Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Parcel Map 30798 WQMP Rancho Community Church & School
Water Quality Management Plan Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan For: RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, CA 92592 DEVELOPMENT NO. PARCEL 8, PM 30798 DESIGN REVIEW NO. MAJOR MODIFICATION PA 07-0057 TO PA 00-0470 CUP Prepared For: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH, Owner Pastor Scott Treadway 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, CA 92592 Tel: (951) 303-6789 Fax: (951) 303-6066 Prepared by: Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc. Stanley D. Heaton, PE President 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202 Temecula, CA 92591 Tel: (951) 676-1018 Fax: (951) 676-2294 WQMP Preparation/Revision Date: 8/8/2008 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INITIAL CHECKLIST Applicant Planning Application Number: Project Name: PcA)Cl V �. Does the proposed project incorporate any of the following categories? Yes No (All questions must be answered) \ Modifications to Existing Developments — This category includes projects that create, add, or replace 5,000 sq. ft. or more of impervious surface on an already developed site. This category includes: (a) Expansion of a building footprint, or addition or replacement of a structure; (b) Increase in the gross floor area, or major exterior construction or remodeling; 1 (c) Replacement of impervious surfaces that are not part of routine maintenance activities; (d) Land disturbing activities related to a structure or impervious surface. Note: If modifications create less than 50% of the impervious surface of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not originally subject to WQMP requirements, a WQMP shall be required only to the addition, and not to the entire development. Residential Development - This category includes subdivisions of single-family homes, multi -family homes, \/ 2 condominiums, and apartments consisting of 10 or more dwelling units. JC, 3 Non -Residential Development - This category includes projects where the land area for development is greater than 100,000 sq. ft. Automotive Maintenance and Repair Shops - This category includes facilities engaged in general maintenance / 4 and mechanical repairs; body and upholstery repair; painting; transmission and exhaust repair; tire servicing; glass x repair. Restaurants - This category includes all eating and drinking establishments where the land area for development / 5a is greater than 5,000 sq. ft. J� Restaurants where the land area for development is less than 5,000 sq. ft. are only required to follow the site 5b design and source control requirements of the WQMP. Hillside Development — This category includes any developments that create 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface, 6 are located in an area with known erosive soil conditions, and where the project will require grading natural slopes of 25% (4:1) or steeper. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) — This category includes all development located within or directly ` adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA which either creates 2,500 sq. ft. of impervious surface or increases �( the area of imperviousness by 10% or more of its naturally occurring condition. 7 Note: "Directly adjacent" means within 200 feet of the ESA. "Discharging directly to" means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely of flows from the subject development or modification, and not commingled with flows from adjacent lands. Parking Lots — This category includes projects where the land area for development creates 5,000 sq. ft. or more 8 for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles. This category includes parking areas associated with any of the developments outlined above. Routine maintenance, including removal and replacement, is exempt. Streets, Roads, Highways & Freeways — This category includes projects that create 5,000 sq. ft. or more of / 9 impervious surface for transportation of motor vehicles. Routine maintenance, including removal and X replacement, is exempt. Retail Gasoline Outlets — This category applies if either of the following criteria is met: (a) 5,000 sq. ft. or more, �/ 10 or (b) a projected `Average Daily Traffic' count of 100 or more vehicles per day. n I If you answered "YES" to any of the questions above, a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan must be prepared and submitted. Page 1 of 2 Rev. 01 (07/2008) 1989 rlil Comments By WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CHECKLIST Applicant Planning Application Number: Project Name: Reviewed By: Date Reviewed: Applicant Signature: The Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan guideline and template can be downloaded from the City's website at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/cityhall/pub_works/landDev/npdes.htm Page 2 of 2 Rev. 00 (03/05) • Water Quality Management Plan WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN C:HEC:KLIST Public Works Department NPDES Program 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA. The purpose of this checklist is to provide a format for uniform, comprehensive, and well-documented reviews of project -specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) submitted by project owners. The completed checklist should accompany the WQMP and submitted to the City of Temecula. Applicant Name: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH Parcel/Tract Map Number: Parcel 8, PM 30798 Planning Application Number: PA 07-0057; PA 00-0470 CUP Project Name: RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS SUMMARY OF WOMP REQUIREMENTS (PLEASE LIST THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION) Section I. Watershed and Sub -Watershed: Santa Margarita River and Temecula Creek Section II. Land -Use Category (from Initial Checklist): 3. Non-residential development Section III. Pollutants (expected and potential): Sediment/turbidity; nutrients; organics; trash & debris; oxygen demanding substances; oils & grease; bacteria & viruses; pesticides; metals Section IV. Exemption Category (A, B, C, or Not Exempt): B Section V. Treatment BMP Category(ies): Vegetated infiltration swale Section VI. Party(ies) responsible for BMP maintenance: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH Section VII. Funding source(s) for BMP maintenance: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH NOTES: (a) The WQMP will NOT be accepted unless all of the items requested above and throughout this checklist are completed. (b) Section VI must be accompanied by notarized proof of the entity(ies) assuming direct responsibility or oversight for the long-term maintenance of the BMPs. • (c) Section VII must be accompanied by notarized proof demonstrating the funding mechanism(s) proposed (i.e. Assessments, Homeowner Association, Property Management, etc.) for the BMP maintenance. Water Quality Management Plan Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan For: RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, CA 92592 DEVELOPMENT NO. PARCEL 8, PM 30798 DESIGN REVIEW NO. MAJOR MODIFICATION PA 07-0057 TO PA 00-0470 CUP • Prepared For: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH, Owner Pastor Scott Treadway 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, CA 92592 Tel: (951) 303-6789 Fax: (951) 303-6066 Prepared by: Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc. Stanley D. Heaton, PE President 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202 Temecula, CA 92591 Tel: (951) 676-1018 Fax: (951) 676-2294 • WQMP Preparation/Revision Date: 8/6/2008 0 ENGINEER'S CERTIFIATION 11 0 Water Quality Management Plan "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments and appendices 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." Signature jemecula Engir4eering Consultants, Inc By: Stanle D. Heaton, PE Q �pF ESS/p,Va o m D!o. 43982 s EXR 6/30/01 LVL C� s OF Uv0F Stamp 6 0� Dat 0 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION • • Water Quality Management Plan This project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH, by Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc., for the project known as RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS, Major Modification to PA 00-0470 CUP, PA 07-0057. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of Temecula for Parcel 8. PM 30798, which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a project -specific WQMP. The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the implementation 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, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party (or parties) having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity. The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementation of this WQMP is enforceable under 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 a that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest." er's Signature Date By: 'S�/aT T¢CAOVk" ncs'pe-U—) For: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH OWNER Owner's Printed Name Owner's Title/Position (Attach Notary Acknowledgement) A -i WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ,� n 1 County of 1` Qt CJl&L Onbefore me, Date Here Insert Na ear Title of the icer n , personally appeared 0A0TAR;YPU!1__1 `<A ,�,� *s �a R'VER51 ECO K �. My Comm. E:,, • Place Notary Seal Above who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person*whose namepkis/are-subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sheAbey executed the same in his/heAl4eifauthorized capacityjt*, and that by his/heiA44oir signatureW on the instrument the person( or the entity upon behalf of which the person(4acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature A ArnA4 � ` 6UA-0,, --yy-) igna o Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Title or Type of Document: I&I IL1111011(Ai►l Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) c Y Signer's Name: JCA'� I rr'1��� IW'yG....1 ❑ Individual pvt1lt �e'At Corporate Officer — Title(6Q: ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing:_ • Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHTTH0UMBPRINT OF SIGNER ®2007 National Notary Association -9350 De Soto Ave- RO, Box 2402• Chatsworth, BA 91313-2402•w NationalNotaryorg Item#5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free Water Quality Management Plan L J APPENDICES A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL B. VICINITY MAP (8 % X 11), WQMP SITE PLAN (8 %z X I I —SHEETS I -7), RECEIVING WATERS MAP (8 %z X 11) C. SUPPORTING DETAIL RELATED TO HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN D. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS (BROCHURES FOR TENANTS, OWNER, MAINTENANCE STAFF) E. SOILS REPORT F. TREATMENT CONTROL BMP DESIGN DETAILS G. AGREEMENTS — CC&RS, COVENANT AND AGREEMENTS AND/OR OTHER MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING ONGOING OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FUNDING AND TRANSFER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT -SPECIFIC WQMP H. PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT — SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS A -iii WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Contents Section Page I PROJECT DESCRIPTION A -I II SITE CHARACTERIZATION A-6 III POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN A-7 IV HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN A-8 V BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A-9 V.1 Site Design BMPs A-9 V.2 Source Control BMPs A-13 V.3 Treatment Control BMPs A-22 VA Equivalent Treatment Control Alternatives A-24 V.5 Regionally -Based Treatment Control BMPs A-24 VI OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs A-25 VH FUNDING A-27 L J APPENDICES A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL B. VICINITY MAP (8 % X 11), WQMP SITE PLAN (8 %z X I I —SHEETS I -7), RECEIVING WATERS MAP (8 %z X 11) C. SUPPORTING DETAIL RELATED TO HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN D. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS (BROCHURES FOR TENANTS, OWNER, MAINTENANCE STAFF) E. SOILS REPORT F. TREATMENT CONTROL BMP DESIGN DETAILS G. AGREEMENTS — CC&RS, COVENANT AND AGREEMENTS AND/OR OTHER MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING ONGOING OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FUNDING AND TRANSFER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT -SPECIFIC WQMP H. PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT — SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS A -iii WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS i� • • Water Quality Management Plan I. Project Description The project consists of five modular buildings, paving between the modular buildings and landscaping. The modular building dimensions are 24'x 60' and the paving area will be 5,064 S.F. There will be landscaping in the front of the buildings and swales to convey storm water. Project Owner: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, CA 92592 Telephone: (951303-6789 WQMP Preparer: TEMECULA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Stanley D. Heaton, P.E. President 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202 Temecula, CA 92591 Telephone: (951) 676-1018 Project Site Address: 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, CA 92592 Planning Area/ Community Name: City of Temecula - PDO -6; Rancho Pueblo APN Number(s): 959-070-014; Thomas Bros. Map: 2006 Edition: p.979; D-2 Project Watershed: Santa Margarita River — Hydrologic Unit # 902 Sub -watershed: Temecula Creek - Hydrologic Sub -unit # 902.52 Project Site Size: 0.60 net acres Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: 8211 Formation of Home Owners' Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA): No A-1 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • • Water Quality Management Plan Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project AGENCY Permit required (yes or no) State Department of Fish and Game, 1601 No Streambed Alteration Agreement State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water No Act (CWA) section 401 Water Quality Certification US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA section 404 No permit US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act No section 7 biological opinion Other (please list in the space below as required) SWRCB General Permit No City Grading Permit Yes City Building Permit Yes LOCATION OF FACILITIES: 0 The Rancho Community Church and Schools is located on Rancho Community Way, parallel to Temecula Parkway, in the southern portion of Temecula. ACTIVITIES: 0 School classrooms for middle school and high school children. LOCATION OF ACTIVITIES: 0 Classrooms covering the entire site. There will be small hardscape throughout the property for the children to use during break and lunch. S, plan for precise locations. WASTE GENERATED: cr- 1N p-T�ILi ✓a L 2 • UNLaRn71a� ���s NjA 0 All waste generated by the school activities will be collected in the dumpsters. Items that can be recycled such as envelopes, letters, memorandums and storage boxes will be recycled and placed in a recyclable container. Trash, comprising of such items as food refuse, coffee grinds, tissues, pencil sharpenings, etc., will be collected in the dumpsters and removed weekly from the site. WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A-2 7 • Water Quality Management Plan Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project AGENCY Permit required (yes or no) State Department of Fish and Game, 1601 No Streambed Alteration Agreement State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water No Act (CWA) section 401 Water Quality Certification US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA section 404 No permit US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act No section 7 biological opinion Other (please list in the space below as required) SWRCB General Permit No City Grading Permit Yes City Building Permit Yes LOCATION OF FACILITIES: 0 The Rancho Community Church and Schools is located on Rancho Community Way, parallel • to Temecula Parkway, in the southern portion of Temecula. • ACTIVITIES: 0 School classrooms for middle school and high school children. LOCATION OF ACTIVITIES: 0 Classrooms covering the entire site. There will be small hardscape areas scattered throughout the property for the children to use during break and lunch. See attached site plan for precise locations. WASTE GENERATED: 0 All waste generated by the school activities will be collected in the dumpsters. Items that can be recycled such as envelopes, letters, memorandums and storage boxes will be recycled and placed in a recyclable container. Trash, comprising of such items as food refuse, coffee grinds, tissues, pencil sharpenings, etc., will be collected in the dumpsters and removed weekly from the site. A-2 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 10II. Site Characterization • • Land Use Designation or Zoning Current Property Use: Proposed Property Use: Availability of Soils Report: Water Quality Management Plan PDO 6 (Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay District) Partially developed church and schools School Yes, included Phase 1 Site Assessment: Yes, included Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from Site Receiving Waters 303(d) List Designated Beneficial Proximity to RARE And Impairments Uses Beneficial Use Hydrologic Unit Temecula Creek Nitrogen MUN, AGR, IND, Not a RARE HU 2.52 Phosphorus PROC, GWR, REC 1, water body Total Dissolved Solids REC 2, WARM, WILD 0.35 miles Santa Margarita MUN, AGR, IND, REC Approximately River Phosphorus 1, REC 2, WARM, 1.1 miles HU 2.22 COLD, WILD, RARE Santa Margarita MUN, AGR, IND, REC Approximately River None 1, REC 2, WARM, 1.5 miles HU 2.21 COLD, WILD, RARE Santa Margarita MUN, AGR, IND, Approximately River None PROC, REC 1, REC 2, 10 miles HU 2.13 WARM, COLD, WILD, RARE Santa Margarita MUN, AGR, IND, Approximately River None PROC, REC 1, REC 2, 17.5 miles HU 2.12 WARM, COLD, WILD, RARE Santa Margarita MUN, AGR, IND, Approximately River None PROC, REC 1, REC 2, 20 miles HU 2.11 WARM, COLD, WILD, RARE Santa Margarita RED 1, REC 2, EST, Approximately Lagoon Eutrophic WILD, RARE, MAR, 25.5 miles HU 2.11 MIGR, SPWN IND, NAV, REC 1, Approximately REC 2, COMM, BIOL, 29.5 miles Pacific Ocean None WILD, RARE, MAR, AQUA, MIGR, SPWN, SHELL A-4 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan 0 III. Pollutants of Concern Potential pollutants associated with Urban Runoff from the proposed project must be identified. Exhibit B of the WQMP provides brief descriptions of typical pollutants associated with Urban Runoff and a table that associates typical potential pollutants with types of development (land use). It should be noted that at the Co -Permittees discretion, the Co -Permittees may also accept updated studies from the California Association of Stormwater Quality Agencies (CASQA), USEPA, SWRCB and/or other commonly accepted agencies/associations acceptable to the Co - Permittee for determination of Pollutants of Concern associated with given land use. Additionally, in identifying Pollutants of Concern, the presence of legacy pesticides, nutrients, or hazardous substances in the site's soils as a result of past uses and their potential for exposure to Urban Runoff must be addressed in project -specific WQMPs. The Co -Permittee may also require specific pollutants commonly associated with urban runoff to be addressed based on known problems in the watershed. The list of potential Urban Runoff pollutants identified for the project must be compared with the pollutants identified as causing an impairment of Receiving Waters, if any. To identify pollutants impairing proximate Receiving Waters, each project proponent preparing a project -specific WQMP shall, at a minimum, do the following: 1. For each of the proposed project discharge points, identify the proximate Receiving Water for each discharge point, using hydrologic unit basin numbers as identified in the most recent version of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin or the San Diego Region. is Z. Identify each proximate identified above that is listed on the most recent list of Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, which can be found at website www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d lists.html. List all pollutants for which the proximate Receiving Waters are impaired. • 3. Compare the list of pollutants for which the proximate Receiving Waters are impaired with the pollutants expected to be generated by the project. Urban Runoff Pollutants: Insert potential stormwater pollutants associated with project type — See Exhibit B of Riverside County WQMP. Additionally, any other potential stormwater pollutants that are project -specific must also be identified. A-4 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan • Item #1. Addressed in Section II, Receiving Waters table • • Item #2. Addressed in Section II, Receiving Waters table Item #3 Commercial/industrial will be used as the pollutant category for this WQMP. As such, the pollutants associated with parking lots are listed below �i POLLUTAyNTS sG KtE��It 5: �e� ilt IM af(PQ�TENZTA.`` EXPECED�1P0 TT! ENTTAIF' �3Q3d��'IiISEyt t e:GrRi Sediment/turbidity Landscaping No Nutrient Landscaping Yes Organic compound Not applicable No Trash & debris Landscaping; No Oxygen demanding Landscaping No substances Bacteria & viruses Landscaping and No sidewalks Oil & grease Not applicable No Pesticides Landscaping No Metals Not applicable No POLLUTANT OF CONCERN: Temecula Creek is listed on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments as being impaired by Phosphorous, Nitrogen, and Total Dissolved Solids. As such, these pollutants are the Pollutants of Concern for this project. LEGACY POLLUTANTS: This site is a previously graded site and has no known pollutants. Based on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, the potential for significant hazardous material or petroleum contamination to exist on or have migrated onto the subject property from off-site sources is very low. A-5 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan 0 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 are 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 the following condition: CONDITION B Supporting engineering studies, calculations, and reports are included in Appendix C. • A-6 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • IV. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Water Quality Management Plan A-6 WQMP—RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS STORM EVENT 2 — Year, 24 Hour 10 — Year, 24 Hour 100 — Year, 24 Hour Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post - development development development development development development Q (CFS) .350 .541 .565 .817 .878 1.213 V (FT/sec) .539 .603 .611 .670 .682 .741 V (AC -FT) .694 1.073 1.121 1.620 1.741 2.406 Duration (Minutes) 14.09 6.16 14.09 6.16 14.09 6.16 A-6 WQMP—RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan • V. Best Management Practices V. I SITE DESIGN BMPS Project proponents shall implement Site Design concepts that achieve each of the following: 1) Minimize Urban Runoff 2) Minimize Impervious Footprint 3) Conserve Natural Areas 4) Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIAs) The project proponent should identify the specific BMPS implemented to achieve each Site Design concept and provide a brief explanation for those Site Design concepts considered not applicable. Instructions: In field below, provide narrative describing which site design concepts were incorporated into the project plans. If the project proponent implements a Co -Permittee approved alternative or equally effective Site Design BMP not specifically described below, the Site Design BMP checkbox in Table 1 should be marked and an additional description indicating the nature of the BMP and how it addresses the Site Design concept should be provided. Continue with the completion of Table 1. • Note: the Co -Permittees general plan or other land use regulations/documents may require several measures that are effectively site design BMPS (such as minimization of directly connected impervious areas and/or setbacks from natural stream courses). The Project Proponent should work with Co - Permittee staff to determine if those requirements may be interpreted as site design BMPS for use in this table/narrative. See Section 4.5.1 of the WQMP for additional guidance on Site Design BMPS. • Following Table 1: if a particular Site Design BMP concept is found to be not applicable, please provide a brief explanation as to why the concept cannot be implemented. Also include descriptions explaining how each included BMP will be implemented. In those areas, where Site Design BMPS require ongoing maintenance, the inspection and maintenance frequency, the inspection criteria, and the entity or party responsible for implementation, maintenance, and/or inspection shall be described. The location of each Site Design BMP must also be shown on the WQMP Site Plan included in Appendix B. Insert text here describing site design concepts incorporated into project plans. A-8 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 0 V.1 SITE DESIGN BMPS C] • Water Quality Management Plan The site has been designed to minimize the urban runoff, utilizing the landscape buffer areas for a vegetated infiltration swale. The site has been designed to minimize the impervious surfaces in the landscape design, conserve the natural areas by utilizing native plant species and to minimize directly connected impervious areas by utilizing swales. Table 1. Site Design BMPs A-9 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Included Design Technique Specific BMP Concept Yes No NIA Maximize the permeable area (See Section 4.5.1 of the WQMP). ® ❑ ❑ Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets. W ❑ ❑ Minimize Maximize canopy interception and water conservation 0) by preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and ❑ ❑ V planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. V Urban Use natural drainage systems. ❑ ❑ Where soils conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe 0 or gravel filtration pits for low flow infiltration. ® ❑ ❑ a Runoff Construct onsite ponding areas or retention facilities to V) increase opportunities for infiltration consistent with ® ❑ ❑ vector control objectives. Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the Co -Permittee (Note: Additional narrative required to describe BMP and how ® ❑ ❑ it addresses Site Design concept) — Grassed Swales A-9 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • Water Quality Management Plan WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A-10 Included Design Technique Specific BMP Concept Yes No N/A Maximize the permeable area (See Section 4.5.1 of the WQMP). ® ❑ ❑ Construct walkways, trails, patios, overflow parking lots, N alleys, driveways, low -traffic streets and other low - El ® Eltraffic areas with open -jointed paving materials or ar Minimize permeable surfaces, such as pervious concrete, porous = asphalt, unit pavers, and granular materials. Water quality management is achieved by other BMP U methods. Z Impervious Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary, provided that public ❑ ❑ safety and a walk able environment for pedestrians are Footprint not compromised. *�+ Reduce widths of street where off-street parking is V) available. ❑ ❑ Minimize the use of impervious surfaces, such as decorative concrete, in the landscape design. ® ❑ ❑ Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the Co -Permittee (Note: ❑ ❑ Additional narrative required describing BMP and how it M addresses Site Design concept). Water quality >Z management is achieved by other BMP methods. Conserve natural areas (See WQMP Section 4.5.1). G1 = Conserve ❑ ❑ ON VMaximize canopy interception and water conservation s; Natural by preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and ❑ ❑ planting additional native or drought tolerant trees and y large shrubs. Areas Use natural drainage systems. ❑ ❑ 0 Other comparable and equally effective site design concepts as approved by the Co -Permittee (Note: ❑ ❑ X Additional narrative required describing BMP and how it addresses Site Design concept). WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A-10 • 11 • Water Quality Management Plan WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A -II Included Design Technique Specific BMP Yes No N/A Concept Residential and commercial sites must be designed to contain and infiltrate roof runoff, or direct roof runoff to ® ❑ ❑ vegetative swales or buffer areas, where feasible. Where landscaping is proposed, drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios into adjacent ❑ ❑ landscaping. Increase the use of vegetated drainage swales in lieu of underground piping or imperviously lined swales. ® ❑ ❑ Rural swale system: street sheet flows to vegetated Minimize swale or gravel shoulder, curbs at street corners, ❑ ® ❑ culverts under driveways and street crossings. Urban curb/swale system: street slopes to curb; periodic d swale inlets drain to vegetated swale/biofilter. ❑ ® ❑ 4 Directly drainage system: First flush captured in street VDual Ocatch basins and discharged to adjacent vegetated ❑ ® ❑ V Connected swale or gravel shoulder, high flows connect directly to MS4s. Design driveways with shared access, flared (single 4) Impervious lane at street) or wheel strips (paving only under tires);El 1:1 or, drain into landscaping prior to discharging to the 0 MS4. Areas Uncovered temporary or guest parking on private 0 residential lots may be paved with a permeable surface, ❑ ❑ or designed to drain into landscaping prior to (DCIAs) discharging to the MS4. Where landscaping is proposed in parking areas, ❑ ❑ incorporate landscape areas into the drainage design. Overflow parking (parking stalls provided in excess of the Co-Permittee's minimum parking requirements) may ❑ ❑ be constructed with permeable paving. Other comparable and equally effective design concepts as approved by the Co -Permittee (Note: ❑ ❑ Additional narrative required describing BMP and how it addresses Site Design concept). WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A -II Water Quality Management Plan • Non -applicable Site Design BMPs • The site has previous been graded and has little ground cover • No natural drainage systems to utilize • Vegetated infiltration swale is being utilized for this site • No streets, sidewalks or parking lots are proposed in this project • There is no off-street parking in the proposed plan • There is no environmentally sensitive area on the project site • Rural swale system is not suitable for the plan Urban curb/swale system is not suitable for the plan • Runoffs from the project site are directed to swales and a vegetated infiltration swale • No parking lots are being constructed in this project Description of how each BMP is implemented: • The site will be landscaped with swales and a vegetated infiltration swale • The on-site street which winds through the project has sidewalks for pedestrians with landscaping • Vegetated infiltration trench will be used • No decorative concrete is used in the proposed landscape design • All the storm water runoffs from the project site are directed to swales and a vegetated • infiltration swale All drainage from walkways is directed into adjacent landscaping • A-12 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • V.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS Table 2. Source Control BMPs isWater Quality Management Plan A-11 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Specific Responsible Check One How they are implemented Included Not Applicable BMP Name Frequency Party or why they are not applicable Non -Structural Source Control BMPs BMP Name : Education for Practical information materials to promote the Property Owners, prevention of Urban Runoff pollution will be Operators, Tenants, Annual Owner xxx provided by the project proponent to the first Occupants, or Employees tenants and yearly thereafter. BMP Name: Activity Daily Owner xxx Use restrictions will be developed by a Restrictions building operator through lease terms, etc. Daily activity restrictions are: L Prohibiting the blowing, sweeping or hosing of debris (leaf litter, grass clippings, litter, etc.) into streets, storm drain inlets, or other conveyances. ii. Require dumpster lids to be closed at all times. iii. Prohibit vehicle washing, maintenance, or repair on the premises or restrict those activities to designated areas (such as repair within maintenance bays and vehicle washing on property designed wash racks). A-11 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • Water Quality Management Plan BMP Name Specific Frequency Responsible Party Check One How they are implemented or why they are not applicable Included Not Applicable BMP Name : Irrigation Monthly Owner xxx Maintenance of irrigation systems and System and Landscape landscaping shall be consistent with the Co - Maintenance Permittee's water conservation ordinance, which can be accessed through the Co- Permittee's website or obtained through the Co-Permittee's planning/permitting counter. Fertilizer and pesticide usage shall be consistent with the instructions contained on product labels and with regulations administered by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. Additionally, landscape maintenance must address replacement of dead vegetation, repair of erosion rills, proper disposal of green waste, etc. Irrigation system maintenance must address periodic testing and observation of the irrigation system to detect overspray, broken sprinkler heads, and other system failures. The anticipated frequency of irrigation system and landscape maintenance activities shall be performed bi-monthly by the property owner. A-12 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • 0 Water Quality Management Plan A-13 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Specific Responsible Check One How they are implemented BMP Name Frequency Party Included Not Applicable or why they are not applicable BMP Name: Common Area Daily Owner xxx Trash receptacles shall be provided in Litter Control common areas. Emptying of trash receptacles, patrolling common areas and perimeter fences or walls to collect litter, noting trash disposal violations by tenants or businesses and reporting such observations to the owner, operator or manager for investigation shall occur daily. The owner shall identify the party responsible for litter control. BMP Name : Street Monthly Owner xxx The frequency of sweeping privately owned Sweeping Private Streets streets shall be described in the project - and Parking Lots specific WQMP. The frequency shall be no less than the frequency of street sweeping by the Co -Permittee on public streets. The parking lots shall be swept at least monthly, including just prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1st). The owner shall be res onsible for the quarterly sweeping. A-13 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • Water Quality Management Plan BMP Name Specific Frequency Responsible Party Check One How they are implemented or why they are notapplicable Included Not Applicable BMP Name: Drainage Annual Owner xxx The frequency for cleaning privately owned Facility Inspection and drainage facilities (catch basins, open Maintenance channels and storm drain inlets) shall be no less than the frequency of drainage facility cleaning conducted by the Co -Permittee. At a minimum, routine maintenance of privately owned drainage facilities should take place in the late summer or early fall prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1st). The drainage facilities must be cleaned if accumulated sediment/debris fills 25% or more of the sediment/debris storage capacity. Privately owned drainage facilities shall be inspected annually and the cleaning frequency shall be assessed. The property owner shall be responsible for conducting the drainage facility inspection and maintenance. A-14 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • 0 Water Quality Management Plan A-15 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Specific Responsible Check One How they are implemented BMP Name Frequency Party Included Not Applicable or why they are not applicable Structural Source>>Controlt ua2ca3 r ' i . :� ! gwg z➢rtE' i N �� � sem" i `�S,,.0 � ' p �$ 4. t -��. .. rk'4h,. .+ .., a.. 3n.. m oa'.s? MS4 Stenciling and N/A N/A xxx L Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm Signage drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language (such as: "NO DUMPING ONLY RAIN IN THE DRAIN") and/or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. ii. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the legibility of stencils and signs. A-15 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 9 Water Quality Management Plan BMP Name Specific Frequency Responsible Party Check One How they are implemented or why they are not applicable Included Not Applicable Landscape and Irrigation One time Owner xxx This is a project -specific WQMP that describes System Design prior to how the following concepts have been occupancy incorporated into project design features for RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH and the RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH AND SCHOOLS project. ❑ The irrigation controller has a Hunter Mini-Clik rain sensor shutoff device to prevent irrigation during and after precipitation events. ❑ The irrigation system has been designed to water by zones for each landscape area's specific water requirements. ❑ The main line has a flow sensor with a master shutoff valve which is triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss due to broken sprinkler heads or lines that shuts off the main line. ❑ The timing and application methods are of applying irrigation water have been designed to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the MS4. ❑ Soil tests will be incorporated to determine soil permeability for the selection of water application times and lengths to reduce irrigation water runoff. A-16 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • Water Quality Management Plan Landscape and Irrigation ❑ Preparation and implementation of the System Design Continued landscape plan is consistent with the City of Temecula's water conservation ordinance, which includes the use of water sensors and programmable irrigation times for short multiple cycles as required. The irrigation design has been calculated for the estimated and maximum water allowance using the local reference evaportranspi ration rates incorporated into the AB 325 water efficient landscape ordinance program and the Eastern Municipal Water District Landscape Irrigation Application. ❑ The preparation and implementation of the landscape irrigation and planting plan: ❑ The preparation and implementation of the landscape irrigation and planting plan: 0 Utilizes native and drought tolerant plant species with low irrigation requirements 0 Groups plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface infiltration. 0 Uses shredded bark mulch in all planter areas to minimize sediment and runoff and to conserve water from evaporation. 0 Installs appropriate plant materials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and uses native plant material where possible. 0 Maintains a vegetative barrier along the property boundary to act as a pollutant filter, where appropriate and feasible. Selects plant material that minimizes or eliminates the use of fertilizers or pesticides but still maintains healthy sustained growth. A-17 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 0 Water Quality Management Plan A-18 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Specific Responsible Check One How they are implemented Included Not A plicablewh BMP Name Frequency Party or the are nota licable Protect Slopes and Monthly Owner xxx Routine landscape maintenance will ensure Channels landscaping of slopes is current and viable Proper Desi n: Fueling Areas xxx No fueling area Air/Water Supply Area Draina e xxx No air/water supply Trash Storage Areas One time Owner xxx All trash container areas shall meet the following requirements: 1. Paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. 2. Trash dumpsters (containers) shall be leak proof and have attached covers or lids. 3. Connection of trash area drains to the MS4 is prohibited Loading Docks xxx No loadin Docks Maintenance Bas xxx No maintenance ba Vehicle and Equipment Wash Areas xxx No vehicle/equipment wash Outdoor Material Storage Areas xxx No material storage area Outdoor Work Areas or Processing Areas xxx No outdoor work area Provide Wash Water Controls for Food There is no on-site food preparation. All food is Preparation Areas I xxx re ared off-site and brou ht in for consumption Appendix D includes copies of the educational materials that will be used in implementing this project - specific WQMP and distributed to tenants, maintenance staff, etc. A-18 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Project Title V.3 TFEATMENT CONTROL BMPS Instructions: 1. Provide narrative below describing each Treatment Control BMP. Include location, idents the sizing criteria [i.e., Urban Runoff quality design flow (QBMP) or the Urban Runoff quality design volume (VBMP), preliminary design calculations, for sizing BMPs, maintenance procedures, and the frequency of maintenance procedures necessary to sustain BMP effectiveness. The location of each Treatment Control BMP must also be shown on the Site Plan included in Appendix B. 2. Complete Table 3: Treatment Control BMP Selection Matrix Directions for completing Table 3: For each pollutant of concern enter 'yes" if identified using Exhibit B (Riverside County WQMP - General Categories of Pollutants of Concern per the instructions specified in Section III of this Template), or "no" if not identified for the project. Check the boxes of selected BMPs that will be implemented for the project to address each pollutant of concern from the project as identified using Exhibit B. Treatment Control BMPs must be selected and installed with respect to identified pollutant characteristics and concentrations that will be discharged from the site. For any identified pollutants of concern not listed in the Treatment Control BMP Selection Matrix, provide an explanation (in space below) of how they will be addressed by Treatment Control BMPs. 3. In addition to completing Table 3, provide detailed descriptions on the location, implementation, installation, and long-term O&M ofplanned Treatment Control BMPs. • For identified pollutants of concern that are causing an impairment in receiving waters, the project WQMP shall incorporate one or more Treatment Control BMPs of medium or high effectiveness in reducing those pollutants. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to demonstrate, and document in the project WQMP, that all pollutants of concern will be fully addressed. The Agency may require information beyond the minimum requirements of this WQMP to demonstrate that adequate pollutant treatment is being accomplished. Supporting engineering calculations for Qenie and/or VB,t,,, and Treatment Control BMP design details are included in Appendix F. 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. Insert text describing Treatment Control BMPs as instructed above. Date A-15 0 0 V.3 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS Table 3: Treatment Control BMP Selection Matrix Water Quality Management Plan r� Pollutant of Concern Treatment Control BMP Categories(9) Veg Swale 1Veg Filter Stiips Detention Basins (2) 11 Infiltration Trench & Trenches/P&rous Pa v_ement.�r�=_gI'Lp)'"' F'a v -tom Wet Ponds or Wetlands Sand Filter or Filtration Trash Grate Hydrodynamic Separator Systems (4) Manufactured/ Proprietary Devices Sediment/Turbidity HMI M H/M H/M H/M L H/M L for turbidity) U Yes/No? Yes Nutrients L M H%NI H/M L/M L L U Yes/No? Yes"` i '` Organic Compounds U U U U H/M L L U Yes/No? Yes Trash & Debris L M _U U H/M M H/M U Yes/No? Yes Oxygen Demanding Substances �L M Fi%tvt H/M H/M L L U Yes/No? Yes Bacteria & Viruses U U F/M_ U H/M L L U Yes/No? Yes Oils & Grease HIM M U U H/M M UM U Yes/No? Yes Pesticides (non -soil bound) U U U U U L L U Yes/No? Yes Metals H/M M 11 H H L L U Yes/No? Yes= ' A-21 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • Water Quality Management Plan Abbreviations: L: Low removal efficiency H/M: 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) Includes extended/dry detention basins with grass lining and extended/dry detention basins with impervious lining. Effectiveness based upon minimum 36 -48-hour drawdown time. (4) Includes infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, and porous pavements. (5) Includes permanent pool wet ponds and constructed wetlands. (6) Includes sand filters and media filters. (7) Also known as hydrodynamic devices, baffle boxes, swirl 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 stormwater 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 (www.cabmphandbooks.com). The 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. A-21 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan • VA EQUIVALENT TREATMENT CONTROL ALTERNATNES Not Applicable V.5 REGIONALLY -BASED TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS Not Applicable • A-22 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan VI. Operation and Maintenance Responsibility for Treatment Control BMPs Operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements for all structural Source Control and Treatment Control BMPs shall be identified in the project -specific WQMP. The project -specific WQMP shall address the following: ■ Identification of each BMP that requires O&M. ■ Thorough description of O&M activities, the O&M process, and the handling and placement of any wastes. ■ BMP start-up dates. ■ Schedule of the frequency of O&M for each BMP. ■ Identification of the parties (name, address, and telephone number) responsible for O&M, including a written agreement with the entities responsible for O&M. This agreement can take the form of a Covenant and Agreement recorded by the Project Proponent with the County Recorder, HOA or POA CC&Rs, formation of a maintenance district or assessment district or other instrument sufficient to guarantee perpetual O&M. The preparer of this project -specific WQMP should carefully review Section 4.6 of the WQMP prior to completing this section of the project -specific WQMP. ■ Self -inspections and record-keeping requirements for BMPs (review local specific requirements regarding self -inspections and/or annual reporting), including identification of responsible parties for inspection and record- keeping. • ■ Thorough descriptions of water quality monitoring, if required by the Co -Permittee. RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS is a church and school i The following tables identify the list of the proposed Source Control and Treatment Control BMPs for the project. There will be a Covenant and Agreement recorded against the property and a maintenance agreement with the proprietary catch basin insert manufacturer. A-23 WQMP - RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Water Quality Management Plan • OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS BMP O & M START- ---b-& M PARTIES INSPECTION WATER REQUIREMENTS UP FREQUENCY RESPONSIBLE & RECORD QUALITY DATES KEEPING MONITORING Inspect the swale for Upon Semi-annual Rancho Rancho None erosion damage and completion Community Community sediment and debris of project (Reformed) Church (Reformed) accumulation Church Regularly remove Upon As needed Rancho Rancho None trash and debris in the completion Community Community swale of project (Reformed) Church (Reformed) Church Regularly mow the Upon As needed Rancho Rancho None Vegetated swale and always completion Community Community infiltration remove litter prior to of project (Reformed) Church (Reformed) swale -mowing Church Regularly inspect the Upon As needed Rancho Rancho None swale for prolonged completion Community Community standing water to of project (Reformed) Church (Reformed) avoid vector roblemsChurch Remove sediment As needed As needed Rancho Rancho None accumulation when it Community Community significantly reduces (Reformed) Church (Reformed) filtration and capacity Church of the swale • A-24 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • • Water Quality Management Plan VII. Funding A funding source or sources for the O&M of each Treatment Control BMP identified in the project - specific WQMP must be identified. By certifying the project -specific WQMP, the Project applicant is certifying that the funding responsibilities have been addressed and will be transferred to future owners. One example of how to adhere to the requirement to transfer O&M responsibilities is to record the project -specific WQMP against the title to the property. Insert text identifying the funding source or sources for the operation and maintenance of each Treatment Control BMP included in the project. WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A-26 • • Water Quality Management Plan STRUCTURAL QUANTITY CAPITAL ANNUAL START-UP SPECIFIC RESPONSIBLE RESPONSIBLE BMPS COST O & M DATES O & M FUNDING -PARTY FUNDING $ $ FREQUENCY FOR PARTY FOR INSTALLATION LONG TERM O&M Vegetated 167 LF $3,600.00 $1,200.00 Prior to Weekly Property Owner Property Infiltration occupancy Owner Swale NOTE: Figures are estimates. Actual costs may vary. The Property Owner, Rancho Community (Reformed) Church will be the funding source for construction of the PLDs. The property owner will be responsible for the operation and the maintenance of the PLDs. The property owner will record the "approved" project specific WQMP in the form of a Covenant and Agreement with the Riverside County Recorder. A copy of the CC&R Agreement will be included in the Final WQMP Report for this project. A-27 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS n U PLACE TURF GRASS BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLANS • 0 2% MIN. INSTALL 1.5" TO 2.5" UNIFORM SIZE ROCKS TRENCH LINED W/NONWOVEN GEOTEXILE MEMBRANE 3.0' NO SCALE FL PER PLAN 27 MIN. T�-O.5' SOIL M Water Quality Management Plan 0 FUNDING CERTIFICATION • A source of finding is required for all site design, source control, and treatment control BMPS. For this project, the owner of the Project will fiord the implementation, operation and maintenance of all BMPs set forth in the WQMP. Where the owner requires a lessee to implement, operate and maintain BMPs, the owner will maintain ultimate finding responsibilities, and will, upon default of a lessee to ]infill lease responsibilities for implementation, operation and maintenance of BMPs, shall cause the same to be performed at owner's expense. Nothing in the WQMP shall prevent the owner from pursuing cost recovery from the tenant or the remedies for the default as provided by the lease and law. Rancho Community (Reformed) Church will be responsible for all BMP implementation, operation and maintenance until such time that the business is sold. Ow s Signature FOR: RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH :��« —c �,,,ke Owner's Printed Name RANCHO COMMUNITY (REFORMED) CHURCH 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, CA 92592 Tel: (951) 303-6789 -� -I -I -Oe) Date O WT re,��Ayjr,-E Owner's Title/Position A-26 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • ri U I-1 LJ Water Quality Management Plan Appendix A Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Resolution: PA 00-0470 CUP PA 07-0057 Dated: December 5, 2007 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A-29 n U • n U • + i • i i •"i• III 1�11I1-_ I, Mel Malkoff, understand that Planning Application No. PA07-0057 has been approved with Conditions of Approval which are set forth in Exhibit A. I have read the Conditions of Approval contained in PC Resolution No. 07-45 and understand them. Through signing this ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 1 agree and commit to the City of Temecula that I will implement and abide by the Conditions of Approval, including any indemnification requirements imposed by those conditions. SIGNAT RE DATE GAPIammn912007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOMPlanningTINAL COA's.doc 2 Citv of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive • Temecula, CA 92590 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 9033 • Temecula, CA 92589-9033 (951) 694-6400 • FAX (951) 694-6477 December 10. 