To Competent Material 5' Min.' of Overexcavate and Recompact Cut at no Steeper than 2:1 (H:V) Competent Material Below Building Footprint 'Deeper if Specified by Soils Engineer CUT AND TRANSITION .` LOT 017EREXCAVATION DETAIL 1] 26/02 • 5' Typical Com l3acted Fill if Recommended by Soils Enaineer - Proposed Grade 15' Min. 4" Perf. PVC Backdrain 4" Solid PVC Outlet .� :`> ^Y g• ----� (30' Max.) Typical �. _ 1 2 ' ; .Competent Material \ 5' Min. \ 2:1 (H:V) Back Cut or as `^ ``-`"�'-'1'`'` , \Designed by Sails Engineer Min. Key Dimensions Per Soils , \ Engineer (Typically H/2 or 15' Min) Greater of 2 %Slope \ . or 1 root Tilt Back Perf. PVC Pipe Perforations Down 12" Min. Overlap, Secured Every 6 Feet Schad. 40 Solid PVC Outlet Pipe, (Backfilled + and Compacted With Native Materials) + - '-- Outlets to be Placed Every 100' (Max.) O.C, 5'Ft./Ft. 3/4" - 1 1/2" Open Graded Rock Geofabric (Mirafi 140N or Approved Equivalent) - TY'PICAL STABILIZATION +, h FIDE DETAIL 11 2 02 �� Fill Stripe Proposed - -- - / • Grade ,t-:w;-`l'` ' i,'r '.::, ^'-`' • NaturalGround :. .. , . :.✓J� r- 1:1 Projection To Competent Material q' Typical of V ' oval ne B' Typical Competent Material •Greater of 2%Slope or 1 act Tilt Back 2' IViin 15' Min. Key Width Fill-Over-Cut Slope i Compacted ✓�' Proposed Fill y Grade Natural '� Ground ,.:::`,�:'', of'U icabl%r:�.;a::•:•:. , j • _C A T Ypical �. Cut Face ` R Competent M aterial B Typical 2' Mi+r "c'Gre�tr o1 °�Slgpr ' 1 oot Tilt BackW dth Varies .^.a:•.. r 15' Min. Key Width Construct Cut Slope First Cut-Over-Fill Slope Natural Ground Overbuild and Trim Back ` Cut Face Proposed Grade �.: Compacted Fill _ 1:1 Projection to Competent Material y Competent Material 2' Min — ..Greater of %Slope or 1 Foot Tilt Back -.--�- 15' Min. Key Width Note: Natural Slopes Steeper Than 5:1 (H:V) Must Be Benched. - KEYING AND BENCMNG 11/26/02 Natural Ground Proposed Grade .... ........ .......... Co Benches Remove Unsuitable Materials -A __j Notes: T t"mi 1) Continuous Runs in Excess of 500' Shall Use S' Diameter Pipe. 2) Final 20 of Pipe at Outlet Shall be 12" Min.Overlap, Solid and Backfilled with Fine-grained Secured Every 6 Feet 15' Min. Material 6" Collector Pipe (Schad. 40,Perf.PVC) 9 R.t /Ft. 3/4" - 1 112" Crushed Rock Geofabric (Mirafi 140N or Approved Equivalent) Proposed Outlet Detail Proposed Grade May be Deeper Dependent upon Site Conditions 70' Mir, 6"Perforated PVC Schedule 40 2 4" - 1 112" Crushed Rock �-20' Min. n \_Geofabric (Mirafi 140N —6" Solid PVC Pipe or Approved Equivalent) CANYON SUBDRAINS 11/26/02 5' Typical Compacted Fill if Recommended by Soils Engineer Proposed Grade 4' Typical 4" Perf. PVC Backdrain ... .'...:..:y,' ,::,.;r•`,':• 4" Solid PVC Out �, (- ,g,--..� (30' Max.) Typical ' \ Competent Material 1 (H:V) Back Cut or as '�~"•v Desi�ed by Soils Engineer ` Key Dimensions Per Soils Engineer \Greater of 2 %Slope \ - Vr 1' Tilt Back Perf. PVC Pipe Perforations Down 12" Min. Overlap, Secured Everty 6 Feet r - Sched. 40 Solid PVC Outlet Pipe, (Backfilled _ -- and Compacted With Native Materials) Outlets to be Placed Every 100' (Max.) O.C. 5 Ft.%Ft. 3/4" - 1 1/2" Open Graded Rock Geofabric (Mirafi 140N or Approved Equivalent) TYPICAL BUTTRE SS DETAIL. ri ]1/2602�� ' w�i� •._+ '".'+---"-•. ti` M � ��_ f ,.,...__ ....,......,....-��.._--.... .ate--- _...�....._..ann�.,.•--- --" L Go"E N D _.� ��...�.�. Locations are Approximate) ROA ML EL �� �-�` .+v.. r w.—C" ' �� � _ .w..w.�au�w'� ... � � a,� � — � �.M,.�..,r ...r-..... .w_....,.__......,. ,.-„��_+.w .. --- ,... ......,--•Y.- �...-_....... wr..,.w .-.+.._ •4"""" 'ter„ . "^"r 'opJ 1 Earth[Plate No. PLATE I Units ��&43 t O) EMS. CZ4 f.I •'' �—.rvr r — 'r -�"'_ Ex C,o 1L'�i C'Ir _.— +e v (NC38452'3 ttlw.) • 7 `' � � . SIDEWALK ,�'" � ,� "~.1••--^--a.,,. '� .s ,�-----. ._ Lsa �' OVA r � � .». R 7r f.�s �.u,.r,,..., ....,.----- i� 3 - r ._ .. "�-__ •�__ �,- r- ,""z ""� fix �. Pauba Formation PIPE440 YY �--- - ��, - ----�- • f 4 4 30-77 'J/ Q EX Af-�PAPJytj[JO L T F�-N t r, Sym 0 V) bols L ..... ... .