2007 Mr. Mel Malkoff Malkoff and Associates 1748 W. Katella Avenue; Suite 208 Orange, CA 92867 SUBJECT: Planning Application No. PA07-0057, a Major Modification to develop a combined high school, middle school and gymnasium facility totaling 93,164 square feet, and to authorize minor site plan and building adjustments for the Rancho Community Church site Dear Mr. Malkoff: • On December 5, 2007 the City of Temecula Planning Commission approved the above referenced project subject to the enclosed final Conditions of Approval. Please review and sign the enclosed Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department within 48 hours of receipt of this letter. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision or the Conditions of Approval may appeal it within 15 calendar days from the date of approval. Caution should be exercised in making any expenditures or commitments based upon this approval until the expiration of the appeal period and disposition of any appeals, which may be filed. This approval is effective until December 5, 2009 unless extended in accordance with the Development Code. Written request for a time extension must be submitted to the City of Temecula a minimum of 30 days prior to the expiration date. It has been a pleasure working with you during the entitlement process. If you have any questions regarding this subject or approval, please contact me at (951) 694-6400 or by email at katie.lecomte(o)cityoftemecula.orq. Sincerely, Katie Le Comte Assistant Planner • Enclosures: Stamped Plans Final Conditions of Approval Acceptance of Conditions of Approval G:\P1anning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOMPlanning\APPROVAL LTR.doc cc: Pastor Scott Treadway (1 copy of stamped approved plan sets) is Rancho Community Reformed Church 43172 Business Park Drive; Suite 102 Temecula, CA 92590 is • Mr. Stanley Heaton (Applicant would like to pick up) Temecula Engineering Consultants 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202 Temecula, CA 92591 Diane Ball, Building and Safety (no plans) Susie Rossini, Assigned Building Technician (11 X 17 stamped set) Annie Bostre-Le, Department of Public Works (stamped plans) Elsa Wigle, Fire Prevention (stamped plans) Barbara Smith, Community Services (stamped plans) Bob Fawcett, Landscape Consultant (stamped plans) G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\PlanninglAPPROVAL LTR.doc • EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA FINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA07-0057 Project Description: Planning Application No. PA07-0057, a Major Modification to develop a combined middle school, high school, and gymnasium facility totaling 93,164 square feet, and to authorize minor site plan and building adjustments for the Rancho Community Church site located north of Temecula Parkway (formerly Highway 79 South), east of Jedidiah Smith Road, and approximately 800 feet west of Rancho Pueblo Road Assessor's Parcel No. 959-060-008 through 013; and 959-070-013; 014 MSHCP Category: Commercial DIF Category: Service Commercial TUMF Category: Service Commercial • Approval Date: December 5, 2007 Expiration Date: December 5, 2009 • WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT Planning Department The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty -Four Dollars ($1,864.00) which includes the One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollar ($1,800.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Sixty -Four Dollar ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said 48- hour period the applicant/developer 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)]. (OR) 2. The applicant shall review and sign the Acceptance of Conditions of Approval document that will be provided by the Planning Department staff and return the document with an original signature to the Planning Department. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MODTIanning\FINAL COA's.doc 3 0 • CJ GENERAL REQUIREMENTS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 4 • Planning Department 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 project. 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 30 days prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. • 7. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Department. 9. The applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application Nos. PA01-0522 and PA00-0470 (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit), unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. 10. 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 being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 11. 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. G:\P1anning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 5 0 • 12. 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 Concrete S -Tile Roof Stucco (glacier texture) Pre -cast concrete columns Pre -case concrete moldings CMU Base/Wainscot Metal storefront Glazing Color "Magma Blend" by Westile "Sandalwood #48" by Omega Products "Palladio Smooth" by Moonlight Molds "Palladio Smooth" by Moonlight Molds "Tan # 515" "Copper Penny" by PPG "Bronze" by Vesteon 13. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on site plan. 14. Parking for the project shall be shared across the site, including parking spaces in all lots that are a part of the project. If the project involves multiple lots, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a copy of a recorded Reciprocal Use Agreement, which provides for cross -lot access and parking across all lots. 15. Outdoor seating opportunities and decorative benches will be provided in the outdoor gathering plaza area adjacent to the Youth Activity Center. 16. The noise that the school bell emits shall be low sounding and sensitive to the neighboring residences. Public Works Department 17. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or 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. 18. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 19. 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. GAPIanning12007PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MODTIanningONAL COA's.doc 6 • 20. 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. 21. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be accepted by the City prior to the initial grading plan check. The WQMP will be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and include site design BMPs (Best Management Practices), source controls, and treatment mechanisms. 22. All on-site drainage facilities shall be maintained by a private maintenance association or property owner. 23. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Rancho Community Church (PA00-0470) as approved on September 24, 2002. 24. The Applicant shall comply with all underlying Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 30798 (PA02-0562) as approved on April 24, 2003. Building and Safety Department 25. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2007 California Electrical Code, 2007 California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access • Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 26. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 27. 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. 28. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 29. Show all building setbacks. 30. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 32. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 33. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. • GAPlanning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 7 • Fire Prevention Bureau 34. 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. 35. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix IIIA, Table A -III -A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure for a 4 hour duration. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided (CFC 903.2, Appendix III -A). 36. 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 (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an 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). 37. 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). • 38. The Youth Room is a A-2.1 Occupancy type. The occupant load is greater than 300 persons. An occupant load factor of 7 has been used per Table 10-A of the 2001 CBC to determine this occupant load. 0 Community Services Department 39. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as, regular solid waste containers. 40. The Applicant shall comply with the Public Art Ordinance. 41. All parkways, landscaping, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 8 0 • • PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 9 • Planning Department 42. 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. 43. The applicant shall submit and a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure the lots into sizes or shapes that are consistent with the site plan adjustments and reconfigured building footprints. 44. 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. 45. 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 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address • special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. G:\Planning120071PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 10 • 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District •C. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 54. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 55. 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. 56. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. Fire Prevention Bureau 57. 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). 58. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet (CFC 902.2.2.2.3). G\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 11 • 59. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved paved Fire Department vehicle access roads installed. Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2). • • 60. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall 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). 61. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14). 62. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC 902.2.2.4). 63. Outside turning radii for fire apparatus is 45 -feet. 64. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC 902.2.1). GAPlanning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 12 • • PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 13 • Planning Department 65. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the Main Sanctuary/Worship Center, revised elevations which reflect the modified building configuration shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, or referred to the Planning Commission at the discretion of the Planning Director if it is determined that the revised elevations greatly differ from the previously approved building elevations and design guidelines outlined in the Rancho Pueblo PDO. 66. All Lot Line Adjustment(s) shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 67. 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. 68. All downspouts shall be internalized. 69. 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. A note on the plans stating that "Two landscape inspections are required: one inspection is required for irrigation lines and a separate inspection is required for final planting inspection." d. A note on the plans stating that "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection._ e. One copy of the approved grading plan. f. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). g. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). h. The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. i. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details the proper maintenance of ail 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. • j. 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 GAP1anning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\PlanningTINAL COA's.doc 14 • pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two (2) 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. 70. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 71. Building construction plans shall show a decorative lighting detail of the mission themed light fixtures. Decorative lighting shall be shown on the building elevations. 72. Building plans shall indicate that all roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange." 73. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a nine -inch grid pattern with 45 -inch tall numerals spaced nine inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard nine -inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. Public Works Department 74. The Developer shall pay a mitigation fee in an amount acceptable to the Department of • Public Works. Said fee shall reflect the percentage of impact at each intersection and shall be in accordance to the traffic impact analysis dated May 17, 2002. 75. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: • a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 76. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. Storm drain facilities b. Sewer and domestic water systems Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 77. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. G\P1anningW07\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 15 • 78. 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. 79. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Building and Safety Department 80. Obtain street addressing for all proposed building prior to submittal for plan review. Site plan to indicate all suite numbering in direct correlation with addressing and proposed buildings. 81. A sound transmission control study shall be prepared and submitted at time of plan review in accordance with the provisions of Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A, of the 2007 edition of the California Building Code. 82. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2007 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 83. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work for plan review. • 84. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 85. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with disabilities. 86. A pre -construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 87. 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 88. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. Fire Prevention Bureau 89. The developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention . Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. 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 G\P1anning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 16 • minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1). • 90. 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 paved and an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet (CFC sec 902). 91. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit. 92. Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. Community Services Department 93. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. G,\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 17 0 PRIOR TO RELEASE OF POWER, BUILDING OCCUPANCY OR ANY USE ALLOWED BY THIS PERMIT • • GAPlanning\20071PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\PlanningTINAL COA's.doc 18 • Planning Department 94. 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 if reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. 95, The Lot Line Adjustment(s) shall be recorded, and a recorded copy shall be forwarded to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 96. 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. 97. 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. • 98. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized 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, clearly 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." • 99, 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. 100. 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. 101. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. G:1P1anning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 19 • 113. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. E • 114. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection (CFC 105). G: 1Planning\20071PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 21 0 • • OUTSIDE AGENCIES G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 22 • 115. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated February 27, 2007, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. is • G\Planning\2007\PA07-0057 Rancho Community Major MOD\Planning\FINAL COA's.doc 23 WARREN D. WILLIAMS �ooxTr rtp 1995 MARKET STREET General Manager -Chief Engineer 5�°� ��no RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX r 511802 • P Se _ ,n��JAdYAT 10� RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department ( L `j Post Office Box 9033 _ Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: l MR1S(tNG QP. MkD TY Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional Flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed theproposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: _ No comment This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. t4L> ftet�o2a ofc Bo' DYZArMA66 S.45EMeNT W,As >=ocpr (D. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. • This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership ot such aciies on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. _ This project is located within the limits of the District's Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable tees should e pai y cas ier s check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities. For further information, contact the District's encroachment permit section at 951.955.1266. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge EliminationS stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, orother final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Mapp Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (L MR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain .is impacted by this pro'ect, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engsneers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, • ARTURO DIAZ En Senior Civil Engineer c: Riverside County Planning Department - Date: Attn: David Mares LJ I -] Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 8/6/2008 Appendix B Vicinity Map WQMP Site Plan Receiving Waters Map A-28 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS • • Y T'Y lvitir S" n- RA9VCOaPE4Dl One -^I i �0 Ir:1 Icy f;'R •„,a, /E59' Vane' "; ( Ity • °WiMmil Cetlf ffr�pt 0d4 1 . ,'`" i f ♦ �..''� .- -ak more33 1 { f, \R 3 r 11 ';_�T1 e w amal t0, Ts AKI •.. �.y \ •� /-21Xt \ ` Q Ani OUN \ aS'itlr° t y �,uar4 Stallg . 1\ �SfPL e rift.+ `+r 1 C mma011P Nuais 'Ce o rQ rt i7 t'tA edeox a °yr inq{iil t 1.°` r pt T 10'N ,A I��J j } y SEy7arA�p I __ F`�..d•� rztpeRn `W i 17so 1 --*. v 1. �'' s _.� i . PancVr ]•: OSA 71 winaml 5�}.. i p�/ L J /L� JI{G , 1, i !I I P i� ANO PEAK �l il� [ SSdep MO E� NFAIN El • �` _ 759/ � � . f � �• x( py W nam, arty'' r' -..n . w SITrON.VFAK x ''-H • : i 1 • I IR �T >'� �� u I. i hpm J IA rvpRanRs 727J!N3,i Ranch;• ! -1 .� �ik V V SEiA%t•+' + r-+''` ./ ct • ,` { ' A'kank pin ..F 5 .r Mur I 1 // C nOn�ll ii+� er AHD •� /'� mamil ° Yi / Y1ta�Eh '°.�." Lm Alamo y . .) I '��. "�.! � ..�,..� Iry ( `eo �( i •M IY C m 6e t\ \. wal '1'` wal .1`=1 , T A11, RIA • r Vit" F ,� i',C�\` _�'° �."', Y isoUAI\ I d rFt7i ` iJ•Y'� yW>TiJrt'.fls 1 ^" J �•� .t\ lMOUNTAI { .i' �' 1 i t i la, ._.a:anrJ 1 '... t arKt�d' _.. ._ (... .__ �•. AIVERSIGE COUNTY ! - {,�N • ti f is i �d'0 Wne��r-SAN Dr GE' O OU NCTY,MI'IJT" ^ 9'. FDp D t' 1�•COI�C/AaDO ^ . al5_y wy n t A / MF E`^�Jyy'% out ft D�•'I. Cy1PC . Ranco+ j\ / 1� I , W,,t(mia .j 31E nch n aundtdnun . f.+s�Si�l {` ,.p.� as /.+_ \, i}+ / ! �.� (�?A^rte.%� \ w r 4 ' A •y' 'i /094 ` 1{�;I'•.t`.ile t\"Ii e l l 1 Pnnf}I.. (j. Pancn• .S P ; I g.'WfiMmi 1 •. �+�i . PECHANGA l L •?'Ar' l m� MA LRI Ak I J I � � f � �. �I t 81 / / JJ� Rac I� mar. Ga wt uAoaw� _. ¢ r •.r t+`�1 s CLLz �Jfiarrc J Ranch - �( I VAVIbNI N_C.-'I lir ° J mer ' { ri 1•i OlritPU3 L dcd^ ll �v San O^oJ�`t^�MM ir ii ( f ?1 /l 1D LmMul t P. Ybtmdldli J r t `b� J 1{ Gu etatidn I J t i r I y .. t l rip _ iJ �d ` TOURMAL E:OUEE0 7 IhCJe . . ` �+' f i Writer I +E ( • Pti P. f t PE DLET06V Fa 1 .r_ n rook -. --' BROOK (j r .� 7 A6#1+ ala '_�,,✓" k^� i IS r' i eC/ y 1330 I 1 �a 52 ° ra / t/ �1R4�" 1`•*i nFal� k „ �1 ! 1'r. .i t o�J'j/. ,1� �, tUUU`..KALA %M la•� 1 } rS_L�A`_ �: � t�'.,I t ,.._._� .. iLiO r i �1 INDIAtJ�t, RESERVATION 'IN4Y pmp P9 110}lv76r .., .Raa(c_t_t1 uthA I (�. !) •; t Iter ; 5 1 l �((� 4 191 e . ice`' ' s. s R 5 iPeuma Y t t r�• l� P JS'd,,, ti J i i / 939.. .._Renta '� i MTN >. >. ".141. '{ / I �E 1 ` /• , sa MT AR,ERAt r aitch , RI Ci i tI 7 t BCkinton c r a7= $y7 s llCht `�J ac ` ' / ELR{ F' �. ^z,.9"'•,I r, 'A'ra•_C+nJ•, _,�=. di th,�.._ /_ _ _"am "am" �.y ReP'RTtu F " SM 1Kearu Def - .„� ) i ' w IB t • t J'• � 4 "1 n`ter `' v En r A ICBM * t�l ll ,{�_d t f Q I M IN•- -I, OCEANSIDE } yC n PIS `R ( •� a e • 4I .t''„!! V. �• Y^ esmo a ) i 1 lead' 7s' b ,�EfEa'',�a 'VsrQ LW ,,I..t 1.� naJ. 5 i Ma lord Soutr Occersr e` "'S .:. ...�'- r ^ ....Y1 r 643 R PARCEL 8, P.M. 30798 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA I�� T TY DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 v AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA s REVISIONS ACC'D ,SEAL: DATE BY SCALE QRo�Essa� F Horizontal w No. 43982rn 1 = 20 Exp. 6/30/09 X w� Vertical N/A Designed By Drown By Checked By SH T.E.C., INC. SH Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of -- Dote: R. C. E. No. 43982 Expires 6-30-09 I U l.l'I�lPelL W ff.AA EC 19NGHNjREMNG ,mss CGNS4ULTA-1\\U8s HNCo LAND PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 29377 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD., SYE. 202, TEMECULA, CA 92591 * TELEPHONE 951-676-1018 * FACSIMILE 951-676-2294 PLACE TURF GRASS 3'4' BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANS FL PER PLAN 2X MIN. �, MIN. AA INSTALL 1.5" TO 2.5" raj! ��'� .. 0.5' SOIL UNIFORM SIZE ROCKS "• M TRENCH LINED w/NONWOVEN GEOTEXILE MEMBRANE 2.0' VEGETATED _INFILTRATION SWALE DETAIL NO SCALE LEGEND: -�—�� DRAINAGE BOUNDARY -.�--- GENERAL DIRECTION OF FLOW 0.60 AC AREA ACREAGE Al SUBAREA ONODE 20 0 10 20 40 SCALE: 1" = 20 ' CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS T WA7 U RANCHO COMMUNITY REFORMED CHURCH d \ t •17 •• ti PARCEL 8, P.N. 30798 sheeftl 1 of END CURB X10) 36.06TC 35.56EP (37,0FL) 1 J J ti INLET , • ��' '35,00TG) ,31.301E) ` ---X (1 % M IN. S ) ----� 7.5' Ov, A4CET 6► ---(36.50TG) (32.301E) I H. I I I XP. 1 (36.9( FL) I J I 1 I I I I I ` I DATE I BY T.� DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 v AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REVISIONS ACC'D Horizontal Vertical _n Tf) pn nn .. nA vn r TT n PARCEL 8, P.M. 30798 IN T itCITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA V'Y'/ V V• V.1 N/A 37.1 STC 36.68FL /--37.48EP END CURB X o PROF Esslo�q LJ No. 43982 m � Exp. 6/34/09 , o� cap-�F° Designed By Drawn By Checked By SH Tl E. C#, INC. SH Plans Prepared Under Supervision Of I It Date* R. C. E. Na. 43982 Expires 6-30-0 N "fn 'fern \\-38-92FL n H. P. � 39.28FS SEX: - 37.38TC /, 36.88FS SCALE r 137..8TC 36.E Fs r 1 I .28TC I I 1 3 .18 FS I I 37.89TC1 I 1 I 3 7.39 FS I I I 11.0% I I M. I D. C. IN I �_ I 1 I 38.07TC L 7 37.57FS1 I � 38.35T z 3� ]ENGRNEEHUNG �/ �J�b�7 0� \U � 11 eh1b� 1!, o�� �b� V✓. LAND PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS 29377 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD., STE, 202, TEMECULA, CA 92591 * TELEPHONE 951-676-1018 * FACSIMILE 351-676-2294 LEGEND0 : DRAINAGE BOUNDARY -�-- GENERAL DIRECTION OF FLOW 0.60 AC AREA ACREAGE Al SUBAREA ONDE 20 o 10 Za 40 SCALE: V= 20 ' :tCl TY OF ECULA DEPARTMENT of puBLrc WOR01 TERP MOD Ul" C"P US B KS d ..' '`.+,: � RANCHO Cts �y trrNrff REFORMED cxtrRcH dr�r'' o� PARCEL D, P.M. 30798 Sheep 1 of � • Water Quality Management Plan Appendix C Supporting Detail Related to Hydraulic Conditions of Concern A-29 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 0 DRAINAGE REPORT The purpose of this report is to determine storm runoff from the site. Referencing "Hydrology Study of Rancho Community Church Campus Phase 3" dated May 30, 2007 by Jack Norris, RCE, it was determined that the maximum I00 -year flow was 2.8 cfs per acre. Drainage areas were determined by referencing the Precise Grading Plans — Modular Campus `B' dated February 2008 by TEC, Inc. Flows were calculated using a conservative value of 3 cfs per acre and the drainage areas shown on the Hydrology Map — Modular Campus `B'. The total storm runoff was determined as follows; 1* (3 cfs/acre) x (0.29 acres) = 0.87 cfs It was determined that the total storm runoff from the site is 0.87 cfs. All of the runoff sheet flows into vegetated swales then conveyed to existing downstream drainage facilities. • r1 • • Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1992 Version 3.2 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 14/ 2/ 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Modular Campus 2 YR Storm Runoff Existing Conditions --------------------------------------- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** Rational Method Hydrology Program Riverside County Flood Control & 1978 hydrology manual based on water Conservation District Storm event (year) = 2.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity -duration curves data (Plate D-4.1) For the [ Murrieta,Tmc,Rnch Callorco ] area used. 10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.360 (in./hr.) 10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.880 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 3.480 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.300 (in./hr.) Storm event year = 2.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 0.586 (in./hr.) Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 200.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 38.500(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 35.900(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 2.600(Ft.) Slope = 0.01300 s(percent)= 1.30 TC = k(0.710)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 14.089 min. Rainfall intensity = 1.301(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.707 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 79.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 0.350(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.380(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 End of computations, total study area = 0.38 (Ac.) •The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000 Area averaged RI index number = 79.0 • 0 • • 40 Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1992 Version 3.2 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 14/ 2/ 0 ----- ----------- Modular Campus 10 YR Storm Runoff Existing Conditions ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity -duration curves For the [ Murrieta,Tmc,Rnch Callorco 10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 100 year storm 10 minute intensity 100 year storm 60 minute intensity Storm event year = 10.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 0.880 (in./hr.) Slope of intensity duration curve = data (Plate D-4.1) ] area used. 2.360 (in./hr.) 0.880 (in./hr.) 3.480 (in./hr.) 1.300 (in./hr.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** TNTTTA7 AREA RVAMATTCIN **** Initial area flow distance = 200.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 38.500(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 35.900(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 2.600(Ft.) Slope = 0.01300 s(percent)= 1.30 TC = k(0.710)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)] -0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 14.089 min. Rainfall intensity = 1.952(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.762 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 79.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 0.565(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.380(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 End of computations, total study area = 0.38 (Ac.) The following figures may • be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000 Area averaged RI index number = 79.0 • • Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1992 Version 3.2 • Rational Hydrology Study- Date_ 14/ 2/ 0 - ----------------- Modular Campus 100 YR Storm Runoff Existing Conditions --------------------------------------- -- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** ------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity -duration curves data (Plate D-4.1) For the [ Murrieta,Tmc,Rnch Callorco ] area used. 10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.360 (in./hr.) 10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.880 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 3.480 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.300 (in./hr.) Storm event year = 100.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 1.300 (in./hr.) • Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 200.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 38.500(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 35.900(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 2.600(Ft.) Slope = 0.01300 s(percent)= 1.30 TC = k(0.710)*[(length-3)/(elevation change)] -0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 14.089 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.884(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.802 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 79.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 •Initial subarea runoff = 0.878(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.380(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 End of computations, total study area = 0.38 (Ac.) The following figures may • be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000 Area averaged RI index number = 79.0 • • • is • Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1992 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 14/ 2/ 0 ------------------------------------------------------- Modular Campus 2 YR Storm Runoff Proposed Conditions Version 3.2 ----------------------------------------------------------- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 2.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity -duration curves data (Plate D-4.1) For the [ Murrieta,Tmc,Rnch Callorco ] area used. 10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.360 (in./hr.) 10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.880 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 3.480 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.300 (in./hr.) Storm event year = 2.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 0.586 (in./hr.) Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 209.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 39.100(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 36.600(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 2.500(Ft.) Slope = 0.01196 s(percent)= 1.20 TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 6.161 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.051(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.880 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 0.379(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.210(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.880 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious Time of concentration = 6.16 min. fraction = 0.900 Rainfall intensity = 2.051(In/Hr) for a 2.0 Subarea runoff = 0.162(CFS) for 0.090(Ac.) Total runoff = 0.541(CFS) Total area = 0. End of computations, total study area = 0. The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100 Area averaged RI index number = 69.0 • CJ year storm 300(Ac.) 30 (Ac.) Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1992 Version 3.2 •RationalHydrologyStudy - Date_ 14/ 2/ 0 Modular Campus 10 YR Storm Runoff Proposed Conditions • • --------------------------------------- ---------- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** --------------------------------------- Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity -duration curves For the [ Murrieta,Tmc,Rnch Callorco 10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 100 year storm 10 minute intensity 100 year storm 60 minute intensity Storm event year = 10.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 0.880 (in./hr.) Slope of intensity duration curve = data (Plate D-4.1) ] area used. 2.360 (in./hr.) 0.880 (in./hr.) 3.480 (in./hr.) 1.300 (in./hr.) 0.5500 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 209.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 39.100(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 36.600(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 2.500(Ft.) Slope = 0.01196 s(percent)= 1.20 TC = k(0.300)*[(length-3)/(elevation change)] -0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 6.161 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.077(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.885 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 0.572(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.210(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.885 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 6.16 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.077(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.245(CFS) for 0.090(Ac.) Total runoff = 0.817(CFS) Total area = 0.300(Ac.) End of computations, total study area = 0.30 (Ac.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100 Area averaged RI index number = 69.0 • • r � U Cl Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1992 Version 3.2 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 14/ 2/ 0 ----------------------------------------------------------- Modular Campus 100 YR Storm Runoff Proposed Conditions -------------------------- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** --------------- ---------- ---------- Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity -duration curves data (Plate D-4.1) For the [ Murrieta,Tmc,Rnch Callorco ] area used. 10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.360 (in./hr.) 10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.880 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 3.480 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.300 (in./hr.) Storm event year = Calculated rainfall 1 hour intensity = Slope of intensity 100.0 intensity data: 1.300 (in./hr.) duration curve = 11�1I•I. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++f++++++++++++t+++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 209.000(Ft.) Top (of initial area) elevation = 39.100(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 36.600(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 2.500(Ft.) Slope = 0.01196 s(percent)= 1.20 TC = k(0.300)*[(length^3)/(elevation change)]^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 6.161 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.546(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm COMMERCIAL subarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.890 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Initial subarea runoff = 0.849(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.210(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 0.100 •.....++++t+++++++....tttttt+++t++.... -..-F.....tttt+tttt+ttt Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** C:UMMERUTAL sucarea type Runoff Coefficient = 0.890 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 0.100; Impervious fraction = 0.900 Time of concentration = 6.16 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.546(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 0.364(CFS) for 0.090(Ac.) Total runoff = 1.213(CFS) Total area = 0.300(Ac.) End of computations, total study area = 0.30 (Ac.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.100 Area averaged RI index number = 69.0 • 0 9198I11C 0 0 0 STORM EVENT 2 — Year, 24 Hour 10 — Year, 24 Hour 100 — Year, 24 Hour Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post - development development development development development development Q (CFS) .350 .541 .565 .817 .878 1.213 V (FT/sec) .539 .603 .611 .670 .682 .741 V (AC -FT) .694 1.073 1.121 1.620 1.741 2.406 Duration (Minutes) 14.09 6.16 14.09 6.16 14.09 6.16 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP08) 8/G/20 0 Appendix D r� U 0 Educational Materials A-30 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS E • • Water Quality Management Plan EMPLOYEE EDUCATION LOG NAME NAME DATE WQMP (PRINTED) (SIGNATURE) MATERIALS PROVIDED (MO/DAY/YR) A-19 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS 0 • • Infiltration Trench TC -10 General Description An infiltration trench is a long, narrow, rock -filled trench with no outlet that receives stormwater runoff. Runoff is stored in the void space between the stones and infiltrates through the bottom and into the soil matrix. Infiltration trenches perform well for removal of fine sediment and associated pollutants. Pretreatment using buffer strips, swales, or detention basins is important for limiting amounts of coarse sediment entering the trench which can clog and render the trench ineffective. Inspection/ Maintenance Considerations Frequency of clogging is dependant on effectiveness of pretreatment, such as vegetated buffer strips, at removing sediments. See appropriate maintenance factsheets for associated pretreatment. If the trench clogs, it may be necessary to remove and replace all or part of the filter fabric and possibly the coarse aggregate. Clogged infiltration trenches with surface standing water can become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding. Maintenance efforts associated with infiltration trenches should include frequent inspections to ensure that water infiltrates into the subsurface completely at a recommended infiltration rate of 72 hours or less to prevent creating mosquito and other vector habitats. Most of the maintenance should be concentrated on the pretreatment practices, such as buffer strips and swales upstream of the trench to ensure that sediment does not reach the infiltration trench. Regular inspection should determine if the sediment removal structures require routine maintenance. Infiltration trenches should not be put into operation until the upstream tributary area is stabilized. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Maintenance Concerns, Objectives, and Goals ■ Accumulation of Metals ■ Clogged Soil Outlet Structures ■ Vegetation/Landscape Maintenance Targeted Constituents ✓ Sediment ■ ✓ Nutrients ■ ✓ Trash ■ ✓ Metals ■ ✓ Bacteria ■ ✓ Oil and Grease ■ ✓ Organics ■ Legend (Removal Effectiveness) o Low ■ High Medium S,Q.%. -� ;California n stormwater Quality Association I of • • TC -10 Infiltration Trench ■ Inspect after every major storm for the first few months to ensure proper functioning. After construction Drain times should be observed to confirm that designed drain times has been achieved. maintenance (as ■ Inspect facility for signs of wetness or damage to structures, signs of petroleum Semi-annual and hydrocarbon contamination, standing water, trash and debris, sediment accumulation, after extreme slope stability, standing water, and material buildup. events in Check for standing water or, if available, check obset- ation wells following 3 days of dry often as needed weather to ensure proper drain time. ■ Inspect pretreatment devices and diversion structures for damage, sediment buildup, and structural damage. Annual ■ Trenches with filter fabric should be inspected for sediment deposits by removing a small Annual section of the top layer. If inspection indicates that the trench is partially or completely clogged, it should be restored to its design condition. ■ Repair undercut and eroded areas at inflow and outflow structures. Standard maintenance (as ■ Remove sediment, debris, and oil/grease from pretreatment devices and overflow needed) structures. ■ Remove trash, debris, grass clippings, trees, and other large vegetation from the trench Semi-annual, more perimeter and dispose of properly. often as needed ■ Mow and trim vegetation to prevent establishment of woody vegetation, and for aesthetic and vector reasons. ■ Clean out sediment traps, forebays, inlet/outlet structures, overflow spillway, and Annual trenches if necessary. in Remove grass clippings, leaves, and accumulated sediment from the surface of the trench. Replace first layer of aggregate and filter fabric if clogging appears only to be at the surface. ■ Clean trench when loss of infiltrative capacity is observed. If drawdown time is observed to have increased significantly over the design drawdown time, removal of sediment may be necessary. This is an expensive maintenance activity and the need for it can be minimized through prevention of upstream erosion. ■ If bypass capability is available, it may be possible to regain the infiltration rate in the 5 -year maintenance short term by providing an extended dry period. ■ Seed or sod to restore ground cover. ■ Total rehabilitation of the trench should be conducted to maintain storage capacity within Upon failure 2/3 of the design treatment volume and 92 -hour exfiltration rate limit. ■ Trench walls should be excavated to expose clean soil. ■ All of the stone aggregate and filter fabric or media must be removed. Accumulated sediment should be stripped from the trench bottom. At this point the bottom may be scarified or tilled to help induce infiltration. New fabric and clean stone aggregate should be refilled. 2 of California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 Infiltration Trench TC -10 • Additional Information Infiltration practices have historically had a high rate of failure compared to other stormwater management practices. One study conducted in Prince George's County, Maryland (Galli, 1992), revealed that less than half of the infiltration trenches investigated (of about 50) were still functioning properly, and less than one-third still functioned properly after 5 years. Many of these practices, however, did not incorporate advanced pretreatment. By carefully selecting the location and improving the design features of infiltration practices, their performance should improve. It is absolutely critical that settleable particles and floatable organic materials be removed from runoff water before it enters the infiltration trench. The trench will clog and become nonfunctional if excessive particulate matter is allowed to enter the trench. Cold climate considerations — see http://www.cwp.org/cold-cliinates.htm References EPA, Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet - Infiltration Trench. EPA 832 -F -99-o19. September, 1999- Metropolitan 999 Metropolitan Council, Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices Manual. Available at: httl2://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/BMP/manual htm Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Infiltration Trench Factsheet. Available at: •http://www.deq.state.mi.usZdocuments/deq-swq-nps-it.12df Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection. Maintaining Urban Stormwater Facilities - A Guidebook for Common Ownership Communities. Available at: http://www.montgomerycoun t1 d gov/mc/services/dep/Stormwater/maintain htm • Stormwater Managers Resource Center, Manual Builder. Available at: http://www.stormwatercenter.net/intro manual htm Stormwater Managers Resource Center. On-line: http://www.stormwatercenter.net U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Illinois Urban Manual: A Technical Manual Designed for Urban Ecosystem Protection and Enhancement, 1995- U.S. 995 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Post -Construction Stormwater Management in New Development & Redevelopment BMP Factsheets. Available at: httl2://www.gfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/bmp files cfm Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures. July, 2002. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 3 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com • Vegetated Swale TC -30 General Description Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly convey runoff flow to downstream discharge points. They are designed to treat runoff through filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils. Swales can be natural or manmade. They trap particulate pollutants (suspended solids and trace metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters and storm sewer systems. Therefore, swales are best suited for residential, industrial, and commercial areas with low flow and smaller populations. Inspection/ Maintenance Considerations It is important to consider that a thick vegetative cover is needed for vegetated swales to function properly. Usually, swales require little more than normal landscape maintenance activities such as irrigation and mowing to maintain pollutant removal efficiency. 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. The application of fertilizes and pesticides should be minimized. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Maintenance Concerns, Objectives, and Goals ■ Channelization ■ Vegetation/Landscape Maintenance ■ Vector Control ■ Aesthetics ■ Hydraulic and Removal Efficacy Targeted Constituents ✓ Sediment J Nutrients • ✓ Trash • ✓ Metals J Bacteria • ✓ Oil and Grease J Organics Legend (Removal Effectiveness) • Low ■ High Medium 1 of -'�,, �Callfornia stormwater Quality Association 1 of tTC 30 Vegetated Swale • l 'f'm` g' ix �._, E:Li� Sw�:f ±'S.'�.�, a er-.��'✓rafaf- v:e?}-ti�T.. '�'9 3"�S'�. ac �.