� .... .. � ... .. w. Yam_.. ..,. - ..�.,. i FENCE " �] . • �f X. 5.50 �''�.. � .4w �' J r ..is�..w v a•4 fi Y 1^•-�'""t. �+�- �j�L,j_'�" --•.w... ..1." � .� � h {' �. .. -� Limits of ��� v��r���JP�IVA ��,�'���r�I ...�� � -�-.--...�._-- --��� -.�� � . w����.-- �- _ _ +�.--__...�.�- �. _�.���-��. �' ,` - this Report ja — �_ � �� ' .-(ti �' _�—_�x_......___.��� •-t_�.�.ry..;w.�•^..-_.tyM. __t-t.__. I "' ,e� � `��,`,j`~)/ �J/ y. "� ft • 1 tI 'T•/�r"� �� nrrsY^^r'.` F,N""` Jfy..i� ` �'. ��C "'p ,"' r • •t/�L• i Y +•s '••w titi `.:i.»r•{��.� wr p� , .:.r.�r��'Lf :'1''^ 4• r r+►r r..4a''t-► ."r ]ti 9f r'C r y r'• r JC::::7�'�r+ .a. t �.. r" 1 e�"" ~"µ ���3]r �'ir�f•�� �ti r_'!'. ��//_ �:�- .J`�Y' Y r�M .,M,-"..� �� .r�'r r.. r � �yr� • Yy � f yj --ss »Y'�+ ��. J ( '� M HY• �Y�'�.�•v�h .ti Wrrdt M•••.., 1 �.ty '�� ..'. yr" `' 4 aFN +..+�` � 1 J/�� +. � F_ ��y►.• �„yh..�L•v'Y. •�• �..i •t wI'1 1n .` h•.r n_I �y Yr�,�,.."�r�� '.r �� ..� �r^�, _•y'r•� .! �►y,^"a� � •.1��1 rti ���'�f i�h.�(1,4•` ti.r�r-t.A•�!• •T•`1 � �� �„�� � CH APUE B-3 1 ��(`�`� 04 BoringLocation NO 1 1 3 •�^ t a~� 4 4Y ���f. Y err .°.. f` �r J�-+ r.D.=2��.5' NO GW _ 93 . r .i btu ��'�"`w. .,.I a[.. •A"c•,�"'!�.+Y' ` .�^^ -�ti�'{.:��': y�w'`�".'�+R;.y^,y`.,:r�� M�''4'-ti. ��f""' ��' r� 1ti l � .,—.r. .r.: ti, '�.,.W .`rp 6A ��»�L .4+w'r i r 1±-!.Y wt�.'y�,y_. w i'1.r'''ti!.Y .fir• �+.-�,� (�01y�) a �! ��� -fyK' y • ♦'♦ �..r.'1 �� '•r:' •L 1 t Y.. 4 ryr.k��i7 Y\� `y'��""� � ..ram .,,,�,� �y tr I^�.r�,.,. _r'krY`'�rr"`�t'�q-w,l`. ti.�b.""•F-•y�o �,�,- 4.1;. �� h�''+ r 1.ir� �` ,..� ��1��t � j y 't".:t rr'.'n,. .w 1 ""* ('j `y^�,"t-{��^^/"y''.'�L'i��l-ti�.,•� »�.- .._.-... � �r,.r�.Cr' r ( W u,,,..�.. ".�",..+rL 1 ■iy�w•.•~•. - - f A fl❑Arc. _, _.y •■ r.��....�.7 J10 GW JEX .��._ r f"13�1w�iu._ Percolation Test Location jI OOULAR 1 r '�� ������ >]��'T � '°j � .-�""' •''-.� S _ r��ti �� �-y�— .�•'vr"y:f�r r-;�r�Yi"..�.�.i � � � �� �rr• �a � * � �i...r 'w �1.�w r • !SUPER � '" l.r•r:T�� ��. ( .wi."�`t`.r 1�+r�^.�� y`l.�r•! �' i+� �w�t4.rS.FWR-�`riti y rr� ��rY'� � •-ram �r �.'-`-�;`�-,.,. �; � �8•:��" ".�' � �; � �f�:f;,� "�' '� � ._.._.w __..--�--�--...�.`" ..r_._.... ;7"CCU �. �•C}. 1 •.wy, a.. • r ti f� � y 1 1- 1 "`'•.,max�,. .,�, w � ._ �� ----- Znk Al --.t " ' r -•- x.-1 k L P� 'r, C3.�- y - L� dr� Vill 9.50 F LF AsphaLt - _ - 4. FENCE E4CE �a �--- 4 i*!CE ..,`...� w1����� �L �.�� __...... L:R+ R ��i, � _.�`� „-r--w"�"..'"'I'...�� � ram^{ �"'�r. �. i�r R• �""�"'.r-"'�"'� OB56" d .�� --- — �-, " rass cal lc. ` ' rr{1 I LA r � . r.D.=2"1.5 NO GW . ..s FS FENCE 00, EX. CHAItWNK D+ FENCE A4 !C� r --, r1 to WinA L e-1; -A IF h jam./!r�LI V 1 LJ t• AL �V u 1iMM f ,"`� � M• �r � �' x. �.PO "EX. 4 rrr.^~ � .4iV! ,.r•.� .y.. - „�.,,...�+ .fit +k�,• ..._✓ .._.., w "' )Grass } Rf DIr" r. -�• `~ �� l ~`'�, -rr �1rifty� �� '; ,� �ts7: w f ,1 e •4 y y� •i..+..+r v 7r.�.0 +F a � � �� •.�..,ti j����'�.f �.,q� -' ta14■ .!6!.lJd{I 7 A L! "^� � L""rr ' r� Grass w �.- —0 E E 0 u 0 « u a� E Fv N Scott E. Richtm �' i EngineAssociate Geologist Geotechnical "' " ` No. 1071767=10 ^o I'l; 111jil: Ca OT CHNICAL P i a. 0 C:) 41531Scalew. o N MU R.I , LIFE 256 7 CITY OF CALIFORNIA Reference'.,, Fax (951) 461-7 R77` RIVERSIDE COUNTY, H Appendix F Treatment Control BMP Sizing Calculations and Design Details WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP SIZING CALCULATION DISCHARGE POINT #1 WQrkaheet 2 • Design Procedure Form for(Design Flow Uniform Intensity Design Flow Designer: HECTOR CORREA Company: Date: Project: PA OS-0389 Location: 1. Determine Impervious Percentage a. Determine total tributary area Acotat= 0 .48 acres (1) b. Determine Impervious % i= 67 % (2) 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient Values Use Table 4 and impervious%found in step 1 a. A Soil Runoff Coefficient I Ca (3) b. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cb = . 65 (4) • c, C Soil Runoff Coefficient I Cc _ _ (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient I Cd = _ (6) I 3. Determine the Area decimal fraction of each soil type in tributary area a. Area of A Soil / (1) = Aa = (7) b. Area of B Soil / (1) = Ab = 1 (8) c. Area of C Soil / (1) = Ac = (9) d. Area of D Soil / (1) = Ad = (10) 4. Determine Runoff Coefficient a. C =(3)x(7) + (4)x(8)+(5)x(9)+ (6)x(10)= C = 0 . 65 (1!) 5. Determine BMP Design flow 3 a• QBMP = CxlxA= (11)x0.2x(1) QBMP — 0 . 06 ft (12) s • 10 I I Worksheet 1 • Design Procedure for BMP Design Volume 85t" percentile runoff event Designer: HECTOR CoRREA Company: HLC CIVIL ENGINEERING Date: Project: PA 05-0389 Location: TEMECULA 1. Create Unit Storage Volume Graph a. Site location (Township, Range, and Tss $R 3W-____ Section). Section 3 (1) b. Slope value from the Design Volume I.I5 Curve in Appendix A. Slope= (2) c. Plot this value on the Unit Storage Volume Graph shown on Figure 2. d. Draw a straight line form this point to Is this graph Yes El No❑ the origin, to create the graph attached? 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient • _ a. Determine total impervious area A;mpe,,,;om- 0 .32 acres (5) b. Determine total tributary area Aron; = 0 .48 _ acres (6) c. Determine Impervious fraction i 0 .67 (7)= (5)/(6) — ---- d. Use (7) in Figure 1 to find Runoff 0 , 46 OR C = .858i - .78i2 + .774i+ .04 C= (8) 3. Determine 85% Unit Storage Volume a. Use (8)in Figure 2 Draw a Vertical line from (8) to the graph, then a Horizontal line to the 56 in-acre desired Vu value. Vu acre (9) 4. Determine Design Storage Volume 0 .27 a. VBMP = (9)x(6) [in-acres] I VBMP = in-acre (10) b. VBMp = (10)1 12 [ft- acres] VBMP = 0 . 02 ft-acre (11) c. VBMp = (11)x 43560 lei VBMP =_ 980 ft3 (12) Notes: • 7 Plot Slope Value from Appendix A here 2 ' 1.9 -- — --- 1.$ ----- —— ---- 1.7 -- _ 1.6 — ---- -- 1.5 ---- — w 1.4 —�— .' 1.3 C 1.2 — — Pw — -- �-1 � 1.1 o DD 1 m 0 0.9 - ------ 0.8 -- — 0.7 -- G 0.6 0.5 -- 0.4 — 0.3 ---- 0.2 0.1 —.- 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Runoff Coefficient(C) Figure 2 Unit Storage Volume Graph • HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE __________'0 `_'________=______-___________`_'___"__-__"`__'_ «««««««««««««««««««»»»»>»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AES] Especially prepared for: NESTE, BRUDIN i STONE, INC. «««««««««<U««««««««<»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» ____________________..__----__--_____--___---__---___---__---__--------_---_- «««««««««««<(«««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» Advanced Engineering Software (AES) SERIAL No. I0612I VER. 2.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 #+t+Y*'"*DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS********************Yxtt++k+fl+tltlftl+xx### * TCC PT. N0. 1 SWALE f t ! t Y##ft+txtk4!!fi#k##ttx###+*+t##!!f#+#f##lttttxtltxitYk#ttttitkf+ittkk#t++tt# t+*##Y##tt####*#R!k##k1Rt+#x!!!*kk###t+lk#Yfft+tk#f##+tt##k!t[++k#1 tklt#kt#f »»CHANNEL INPUT INFORHATION«« ____________________________________________________________________________ CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) = 3.00 • BASEWIDTH(FEET) - 3,11 CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET/FEET) _ .010000 UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) _ .06 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR _ .2000 NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ____________________________________________________________________________ »»> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .11 FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) - 3.68 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .38 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .10 FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) _ .16 UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = .088 PRESSURE + HOMENTUM(POUNDS) - 1.29 AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .000 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ .113 ------_--------='__----------==-------___'_-------___________________-_____ CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ____________________________________________________________________________ CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 3.14 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .07 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .02 CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) _ .86 CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .02 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = .15 AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .012 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ .034 • • Table 4 Runoff Coefficients for an In tens = 0 2 '°/hr for Urban Sod Types* Impervious °k A Sotl B Sod C Soil � O'�Soilig R1 32 . '�nRil -�56 iw RI 69x '° u'RI 751' 0 Natural 0.06 0.14 0.23 0.28 5 0.10 0.18 0.26 0.31 10 0.14 0.22 0.29 0.34 15 0.19 0.26 0.33 0.37 20 1-Acre 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.40 25 0.27 0.33 0.39 0.43 30 0.31 0.37 0.43 0.47 35 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.50 40 1/2-Acre 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.53 45 0.44 0.48 0.53 0.56 50 1/4-Acre 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 55 0.52 0.56 0.60 0.62 60 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.65 65 Condominiums 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.68 70 0.65 0.67 0.70 0.71 75 Mobilehomes 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.74 80 (Apartments) 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.78 85 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.81 • 90 Commercial 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.84 95 0.86 0.86 F 0.87 0.87 100 0.90 0.90 1 0.90 0.90 'Complete DKtk:t's standards can be found in the Riverside County Flood Control Hydrology Manual 9 Worksheet 8 Design Procedure Form for Grassed Swale HECTOR CORREA Designer: -- CIVIL ENGINEERING Company: 12/l0/Z Date: PA 05-0398 Project: Location: 1. Determine Design Flow QBMP = 0 . 06 cfs (Use Worksheet 2) 2. Swale Geometry 3 a. Swale bottom width (b) b = ft b. Side slope (z) z= 3 c. Flow direction slope (s) s = 1 % 3. Design flow velocity (Manning n = 0.2) v = 0.16 ft!s 4. Depth of flow (D) D= 0 .11 ft • 5. Design Length (L) L= (7 min) x (flow velocity, ft/sec) x 60 L= 67 ft 6. Vegetation (describe) 8. Outflow Collection (check type used or x Grated Inlet' describe "other") x Infiltration Trench _ Underdrain Other Notes: ACTUAL LENGTH USED 122 LF • 55 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN BMP SIZING CALCULATION DISCHARGE POINT #2 Worksheet 2 1 i26- P-7 2-- Design Procedure Fonn for Design Flow Uniform Intensity Design Flow Designer: RECTOR CORREA Company: Date: Project: pA 05-05-0096 Location: 1. Determine Impervious Percentage a. Determine total tributary area Ama 1 .32 acres 1 i= ( ) b. Determine Impervious% i= 61 % (2) 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient Values Use Table 4 and impervious%found in step 1 a. A Soil Runoff Coefficient Ca = (3) b. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cb = .60 (4) • c. C Soil Runoff Coefficient Cc = (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient Cd = (6) 3. Determine the Area decimal fraction of each soil type in tributary area a. Area of A Soil / (1) = A. = (7) b.Area of B Soil / (1) = At, = 1 (8) c.Area of C Soil / (1) _ Ac = (9) it.Area of D Soil / (1) = Ad = (10) 4. Determine Runoff Coefficient a. C= (3)x(7)+(4)x(8)+ (5)x(9)+ (6)x(10) = C= 0 .60 (11) 5. Determine BMP Design flow a. QE=p=CxlxA= (11)x0.2x(1) QBMP= 0 .16 53 (12) • 10 Worksheet 1 Design Procedure for BMP Design Volume 85th percentile runoff event Designer: HECTOR CORREA Company: HLC CIVIL ENGINEERING Date: 4/24/01 Project: PA 05-0389 Location: Tffi'fficuLA 1. Create Unit Storage Volume Graph a. Site location (Township, Range, and Tea g,R3 3W (1) Section). Section b. Slope value from the Design Volume I.Is (2) Curve in Appendix A. Slope= c_ Plot this value on the Unit Storage Volume Graph shown on Figure 2. d. Draw a straight line form this point to Is this graph yes El No❑ the origin,to create the graph attached? 