�„�.'l U aPC�PfI ■ Inspect after seeding and after first major storms for any damages. Post construction ■ inspect for signs of erosion, damage to vegetation, channelization of flow, debris and I Semi-annual litter, and areas of sediment accumulation. Perform inspections at the beginning and end 1 of the wet season Additional inspections after periods of heaNw runoff are desirable. r ■ Inspect level spreader for clogging, grass alongside slopes for erosion and formation of� Annual rills or gullies, and sand/soil bed for erosion problems. ■ Mow grass to maintain a height of 3-4 inches, for safety, aesthetic, or other purposes. As needed Litter should always be removed prior to mowing. Clippings should be composted. (frequent, seasonally) ■ Irrigate swale during dry season (April through October) or when necessary to maintain the vegetation. e Provide weed control, if necessary to control invasive species. r ■ Remove litter, branches, rocks blockages, and other debris and dispose of properly. Semi-annual ■ Maintain inlet flow spreader (if applicable). ■ Repair any damaged areas within a channel identified during inspections. Erosion rills or gullies should be corrected as needed. Bare areas should be replanted as necessary_ (as needed) ■ Declog the pea gravel diaphragm, if necessary.`!{jAnnual ■ Correct erosion problems in the sand/soil bed of dry swales. j • ■ Plant an alternative grass species if the original grass cover has not been successfully f established. Reseed and apply mulch to damaged areas. 111! ■ Remove all accumulated sediment that may obstruct flow through the swale. Sediment As needed accumulating near culverts and in channels should be removed when it builds up to 3 in. (infrequent) at any spot, or covers vegetation, or once it has accumulated to io% of the original design volume. Replace the grass areas damaged in the process. ■ Rototill or cultivate the surface of the sand/soil bed of dry swales if the Swale does not 4 draw down within 48 hours. t 2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com V • Vegetated Swale TC -30 Additional Information Recent research (Colwell et al., 2000) indicates that grass height and mowing frequency have little impact on pollutant removal. Consequently, mowing may only be necessary once or twice a year for safety or aesthetics or to suppress weeds and woody vegetation. References Council, Urban Small Sites Best Management Practices Manual. Available at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Post -Construction StormNvater Management in New Development & Redevelopment BMP Factsheets. Available at: cfpub.ena.zov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/bmp files.cfm Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program, Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures. July, 2002. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 3 Industrial and Commercial www.mbmphandbooks.com LOCAL SEWERING AGENCIES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY: City of Beaumont Belair Homeowners Association City of Banning City Of Blythe City of Coachella Coachella Valley Water District City of Corona Desert Center CSA #51 Eastern Municipal Water District Elsinore Valley MWD Farm Mutual Water Company Idyllwild Water District Jumps Community Services Dist, Lake Hemet MWD Lee Lake Water District March Air Force Base Mission Springs Water District City Of Palm Springs Rancho Caballero Rancho California Water Dist. Ripley, CSA #62 Rubidoux Community Services Dist. City of Riverside Silent Valley Club, Inc Valley Sanitary District Western Municipal Water District SPILL RESPONSE AGENCY 769-8520 277-1414 922-3130 922-6161 391-5008 398-2651 736-2259 227-3203 -,What you shouldkno}}wfor'"����yu" gyp. r` T CLEANING NNry¢p' kk VIE yN ACTIVITIES MON-STORMWpTER OtSCHAPIGES ,vo 244-4190.:. 659-2143' 665-7434 658-3241 277-1414 656-7000 329-6448 323-8242 780-9272 676-4101 922-4809 684-7580 782-5341 849-4501' ' 347-2356 780-4170 HAZ-MAT: (909)358-5055 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL: (909)358-5055 To REPORT ILLEGAL DUMPING OR A CLOGGED STORM DRAIN: 1-800-506-2555 Riverside County gratefully acknowledges the BayArea Barometer Management Agencies Association and the Cleaning Equipment Trade Association for information provided in this brochure p 5'TMf Non-stormwater discharges such as NOR= F& 552, washwafer generated NORfrom outdoor Al cleaning projects often transport harmful �r � 4. pollutants into storm drains and our local jw i waterways. Polluted runoff contaminates �� W local waterways and poses a threat to groundwater resources. 1 19 e the water should go;? Riverside County has two drainage systems - sanitary sewers and storm drains. The storm drain system is designed to prevent flooding by carrying excess rainwater away from streets... it's not designed to be a waste disposal system. Since the storm drain system does not provide for water treatment, it often serves the unintended function of transporting pollutants directly to our waterways. Unlike sanitary sewers, storm drains are not connected to a treatment plant - they Flow directly to our local streams, rivers and lakes. Soaps, degreasers, automotive fluids, litter, and a host of other materials washed off buildings, sidewalks, plazas, parking areas, vehicles, and equipment can all Pollute ourwatenvays. Since preventing pollution is much easier, and less costly than cleaning up "after the fact," the Cities and County of Riverside Storm WaterIClean Water Protection Program informs residents and businesses of pollution prevention activities such as those described m this pamphlet. The Cities and County of Riverside have adopted ordinances for stormwater management and discharge control. In accordance with state and federal law, these local stormwater ordinances prohibit the discharge of wastes into the storm drain system or local surface waters. Thisincludes non-starmwater discharges containing oil, grease, detergents, degreasers, trash, or other waste I materials. PLEASE NOTE: The discharge of pollutants into the street, gutters, storm drain System, or waterways - without a Regional Water Quality Control Board permit or waiver- is strictly prohibited by local ordinances and state and federal law. 1 • Do . . . Dispose of small amounts of washwater from cleaning building exteriors, sidewalks, or plazas onto landscaped or unpaved surfaces provided you have the owner's permission and the discharge will not cause flooding or nuisance problems, or flow into astern drain. Do NOT ... Discharge large amounts of these types of washwater onto landscaped areas or soil where water may run to a street or storm drain. Wastewater from exterior cleaning may be pumped to a sewer line with specific permission from the local sewering agency. Do ... Check with your local sewering agency's policies and requirements concerning waste water disposal. Water from many outdoor cleaning activities may be acceptable for disposal to the sewer system. See the list on the back of this fiver for phone numbers of the sewering agencies in yourarea. O NOT... Pour hazardous wastes or toxic materials into the storm drain or sewer system ... properly dispose of it instead. When in doubt, contact the local sewering agency) The agency will tell you what types of liquid wastes can be accepted. Do . . Understand that water (without soap) used to remove dust from clean vehicles may be discharged to a street or storm drain. Washwater from sidewalk, plaza, and building surface cleaning may go into a street or storm drain if ALL of the following conditions are met: 1) The surface being washed is free of residual oil stains, debris and similar pollutants by using dry cleanup methods (sweeping, and cleaning any oil or chemical spills with rags or other absorbent materials before using water). 2) Washing is done with water only -no soap or other cleaning materials. 3) You have not used the water to remove paint from surfaces during cleaning. DO NOT... Dispose of water containing soap or any other type of cleaning agent into a storm drain or water body. This is a direct violation of stale and/or local regulations. Because wastewater from cleaning parking areas or roadways normally contains metallic brake pad dust, oil and other automotive fluids, it should never be discharged to a street, gutter, or storm drain. Do . . . Understand that mobile auto debaters should divert washwater to landscaped or dirt areas. Note: Be aware that soapy washwater may adversely affect landscaping; consult with the property owner. Residual washwater may remain on paved surfaces to evaporate, sweep up any remaining residue. If there is sufficientwatervolume to reach the storm drain, collect the runoff and obtain permission to pump it into the sanitarysewer. Follow local sewering agency's requirements for disposal. DO NOT ... Dispose of left over cleaning agents into the gutter, storm drain or sanitary sewer. Regarding Cleaning Agents: If you must use soap, use biodegradable/phosphate free cleaners. Avoid use of petroleum based cleaning products. Although the use of nontoxic cleaning products is strongly encouraged, do understand that these products can still degrade water quality and, therefore, the discharge of these products into the street, gutters, storm drain system, or waterways is prohibited by local ordinances and the State Water Code. Note: When cleaning surfaces with a high pressure washer or steam cleaning methods, additional precautions should be taken to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system, These two methods of surface cleaning, as compared to the use of a low pressure hose, can remove additional materials that can contaminate local waterways. OTHER Tips , TCF HELPf'i p"OTECT @JF R WATER... SCREENING WASH WATER A thorough dry cleanup before washing (without soap) surfaces such as building exteriors and decks without loose paint, sidewalks, or plaza areas, should be sufficient to protect storm drains. Howeverif any debris (solids) could enter storm drains or remain in the gutter or street after cleaning, washwater should first passthrough a "20 mesh" or Pmer screen to catch the solid material, which should then be disposed of In the trash. DRAIN INLET PROTECTION/ CONTAINING & COLLECTING WASH WATER * Sandbags can be used to create a barrieraround storm drain inlets. * Plugs or rubber mats can be used to temporarily seal storm drain openings. * You can also use vacuum booms, containment pads, or temporary berms to keep wash water away from the street, gutter, or storm drain. EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES Special materials such as absorbents, storm drain plugs and seals, small sump pumps, and vacuum booms are available from many vendors. For more information check catalogs such as New Pig (800- 468-4647), Lab Safety Supply (800-356-0783), C&H (800-558-9966), and W.W. Grainger (800-994-9174); or call the Cleaning Equipment Trade Association (800-441-0111) or the Power Washers of North America (800-393-PWNA). s when precipitation aws over the ground. drveways, sidewalks. .water from ms..chemicals. d,¢, and other tartn sewer system or directly to J, or coastal waterAnythingthat r is discharged untreated into swimming.. taming, and providing Polluted stormwater runoff can have many adverse effects on plants, fish, animals, and people. c ..*',�T k,t4' • Sediment can cloud the water yfEy r rFy' moi. - and make it difficult impossible for aquatic plants to grow Sediment also can destroy aquatic habitats. • Excess numents can cause algae blooms. When algae die, they sink to the bottom and decompose in a process that removes oxygen from Y �t� the water Fish and other aquatic organisms can't exist in water with low dissolved oxygen levels. { r -m • Bacteria and other pathogens can wash into swimming areas and create health�" hazards, often making beach closures{Z necessary SarvT, • Debre—plastic bags, six-pack rings, bottles, and cigarette butts—washed into waterbodies can choke, suffocate, or disable aquatic life like ducks, fish, turtles, and birds. • Household harardous wastes like insecticides, pesticides, paint, solvents, used motor oil, and other auto fluids can poison aquatic lift. land animals and people can become sick or die from eating diseased fish and shellfish or ingesting polluted water • Pollutedsformwateroften affects dnnkmg water sources. This, in tum, can affect human health and increase drinking water treatment casts PfUC& 02 ptaprrcty'- Cvpme of 4,adelw& coda% 6,17 ro last aedwfA, dscayc w od<c*nudrs, irdwa r/fe, paurt 3041wad, and raid inoia2 ad Ruts' oY" ast> &a. Dm rpotw i4so, GiZe tlw, yaawrd ez utu 4111 dastard. Lawn Cure Excess feruhzersr� k! and pesncdes pgg n applied to lawns,.`"9 and gardens ash r i off and pollute. E streams In Vr,{cy 1,.3 addition yard as..s EWrul clippings and leaves can wash into storm drains and contribute Piurients and organic matter to streams. • Don't overcasts, your lawn Consider using a soaker hose instead of a sprinkler • Use pesticides and fertilizers sparingly When use is necessary, use these chemicals in the recommended amounts. Use organic mulch or safer pest control methods whenever .possible. • Compost or mulch yard waste. Don't leave It m the street or sweep it into storm drains Or streams. • Cover piles of out or mulch being used in landscaping projects. Auto care Washing your car and degreasing auto parts at home ot can send detergents and other a; contaminants through the t stone sewer system. Dumping ^"` automotive (lords into storm drains has the same reek, as .... dumping the materials directly into a saterbody. • Use a commercial car wash that treats or recycles its wastewater, or wash your can on your yard so the water infiltrates into the ground. • Repair leaks and dispose of used auto Fluids and battenes at designated drop-off or recycling locations. Septic t ' systems ' b Leaking and poorly septic etl p septic systems release nutrients and pathogens fmctena and viruses) thai can be picked up by struccator and discharged into nearby wi terbodies Pathogens can cause public health problems and environmental concerns. • Inspect your system every 3 years anti pump your tank as necessary fevery 3 to 5 yiooch • DonR dispose of household hazardous waste in sinks or toilets- spills from harming Ll Pet waste Pet waste can be I a a major source of T! f bacteria and Eh'savo, a sucto sortgug Proprcr D'a( vuse Sip, gird awxext dxv"isff t t at' oneiprP io;drP l'G' M raiewy llm d✓o<z r✓ci &-, cnevol rt, 's,aw aa brae watubedj, ke ihirckap bc;A,^itt7iq Permeable Pavement Traditional concrete and asphalt dont allow water co sock in,. the gr.and . instead these surfaces rely on storm drams to divert nt unwaed water Permeable Pavemere systems allow ran and enewerelt ro took through. decreasing stormwater runoff. Rain Barrels You Co. collect rainwater from rooftops in mesquite - proof containers, The water can be need later on lawn or garden areas. vuvi excess nunien s _ S n local waters Rain Gardens and �! ','- Grass} Srudes Specially 5 • When .]king-- --- designed areas planted your pet, with native plants can provide natural places for to pick up the rememberwaste n".� 7},y waste and dispose of it properly. Flushing pet dworktto the --n'.9-' and soak into the ,p'y" 'aa'i n t estrund. Rain from waste is the best disposal M n"r Ir.,�nimom, areas or paved P ° be dtvened method. Leaving pet waste on the ground increases intax ran ��+, n<rk inte these areas rather public health asks by.,.ra-c,'tr than nun scone drams. allowing harmful bacteria and nutrients to wash into Vegetated Filter Strips—Filter snips are areas of the storm dram and native grass or plants created along roadways or eventually Into local streams. They trap the pollutants stormwater waterbodies picks up ase Flowaacross cinvein ys and snorts. Erosion controls that aren't maintained can cause excessive amounts of sediment and darns to be carried Into the stormwater system. -Construction vehicles can leak fuel, oil, and other harmful fluids that can be picked up by stormwater and deposited into local waterbodies. • Divert stormwater away from disturbed or exposed areas of the construction site. • Install silt fences, vehicle mud removal areas, vegetative cover, and other sediment and erosion controls and properly mountain them, especially after rainstorms. • Prevent soil erosion by minimizing disturbed areas during construction projects and seed and mulch bare areas as soon as possible on streambanks can lead to erosion Overgrazed pastures can also de amounts of sediment toiocal waterbodies. Excess fertilizers and ;. Son aquatic animals and lead to desumcove algae blooms Livestock to inmate waterways with bacteria; making them unsafe for human contact E Keep lwestock'away from streambanks and provide _. them a water source away from waterbodies. #Store and apply manure away from waterbodies and in :accordance vntfianutnent management plan. - • Uege[a[e riparian areas along-waierways q° • Rotate animal grazing to prevent soil erosion in fields • Apply fertdizers and pesnades accordmgta label m- Inswcnons no save money and rrcumme pollution Or :firiproperly managed jogging operations can result m erosion and 'sedurentetion�` r• Conduct preForvest planning to prevent erosion and lower costs Use logging methods and equipment that minimize soil disturbance- '• Plan mb design skid trails yard areas, and truck access roads to minimize stream crossings and avoid disturbing the forest floor • Construct stream crossings so that they minimize erosion and physics changes to streams • Expedite revegelation of cleared areas. and properly • Properly maintain Fleet vehicles to prevent oil 'grz and other discharges from being Iwashed into local waielbooies. ±.Install and maintain of crater separators. Water Quality Management Plan 0 Appendix E n U 0 Soils Report A-32 WQMP — RANCI-10 COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION RANCHO COMMUNITY REFORMED CHURCH — PHASES 3 AND 4 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, California for Rancho Community (Reformed) Church July 5, 2007 Rancho Community (Reformed) Church 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, California 92592 ' .I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ® GEOTECHNICAL A Califomia Cmgorakon Attention: Mr. Gary Barry Project Manager Project No.: 07G168-1 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Rancho Community Reformed Church — Phases 3 and 4 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation and _.l liquefaction evaluation at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. - .We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Q I Robert G. Trazo, M. c. GE 2655 Seni r Engineer Mitchell, GE 2364 al E in, I er Distr (10) Addressee 22885 East Savi Ranch Parkway - Suite E - Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4624 voice: (714) 685-1115 � fax: (714) 685-1118 - www.socalgeo.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Conditions 4 3.2 Proposed Development 4 3.3 Previous Studies 5 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 7 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 7 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 7 4.3 Geologic Conditions 8 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 9 • 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 _ 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 11 ( 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 15 - 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 16 6.4 Construction Considerations 20 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 21 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 23 6.7 Trash Enclosure Design Parameters 23 6.8 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 24 6.9 Pavement Design Parameters 26 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 29 8.0 REFERENCES 30 APPENDICES A Plate 1: Site Location Map E UBCSEIS and FRISKSP Output Plate 2: Boring Location Plan F Liquefaction Analysis Spreadsheets Plate 3: Site Geologic Map Plate 4: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Map B Boring Logs •C Laboratory Test Results D Grading Guide Specifications w._ SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 —Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07G168-1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Site Preparation • A moderate amount of demolition is expected. The existing pavements and associated improvements should be properly demolished and disposed of off-site in accordance with all I applicable federal, state and local regulations. In addition, the isolated stockpiles of various debris should also be properly disposed of off-site. • Initial site preparation should include stripping of any surficial vegetation. At the time of the subsurface exploration, portions of the site were covered by sparse native grass and weed growth. • The subject site is underlain by variable strength potentially collapsible alluvium, fill soils and possible fill soils, extending to depths of up to 21/2 to 6± feet throughout the site. • The overexcavation is recommended to extend to a depth of at least 6 feet below existing grade and to a depth of 6 feet below proposed building pad grades. The overexcavation Jshould also extend to a depth of at least 4 feet below all new footings. • Following evaluation of the subgrade by the geotechnical engineer, the exposed subgrade • soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted. The resulting soils may be replaced as compacted structural fill. The most feasible means of construction for the new bleachers at the site is to support the new foundation elements of the bleachers on native alluvial soils with a reduced soil bearing pressure. Evaluation of the exposed soils at foundation bearing grade by the geotechnical engineer will be critical. Additional excavation to expose competent soils may be necessary due to variations in soil conditions. i A drilled pier foundation system is considered to be the most feasible means of supporting the structural loads of the proposed light poles. Geotechnical design parameters for the drilled pier foundation will be provided in a separate report following review of the design loads of the proposed light poles. Liquefaction • Our site-specific liquefaction evaluation indicates that some of the on-site soils are subject to liquefaction during the design seismic event. • The liquefaction analysis indicates total settlements of up to 0.7 to 2.8± inches at the two 50 -foot -deep boring locations. The liquefaction -induced differential settlements within the building areas are expected to be on the order of 0.5 to 2.1± inches. Assuming that these settlements occur across a distance of 100± feet, an angular distortion of less than 0.002± inches per inch would result. • Standard practice dictates that the proposed buildings can be supported on shallow foundation systems, with the understanding that some cosmetic distress could occur due to liquefaction. Such distress will be typical of buildings of this type, in this area, in the event of a large earthquake. • - �, o-- SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church —5 CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 -Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07G168-1 ® Page 1 Building Foundations • Conventional shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. • 2,500 lbs/ft2 maximum allowable soil bearing pressure for the proposed buildings. • 1,500 lbs/ft2 maximum allowable soil bearing pressure for the proposed lightly loaded bleachers. • Reinforcement consisting of at least six (6) No. 5 rebars (3 top and 3 bottom) in strip footings due to the presence of potentially liquefiable soils at this site. Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. Building Floor Slabs • Conventional Slab -on -Grade, 5 inches thick. • Reinforcement consisting of at least No. 4 bars at 16 inches on center, in both directions, to resist the potential liquefaction -induced differential settlements. • Consideration should be given to structurally connecting the floor slabs to the perimeter foundations. • The actual floor slab reinforcement to be determined by the structural engineer. Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. Pavements ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Lanes Light Truck Traffic Medium Truck Traffic Drive Lanes (TI = 4.0) (TI = 5.0) (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0) Asphalt Concrete 3 3 31/2 4 Aggregate Base 3 4 51/2 7 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Autos Parking and Light Truck Traffic Medium Truck Traffic Drive Lanes (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0) (TI = 5.0) PCC 5 51/2 61/2 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 95% minimum corn action SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church NMY CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07GI68-1 9 '• 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 07P230, dated May 31, 2007. The scope of services included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, held and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot .pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. Based on the location of the subject site, this investigation also included a site-specific liquefaction evaluation. The evaluation of the environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California vGEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07 Page 3 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Conditions The subject site is located on the north side of Highway 79, between Jedadiah Smith Road and Margarita Road in the city of Temecula, county of Riverside, California. The site is bordered to the north by existing single family residences, to the west by undeveloped vacant property, to the south by Highway 79, and to the east by the existing buildings of the Rancho Community Reformed Church. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 in Appendix A of this report. The site is a roughly rectangular shaped parcel, 33.85± acres in size. The subject site is located within the existing Rancho Community Reformed Church facility. Most of the site is developed with asphaltic concrete pavements that are used as automobile parking areas. Isolated portions of the site are currently undeveloped with ground surface consisting of exposed soil with negligible to sparse vegetation. Stockpiles of construction debris including concrete soil and asphalt were observed in isolated areas of the site. Preliminary topographic information was obtained from the conceptual grading plan prepared by Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc. (TEC). This plan indicates that site topography generally dips downward to the southwest. Site grades range from a maximum of EI. 1040± feet MSL northeastern portion of the site to a minimum of EI. 1024± feet MSL at the southwestern portion of the site. The topography slopes relatively uniformly from northeast to southwest. 3.2 Proposed Development A conceptual grading plan for the proposed development was obtained from Temecula Engineering Consultants (TEC). This plan indicates that the proposed development will consist of a new youth activity center, identified as Building K, and a new chapel, identified as Building H. It is our understanding that the new activity center will be constructed in two phases, identified as Phases 3A and 36, and will be a total of 81,710± ft2 in size, and two stories in height. The new chapel is also identified as Phase 4 and will be 5,540± ft2 in size. These buildings will be located in the eastern portion of the site. . Detailed structural information is not currently available. It is assumed that the new youth activity center will be a masonry block or tilt -up concrete structure, typically supported on conventional shallow foundations and concrete slab -on -grade floors. Maximum column and wall loads for this structure are assumed to be on the order of 80 kips and 3 to 4 kips per liner foot, respectively. The single story chapel building is assumed to be a wood -frame structure, with maximum column and wall loads on the order of 30 to 40 kips and 1 to 2 kips per linear foot, respectively. tl SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 07GI68-1 Page 4 Other improvements associated with the proposed development consist of a large asphaltic concrete paved parking area, to be located west of the new buildings. The development will also include a lighted football/soccer field, a lighted baseball field, a volleyball court, and a tennis court to be located in the western and central portions of the subject site. Structural improvements associated with these athletic facilities are expected to be relatively minor, consisting only of lighted towers and lightly loaded bleachers. All proposed finish elevations are not included in the conceptual grading plan, however it is anticipated that cuts and fills of 2 to 4± feet will be required within the proposed building areas, to achieve the proposed pad elevations. Similar cuts and fills are expected to be necessary in the proposed athletic fields, parking and drive areas. 3.3 Previous Studies Fault Location Study As part of the preliminary project information, we were provided with a copy of a previous fault investigation performed for the subject site. This report is identified as follows: Fault Location Confirmation Investigation Portions of Lots 3 through 10 of Tract 15211 City of Temecula Riverside County, California, prepared by Petra Geotechnical for Rancho Community Church, dated April 13, 2001, Job No. 15401. This report presents the results of an investigation performed by Petra Geotechnical to confirm the location of a fault within portions of Lots 3 through 10 of Tract 15211. This portion of Tract 15211 (which is the portion of the Rancho Community Church property currently being investigated by SCG) is crossed by an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone associated with a splay of the Wildomar Fault, which is a part of the Elsinore Fault Zone. The location of this fault was projected across Tract 15211 (Kennedy, 1977). The purpose of this investigation was to verify the location of the fault and to have the fault location surveyed in order to accurately establish any setback zone requirements. As part of their study, Petra excavated two (2) fault trenches totaling 250± linear feet, extending to depths of 6 to 15 feet below previously existing grades. The Wildomar Fault was identified at both trench locations. Petra determined that the fault strikes north 37 degrees to 45 degrees west and dips 65 degrees to 75 degrees northeast. Petra identifies the fault trace as being located approximately 20 feet northeast of the location previously identified by Pioneer Consultants in 1979. Petra indicates that the Wildomar Fault offsets Holocene age alluvium and is therefore considered to be active. Petra recommends that a setback zone be defined, extending 50 feet from either side of the fault trace. Based on recent conversations with TEC, this 100 -foot -wide setback zone was included in the conceptual grading pian and also illustrated on Plate 2 — Boring Location Plan. The Petra report also provides seismic design parameters for the Tract 15211 site. %077 ��6��4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 076168-1 Page 5 • Additional considerations related to the Petra fault study are presented in Section 6.1 of the SCG report. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation We were also provided with a copy of a previous geotechnical study performed for Tentative Tract 15211, which encompasses the entire Rancho Community Church site. This report is identified as follows: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Church and Classroom Development, Tentative Tract 15211, State Highway 79 Temecula California, prepared by Earth Technics for Temecula Engineering Consultants, dated June 27, 1999, Project No. 99221-01. This report identified subsurface conditions on the subject site that are generally similar to those encountered by SCG. Of the borings performed by Earth Technics, one extended to a depth of 40 feet and one extended to a depth of 50 feet. Neither boring encountered free water. In addition, Earth Technics conducted research to verify the historic high groundwater table in the vicinity of the subject site. The nearest well is reported to be approximately 35 feet north of the site and has a historic high water level of Artesian flow at the ground surface as late lune 1969 (Department of Water Resources, 1971). Earth Technics indicates that since that time, the Lower Mesa Subbasin has been operated by Rancho Water and the referenced well has been operated as Well No. 217. According to the 1984 Master Water Plan, and current information (Rancho Water, 1999), the level of water within this well has never been higher than 99.6 feet below the ground surface. As of June 26, 1999, the water level within this well was measured at 162 feet below the existing ground surface. Earth Technics indicates that Rancho Water reported that the basin in this area will continue to operate in an overdraft condition and that water levels will never approach the historic elevations, due to lack of recharge. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 07G168-1 Page 6 i 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of fifteen (15) borings advanced to depths of 5 to 50± feet below currently existing site grades. The 50± -foot -deep borings were performed as part of the liquefaction evaluation. All of the borings were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The borings were advanced with hollow -stem augers, by a truck -mounted drilling rig. Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed in- situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were • placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions Pavements Borings B-1, B-4, and B-8 were drilled through the existing pavements. At the boring locations, these pavements consist of 2 inches of asphaltic concrete with no significant layer of underlying aggregate base. Artificial Fill Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface, at boring locations B-6 and B-15. These fill sols extend to depths of 2lh to 3± feet below existing grade and generally consist of dense to hard silts and sandy silts. Additional materials identified as possible fill were noted at boring locations B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-11. These possible fill soils extend to depths of 31/2 to 5± feet below existing grade. These fill soils generally consist of loose to dense sandy silts and silty fine sands. These possible fill soils possess some indicators of fill such as a mottled and possibly • disturbed appearance but also resemble the underlying native soils. •e: _, SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 0? page 7 Alluvium The native soils encountered at this site consist of alluvial silts, sands and silty sands, with occasional clay content, The alluvial soils extending from beneath the ground surface to depths of 10 to 20t feet generally consist of loose to dense silty fine sands and fine sandy silts with trace to some clay content. Beneath these materials, the borings generally encountered silty sands, sandy silts, and clayey sands with occasional zones of clayey silts extending to depths of at least 50t feet. Groundwater Very moist to wet soils were encountered during the drilling of Borings B-1 and B-2 (the two 50 - foot deep borings) at depths of 14 to 23t feet. Delayed readings taken within these two borings measured water at depths of 14 to 23t feet. Based on the measured water levels, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth of 14 to 23t feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Our research of available groundwater data indicates that the historic groundwater table was previously present at a depth of approximately 9 to 18t feet below the ground surface. This data includes water wells identified as 08S02W18R0015 and 08S02W20BO03S, located 0.1±mile south-southwest and 0.6tmiles southeast of the site, respectively. 4.3 Geologic Conditions Geologic research indicates that the site is underlain by older alluvium (Map Symbol Qoa) throughout the western area of the subject site and active alluvial fan deposits (Map Symbol Qa) in the eastern area of the subject site. A portion of Wildomar Fault traverses the subject site in an northwest -southeast direction. The primary available reference applicable to the subject site is Geologic Map of the Pechanga Quadrangle, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California by Michael P. Kennedy, 2000. A portion of this map indicating the location of the subject site is included herein as Plate 3 in Appendix A. Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, it is our opinion the site is underlain by active alluvial flood plain deposits consisting of silty fine sands and fine sandy silts. Underlying the active flood plain deposits, older alluvium soils were encountered consisting of silty fine sands, fine sandy silts, and silty clays. The mapped geologic conditions are presented in Plate 3 on Appendix A of this report. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 07G168-1 Page 8 • 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. The field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report. In-situ Density and Moisture Content The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry •weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs. Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one -inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-10 in Appendix C of this report. Soluble Sulfates Representative samples of the near -surface soils have been submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are not yet available. These test results, along with recommendations for any appropriate sulfate resistant concrete mix designs will be presented in an addendum report. Grain Size Analvsis SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07 page 9 Limited grain size analyses have been performed on several selected samples, in accordance • with ASTM D-1140. These samples were washed over a #200 sieve to determine the SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07 page 9 • percentage of fine-grained material in each sample, which is defined as the material which passes the #200 sieve. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs. • Expansion Index The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18-2. The testing apparatus is designed to accept a 4 -inch diameter, 1 -in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded to 50t 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24-hour period. The results of the EI testing are as follows: Sample Identification B-3 @ 0 to 5 feet B-6 @ 0 to 5 feet Expansion Index 25 0 Exoansive Potential Low Very Low SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4—Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. OPage 8 age10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. The completion of a site-specific seismic hazards analysis was beyond the scope of this investigation. However, numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, •significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. • Faulting and Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. These zones are defined by the State of California, and are situated around active or potentially active zones of known or suspected faults. In the case of the subject site, the suspected fault is a splay of the Wildomar Fault within the Elsinore Fault Zone. The subject site is located within the fault zone and in close proximity to the indicated location of the fault. A copy of a portion of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map is presented in Plate 4 in Appendix A of this report. As previously stated, a splay of the Wildomar Fault was located by Petra Geotechnical traversing the subject site. A portion of the Wildomar Fault was identified on the subject site and a 100 ft active fault zone was established on the subject site. This 100 -foot -wide fault hazard/building setback zone was delineated by Petra Geotchnical, incorporated by TEC into the base map provided to our office, and illustrated on Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. Please note that the splay identified by Petra Geotechnical generally corresponds with the splay identified on the previously described Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07G168-1 Page 11 • Seismic Design Parameters The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and/or the California Building Code (CBC). The UBC and CBC provide procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structures including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. The 1997 UBC and 2001 CBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by UBCSEIS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: • Nearest Type A Fault: • Nearest Type B Fault: • Soil Profile Type: • Seismic Zone Factor (Z) • Seismic Coefficient (Ca): • Seismic Coefficient (C,): • Near -Source Factor (Na) • Near -Source Factor (Nv) Elsinore -Julian (14.8 km) Elsinore -Temecula (1.3 km) Sp 0.40 0.57 1.02 1.3 1.6 The design procedures presented by the UBC and CBC are intended to protect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of more conservative seismic design parameters would provide increased safety and a lower potential for cosmetic damage and economic loss during a large seismic event. Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must determine what level of risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in the design of the proposed structures. Ground Motion Parameters As part of the liquefaction analysis performed for this study, we have generated a site specific peak ground acceleration, as required by CDMG Special Publication 117. This probablistic analysis was performed using FRISKSP v4.00, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (2000). FRISKSP estimates probablistic seismic hazards using three-dimensional faults as earthquake sources. The program uses a seismotectonic source model, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), to estimate seismic hazards at the subject site. The program originated from the original FRISK program (McGuire, 1978) published by the United States Geological Survey. FRISKSP generates site specific ground motion data based on generalized soil conditions (soil or bedrock), site location relative to nearby faults, accepted • attenuation relationships, and other assumptions made by the geotechnical engineer. The SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church " CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07G168-1 Page 12 • attenuation relationships used by FRISKSP include one standard deviation measure of uncertainty. The ground motions are also weighted to a standard 7.5 magnitude earthquake. This weighting is due to the fact.that earthquakes of lower magnitudes result in fewer cycles of strong ground motion than those of higher magnitudes. The magnitude weighting relationship used by our analysis is described by Idriss (1997) as presented in the proceedings of the NCEER Workshop (Youd and Idriss, 1996). The peak ground acceleration at the site was determined using an appropriate attenuation relationship (Sadigh, et al.,1997) using parameters for a "deep soil" site, which is considered appropriate for the subject site. Appendix E of this report contains the peak acceleration results, in graphical form. The graphical output consists of four plots: a probability of exceedence plot for 25, 50, 75 and 100 year return periods; and an average return period vs. peak acceleration plot, for both magnitude weighted (M = 7.5) and unweighted analyses. The UBC requires that the selected return period should have at least a 10 percent chance of exceedence in 50 years, which is equal to a 475 -year return period. Based on the plots included in Appendix E, this would be 0.588 for the subject site, weighted to a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Appendix E also contains the tabulated results of the FRISKSP analysis. Liquefaction Review of recently published information, now available on the Riverside County Land Information J System, indicates that the subject site is located within a zone of very high liquefaction susceptibility. .Therefore, the scope of this investigation included a detailed liquefaction evaluation in order to determine the site-specific liquefaction potential. Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore - water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, j initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (dso) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The liquefaction analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Special Publication 117 (CDMG, 1997), and currently accepted practice (SCEC, 1997). The liquefaction potential of the subject site was evaluated using the empirical method originally developed by Seed, at al. (Seed and Idriss 1971). This method predicts the earthquake -induced liquefaction potential of the site based on a given design earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration at the subject site. This procedure essentially compares the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) [the cyclic stress ratio required to induce liquefaction for a cohesionless soil stratum at a given depth] with the earthquake -induced cyclic stress ratio (CSR) at that depth from a specified • design earthquake (defined by a peak ground surface acceleration and an associated earthquake SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California ® GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 076168-1 ® Page 13 • moment magnitude). The current version of a generally accepted baseline chart (Youd and Idriss, 1997) is used to determine CRR as a function of the corrected SPT N -value (N1)60. The factor of safety against liquefaction is defined as CRR/CSR. Guidelines to determine the appropriate factor of safety against liquefaction have been presented as Table 7.1 of the SCEC publication, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California." This table is reproduced below: FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT Consequence of Liquefaction WIJ6o (clean sand) Factor of Safetv 1 Settlement <=15 1.1 J >=30 1.0 Surface Manifestations <=15 1.2 >=30 1.0 Lateral Spread <=15 1.3 >=30 1.0 The liquefaction analysis procedure is tabulated on the spreadsheet forms included in Appendix F of this report. The liquefaction analysis was performed for borings B-1 and B-2, which were advanced to depths of 50t feet. The liquefaction potential of the site was analyzed utilizing a • maximum peak site acceleration of 0.58g for a magnitude 7.5 seismic event. The liquefaction was performed using a groundwater depth of 9 feet. As noted in a previous section of this report, the historic high groundwater table in this area is -' estimated at 9t feet. This groundwater level is considered to be appropriately conservative based on the observed conditions and with respect to current and proposed site uses. Research j of available resources was performed in order to determine historic groundwater levels at or near the site. Our research of available groundwater data indicates that the historic groundwater table is present at a depth of approximately 9 to 18f feet below the ground surface. This data includes water wells identified as 08S02W18R0015 and 08S02W20BO03S, located 0.1tmile south-southwest and 0.6tmiles southeast of the site, respectively. Based on the water level measurements, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth of 14 to 23t feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. J Conclusions and Recommendations The results of the liquefaction analysis have identified potentially liquefiable soils at both of the 50 -foot -deep boring locations. The liquefiable strata are located from 9t to 12t feet in boring B- 1 and between 9t to 27t at B-2. Soils which are located above the historic groundwater table (2 feet), or possess factors of safety in excess of 1.1 are considered non -liquefiable. Settlement analyses were conducted for each of the potentially liquefiable strata. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church KU W CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 —Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07GI68-1 Page 14 j . Based on the settlement analyses (also tabulated on the spreadsheets in Appendix F) total dynamic (liquefaction induced) settlements of 0.7 to 2.8± inches could be expected at this site. The associated differential settlement would therefore be on the order of 0.5 to 2.1± inches. The estimated differential settlement could be assumed to occur across a distance of 100± feet, indicating an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch. This settlement is considered to be within the structural tolerances of typical buildings supported on a shallow foundation system. However, it should be noted that minor to moderate repairs, including repair of damaged drywall and stucco, etc., could be required after the occurrence of liquefaction -induced settlements. The use of a shallow foundation system, as described in this report, is typical for buildings of this type, where they are underlain by the extent of liquefiable soils encountered at this site. The post -liquefaction damage that could occur within the buildings proposed for this site will also be typical of similar buildings in the vicinity of this project. However, if the owner determines that this level of potential damage is not acceptable, other geotechnical and structural options are available, including the use of ground improvement, deep foundations or a mat foundation. 