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient • 0 .81 acres (5) a. Determine total impervious area Aimr�ous=— b. Determine total tributary area Atmw= 1 .32 acres (6) c. Determine Impervious fraction 0 .61 i= (5)1(6) i = (7) d. Use (7)in Figure 1 to find Runoff 0 .42 OR C= .8581 - .78e + .774i+ .04 C = (8) 3. Determine 85°/6 Unit Storage Volume a• Use (8)in Figure 2 Draw a Vertical line from (8) to the graph, then a Horizontal line to the 52 in-acre desired Vu value. V = acre (9) 4. Determine Design Storage Volume 0.69 a. VBMP=(9)x(6) n-acres[ VBMP = [i in-acre (10) b. VBMP=(10)112 [ft-acres] VBMP= 0. 06 ftacre (11) c. VBMP=(11)x 43560 [ft3] VBMP= 2, 492 ft3 (12) Notes: • 7 2 Plot Slope Value from Appendix A here 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 coLn Zg 1.3 cm 1.2 � 1.1 o ,0 1 m 0 0.9 3 0.8 m 2 0.7 c 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Runoff Coefficient (C) Figure 2 Unit Storage Volume Graph �i 2-,3. Using the runoff coefficient found in step 2, determine 85th percentile unit • storage volume (Vu) using Figure 2 (created in step 1). 4. Determine the design storage volume (VBmp). This is the volume to be used in the design of selected BMPs presented in this handbook. 1.00 0.90 0.80 1 0.70 0.60 o 0.50 0 0.40 = 0.30 2 0.20 0.10 -;-_ _e 0.00 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Impervious Figure 1. Impervious — Coefficient Curve (WEF/ASCE Method) hupervionsness is the decimal fraction of the total catchment coeered by the sum of roads.parking lots. • sidewalks.rooftops.and other impermeable surfaces of an urban landscape. 5 HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982,1986 Advanced Engineering Software [AES3 Advanced Engineering Software [AES1 SERIAL No. I0612I VER. 2.3C RELEASE DATE: 2/20/86 *##+*4****DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS****x*kk#R***#+++4***#+++RR**##+*+*##++#*44* POINT 2 # »»CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION«« ____________________________________________________________________________ CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) = 3.00 BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 3.00 CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET/FEET) _ .010000 UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) _ .16 • ----MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR _2000 NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ________________________________________________________________________ »»> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .20 FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 4.18 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .71 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .17 FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) _ .23 UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = .097 PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 4.16 AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .001 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ .197 CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ____________________________________________________________________________ CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 3.26 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .14 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .04 CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.16 CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .04 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) _ .55 AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .021 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ .065 • A2L— j 2 Worksheet 9 • Design rocedure Form for Grassed Swale HECTOR CORREA Designer: HLC CIVIL ENGINEERING Company:_FEB- 14, 2007 Date: PA 05-0096 Project: Location: 1. Determine Design Flow oeMP= 0 .16 cfs (Use Worksheet 2) 2. Swale Geometry 3 a. Swale bottom width (b) b= ft 3 b. Side slope (z) z= c. Flow direction slope (s) s= 1 % 3. Design flow velocity (Manning n= 0.2) v = 0.23 ft/s 4. Depth of flow(D) D= 0.20 ft • 5. Design Length (L) L= (7 min)x(flow velocity, ft/sec) x 60 L= 96 ft 6. Vegetation (describe) 8. Outflow Collection (check type used or x Grated Inlet describe"other") `'( Infiltration Trench -7 Underdrain Other Notes: A CCU AL L rr- j C21-4 t )s 11) 13 55 Appendix G AGREEMENTS- CC&RS, COVENANT AND AGREEMENTS • • Recorded at the request of: City of Temecula After recording, return to: City of Temecula City Clerk COVENANT AND AGREEMENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND URBAN RUNOFF BMP TRANSFER, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OWNER: TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH PROPERTY ADDRESS: • Temecula,CA 92590 APN: 922-130-016 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in Temecula California, this day of by and Between TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH, herein after referred to as "Owner" and the CITY OF TEMECULA a municipal corporation, located in the County of Riverside, State of California hereinafter referred to as" CITY"; WHEREAS, the Owner owns real property ("Property") in the City of Temecula , County of Riverside, State of California, more specifically described in Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, at the time of initial approval of development project known as TEMECULA COMMUNITY CHURCH, PA 05-0389 within the Property described herein, the City required the project to employ Best Management Practices, hereinafter referred to as "BMPs," to minimize pollutants in urban runoff; • Page 1 WHEREAS, the Owner has chosen to install and/or implement BMPs as described in the Water Quality Management Plan, on file with the City, hereinafter referred to as "WQMP", to minimize pollutants in urban runoff and to minimize other adverse impacts of urban runoff; WHEREAS, said WQMP has been certified by the Owner and reviewed and approved by the City; WHEREAS, said BMPs, with installation and/or implementation on private property and draining only private property, are part of a private facility with all maintenance or replacement, therefore, the sole responsibility of the Owner in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; WHEREAS, the Owner is aware that periodic and continuous maintenance, including, but not necessarily limited to, filter material replacement and sediment removal, is required to assure peak performance of all BMPs in the WQMP and that, furthermore, such maintenance activity will require compliance with all Local, State, or Federal laws and regulations, including those pertaining to confined space and waste disposal methods, in effect at the time such maintenance occurs; NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually stipulated and agreed as follows: 1. Owner hereby provides the City or City's designee complete access, of any duration, to the BMPs and their immediate vicinity at any time, upon reasonable notice, or in the event of emergency, as determined by City's Director of Public Works no advance notice, for the purpose of inspection, sampling, testing of the Device, and in case of emergency, to undertake all necessary repairs or other preventative measures at owner's expense as provided in paragraph 3 below. City shall make every effort at all times to minimize or avoid interference with Owner's use of the Property. 2. Owner shall use its best efforts diligently to maintain all BMPs in a manner assuring peak performance at all times. All reasonable precautions shall be exercised by Owner and Owner's representative or contractor in the removal and extraction of any material(s) from the BMPs and the ultimate disposal of the material(s) in a manner consistent with all relevant laws and regulations in effect at the time. As may be requested from time to time by the City, the Owner shall provide the City with documentation identifying the material(s) removed, the quantity, and disposal destination. 