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations General l •The subject site is generally underlain by variable strength and potentially collapsible alluvial and possible fill soils extending to depths of 21/2 to 6± feet. Based on their variable strengths and variable unfavorable collapse characteristics, they are not considered suitable for support of the proposed structures. Furthermore, based on the liquefaction potential of the on-site soils, it is recommended that a new layer of structural fill be placed beneath the foundations and floor slabs of the new structures, to provide additional rigidity and thereby reduce the potential for excessive differential seismic settlement. Based on these considerations, it is recommended that remedial grading be performed within the new building areas in order to provide a subgrade suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structures. The new bleacher structures will require new foundation elements. The proposed foundations may be supported on existing soils provided that they are evaluated by the geotechnical engineer during construction and designed using a reduced soil bearing pressure. Based on the encountered conditions, the most feasible means of supporting the new light poles is considered to be the use of a drilled pier foundation system. Recommendations for a drilled pier system shall be provided in a separate report once design loads are provided. Settlement I The results of the consolidation/collapse testing indicate that the near surface alluvial and possible fill soils possess a moderate potential for collapse when exposed to moisture infiltration, and a moderate potential for consolidation when exposed to load increases in the range of those • that will be exerted by the foundations of the proposed structures. Following completion of the SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 0 pe -1 ag15 • recommended grading, the post -construction settlements that could occur due to the near - surface soils are expected to be within the structural tolerances of the proposed buildings As discussed in a previous section of this report, several strata of potentially liquefiable soils were identified at this site. The presence of the recommended layer of newly placed compacted structural fill above these liquefiable soils will help to reduce any surface manifestations that could occur as a result of liquefaction. The foundation and floor slab design recommendations presented in the subsequent sections of this report also contain recommendations to provide additional rigidity in order to reduce the potential effects of differential settlement that could occur as a result of liquefaction. Expansion Laboratory testing performed on representative samples of the near surface soils indicates that these materials are non -expansive to low expansive (ET's = 0 and 25). The foundation and floor slab design recommendations contained within this report are made in consideration of the expansion index test results. It is recommended that additional expansion index testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the expansion potential of the as -graded J building pads. i Gradino and Foundation Plan Review .As discussed previously, detailed foundation plans and grading plans were not available at the time of this report. It is therefore recommended that we be provided with copies of the plans, when they become available, for review with regard to the conclusions, recommendations, and assumptions contained within this report. _1 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below. Site Striooino and Demolition Initial site preparation should include stripping of the existing vegetation which is presently comprised of negligible to sparse grass and weed growth as well as any vegetation which may develop prior to grading. This vegetation should be disposed of off-site. The actual extent of stripping should be determined in the field by a representative of the geotechnical engineer, based on the organic content and the stability of the encountered materials. Demolition of the a portion of the existing pavements and surrounding improvements will be required at the site. In addition to these pavements, there may be some unseen, utilities, and • other structures that should be demolished prior to construction. All remnants of pavements and SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church C.AIIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California 0 a GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 0 Ple -1 9 • debris resultant from demolition activities should be properly disposed of off-site. Concrete and asphalt debris may be reused within compacted fills, provided they are pulverized and have a maximum particle size of less than 2 inches. It is not expected that portions of the existing pavements will be reutilized with the new development. Therefore, the contractor should take all necessary precautions during demolition activities to prevent damage to the existing pavements that will remain. Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pads Remedial grading should be performed within the building areas in order to remove the existing variable strength potentially collapsible surficial alluvium and possible fill soils. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, these materials extend to depths of 3 to 6t feet. In order to provide a relatively uniform support condition for the new structures, it is also recommended that the existing soils within the proposed building areas be overexcavated to a depth of 6 feet below existing grade and to a depth of 6 feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevation. The depth of overexcavation should also be sufficient to provide at least 4 feet of newly placed compacted structural fill below the bearing grade of all foundations. _ The overexcavation areas should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill below the new foundations. If the proposed structures incorporate any exterior columns (such as for a canopy or overhang) the overexcavations should also encompass these areas. Following completion of the overexcavation, the subgrade soils within the building areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill j subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structures. This evaluation should include probing and proofrolling to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if dry, loose, j porous, low density or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of the overexcavation. Based on conditions encountered at the exploratory boring locations, occasional zones of moist to very moist soils may be encountered at or near the base of the recommended overexcavation. Where these soils are exposed at the overexcavation subgrade level, some subgrade stabilization may be required. Scarification and air drying of these materials is expected to be sufficient to obtain a stable subgrade. However, if highly unstable soils are identified, and if the construction schedule does not allow for delays associated with drying, mechanical stabilization will be necessary. In this event, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. Typically, an unstable subgrade can be stabilized using a suitable geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 5OOX or 600X, and/or an 18 -inch thick layer of coarse (2 to 4 inch particle size) crushed stone. After a suitable overexcavation subgrade has been achieved, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture treated to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as • compacted structural fill. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 —Temecula, California 1 IV GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07G168-1 Page • Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill as discussed above for the proposed building pads. Any existing undocumented fill soils should also be removed from the foundation areas of the new retaining walls. The subgrade soils within any areas of non -retaining site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below proposed foundation bearing grade. The overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning, and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. Treatment of Existing Soils: Parking and Drive Areas I Based on economic considerations, overexcavation of the existing soils in the new parking areas is not considered warranted, with the exception of areas where lower strength, or unstable soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading. 1 Subgrade preparation in the new parking and drive areas should initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and demolition operations. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12t inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at feast 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Based on the presence of variable strength alluvial and possible rill soils throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas of additional overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils. The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed parking and drive areas assume that the owner and/or developer can tolerate minor amounts of settlement within the proposed parking areas. The grading recommendations presented above do not completely mitigate the extent of collapsible soils or artificial fill soils in the parking areas. As such, settlement and associated pavement distress could occur. Typically, repair of such distressed areas involves significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils at the time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such settlements, the parking and drive areas should be graded in a manner similar to that described for the building areas. Treatment of Existing Soils: Bleachers After completion of demolition, the subgrade soils within the new bleachers should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation should include proof rolling and probing to identify any soft, loose, or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials or loose, porous, or low density native soils are encountered. Some additional overexcavation may be required due to disturbance during demolition. \' \Z/ • SOUTHERN CALIFOGRNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 076168-1 Page 18 • The exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The moisture conditioning and recompaction of subgrade soils should be verified by the geotechnical engineer. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. Treatment of Existing Soils: Light Poles As previously discussed, it appears that the most economical method of support for the new light poles will be to extend the foundation elements down to the denser alluvial materials. Remedial grading is therefore not considered necessary in the areas of the new light poles. Fill Placement • Fill soils should be placed in thin (6t inches), near -horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted. • On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. • All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the 1997 UBC/2001 CBC and the grading code of the City of Temecula and/or the County of Riverside. _ All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. .I Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. Imported Structural Fill L -A All imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. Utility Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place (jetting or flooding is not recommended). Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the city of Temecula and/or the County of Riverside. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. - -� SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California- �� GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07G168-1 Page 19 • Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h:1v plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches. 6.4 Construction Considerations Excavation Considerations The near surface soils generally consist of sands, sandy silts, and silty sands. These materials may be subject to caving within shallow excavations. Where caving occurs within shallow excavations, flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to provide excavation stability. The contractor should take all necessary precautions during grading and foundation construction to prevent damage to the existing pavements that will remain. On a preliminary basis, temporary excavation slopes should be made no steeper than 2h:ly. Deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. Maintaining adequate moisture content within the near -surface soils will improve excavation stability. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal -OSHA regulations. Moisture Sensitive Subgrade Soils Most of the near surface soils possess occasional silt and clay content and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils will also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations. Depending upon the prevailing weather during grading, unstable subgrade soils may be encountered in some areas at the base of the overexcavation within the proposed building areas. The extent of unstable subgrade soils will to a large degree depend on methods used by the contractor to avoid adding additional moisture to these soils or disturbing soils which already possess high moisture contents. If grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather, an increase in subgrade instability should also be expected. If unstable soils are encountered during grading, it may be desirable to utilize only tracked vehicles. The use of rubber -tired equipment could result in significant pumping and further deterioration of the subgrade soils. Groundwater The static groundwater table is considered to exist currently at depths of 14 to 23t feet below currently existing site grades. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed grading or excavations performed for foundation or shallow utility construction. As stated previously, it should be noted that the depth to the historic high groundwater table at this site is estimated at 9f feet. "`" SOUTHERN e� CALIFORNIA � GEOTECHNICdL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 07G168-1 Page 20 • 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pads will be underlain by structural fill soils. The new structural fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 4 feet below foundation bearing grades. Based on this subsurface profile, and based on the design considerations presented in Section 6.1 of this report, the proposed structures may be supported on shallow foundations. Building Foundation Design Parameters New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows: Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure (Buildings): 2,500 lbs/ftz. i Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure (Bleachers): 1,500 lbs/ft'. • Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches: i • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Six (6) No. 5 rebars (3 top and 3 bottom), due to the liquefaction potential of the encountered soils. i • Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at • least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. • It is recommended that the perimeter building foundations be continuous across all exterior doorways. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer. The allowable bearing pressures presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on standard geotechnical practice, given the magnitude of predicted liquefaction -induced settlements, and the structure types proposed for this site. Additional rigidity may be necessary for structural considerations, or to resist the effects of the liquefaction -induced differential settlements discussed in Section 6.1. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer. Foundation Construction The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Within the new building areas, soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, • lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. K SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California ® GEOTECHNIC.AL Project No. 076168-1 Page 21 • The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundation subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post -construction total and differential settlements of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively, under static conditions. Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30 -foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch. These settlements are in addition to the liquefaction -induced settlements previously discussed in Section 5.1 of this report. Lateral Load Resistance - Buildings Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slab and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: • Passive Earth Pressure: 300 lbs/ft3 • Friction Coefficient: 0.30 These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable compacted structural fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2,500 lbs/ftz. Lateral Load Resistance - Bleachers Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slab and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: • Passive Earth Pressure: 250 lbs/ft3 • Friction Coefficient: 0.25 These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable competent native alluvial soils. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 1,500 lbs/ft2. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church 770,57 CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 —Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07G168-1 age2 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, and based on the design considerations presented in Section 6.1 of this report, the floors of the proposed structures may be constructed as conventional slabs -on -grade supported on newly placed structural fill, extending to a depth of at least 6 feet below finished pad grade. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be designed as follows: • Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches. • Minimum slab reinforcement: Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 4 bars at 16 inches on -center, in both directions, due to the liquefaction potential of the encountered _! soils. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, based on the imposed loading. i i • Consideration should be given to structurally connecting the floor slab to the perimeter foundations. The method of connection should be determined by the. structural engineer. • Slab underlayment: 10 mil vapor barrier overlain by 2 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and the 2 inch layer of sand may be eliminated. • Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. The moisture content of the floor slab subgrade soils should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 24 hours prior to concrete placement. • Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. The actual design of the floor slabs should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. The steel reinforcement recommendations presented above are based on standard geotechnical practice, given the magnitude of predicted liquefaction -induced settlements, and the structure types proposed for this site. Additional rigidity may be necessary for structural considerations, or to resist the effects of the liquefaction - induced differential settlements discussed in Section 6.1. 6.7 Trash Enclosure Design Parameters Although not indicated on the site plan provided to our office, the proposed development may include one or more trash enclosures. It is expected that the trash enclosures as well as the approach slabs will be subjected to relatively heavy wheel loads imposed by trash removal equipment. ®MOVRMA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 07G168-1 Page 23 The subgrade soils in the area of the trash enclosures and the approach slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations for the parking areas, presented in Section 6.3 of this report. As such, it is expected that the trash enclosures will be underlain by structural fill soils, extending to a depth of 1 foot below proposed subgrade elevation. Based on geotechnical considerations, the following recommendations are provided for the design of the trash enclosures and the trash enclosure approach slabs: • The trash enclosure may consist of a 6 -inch thick concrete slab incorporating a perimeter footing or a turned down edge, extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below adjacent finished grade. If the trash enclosure will incorporate rigid walls such as masonry block or tilt -up concrete, the perimeter foundations should be designed in accordance with the recommendations previously presented in Section 6.5 of this report. • Reinforcement within the trash enclosure slab should consist of at least No. 3 bars at 18 -inches on -center, in both directions. • The trash enclosure approach slab should be constructed of Portland cement concrete, at least 6 inches in thickness. Reinforcement within the approach slab should consist of at least No. 3 bars at 18 -inches on -center, in both directions. • The trash enclosure and approach slab subgrades should be moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches. The trash enclosure slab and the approach slab should be structurally connected, to reduce the potential for differential movement between the two slabs. • The actual design of the trash enclosure and the trash enclosure approach slab should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. 6.8 Retaining Wall Design and Construction i Although not indicated on the site plan, some small retaining walls (less than 5 feet in height) may be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below. Retaining Wall Design Parameters Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters for two different types of wail backfill: on-site granular soils and imported select granular material. The on-site soils include sands, silty sands and sandy silts. Based on their composition, the granular on-site soils have been assigned a friction angle of 30 degrees. In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire active 0 �. SOUTHERN `"�'� CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California Project No. 07G168-1 Page 24 • failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the heel of the retaining wall footing upwards at an angle of approximately 600. RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil -footing coefficient of friction of 0.30 and an equivalent passive pressure of 300 Ibs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design of the retaining walls. •The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect. The at -rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect -I such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly. Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Retaining Wall Foundation Design The retaining wall foundations should be supported within newly placed compacted structural fill, extending to a depth of at least 3 feet below the proposed bearing grade. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. Backfill Material It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free -draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should extend from the top of the retaining wall footing to within 1 foot of the ground surface on the back side of the retaining wall. This material should be approved by the • geotechnical engineer. If the layer of free -draining material is not covered by an impermeable SOUTEERN Proposed Rancho Community Church NOW CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and A — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07Pe Gg8 s Soil TYPe Imported Aggregate Base Sands and Silty Sands Design Parameter Internal Friction Angle (u) 380 300 Unit Weight 130 lbs/ft' 125 lbs/ft' Active Condition evel backfill 30 lbs/ft3 42 lbs/ft' Active Condition 2h:1v backfill 44 lbs/ft3 67 lbs/ft' Equivalent Fluid Pressure: At -Rest Condition (level backfill 50 lbs/ft3 63 lbs/ft' Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil -footing coefficient of friction of 0.30 and an equivalent passive pressure of 300 Ibs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design of the retaining walls. •The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect. The at -rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect -I such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly. Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Retaining Wall Foundation Design The retaining wall foundations should be supported within newly placed compacted structural fill, extending to a depth of at least 3 feet below the proposed bearing grade. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. Backfill Material It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free -draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should extend from the top of the retaining wall footing to within 1 foot of the ground surface on the back side of the retaining wall. This material should be approved by the • geotechnical engineer. If the layer of free -draining material is not covered by an impermeable SOUTEERN Proposed Rancho Community Church NOW CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and A — Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 07Pe Gg8 s • surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12 -inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. The layer of free draining granular material should be separated from the backfill soils by a suitable geotextile, approved by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557 91). Care should be taken to avoid over -compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided. Subsurface Drainage As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either: yA weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4 -inch diameter holes - in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8 -foot on -center spacing. The weep holes should include a 2 cubic foot pocket of open graded gravel, surrounded by an approved geotextile fabric, at each weep hole location. • A 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing. The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. 6.9 Pavement Design Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20 -year pavement service life. Pavement Sub rades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on recompacted existing fill j and native alluvial soils that consist of sands, silty sands and sandy silts. These existing soils are considered to possess fair to good pavement support characteristics, with estimated R -values of 40 to 50. Since R -value testing was not included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is based upon an assumed R -value of 40. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It may be desirable to SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 —Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. D GI68 6 perform R -value testing after the completion of rough grading to verify the R -value of the as - graded parking subgrade. If the subgrade soils possess higher R -values, a thinner pavement section could be utilized. Asphaltic Concrete Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI's) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI's are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the expected traffic volume will exceed the applicable traffic index, we should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20 year design life, assuming six operational traffic days per week. Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Da 4.0 0 5.0 1 6.0 3 7.0 11 For the purpose of the traffic volumes indicated above, a truck is defined as a 5 -axle tractor trailer unit with one 8 -kip axle and two 32 -kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1,000 automobiles per day. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Materials Thickness (inches) Auto Parking (TI = 4.0) Auto Drive Lanes (TI = 5.0) Light Truck Traffic (TI = 6.0) Medium Truck Traffic (TI = 7.0) Asphalt Concrete 3 3 31/2 4 Aggregate Base 3 4 51/2 7 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R -Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Rancho Community Church Phases 3 and 4 - Temecula, California Project No. 07G168-1 Page 27 I l i J Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Autos Parking and Light Truck Traffic Medium Truck Traffic Drive Lanes (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0) (TI = 5.0) PCC 5 51/2 61/2 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 (95% minimum compaction) The concrete should have a 28 -day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) placed at mid -height in the slab. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4—Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. 076168-1 Page 28 0 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The client(s)' reliance upon this report is subject to the Engineering Services Agreement, ! incorporated into our proposal for this project. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations -, and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. • This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to ' our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 — Temecula, California ,WNW GEOTECHNICAL Project No.07G168-1 Page 29 8.0 REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, Version 4.00, 2000. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117, 1997. National Research Council (NRC), "Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes," Committee on Earthquake Engineering, National Research Council, Washington D. C., Report No. CETS-EE-001, 1985. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential using field Performance Data," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1971, pp. 1249-1273. Sadigh, K., Chang, C. —Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi. F., Youngs, R. R., "Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data'; Seismological Research } •Letters, Seismological Society of America, Volume 68, Number 1, January/ February 1997, pp. 180-189. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California," Committee formed 1997. Tokimatsu K., and Seed, H. B., "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American society of Civil Engineers, Volume 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 861-878. Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., "Empirical Correlations of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT N -value and Fines Content /' Seismological Research Letters, Eastern Section Seismological Society Of America, Volume 63, Number 1, p. 73. Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M. (Editors), "Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," Salt Lake City, UT, January 5-6 1996, NCEER Technical Report 1\iCEER-97-0022, Buffalo; NY. SOUTHERN Proposed Rancho Community Church CALIFORNIA Phases 3 and 4 - Temecula, California GEOTECHNICAL Project No. OPaga 0 f AM^ ur a V Pv/.G V1A 9 4,5. S `9`P✓✓ ¢a.. S sird-dy aS elf y 9B9 PQ /y < ¢ S .'� ]°6W Ali RIpW),q // �p / o` 'o \) P p1� A�r Q Po� ❑ �i P k3 �Iy.^. �,n .Esne l dito.4y�[/Y F / Jp' P4� 'P!❑y Iyl dll` \ qq o r2VASILPInGµrRHx, x bVl`�' 9 )/lP } Zl 'rr U R e' sEs " 3P600 $I y �. °'Rtl dT2 112 "I9 �c'Garui y ]R9d N�°�.. 1 �� Vut�%` We aw' i ems AF /'u'Y �r 1(� FS yA Y��/ a/ a "ai k./ �JOSNE0.W VAh �\ �� e talc / "`'h`4�`� 5� �t y`�fl; ml'• o w W P`P i •w �b.Sw��"`ss� A xanos vAV \f��Y ��^Z✓' BA�:q S�S k �i�y-I.L r a� iFH`Cu CPfFK evv lu of �� P J 4 L 1� c� } � � ga d OF Pi v6�� CO 'Y 1 0 1 aP rlp rp P %3 I 3 �8 �, �'v / RE wk /y ♦ A ((YLF UB �. � tv 1nN - mms v m � vs � 6 n" • a l-`'� t ` $ �„` � ., � �. es'.n i m°° °`err es volt vee 4kr� n� Wi e MOx P r� `4 Tl ,R� s/ ` � i • N. . S % c " J 0 � m RHIRE EpHf)oil s�vwan�F—/:i,' -- ,�� 24�� OL ,rr� f/N • TO,r a x oR Ai voR ��y o we i I \ l v - PA PA v 6IROS1L1-, \4% SWrA W1A64RITA � � X30 - zSERlano � d`��� •O�/ YRld�r 's"mra EGOtLGICAL� �' � 03 4���� �v�rxEc s• _�� RESERVE' \- � -- 3 36 ,3 3 31 - 32 v 'SANG _— SITE LOCATION MAP RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH PHASES 3 & 4 • TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA r1 SOURCE RIVERSIDE OUN7 1--2400' THOMAS GUIDE, SOUTHERN DRAWN: CHKD'. GKM KM CALIFORNIA 7TPoiNTA SCG PROJECT --' _... _ G 076168-1 GEOTECHNICAL PLATE t - i � 1 - -, 104]_ - i - •I. � - � ,' �- �� /� �♦ � 3W.E6 �� � 477- C-7 - L -0\ 0 15 \\\ \ GEMhR -.PROPOSED.,{3 , y a GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY TEMECULA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS - NOTE: FAULT HAZARD ZONE INFORMATION PER PETRA GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATION PLAN PROPOSED RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA SCALE: _ DRAWN: SOUTHERN DRAWW N:: DRK .. _ CHKD: RGT �- 1 - SCG PROJECT CALIFORNIA � _. ___. __.... 07G168-1 GEOTECHNICAL PLATE 2 - ' -----— / ✓ `3 LA, 'r < +' d __ 1 - \,'coo QV •:.: "� �l DESC RIYTInN OF AIAP UNITS MODERN SURFICI AL DF -1 OSI LS - Sedmxnt Inco hu been recently uanslw Ned �\ aa0 dep)sirad in enannelsand uashra cna surfaces of alluvial fans avd allwivl < ie5 �,� plains, and on hilisiepes and in anibcial fills. Soil -profile devdopmrm is Nov. ... ta t. Includes: Aelive channel and wash deposits Jae lieloeece t - Unoaselida'ed m bludly plot!' aa,casolidated l nd aad gravel deposits in active uvshex of streans. Anivo alluvial ll,: Nair dcp nits dale Holocene) - Utx'ansolldnzd to local!;: poorly uncwsoUdated sami and 9ra.-0 drpnsiis in a.Vle allmial fllW platin. YOU? G SURPICIAL DEPOSITS Sedimeaary units Nat are lholvh meso! tend to cemented and slighth IO nx•deralelp dissected. Alluvial Ian depevis typically have PoJr cens.'fina dui radns. l'aun9er sunbial units haat upper surtaces tivt se capped by ' 9ipin to modemtel^ developed do,,niaaoll profiles. Includes'. Young alluvial tla i plain daF+sits (Rolocale and la@ Pkislmcnet . Nlestly poorly con-wlidated, poor,, sated- permeable Ileod plain deposals. Young eollimal deposes i Rolocarc and late Plxistceno- NIc61y pll ly C.Wf dmxd aM poorly sertod slope y: ash .ard steam dai o,uS. Young alluvial tan tltposisis tl olecene and late Pleistocene 1- MoWy poorly cowltibited mrd rary poorlyswed sand, pravel.mhhle and bould,,cef csits in young alluvial inti. OLD SU RFIC IAL DEPOSITS- Sedations that Ste modem iely eon,hdaled and sit 91,11' to mNerme ly c1mccled. Dlder mut icial deposits nme uply r surfaces Nan are carw by mudemte to a'albdvelopcd P'dog ..... soils. Includes' Older allu,lvl hied Nziu d -NS S (pleWoeene, yvuugtr than 5159.000 ymrgi - Alertly moderately well casolidated. pvrly sand, permeable Md plain dipostits. r, SOURCE 'EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES,COi is PECHANGA QUADRANGLE' 1990 �% SITE GEOLOGIC MAP RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH PHASES 3 & 4 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA i PD\I U THE _ .-.--—111—L•1—\.� CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL DRAWN: ORK CHKO: ROT SCG PROJECT 07G168-1 PLATE 3 ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT MAP' G RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH PHASES 3 & 4 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA • SOURCE :'EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES , SOUTHERN PECHANGA QUADRANGLE', 1990 �% DRAWN: DRK - -/_-- -. °"" RGT CALIFORNIA SCG PROJECT 07Gi68-1 GEOTECHNICAL PLATE BORING LOG LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Distance in feet below the ground surface. SYMBOL Sample Type as depicted above. AUGER 1 Number of blow required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 Ib SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. hammer with a 30 -inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) (DISTURBED) ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A CORE DIAMOND -TIPPED CORE BARREL TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK. GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page. SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED GRAB \�� f OR THE the dry weight. GROEQUIUNG UR ACESUCH(DSTTUUR ED)OCKPILE The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. PLASTIC LIMIT: CALIFORNIA SAMPLER 2-112 INCH LD. SPLIT CS BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1 -INCH HIGH BRASS The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) NO RECOVER: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT NSR O RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4 SPT INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL. DRIVEN 1E INCHES VOTH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) SHEBLY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE SH 7 TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) (y��,1�� VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGH OBTAINED VANE USING AdBLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY W USED IN SOFT CLAYS -NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface. SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above. BLOW COUNT Number of blow required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 Ib hammer with a 30 -inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer. GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page. DRY DENSITY; Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample. MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content Of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage Of the dry weight. LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic, PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve. UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. E SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS I TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS -1 GRAPH I LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN ' WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - GRAVEL GRAVELS 4'• GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO AND S .� FINES GRAVELLY � u SOILS �o POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, LITTLE OR NO FINES ( ) � o D o D GP GRAVEL --SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE O C) oO n n. OR NO FINES COARSE �a 0 GRAINED GRAVELS WITH GM slLTvcRAVELs,cRAVEL-sAND- SOILS MORE/ - FINES Q SILT MIXTURES COARSE o FRACTION r � RETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVE LE (APPRAMOUNT CIAPINES) GC CLAYEY LS,GRAVEL-SAND- CLAY MIXTURES CLEAN SANDS W WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY MORE THAN 5090 SAND `S SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND LARGER THAN SANDY NO. 200 SIEVE SOILS ORLY-GRADED SANDS, SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SPVELLY SAND, LfTTLE OR NO ESSANDS WITH EIFX Y SANDS, SAND -SILT MORE THAN 50% FINES `SMTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO, 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE S C CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE M L SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINEAND LIQUID LIMIT AND CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY GRAINED LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, SOILS LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50°i5 OF MATERIAL INORGANICILTS, MICACEOUS OR SMALLER THAN N M H FINE SAND OR NO. 200 SIEVESIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CH LAYS OF HIGH CLAYSGREATERTHAN 50 OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS — — — PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMIBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN IFOR1 A ® GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-1 OB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH: 23 feet PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 25 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS c0 ° — S a DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL LABORATORY RESULTS Z W z 0 o F LL a W a z o U p z a w ULL o� r Z W }ri �c od o �� W ~nZ Uo :5o U of uFir a� 5� :]::J a:1 e �� W Z_ �o a � au o LLt Z tY �w zx D0 2± inches Asphaltic concrete underlain by no discernible 37 Aggregate base 122 10 ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown to Dark Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace coarse Sand, trace fine root fibers, medium dense -damp 32 7 Disturbed Sample 5 29 @ 5 to 6 feet, trace Iran oxide staining, trace calcareous 108 5 veining Gray fine Sand, trace Sill, medium dense -dry 24 108 2 17 105 13 Dark Gray to Gray Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, trace Silt, medium dense -damp to moist 10 Light Gray Brown to Light Brown fine to medium Sand, medium dense -damp to moist 25 13 16 15 29 6 7 20 Orange Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, trace thin fine Sandy Clay layers, dense -wet 31 @ 23 feet, Water encountered during drilling 12 8 25 Dark Gray Clayey Silt, some fine Sand, very stiff -wet 22 1.0 33 53 30 Dark Gray Clayey Silt, some fine Sand, hardwet 35 4.0 21 60 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -1a c CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN O ® GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-1 OB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH. 23 feet PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 25 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY. Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS A - a v DESCRIPTION z �� LL j O w w W U Z w Z i Z Uu T dNZ ��` N~ �w a �� 00 0 3� �� o o m m a (Continued) o a :50 o_ � a u Za 0 ° Dark Gray Clayey Silt, some fine Sara, hard -wet - ' Gray Brown Clayey fine Sand, very dense-vret 90 20 46 40 Gray Brown Cfine Sandy Silt, little Clay, hard -very moist to 60 2.5 21 50 45 Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay, dense -wet 59 16 51 Boring Terminated at 50' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -1b SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL GEOTECHNICAL B NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE. 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH: 14 feet PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 27 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS C7 ° U M a O DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: -- MSL LABORATORY RESULTS o u H W U_ _ Q_ w ¢ F O V O C Z w °- w Ow oN z p� yu_ �0- oa w- ~ �w inZ 00 �c1 �H 0� �.� N N� 5� a� w > zN �o aN au z F- Z, OOW z= D ALLUVIUM. Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, H10 medium dense -damp 109 10 21 @ 3 to 43 feet, trace to little Clay 107 8 5 _ 17 Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace fine Sand, medium dense -damp 8 Disturbed Sample 35 99 6 15 97 14 Light Gray fine Sand, medium stiff -moist 10 Brown fine Sand, trace medium Sand, little to some Silt, medium dense -moist to wet 6 27 26 @ 14 feet, Water encountered during drilling 15 0 22 31 20 Brown fine to medium Sand, medium dense -wet 21 21 6 25 Brown fine to coarse Sand, dense -wet 32 15 7 30 31 13 8 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -2a "1 J l I 1 CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-2 OB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH: 14 feet PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 27 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Comple@on FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS w W D a ° DESCRIPTION v}~ w Zoo LL w O U U z Ju �Z U Oru Z— ,I Z z W a oW Q_ a ?� �w oo 0 5 zx o o N m Q_ c� (Continued) o d � o .� � 0— M � m v Brown fine to coarse Sand, dense -wet Light Brown to Gray fine to coarse Sand, little Clay, very dense -wet 0/11' 17 24 40 Brown to Gray coarse Sand, little Silt, trace fine Gravel, very dense -moist 77 12 22 45 76/9" 17 17 -513 Boring Terminated at 50' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B -2b SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-3 OB NO- 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 12 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS o LABORATORY RESULTS Z z o o W a DESCRIPTION �� zo z o z uJ U �W Z W Z W oLL �- v~i r- v�o O¢ W oa 2° g du �m N M 0- SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL POSSIBLE FILL: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silly fine Sand, little Clay, trace medium Sand, loose -damp to moist g 12 EI=25@oto 5' ALLUVIUM_ Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense -moist 11 5 Brown to Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, 12 abundant Mica, medium dense -moist to very moist 22 17 24 10 1s 10 Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-3 SOUTHERN 1 CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-4 JOB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 17 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS ° a LD DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL LABORATORY RESULTS z W o v LL a W o W a rn o U O m H Dr` oN a� z W oLL �L) D a oc �W 0~ o0 :5 5r 0� � � U co 3� a � �> ZW No a� a ac z� Z' UOw z= z vi ._ 2t inches Asphaltic concrete underlain by no discernible 22 Aggregate base 105 16 POSSIBLE FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense -moist POSSIBLE FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, 14 loose -moist 107 13 5 17 ALLUVIUM: Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay, trace Iron oxide staining, medium dense -damp to moist 113 10 20 101 4 Light Brown to Gray fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense -damp 26 104 3 10 Dark Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay, loose -moist g 18 15 l f Brown Silt, trace Clay, soft -wet 0 0.5 27 Boring Terminated at 20' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B4 r '14 I ®® SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SGEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-5 JOB NO.'. 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Aucer CAVE DEPTH: 15 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS 0 U = d DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL LABORATORY RESULTS z o v w v_ a o J d < r- O U o m z a W Y.. U� c- r m Z W �� �� oa o w� �Z MW N~ oo :5 L) OF- a� =i U 0H 3� a� O W Z— No a" as ❑ z� ��. Z� OQ z= �u POSSIBLE FILL: Dark Gray Brown Clayey Silt, soft -moist to _ a 1.25 very moist 93 27 19 ALLUVIUM: Dark Gray fine Sandy Silt, medium dense -damp to moist 105 14 5 - I 16 96 17 - - Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, abundant Mica, medium dense -moist 20 2.75 119 14 - Black to Dark Brown Clayey fine Sand, trace Silt, medium dense -moist 13 116 15 Brown Clayey fine Sand, trace Silt, abundant Iron oxide staining, trace calcareous veining, moderately porous, 10 loose -moist Light Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, dense -damp 44 6 15 Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silty fine Sand, dense -moist 28 14 Boring Terminated at 20' TFST RnRWG 1 OG PLATE B-5 I SOUTBERN CALIFORNIA ® GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-6 7G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/11/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 17 feet Temecula, California LOGGED BY. Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion ULTS U = DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL LABORATORY RESULTS Z o v VJECR Z a W o� a� Z W 1� Q_ W� KZ DW Vi oo �U �H a� =j U I_ 5� a > CJW Z WZYLLli N <N o Uw z= n FILL: Light Gray Brown Silt, trace fine Sand, hard -damp 26 5 EI=O@Oto 5' ALLUVIUM: Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, loose to medium 3 dense -damp to moist 4 5 8 26 10 1.25 25 Dark Brown Silty Clay, trace fine to medium Sand,. stiff -moist 10 Dark Brown Clayey Silt, trace fine Sand, abundant Mica, stiff -very moist to wet 14 2.0 22 15 9 1.0 38 Boring Terminated at 20' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-6 I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-7 OB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/12/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 14 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN. At Completion FIELD RESULTS x DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL LABORATORY z w a0- o d RESULTS w 2 C, v w o m o O m a w 6- w� �W v~iz oo o o fir- a� 71 � u~iF 5� a � �v zW <no a� a qc z� 0< z= ZD 0 Dark Brown to Black fine Sandy Sill, medium dense -dry to 23 damp 106 12 17 Gray Brown to Light Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, medium dense -damp 18 Disturbed Sample 6 25 103 6 29 108 6 14 2.0 94 22 � Dark Brown Silty Clay, stiff -moist 10 Brown fine Sandy Clay, stiff -moist 17 3.0 16 Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-7 SOUTHERN 1CALIFORNIA GECTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-8 8 DRILLING DATE. 6112107 WATER DEPTH: Dry OffB117GICI�011 PRPhases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 13 feet LOecula, California LOGGED BY. Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIS DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL LABORATORY RESULTS o � z �a ❑ w: Z o0 �v 0�5� U c- �� W_ a -�z LL"wN �= 2± inches Asphaltic concrete underlain by no discernible 16 Aggregate base 15 ALLUVIUM Dark Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense -moist 14 Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense -damp g 5 15 4 13 9 10 Light Brown fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense -damp 24 7 Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-8 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-9 OB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/12/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hallow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH. 14 feet LOCATION: Temecula, Cafifornia LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN. At Completion FIELD RESULTS O LABORATORY RESULTS F z z r o e o W D 0- DESCRIPTION 0 wI_ w Zm LL. w O U w U z w �Z Hw U (D zv) LL~ z� Z w = a O 2 o_ Oy ri �Z O OF - rnr 'o L) W ¢ 0 0LL ON �0 00 0� g� <� zx O 0 0 at Q_ SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL Ud :30 = a:5 ALLUVIUM: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, medium dense -damp to moist 29 12 Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense -damp 23 6 5 Brown fine to medium Sand, medium dense -dry to damp 23 1 3 Dark Brown Clayey Silt, trace fine Sand, medium stiff to 8 2.25 stiff -moist to very moist 21 10 9 1.0 25 15 22 Boring Terminated at 15' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-9 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-10 OfiO7 DRILLING DATE: 6/12/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PRhases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 3.5 feet LOcula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: Al Completion FIES �o LABORATORY RESULTS DESCRIPTION w�> z�V z w=W ZU (7 w z— u_ .� zff Z a �L_ oz �F- v~iF �o UUw o� oc oo a� 5� a� zx o u o a 10 m a SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL oa 2 DN v ALLUVIUM. Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, medium dense -damp to moist 13 t45 7 Boring Terminated at 5' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-10 s SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ® GEOTECHN CAL BORING NO. B-11 FOB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/12107 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and q DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 8 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN. At Completion FIELD RESULTS a 0 DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL LABORATORY RESULTS z W o v Ju o W a 0 U ° m YLL 00 M z W �� �0 a s �� �Z v~iZ 00 2 0 �� 0� :1 1i U r~nNo 5 a :1 �� Zw a� a u F- o0 Z O¢ zM ern 6 31 21 2q 29 15 POSSIBLE FILL: Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silty fine Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium dense -damp 106 101 101 103 97 5 q 5 10 16 ALLUVIUM. Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace root mat material, medium dense -damp Liaht Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, medium dense -damp Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense -moist Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay, loose to medium dense -moist Boring Terminated at 10' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-11 i i 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-12 JOB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE:- 6/12/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 8 feet LOCATION. Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS C7 LABORATORY RESULTS f F Z Y o a DESCRIPTION Z z� z_ Tmlil T�tA� _ Za o o=0mSURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL �cn v ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, medium dense -damp 17 4 Light Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, medium 20 dense -damp 3 5 Gray Brown fine Sand, trace medium Sand, medium 17 dense -damp 6 22 {jl 3 Borinq Terminated at 10' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-12 I J l 1 1 i J i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-13 OB NO.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/12/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD. Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 8 feet LOCATION. Temecula, California LOGGED BY: Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS 0 ¢a rL SURFACE ELEVATION: — MSL LABORATORY RESULTS w O L) w v✓ Q_ W 0 W ¢ N O O m aDESCRIPTION F ULL 00 6-t v~—i w �LL tr0 0a w� Z Nz 00 20 0� U g� n W ZW _ No ¢0 au zN U Z� U z= 0 ,ALLUVIUM: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, 19 medium dense -damp 96 6 1g Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silty fine Sand, medium dense -damp 106 6 5 25 104 4 Licht Brown to Gray fine Sand, trace Silt, medium dense -damp 16 100 3 Ligh[ Brown Silt, trace fine Sand, medium dense -moist 16 105 18 Boring Terminated at 10' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-13 c SOUTHERN 1 CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-14 JOB NC.: 07G168 DRILLING DATE. 6/12/07 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: RCC Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 9 feet LOCATION: Temecula, California LOGGED BY Tim Smith READING TAKEN-. At Completion FIELD RESULTSJ 0 DESCRIPTION LABORATORY RESULTS F- z z a Y a � ❑ .-. LL o Z �� z z ud F a �YLL a oLL N� �F v~iF zW �o Z O< W a ° o� �� o0 0� 5� aR zT o o cn m ate' C SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL oa Hca �� a� au mcn v ALLUVIUM: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silty fine Sand, trace root material, loose to medium dense -damp to moist 20 11 g 11 5 Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense -damp 21 6 19 5 Boring Terminated at 10' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-14 SOUTHERN 7! 075CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL BORING NO. B-15 OB NO. 07G168 DRILLING DATE: 6/12/07 WATER DEPTH. Dry C Phases 3 and 4 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 9 feet meculaCalifornia LOGGED BY. Tim Smith READING TAKEN: At Completion TS 0e LA80RATORz VLOCATION. ° DESCRIPTION Zof ?��ww UZW o> Zm OOW� �o 00 0� g� o a� z= o te. L7 SURFACE ELEVATION: -- MSL ma :5 FILL. Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, dense -damp 35 9 ALLUVIUM: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, medium dense -damp 13 7 5 -4 Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt to Silty fine Sand, medium 23 dense -damp 4 Light Brown to Gray fine Sand, trace Silt, medium dense -dry to 19 damp 2 19 , IL Boring Terminated at 10' TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-15 100 Classification: ALLUVIUM: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) Depth (ft) 1 to 2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 11 15 108.5 125.5 3.03 CC Phases 3 and 4 SOUTHERN emecula, California CALIFORNIA -- Project No. 07G168 GEOTECHNICAL PLATE C- 1 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results o I I i t I z Water Added at 1600 P _. 4 .� 6 c8 N ( O 10 A V O 12 U <: 14 18 44I -. r 20- 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 8 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 20 Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.0 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 120.1 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 2.53 CC Phases 3 and 4 emecula, California Project No. 07G168 PLATE C- 2 SOUTHERN m�_ _CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL _ rJ t AL l J ' Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0 2 Water Added at 1600 psf -. a I e 6 10 c 12 0 14 _I 16 I I 18 j 20 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: Dark Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 6 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 24 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 98.9 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 109.5 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.54 CC Phases 3 and 4 emecula, California Project No. 07G168 PLATE C- 3 1 �... SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL -,-.3„hwnu'� M,:.,� Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 2 Water Added at 1600 psf I 4 -- 6 C 8 C 0 10 a O 12 c 0 14 16 18 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: POSSIBLE FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine Sand Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 16 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 23 Depth (ft) 1 to 2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.6 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 115.9 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1.32 CC Phases 3 and 4 emecula, California Project No. 07G168 PLATE C- 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA -_- — ---- GEOTECHNICAL 100 Classification: POSSIBLE FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) ' Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) i I i 14 20 105.8 116.0 0.41 AL"CCPhases 3 alifand 4 SOUTHERN emecula, CorniaN�WK_ CALIFORNIA Project No. 07G168GEOTECHNICAL PLATE C- 5 �— ---,,.���,,v,n:,�:,5; �� J Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 2 Waier Added at 1600 psf + 4 y n c o c 12 0 14 L. 16 18 7 .. 20 0.1 1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: ALLUVIUM: Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 11 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 16 Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 113.3 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 123.3 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.44 RCC Phases 3 and 4 emecula, California Project No. 07G168 PLATE C- 6 SOUTHERN " ` CALIFORNIA — — - GEOTECHNICAL �__--- 100 Classification: Light Brown to Gray fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand J Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcO Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) CC Phases 3 and 4 emecula, California Project No. 07G168 PLATE C- 7 i 4 22 100.6 107.0 0-91 ' • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA '-,-_-_GEOTECHNICAL Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 2 4 I. ,r 7T I I Water Added la1600 psf 6 o � 8 c 12 U 14 18 ".. 20 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: ALLUVIUM: Boring Number: B-7 Sample Number: ---Final Depth (ft) 1 to 2 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Dark Brown to Black fine Sandy Silt Initial Moisture Content (%) 12 Moisture Content (%) 21 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.9 Final Dry Density (pcf) 121.2 Percent Collapse (%) 3.06 CC Phases 3 and 4 emecula, California Pro ect No. 07G168 i PLATE C- 8 _ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1 GEOTECHNICAL z J J Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 0�— 1-111,,T 2 E77, 4 Water Added at 1600 psf I I i I 0 .:..H 8 0 10pF m 0 c 12 O U I I 14 16 20 0.1 10 100 Load (kst) Classification: Gray Brown to Light Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt Boring Number: B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%) 6 Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 22 Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 101.5 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 117.5 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 3.39 CC Phases 3 and 4 mecula, California Project No. 07G168 PLATE C- 9 _SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL V-- — A�,,,,,.,v,„=::. 4 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results o — — �—�— 2 wale Added at 1600 psf _ 4 8'T -EEE 11 8 0 10 - I 0 12 V 14 I 18 J 20 0.1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: Gray Brown to Light Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt Boring Number: B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%) 6 Sample Number: -- Final Moisture Content (%) 16 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 107.8 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 114.9 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.07 CC Phases 3 and 4 emecula, California Project No. 07G168 PLATE C- 10-- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA -- — GEOTECHNICAL -,-:;;;.,;,; Grading Guide Specifications i I • GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS Page 1 These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General • The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and Uniform Building Codes. • The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of J implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman -like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated • work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on thejob- j site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the approved compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. • Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection. • Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. Site Preparation The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. • If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected • of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately. • Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Grading Guide Specifications Page 2 • Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated. • Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. • Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. • Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted • The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing. Compacted Fills • Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical • Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated," and shall be very low to non -expansive with a maximum expansion index (EI) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6 -inch particle size, except as noted below. • All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer. • Rock fragments or rocks less than 6 inches in their largest dimensions, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, may be used in compacted fill, provided the distribution and placement is satisfactory in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows. Oversize materials should not be placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15 feet) to facilitate compaction near the slope. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer for the project. • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557-78 unless otherwise indicated. Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5 -to -1 inclination (horizontal -to -vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5. • Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. . Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. Foundations • The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and proceeding downward at a % horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. • Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. Fill Slopes Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation. The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core • Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction • equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Encineer, • Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 • Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. • All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5). • All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. • The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through aff surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material, Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2). Cut Slopes • All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations. • Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. • All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G-5. • Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates G-6. Subdrains • Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square -cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. • Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean 3/4 -inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four -inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills. E [41112[3011 NATURAL G= � COMPACTED FILL // OVEREXCAVATE AND J/ / RECOMPACT COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) 5' MIN. I� m3' MIN. 5' MIN. I T MIN. OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS TRANSITION LOT DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS • NOT TO WNJAS SOUTHERN DRAWN . AS "" CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL PATE D-1 0 CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON "AS -BUILT' COMPETENT MATERIAL NATURAL GRADE \ f � • CUT SLOPE CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL 0 9' M BEDROCK OR APPROVED COMPETENT MATERIAL NEW COMPACTED FILL CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN /g`E Mp1EglPl-` ... /REMOVE ON VARIABLE., _ 4MIN. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE iS LESS THAN 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: ,ASSOUTHERN "K G" 1 GECALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-2 '-' - • a � 24 MIN. p 18" MIN. ° < n \MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY ° SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC, OR CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL /�—4" MIN. — 18" MIN. --� 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLOPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN SCHEMATIC ONLY ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE) 8 NOT TO SCALE TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SDR 21 100 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO °A`� DRAWN.JAS SOUTHERN DRAWN: i CHKD: GKM CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-3 \\\ NATURAL GROUND / /I' COMPACTED FILL 1 CLEANOUT EXCAVATION j / - 6" FIRM NATIVE SOIUBEDROCK a � 24 MIN. p 18" MIN. ° < n \MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY ° SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC, OR CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL /�—4" MIN. — 18" MIN. --� 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLOPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN SCHEMATIC ONLY ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE) 8 NOT TO SCALE TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SDR 21 100 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO °A`� DRAWN.JAS SOUTHERN DRAWN: i CHKD: GKM CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-3 • CJ FINISHED SLOPE FACE OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS PER PLATE NOA TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT (1:1 MAX.) PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL TO ORIGINAL GRADE BACKOUT - VARIES 2' M W IMUM KEY DEPTH NEW COMPACTED FILL 4' MIN. f —� - - VARIABLE SUISPBLE MATERIAU .. t aEMwEuN MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL. MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5';N HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. NOTE: BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NCT TO SCALE SOUTHERN DRAWN'. JAS CHKD: GKM CALIFORNIA PLATE D-4 GEOTECHNICAL FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE I. 1 2' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH • COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER COMPACTED FILL 3' TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP WIDTH OF FILL AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2% SLOPE KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONSn NOT TO SCALE S O UT H E R N DRAWNJAS_p.. �_ j_T. CHKD'. GKM OAT IEORNI A GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-5 DESIGN FINISH SLOPE "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR OUTLETS TO BE SPACED PAN 323) APPROVED EQUIVALENT: AT 1 MAXIMUM INTERVALS. MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING EXTEND 12 INCHES BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED • BEYOND FACE OF SLOP E BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 90-100 AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING 3/8" 40-100 CONSTRUCTION. - NO. 4 25-40 BUTTRESS OR 1D' MIN - - 18-33 SIDEHILL FILL 25'.MAX. -15 NO, 50 I 15' MAX. ti DETAIL "A" 0-3 FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE 4 -INCH DIAMETER NON -PERFORATED - . - J OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. 2' CLEAR WITH TEE OR ELBOW "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EVA STD. PAN 323) APPROVED EQUIVALENT: MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING ill 100 1 1/2" 100 3/4" 90-100 NO. 4 50 3/8" 40-100 NO. 200 8 - NO. 4 25-40 SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 50 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 -15 NO, 50 0-7 0-7 NO, 200 0-3 FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON- CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. WITH TEE OR ELBOW ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL I PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 �IO OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPEDOI A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES I ON MINIMUM 4 -INCH DIAMETER PVC SON 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM DETAIL "A" OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. NOTES: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED • WITH ON-SITE SOIL. SLOPE FILL SUBDRAINS GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE OUTHERN DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM �. CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL PLATE D-5 MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LAYER OF LOW PERMEABLILITY SOIL IF NOT COVERED WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE MINIMUM ONE FOOT WIDE LAYER OF FREE DRAINING MATERIAL (LESS THAN 5% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE) FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF TWO CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE BELOW FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4 -INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. a a MAXIMUM a � PERCENTAGE PASSING d "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT(CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) APPROVED EQUIVALENT: MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE. PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING ill 100 1 1/2" 100 3/4" 90-100 N0. 4 50 3/8" 40-100 NO, 200 8 NO. 4 25-40 SAND EQUIVALENT= MINIMUM OF 50 NO. 8 18-33 N0, 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO, 200 0-3 RETAINING WALL BACKDRAINS GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS 40NOT TO SCALE SOUTHERN DRAWN_ AAs GHKD: GKM CALIFORNIA 1 GEOTECHNICAL PLATED-, IN !DESIGN RESPOTSE SPECTRUM Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD 2.50 2.25 C- 1.75 0 1.50 1.25 U Q 1.00 0.75 U 0.50 y, 0.25 / 11j 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 . Period Seconds I * * Ti B C S E I S * * * version 1.03 * * COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 07G168 JOB NAME: PROPOSED CHURCH BUILDING FAULT -DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.4769 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.1178 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSTNORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 14.8 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-TEMECULA DISTANCE: 1.3 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 Is: 0.716 To: 0.143 DATE: 06-13-2007 * 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 x adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. 0 SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 1 FAULT TYPE (SS, DS, BT) SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS DS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS DS SS DS DS SS SS DS SS SS DS SS SS SS SS DS SS DS SS DS SS DS SS SS SS SS SS DS DS SS APPROX.JS'OURCE � MAX. SLIP ABBREVIATED DISTANCE1 TYPE I MAG. I RATE FAULT NAME -------- ________________________�_______�_____�_________� I (km) I(A,B,C)� (Mw) (=/yr) ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 1.3 B 1 6.8 5.00 ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 14.8 A 7.1 5.00 ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 28.2 B 6.8 5.00 SAN JACINTO-ANZA 34.4 A 7.2 12.00 SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 34.7 B 6.9 12.00 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 44.9 B 6.9 1.50 ROSE CANYON 47.9 B 6.9 1.50 SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 56.6 B 6.8 4.00 CHINO -CENTRAL, AVE. (Elsinore) 57.1 B 6.7 1.00 EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 59.6 B 6.5 2.00 SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 61.1 B 6.7 12.00 SAN ANDREAS - Southern 63.2 A 7.4 24.00 ELSINORE-WHITTIEE 63.9 B 6.8 2.50 CORONADO BANK 72.5 B 7.4 3.00 PINTO MOUNTAIN 74.3 B 7.0 2.50 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 76.0 B 6.9 1.00 PALOS VERDES 79.0 B 7.1 3.00 CUCAMONGA 83.9 A 7.0 5.00 BURNT MTN. 86.3 B 6.5 0.60 NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 86.5 + B 7.0 1.00 SAN JOSE 88.3 B 6.5 0.50 CLEGHORN 89.6 B 6.5 3.00 ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 90.3 B 6.8 4.00 NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 90.3 B 6.7 0.50 EUREKA PEAK - 90.8 B I 6.5 0.60 SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 91.0 B 6.6 4.00 SIERRA MADRE (Central) 92.1 B 7.0 3-.00 SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 100.3 A 7.8 34.00 LANDERS 100.3 B 7.3 0.60 HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 102.0 B - 7.1 0.60 LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 107.3 B 7.3 0.60 CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 108.5 B I 6.5 0.50 JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 112.3 B 6.7 0.60 RAYMOND 112.5 3 6.5 0.50 EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 114.3 B 6.9 0.60 VERDUGO 120.5 B 6.7 0.50 SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 123.3 B 6.6 5.00 HOLLYWOOD 125.5 I B 6.5 1.00 PISGAE-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 126.0 B 7.1 0.60 CALICO - HIDALGO 126.1 B 7.1 0.60 ELMORE RANCH 127.3 B 6.6 1.00 SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 129.4 B 6.6 4. 00 BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 131.7 I B + 6.5 + 25.00 SANTA MONICA 137.3 B 6.6 1.00 SIERRA MA -DRE (San Fernando) 140.9 B 6.7 2.00 ELSINORE -LAGUNA SALADA 141.9 B 7.0 3.50 FAULT TYPE (SS, DS, BT) SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS DS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS DS SS DS DS SS SS DS SS SS DS SS SS SS SS DS SS DS SS DS SS DS SS SS SS SS SS DS DS SS 1 i I J --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ------------- APPROX.�SOURCE 348.3 MAY. i SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED iDISTANCE1 TYPE MAG. i RATE i TYPE FAULT NAME ---_--------___ i (km) i(A,B,C j (Mw) i (mm/yr) i(SS,DS,BT) SAN GABRIEL DS i 142.7 HOSGRI B j 7.0 i 1.00 i SS MALIBU COAST 2.50 145.0 SS B 6.7 0.30 IS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 7.3 156.3 1.00 B 6.9 0.60 SS IMPERIAL 156.6 6.5 A 7.0 20.00 SS ANACAPA-DUME WHITE MOUNTAINS I I 156.8 B 7.3 3.00 DS SANTA SUSANA SS 158.7 SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) B 6.6 5.00 DS HOLSER 34.00 167.7 SS B 6.5 0.40 DS BLACKWATER 6.6 172.3 0.80 B 6.9 0.60 SS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) i 178.6 i B 6.9 i 4.00 i DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 180.2 B 6.7 1.00 I DS SAN CAYETANO 186.1 B 6.8 6.00 IS SANTA YNEZ (East) 205.3 B 7.0 2.00 j SS GARLOCK (West) 210.7 A 7.1 6.00 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT 211.0 B 6.8 1.00 DS GARLOCK (East) 217.8 A 7.3 7.00 SS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 219.7 B 6.7 0.40 DS PLEITO THRUST 222.3 I B 6.8 2.00 DS RED MOUNTAIN 225.4 B 6.8 2.00 DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 229.6 B 6.8 1.00 DS BIG PINE 230.3 B 6.7 0.80 SS WHITE WOLF 237.4 B 7.2 2.00 DS OWL LAKE 237.8 B 6.5 2.00 SS PANAMINT VALLEY I 238.2 B i.2 2.50 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 240.7 B 7.1 0.10 DS TANK CANYON 241.0 B 6.5 1.00 DS LITTLE LAKE 26_2.3 B 6.7 0.70 -SS DEATH VALLEY (South) 245.2 B 6.9 -4.00 SS SANTA YNEZ (West) 258.9 B 6.9 2.00 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND 265.7 B 6.9 1.00 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 288.1 B 6.9 i 4.00 1 DS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE I 302.0 B 6.8 0.70 DS OWENS VALLEY 312.3 B 7.6 1.50 SS LIONS HEAD 319.4 B 6.6 0.02 DS SAN JUAN I 322.5 I B i 7.0 i 1.00 i SS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 327.1 B 7.0 0.20 DS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 334.9 B 7.0 I 2.50 SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 336.6 B 6.5 0.25 DS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 342.1 A 7.2 5.00 SS INDEPENDENCE I 348.3 B 6.9 0.20 DS LOS OSOS 356.4 B 6.8 i, 0.50 DS HOSGRI 365.6 B 7.3 2.50 SS RINCONADA 374.7 B 7.3 1.00 SS BIRCH CREEK I 405.1 B I 6.5 0.70 DS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 408.7 B 7.1 1.00 SS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 425.2 B 5.0 34.00 SS DEEP SPRINGS 426.4 B 6.6 0.80 I IS I SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 3 APPROX.JSOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. RATE TYPE FAULT NAME (km) iA, B, C) (Mev) (zmn; yr) (SS, DS, BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 429.6 A 7.0 5.00 SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 441.3 B 6.8 I 1.00 DS FISH SLOUGH 447.8 B 6.6 0.20 IS HILTON CREEK 467.6 B 6.7 2.50 DS HARTLEY SPRINGS 492.6 B _ 6.6 0.50 DS ORTIGALITA 506.6 B 6.9 1.00 SS CALAVERAS (Sc.of Calaveras Res) 514.2 B 6.2 15.00 SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 520.1 B 7.1 0.50 DS PALO COLORADO - SUR 523.3 B 7.0 3.00 SS QUIEN SABE 526.8 ' B 6.5 1.00 SS MONO LAKE 528.8 B 6.6 2.50 DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 546.3 B 6.8 0.10 SS SARGENT 551.1 B 6.8 3.00 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 551.5 A 7.9 24.00 SS ROBINSON CREEK 560.3 B 6.5 0.50 IS SAN GREGORIO 595.2 A 7.3 ( 5.00 SS GREENVILLE 598.3 B 6.9 2.00 SS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 600.3 B 6.5 3.00 SS ANTELOPE VALLEY 601.0 B 6.7 0.80 DS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 601.3 B 6.5 0.40 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) 619.6 f A 7.1 9.00 SS CA?.AVERAS (No -of Calaveras Res) 619.6 B 6.8 6.00 SS GENOA 627.1 B 6.9 1.00 IS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 666.0 B 6.9 6.00 SS RODGERS CREEK 705.3 A 7.0 9.00 SS WEST NAPA 705.5 B 6.5 I 1.00 SS POINT REYES 726.4 B 6.8 0.30 DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 726.7 B 6.9 6.00 SS MAACAMA (South) 767.4 B 6.9 9.00 SS COLLAYOMI 783.5 B 6.5 0.60 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS 785.9 A 7.1 6.00 SS MAACAMA (Central) 809.0 A 7.1 9.00 SS MAACAMA (North) 867.8 A 7.1 9.00 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 872.6 B 6.8 6.00 SS BATTLE CREEK 890.5 B I 6.5 0.50 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 930.9 B 6.7 6.00 SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 948.7 B 6.9 9.00 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1005.9 A 7.4 35.00 DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1011.0 A 7.0 5.00 DS MAD RIVER 1012.8 B 7.1 0.70 IS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1020.3 ! A 8.3 35.00 DS MCKINLEYVILLE 1023.4 B 7.0 0.60 DS TRINIDAD 1024.7 B 7.3 2.50 IS FICKLE HILL 1025.6 B 6.9 0.60 DS TABLE BLUFF 1031.7 I B 7.0 0.60 DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1044.9 B 7.1 1.00 DS ,,_• i___________________________ --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page e ----------------------------------------- APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP --- I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME (km) (A,B,C)(Mw) SS, DS, BT) BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN FLT.ZONE 1061.3 B 7.3 0.50 DS #ETURN PERIOD. ACCELERATION SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL UNWEIGHTED 7, 1000 -0 0 a� L ry 100 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL UNWEIGHTED litelf7 am �. 80 0 70 4-1 60 ° 50 n 40 30 X 20 w 10 C F 0I 0 25 yrs 50 vrs 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (q) #ETURN PERIOD . ACCELERA.TIO* SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL (WEIGHTED M=7.5) 10000 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 (WEIGHTED M=7.5) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0 25 yrs 50 yrs 0 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) f + FRISKSP - IBM-PC VERSION ! ' Modified from -FRISK.' (McGuire 1976) ' + To Perform Probabilistic Earthquake " Hazard Analyses Using Multiple Forms " ' of Ground -Motion -Attenuation Relations ' ' Modifications by: Thomas F. Blake " - 1988-2000 - ' " VERSION 4.00 (Visual Fortran) ...................+,.,...... ,,......... .. 1 _j TITLE: Proposed Rancho Community Church Ph 3 5 4 IPR FILE - . 0 IPLOT 0 SITE CONDITION __ 0.00 • �- BASEMENT DEPTH (km) l s. Do RHGA FACTOR RHGA DIST (km) 1 - 1.000 0 00 NFLT NSITE NEEDS NATT LCD ( 37 1 2 6 1 J ATT C1 C2 C3 C4 IS C6 C7 C8 C9 CIO Cal C12 C13 C14 1 -2.1700 1.0000 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5200 0.1600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ATT cis C16 C17 C18 C''-9 C20 C21 C22 C23 PER DSMIN SIGA IRELAF ICHK 1 0, OOOD 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 25 - 0 f .j ATT Cl C2 C3 C4 IS CE C7 Ca CS CIO Cal C12 C13 C24 2 -1.9200 1.0000 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5200 0.1600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i ATT cis C16 C17 C16 cis C20 C21 C22 C23 PER DSMIN _ SIGA IRELAF ICHK 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 25 0 1 ATT Cl C2 C3 C4 IS C6 C7 CB C9 C10 Cll - C12 C13 C14 3 -2.1700 1.0000 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5200 0.1600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 V0000 ATT C15 C16 Cl? cis C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 PER DSMIN SIGA IRELAF ICHK 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 25 •3 0 ATT Cl C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C! CS C9 CIO C11 ,_ C'_2 C13014 • 4 -1.9200200 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5200 0.1600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - ATT C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 PER DSMIN SIGA IRELAF ICHK 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 25 0 ATT C1 C2 C3 Cl CS C6 C7 Ce C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 5 -1.9200 1.0000 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0-0000 0.0000 1.5200 0.1600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 _ ATT C15 C16 C17 cis C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 PER DSMIN SIGA IRELAF ICHK 1 5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.D000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -) 1.0000 25 0 --) ATT Cl C2 C3 C4 CS C6 C7 C8 C9 CIO C11 C12 C13 C14 6 -1.9200 1.0000 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5200 0.1600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ATT C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 PER PAMIN SIGA IRELAF ICHK 6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0-0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 25 0 PROBLEM DATA: SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 1 AMPLITUDES: 15 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.7D0 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.1D0 1.200 1.300 1. 4D0 1.500 MAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTORS: MWF-. 0 MWF MAGNITUDE: 0.00 SADIGH Be AL_ (1997) DEEP SOIL 2 AMPLITUDES: 15 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0-700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.100 1.200 1.300 1.400 1.500 MAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTORS: MWF: 3 MWF MAGNITUDE: 9.50 �- RISKS SPECIFIED: 5 0.013900 0.010000 0.005000 0.002105 0.001000 SITE COORDINATES: y _ -117.1175 33.4769 FAULT INFORMATION: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------} FAULT 1 1 FAULT NAME: ELSINOR£ (TEMECULA) t NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: I 2 10 1 3 AMMIN A4STEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECHO COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 5.0000 1.842 2.200 2.000 1.000 NMAX. AMMAX PMAX 1 6.80 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.30 1:00 i Slip Rate ( 5.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/Cm-2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cmc*2 0. 645E.13 0LOGIO(Mo(m)] _ (1 -50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX PRATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6800 1.0000 0.03179 0.02008 0.01171 • IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A RA BEA SIG RA -3.490 0. 9i0 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.3480 33.6430 2 -117.0130 33.3970 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0-0000 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.64Ea03 i ..� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------'- FAULT 2 _i FAULT NAME: ELSINORE (JULIAN) NFP END ATTENUATION CODES: 2 10 1 3 AMMIN METED CRAVE RAPE BETA £CTR £CDP CORP 5.000 0.1000 1 5.0000 1.842 3.800 2.000 1-000 NMA% AMMAX PMAX 1 7.10 1 00 • dmchar amP char dmp1,00 i 0.50 6.60 1.00 Slim Rate ( 5.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330Ea12 Input Fault Area - cm-2 0.114E+14 LOG10(Mo(m)] _ (1. 50)m 4 (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ARATE EX-RATE CH-RA.T£ -� 1 7.1000 1.0000 0.03016 0.02282 0.00734 l IND RL 2 l j RUPTURE AREA. VS. MAGNITUDE ARA E RA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -11].0130 33.3970 2 -116.3620 32.9650 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Computed Computed Total Fault Area = 0.11£404 -----------------------------"____------------______----___-------__--------_ FAULT 3 FAULT NNIE: ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) •NFP NAL ATTENUATION CODES: 2 10 1 3 1 AMM IN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CORR .1 • 5.000 0.1000 1 5.0000 1.842 1.800 2.000 1.000 i NMAX AMMAX PMAX 1 6. so 1.00 dmchar am_ochar dm_oc har 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 5.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm--2 0.330E+12 Input'Fault Area - em --2 0.540E+13 LOG10[Mo(m)) _ (1.50)m + (16.05) - IMAX AMMAX PMAX ARATE = EX -RACE + CH -RATE 1 6.8000 1.0000 0.02662 0.01681 0.00980 IND_RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.6390 33.8540 2 -117.3480 33.6430 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 J Computed Total Fault Area = 0.53E+03 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( •FAULT 9 �- FAULT NAME: SAN JACINTO-ANZA NFP NEI, ATTENUATION CODES: 3 10 1 3 ARNIE AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CORP 5.000 0.1000 1 12.0000 1.842 4.600 2.000 1.000 i � NMAX ANAtAX PMAX 1 7,20 1.00 } 1 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.70 1.00 Slip Rate ( 12.OD60 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm--2 j 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm --2 0.164E+14 LOG10[Mc(m)] _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ARATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE - 1 7.20D0 1.0000 0.08562 0.05767 0.01795 j IND_RL ( 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116.9170 33.7400 2 -116.5333 33.4750 3 -116.1220 33.2630 BRA SIG_RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 • NDP ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 10.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.16Rt04 ______________________________________________________________________ FAULT 5 FAULT NAME: SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 2 10 1 AMMIN AMSTER IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CORE 5.000 0.1000 1 12.0000 1.042 2-200 2.000 1.000 NMAX AMMAX PAWX 1 6.90 1.00 1 t dmchar ampchar dmochar 0,50 6.40 1.00 Slip Rate ( 12.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Race: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/.m++2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm"2 0.774Er13 l LOG'_OlMo(m)) = (2.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMNAX PMAE ARATE - EX -RATE + CG -RATE -� 1 6.9000 1.0000 0-09393 0.05005 0,023BB _3._-• IND RL 2 - RUPTURE AREA VS, MAGNITUDE ARA B_RA SIG_RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.2333 34.0167 2 -116.9170 33.7400 i NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 18.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.77E+03 -------------------------------- _____________________________________________ FAULT 6 I FAULT NAME: NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) DEC NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 6 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CORE 5.000 0.1000 1 1.5000 1.842 3.300 2,000 1.000 NMAX AMMAR PMAX - 1 7 1 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.60 1.00 •Grin Rate ( 1.5000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 i 1-• 0.330E-12 InpuC Fault Area - cm --2 / 0.858Et13 LOCI 0(No (mll = (1.50)m r (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMA% ABATE _ EX -RATE , CH -RATE 1 7.1000 1.0000 0.00661 0.00515 0.00166 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VE. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SI G_RA -3.490 0.910 0.290 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES i1 -117.9146 33.5910 2 -11].]989 33.5080 3 -11"1.6082 33.4024 4 -117.5473 33.2515 -� 5 -117.4070 33.2163 6 -117.4291 33.2559 J NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.06£,03 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- J FAULT 7 l FAULT NAME: ROSE CANYON J NEC NRL ATTENUATION CODES: - • 14 0 MMIN AS AMSTEP RATE RATE BETA £CTR £CDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 1.5000 1.842 3.500 2.000 1.000 ..1 NMAX AMMAX SMILE I 1 7.20 1.00 1 dmchar ampchar dmpchar .� 0.50 6.70 1.00 Slip Rate ( 1.5000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Race: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E,12 Input Fault Area - cm^2 1 0.910Ea13 7 LOG10[Mo(m)) _ (1.50)m � (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE a CH -RATE 1 7.2000 1.0000 0.00594 0.00469 0.00125 1 iIND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA V5. MAGNITUDE ARA ERA SIG_RA -3.490 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.1473 32.5603 2 -117.1505 32.6033 3 -117.1654 32.6478 .I 4 -117.1621 32.7099 5 -117.1704 32.7290 6 -117.1976 32.7595 7 -117.2100 32.6011 8 -117.2413 32.8355 9 -117.2636 32.8545 •30 -117.3251 33.0189 11 -117.3769 33.0858 12 -117.3961 33.0971 0.910 0.240 13 -11].9110 33.1083 • 14 -11].4234 33.1225 NO 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.31E+03 ------------------------------------ FAULT 8 FAULT NAME. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 4 10 5 6 -ANMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CORE 5.000 0.1000 1 0.5000 1.042 1.400 2.000 0.500 NM.^X AMMA% PMAX J 1 6.60 1.00 -t dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.10 1.00 J 5lin Rate I 0.5000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/Cmc*2 0.360E.12 Input Fault .Area - cm -2 0.4302,13 LOG10 [Mc(m)) _ (1.SO)m 4 (16.05) - • +MAX AMMAX PMAE ARATE = EX -RATA + CH -RATE 6 1 -6000 1.0000 0.00363 0.00193 0.001]0 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA B_EA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -1119.6740 33.5970 2 -117.7360 33.64]0 3 -117.8230 33-6800 4 -117.9330 33.6950 NDP j 3 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 0.0000 1.9900 2 0.0000 2.0000 ' 3 -14.1400 0.0000 j Computed Total Fault Area = 0.352103 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I FAULT 9 i FAULT NAME- SAN JAC INTO -COYOTE CREEK ! NFP ERE ATTENUATION CODES 2 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COED 5.000 0.1000 1 4.0000 1.842 2.100 2.000 1.000 NMAX AMMAX 00 . 1 6.80 1 1.00 • dmchar amp ch ar dmp 1.00 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Race ( 4.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: lnnut Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-12 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - c1 -*2 _ - 0.615E+13 LOGIOfMO1M)] _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMA% AMMAX PMAX ARATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.8000 1.0000 0.02425 0.01532 0.00893 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA B RA. SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0-240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116.5080 33.4570 2 -116.1940 33.2000 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15-0000 i Computed Total Fault Area - 0.61E+03 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 10 FAULT NAME: CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) -�_ • NET NRL ATTENUATION CODES. 2 10 2 4 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COLE 5.000 0.1000 1 1.0000 1.842 1.400 2.000 1.000 ERAX AMMAX PMAX 1 6.70 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar ( 0.50 6.20 1.00 Slip Rate ( 1.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: i Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm--2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm'12 0.463E+13 LOG10fMo(m)) _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX ROAR ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.7000 '_.0000 0.00569 0.00332 0.00237 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A RA FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.7455 34.0332 2 -11].5682 33.8275 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 z 6.9900 11,0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.47E+03 BRA SIG RA -3.490 0. 91D 0-240 ------------------------------------------------------ ( FAULT 11 i FAULT NAME- EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NFP NAL ATTENUATION CODES: 3 10 1 3 1 AMMIN AMSTEP ?RATE RATE SETA ECTR ECDP CORE 5.000 0.1000 1 2.0000 1.812 1. D00 2.000 1.000 NEVX AMMAX. PMAX I 1 6.50 1.00 1 cmchar ampc hsr dmochar 0.50 6.00 1.00 J Slio Rate ( 2.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm"2 -I 0.330E+12 11 Input Fault Area - cm -2 j 0.300E-13 LOG10(Mo(m)) = (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAN PMAX ABATE EX -RATE + CH -RATE -') 1 6.5000 1.0000 0.01175 0.00561 0.00614 J IND -RL 2 l 1 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A RA B -RP. SIG_RA -3.590 0.910 0.240 u FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116.4100 33.0160 _-• 2 -116.4510 33.1113 3 -116.5815 33.1811 ➢'DP _1 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 -� Computed Total Fault Area = 0.30Es03 1 ---------------------------------------------'------------------------------- FAULT 12 FAULT NAME: SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO i NFP NED ATTENUATION CODES: { 2 10 1 3 1 j AMMIN AMS TEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 12.0000 1.842 1.800 2.000 1-000 i NMAX AMMAN PMAX 1 6 7 1.00 cmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.20 1.00 Slip Rate ( 12.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Innut Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - em -2 � 0.540E+13 0 LOGIO(M.(m)] _ (1.50)1 + (16.05) IMAX APEOCE PMAX ARATE = EX -RATE + CB -RATE 1 6.7000 1.OD00 0.07968 0.04644 0.03324 1 • SND RL 2 j RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA B_RA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES ..� 1 -117.5080 34.2450 2 -117.2370 34.0170 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.54E+03 FAULT 13 FAULT NAME: WHITTIER NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODF,S, _1 2 10 1 3 I AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTA ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1D00 1 2.5000 1.842 1.900 2.000 1.000 NMAX AMMAX PMAX 1 6.80 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmuchnr •0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 2.5000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm--2 -- 0.330E+12 -� Input Fault Area - 1m"2 0.590E+13 LOG10[Mo(1)) _ (1.50)m + IMAX AML PRAY ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.8000 1.0000 0.01454 0.00918 0.00536 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS, MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG_RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 i i } FP.ULT SEGMENT COORDINATES -117.6370 33.0540 2 - -118.0180 33.9860 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 4.0200 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.59E+03 ____________________________________________ i FAULT 14 FAULT NAME: SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-1 NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: •4 10 1 3 ARiIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0 100 NMAX AMMAX PMAX 1 7.50 1.00 1 24.0000 1.842 5.200 2.000 0.050 dmchar ampcnar dmpchar 0.50 7.00 1.00 Slip Rate ( 24.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330£,12 Input Fault Area - cm1*2 0.196E+14 LOG101Mo(m)) = (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMA( AGATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.5000 1.0000 0.11689 0.10166 0.01522 "-1 IND BE 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG_RA -3.490 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES J 1 -116.4770 33.9240 2 -116.7748 33.9878 3 -117.2382 34.1547 -I 4 -117.4982 34.2895 t _J NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 1B. 0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.19E+04 ? -----_ ------------------------------- _i.. • FAULT 15 FAULT NAME: SAN ANDREAS - SH -Coach. M -2b -� NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 7 10 1 _ 1 AMMZN AMETEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CO EF ( 5.000 0.1000 1 24.0000 1.842 10.000 2.000 0.500 J N AX AFRINX PMAX i 1 7.70 1.00 l dmchar ampcha, dmpchar 0.50 7.20 1.00 iSlip Rate ( 24.