3. In the event Owner, or its successors or assigns, fails to accomplish the necessary maintenance contemplated by this Agreement, within five (5) days of being given written notice by the City, the City is hereby authorized to cause any maintenance necessary to be done and charge the entire cost and expense to the Owner or Owner's successors or assigns, including administrative costs, attorneys fees and interest thereon at the maximum rate authorized by the Civil Code from the date of the notice of expense until paid in full. 4. The City may require the owner to post security in form and for a time period satisfactory to the city to guarantee the performance of the obligations state herein. Should the Owner fail to perform the obligations under the Agreement, the City may, in the case of a cash bond, act for the Owner using the proceeds from it, or in the case of a surety bond, require the sureties to perform the obligations of the Agreement. As an additional remedy, the Director may withdraw any previous Urban Runoff-related Page 2 approval with respect to the property on which BMPs have been installed and/or implemented until such time as Owner repays to City its reasonable costs incurred in accordance with paragraph 3 above. 5. This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, California, at the expense of the Owner and shall constitute notice to all successors and assigns of the title to said Property of the obligation herein set forth, and also a lien in such amount as will fully reimburse the City, including interest as herein above set forth, subject to foreclosure in event of default in payment. 6. In event of legal action occasioned by any default or action of the Owner, or its successors or assigns, then the Owner and its successors or assigns agree(s) to pay all costs incurred by the City in enforcing the terms of this Agreement, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and that the same shall become a part of the lien against said Property. 7. It is the intent of the parties hereto that burdens and benefits herein undertaken shall constitute covenants that run with said Property and constitute a lien there against. 8. The obligations herein undertaken shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. The term "Owner" shall include not only the present Owner, but also its heirs, successors, executors, administrators, and assigns. Owner shall notify any successor to title of all or part of the Property about the existence of this Agreement. Owner shall provide such notice prior to such successor obtaining an interest in all or part of the Property. Owner shall provide a copy of such notice to the City at the same time such notice is provided to the successor. 9. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 10. Any notice to a party required or called for in this Agreement shall be served in person, or by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, to the address set forth below. Notice(s) shall be deemed effective upon receipt, or seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, whichever is earlier. A party may change a notice address only by providing written notice thereof to the other party. Page 3 IF TO CITY: IF TO OWNER: IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures as of the date first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OWNER: City Attorney Name CITY OF TEMECULA Title Name Name Title Title ATTEST: City Clerk Date NOTARIES ON FOLLOWING PAGE Page 4 EXHIBT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 8 of Tract Map 20591, the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California as per Map recorded in Map Book 159, Pages 22 through 24 in the office the County Recorder of said County. i Page 5 Appendix H PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT- SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS A PHASE 1 ENVIORNMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PERFORMED ON THIS PROPERTY •