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - c.1.2 0.243E,14 LOG10[Mc(m)] _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX .4MMAX FMAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.7000 1.0000 0.10149 0.09203 0-00946 I IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES •1 -115.7119 33.3501 2 -116.2463 33.7882 3 -116.4697 33.9223 _I 0.910 0.240 BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 4 -116.4777 33.9240 5 -'_16.]]48 33.98]8 6 -117.2382 34.154] 7 -117.4902 34.2895 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.00DD 0.0000 2 0.0000 12.0000 i Computed Total Fault Area = 0.24E+04 -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 16 FAULT NAME: SAN ANDREAS - 5B-Coach. M-lb-2 _l 1 NFP ERE ATTENUATION CODES: 7 10 1 3 -� AMMTN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ROSS COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 27.0000 1.842 10.000 2.000 0.250 J NMAX AMNAX PMAX 1 7.70 1.00 j dmohar ampchar cmpehar 0.50 7.20 1.00 Slip Rate ( 27.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330Ea12 Input Fault Area - cm-2 0. 243Ea14 /1 • LOG10[Mo(m)) (1.50)m+ (16.05) IMAX AMMAN PMAX ARATE = EX-RATE a CH-RATE 1 7.7000 1.0000 0.11418 0.10354 0.01064 IND RL 2 J RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES J 1 -115.]119 33.3501 2 -116.2963 33.7882 3 -116.4697 33.9223 4 -116.4710 33.9240 5 -116.7748 33.9878 6 -117.2382 34.1547 7 -117.4982 34.2895 1 NDP - 2 j ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 12.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.24E+04 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 17 FAULT NAME: SAN AN➢REAS - Whole M-la NFP NAL ATTENUATION CODES: 18 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 30.0000 1.842 25.600 2.000 0.200 '..• 1 NAMMAN 1 1 00 1 8.00 00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 7.50 i.00 Slip Rate ( 30.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activitv Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm•*2 0.686E.14 LOG 10(Me (m)) _ (1.50)m + (16.05) i IMAX AMMAX PMAX ADAIR = EX -RATE + CN -RATE 1 8.0000 1.0000 0.21360 0.20175 0.01184 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A RA B RA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -115.7119 33.3501 J 2 -116.2463 33.7882 3 -116.4697 33.9223 4 -116.4770 33.9240 5 -116.7748 33.9878 6 -119.2382 34.1547 7 -117.4982 34.2895 8 -117.7364 34.3986 -118.1039 34.5478 10 -118.5089 34.6985 1i -118.8816 34.8064 12 -119.2100 34.8639 13 -119.3629 34.9157 •14 -119.5606 35.0489 15 -119.7068 35.1607 i6 -119.8660 35.3142 17 -119.9703 35.4139 i8 -120.3000 35.7520 l NDp 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 O.DOOO i 2 0.0000 12.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.62E+05 FAULT 18 FAULT NAME: CORONADO RANK NFP NEL ATTENUATION CODES: 5 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP GOES 5.000 0.1000 1 3.0000 1.842 9.300 2.000 1.000 NMAY. AMMAN FRAX 1 7.60 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 7.10 1.00 Slip Rate ( 3.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm -2 0.241E+14 LOG10 [Mo fmll = (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CN -RATE ,_.• 1 7.6000 1.0000 0.01501 0.01336 0.00166 I IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -11]_9273 33.2685 2 -117.6067 32.9479 3 -117.5199 32.8778 4 -117.2527 32.4669 I 5 -116.840D 31.8900 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 1 0.0000 D.D000 J 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.24E+04 1 ' -------------------------------'--------------------------------------------- J FAULT 19 FAULT NAME. PINTO MOUNTAIN J NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 16 1D 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 2.5000 1.842 3.700 2.000 1.000 NM - AMMAX PMAX �- • 1 7.20 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpcnar 0.50 6.70 1.00 i j Slip Race ( 2.5000 mm/yr) Converted Co P.ctivity Rate. -' Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-*2 0.330E+12 1 Input Fault Area - cm -2 0.962E+13 LOG101M0(m)7 = (1.50). + (16.05) IMAX AMMAR PMAX ARATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.2000 1.0000 0.01046 0.00827 0.00219 - IND RL 2 iRUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116 ?204 34.0550 2 -116.7015 34.0602 3 -116.6797 39.0725 4 -126.6383 34.0801 5 -116.5913 34.0787 6 -116.5586 34.0830 7 -116.4794 34.1110 i 8 -116.4593 34.1243 9 -116.4145 34.1305 10 -116.2831 34.1447 11 -116.2286 34.1476 12 -116.0817 34.1381 13 -116.0536 34.1305 14 -116.0112 .34.1257 •15 -115.9589 34.1081 16 -115.9434 34.1062 NDP • ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.97E+D3 -------------------------- -------------------------------------"_----_"_----- FAULT 20 FAULT NAME: NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L. A.Basin) _) NFP NEL ATTENUATION CODES: 10 IO 1 3 '7 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF J 5.000 0.1000 1 1.OD00 1.842 3.300 2.000 1.000 i NMAX AMMAX PMA% 7.10 1.D0 _} dmchar aFpchar dmpchar 0.50 6.60 1.00 Slip Rate ( 1.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-12 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm -2 0.858E+13 i LOG10[Mo(m)] _ (1.50)m + (16.05) INKS AMNu1X PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE -� 1 7.1000 1.0000 0.00454 0.00343 D. 00111 -• IND_RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ANA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 4 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES r 1 -117.9247 33.6060 2 -117.9999 33.6780 3 -118.0326 33.6954 4 -118.0927 33.7512 1 5 -118.1951 33.8204 - 6 -118.2157 33.8503 7 -118.2479 33.6715 8 -118.2811 33.9132 9 -118-3315 33.9566 10 -118.3896 34.0433 NDP 2 { ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.86E+03 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 21 1 ( FAULT NAME: SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M -lc -S NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 3 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP GOES 5.000 0.1000 1 25.0000 1.842 4.800 2.000 0.050 • NMAX AFFIX PINAX 1 Z20 1.00 •dmchar ampchar dmpc har 0.50 6.70 1.00 Slip Rate ( 25.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0 330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm•*2 0-115E+14 LOG10[Mo(m)) = (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ARATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.2000 1.0000 0.12508 0.09886 0.02622 1 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG_RA -3.490 0.91.0 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116-4697 33.9223 -� 2 -116.2463 33.7862 3 -115.7119 33.3501 .J NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION i 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 12_0000 .i Computed Total Fau3t Area = 0.11E+04 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- J FAULT 22 �- • FAULT NAME: PALOS VERDES NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 6 10 1 3 BMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RASE BETA ECTR ECDP COLE -� 5.000 0.1000 1 3.0000 2.030 4.800 2.000 1.000 - NMAE AMMAX PMAX 1 7.30 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmochar 0.50 6.80 1.00 Slip Rate ( 3.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm*'2 0.330E412 Input Fault Area - cm**2 0.125E+14 J LOG10[MO(m)] _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.3000 1.0000 0.01427 0.01184 0.00243 i IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.9397 33.2830 2 -116.0372 33.4072 3 -118.0663 33.4661 4 -118.1980 33.6571 •5 -110.2777 33.7560 6 -118.5773 33.9476 NDP • -ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.13E+04 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 23 FAULT NAME: CUCAMONGA NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 9 10 2 4 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COED 5.000 0.1000 1 5.0000 1.842 1.400 2.000 1.000 NMAX AMMAN PMAX 1 6.90 1.00 Y _! dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.40 1.00 l Slip Rate ( 5.0000 mm/yr) Converted to .Activity Rate: ! Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm^2 0.360E-12 Input Fain, Area - cc -2 0.515£.13 LOG101Mo(m)! _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX ANMAX CRAB ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE J 1 6.9000 1.0000 0.02236 0.01514 0.00922 • IND_R2 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A RA H RA SIG RA -3.490 0.510 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -11717288 34.1253 2 -117.662"1 34.1484 3 -117.6331 34.1629 4 -117.5773 34.1659 j 5 -117.5686 34.1718 6 -117.5582 34.1709 7 -117.5205 34.1683 a -117.4772 34.1670 9 -117.4415 34.1804 7 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 2 -13.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.52E+03 ------------------------------------ FAULT 24 CLIIi.T NAMF, A11RNT MTN NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 7 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP GORE 5.000 0.1000 1 0.6000 1.842 1.000 2.000 1.000 •NMAX AMMAX PMAX 1 6.50 1.00 ,. • dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.00 1.00 Slip Rate ( 0.6000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: I nnut Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-'2 0.330E+12 .1 Input Fault Area - cm --2 0.293E+13 LOGIO]Molm)] _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PEAS ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.5000 1.0000 0.00321 0.00153 0.00168 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A RA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES _ -116.3905 33.9348 2 -116.3955 33.9892 3 -116.3955 34.0131 (1 -116.3998 34.0350 J 5 -116.4127 34.0607 6 -116.4101 34.0936 7 -116-4120 34.1221 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0-0000 2 0-0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.27E+03 _. _.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 25 FAULT NAME: PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST NFP NNL ATTENUATION CODES: 4 10 5 6 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 0.9000 1.892 2.200 2.000 0.500 f HOAX A.MMAX PMAX 1 7.1O 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.60 1.00 Slip Rate ( 0.4000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm++2 0.36DE+12 Input Fault Area - cm.+2 0.833E+13 LOGIO(Mo(m)] _ (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ARATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 7.1000 1.0000 0.00192 0.00145 0.00047 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.8673 33.9269 9 -118.0432 33.9315 3 -118.1435 33.9591 -118.2976 34.0586 1 • NDP 3 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 4.9900 2 0.0000 5.0000 -' n 17.1600 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.73E+03 ll FAULT 26 FAULT NAME: SAN JOSE NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 4 lE 2 4 AMM IN AMSTED IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 0-5000 1.842 1.000 2.000 1.000 NMAX AMNJU PMAX 1 6.40 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.505.90 1.00 Slip Rate ( 0.5000 mm/yrl Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E+12 { Input Fault Area - cm -12 0.265E+13 -� LOG10(MO(m)] _ (1 50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.4000 1.0000 0.00337 0.00142 0.00154 iND_RL 2 j RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A_RA BRA SIG -RA, -3.990 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES -117.6901 34.'_141 2 417.7305 34.0846 3 -117.8384 34.OE01 4 -117.8709 34.0393 NDP 1 2 JJ' ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 3.4800 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.26Es03 FAULT 27 FAULT NAME: CLEGHORN NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 6 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COLA 5.000 0.1000 1 3.0000 1.842 1.300 2.000 1.000 NMAX AMMAX PONE 1 6.50 1.00 • dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6 0 1.00 Slip Rate ( 3.0000 mm/Yr) Converted to AC--Vity Rate: Innut Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm^2 0.325E-13 LOG10[Mol ) = (1.50). a (16.05) _1 IMAX AMMAN PMpX ARATE = EX -RATE r CH -RATE 1 6.5000 1.0000 0.01909 0.009'_2 0.00998 TND -RL 2 { RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A_RA BRA SIG_RA -3.490 0.910 0-240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.4644 34.3113 2 -11].3880 34.285B 3 -119.3455 34.2943 -� 4 -119.11]2 34.2773 -119.2577 34.2745 6 -117.2040 34 .2B30 _) NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 _ 0. D000 13.0000 i Computed Total Fault Area = 0.33E-03 _____________________________________________________________________________ 7 _i J FAULT 28 - • FAULT NAME: EUREKA PEAK i NFP NRL .ATTENUATION CODES: 6 10 1 3 ( AMMIN AMSTEP IRATERATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF f( 5.000 0.1000 1 0.6000 1.842 1.000 2.000 1.000 UMAX AMMAN PMAX 1 6.40 1.00 l dmchor amn_char dm_nchar - 0.50 5.90 1.00 Slip Rate ( 0.6000 mm/yr) Converted to ACtivity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm^2 ] 0.247E+13 1,OG10[Mo(m)] _ (1.50)m - (16.05) 1 IMAX AMMAN PMAX ARATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.4000 1.0000 0.00371 0.00157 0.00214 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116.3421 33.9607 2 -116.3432 33.9947 3 -116.3465 34.0099 4 -116.3532 34.0239 -116.3551 34.0445 •6 -116.3946 34.1224 NDP 2 • ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.25E+03 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 29 i FAULT NAME: ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 2 10 1 AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CODE 5.000 0.1000 1 4.0000 1.842 2.000 2.000 1.000 DEAR AMNAX PMAX 1 6.80 1.00 j dmchar amoonar dmnchar 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 4.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm`•2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm --2 0.505E+13 LOG1O(Mo(m)) = (L -5 0)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAN Fh1AX ARATE = EX. -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.0000 1.0000 0.02307 0.01457 0.00650 i l • IND RL % 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 -� FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116.3620 32.9650 2 -116.0060 32.9790 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.OD00 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.58E+03 ----------------------------------------------- FAULT 30 i FAULT NAME: SAN JACINTO - HORREGO NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 2 10 1 3 A IN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 4.0000 1.842 1.500 2.006 1.000 1,TAAX AMMAX IMAX. 1 6.60 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.10 1.00 •Slip Rate ( 4.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cmc*2 ,.i • 0.348E+13 LOG10 [Mo Im7J = (1 .50)m « (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 6.6000 1.0000 0.02151 0.01143 0.01009 INP RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG RA -3-490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116.1940 33.2000 2 -115.9750 33.0110 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 12.0000 Computed Total Fault .Area = 0.35E+03 ------------------------------------ FAULT 31 FAULT NAME: SIERRA SLIDER NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES. 12 10 2 4 AMMSN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COST -� 5.000 0.1000 1 2.0000 1.842 2.900 2.000 1.000 � 1 9.20 1.00 dmchar amnchar dmpchar 0.50 6.70 1.00 l Slip Rate ( 2.0000 mm/yr) Concerted to ACtivity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - ayne/cm^2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm^2 0.105E+14 - LOG10[Mo(m)] _ (1.SO7m + (16.05) iMAX. AMMAX PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.2000 1.0000 0.00914 0.00722 0.00192 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS, MAGNITUDE ARA .�' FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.7400 34.1231 2 -117.7690 34.1317 3 -117.8070 34.1305 4 -117.8600 34.1587 5 -117.9400 34.1501 6 -118.0030 34.1752 7 -118.0680 34.1758 8 -118.1120 34.2010 9 -118.1390 34.2028 10 -118.1890 34.2107 11 -118.2227 34.2330 12 -118.2900 34.2751 NDP • ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 I BAR SIG RA -3-490 0.910 0.240 2 13 0000 13.0000 • Computed Total Fault Area = 0.10E+04 FAULT 32 FAULT NAME: NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) -" NFP NNE ATTENUATION CODES: 5 10 2 4 "MIN AMST£P IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP ODER 5.000 0.1000 1 1.0000 1.842 2.600 2.000 1.000 NMAX ANMAX PMAX 1 7.20 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.70 1.00 Slip Rate ( 1.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - sn'*2 0 .93 ]E+13 LOG10[Mo(m)) _ (1S0)m + (16.05) I.MAX AMMAX PNAX ABATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.2000 1.0000 0.00408 0.00322 0.00085 IND RL 2 /- •RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ADA B_RP. SIG_RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -]3].2691 34.3169 2 -117.2266 34.3452 3 -117-1445 34.4443 4 -116.9379 34.3651 5 -116-8501 34.3707 NDP l 2 -� ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION - j - 0.0000 0.0000 2 13.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = O.77Er03 FAULT 33 FAULT NAME: SAN ANDREAS - Cho -Mo) M -lb -1 NFP ARE ATTENUATION CODES: 12 10 1 3 + AMMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CUTS 5.000 0.1000 1 34.0000 1.842 15.600 2.000 0.250 NMAX ANMAX PMAX 1 7.80 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar ( 0.50 7.30 1.00 V •Slip Rate ( 34.0000 mm/yr) Converted to ACtivity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.300E+12 i -nput Fault Area - cm --2 0.124Ero14 L0G10(MO(m)] _ (1 -50)m + (16.05) • IMAX AMMAX PMAX ABATE = EX -RATE I CH -RATE 1 9.8000 1.0000 0.05603 0-05163 0.00440 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA B SIG_RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 -� -RA FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES - 1 -117.4982 34.2895 2 -117.7364 34.3986 3 -118.1039 34.5478 -� 4-118.SOB9 _4.6585 5 -118.8816 34.8064 -'� 6 -119.2100 34.8639 7 -119.3629 34.9157 ` 8 -119.5606 35.0489 5 -119.7068 35.1607 10 -119.8660 35.3142 11 -119.9703 35.4139 12 -120-3000 35.7520 J NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 12.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.38E,04 S----------------------------------------------------------------------------- J FAULT 34 j--• FAULT NAME: SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Ruptvie M -2a NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: - 12 10 1 3 1 AMMIN AMSTED IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 34.0000 1.842 12.500 2.000 O.SOO NMAX AMMAX PMAX e 1 7.80 1.00 dmchar amp-hal dmpchar 0.50 7.30 1.00 71 1 Slip Rate ( 34.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm-2 0.300E+12 j Input Fault Area - rm-2 0.414E+14 LOG10(Mo(m)) = (1.50)m a (16-05) IMAX AMMAX PMAX ARVID = EX -RATE - CH -RATE 1 7.8000 1.0000 0.18008 0.17239 0.01469 IND RL 2 I RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA BRA SIG_RA -3.490 0-910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.4982 34.2895 2 -117.7364 34.3986 3 -118.1039 34.5478 4 -118.5889 34.69B5 -118.8816 34.8064 6 -119.2100 34.8639 •5 7 -119.3629 34.9157 8 -119.5606 35.0489 .•9 -119.7060 35.1600 10 -119.8660 35-3142 11 -119-9703 35.4139 12 -120.3000 35.7520 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 12.0000 Computed Total Fault Area = 0.38E+04 l. ------------------------------------------------- ____________________________ 7 FAULT 35 -� FAULT NAME: SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M -1c-3 1 1 NFP NAL ATTENUATION CODES: 4 10 1 3 AMMIN A STEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF J 5-000 0.1000 1 30.0000 1.842 5.200 2.000 0.050 NMAX AMMAX PMAX -� 1 7.40 1.00 i dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.90 1.00 Slip Rate ( 30.0000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 0.300E+12 Input Fault Area - Cm -2 j-_00.124E+19 LOG10 fmo (m)7 = (1.50)m . 116.051 IMAX AMMAN PMAX ABATE EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.4000 1.0000 0.10088 0.08543 0.01546 1 IND_RL _ 2 1 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A RA BRA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 j FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -117.4982 34.2895 2 -119.7364 34.3986 -� 3 -118.1039 34.5498 4 -118.5089 34.6985 NDP 2 j ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION I{ 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 12_ 0000 Com_outed Total Fault Area = 0.13E+04 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 36 FAULT NAME: LANDERS i NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 10 10 1 3 AMMIN AMSTEP SKATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP CORE 0 5.000 0.1000 1 0.6000 1.8a2 4.200 2.000 1.000 NMA.X AMMAX OMAN I 7.30 1.00 • dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.5D 6.80 1.00 Slip Rate ( 0.6000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear nodulus - dyne/cm**2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cm•*2 0.108E-14 LOGIO(Mo(m)1 = (1.50)m + (16.05) IMAX AMMAX PMtX ARATE = EX -RATE + CH -RATE 1 7.3000 1.0000 0.00233 0.00191 0.00042 t 1 IND RL 2 ( RUPTURE .gREP. VS MAGNITUDE A RA H_RA SIG RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 J FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES 1 -116.4245 34.1594 2 -116.4382 34.2082 3 -116.4376 34.2518 4 -116.4428 34.2896 5 -116.4508 34.3641 6 -116.4617 34.3976 7 -116.5267 34.5127 8 -116.5756 34.5703 9 -116.6655 34.6448 10 -116.8499 34.7030 1 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 O.DODO 2 0.0000 13.0000 -• Computed 'total Fault Area -= 0.11E+04 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAULT 37 9 FAULT NAME NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 7 10 2 4 ADMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEF 1 5.000 0.1000 1 0.5000 1.842 1.400 2.000 1.000 _-� NMAX ARVAX PMA)( 1 6.70 1.00 dmchar ampchar smasher J 0.50 6.20 1.00 Slip Rate ( 0.5000 mm/yr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 0.330E+12 Input Fault Area - cu -2 0.496E+13 LOG10 jMo(m)7 = (1.50)m IMAX AMMAX PMAX PRATE = EX -RATE - CH -RATE 1 6.7000 1.0000 0.00305 0.0017B 0.00127 IND RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE ARA B -RA SIG_RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEGMENT COORDINATES - _ -116.7995 34 3365 �: -116.7435 34.3334 • 3 -116.7101 34.3457 4 -116.6696 34.3316 5 -116.6432 34.3404 6 -116.5886 34.3210 7 -116.5252 34.3105 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION -- 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 13.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Favlt Area = 0.47E+03 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SITE 1 COORDINATES: -117.1178 33.4769 SADIGN ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 1 AMPLITUDES (9): 0.1000E.000.2000E+000. 3000E+000. 4000£+000.5000E+000.600DE+000.7000£+000.8000E.000.9000E+OD0. 1000E+01 j -2.30 -1.61 -1.20 -0.92 -0.69 -0.51 -0.36 -0.22 -0.11 LN (AMPLITUDE): 0.00 FAULT 1 E(NO/YR) 0.2400E-010.1713E-010.1241E-010.8776E-020.6025E-020.4097E-020.2685E-020.1772E- 1 020.1170E-020.7748E-03 FAULT 2 E(NO/YR) 0 6737E-020.218IE-020.6996E-030.2252E-030.7494£-040 2610E-040.9657E-050.3767E- 050.1553£-050.6751E-06 FAULT 3 E(NO/YR) 0.5013E-020.6860E-030.1029E-030.2842E-040.3892E-050.9502£-060.2626E-060.8083E- 000.2735E-070.1D06E-07 _ FAULT 4 E(N0/YR) 0.1126E-010. 1426E-020.1706E-030.2343E-040.3823E-050.7401E-060.1686E-060.4480E- 070.1373E-070.4786E-00 _ FAULT 5 E(NO/YR) 0.1155E-010.1151E-020.1276E-030.1770E-040.3033E-050.6246E-060.1508E-060.4107E- 07D.1315E-070.4599E-08 0.6396E-030.3730E-040.2539E-050.2356E-060.2944E-070.4815£-080.1002E-000.2569E- FAULT 6 E(NO/YR) 090.7815E-100.2698£-10 /�- - • FAULT 7 E(NO/YR) 0.3462E-030.1576E-040.8855E-060.6958E-070.7481E-080.1072E-080.1999E-090.4712E- \ 100.1335E-100.4008E-11 FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) 0.11782-030.5622E-050.4343E-060.4914E-070.74D1E-080.1390E-080.3116E-090.8083E- 1 100.2362E-100.74B7E-11 4 FAULT 9 E(NO/YR) 0.4937E-030.1012E-040.4300E-060.3140E-D70. 3495E-080.5195E-090.9523E-100.2102E- 100.3230E-110.0000E+00 FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) 0.2889E-030.1115E-040.7243E-060.7138E-070.9639E-080.1665E-080.3513E-090.8722E- 100.243CE-200.7051E-12 1 FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) 0.1595£-030.3085E-050.1440E-060.1181E-070.1433E-080.2326E-090.4632E-100.8349E- 110.1707E-120.0000E+00 12 E(NO/YR) 0.9601E-030.1546E-040.5978E-060.4109E-070.4511E-080.6664E-090.1179E-090.1566E- J FAULT 100.0000E.000.0000E+00 FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) 0.1424E-030.1882E-050.6159E-070.3799E-080.3732E-050.5108E-100.7625E-110.3514E- 120.0000E.000.0000E+00 FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) 0.1928E-030.5987E-050.2511E-060.1545E-070.1322E-080.1504E-090.2156E-100.2472E- 110.2535E-120.0000E+00 FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) 0.1715E-020.8349E-040.4671E-050.3496E-060. 34DOE-070.4117E-080.59722-090.9546E- 100.1683E-100.2376E-11 FAULT 16 E(NO/YR) 0.9646E-030.4696E-040.2627E-050.1967E-060.1913E-070.2316E-080.3359E-090.5370E- 100.9454E-110.1336E-11 _. FAULT 17 E(NO/YR) 0.1053E-020.9528E-090.8110E-050.8267E-060.1021E-060.1496E-070.253BE-000.4867E- 090.1038E-090.2407E-10 FAULT 18 E(NO/YR) 0. 2693E-030.6649E-050.2395E-060.1307E-070.1003E-080.101BE-090.1060E-100.1345E- 110.0000E.000.0000E+00 FAULT 19 E(NO/YR) 0.6251E-040.4721E-060.8757E-060.3414E-090.2449E-100.1925E- 110.0000E+000.0000E+000.00OOE+000.0000E+00 FAULT 20 R(NO/YR) 0.1004E-Oa D.1D60E-060.1837E-080.7536E-100.584DE-110.4012E- 120. OOOOE+DO0.0000E+000.0000£+000.0000E+00 - FAULT 21 1(NO/YR) 0.3080E-040.1919E-060.3220E-080.1230E-090.8803E-110.4249E- 120.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.o000E+00 FAULT 22 F(NO/YR) 0.7310E-040.51472-060.8880E-080.32 DIE- 090.2054E-100.6558E- 12D.ODDOE+000.0000E+000.00D0E+OOO.0000E+00 FAULT 23 E(NO/YR) 0.22 BSE- 030.2449E-050.6559E-070.3463E-080.3D71E-09D. 3702E-100.4189E- I 120.0000E+000.0000E+000.DOOOE+00 FAULT 24 E(NO/YR) 0.4099E-050.2705E-070.6939E-090.3940E-100.2878E- 110.0000E+000.00DOE+DDO.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+00 • FAULT 25 E(NO/YR) 0. 8318E-050.7041E-070.1425E-080.5809E-100.4266E-110.3289E- 120.0000E+000.ODOOE+OOO.00OOE+ODO.0000E+00 FAULT 2G E(NO/YR) 0.1196E -040.1344E -060.4775E -000.3333£ -090.3652E -100.5391E- 110.0000E+000. 0000E.000.0000E+000.00OOE+00 • FAULT 27 E(NO/YR) 0.1710E-040.9847E-090-2375E-080.1317E-090.8707E- 120.ODOOE.000.0000E.000.0000E+000.0D00E+000.DOOOE+00 FAULT 28 E(NO/YR) 0.2389E-050.'_402E-070.3510E-090.1999E-100.1260E- 130.0000E,COO.00DOC+000.0000E+000.0D00E.000.0000Ea00 FAULT 29 E(NO/YR) 0.1649E-040.5922E-070.9815E-090.3920E- 300.0000E.000.0000E+000.0000E-000. OOOOE,000. 0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT 30 E(NO/YR) 0.1299E-040.5707E-070.1129E-080.5076E- 100.00DOE.000.00002+000.0000E+000. 0000E.000.0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT ll E(NO/YR) 0.5451E-040,3725--060.6343E-090.2254E-090.1362E-100.3619E- 120 0000E+000. 0000E,000.0000E.000. 0000E+00 FAULT 32 E(NO/YR) 0.5964E-040.6748'c-060.1554E-070.6838E-090.5239E-100.5662E-110.1494E- 230.0000E+000.0000Ei000. 0000E+00 FAULT 33 E(NO/YR) 0.2315E-040.2335E-060.4970E-D00.1858E-090.1031E-100.7516E-120.5275E- 130. D000£,000.0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT 34 E(NO,/YR) 0.LO1'e-030.1477£-050.3099E-070.1147E-080.6323E-100.4534E-110.304GE- 120.0000E.000.0000E+000.00OOE,00 -� FAULT 35 E(NO/YR) 0.5999E-050.2010E-070.2178£-090.5116E-110.9919E- 130.0000E+000.0000E-000.00OOE,000. 0000E+000.DOOOE+00 j FAULT 36 E(NO/YR) 0.1845£-050.4292E-OB0.3976E-100.8011E- 120.00DOE,000.0000E+000.OOOOE-000.0000E.000.0000E,DOO.00OOE-00 FAULT 31 2(NO/YR) 0.1541E-040.1423E-060-3933E-080.2216E-090.2076E-100.170GE- 110.0000£+000.0000E+000.00002-000.ODDOE.00 TOTAL E(NO/YR) 0.6678E -010.2292E -010.1353E -010.9062E -020.6111E -020.4076E -020.2695E -020.1776E - _i 020.1171E -020.7755E-03 TOTAL RISK 0.6460E -010.2265E -010.1344E -010.9022E -020.6092E -020.4067E -020.2691E -020.1774E - 020.1171E -020.7752E-03 AMPLITUDES (9): 0.1100E+030.1200E+010.1300E.010.1400E.010.1500E+01 J LN (AMPLITUDE): 0.10 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.41 FAULT 1 E(NO/YR) 0.5162E -030.3464E -030.2343E -030.1599£-030.1100E-03 FAULT 2 E(NO/YR) 0.3090E-060.11486E-060.7451E-070.3535£-070.2?SSE-07 FAULT 3 E(90/YR) 0.3989E -000.1691E -080.7613E -090.3613E -090.1795E-09 FAULT 4 E(NO/YR) 0.18641-080.7964E-090. 36GDE-090.1775E-090.BBOlE-10 - FAULT 5 EN0/YR) 0.1766E -000.7340E -090.3247E -090.1492E -090.6797E-10 FAULT 6 E(NO/YR) 0.9564E-110. 3980E-110.922GE-120.0000E+000.0000E+00 '- FAULT 7 E(NO/YR) 0.1204E-110.9839E-130.D000E.000.0000E,OOO.0000E+00 • FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) 0.2399E-110. 5052E-120.3816E-130.00OOE,000.00OOE+00 FAULT 9 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E,000.0000E+000.0000E+000.00ODE+000.00OOE+O0 FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) 0.1655E-110.1388E-120.0000E+000.0000E+000.00002+00 FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) O.DDOOE-000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+00 12 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E.000.0000E+00 'FAULT ( FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E-000.00OOE.000.0000E+000.00ODE+000.0000£+00 j FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) 0.0000£+000.00OOE,000. 0000E,000.0000E.000.0000E+00 J FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) O.0000E-000.00OOE.000.0000E+000.00OOE+000.00OOE,00 FAULT 16 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000£+00 FAULT 17 E(NO/YR) 0.5936E-110.14729-110.0000E+00O.00DOE+DOO.0000E+OO FAULT 18 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+ODO.0000E,000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E,00 FAULT 19 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000-OOOOE.000.D000E+000.ODOOE+OOO.00DOE+00 FAULT 20 E(NO/YR) O.0000E,DOO.00OOE+000.00DOE+000.00OOE+OOD.0000E+00 FAULT 21 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.00ODE+000.0000E+00D.0000E,00D.0000E+00 FAULT 22 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.00DOE+000.0000E.00O.00OOE.000.00OOE,00 FAULT 23 E(NO/YR) O. 0000E+000. 0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT 24 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E-000-0000E+000.DODOE.000:0000E+000.00OOE+00 FAULT 25 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000£+000.0000E,00 FAULT 26 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E.00O.00OOE,000.0000E+000.0000E+000.00DOE+00 FAULT 27 E(N0/YR) O.0000E.000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E+00 j FAULT 28 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E,0O0. ODODE+000.0000E+000.0000£+000.0000£+00 - FAULT 29 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.00OOE+000.0000E+000.0000Ea000.D000E+00 FAULT 30 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E+00 FAULT 31 E(NO/YR) O.00OOE,DOO.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E+OOO.DOOOE+00 FAULT 32 E(NO/YR) O.DOOOE+000.0000E,000.0000E+DOO.0000E+000.DOODE,00 FAULT 33 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E-000.0000E-000.00OOE.00O.0000E+000.0000£+00 ' FAULT 34 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000£.000.0000E+00 FAULT 35 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000£+000.0000E+00 FAULT 36 E(NO/YR) O.00OOE+OOO.00OOE,000.0000E+000.00OOE+000.0000£+00 FAULT 37 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+OOO.00DOE.000.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E+00 TOTAL E(NO/YR) 0.5165E -030.3465E -030.2344E -030.1599E -030.1101E-03 TOTAL RISK 0.5163E -030.3464E -030.2343E -030.1599E -030.1101E-03 SPECIFIED RISKS: 0.013900 0.010000 0.005000 0.002105 0.001000 ESTIMATED LN AMP. -1.230 -0.991 -0.604 -0.278 -0.065 ESTIMATED AMP. (g): 0.29223 0.37134 0.54662 0.75737 0.93690 • RADION ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 2 t (9): O.1000AMPLI.2000E+000.3000E+000.4000£«000.50 OOE«000.6000E+000.7000£+000.8000E+000.9000£+000.1000£+01 •AMPLITUDES LN (AMPLITUDE): -2.30 -1.61 -1.20 -0.92 -0.69 -0.51 -0.36 -0.22 -0.11 0.00 FAULT 1 E(NO/YR) 0.1964E-010.128EE-010.8504£-020.5341E-020.3229£-020.1915E-020.1128E-020.6659E- 030.3959E-030.2307E-03 - FAULT 2 E(NO/YR) 0.4814E-020.1350x-020.3636E-030.9876E-040.2805E-040.8439E-050.2697E-050.9136E- 060.3271E-060.1233E-06 FAULT 3 E(NO/YR) 0.2765£-020.2383E-030.2521E-040.3414E-050.5699E-060.1129E-060.2577E-07D.6625E- 080.1885E-080.5848E-09 FAULT 4 E(NO/YR) 0.7644E-020.7477E-030.7141E-040.8070E-050.1093E-050.1744E-060.3210E-070.6669E- - 080.1556E-080.3973E-09 FAULT 5 E(NO/YR) 0.62B6E-020.3872E-030.2992E-040.3095E-050.4100E-060.6654E-070.1277E-070.2823E- OBO.7009E-090.1882E-09 FAULT 6 E(NO/YR) 0.3687E-030.1405E-040.6863E-060.4738E-070.4400E-080.5225E-090.7604E-100.1233E- 100.1825E-110.0000E,00 FAULT 7 E(NO/YR) 0.2151E-030.70195-050.3076E-060.1939E-070.1654E-080.1801E-090.2364E-100.3360E- 130.3785E-120-0000E+00 FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) 0.3924E-040.9696E-060.4846E-070.353BE-080.4508£-090.6653E-100.1179E-100.2235E- 110.3223E-120.0000E+00 FAULT 9 E(NO/YR) 0.1609--030.1741-'-050.4740E-070.2389E-080.1825E-090.1662E-100.3549E- 120.0000E4000.00OOE+OOO.00OOE.00 FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) O.1DOSE-030.2049E-050.8665£-070.6106E-OB0.6191E-090.8199E-100.1275E-100.1863E- 130.0000E+000.0000E,00 j FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) 0.3170£-040.2874£-060.8214E-080.4618E-090.3903E-100.2415E- 110.00OOE«000.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E.00 _i FAULT 12 E(NO/YR) 0.2481E-030.1999E-050.4026E-070.2294E-080.1630E-090.8959E- 110.0000E�000.0000E.000.0000E+D00. 00006.00 _ FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) 0.40BOE-040.2773E-060.5692E-080.2342E-090.1377E-100.1B88E- 120.00OOE,000.0000E+000.000O'-.000. OOOOE.00 FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) 0.1484E-030.4402E-050.1787E-060.1058E-070.8511E-090.8745E-100.1084E-300.1538E- 110.2080E-120-DOOOE+00 FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) 0.1572E-020.8512E-040.5146E-OSO.408SE-060.4151E-070.5181£-080.7667E-090.1305E- 090.2485E-100.5050E-11 FAULT 16 E(NO/YR) 0.8844E-030.47 BBE- 040.2894E-050.2298E-060.2335E-070.2914E-080.4313E-090.7340E- J 100.1399E-100.2845E-11 FAULT 17 E(NO/YR) 0.1122E-020.1345£-030.1414E-040.1698E-050.2397E-060.3930E-070-7343E-080.1536E- E-090.8902E-30 0.2346E-030.6009E-050.2225£-060.1231E-070.9392E-090.9247E-100.1105E-100.1479E- �__ •080.3544 FAULT 18 E(NO/YR) L'O.0000E.000.0000E+00 � FAULT 19 E(NO/YR) 0.3121E-040.1614E-060.2206E-080.5908E-100.2216E- 110.0000E+000.0000E+000.00ODE+OOO.00OOE.000. 0000E+00 FAULT 20 E(NO/YR) 0.7224E-050-2482E-070.27D9E-090.6068E-110.5588E- 130.00006.000.00OOE-000-0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E.00 i FAULT 21 E(NO/YR) 0.1486£-040.6259E-070.7489E-090.1791E-100.4909E- 120.OOOOE,000.00OOE,000.ODOOE+000.00OOE.000.0000E+0o FAULT 22 E(NO/YR) 0.4244E-040.2321E-060.3258E-080.8851E-100.3582E- 110.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E.00O.00DOE+OOO.00OOE+00 FAULT 23 E(NO/YR) 0.7255E-040.4D44E-060.6736E-080.2267E-090.1053E- 100.DOOOE+000. 0000E+000.0000E+000. OOOOE. 000. 0000E+00 _ FAULT 24 E(NO/YR) 0.4978£-060.1431E-080.2069E- 1DD.ODOOE,ODD.00OOE.000.0000E«000.00OOE.000.0000E,000.0000E+000.0000E,00 FAULT 25 E(NO/YR) 0.3576E-050.1822E-070.2485£-090.6721E-110.2425E- 120.0000E+000, OOOOE+000.00OOE+000.0000E+000.0000E�00 - FAULT 26 E(NO/YR) 0.1531E-050.7561E-OB0.1588E-090.6538E- 110.0000E,000.0000E.000.0000E,000.DOOOE,000.ODOOE.000.0000E+00 FAULT 27 E(NO/YR) 0.1924E-050.4744E-080.611BE- 100.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E.000.0000E-OOO.00OOE«000. 0000E+00 FAULT 28 E(NO/YR) 0.2184E-060.5420E-090.6874E- - 110.0000E+000.00DOE+000.00OOEr000.0000E.000.00DOE+000.00OOE+000.00OOE+DO FAULT 29 E(NO/YR) 0.3097£-050.5158E-080.4303E- 100.0000E.000.0000E+000.00ODE+000.0000£+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.00DOE+00 FAULT 30 E(NO/YR) 0.1676E-050.3244E-080.3164E- 100.0000E+000. 0000E+000. OOOOE,OOO.00OOE+000.0000E,000.00OOE+ODO.00OOE+OO ' FAULT 31 E(NO/YR) 0.2693E-040.1268E-060.1618E-080.4091E-100.1357E- 110.DDODE+OOO.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+ODO.00DOE+00 FAULT 32 E(NO/YR) 0.3059E-040.2354E-060.4020E-080.1260E-090.6D11E-110.2890E- 120.0000E1000.0000E+000.0000E+000+ 0000E+00 FAULT 33 E(NO/YR) 0.2682E-040.3313E-060.8090E-080.3346E-090.2039E-100.1634E-110.1293E- 120.0000E+000.0000E+000-0000£.00 FAULT 34 E(NO/YR) O.1744E-030.2102E-050.5060E-070.2073E-080.1253E-09D.1001E-100.7466E- 120.0000E,OOO.00OOE.000. 0000E+00 FAULT 35 E(NO/YR) 0.3971E-050.1159E-070.1109E-090.2221E-110.3007E- 130.00OOE.000.0000E+000.DODOE,OOO.DOOOE.00O.00OOE+00 FAULT 36 E(NO/YR) 0.9792E-060.1750E-000.1228E-100.1677E- • 20.0000E+000.0000E+000.00OOE,000.0000E+000. DOOOE+OOO. 0000E+00 ------------------------------------------------- CLOSEST DISTANCES BETWEEN SITE AND FAULT RUPTURES ------------------------------------------------- NO . FAULT 37 E(NO/YR) 0.3265E -050.1433E -070.2374E -090.8055E - 2 ELSINORE (JULIAN) 14 .8 14.8 DOOOE.000. 0000E,000.0000E+000.0000E-000. 28.2 0000E,00 4 SAN JACINTO-ANZA 34.4 •110.0000E,000. TOTAL 5 R(NO/YR) 0.4676E-010.I592E-010.9018E-020.5457E-020.3260E-020.1924E-020.1131E-020.666BE- 34.7 6 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 44.9 44.9 030.3962E-030.2378E-03 ROSE CANYON 48.5 48.5 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 53.3 53.3 9 TOTAL RISK 56.6 0.4568E-010.1579E-010.8978&-020.5442E-020.3255E-020.1922E-020.1130E-020.6666E- CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 57.1 57.1 11 I 030.39G1E-030.2378E-03 59.6 SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 61.1 61.1 1012 13 WHITTIER 63.9 AMPLITUDES 14 (g) 0.1100E+01O.1200E+010.1300E-010.1400E.010.1500E+01 64.8 LN WIPLITUDE): 0.10 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.41 FAULT 1 E(NO/YR) 0.1443E-030. 8874E -040.5525E-040. 3483E -040.2223E-04 FAULT 2 E(NO/YR) 0.4882E -070.2022E -070.8938E -080.3932E -080.1839E-08 FAULT 3 E(NO/YR) 0.1952E-090.6885E-100.2483E-SDO.8488E-110.2159E-11 FAULT 4 E(NO/YR) 0.1056E-09D.2582E-100.4567E-110.00OOE,OOO.00DOE+00 FAULT 5 E(NO/YR) 0.4893E -100.9240E -110.0000E+000 -0000E+000. 0000E+00 FAULT 6 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.O000E+000.0000E+000.0000E,000.0000E+00 FAULT 7 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E,OOO.00OOE+000.ODOOE+OOD.ODOOE+OOO.00OOE+00 FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) 0.000DE+000.0000£+000.0000E+000. 0000E+000.0000£+00 FAULT 9 E(NO/YR) D.0000E.000.00OOE+000.0000E+000. 0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E.000.00OOE,OOO.0000E+00 FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) O.QOOOE+000.00ODE+OOD.D000E+DOO.D000E-000.0000E+00 FAULT 12 1(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000£+000.0000E+ODO.0000E,000. OOOOE+00 FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E,OOO.ODOOE,000.0000E+000. 0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.00ODE+000.00OOE+00 1 FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) 0.9323£-120.0000E+000.0000E+000.00OOE+000. 0000E+00 FAULT 16 E(NO/YR) 0.5244E-120. DOOOE.000.0000E+000.00ODE+OOo.0000E+00 i FAULT 17 E(NO/YR) 0.2402E -100.6858E -110.2001E -',10.5120E -120.0000E+00 _. FAULT 18 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.DOOOE+000.00DOE+000.0000E,OOO.00OOE+00 FAULT 19 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E-000.0020E+000.ODOOE+000.DODOE+00 FAULT 20 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E.000-0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT 21 E(NO/YR) O.00OOE+OOO.DOOOE+000.0000E+OOO.0000E+000.0000E+00 FAULT 22 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000£,050.0000E+00 FAULT 23 E(NO/YR) O.0000E.DOO.00DOE+000.00OOE,OOO.00OOE+000.0000E+00 FAULT 24 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0D00E,000.00OOE.00O.00OOE+DOO.00OOE+00 FAULT 25 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E,000.0000E+000. 0000E+000. 0000E+00 I FAULT 26 E(NO/YR) O. 0000E.000.0000E+000.0000E+000-0000E+000.00DOE+00 FAULT 27 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+0D0.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E-000.0000E+00 FAULT 28 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E-000.0000E+00 FAULT 29 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.00OOE,000.DOOOE+000.00OOE+OOO.ODOOE.00 j -'_• FAULT 30 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E.000.0000E+000.0OD0E+DOO.0000E+00 FAULT 31 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E.000.0000E+OOD.0000E+000.0000E+000.00OOE+00 .- FAULT 32 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+OOO.0000E+000.0000E+OOC.00OOE+000 .0000E+00 FAULT 33 E(NO/YR) 0. 0000E.000. DDOOE+ 000. 0000E,000.0000E+000. 0000E+00 -� FAULT 34 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000. OOOOE+000.0000E.000.00OOE+ODO.ODOOE+00 FAULT 35 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000- OOGOE.000.0000E-000.0000E-00 ( FAULT 36 E(NO/YR) 0.0000E+000.0000E+000.00OOE+000.DOOOE.000 . 0000E+00 FAULT 37 E(NO/YR) 0.OODDE+OOO.00OOE+OOD.00OOE+000.DOOOE+200 .0000E+00 TOTAL E(NO/YR) 0.1444E -030.8876E -040.5526E -040.3484E -040.2223E-04 1 TOTAL RISK 0.1444E-030. 8876E -040.5526E -040.3484E -040.2223E-04 SPECIFIED RISKS: 0.013900 0.010000 0.005000 0.002105 0.001000 ESTIMATED LN AMP. -1.518 -1.281 -0.860 -0.542 -0.326 ESTIMATED AMP. (1j) 0.21919 0.27765 D.41498 0.58138 0.72200 ------------------------------------------------- CLOSEST DISTANCES BETWEEN SITE AND FAULT RUPTURES ------------------------------------------------- NO . FAULT NAME CD_1DRP CD_2DRP -------------------------------------------------------- I ELSINORE (TEMECULA) 1.3 1.3 2 ELSINORE (JULIAN) 14 .8 14.8 3 ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) 28.2 28.2 4 SAN JACINTO-ANZA 34.4 34.4 5 SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 34.7 34.7 6 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 44.9 44.9 7 ROSE CANYON 48.5 48.5 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 53.3 53.3 9 SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 56.6 56.6 10 CHINO -CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 57.1 57.1 11 EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 59.6 59.6 SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 61.1 61.1 1012 13 WHITTIER 63.9 63.9 14 SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-1 64.8 64.8 CDIST CLODIS CD EPI CD HYPO ----------------------------- 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.9 km 14.8 14.8 15.8 15.9 km 28.2 28.2 29.3 29.3 km 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 km 34.7 34.7 35.0 35.0 km 44.9 44.9 44.9 44.9 km 48.5 48.5 48.9 48.9 km 53.3 53.3 54.7 54.8 km 56.6 56.6 57.4 57.4 km 57.1 57.1 58.3 58.3 km 59.6 59.6 60.7 60.7 km 61.1 61.1 62.0 62.0 km 63.9 63.9 65.0 65.0 km 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 km • 15 SAN AIHUREAS - SB -Coach. M -2b 64.8 64.8 64 8 64.8 64.B 64.8 km 16 SAN ANDREAS - SB -Coach. M -1b-2 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 km 17 SAN ANDREAS - Whole M -la 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 km 18 CORONADO BANK 22.5 72.5 72.5 72.5 72.5 72.5 km 19 PINTO MOUNTAIN 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.1 74.9 74.9 km 20 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (I A.Basin) 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.2 77.0 77.0 km 21 SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M -lc -S 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.9 78.2 7B.2 km 22 PALOS VERDES 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.2 79.6 79.6 km 23 CUCAMONGA 83.7 83.7 83.1 03.7 84.5 84.5 km 24 BURNT MTN 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 85.1 85.1 km 25 PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST 85.7 85.7 85.8 85.8 87.1 87.3 km 26 SAN JOSE B8.3 88.3 86.3 88.3 88.6 88.6 km 27 CLEGHORN 89.6 89.6 89.6 89.6 69.6 89.6 km 26 EUREKA PEAK 89.B 89.8 89.8 89.8 90.5 90.5 km 29 ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) 90.3 90.3 90.3 90.3 91.4 91.4 km 30 SAN JACINTO - HORREGO 91.0 91.0 91.0 91.0 92.0 92.0 km 31 SIERRA MADRE 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.2 93.5 93.5 km 32 NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 94.5 83.5 84.5 84.5 84.7 B5.6 km 33 SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M -1b-1 97.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 97.6 97.8 km 34 SAN ANDREAE - 1857 Rupture M -2a 97.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 97.8 97.8 km 35 SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M -lc -3 97.0 97.0 97.0 97.0 97.8 97.8 km 36 LANDERS 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 100.1 100.1 km 37 NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 100.1 67.4 8B.4 88.4 88.5 89.3 km -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EY.PL,UTATION CD_1DRP = Closest distance to projection of rupture area along fault trace. CD SURE = Closest distance to surface projection of the rupture area. CDIST = Closes: distance to seismogenic rupture. CLODIS = Closest distance to subsurface rupture. CD_EPI = Closest epicentral distance. CD HYPO = Closest hypocentral distance. LIQUEFACN EVALUATION Project Nam Rancho Community Church Ph 3 & 4 Design Acceleration 1123 (g) Project Location Temecula, CA Design Magnitude Project Number 07G168 Historic High Depth to Groundwater (ft) Engineer RGT Current Depth to Groundwater (ft) Boring No. • Notes: Assumed (1) Energy Correction for Ngo of automatic hammer to standard Neo (2) Overburden Correction, Lao and Whitman, 1986, Cu = (2.0 ksf / p'o)'r' (3) Rod Length Correction for Samples <10 m in depth (4) N -value corrected for energy, rod length, and overburden (5) N -value corrected for fines content per Eq. 5 (Youd and Idriss, 1997). Allows use of base curve, Fig 2 (Youd and Idriss, 1997) (6) Calculated by Eq. 2 (Youd and Idriss, 1997), gives same results as Fig 40 of Seed and Idriss, ASCE, September 1971 (7) Per Figure 2, base curve (Youd and Idriss, 1997) using(Ni)socs. Curve also presented as Fig 7.1 (SCEC, 1997). INDET indicates that the (11,1060 plots to the right of the vertical portion of the base curve, and the Cyclic Stress Ratio required to induce liquefaction is indeterminant. The layer is non -liquefiable. (8) Corrected for Magnitude Weighting using revised Idriss factors (Fig 12, Youd and Idriss (1997) and Fig 7.2, SCEC (1997)) (9) Per Seed and Idriss, ASCE, September 1971 T.. 0.65(x,) , am„ re a, a, 9 m m 3..� r o n O Z �'`N ti : `G n m o✓ m 'm' `° c m n. o m o m a o Comments mt slm Ir" c Je» "O 'm -• J S �o o m J r Q Q a o .. o N 0 (U (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 1.5 0 2 1 24 120 1.3 4.08 0.75 95.5 95.5 120 120 120 1.00 INDET INDET 0.38 N/A Above Water Table 5.5 2 9 5.5 18 120 1.3 1.74 0.75 30.6 30.6 660 660 660 0.99 INDET INDET 0.37 N/A Non -Liquefiable 9.5 9 12 10.5 11 120 1.3 1.26 0.75 13.5 13.5 1260 1166 1260 0.98 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.37 Liquefiable 14.5 12 17 14.5 25 120 16 1.3 1.07 0.85 29.6 34.0 1740 1397 1740 0.97 INDET INDET 0.45 N/A Non -Liquefiable 19.5 17 23 20 29 120 7 1.3 0.91 0.95 32.7 33.1 2400 1714 2400 0.95 INDET INDET 0.50 N/A Non -Liquefiable 24.5 23 27 25 31 120 8 1.3 0.83 0.95 31.9 32.6 3000 2002 2875 0.94 INDET INDET 0.53 N/A Non -Liquefiable 29.5 27 32 29.5 22 120 53 1.3 0,80 0.95 21.7 31.0 3540 2261 3134 0.93 INLET INLET 0.55 N/A Non -Liquefiable 34.5 32 37 34.5 35 120 60 1.3 0.76 1 34.8 46.7 4140 2549 3422 0.89 INDET INDET 0.55 N/A Non -Liquefiable 39.5 37 42 39.5 90 120 46 1.3 0.73 1 85:9 108.1 4740 2837 3710 0.85 INDET INDET 0.54 N/A Non -Liquefiable 44.5 42 47 44.5 60 120 50 1.3 0.71 1 55.2 71.2 5340 3125 3998 0.81 INDET INDET 0.52 N/A Non -Liquefiable 49.5 47 50 48.5 59 120 51 1.3 0.69 1 52.7 68.3 5820 3355 4229 0.78 INDET INDET 0.51 N/A Non -Liquefiable Notes: Assumed (1) Energy Correction for Ngo of automatic hammer to standard Neo (2) Overburden Correction, Lao and Whitman, 1986, Cu = (2.0 ksf / p'o)'r' (3) Rod Length Correction for Samples <10 m in depth (4) N -value corrected for energy, rod length, and overburden (5) N -value corrected for fines content per Eq. 5 (Youd and Idriss, 1997). Allows use of base curve, Fig 2 (Youd and Idriss, 1997) (6) Calculated by Eq. 2 (Youd and Idriss, 1997), gives same results as Fig 40 of Seed and Idriss, ASCE, September 1971 (7) Per Figure 2, base curve (Youd and Idriss, 1997) using(Ni)socs. Curve also presented as Fig 7.1 (SCEC, 1997). INDET indicates that the (11,1060 plots to the right of the vertical portion of the base curve, and the Cyclic Stress Ratio required to induce liquefaction is indeterminant. The layer is non -liquefiable. (8) Corrected for Magnitude Weighting using revised Idriss factors (Fig 12, Youd and Idriss (1997) and Fig 7.2, SCEC (1997)) (9) Per Seed and Idriss, ASCE, September 1971 T.. 0.65(x,) , am„ re a, a, 9 (10) Per S ' (1997), thefollowing guidelines apply to the factor of safely against liquefaction: Con w ce of Liquefaction (N,)Fn (clean sand) Factor of Safety Settlement <= 1'.5 1.1 >= 30 1.0 Surface Manifestation <= 1�5 1,2 >=30 1.0 Lateral Spread <= 115 1.3 >=30 1.0 LIQUEFACTO INDUCED SETTLEMENTS Project Nam Rancho Community Church Ph 3 & 4 Project Location Temecula, CA Project Number 07G168 Engineer RGT Borinq No. B-1 Total Deformation (in) 1 0.72 Notes: Assumed (1) N60 calculated previously for the individual layer (2) Correction for fines content per Table 7.2 (SCEC 97) (3) Corrected Nsu (4) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, calculated previously for the individual layer (5) Earthquake induced cyclic shear stress ratio calculated previously for the individual layer (6) Factor to convert M=7.5 shear stress ratio to M=7.5 shear stress ratio, Seed, of al., 1983 (7) Corrected for Magnitude Weighting using revised Idriss factors (Fig 12, YOUd and Idriss (1997) and Fig Z2, SCEC (1997)) (8) Voumetric Strain Induced in a Liquefiable Layer, Tokimatsu and Seed, ASCE August 1987 (Strain N/A if Factor of Safely against Liquefaction > 1.2) p r m 3 O -c 0 n 0. o P m J m o Comments - N O (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 0 2 1 95.5 0 95.5 N/A 0.38 1.00 0.38 Above Water Table 2 9 5.5 30.6 0 30.6 N/A 0.37 1.00 0.37 Non -Liquefiable 9 12. 10.5 13.5 0 13.5 0.37 0.40 1.00 0.40 2.0 0.72 Liquefiable 12 17 14.5 29.6 1 30.6 N/A 045 1.00 0.45 Non -Liquefiable 17 23 20 32.7 1 33.7 N/A 0.50 1.00 0.50 Non -Liquefiable [24.5 23 27 25 31.9 1 329 N/A 0.53 1.00 0.53 Non -Liquefiable 27 32 29.5 21.7 4 25.7 N/A 055 1.00 0.55 Non -Liquefiable 32 37 34.5 34.8 4 38.8 N/A 0.55 1.00 0.55 Non -Liquefiable 37 42 39.5 85 9 4 89.9 N/A 0.54 1 .00 0.54 Non -Liquefiable 42 47 44.5 55.2 4 59.2 N/A 0.52 1.00 0.52 Non -Liquefiable 49.5 47 50 48.5 52.7 4 56.7 N/A 0,51 1.00 0.51 Non -Liquefiable Total Deformation (in) 1 0.72 Notes: Assumed (1) N60 calculated previously for the individual layer (2) Correction for fines content per Table 7.2 (SCEC 97) (3) Corrected Nsu (4) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, calculated previously for the individual layer (5) Earthquake induced cyclic shear stress ratio calculated previously for the individual layer (6) Factor to convert M=7.5 shear stress ratio to M=7.5 shear stress ratio, Seed, of al., 1983 (7) Corrected for Magnitude Weighting using revised Idriss factors (Fig 12, YOUd and Idriss (1997) and Fig Z2, SCEC (1997)) (8) Voumetric Strain Induced in a Liquefiable Layer, Tokimatsu and Seed, ASCE August 1987 (Strain N/A if Factor of Safely against Liquefaction > 1.2) LIQUEFAC i.oN EVALUATION Project Nas Rancho Communit Church Ph 3 & 4 Design Acceleration • Ill (g) Project Location Temecula, CA Design Magnitude Project Number 07G168 Historic High Depth to Groundwater (ft) Engineer RGT Current Depth to Groundwater (ft) Boring No. I B-2 • y i M, O N Vl r 1 C _ r O O _ y M Q m Ur ,< �' aO rS a�o.Oj o oo oNIuryt mCF , n O aO oav` ' M < m Commen.;.t s aoN O O 1or C C N O O O N v O N N yd a ,. o v� o o< (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) t5 0 9 4.5 12 120 1.3 1.92 0.75 22.5 22.5 540 540 540 0.99 0.25 0.25 0.37 N/A Above Water Table 9.5 9 12 1 10.5 14 120 1.3 1.26 0.75 17.2 17.2 1260 1166 1260 0.98 0.19 0.19 0.40 N/A Above Water Table 14 12 14 13 16 120 1.3 1.13 0.85 20.0 20.0 1560 1310 1560 0.97 0.22 0.22 0.44 0.50 Liquefiable 14.5 14 17 15.5 16 120 26 1.3 1.06 0.85 18.8 25.5 1860 1454 1766 0.96 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.62 Liquefiable 19.5 17 22 19.5 10 120 31 1.3 1.00 0.95 12.4 19.1 2340 1685 1997 0.95 0.21 0.21 0.50 0.41 Liquefiable 24.5 22 27 24.5 21 120 6 1.3 0.94 0.95 24.3 24.4 2940 1973 2285 0.94 0.27 0.27 0.53 0.52 Liquefiable 29.5 27 32 29.5 32 120 7 1.3 0.88 0.95 34.8 35.3 3540 2261 2573 0.93 INDET INDET 0.55 N/A Non -Liquefiable 34.5 32 39 35.5 31 120 8 1.3 0.83 1 33.4 34.1 4260 2606 2918 0.89 INDET INDET 0.55 N/A Non -Liquefiable 39.5 39 42 40.5 70 120 24 1.3 0.79 1 71.9 83.7 4860 2894 3206 0.84 INDET INLET 0.53 N/A Non -Liquefiable 44.5 42 47 44.5 77 120 22 1.3 0.76 1 764 874 5340 3125 3437 0.81 INDET INDET 0.52 N/A Non -Liquefiable 49.5 47 50 48.5 76 120 17 1.3 0.74 1 73.0 80.3 5820 3355 3667 0.78 INDET INDET 0.51 N/A Non -Liquefiable Notes. Assumed (1) Energy Correction for Ngo of automatic hammer to standard Nfio (2) Overburden Correction, Lao and Whitman, 1986, Cn = (2.0 ksf / p'.)... (3) Rod Length Correction for Samples <10 on in depth (4) N -value corrected for energy, rod length, and overburden (5) N -value corrected for fines content per Eq. 5 (Youd and Idriss, 1997), Allows use of base curve, Fig 2 (Youd and Idriss, 1997) (6) Calculated by Eq. 2 (Youd and Idriss, 1997), gives same results as Fig 40 of Seed and Idriss, ASCE, September 1971 (7) Per Figure 2, base curve (Youd and Idriss, 1997) using(N1)66os. Curve also presented as Fig 7.1 (SCEC, 1997). INDET indicates that the (N,)66 plots to the right of the vertical portion of the base curve, and the Cyclic Stress Ratio required to induce liquefaction is indeterminant The layer is non -liquefiable. (8) Corrected for Magnitude Weighting using revised Idriss factors (Fig 12, Youd and Idriss (1997) and Fig 7.2, SCEC (1997)) (9) Per Seed and Idriss, ASCE, September 1971 T,. = 0.65(6.) , am, , r. a, 6, g I (10) Per Su ' (1997), thefollowing guidelines apply to the factor of safety against liquefaction: Con ce of Li uefaction (N,)Fn (clean sand) Factor of Safety MW 6 Settlement <= 15 1.1 >= 30 1.0 Surface Manifestation <= 15 1,2 >=30 1.0 Lateral Spread <= 15 1.3 >=30 1.0 LIQUEFAC'I rjN INDUCED SETTLEMENTS Project Nano Rancho Community Church Ph 3 & 4 Project Location Temecula, CA Project Number 07G168 Engineer RGT Boring No • Notal Deformation (in) j 2.84 Notes. Assumed (1) N66 calculated previously for the Individual layer (2) Correction for fines content per Table 7.2 (SCEC 97) (3) Corrected N60 (4) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, calculated previously for the individual layer (5) Earthquake induced cyclic shear stress ratio calculated previously for the individual layer (6) Factor to convert M=7.5 shear stress ratio to M=7.5 shear stress ratio, Seed, et al., 1983 (7) Corrected for Magnitude Weighting using revised Idriss factors (Fig 12, Youd and Idriss (1997) and Fig 7.2, SCEC (1997)) (8) Voumetric Strain Induced in a Liquefiable Layer, Tokimatsu and Seed, ASCE August 1987 (Strain N/A if Factor of Safety against Liquefaction > 1.2) l 0 °1 o m m 'm'� m .� m o Comments (D 2 o n O N O N C 2. O (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1.5 0 9 4.5 22.5 0 22.5 N/A 0.37 1.00 0.37 Above Water Table 9.5 9 12 10.5 17.2 0 17.2 N/A 0.40 1.00 0.40 Above Water Table 14 12 14 13 20.0 0 20.0 0.50 0.44 1.00 0.44 1.6 0.38 Liquefiable 14.5 14 17 15.5 18.8 2 20.8 0.62 0,46 1.00 0.46 1.5 0.54 Liquefiable 19.5 17 22 19.5 12.4 2 14.4 0.41 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.0 120 Liquefiable ..24.5 22 27 24.5 24.3 1 25.3 0.52 0.53 1.00 0.53 1.2 0.72 Liquefiable 29.5 27 32 29.5 34.8 1 35.8 N/A 0.55 1.00 0.55 Non -Liquefiable 34.5 32 39 35.5 33.4 1 1 34.4 N/A 0.55 1.00 0.55 Non -Liquefiable 39.5 39 42 40.5 71.9 2 1 73.9 N/A 0.53 1.00 0.53 Non-Llqueflable 44.5 42 47 44.5 76.4 2 78.4 N/A 0.52 1.00 0.52 Non -Liquefiable 49.5 47 50 48.5 73.0 1 74.0 N/A 0.51 1.00 0.51 Non -Liquefiable Notal Deformation (in) j 2.84 Notes. Assumed (1) N66 calculated previously for the Individual layer (2) Correction for fines content per Table 7.2 (SCEC 97) (3) Corrected N60 (4) Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, calculated previously for the individual layer (5) Earthquake induced cyclic shear stress ratio calculated previously for the individual layer (6) Factor to convert M=7.5 shear stress ratio to M=7.5 shear stress ratio, Seed, et al., 1983 (7) Corrected for Magnitude Weighting using revised Idriss factors (Fig 12, Youd and Idriss (1997) and Fig 7.2, SCEC (1997)) (8) Voumetric Strain Induced in a Liquefiable Layer, Tokimatsu and Seed, ASCE August 1987 (Strain N/A if Factor of Safety against Liquefaction > 1.2) July 18, 2007 i Rancho Community (Reformed) Church 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, California 92592 Attention: Mr. Gary Barry Project Manager Project No.: 07G168-2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ® GEOTECHNICAL A California Como, ofion Subject: Soluble Sulfates Rancho Community Reformed Church — Phases 3 and 4 31300 Rancho Community Way Temecula, California Gentlemen: As discussed in our previous geotechnical investigation report, representative samples of the near surface soils were submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for soluble sulfate testing. The purpose of this testing was to determine if the quantities of soluble sulfates present in the on-site soils are sufficient to indicate a potential for the attack of exposed concrete. These test results were not available at the time of our original report, and are therefore presented in this addendum: . • Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%) Sulfate Classification B-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.007 Negligible 8-4 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.006 Negligible 3-6 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.002 Negligible These levels of soluble sulfates are considered to represent a negligible potential to attack concrete, in accordance with Portland Cement Association (PCA) and Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines. Therefore, no specialized concrete mix designs are considered warranted, with regard to sulfate protection. We do, however, recommend that additional sulfate testing be conducted after the completion of rough grading. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, f ERNCA�R1 t G. Trazo, M.Sc. Senior Engineer GEOTECHNICAL, INC. isstribution: (1) Addressee G. ,"4o. c6u5 9 E>.p. 1 B ilOB \fi0r CA14� 22885 East Savi Ranch Parkway < Suite E - Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4624 voice: (714) 685-1115 - fax: (714) 685-1118. www.socalgeo.com 0 • 0 Water Quality Management Plan Appendix F Treatment Control BMP Design Details WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS A-33 Worksheet 2 Design Procedure Form for Design Flow Unifcrm.lntensity Design Flow Designer: Sfah r2 tlen Company: tS Z'�:..• Date: 2(j Os J Project: ` oa- Location: w : em" �:1q, (-A 92 ?� i 1. Determine Impervious Percentage a. Determine total tributary area Ato,a, = y acres (1) b. Determine Impervious % i = % (2) 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient Values Use Table 4 and impervious % found in step 1 a. ASoil Runoff Coefficient Ca s (3) b. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cb (4) c. C Soil Runoff Coefficient C, = y] s—t� (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient Cd = + l (6) 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 = (8) c. Area of C Soil / (1) _ k = (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 = 6 V (11) 5. Determine BMP Design flow a. Qa,, = C x I x A = (11)x0.2x(1) Qama= ' 3 J ? s (12) Flow Based BMPs General Flow based BMPs are sized to treat flows up to the design flow rate, whic:t will remove pollutants to the MEP. This handbook bases the design flow rate: m a uniform rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour, as recommended by the California BMP Handbook. The flow rate is also dependent on the type of soil and percentage of impervious area in the development. Uniform Intensity Approach The Uniform Intensity Approach is where the Design Rainfall Intensity, I is specified as: I = 0.2 10 /hr That Intensity is then plugged into the Rational Equation to find the BMP de i gn flow rate (Q). QBMP = CIA • Where A = Tributary Area to the BMP C = Runoff Coefficient, based upon a Rainfall Intensity = 0.::' "/hr I = Design Rainfall intensity, 0.2'"/hr A step-by-step procedure for calculating the design flow rate is presentM on Worksheet 2. Table 4 shows runoff coefficient values pertaining to the type of soils and percent imperviousness. W • Tnhla a. Runoff Coefficients for an Intensity = 0.2 '/h, for Urban Soil Types' y�' til . v- . 1 ° r i L�rL�� ��ry4tj'�, n � rw •Y . . �t7t v : !]� J_?:�G.. � a..l:•.wt'c. i • jCu i�> £�`i•+ t,��• is l L. v 0.fr r " 1 • r ry i(+f+ ��rvi: 'v .y cQ .ru: fiv2.. Y t }" '.?• • �.4 `0r r��j +,>ir� r f V Ll]�iv.. ,F: F lw�y Si�.4 f 4 r-- 1, :t � � }�` '. �''vx � LS+1 1 1/• 1 1 1 � 1 1 • / ®- 11� 1 • 0.37 1 / / 1 • 1 • 1 0.43 1 1 icYa� 1 1 . 1 / •. 1 1 • 1 1. 1 0.45 1 1 1 1 •• 'E L• 1 • : 0.52 1 ' i . 1 •1 1 . .1 1 . 1 •1 1 . 1 . • 1 1. 1. 1 1 1 • • • 1 •• 1 1 1 . , t ■ 1 1 •11 / •1 1 11 / •/ / •1 'Complete Dmti s standanls �n be RxNA in the Pi lside Cou Flood Control Mydrdo9Y Manual Worksheet 9 Design Procedure Form for Grassed Swale Designer:+CI�11 H C � Comp an :�5�PCIAI Date `31 0% Project:' Location: zpn6,1-0 Ci C59 I—.- (Determine -Design- Flow-- - (Lfse Worksheet 2) OBMP cfs- 2, Swale Geometry a. Swale: bottom width (b) b. Side slope (z) c. Flow direction slope (s) b => z s ft % 3. Design flow velocity (Manning n - 0.2) V = fus 4.. Depth of flow (D) D -0� ft 5. Design Length (L) L = (7 min) x (flow velocity, ft/sec) x 60-. L = q2- ft 6. Vegetation (describe) --iro i- CkY r -Q .8. Outflow Collection (check, type used or describe "other") Grated Inlet' --Znfiltration Trench Underdrain Other Notes: SwcAe, V-�g,S Q e -,.-As CT" �5 • F Grassed :iwales r1 LJ I 1 LJ General A Grass swale is a wide, shallow densely vegetated channel that treats stormwater runoff as it is slowly conveyed into a downstream system. Fliese swales have very shallow slopes in order to allow maximum contact time with the vegetation. The depth of water of the design flow should be less than the 114ght of the vegetation. Contact with vegetation improves water quality by plant U take of pollutants, removal of sediment, and an increase in infiltration. Overal the effectiveness of a grass swale is limited and it is recommended that the: are used in combination with other BMPs. This BMP is not appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills o,.cur. Important factors to consider when using this BMP include: riatural channelization should be avoided to maintain this BMP's effectiveness, large areas must be divided and treated with multiple swales, thick cover is requin:d to function properly, impractical for steep topography, and not effective witll high flow velocities. Grass Swale Design Criteria: Design Parameter Unit Design Criteria Design Flow cfs QBMP Minimum bottom width ft 2 ft Maximum channel side slope W7-3.11 Minimum slope in flow direction % 0.2(provide underdrains for slopes < 0.:i)' Maximum slope in flow direction % 2.0 (provide grade -control checks for slopes >2.0)f Maximum flow velocity , ft/sec 1.0 (based on Manning n = 0.20) Maximum depth of flow inches 3 to 5 (1 inch below top of grass) Minimum contact time minutes 7 Minimum length ft Sufficient lentgth to provide minimurn contact time Vegetation Turf grass or approved equal Grass height I inches 1 4 to 6 (mow to maintain height) r – t Ventura countys i ecnnicai bueance Manual tor Stormwater uuamy Control Measures 2 City of Modesto's Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures 3 CA Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Significant Redevelopment 4 Riverside County DAMP Supplement A Attachment 52 • Grass Swale Design Procedure 1. Design Flow Use Worksheet 2 - Design Procedure Form for Design Flow Rate, QeMF 2. Swale Geometry a. Determine bottom width of swale (must be at least 2 feet). b. Determine side slopes (must not be steeper than 3:1; flatter is preferr(A). c. Determine flow direction slope (must be between 0.2% and 2%; provide underdrains for slopes less than 0.5% and provide grade control c:recks for slopes greater than 2.0% 3. Flow Velocity Maximum flow velocity should not exceed 1.0 ft/sec based on a Manning � n = 0.20 4. Flow Depth (Maximum depth of flow should not exceed 3 to 5 inches based on a Memning n = 0.20 5. Swale Length Provide length in the flow direction sufficient to yield a minimum contai:t time of 7 minutes. is L = (7 min) x (flow velocity ft/s) x (60 sec/min) 6. Vegetation Provide irrigated perennial turf grass to yield full, dense cover. lvIcw to maintain height of 4 to 6 inches. 7. Provide sufficient flow depth for flood event flows to avoid flooding of crilwal areas or structures. r1 LJ 53 • • SWALE LENGTH TO PROVIDE MININIUM O ! .--- CHECK DAM ! RIPRAP ENERGY DISSIPATC'Ai �� NIROL) .- FLOV/ SP ER FOR A ` CONCENTRATED FLOVlS rvl eT y � y � v J y r y W l� �� \.• OiITLET RCN, CMI 30 ENTER 111ROVC4 19.GTT EDCIIRD AU3W3 LEUGTH OF SAALE 4' W40Y. LOAM TURF - F ASTM C; 33 SAN UNDFRDRA REQUIRED FOR SLOPE$ <0.5 i L a TRAPEZOIDAL GRASS SWALE PLAN NOT TO SCALE GMS HEIGHT 4 -TOW DEPTH OF FLOLY AT SQDF HEIGHT OF GRAS vt za � t Y (ft INIbNhU) 4" PERFORATIM PIPE UNDERMI IP IN V COARSE AGGREGATE- (RE RED FOR SLOPES 495. Y.1 TRAPEZOIDAL GRASS SWALE SECTION NOr ro.sCALE Figure 11: Grassed Swale Source: Ventura County Guidance Manual 54 It Worksheet 1 Design Procedure for BMP Design Volume 85th. percentile runoff event Designer: j e:4boy-' Company: —rem8tuk4. Coy,s t. 'Nts ?nr Date: 912110% 1 21{a Project: �C.n .L _o W� h� 11 1� "c�rt - GN lyi 13 r- CaMOOS Location: �- ct Q7 L 1. Create Unit Storage Volume Grach a. Site location (Township, Range, and T ?S &R -ZW Section). Section 2'g (1) b. Slope value from the Design Volume Curve in Appendix A. Slope = `. 2O (2) c. Plat 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 No❑ the origin, to create the graph attached? 2. Determine Runoff Coefficient a. Determine total impervious area A;,,,,e,,,.u„ = C D acres . (5) b. Determine total tributary area A. = pp2�� —i acres (6) c. Determine Impervious fraction i = (5) /. (6) i = . (7) d. Use (7)in Figure 1 to find Runoff ORC=.858i'-.78i'+.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 in -acre desired Vu value. V� = lJ LJ acre (9) 4. Determine Design Storage Volume a. Vamp = (9) x (6) lin- acres] VBMP = .2--4 in -acre (10) b. VaMP = (10) / 12 [ft- acres] VaMP = t f2 ft -acre (11) c. VBMP = (11) x 43560 Ift'] VemP ='Z Q ft' (12) Notes: n u General Volume Based BMPs The largest concentrations of pollutants are found in runoff from small vc:lume storms and from the first flush of larger storms. Therefore, volume based NAPS should be sized to capture and treat the initial and more frequent runoff surges that convey the greatest concentration of pollutants. To maximize treatment and avoid health hazards, volume -based BMPs must retain and release the runoff between a 24 and 72 hour period. This handbook typically recommends a craw down time of 48 hours, as recommended by the California BMP Handbook. Fhe drawdown time refers to the minimum amount of time the design volume mus: be retained. In order to meet RWQCB requirements, the method for determining the d,:;:;ign volume is based on capturing 85 percent of the total annual runoff. Theee 85 percent capture values were determined throughout Riverside County usinc; -ain gages with the greatest periods of record. Key model assumptions are basf::cl on studies used in the Urban Runoff Quality Management WEF Manual of Pr<�c tice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87,._(1998) and the California Pest Management Practice Handbook. This handbook gives a simple procedure for determining the design volume of a BMP based on the location of the projeci:. • BMP Desitin Volume Caicula(ions Following is a step-by-step procedure for determining design volume for BMPs using Yvlorksheet 1. Examples of the following procedure can be found in Appendix B. 1. Create Unit Storage Volume Graph: a) Locate the project site on the Slope of the Design Volume Curve contained in Appendix A. b) Read the slope value at this location. This value is the Unit Storage Volume for a runoff coefficient of 1.0. c) Plot this value as a point (corresponding to a coefficient of 1.0) on :f e Unit Storage Volume Graph shown on Figure 2. d) Draw a straight line from this point to the origin, to create the grapf,. 2. Determine the runoff coefficient (C) from Figure 1 or the following relations rip: C = .858i3 - .78i2 + .774i + ,04 where i = impervious percentage • 4 • 3. Using the runoff coefficient found in step 2, determine 851h percentile unit storage volume (Vj using Figure 2 (created in step 1). 0 4. Determine the design storage volume (VBNp). This is the volume to be u::•e d in the design of selected BMPs presented in this handbook. 0.80 ! ------------------ 0.70 - - - -- - --- -- - 0.60 --- - 0 0.50 — w 0.40 - CO 0.30 - - - - 0.20 -- --- - — 0.10 J- - --- -- - 0.00 — — 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %Impervious Figure 1. Impervious— Coefficient Curve (WEF/ASCE Method) Imperviousness is the dcci nd haction arthe total catchment covered by the sum ofroLids, puking 1, 40 sidewalks, rooftops, and other impermeable surfaces of an urban landscape. 5 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 m 1.4 1.3 1.2 0 1.1 m < 0.9 3 0.8 m < 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0,2 0.1 0 0 - Plop Slope V/p10 tioP Alppeiiclix A -here 0.1 0.2 0.3 0;4 0-5 06 0;7 0;8 0.9 4 Rgnoff Coefficient (Q) Figure UnitStorago'"VolumeGraph,- 1 •� Design Procedure Form for Infiltration Trench Designer: rIV-1 Company:U a n�!' va Coy vi=a Location: Worksheet 5 1. Determine Design storage Volume (Use worksheet 1')I a. Total Tributary Area (maximum 10) Ata _ O acres b. Design Storage Volume, VBMp VBMP = ZD ft, 2. Maximum Allowable Depth (Dm = _in/hr tl/12s) a. Site infiltration rate (1) t = � hrs rawdown. time (t = 48 b. minimum.drawdown s = ? =— Dm ft hrs) C. Safety factor (s) d. Dm = tl/12s 3. Trench Bottom Surface Area J ftZ Am ,= Vamp I D. Am = Notes:��'11s T+`iy1. ice- dry cz �a IYC* �nQS r" e -o ? <. '-0 , e r 30 • • Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 8%6/2008 Appendix H PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT— SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS A-35 WQMP — RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH & SCHOOLS Earth ethnics March 29, 2004 Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc. 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202 Temecula, California 92591 Attn: Mr. Stan Heaton Proj. No. 99221-01 SUBJECT: PHASE I ENVIROMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT - UPDATE Proposed Rancho Community Church Site 53 +/- Acres, Highway 79 & Constance Street Temecula, Riverside County, California Reference: "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 53 Acres, Highway 79 & Constance Street, Temecula, Riverside County, California", Report Dated June 27, 1999, by Earth Technics, Proj. No. 99221-02 Gentlemen: We have physically inspected the above referenced site, and periodically examined the site since the above referenced report was issued in 1999. The site has been utilized for dry farming of oats from 1999 to late 2003. The site was mass graded at the end of 2003 to its present configuration. The previous conclusions and recommendations of the referenced report remain valid, and no changes have occurred. The likelihood of hazardous contamination on or migrating into the site remain very low. Respectf Registrat ' .N ted, Y P.: �C,,'.. C .27 . b�527 Warren I S/ erling: f plres 3-31-07 Director of -Geotechnical .Services Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 FAX (909) 767-1193 Ear T hnics March 29, 2004 Proj. No. 99221-01 Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc. 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202 Temecula, California 92591 Attn: Mr. Stan Heaton SUBJECT: PHASE T' Ca*;( - ASSESSMENT - UPDATE Propos/ Site 53 +/ C-//' Street Temec a Reference: % ,essment, 53 Acres, Temecula, Riverside • ited June 27, 1999, 99221-02 Gentlemen:/ We have pr cerenced site, and periodical -,above referenced report was issued in r�- The site has been.utilizeu ing.of oats from 1999 to late 2003. The site was mass gzu- the end of 2003 to its present configuration. The previous conclusions and recommendations of the referenced report remain valid, and no changes have occurred. The likelihood of hazardous contamination on or migrating into the site remain very low. Respectfullyd, Ep 71t 11 1, r Jaleh, k E 305 °�/ Warren L,. Sh rling Registration -per -31-07 Directori of Geotechnical Services Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 FAX (909) 767-1193 1 i • Ea r1h echnics PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 53 Acres, Highway 79 & Constance Street Temecula, Riverside County, California PROJECT NO. 99221-02 JUNE 27, 1998 Prepared For: Temecula Engineering Consultants 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 103 Temecula, California 92590 Earth Technics P.O. Box 891989, Temecula, California 92589 (909) 699-5451 June 27, 1999 i Proj. No. 99221-02 Temecula Engineering Consultants 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 103 Temecula, California 92590 SUBJECT: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 53 +/- Acres, State Highway 79 and Constance Street Tentative Tract 15211 Temecula, Riverside County, California Gentlemen: 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Phase I Environmental • Site Investigation of the subject property to determine if any former or current useage has resulted in any type of contamination at the subject site requiring remediation. Based on the results of this investigation and data presented herein, the likelihood of hazardous contamination on or migrating into the site is considered very low. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of our work included: * A detailed physical examination of the property on June 7, 1999 by an Engineering Geologist. * Subsurface soils were examined on both June 7, 1999, and June 11, 1999 utilizing flight auger borings and backhoe trenches in association with a concurrent preliminary soils investigation. *A detailed review of 20+ environmental data bases to determine past site usage and of aerial photos dating back to 1953 to determine prior land use. * Preparation of this report presenting our findings, • conclusions and recommendations. P i i I i. 8 i 0 . 2000 4000 SCALE feet INDEX MAP OF 53 ACRES,, ST.ATE-'HIGHWAY 79 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15211, TEMECULA AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • SOURCE: STATE SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE 72 MIN. QUAD. PECHANGA JANUARY 1, INDEX MAP wXym • 99221-01 Page 3 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 Site Conditions The entire site is vacant land without evidence of significant surface modification. The site is covered by short weeds and grasses that have been recently mowed for weed control. A large portion of the site is currently utilized for dry oat farming. No significant drainages cross the property, and maximum relief is approximately 52 feet descending from the northeast to the southwest. The property is bounded by State Highway 79 to the south and existing single family residences to the north and west. Vacant commercial land is located to the east. The only improvements on-site is some perimeter fencing consisting of chain link on the west and north. The vague remenants of two small earthen reservoirs to store water are located in the north central portions of the site. The remaining earth embankments are less than 4 feet high. No significant man- made debris or dumping was noted on the property during our field • investigation in June 1999. The geographic relationship of the property to adjoining areas is shown on the Index Map. 3.2 Hydrogeology and Ground water The site is underlain by silty sand and sandy slightly clayey silt with a trace of gravel (Kennedy, 1977; Weber, 1977) representing a younger and older alluvium to a maximum depth of 150-200 feet. Beneath the surface alluvium, the site is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of the Pauba Formation which extends to over 1700 feet based on well data (Rancho Water, 1984). The underlying sedimentary bedrock is considered a good to moderate water bearing unit with specific yields of 15-35o and transmissivity of more than 275 gallons/day/ft2. Ground water was not encountered to a depth of 50 feet(elevation 998 feet) during subsurface exploration in June 1999. The nearest well is the State designated TBS, R2W, 17-M1 approximately 35 feet north of Parcel 5 in the central portions of the site. This well had an artesian flow as recent as June 1969 (DWR, 1971). Since June 1969 the Lower Mesa Subbasin has been operated by • Rancho Water, and the referenced well operated as their No. 217. • 99221-02 Page 4 According to the Master Water Plan(1994), and current information (Rancho Water, 1999), the same well has never been higher than 99.6 feet(elevation 950.4 feet) from the ground surface even during the record setting wet year of 1998 (April 1998). The current water level as of June 26, 1999 is 162 feet (elevation 888.4 feet). The basin will continue to operate in an overdraft condition according to Rancho Water officials, and never approach historic elevations, due to lack of recharge and continue heavy pumpage. 4.0 RECORD AND DOCUMENT REVIEW 4.1 Governmental Agency Review The following governmental agency data bases were reseached for this project: California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region; Leaking Underground Storage Tank Listing (LUST, 1 updated February 29, 1996), active and inactive solid waste ' landfills and processing sites located within the state of California (SWIS Sites, updated May 15, 1996), the sudden • and/or accidental release of hazardous substances including petroleum into the environment (ERNS Sites, updated December 31, 1995), and the California CALSITES Report, which pertains to state hazardous waste sites including ASPIS (updated April 12, 1996); California Office of Environmental Information - listing of 1 all registered underground storage tanks located within the State of California ( UST, updated October 15, 1990) U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies National Priority List (NPL), also known as the superfund list, is an EPA listing of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites (updated June 25, 1996). U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies CERCLIS List, which is a compilation of known or suspected uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites (updated March 31, 1996). Also included in the search was the U.S. EPA's RCRIS List (updated May 31, 1996), which pertains to facilities which either treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. The RCRIS-LG List, which pertains to facilities which either generate more than 100kg of hazardous waste per month or meet other applicable requirements of the Resource and Recovery Act. The RCRIS-SG List, which pertains to small quantity generators (generate between 100kg and 1,OOOkg of hazardous waste per month); -i 99221-02 Page 5 State department of Oils and Gas; previous or existing oil and gas wells in or near the site and/or oil and gas seeps existing on or adjacent to the subject site; TRW-REDI Information Systems assessor parcel information (1996 calendar year); County of Riverside Health Services Agency - Department of Public Health; underground and above ground storage tanks, groundwater cleanup program, and known hazardous material incidence in the vicinity of the site; County of Riverside Department of Building and Safety permit records; review of all structural permits issued for the subject site; City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety permit i; records; review of all structural permits issued for the subject site; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps; previous commercial utilization for the subject site and adjoining properties; i • Temecula Valley Museum; review of available photographs and available records of the subject site. Past interviews with the curator Mr. Tony Tobin about past utilization of the site and adjoining properties. The specified government data bases were searched in accordance with the ASTM Standard (E 1527). EDR's report is presented in Appendix A. The federal and state records and dates of last update searched by EDR is included in Appendix A of this report. The "Overview Map" compiled by EDR's data base search is presented in Appendix A. I 4.2 Governmental Agency Findings Information obtained by the data base search and our governmental agency review indicated the following: The subject property has never been cited or known to have been involved with hazardous waste contamination. No RCRIS-TSD, AWP, Cal -Sites, CORTESE, Delisted Cal -Sites, Notify 65, Toxic Pits, CORRACTS, CA Bond Expenditure Plan, ROD, CONSENT, or Coal Gas sites are located within a 1.0 - mile radius of the subject property. • No sites located within a 1.0 -mile radius of the subject site, are listed on the California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System (CHMIRS) Appendix A. • 99221-02 Page 6 No known CERCLIS, SWIS (state landfill), or WMUDS/SWAT facility sites were reported located within a 0.5 -mile radius of the subject property. No LUST, UST, CA FID, HWIS, RCRIS small or large quantity generator sites are on record within a 0.125 -mile radius of the subject property. No AST sites are on record within a 0.125 -mile radius of the subject property. 4.3 Interpretation of Governmental Agency Findings No previous contamination source potential exists within 1 mile of the site based on the large enviromental data base. No on-site contamination source exists as a result of prior land use. 5.0 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW/INTERPRETATION • The referenced aerial photographs (1953, 1989, 1994) were carefully reviewed to determine past site developments. Based on this review, the only man-made improvements, including agriculture, are two earthen water reservoirs that existed at the site from 1953 to early 1980 when they were abandoned and graded to prevent water storage. The land has been utilized for open cattle grazing and dry farming from 1953 to the present time. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 of the 53 +/- acre subject property located north of Highway 79 and Constance Street. Based on the findings of this investigation, it is our opinion, that the potential for significant hazardous material or petroleum contamination to exist on or have migrated onto the subject property from off-site sources is very low. • 99221-02 • Page 7 Respectfully Submitted, Warren L. Sherling, C.E.G. 1182 Registration Expires 2-28-00 Attach: Index Map - Page 2 Appendix A - Summary of Document Research Appendix B - References Dist: (4) Addressee APPENDIX A 1�1 ------------------ 5' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unmapped (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. • TC0380462.7r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. ' (EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-97. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom distances requested by the user. The address of the subject property for which the search was intended is: - SH 79+CONSTANCE ST TEMECULA, CA 92592 No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government - records either on the subject property or within the ASTM E 1527-97 search radius around the subject j, property for the following Databases: NPL: ------------------------- National Priority List -t Delisted NPL: ---------------- NPL Deletions RCRIS-TSD:------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System --J AWP: ------------------------ . AWP Cal -Sites: Cal -Sites 7 Notify 65: -------------------- Notify 65 I CHMIRS:--------------------- California Hazardous Material Incident Report System -' Cortese: ------ - -------------- Cortese Toxic Pits: ------------------- Toxic Pits CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information �. System CERC-NFRAP:--------------- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information . System CORRACTS:----------------- Corrective Action Report =• SWF/LF---------------------- State Landfill LUST: ---- .----------- ------- Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System UST: ------------------------- Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database Ca. FID: ---------------------- CA FID AST: ------------------------- Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities -! RAATS----------------------- RCRAAdministrative Action Tracking System WMUDS_--------- ----- WMUDS/SWAT t HAZNET: HAZNET j RCRIS-SOG----------------- Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System -: RCRIS-LOG__________________ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System HMIRS: ---------------------- Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System PADS: PCB Activity Database System ERNS: -------------------- __. Emergency Response Notification System ..: FINDS:----------------------- Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report TRIS:_ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA: ------------------------ Toxic Substances Control Act MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System NPL Lien:-------------------- NPL Liens CA SLIC:-------- ------------ CA SLIC regions. Ca. BEP: --------------------- CA Bond Exp. Plan ROD:------------------------. ROD ---- ---CONSENT: ------------- .... Superfund (CERCLA) Consent -Decrees Ca. WDS--------------------- CA WDS S Bay Reg. 2: ---------------- South Bay Region 2 Coal Gas: -------------------- Former Manufactured gas (Coal Gas) Sites. MINES: Mines Master Index File Unmapped (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. • TC0380462.7r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • z . .... .. .. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY R, Search Results: Search results for the subject property and the search radius, are listed below: Subject Properly: The subject properly was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. TC0380462.7r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 I _1 _1 I V rv,alm �ueua Waterways :SD Earthquake Fault Lines V; Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater lD Closest Federal Well in quadrant [S� Closest State Well in quadrant Q Closest Public Water Supply Well .'-lH Closest Hydrogeological Data 6 Oil, gas or related wells TARGET PROPERTY: Tract 15211 CUSTOMER: Earthtechnics, Inc. ADDRESS: SH 79+Constance St CONTACT: Mr. Warren Scherling CITY/STATE/ZIP: Temecula CA 92592 INQUIRY#: 0380462.7r LAT/LONG: 33.4771/ 117.1151 DATE: June 16, 1999 7:13 am i • x x GEOCHECK VERSION 2 1' �SUMMARY . TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Transverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): 33.477131 - 33' 28'37.7" 117.115150 - 117' 6' 545" Zone 11 489301.2 3703996.8 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SITE Target Property: GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATIONt Geologic Code: Era: System: Series: ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNITt 2433117-D1 PECHANGA, CA O Cenozoic Quaternary Quaternary Category: Siratifed Sequence GROUNDWATER FLOW INFORMATION i Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using — site-specific well data. I1 such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, including well data collected on nearby properties, regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers), or surface topography.# •AQUIFLOW'"" Search Radius: 2.000 Miles DISTANCE DIRECTION GENERAL DIRECTION 7 MAP ID FROM TP FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW Not Reported General Topographic Gradient at Target Property: General West General Hydrogeologic Gradient at Target Property: No hydrogeologic data available. Site -Specific Hydrogeological Data': .J Search Radius: 2.0 miles Status: Not found • FEDERAL DATABASE WELL INFORMATION WELL DISTANCE QUADRANT FROM TP Eastern >2 Miles Southern 1 - 2 Miles STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION WELL DISTANCE QUADRANT FROM TP Northern 1 - 2 Miles Eastern 1/4- 1(2 Mile Southern 112 - 1 Mile Western .>2 Miles LITHOLOGY Not Reported Not Reported DEPTH TO WATER TABLE Not Reported Not Reported {Swme;P.G.SKhmltm.R.E.Amdtand WJ. Bawis. GediMp N NeCm4rminpus U.S. at 1.25M WD Scale- A digital represenwum trAe 1974 P.B. King and H BeiFinan Map. USG5 Digital Dau Serie DDS 11(199a). -US . EPA Grand Water NanOEmk, Vd I; Gmmd Water and cpmamm+tan, Otrce o/ FeseatU and deaelcpmenl EPg525;6gON1EtC0apteH, page 78, SepemER 1990. EDR AOUIFLOW nt4ma4 Slial 0MtrpgecicgcLly den—ned y—ndw,Ma 11cv dett4ens At spMfe I¢atms. See Ne date pages at Pe end of flys re(On tm a odraPete de ,ddm. TC0380462.7r Page 3 STATE OIL/GAS WELL INFORMATION API ,# DISTANCE FROM TP NO WELLS FOUND GEOCHECK VERSION 2.1,' SUMMARY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION Searched by Nearest PWS. I NOTE: PWS System location is not always the same as well location. _ J PWS Name: KIDS WORLD i KIDS WORLD 41956 003RD ST _ TEMECULA, CA 92390 Location Relative to TP: >2 Miles West f I PWS currently has or has had major violation(s) or enforcement No AREA RADON INFORMATION EPA Radon Zone for RIVERSIDE County: 2 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L. Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA ,, • Number of sites tested: 12 Area Average Activity %<4 pCi/L %4.20 pCi/L D/o>20 pCi/L Living Area - 1st Floor 0.117 pCi/L 100% 0% 0% Living Area - 2nd Floor 0.450 pCi/L 100% 00/0 0% Basement 1.700 pCi/L 100% 0°/D 0% i 1 r i, I I I • . TC0380462.7r Page 4 - OVERVIEW MAP - 0380462.7r - Earthtechnics, Inc. x iargec rropeny �• . Site s. at-elevatinos_higher than_ or equal to the target property • Sites at elevations lower than the target property i A Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) National Priority List Sites Landfill Sites • T,f Power transmission lines Oil B Gas pipelines // 1oo-year flood zone © 5oo-year flood zone CONTACT: Wetlands per National CITY/STATE/ZIP: Wetlands Inventory (1994) TARGET PROPERTY: Tract 15211 CUSTOMER: Earthtechnics, Inc. ADDRESS: " SH 79+Constance St CONTACT: Mr. Warren Scherling CITY/STATE/ZIP: Temecula CA 92592 INQUIRY #: 0380462.7r LAT/LONG: 33.47717117.1151 DATE: June 16;.1999 7:12 am DETAIL MAP - 0380462.7r - Earthtechni Inc. * Target Property Tract 15211 o me rn e. ,—Sites.at elevationshigher_than Earthtechnics, inc. -------- — --- or equal to the target property CONTACT: 1 Mr. Warren Scherling • Sites at elevations lower than J\.f Power transmission lines INQUIRY#: the target property A/ Oil & Gas pipelines A Coal Gasification Sites (if requested) June 16, 1999 7:13 am 100 -year flood zone Sensitive Receptors Soo -year flood zone National Priority List Sites Wetlands per National Landfill Sites Wetlands Inventory (1994) TARGET PROPERTY: Tract 15211 CUSTOMER: Earthtechnics, inc. ADDRESS: SH 79+Constance St CONTACT: 1 Mr. Warren Scherling CITY/STATE/ZIP: Temecula CA 92592 INQUIRY#: 0380462.7r LAT/LONG: 33.4771 /117.1151 DATE: June 16, 1999 7:13 am II • Search Target Distance Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 0 Total Plotted TC0380462.7r Page 7 NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR ! Delisted NPL TP NR NR NR NR NR RCRIS-TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR AWP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR - Cal -Sites 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR Notify 65 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR i CHMIRS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR Cortese 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR Toxic Pits 1.000 0 0 - 0 0 NR j CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR CERC-NFRAP TP NR NR NR NR NR CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR State Landfill 0.500 0 0. 0 NR NR ! LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR CA FID 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR AST TP NR NR NR NR NR RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 1 WMUDS/SWAT 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR _ HAZNET 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR -- PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR • FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR -- TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR �- TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR MLTS TP. NR NR NR NR NR NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR I CA SLIC 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR ` CA Bond Exp. Plan 1.000 0 0- 0 0 NR ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 1 - CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR CA WDS TP NR NR NR NR NR South Bay Region 2 TP NR NR NR NR NR -Coal-Gas -- ------ --- ------1:000 0 0 0 0 NR MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance ' Sites may be listed in more than one database 0 Total Plotted TC0380462.7r Page 7 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY SHOWING ONLY SITES HIGHER THAN OR THE SAME ELEVATION AS TP' a t ,_•� TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance ' Sites may be listed in more than one database TC03804627r Page 8 Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 118- 1/4 1/4- 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Delisted NPL TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RCRIS-TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 AWP 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Cal -Sites 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Notify 65 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CHMIRS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Cortese 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Toxic Pits - 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 CERC-NFRAP TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 CA FID 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 AST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 WMUDS/SWAT 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 HAZNET 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. - 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRIS Lg. Quan, Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TRIS - TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR - 0 NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 CA SLIC 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 CA Bond Exp. Plan 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CA WDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 South Bay Region 2 TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance ' Sites may be listed in more than one database TC03804627r Page 8 • Map ID .; 'In MAP FINDINGS, Direction _:.. Distance Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number Elevation Site Databases) EPA ID Number Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database NO SITES FOUND TC0380462.7r Page 9 I I BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: Site Type: Year Constructed: Altitude: Well Depth: Depth to Water Table: Date Measured: LITHOLOGIC DATA Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY Not Reported Well Closest to Taroet Property (Eastern Quadrant) 332650117035101 Distance from TP: >2 Miles Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Not Reported County: - Riverside 1318.00 ft.. State: California Not Reported Topographic Setting: Upland draw Not Reported Prim. Use of Site: Unused Not Reported Prim. Use of Water: Not Reported TC0380482.7r Page Al 0 TC0380462.7r Page A2 Well Closest to Target Property (Southern Quadrant) BASIC WELL DATA Site ID: 332747117061101 Distance from TP: 1 - 2 Miles Site Type: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Year Constructed: 1990 County: Riverside Altitude: 1075.00 ft. State: California .. Well Depth: 575.00 ft. Topographic Setting: Valley flat Depth to Water Table: Not Reported Prim. Use of Site: Observation Date Measured: Not Reported Prim. Use of Water: Unused LITHOLOGIC DATA Not Reported WATER LEVEL VARIABILITY Water Level: 73.70 ft. Water Level: 73.93 ft. Water Level: Not Reported Water Level: 72.93 ft. Date Measured: 03/05/90 Date Measured: 03/15/90 Date Measured: 05/03/90 Date Measured: 05/18/90 Water Level: 72.52 ft. Date Measured: 07/03/90 TC0380462.7r Page A2 Water Wells: TC0380462:7r Page A3 Well Within 1 - 2 Miles of Target Property (Northern Quadrant) i Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 08S/02W-07A02 S User ID: WAT j FRDS Number Number: 3310038064 lCounry: Riverside District Number: 14 Station Type: WELLJAMBNT ' - Water Type: Wel!/Groundwater Well Status: Active Raw Source Lat/Long: 332959.0 1170711.0 Precision: 100 Feet (one Second) Source Name: WELL 216 j System Number: 3310038 ' System Name: Rancho California Water District Organization That Operates System: i P.O. Box 9017 ( Temecula, CA 92589 Pop Served: 68900 Connections: 20396 Area Served: RANCHO CALIFORNIA Sample Information: ' Only Findings Above Detection Level Are Listed _ ! Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 1.000 UNITS Chemical: COLOR - - Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Fndings: 430.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 7.800 • Chemical: Sample Collected: PH (LABORATORY) 05/04/1963 Findings: 101.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 0510411983 Findings: 113.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 4.800 MG/L Chemical: CARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 78.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 26.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 3.160 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 _ Findings: 65.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 05104/1983 Findings: 71.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: .400 MG/L r'.hermcaL- _ E-U0EIDE-(TEMP=ATUREDEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 100.000 UG/L Chemical: BORON Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 255.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: 11.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) TC0380462:7r Page A3 Sample Collected: 05/04/1983 Findings: .160 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY (LAB) Sample Collected: 05/03/1989 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR i Sample Collected: 05/17/1989 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR i Sample Collected: 05/22/1989 Findings: 4.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 05/22/1989 Findings: 3.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 08/23/1989 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 11/15/1989 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L _ Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 02/14/1990 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR - Sample Collected: 06/12/1991 Findings: 500.000 UMHO Chemical: J SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 06/12/1991 Findings: 8.000 Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) i — Sample Collected: 06/12/1991 Findings: 93.000 MG/L — Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CAC03) _: Sample Collected: e6/12/199i Findings: 113.000 MG/L Chemical: • BICARBONATE ALKALINITY .- Sample Collected: 05112/1991 Findings: 95.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CAC03) I Sample Collected: 0611211991 Findings: 30.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 06/1211991 Findings: 5.000 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM - ( Sample Collected: 06/12/1991 Findings: 59.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 06/12/1991 Findings: 2.000 MG/L j Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 06/1211991 Findings: 76.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 06/12/1991 Findings: .200 MG/L I Chemical: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 06/1211991 Findings: 200.000 UG/L Chemical: BARIUM - � ��^^ple-Collected: 06p-,0991 Fi-dings: 285,000—MG/L-------- - - - Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 06/12/1991 Findings: 23.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: 470.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE • TC0380462.7r Page A4 i • I I Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) 332846.0 1170628.0 Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CACO3) 3310038 Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 05127/1992 Findings. Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CACC3) Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: BARIUM Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) Sample Collected: 05/27/1992 Findings: Chemical: TURBIDITY (LAB) Sample Collected: 06/17/1993 Findings: Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 09/13/1993 • Findings: Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 10/10/1994 Findings: Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR 8.000 98.000 MG/L 119.000 MG/L 108.000 MG/L 33.000 MG/L 6.000 MG/L 53.000 MG/L 2.000 MG/L 72.000 MG/L .300 MG/L 200.000 UG/L 285.000 MG/L 20.000 MG/L .150 NTU 1.000 PCI/L 1.000 PCI/L 1.000 PCI/L Well Within 1/4 - 112 Mile of Target Property (Eastern Quadrant) Water System Information: Prime Station Cade: 08S/02W-17M01 S FRDS Number Number: 3310038065 User ID: County: -Statio Tyfee: Well Status: Precision: Connections: WAT Riverside Active Raw 100 Feet (one Second) 20396 TC0380462.7r Page A5 Water Type: Well/Groundwater Source Lat/Long: 332846.0 1170628.0 Source Name: WELL 217 (NAVY) System Number: 3310038 System Name: Rancho California Water District Organization That Operates System: P.O. Box 9017 • Pop Served: Temecula, CA 92589 68900 Area Served: RANCHO CALIFORNIA User ID: County: -Statio Tyfee: Well Status: Precision: Connections: WAT Riverside Active Raw 100 Feet (one Second) 20396 TC0380462.7r Page A5 TC0380462.7r Page A6 Sample Information: ' Only Findings Above Detection Level Are Listed . Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 24.400 C Chemical: SOURCE TEMPERATURE i Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 - Findings: 3.000 UNITS I Chemical: COLOR i Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 440.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 07/25/1983 Findings: 8.500 Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 110.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 124.500 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 07/26/1963 Findings: 4.800 MG/L Chemical: CARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 37.000 MG/L - Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CAC03) j Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 13.200 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: .970 MG/L j Chemical: MAGNESIUM ' Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 95.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM �._ / • Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 67.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 1.300 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 300.000 UG/L Chemical: BORON Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 300.000 MG/L j Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 15.000 MG/L i Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: .260 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY (LAB) Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 580.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 8.600 Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 113.000 MG/L rnemicaL_.. TOTALALKALIUU-T-Y-(AS-CAC03) Sample Collected: 03/2811988 Findings: 113.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 12.000 MG/L Chemical: CARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: .100 UG/L Chemical: PHOSPHATE • TC0380462.7r Page A6 Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 24.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CACO3) . Sample Collected: 03/2811988 Findings: 8.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 1.000 MG/L - Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 108.000 MOIL Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: L000 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 03/2811988 Findings: 81.000 MG/L _ Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 1.100 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 400.000 UG/L Chemical: BORON Sample Collected: 03/2811988 Findings: 285.000 MG/L i Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: 15.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) Sample Collected: 03/28/1988 Findings: .100 NTU - -I Chemical: TURBIDITY (LAB) Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 570.000 UMHO j- Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 08/10/1986 Findings: 8.800 Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 08110/1988 Findings: 110.000 MG/L .� Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 55.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 39.000 MG/L J Chemical: CARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: .100 UG/L Chemical: PHOSPHATE Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 24.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 8.000 MG/L -. Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 1.000 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM _! Sample -Collected: nBpDP- 8 -_.._—Findings___..._-105.00D_MG/L__ .. Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 1.000 MG/L Chemical: I POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 82.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE • TC0380462.7r Page A7 TC0380462.7r Page A8 Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 2.200 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: .300 UG/L Chemical: BORON Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: 280.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 ,Findings: 13.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) Sample Collected: 08/10/1988 Findings: .100 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY (LAB) I Sample Collected: 11/30/1988 Findings: 2.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 11/30/1988 Findings: 2.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 12/28/1988 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L _j Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR _I Sample Collected: 02/15/1989 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L j Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Endings: 570.000 UMHO i Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 8.100 -I Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 110.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CACO3) - -• Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 134.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY j Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 51.000 MG/L I Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CACO3) Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 17.000 MG/L Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings:. 2.000 MG/L Chemical: MAGNESIUM i Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 99.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 2.000 MG/L Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 74.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE Sample Collected: 0811411991 Findings: .800 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) sample -Collected 08t14/ -199a Findings 200_UG/L--- .__ _. .. Chemical: BORON Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: .060 UG/L Chemical: FOAMING AGENTS (MEAS) Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 305.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS TC0380462.7r Page A8 • TC0380462.7r Page A9 - Sample Collected: 08/14/1991 Findings: 16.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) _ Sample Collected: 01/12/1993 Findings: 2.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA - Sample Collected: 01/12/1993 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR _ Sample Collected: 06/15/1993 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 09/01j1993 Endings: 6.000 PCI/L Chemical: - GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 09/01/1993 Findings: 3.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 610.000 UMHO Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 8.500 Chemical: PH (LABORATORY) Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 115.000 MG/L Chemical: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CAC03) Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 134.000 MG/L Chemical: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 3.000 MG/L -- Chemical: CARBONATE ALKALINITY Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 63.000 MG/L / Chemical: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CAC03) -• Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 20.000 MG/L _ Chemical: CALCIUM Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 3.000 MG/L I Chemical: MAGNESIUM Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 97.000 MG/L Chemical: SODIUM Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 2.000 MG/L ' Chemical: POTASSIUM Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 82.000 MG/L Chemical: CHLORIDE ' Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 1.000 MG/L Chemical: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) ' Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 7.000 UG/L Chemical: ARSENIC Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 300.000 UG/L Chemical: BORON ca ple-Collected OB 101994 _—Endings 365000_MG/L-- Chemical: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: 16.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) Sample Collected: 08/10/1994 Findings: .150 NTU Chemical: TURBIDITY (LAB) • TC0380462.7r Page A9 Sample Collected: 09/15/1995 Findings: 16.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) FRDS Number Number: 3310038022 County: Sample Collected: 08/23/1996 Findings: 16.000 MG/L Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3) Active Raw - Source LaULong: 332807.0 1170653.0 Sample Collected: 02/03/1997 Findings: 2.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA Sample Collected: 02/03/1997 Findings: 2.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR P.O. Box 9017 Sample Collected: 08/15/1997 Findings: 2.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA 20396 Area Served: RANCHO CALIFORNIA Sample Collected: 08/15/1997 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Quadrant) Water System Information: Sample Collected: 11/04/1997 Findings: 3.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA County: Riverside Sample Collected: 11/04/1997 Findings: 1.000 PCI/L Chemical: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR Source Lai/Long: 333000.0 1170900.0 Precision: Well Within 1/2 - 1 Mile of Target Property (Southern Quadrant) Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 08S/02W-20E02 S User ID: WAT FRDS Number Number: 3310038022 County: Riverside District Number: 14 Station Type: WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE i- Water Type: Well/Groundwater • Well Status: Active Raw - Source LaULong: 332807.0 1170653.0 Precision: 100 Feet (one Second) - Source Name: WELL 117 System Number: 3310038 j System Name: - Rancho California Water District Organization That Operates System: P.O. Box 9017 Temecula, CA 92589 .Pop Served: 68900 Connections: 20396 Area Served: RANCHO CALIFORNIA Well Within >2 Miles of Target Property (Western Quadrant) Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 08S/03W-01 P02 S User ID: WAT FRDS Number Number: 3310038003 County: Riverside District Number. 14 Station Type: WELLJAMBNT Water Type: Well/Groundwater Well Status: Destroyed Source Lai/Long: 333000.0 1170900.0 Precision: 100 Feet (one Second) Source Name: AUG CANT- DESTROYED . �ysiemNumbec: '�33A038 -- -. - System Name: Rancho California Water District Organization That Operates System: P.O. Box 9017 j Temecula, CA 92589 Pop Served: 68900 Connections: 20396 Area Served: RANCHO CALIFORNIA Sample Information: ' Only Findings Above Detection Level Are Listed Sample Collected: 07/26/1983 Findings: 22.700 C Chemical: SOURCE TEMPERATURE C • TC0380462.7r .Page A10 Sample Collected Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: Sample Collected: i Chemical: I Sample Collected: Chemical: I Sample Collected: ..� Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: Sample Collected: 9 Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: —, Sample Collected: Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: Sample Collected: ' Chemical: Sample Collected: Chemical: f 07/26/1983 Findings: COLOR 07/26/1983 Findings: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE 07/26/1983 - Findings: PH (LABORATORY) 07/26/1983 Findings: TOTAL ALKALINITY (AS CAC03) 07/26/1983 Findings: BICARBONATE ALKALINITY 07/26/1983 Findings: TOTAL HARDNESS (AS CAC03) 07/26/1983 Findings: CALCIUM 07126/1983 Findings: MAGNESIUM 07/26/1983 Findings: SODIUM 07/26/1983 Findings: CHLORIDE 07/26/1983 Findings: FLUORIDE (TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT) 07/26/1983 Findings: BORON 07/26/1983 Fndings: TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 07/26/1983 Findings: NITRATE (AS NO3) 07/26/1983 Findings: TURBIDITY (LAB) 1. 1.000 UNITS 330.000 UMHO 7.500 83.000 MG/L 101.300 MG/L 55.000 MG/L 17.200 MG/L 2.900 MG/L 53.000 MG/L 48.000 MG/L .300 MG/L 100.000 UG/L 230.000 MG/L 24.000 MG/L .250 NTU TC0380462.7r Page A11 Searched by Nearest PWS. PWS SUMMARY: PWS ID: CA3301948 PWS Status: Active Distance from TP: >2 Miles Date Initialed: June/ 1977 Date Deactivated: Not Reported Dir relative to TP: West PWS Name: KIDS WORLD KIDS WORLD 41956 003RD ST TEMECULA, CA 92390 Addressee / Facility: System Owner/Responsible Parry KIDS WORLD 419563RD STREET TEMECULA, CA 92390 . Facility Latitude: 33 29 36 Facility Longitude: 117 06 51 City Served: Not Reported Treatment Class: Untreated Population Served: Under 101 Persons PWS currently has or has had major violation(s) or enforcement: No - TC0380462.7r Page Al2 '_• To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90 -day updating requirement of the ASTM standard. FEDERAL ASTM RECORDS CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Source: EPA Telephone: 703-413-0223 CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Aa (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL Date of Government Version: 04/21/99 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/14/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 06/09/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 26 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/03/99 --� ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 202-260-2342 j Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12/31/98 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/13/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 01/18/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 5 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/04/99 NPL: National Priority List - Source: EPA Telephone: N/A National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Super -fund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center t (EPIC). Date of Government Version: 05/10/99 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/12/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 06/09/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 28 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually - Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/08/99 RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Date of Government Version: 04/26/99 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/14199 Date Made Active at EDR: 06/09/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 26 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/31/99 CORRACTS: Corrective Action Telephone: 800-424-9346 CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version: 03101 /99 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/16/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually • Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/17/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/16/99 TC0380462.7r Page A13 ,,;_• FEDERAL NON -ASTM RECORDS: BRS: Biennial Reporting System Source: EPA/NTS Telephone: 800424-9346 The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LOG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version: 12/31/95 Database Release Frequency: Biennially Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/25/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Source: EPA Regional Offices Telephone: Varies Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Supertund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: Varies Database Release Frequency: Vanes Date of Last EDR Contact: Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more _ detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial _ . enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C -DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). i_ • • Date of Government Version: 04/01/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/16/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12199 HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4526 - Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 12/31/97 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/24/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/26/99 MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301415-7169 MILTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government. Version: IM8/98 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/02/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/99 NPL LIENS:. Federal Supertund Liens Source: EPA Telephone: 205-564-4267 Federal-SupeAund-L+ens.—UndeHhe-autheritygranted-the-USEPA-by4he-Comprehensive-Environmental-Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of flied notices of Supertund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10115/91 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/22/98 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/99 TC0380462.7r Page A14 -i• PADS: PCB Activity Database System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-3936 PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial scorers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 09/22/97 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/05/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/17/99 RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Source: EPA Telephone: 202.564-4104 RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version: 04/17/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/14/99 ROD: Records Of Decision Source: NTIS Telephone: 703-416-0223 Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version: 01/31/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/19/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19/99 .-. TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260.1531 -_ • Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. _ Date of Government Version: 12/31/97 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/01/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/28/99 TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-1444 Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government Version: 12/31/94 Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years MINES: Mines Master Index File Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303-231-5959 Date of Government Version: 08/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually 1r u Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/26/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/26/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/08/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/05/99 TC0380462.7r Page A15 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASTM RECORDS: BEP: Bond Expenditure Plan Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 916-255-2118 Department of Health Services developed a site-specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds. It is not updated. is Date of Government Version: 01/01/89 Date Made Active at EDR: 08/02/94 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/27/94 Elapsed ASTM days: 6 Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/31/94 CAL -SITES (AWP): Annual Workplan Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 915-323.3400 Known Hazardous Waste Sites. California DTSC's Annual Workplan (AWP), formerly BEP, identifies known hazardous substance sites targeted for cleanup. Date of Government Version: 11/04/97 Date Made Active at EDR: 12/20197 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/21/97 Elapsed ASTM days: 29 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/02/99 CAL -SITES (ASPIS): Calsites Source: Department of Toxic Substance Control Telephone: 916-323-3400 The Calsites database contains potential or confirmed hazardous substance release properties. In 1996, California EPA reevaluated and significantly reduced the. number of sites in the Calsites database. Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 03/03/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 02/05/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 26 Date of Last EDR Contact:.12/08/98 CHMIRS: California Hazardous Material Incident Report System Source: Office of Emergency Services Telephone: 916-464-3277 California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System. CHMIRS contains information on reported hazardous material incidents (accidental releases or spills). Date of Government Version: 12/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/24/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/13/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 42 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/02/99 CORTESE: Cortese Source: CAL EPA/Office of Emergency Information . Telephone: 916-327-1848 The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal -Sites). Date of Government Version: 04/01/98 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/26/98 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/23/98 Elapsed ASTM days: 28 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last FDR Contact: 02/03/99 LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-445-6532 3king-Under4mundSiorage-Tanklncidern-�ieports_LUST�ecords-contain n-iaventory_ot. reported leaking. underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government version: 01/31/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/02/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/05/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 28 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/08/99 TC0380462.7r Page A16 '1 • i .r NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Source: State Water Resources Control Board - Telephone: 916-657-0696 Proposition 65 Notification Records. NOTIFY 65 contains facility notifications about any release which could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. Date of Government Version: 10/21/93 Date Made Active at EDR: 11/19/93 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/01/93 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/26/99 SWF/LF (SWIS): Solid Waste Information System Source: Integrated Waste Management Board Telephone: 916-255-4035 Active, Closed and Inactive landfills. SWF/LF retards typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills. These may be active or inactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Section 2004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version: 03/08/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 04/07/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 03/08/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/08/99 TOXIC PITS: Toxic Pits Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-227-4364 Toxic PITS Cleanup Act Sites. TOXIC PITS identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. Date of Government Version: 07/01/95 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/26/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/30/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 27 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/08/99 CA UST: • UST: Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board - Telephone: 916.227-4408 The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database is a historical listing of UST sites. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/15/90 Date Made Active at EDR: 02/12191 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/25/91 Elapsed ASTM days: 18 Data of Last EDR Contact: 04/19/99 FID: Facility Inventory Database Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916-445-6532 - The Facility Inventory Database (FID) contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. Refer to local/county source for current data. Date of Government Version: 10/31/94 Date Made Active at EDR: 09/29/95 Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/05/95 Elapsed ASTM days: 24 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/28/98 WMUDS/SWAT: Waste Management Unit Database Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-227-4448 -Waste Management nil 2 a ase System. WMUDS is -s u—se oy the Stafe Water Resourdes Control-BoWFd staff and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards for program tracking and inventory of waste management units. WMUDS is composed of the following databases: Facility Information,Scheduled Inspections Information, Waste Management Unit Information, SWAT Program Information, SWAT Report Summary Information, SWAT Report Summary Data, Chapter 15 (formerly Subchapter 15) Information, Chapter 15 Monitoring Parameters, TPCA Program Information, RCRA Program Information, Closure Information, and Interested Parties Information. Date of Government Version: 12/01/98 • Date Made Active at EDR: 02/15/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/11/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 35 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/24/99 TC0380462.7r Page A17 is STATE OF CALIFORNIA NON -ASTM RECORDS: AST: Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-227-4382 Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Government Version: 02/22/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly HAZMAT: Hazmat Facilities Source: City of San Jose Fire Department Telephone: 408-277-4659 Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/08/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/10/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/22/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/99 HAZNET: Hazardous Waste Information System Source: California Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 916-324-1781 Facility and Manifest Data. The data is extracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the DISC. The annual volume of manifests is typically 700,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 350,000 - 500,000 shipments. Data are from the manifests submitted without correction, and therefore many contain some invalid values for data elements such as generator ID, TSD ID, waste category, and disposal method. Date of Government Version: 12/31/97 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/19/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19/99 SOUTH BAY: South Bay Site Management System Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510-286.0457 Groundwater pollution cases in the Santa Clara Valley where the regulatory lead is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Date of Government Version: 09/01/96 Database Release Frequency: Annually WDS: Waste Discharge System Source: State Water Resources Control Board Telephone: 916-657.1571 Sites which have been issued waste discharge requirements. Date of Government Version: 03/01/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/14/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/22/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/99 TC0380462.7r Page A18 CALIFORNIA COUNTY RECORDS ALAMEDA COUNTY: Underground Tanks Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510-567-6700 Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Local Oversight Program Listing of UGT Cleanup Sites Source: Alameda County Environmental Health Services Telephone: 510-567-6700 Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually UIoLfIGL•tK9b9G<Ktt19PY30 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/03/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/03/99 SL: Site List Source: Contra Costa Health Services Department Telephone: 925-646-2286 List includes sites from the underground tank, hazardous waste generator and business plan/2185 programs. Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually KERN COUNTY: i_�__• UST: Sites & Tanks Listing Source: Kern County Environment Health Services Department Telephone: 805-862-8700 Kern County Sites and Tanks Listing. Date of Government Version: 03/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LOS ANGELES COUNTY: HMS: Street Number List Source: Department of Public Works j Telephone: 626-458-3517 -' Industrial Waste and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Date of Government Version: 12/31/98 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities Source: La County Department of Public Works Telephone: 818-458-5185 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/08/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/07/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/08/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/07/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/99 TC0380462.7r Page A19 _ • Site Mitigation List Source: Community Health Services Telephone: 213.890-7806 Industrial sites that have had some sort of soil) or complaint. Date of Government Version: 03/23/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/22/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/99 MARIN COUNTY: UST Sites Source: Public Works Department Waste Management Telephone: 415-499-6647 Currently permitted USTs in Marin County. Date of Government Version: 03101/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/10199 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/10/99 Telephone: 714-834-3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST). Date of Government Version: 02/24/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly • Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15199 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06114/99 TC0380462.7r Page A20 NAPA COUNTY: LUST: Sites With Reported Contamination Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269 i — Date of Government Version: 10!27/97 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/22199 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 UST: Closed and Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites = Source: Napa County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-253-4269 =_• Date of Government Version: 02/17/98 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/22/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 ORANGE COUNTY: I List of Industrial Site Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency t i Telephone: 714-834-3446 Petroleum and non -petroleum spills. Date of Government Version: 01/19/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/14/99 LUST: List of Underground Storage Tank Cleanups Source: Health Care Agency 1 Telephone: 714-834-3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Cleanups (LUST). 1 Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/14/99 UST: List of Underground Storage Tank Facilities _ Telephone: 714-834-3446 Orange County Underground Storage Tank Facilities (UST). Date of Government Version: 02/24/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly • Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15199 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06114/99 TC0380462.7r Page A20 • PLACER COUNTY: MS: Master List of Facilities Source: Placer County Health and Human Services Telephone: 530-889-7335 Lst includes aboveground tanks, underground tanks and cleanup sites. Date of Government Version: 01/20199 Database Release Frequency:. Semi -Annually RIVERSIDE COUNTY: LUST: Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 909-358.5055 Riverside County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Version: 01/06/99 i Database Release Frequency: Quarterly UST: Tank List i Source: Health Services Agency Telephone: 909.358-5055 - Date of Government Version: 01/06/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly -- SACRAMENTO COUNTY: • Toxisite List ' Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management _ Telephone: 916-875-8450 Date of Government Version: 12/01/98 f Database Release Frequency: Quarterly • Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/30/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/28/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/26/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07126/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/26199 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/26/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/15/98 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/10/99 ML: Regulatory Compliance Master List Source: Sacramento County Environmental Management Telephone: 916.875-8450 Any business that has hazardous materials on site - hazardous material storage sites, underground storage tanks, waste generators. Date of Government Version: 01/06/96 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/08/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/09/99 DEHS Permit System Print -Out By Location Source: San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division Telephone: 909-387-3041 This listing includes underground storage tanks, medical waste handlers/generators, hazardous materials handlers, Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/15/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/14/99 TC0380462.7r Page A21 I 1 L J SAN DIEGO COUNTY: SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facilities Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 619.338-2209 San Diego County Solid Waste Facilities. Date of Government Version: 07/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/05/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/99 HMMD: Hazardous Materials Management Division Database Source: Hazardous Materials Management Division Telephone: 619-338-2268 The database includes: HE58 - This report contains the business name, site address, business phone number, establishment 'H' permit number, type of permh, and the business status. HE17 - In addition to providing the same information provided in the HE58 listing, HE17 provides inspection dates, violations received by the establishment, hazardous waste generated, the quantity, method of storage, treatment/disposal of waste and the hauler, and information on underground storage tanks. Unauthorized Release List - Includes a summary of environmental contamination cases in San Diego County (underground tank cases, non -tank cases, groundwater contamination, and soil contamination are included.) Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY: LUST: Local Oversite Facilities Source: Department Of Public Health San Francisco County Telephone: 415-252.3920 Date of Government Version: 01/05/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Underground Storage Tank Information Source: Department of Public Health Telephone: 415-252-3920 Date of Government Version: 02/01/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SAN MATEO COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/20/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/17/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/17/99 Business Inventory Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Telephone: 650-363-1921 List includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generators, and underground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 04/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Annually LUST: Fuel Leak List - Source: San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division Date of Government Version: 01/14/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/20/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/08/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/03/99 TC0380462.7r Page A22 -• SANTA CLARA COUNTY: LUST: Fuel Leak Site Activity Report Source: Santa Clara Valley Water District Telephone: 408-927-0710 Date of Government Version: 12/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SOLANO COUNTY: LUST: Leaking Undergroung Storage Tanks Source: Solaro County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-421-6770 Date of Government Version: 02/25/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly UST: Underground Storage Tanks Source: Solano County Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 707-421-6770 Date of Government Version: 02/17/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SONOMA COUNTY: LUST Sites Source: Department of Health Services Telephone: 707.525-6565 Date of Government Version: 02/23/99 `- Database Release Frequency: Quarterly SUTTER COUNTY: _ UST: Underground Storage Tanks Source: Sutter County Department of Agriculture Telephone: 530-741-7504 Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually • VENTURA COUNTY: Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/25/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/25/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/08/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/03/99 Date o1 Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 SWT: Business Plan, Hazardous Waste Producers, and Operating Underground Tanks Source: Ventura County Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 The BWT list indicates by site address whether the Environmental Health Division has Business Plan (B), Waste Producer (W), and/or Underground Tank m information. Date of Government Version: 02/25/99 Date of Last EDI ll 03122198 Database Release Frequency: Quaherly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 TC0380462.7r Page A23 LUST: Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites Source: Environmental Health Division • Telephone: 805-654-2813 Ventura County Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Sites (LUST). Date of Government Versiori: 02/25/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/22/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 UST: Underground Tank Closed Sites List ' Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Ventura County Operating Underground Storage Tank Sites (UST)/Underground Tank Closed Sites List. I Date of Government Version: 03/29/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/22/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/99 �4 SWF/LF: Inventory of Illegal Abandoned and Inactive Sites Source: Environmental Health Division Telephone: 805-654-2813 Ventura County Inventory of Closed, Illegal Abandoned, and Inactive Sites. Date of Government Version: 06/01/97 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/02/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/99 TC0380462.7r Page A24 r� • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) LUST Records LUST REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigation Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast (1) Telephone: 707-576-2220 Date of Government Version: 10/14/98 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of. Last EDR Contact: 04/05/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/99 LUST REG 2: Fuel Leak List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510-286-0457 Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 3: LUSTIS Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805-549-3147 Date of Government Version: 02/01/99 .Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 4: Underground Storage Tank Leak Ust Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213-266.7544 Date of Government Version: 02/26/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 5: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916-255-3125 Date of Government Version: 01/20/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 6L: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region (6) Telephone: 916-5425424 Date of Government Version: 12/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly LUST REG 6V: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Victowille Branch Office (6) Telephone: 760-346-7491 Date of Government Version: 02/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/20/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/23/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/02/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/23/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 LUST REG 7: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Case Listing Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River Basin Region (7) Telephone: 760-346-7491 Date of Government Version: 03/02/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/02/99 Database-Remrequency: emi-Annualyate oiNdztSccied-u7eer-EDR-u705/31199 LUST REG 8: (LUSTIS) Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909-782-4498 Date of Government Version: 01/19/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 T00380462.7r � Page A25 ,.`. • LUST REG 9: Leaking Underground Storage Tank Report Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 619-467-2952 Date of Government Version: 01/21109 Dale of Last EDR Contact: 04/26/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/26/99 1_ • • TC0380462.7r Page A26 • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) SLIC Records SLIC REG 1: Active Toxic Site Investigations Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (1) Telephone: 707-576-2220 CL_ Date of Government Version: 10/14/98 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/05/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/31/99 SLIC REG 2: North and South Bay Slid Report Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (2) Telephone: 510.286-0457 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 01/04/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/20/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19199 SLIC REG 3: SLIC Data Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region (3) Telephone: 805-549-3147 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 02/01/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/23/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/24/99 SLIC REG 4: SLIC Sites Source: Region Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4) Telephone: 213-576-6600 Any contaminated site that impacts groundwater or has the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 02/01/99 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 01/11/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/03/99 SLIC REG 5: SLIC List Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (5) Telephone: 916-855-3075 Unregulated sites that impact groundwater or have the potential to impact groundwater. Date of Government Version: 10/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually SLIC REG 6V: Spills, Leaks, Investigation 8 Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing Source: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Volorville Branch Telephone: 619-241-6583 Date of Government Version: 12/01/98 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually SLIC REG 8: SLIC List Source: California Region Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (8) Telephone: 909-782-3298 Date of Government Version: 10/31/97 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually i SLICREG-9: -WDS-N URD -List Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (9) Telephone: 619-467-2980 Date of Government Version: 03/12/99 Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/15/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/15/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/12/99 Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/12/99 Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/07/99 TC0380462.7r Page A27 Historical and Other Database(s) Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands In the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the type=_ of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative. Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc. The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal opinion. DELISTED NPL: NPL Deletions Source: EPA Telephone: N/A The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version: 04/23/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 06/09/99 Database Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Date o1 Data Arrival at EDR: 05/12/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 28 Date of Last EDR Contact: 02/08/99 NFRAP: No Further Remedial Action Planned Source: EPA Telephone: 703-413-0223 As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately 25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites. Date of Government Version: 04/21/99 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 05/14/99 Date Made Active at EDR: 06/09/99 Elapsed ASTM days: 26 Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 03/03/99 PWS:.-2ublic Water -Systems- --- ------ --- Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-260-2805 Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources. PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water • Telephone: 202-260-2805 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SWDIS) after August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). TC0380462.7r Page A28 -,_,• Area Radon Information: The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. _ EPA Radon Zones: Sections 307 6 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for l elevated Indoor radon levels. Oil/Gas Pipelines/Electrical Transmission Lines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000 -Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines. 1 Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all 1 sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. I USGS Water Wells: In November 1971 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) implemented a national water resource information tracking system. This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected ! data on sur -lace water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on more than 900,000 wells, springs, and Jother sources of groundwater. _ Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. 1 NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in March 1997 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. JEpicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ' Water Dams: National Inventory of Dams f.. - Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency `.- Telephone: 202.646.2801 National computer database of more than 74,000 dams maintained by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ! California Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR's Topographic map are digitized quaternary fault lines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey. Additional information (also from 1975) regarding activity at specific fault i lines comes from California's Preliminary Fault Activity Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology. l California Drinking Water Quality Database Source: Department of Health Services Telephoner 916-324-2319 The database includes all drinking water compliance and special studies monitoring for the state of California since 1984. It consists of over 3,200,000 individual analyses along with well and water system information. California Oil and Gas Well Locations for District 2 and 6 Source: Department of Conservation j Telephone: 916-323-1779 KI TC0380462.7r Page A29 APPENDIX B S REFERENCES Calif. Depart. Water Resources, 1971, Water wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Bull. 91-20, 277 pages Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, C.D.M.G. Spec. Report 131, 12 pages Rancho Water, 1984, Water Resoures Master Plan, March 1984, 377 pages Weber, F.H., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault Zones, Northwestern Riverside County, California, C.D.M.G. Open -File Rept. 77-4LA, 212 pages